Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9

Check this out

I recently found this username: User:و. I think it's awesome! Are such usernames allowed? If yes, I may want to change my username.Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. However, please don't change your username to something like that. Non-latin characters are allowed, but choosing a username like that because you think it's awesome to have a one-symbol username with a symbol most users can't understand violates the spirit of this policy -- that would be intentionally confusing. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive" vs. "disruptive"

Based on a question by AzaToth on WT:UAA, I'd like to propose that we change the label "offensive usernames" to "disruptive usernames" while leaving the description the same -- that is, it would now say "Disruptive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."

This won't really change the policy, because it's intended to mean the same thing, but if the current policy is (finally) going to go into TWINKLE it will help to have clear labels for things. I think "disruptive" would be a better description because:

• It gives us a clear category for attack usernames such as "Jimmyblowsgoats", which should clearly be blocked, but the word "offensive" is a bit of a stretch.
• Losing the word "offensive" would help clarify that we're not just here to censor bad words. When such a usernames are a problem, it's not because they include dirty words, it's because they're meant to be disruptive. Then, we can refrain from blocking, say, everyone who harmlessly self-identifies as a "bitch".

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best solution. I agree that all disruptive usernames are offensive and also make harmonious editing impossible. However I don't think that all offensive usernames that make harmonious editing difficult or impossible are names everyone would feel comfortable applying the label 'disruptive' to. I would rather just put "disruptive" back as one of the ways in which a username can be inappropriate. (Which we should probably do anyway, after Gurch changed the order of that section so that the types of blocks are discussed after one of the types is discussed in detail.) I would favor "Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks" or something like that. Mangojuice^talk 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all disruptive usernames are offensive, though it could depends on the definition of offensive. A username that is similar that of an banned vandal is disruptive, but it's not really offensive. (also, I did include disruptive in TW) _→AzaToth 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm okay with that change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm excited about TWINKLE actually matching the username policy for once, so I went ahead and made the change. We can of course continue to discuss the exact wording. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it did match the policy! _→AzaToth 03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to abandon "confusing" as a criterion?

Here's a discussion we put off for later when revising the username policy. It's later now.

Why do we block usernames for being "confusing"? Why, for example, do we waste the time of the good faith User:Askdnapn39nfkjfen (who has even posted an explanation of what his name means) instead of welcoming him to Wikipedia?

The reason I generally hear is that someone could impersonate someone with a confusing username by creating a similar name. But that's ass-backwards. When someone is being impersonated, you block the impersonator, not the impersonatee! Any name can be impersonated, and there's no point in blocking people to protect them from that.

Furthermore, by meta-policy we have to allow non-English (and, indeed, non-Latin-alphabet) names such as User:المستهلك. English speakers, of course, can't really tell that name apart from User:المستهك, so I think this just helps to show the irrelevance of that argument.

This part of the policy has resulted in some of the more egregiously bad username blocks, like User:Ggggggggggggggg12, and it doesn't seem to have much benefit except that sometimes people use it to preemptively block vandals. (And I don't think that's even a good thing: what if Askdnapn39nfkjfen had been "preemptively blocked" for the vandalism he never did?) So what are the arguments for keeping this in the policy?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 'confusing usernames' should be removed or clarified. Many of the concerns about usernames that are confusing also fall under misleading. Impersonators can be stopped by the antispoof extension, and that is more misleading than confusing. References to Wikipedia can also fall under misleading usernames. And while the meaning behind a seemingly random username may be confusing, the policy states that it must be easy to identify the username. I don't see any problem with identifying the user amongst a list of other users. I may not be able to remember it, or spell it, but I don't think that should be the criteria for usernames. -- pb30<talk> 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It can't get much more confusing than names like User:المستهلك which we are going to have to allow because of unified login. Still, I would think it's legit to block someone who deliberately made their username confusing in order to avoid scrutiny. But that basically never happens. Mangojuice^talk 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with this, if we start allowing apparently random strings of characters then we open up the potential for a lot of users, with very confusing usernames that although are individually very different, are very hard to tell apart collectively. I'll give you some examples;

• agkykyohdk
• agkhkjonko
• adktockhkb
• adgktmwenn
• adngtuvuzs
• akftmcktmk
• aruvjgjvng
• adktiwchrm
• advujnvjhm
• acgfidjtjv
• avcufjvbjg
• artvhfcdhh

All these usernames are very different, they couldn't be considered similar to one another, but they are indeed confusing becuase you can not easily recognise one from another. Confusion is inevitable here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion is just not ever that big of a deal, though. A lot of people use signatures that make it look like their username is something else. For instance, User:AGK signs as "Anthony" -- clearly that must be his name, but that's confusing. Username changes are another thing. I tried to compile some data about who participates in RFAs and found that it was just too much of a pain because so many people didn't have a signature that matched their username, and they changed signatures over time, and sometimes changed username. This practice actually interfered with my ability to do something I think would have been valuable, and this practice actually annoys me. But editors matter, and I would rather make valued contributors feel comfortable and accepted than have a less confusing Wikipedia. I think this kind of confusion is just inherent in the system, we all have to deal with it, and so we shouldn't make a big deal out of it, especially when it's done in good faith by a contributor we value. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryan, just wondering how is it any different to allowing usernames that are probably confusingly similar to many editors here such as:

