Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Archives

• Deleted old content (mostly about a user whose name has been changed now) Martin 11:13 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC) Archive
• Deleted old content (random freedom of speech debate) 9 Feb. 2003. Archive
• Deleted old content (more freedom of speech debate, voluntary name change) 8 Oct. 2003. Archive
• Archive index
• Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8
• Revision draft

Usernames that match personal websites

I've just seen the username policy taken to what seems like a ridiculous extreme, at Wikipedia:Request an account#z0rz. User:FastLizard4 denied the username "z0rz" to a user because he wanted to use the same name he uses elsewhere on the Internet, including his website, http://z0rz.com.

The requested username is clearly not promoting the website. It's referring to the person behind it, with an identity they use elsewhere on the Internet, and that can hardly be a bad thing. If xkcd decided to start editing Wikipedia under his online name, (not that he'd likely want to draw so much attention to his Wikipedia account) would he be blocked for promoting his comic of the same name hosted at xkcd.com? Am I promoting myself with my username, because I am in fact R. Speer? By the twisted logic of username blocks, perhaps I should be blocked, because my name matches a few web pages I control of the form http://something/~rspeer .

This has come up in other cases, such as a user who called himself something.de, which matched a server that was probably his personal server. It was serving a very minimal page over the Web, but an admin blocked him because the page linked to forums and things that were presumably run by the same person. And that made it promotional.

Elsewhere on the Web, there is a trend toward people identifying themselves with domain names -- look at the OpenID system, which requires it -- but when people try to use their established Internet identity on Wikipedia, we block them without a warning, for a crime of "promotion" that they're presumably not even intending to commit. This is just another case of one minor point of WP:U being enforced to the letter and then extended to any cases that are remotely similar, with no regard to common sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that promotional usernames need to be considered carefully, both in context, and in the contribution history. As I've mentioned a few times at RFCN, some names may be simply coincidence, and with no proof of promotional intent, should be allowed until proved otherwise. Now, if this user had wished to have the name zOrz.com, then obviously, that name in itself is promotional, but as he's only requested zOrz, I see no problem (given that he understands he may not promote his website in any way, of course). I would think that it would be fairly easy to simply add a caveat to the existing policy that common sense should be used: If no promotional intent has been exhibited, and the name is not immediately obvious to the majority of editors as being linked to another site, the name should be allowed (until proven otherwise). However, I would not think that allowing usernames that have .com, .net, .org, or even .de in the name acceptable, especially when those names match an existing website (whether the user is associated with it or not), as those are inherently promotional; someone would see that name, and automatically realize it is a website. Without explaining some of the issues about this, (WP:BEANS), I'll just say that even if the site is innocuous and not a business or company, I still don't believe they should be allowed, but that's just my personal opinion. I do think the current policy could be re-worded a bit to allow innocent coincidences not be punished by current policy. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Rspeer, but this is a clear case of someone not reading the policy carefully. Right now the wording refers to usernames that match "a company or group." z0rz doesn't seem to be a company or group, just because there is a domain. I would be concerned that User:z0rz is actually the same z0rz (is that a famous person?) But otherwise, yeah, that's wrong. Mangojuice^talk 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The rule against promotion refers to companies or groups, not individuals. We are allowed to choose an alias to be attributed under and simple having a website by the same name is not a violation in my eyes. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand that either, SGGH is what I use on other internet accounts and forums. In fact someone messaged me on the police forums asking if I was "the SGGH from wikipedia" :D SGGH ^speak! 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If xkcd decided to start editing Wikipedia under his online name Are you under the impression that he does not? —Random832 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* *cough* *cough* Man, I should see a doctor... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's almost tempting to take you to to WP:RFCN just to make a point… SamBC(talk) 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