• User:المستهلك
• User:للمستهلل
• User:للمستهلك
  

(and longer ones)
- Neparis (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't know if the example I gave has real Arabic names; it's probably not a good example. What I meant is that confusing but legitimate usernames can exist which may not be resolvable by asking people to change usernames. There are many Arabic real names which may appear confusingly very similar to people not familiar with Arabic, and Arabic people are as entitled as anybody to edit under their real names if they want to, so it would be wrong to ask an Arabic person to change a username which is a real name simply because it looks confusing to people who don't read Arabic. I can foresee a long list of Arabic usernames, which is equally confusing in its own way as the list of usernames posted by Ryan. - Neparis (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another response to Ryan: Why would you ever encounter a set of names like that and have to distinguish them all? Would all those editors be editing in the same places? (I, for one, would suspect sock puppetry, but that's another issue.) If you encountered an improbable situation like that, you might start by telling them "Look, I have trouble following your discussion because your name looks a lot like these five other people in the discussion. I'm not sure why you did that, but could I encourage you to change your name to make this discussion easier?" Probably a few of them would, and the problem would be solved without having to block anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like consensus. Let's remove it from the policy and see if the Wiki comes crashing down in a mass of confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it really just a matter of whether or not the individual could be identified easily, or referred to easily without copy and pasting. The confusion lies in the intuitive or cognitive recognition of the user name for expedience sake. A user name like fdlsjfdlsafdlsafjl should never be allowed to edit, despite WP:AGF - it's not that the user is presumed to exploit, disrupt, or vandalize wikipedia, it's that the user could easily come up with another suitable username while avoiding the eyesore. Wisdom89 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a clear line between ok and "confusing" usernames that wouldn't conflict with meta policy on allowing non-English and non-Latin alphabet usernames? Where is the cut-off point? f? fd? fdl? fdls? fdlsjfd? 8 or more Latin characters? Lack of vowels? Somebody's initials? Mixtures of Latin and non-Latin alphabets? How would you know at a glance that any of the Arabic usernames given above are not in fact random Arabic strings no different in kind from fdlsjfdlsafdlsafjl? - Neparis (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people with names as short as 6 characters usernameblocked. It doesn't appear that there is any one particular threshold for randomness versus non-randomness.--VectorPotential^Talk 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps the only place in Wikipedia policy where mildly annoying one admin leads directly to a block. I don't think the community at large would support your suggested criterion that you can block someone for being an "eyesore". In fact, that's a pretty straightforward example of biting the newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this change was made. Random strings of letters make it more difficult to recognize or remember an editor to contact them later without finding their printed name. And shouldn't these sort of changes be brought up on AN? Lara❤Love 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the change was made, but there probably should have been a post to WP:VPP first. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

and I've reverted it back. We've discussed it many times before, so I don't agree that a there should be a change in policy less than 48 hours after it was suggested, when many times before there has been no consensus to do that. I would agree that a VPP posting should have been made. The problem here doesn't seem to be the policy - it should only be used to block usernames that are random making them confusing. A 6 character username should never be random enough to warrent a block. When blocking random usernames, I always look for 12 characters (at least) before even considering a block. I fear the problems here are associated with wrong interpretations of this policy by some admins who believe 5/6 character usernames could be random enough for a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Random or seemingly random? If a user can explain their name is it still against policy? And if there are problems with people misinterpreting policy, isn't that (at least in part) a problem with the policy being too vague? -- pb30<talk> 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara: yes, some names are difficult to identify. Especially if they're in Arabic, for example. Why is this an argument to block them? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I now regularly patrol the User Creation Log and report username violations, I can think of no good reason why an editor with good intent would want a long random string of letters and numbers for their name. New users who choose such names are almost invariably vandalism only accounts, they are no loss to Wikipedia. Polly (Parrot) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly (talk • contribs)

• • You want to block editors before they do anything wrong? Dan Beale-Cocks 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done regularly when a username is a blatant violation of WP:UAA, so yes, if by "doing wrong" you mean as far as edits are concerned. As far as confusing usernames, in my experience (as another indicated) of patrolling I have found usernames that display random unnecessarily long strings of characters have so sort of ill intent - or it's a sign of carelessness. Most of the time the username doesn't even become active beyond registration. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, several things wrong here.

• UAA isn't a policy, it's a board for enforcing the policy at WP:U. We're talking here about making "confusing" names not be violations of WP:U anymore. "We block them because it's a violation, so we should keep it as a violation so we can block them" is a circular argument.
• You've encountered vandals with random-looking usernames, so therefore everyone with a random-looking username is a vandal? Do I follow your logic?
• "Carelessness" is hardly a good reason to block newbies.
• Since most of the names don't become active, in the majority of cases you get what you want (the newbie never edits) anyway.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to be told that WP:U is a policy - I am aware of that. Why bother bringing this up, it was obviously just semantics. Second of all, I was merely offering an observation (from my own experience) of the particular behavior such users have a TENDENCY to display. I wasn't declaring an immutable form of Wisdom89 "logic", nor did I make a sweeping assumption that all such usernames are vandals. I know what the discussion is about, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ . Obviously my stance is that "confusing usernames" (while not perfect) is a criteria easily discernible. I find it insufferably difficult to identify users when their names resemble the bashing of the keyboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I bring it up because there was a time when WP:UAA was the de facto policy, while WP:U sat ignored. Not that this was a good thing at all. This is when people on UAA established the tradition of blocking usernames for being similar to certain examples, encouraged by TWINKLE, while the username policy said explicitly not to do that. Sometimes I pointed out the policy to people, and they told me I didn't know anything about username blocks and the policy was wrong. So I am saying this to point out the crucial fact that now WP:U, the policy, comes first, in case you were saying otherwise.

Also, the large number of incorrect blocks we've seen for "confusingness", and the even larger number of people who choose that option in TWINKLE as a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, show that this criterion is far from "easily discernable". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need random as a criterion anymore, primarily because from what I've seen editors who intend to edit productively in good faith will pick a username that means something, even if only to them. Thus a user with a completely random username is probably a vandal, a sockpuppet, someone who will never edit, or someone who is unlikely to get too involved in areas where ease of identification is important. So they'll get blocked due to actions warranting such, or it won't matter due to lack of activity, or they'll get frustrated when no one can remember their name and change it themselves. I can't imagine a large number of incidents resulting from the removal of this rule. Blocking them because users with random usernames are commonly vandals is not in keeping with the intent of this policy and is a blatant violation of WP:AGF.--Dycedarg ж 07:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find random strings of names almost impossible to use to identify a person, which is the whole point of usernames. I find names with non-latin script easy to use to identify a person. I think we have the "confusing" criteria for a reason.

The anti-spoof system Wikipedia uses can not catch everything, so we will also need to keep enforcing that with our brain matter. Names like User:hvnadfjkl are often throw away accounts anyways to shield their IP from blocks longer than 24 hours.

I would also like to point out, yet again, that a username block is not a user block, a user who loses their username can change it or create a new account, we are not kicking them out. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to confusing usernames, examples of what I have reported as confusing are User:Lkjaslksdjaslkdjasskljdlaskjd and User:Blahblahblah1323483478748748787474777474. Surely there is no good reason for such ridiculously random names. AGF is all very well, but it has its limits. Polly (Parrot) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find those names confusing. I can easily identify them from each other, and every other name on this page. Sure they are unnecessarily long, but maybe length is the real issue. I couldn't remember the names, but I don't think I should be forced to. I can't remember Ryan's full username. And if someone happens to get by the antispoof protection and registers a similar name, then the misleading criteria may apply, or it may be a case of sock puppets. I've got nothing against issuing a uw-username, or inviting them to change the name, but blocking within minutes before any edits seems a bit much, and a bit too WP:BITE-ish. -- pb30<talk> 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but uw-username is rather wishy-washy in tone, maybe it needs beefing up a bit. Still, as has already been mentioned most of these type of usernames end up never editing, so it's not that vital either way. Though if an act of vandalism has occurred from this type of username then I think they should get a swift block. AGF shouldn't trump common sense, by all means bark first, but if ignored a swift BITE is called for. Polly (Parrot) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because a template is too wishy-washy they should be blocked on sight? -- pb30<talk> 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that we need to make uw-username meaner, your last suggestion, Polly, is quite reasonable, and I'm pretty sure it would be the case if we reformed this part of the username policy. There is no problem in blocking the users with nonsense names who are vandals. The combination of the username and the vandalism would be enough evidence of a vandalism-only account to swiftly place a block for vandalism.

Somehow I think a lot of the opposition misses this fact: the username policy isn't the only way to block people. The kind of people you're worried about would typically get about one or two edits before they got blocked. You prefer zero? Well, I must say I prefer one. It's a bad idea to block people for what they haven't done yet. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. How about cases when users choose names of notable living people (actors, politicians ...) ? Is it permitted ? - Darwinek (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's not allowed. You can only use real name of a living famous person if it's actually your real name. See WP:U#Real names. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what should I do with one user, who uses a name of a famous Czech actor as his username ? - Darwinek (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything unless the person is very high profile. If the actor is very famous, but his/her name isn't especially rare, tell the user they need to make it clear they are not the famous person, say, on their user page. If the actor is very famous and the name is unlikely to belong to anyone else, I'd be willing to block as a likely impersonation. Mangojuice^talk 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the case of Bolek Polívka, who is a well-known Czech actor - IMDb, ČSFD. His surname isn't common in the Czech Republic. He is impersonated by User:Bolekpolivka, who was blocked in the past for sockpuppeting - [1]. What do you recommend ? - Darwinek (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will talk to him. Mangojuice^talk 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This becomes a judgment call. You could google real life usernames all you want and nearly always come up with several high profile hits - but, to be fair, there are probably tons of Dave Jones', or Robin Cooks (the latter is an author). It really all depends on the obscurity of the name, and the degree of popularity. I'd say that a user who chooses Steve Forbes or Dick Cheney are blatant violations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

The block template reads: "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, ..." Where in the policy does it speak on length? Because I don't see it. And confusing just got removed from the policy, though I don't agree with the change. Lara❤Love 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference to lengthy usernames got removed in this edit. The template should be updated accordingly, I guess. --Conti|✉ 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated it. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I didn't realise that templates had been changed when I reverted back - I'd should really have taken care of them, but I see Mangojuice has taken care of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So character length is no longer limited as long as the name makes sense? Lara❤Love 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, although I believe there is a hard limit in the software (not sure how many characters) so it doesn't get silly. The problem isn't with length of names - if they're easily recognisable there shouldn't be an issue. The problem comes when usernames are confusing and you don't really know who you're editing with. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you know who you're editing with? You state this like it's some obvious problem that needs to be avoided, but I don't see it.

Isn't "that guy whose name is in Arabic" or "that guy with a lot of g's" going to be a distinguishing feature in most cases, and if you don't know how to spell their name you can click on it like you would for anyone else? It seems this would only be a problem in cases (like your contrived example above) where you encounter two different people whose names are confusing in the same way, by coincidence (because if there's sockpuppetry or impersonation going on, it's a totally different issue). I don't think this has ever happened to anyone, and if it did it's still not such a serious problem that someone should be blocked.

The closest example I can think of to your objection actually happening is: for a long time I didn't know there was a difference between Essjay and Sj. I don't think I ever encountered them in the same place. If I had, I would have been briefly confused, but then I would have figured it out. All in all, an extremely minor problem that nobody needs to get blocked for.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Introducing a term: The المستهلك Test

Okay, so we have some people joining the discussion who haven't participated in previous discussion of confusing usernames, and we'll have a lot more if we follow Ryan's suggestion to open this up to the Village Pump. (I'm concerned that this will just bury the issue with "too many cooks". We haven't needed the Village Pump to make the other changes that Ryan agreed with.)

To stop the same self-defeating arguments coming back, I want to propose The المستهلك Test, which in a nutshell is:

If you have an argument for blocking certain kinds of usernames which is also an argument for blocking المستهلك, it should not be considered.

The fact that this name is in the Arabic character set isn't the key point, it's just a good example. We've had a name in native Nicaraguan in the Latin alphabet blocked for being "confusing" before, for example.

The important thing is that we cannot block users for what language their username is in -- even if it's a language the admins around don't know. To do so would not only be xenophobic, it would be against Meta's goal of having people use the same identity across all wikis.

Here's an application of the المستهلك test. Some argue that we should block names if we don't know how to type them into the "Go" box. Almost nobody on en:wp knows how to type المستهلك into the "Go" box. Therefore, it's not a good reason to block people.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been arguments before about the non-latin alphabet thing. Why not compare those arguments to arguments to disallow IP addresses as usernames? Since we obviously can't do *that*... Mangojuice^talk 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A very good point. What kind of identifier is 79.14.19.150? Am I supposed to be able to tell that apart from 79.19.14.150? It's just a bunch of random numbers! I'm going to be seriously inconvenienced if I ever have to remember one of those and type it into the Go box, and you wouldn't want to see me when I'm inconvenienced. Clearly we should block the lot of these malicious scrutiny-evading "anonymous" users. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

المستهلك does not look random or confusing to me. It is just a different alphabet. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But I've been trying to say all along - 9 numbers for an IP isn't that random, and it's not really within the spirit of the policy to block these usernames. What the policy is trying to stop is username like asdfgureucujrhjeoskf - completely random, but confusing because of the length as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find asdfgureucujrhjeoskf confusing. In fact, I find it quite easy to remember compared to المستهلك - Neparis (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most people find it very confusing to be honest. The thing with non latin usernames is that we allow them because m:SUL is probably going to come at some point, and at this time, we will have to allow non latin usernames to edit here. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't just give usernames a free pass if they're in another character set and claim that fixes things. There are languages out there, with Wikipedias in them, that use the Latin alphabet in a way that would be confusing to English speakers. But then, I know where you stand on this issue, because you were in favor of blocking Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka.

I think the right way to think of this is not "oh grumble, we're going to have unified usernames so we're going to have to let these people and their horrible usernames in". It's to think of Wikipedia's goal of letting the entire world participate. Blocking someone because of what their name looks like is shameful. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has been brought up before

What was the consensus regarding the specific breakdown criteria for the username policy? I noticed a change a few weeks ago regarding the use of Twinkle, where now the specifications are quite generic. Was there an overwhelming consensus that this caused too much confusion? I ask only because I felt they were a benefit and gave administrators and users more latitude with respect to interpretation of the policy - although it seems that the policy was rewritten. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually been a long time since this was changed in the policy, with increasing levels of clarity. Basically, the problem was knee-jerk reports of names that arguably were similar to one of the examples but which did not make sense to block, e.g. User:Punk bitch, User:GM Chrysler, et cetera. For a long time the policy had the examples with a caveat to make sure one of the general reasons applies, then for a while, the policy explicitly said the examples are not reasons in themselves, and finally they had to be removed. Mangojuice^talk 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that the examples are at WP:UN/E for reference -- pb30<talk> 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I recognize all of these. Ok, so these examples, or breakdowns are no longer policy, but does that mean if one explains a filed report utilizing for example "username makes a potentially inflammatory statement", or "username states makes a violent threat" they will be dismissed or taken with a fresh grain of salt? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In the first case, "potentially inflammatory", I'd want it to be more on the side of "actually inflammatory". There are too many Wikipedians who will state that they are offended by some rather benign things if they can use it to get a name they don't like blocked. For example, some have been very successful at blocking names connected with religions that aren't their own (or with atheism). The username policy is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and should not provide a tool for people to fight an ideological turf war.

Violent threats are definitely offensive and disruptive, and you don't need a list to tell you that. The problem with the examples being treated as policy is that people actually wanted to block names like "Kicking333" because kicking is violent! Do you see how silly and out-of-control that gets? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh you definitely have my agreement there. And I unquestionably see your point regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suppose if the username is blatantly denigrating a religion or group, there is no question. There is simply no call for reporting usernames which merely contain religious or political allusions (e.g jesus, atheist, satan, darkGod, Bushismyhero etc..etc..). Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Other reasons to block confusing usernames

Since some here want to continue blocking confusing usernames, I want to know what exactly are the arguments for it. We've covered a few that I don't find very compelling:

• They might vandalize.
  • Response: This is true of many new users on Wikipedia, and yet we block vandals after they vandalize. Blocking before assumes bad faith and often leads to erroneous blocks.
• It's hard to know who you're talking to.
  • Response: Same goes for anonymous users. And, in fact, nearly everyone you meet on the Internet.
• They could be confused with other similar names. Thus, the name is not serving its purpose of identifying an individual.
  • Response: It is very unlikely for a user with a confusing name, and another user with a name that's confusing in the same way, to show up coincidentally in the same place. In the rare case that this happens, talk it out. If it's malicious impersonation, block the impersonator.
  • Another response: IP addresses can be easily confused with other IP addresses, but we don't block them.
• They're hard to type if you don't have a link to their user page.
  • WP's interface helpfully provides links to their username in all relevant situations. Also, we don't block المستهلك.
• Blocks are a polite way to ask someone to change their name.
  • No, they're not. Blocks are a way to say "fuck off", particularly to newbies who are unfamiliar with the gritty details of Wikipedia. A polite way to ask someone to change their name is to ask, politely, on their talk page.
    • The words "fuck off" are not in {{unb}}, but the words "You are encouraged to create a new account" are. _(1 == 2)^Until
      • The words You have been blocked are in bold above it in the block interface text. Anyway, there are far more straightforward ways to be polite. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just the arguments above that are so important that we need to keep this bitey piece of policy around, or are there other arguments that should be added to the list? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It circumvents the primary purpose of a username which is to identify an individual. While any unique string of characters is enough for the Wikipedia software to follow, human brains memorize things by finding patterns, and lacking that pattern have a difficult time making use of such an identifying string.

This is not biting, just saying it is does not make it so. We don't say "HEY YOU WITH THE NAME, FUCK OFF!". We says "This is our policy, if you want to work here you need to meet it". We have an exceedingly polite message that explains this and gives several options. This is no more biting than asking a user to give citations for negative information about a living person.

Insisting someone follow policy is not biting. So lets ask ourselves if this is good or bad policy without claims of biting people. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying it's not biting make it so either. Insisting someone follow policy in a too-strict manner is absolutely biting: would we block users over newbie mistakes regarding fair use? Or not citing their sources? No, we give them warnings and try to show them how things work here. Should I start pointing out the potentially valuable contributors who have seemingly been driven away over username blocks? People take blocking very personally. Mangojuice^talk 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the third bullet point to deal with Until's objection. The responses still apply. People deal with IP addresses, which do a horrible job of referring to individuals -- at least usernames stay the same.

Meanwhile, I'm baffled at the idea that not blocking requires using the phrase "HEY YOU WITH THE NAME, FUCK OFF", while blocking is "exceedingly polite". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't taken into account the fact that 9 charcters does not make a username confusing. This is in policy to stop long, random usernames from editing. Not short ones. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we stop long, random usernames from editing? How does the use of such usernames damage Wikipedia, and how does that damage compare to the potential damage of biting them? Mangojuice^talk 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would you go about easily identifying, carrying on a conversation with, or referencing another user with the name "Ieye?luvemomMaljflgdfcldhbsfjowow929340402430"? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd call him "Ieye..." if I needed to mention him to another user, I would converse with him on his talk page like anyone else (and the conversation would probably include a suggestion to change name), and considering that name sticks out like a sore thumb, I don't think there would be a problem in "identifying". Are these answers unintuitive? Do your questions somehow apply to Ieye... more than they do to المستهلك? Also, Mango asked you what you thought was the damage to Wikipedia, which you haven't answered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose they honestly do not damage Wikipedia per se. The only thing I can think of is they contaminate the degree of professionalism or sophistication generally associated with an encyclopedia. Although, that would hold true for usernames like "Sweetieheart2002luvya", so that argument doesn't exactly hold much water. Believe it or not, I'm starting to see why this whole "confusing username" thing isn't so black and white. However, with regards to المستهلك , that's a different story. I can't get behind allowing a user to pick a handle which is not legible. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a multi-lingual project. The name isn't illegible, it's just in Arabic. Mangojuice^talk 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the sense that user's can speak multiple languages, yes of course. However, this is the English version of Wikipedia. You can transwikify articles, why not usernames? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Transwikifying" users, as if they accidentally signed up at the wrong project, would be totally disrespectful. Making it against the rules to use non-English names or signatures would be simply xenophobic, as if users who aren't primarily English speakers aren't welcome here. But this is all moot anyway, because unified login is coming and will de facto mean that all foreign users get to use their usernames on Wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be "xenophobic", but yes it could definitely be construed as disrespectful. I hope you didn't take my comment as such. Just trying to get a handle on the current views. Thanks for the provided link. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are already users around who people don't typically refer to by their whole name. Like User:Dihydrogen Monoxide is usually referred to as DHMO or water or something like that. If editors find a username unwieldy they come up with a nickname or abbreviation. It doesn't impede anything at all. It's a minor inconvenience to find said editors page if you want to talk to them later, but I really can't see enough people wanting a username that long and random to cause the combined inconvenience to stack until all of Wikipedia grinds to a halt.--Dycedarg ж 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think my comment was misinterpreted. We don't block users for making a good faith mistake on their username, we block their username and do it in a very polite way. Not blocking them would be more polite, but so would not deleting their article about the family cat. I see it being repeated over and over that we are punishing these people somehow, when all we are doing is enforcing a name change. This is a collaborative environment and people need to think about others working with them when they pick a name. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The distinction of blocking the name versus blocking the user is not clear to new users, and the way the blocks are done doesn't entirely make it so. I don't think blocks should be made without discussion in any but the most egregious cases, and I thought that's what the policy was. How about this question — is there such a thing as an egregiously confusing username? SamBC(talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: usernames may be confusing but never egregiously so. I think that anyone who is serious about editing here should not use a confusing username but that should be resolved very gently, by letting them come around to the same conclusion themselves, perhaps with a little urging, and they should not be forced to change from a username they have a good reason to want to keep. Mangojuice^talk 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then "confusing" should not be a cause for blocking a user without discussion. I would support amending the policy to reflect that. SamBC(talk) 19:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, IPs are not meant to identify an individual like a username does, it can be a different person in 5 minutes and you could never tell. IPs are not identifiers of persons. I also disagree that different random strings are easy to distinguish. Human brains use patterns to form memories, and lacking these pattern have trouble. Many random names are made by keyboard smacks, which do in fact end up rather similar from person to person ie "jfsdaklfjasdk" vs "jfasdklfjaskl". And you cannot count on the anti-spoofing software to stop this as it is only effective sometimes. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In what kind of situation would this harm Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, communication is pretty important for collaborative editing. I can imagine a situation where "jfsdaklfjasdk" is associated with the actions of "jfasdklfjaskl", leading to some pretty significant misunderstandings. We use usernames to identify the individual, if the name does not do that then there is a problem.

Saying that a username block is telling a user to "fuck off" is frankly horse-shit. The block message is very polite and very clear that they can be renamed or create a new account. Unless the person is unable to read, then they should understand this. We can argue the merits of the rule, but please don't say that enforcing the rules is an offense to new users, because it is not. No more than any other part of the policy. A username block is not a behavioral issue, nor is it a punishment. If you think that is unclear then edit {{unb}}, but I think it explains things very well.

I also find the comparison to non-latin names to be a red herring, there is a pattern that can be remembered. These non-latin scripts still follow simple rules that lay out names into a recognizable pattern, just like every human language. I don't think anyone is arguing for the blocking of foreign looking names, so bringing that up really misrepresents the position that apparently random names should be blocked. Nobody is saying foreign == random. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is confusing, not random. To me a non-latin name is much more confusing than lakjsdflkajs. I can barely read and don't know how to type non-latin names. I couldn't remember the username, or refer to them on a talk page. Any pattern that may exist is not apparent to me. -- pb30<talk> 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As it is sooo easy to get a new user name, I do not see the problem with current softblock+template and ask the user to get a new username, in particular if the account with the confusing name has a only a few edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of us see this as biting the newbies. Yes, they can work around the issue, but it's very discouraging and unfriendly. Mangojuice^talk 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim that Wikipedians involved with this process can tell foreign from random. Remember that Yaptitasba... was blocked for being "confusing", which in effect blocked him for being "Nicaraguan", so your policy doesn't exactly have a good track record. If you think that {{unb}} is the only thing that appears on a user's screen when they're username blocked, you need to check again, and even changing all the block message to accomodate username blocks still wouldn't make it polite. Polite is "please change your name". "You must change your name now and I've made sure you can't edit until you do" is not polite.

Your argument about confusing names with each other fails the المستهلك test, and hypothesizes one of those improbable situations where two people with names that are confusing in the same way appear in the same place. Instead of blocking people for inconveniencing you, you can go to the tiny bit more effort to distinguish two names, which almost certainly will not be as similar as in your example (AntiSpoof would make sure of that). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to keep this kind of block around as a "polite" way to ask people to change their names, I'll point out that you're in a small minority who thinks blocks can be "polite". But I'll propose an alternate method that can get you the result you want: asking them politely. If they are in fact reasonable users, they will change their names, or (like Askdna...) they will at least provide an explanation of what their name means, which might help you distinguish it from other names in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - An indefinite block because of a "confusing" username is, in fact, impolite and would most likely be perceived as a slight. Now you ran the risk of frustrating a potentially valued user, not to mention turning them away from Wikipedia for good. If the user has good intentions, then a message on the talk regarding the username would be more appropriate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Scenario 1: Someone registers as laskjfalksjfkasjlak, gets reported to UAA, and blocked indef within minutes.

Scenario 2: Someone registers, adds a vulgar comment to an article, gets a polite warning to stop.

Why are vandals treated better than those who picked a less than ideal username? -- pb30<talk> 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This all matches what I just said above &mdash temporarily putting aside the issue of whether a block can ever be polite, we only block usernames without discussion that are truly egregious (supposedly), and a name can't really be egregiously confusing, so "confusing" usernames shouldn't be subject to blocking without discussion. SamBC(talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What about "confusing" usernames that match high profile luminaries and political heads? "Tony Blair", "Geddy Lee" "Bruce Springsteen" etc..etc.. Such examples fall under this category (i.e misleading), but surely this can't be tolerated. Has it ever been proposed to just nix the "confusing" term and just leave "misleading", but have it also include deliberate misrepresentation regarding the individual (not authority figures, wikipedia admins or collectives), or just picking a name that matches your favorite musician? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said anything about the prohibition against misleading usernames, as it is mentioned in a different bullet point under the inappropriate username heading and is not particularly controversial. It's also mentioned under the real names heading.--Dycedarg ж 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't confusing usernames, they're misleading usernames, which is a separate bullet point and not the subject of this discussion... SamBC(talk) 10:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting goals, and a proposal to disentangle them

(edited to turn this section from random musings into a proposal -- rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Okay. It seems like those who support "confusing username" blocks have two contradictory reasons to block them now:

1. They're clearly up to no good. Therefore, we need to block them to prevent the risk that they might vandalize.
2. We might get confused by things like referring to them or distinguishing them from other people. Therefore, we need to block them as a "polite" way of telling them to change their name. This block doesn't hurt at all. They'll come back.

I don't think anyone's advocating hard-blocking usernames just for being confusing, so if you take these two reasons together, what we're doing with "confusing username" blocks is gently blocking likely vandals so they can easily come back and vandalize under a less conspicuous username. That's not useful.

I understand both arguments, I just don't think they're good arguments for username blocks. Username blocks aren't the right tool for this job, because they conflate both of these situations into one incoherent one. However, we can split them into two cases that we handle reasonably. And my hope is this will handle the concerns of those who don't want to see "confusing usernames" removed from the policy -- they may be concerned about the effects of simply removing it, but we can replace it with something appropriate.

So the proposal is:

• We remove "confusing username" as a criterion for immediate blocking.
• We create a section of WP:U about confusing usernames that references two things:
  1. A pointer to the vandalism policy, saying that unnecessarily confusing usernames can be used as evidence of a vandalism-only account, just not the sole evidence. If you see someone with a gibberish username and they start out by vandalizing, you can hard-block them (or put them on WP:AIV to be hardblocked).
  2. A template that can be used to politely request that people change their username, not because it explicitly violates a policy, but because it makes it hard to work with people. {{uw-username}} isn't quite it. I think there will not be many cases where a user would ignore the request, not explain themselves, and yet keep editing productively anyway. If that happens, there's some sort of misunderstanding. Worst case, bring it to RFC/N.

The bad-faith users still get blocked, and we do our part to discourage sucky usernames. Is this a satisfying proposal? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this captures the point I was trying to make above. Some of your representation of the arguments for blocking confusing names are a little hyperbolic, as it were, but I think we all understand what you mean. Yes, I think we should do that. SamBC(talk) 10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are "vandalism-only accounts" defined?

Okay, this might be a silly question, but where is the term "vandalism-only accounts" defined in policy? I've seen vandalism patrollers give out hardblocks for vandalism-only accounts, but I can't find anything in policy about them. In fact, I can't find anything in WP:VAND that lets you block without some kind of warning. (Which, as an aside, shows how out of proportion username blocks are. I've just given a user a routine warning because he's editing a hockey player's bio to say things like he "ate a bucket of shit". If the words "bucket of shit" appeared in his username, without even libeling any particular person, he'd probably be blocked already.)

I know that this term has to exist somewhere, and I'd like to be able to refer to it for the proposal I've outlined above, but the vandalism policy isn't exactly my area. Does anyone know? Should I go ask on WT:VAND? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed discouragement on symbols of nationality and nationalism

I think these are unhelpful as usernames. While such usernames can be dealt with under 'offensive usernames' (Nationalism 'A' is offensive to nationalism 'B') often thats a bad idea as it may be interpreted as an insult by the other party. Making exceptions are again problematic because they will lead to "nationalism 'A' is fine so why is nationalism 'B' banned?" arguments. So I think a broader restriction on this is needed. We should at the very least discourage such usernames. -- Cat ^chi? 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have any examples of usernames that have caused problems? Dan Beale-Cocks 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to avoid specific examples if possible. -- Cat ^chi? 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This could require a wording change. I wouldn't want to address natioalism specifically, but we used to have longer wording that included "Offensive or inflammatory" rather than just "offensive"; this is really an example of an inflammatory username, where it may not exactly be right to call it offensive. How about "Offensive or inflammatory usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible?" Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive or inflammatory usernames that make harmonious editing difficult" is fine, but doesn't it lead to many reports from people saying "I don't find this name a problem, but someone might"? Dan Beale-Cocks 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"I don't find this offensive, but someone might." Yeah, same problem we already have. I think the "make harmonious editing difficult or impossible" wording is sufficient to take care of borderliny ones. Mangojuice^talk 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give a non-offensive one for the sake of argument. I bet noone despises the Kiribatian people. Say we have a User:Kiribati nationalist that edits articles related to many ocean islands in the pacific. No problem there, right? But what if a territorial dispute breaks, say with Palau?
The fewer religious, nationalist, political, ethnic and other potentially controversial usernames we get, the better. People should be discouraged from using such usernames. It is important to note that banning such usernames is counterproductive. We want to prevent people from unintentionally causing flamewars, not start flamewars ourselves. -- Cat ^chi? 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I said above that I don't like the username policy being used as a tool to fight ideological turf wars. I used religion as an example. Nationalism would be another.

Another way to put it: The only consistent stance we can take is that no nationality is inherently offensive. Otherwise we'd probably end up blocking self-identified Macedonians or Azerbaijanis, but not Americans or Australians. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the Iraqis may find 'American' offensive. In fact I know some Mexicans who find it very disturbing that USians call themselves 'American'. After all a Mexican is from the America continent and hence American. The decision to discourage some nationalities while allowing others will lead to problems. So discouraging all equality will be better. Preventing 'turf wars' is the entire point of this proposal. -- Cat ^chi? 03:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I live in a border state, I know a ton of Mexicans, and while I don't doubt that some might feel that way, that's probably an extreme example. I'm with Rspeer here, we shouldn't think that nationalities are inherently offensive. If a user has a problem with the username of another because of nationalism, that's not our problem. There's a point were reasonable accommodation is exceeded. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The question should be whether the choice of name makes harmonious editing "difficult or impossible." User:Serbian Joe doesn't cause the problem: the problem is caused by those who take offense at something inoffensive. On the other hand User:Serbian Nationalist can be said to cause a problem and may be placing an undue burden on everyone they edit with. I don't think there's any reason to discourage nationalities broadly, but if in a specific case there's a good reason to think the name is making harmonious editing difficult, it's a good reason to ask the user to change their username. And this is much too specific an issue for it to make sense to address directly in the policy. Mangojuice^talk 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats just asking for endless flamewars. Why are Nazi related usernames banned? -- Cat ^chi? 14:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If people don't want to get flamed for suggesting others change their username when the username doesn't cause a big enough problem for it to be blocked, then maybe they should mind their own business. Nazi-related usernames aren't explicitly banned, but it's hard for me to think of any such usernames that are both overtly Nazi-related and yet not offensive enough to cause problems. Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know there are people who are offended by Americans. But I just have a hunch that if we started blocking people for national self-identification, Western countries would get a free pass more often, and that would be unfair.

Anyway, Cat made the right point above. Some nationalist usernames will cause problems, yes. But if we try to ban them, we join the problem. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discourage, not ban. Exactly. -- Cat ^chi? 14:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy improvement

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

Change to:

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. Such blocked user must be notified in a courteous manner and instructed to create a new username.

This proposal is prompted by a new user LeonardoDiCaprio (talk · contribs) who clearly identified that she is a fan, not Mr. DiCaprio. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)