Given the above comments, I think the policy and username process need revamping. I have a draft in my userspace at User:Mangojuice/IU designed to replace the entire WP:IU section. In a nutshell: we distinguish two types of blockable usernames - (1) usernames that we block either as part of a pattern of misbehavior, or preemptively when such behavior is expected, which I call "suspect usernames", and (2) usernames that the community feels are not appropriate, but which aren't suspect usernames. My draft makes it clear, I hope, that blocks should not be issued when a username is in this second category, except as a last resort when communication has failed. I also removed all mention of WP:RFCN as I think that process is broken and is a terrible substitute for good-faith discussion with a user about their username; I actually think the time has come to delete/decomission WP:RFCN as the reforms that were promised back in April have clearly not come to pass. Another big change is to completely remove the list of examples. We just don't need them. Legalistic thinking with no common sense has become a big part of this issue, and the examples clearly exacerbate the situation, as a few recent incidents have shown. Mangojuice^talk 03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that your revamp is a great idea. "Suspect usernames" versus "inappropriate usernames" is a distinction that needs to be made. But I think you might have trouble getting rid of RFCN, even though it's utterly failed to reform -- some usernames will probably still need to be discussed, so does this mean all discussion will happen on UAA and abruptly end every time someone chooses to block one of the names? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is very sensible as well. However, the immediate problem I spy is with the inclusion of offensive usernames in both the suspect and inappropriate categories. A lot of the username blocking debates have arisen over just what constitutes an offensive name, and what should be blocked on sight. Although I realize you're trying to not include the examples to avoid wikilawyering, since being offended is highly subjective, how are we to distinguish between 'blatantly offensive' and 'inappropriate'? ~Eliz81^(C) 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Offensive names are only in the suspect category under "trolling" (oh no, do we have an examples vs. reasons problem with Mango's new policy already?). Admins should be able to use their common sense to tell what's trolling and what's not. The policy, as I read it, doesn't support the current practice of actively looking for things to be offended by. Mango, am I interpreting it right? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eliz: there's a reason offensive usernames are split up the way they are. Deliberately offensive usernames are considered suspect: someone who is making their username offensive on purpose (e.g. User:FuckArabs) can be blocked immediately and treated as a bad-faith contributor. On the other hand, someone who probably doesn't intend to offend people (e.g. User:Punk bitch, to cite a real example) is treated quite differently. Rspeer: If people want to go looking for reasons to be offended, its hard to stop them... but part of my vision is to get rid of WP:RFCN. Ultimately, an unreasonable accusation of offense will look unreasonable in a process where the offending user has an equal say. This is not really the case at WP:RFCN, though, where the user rarely if ever comments, and where, if they did, their comments would be relatively lost among all the votes. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And to respond to your first question, Rspeer, I see discussion with the user replacing WP:RFCN, and only when that reaches an impasse will something more be required; I was thinking, an ordinary user conduct WP:RFC would be better. Which means that after a possible initial UAA report, more than one person will have to try and fail to resolve the dispute through discussion first (a good sign that there is really a problem, not just one easily-offended user), and also RFC is a more balanced process, in which the offending user will be treated more equally. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the intent and idea is great, but the specifics are a little off. All 5 current "master" reasons can be inappropriate and worth blocking on sight - in some instances. I would suggest a new section/subsection supplementing IU, along with some editing of IU, and replacing the current examples section. This would give clear guidance as to the fact that some examples for each reason represent potentially-problematic ("suspect") names, and some represent oh-no-you-don't immediately-blockable names, and clearly delineate between the two. I do think that clearer delineation between the two is important. SamBC(talk) 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a username that is merely "confusing" that (1) needs to be insta-blocked, and (2) would not be taken as a bad-faith contributor? I had thought of the "bot" example, but that could always just be a separate exception. For that matter, when would any good-faith username need to be blocked immediately? Mangojuice^talk 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, when it's clearly easy to confuse with another user, for the most obvious one. "Misleading" names can also be created in good faith, and we still can't have users running around with names that sound like they're in a position of power. New users could easily not realise that "beauraucrat"(sp?) is a position of "power" on wikipedia, but we don't want anyone wandering around with that in their name. However, users as such should be blocked nicely, which isn't actually that hard if people would take the time and care to do so. SamBC(talk) 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably about as good an example as one could come up with... but I don't actually think it's a problem for someone to temporarily use a username "bureaucrat" if they aren't pretending to be a bureacrat, e.g. by trying to control RFAs or being active on WP:BN. Also, User:Bureaucrat already exists and is blocked; future examples are likely to be more along the lines of User:Bureacrastinator or User:Bureaukat, et cetera, where potential damage is even less. Mangojuice^talk 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of RFCN, I don't think that getting rid of it will ever work because discussion is often needed, even for names that are probably immediately blockable. However, I do agree that genuine reform of the system is needed, including a proper process for input from the user in question. SamBC(talk) 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCN isn't a discussion, though, which is why it has to go. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Like every other RFC, it's meant to be a discussion. Do you think that scrapping it and replacing it with something fulfilling the same role, but in a different place with different stated process, will make a difference and work? SamBC(talk) 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't promise it would work, but let me put it this way. This doesn't work. And apparently MFD's concluding that RFCN needs to be reformed have not had a real effect, so scrapping it does seem to be better. I don't think we should have any other process fulfilling the "same role" or we'll have the same problem. But we can have regular WP:RFCs for when a username issue is actually that difficult to resolve, and where people care about the name enough to escalate to that level. Mangojuice^talk 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there isn't currently any other RFC venue for it, and a decent number come up that seem to need broader discussion. Without that avenue, it's quite likely that some that shouldn't be blocked would be blocked, rather than everything doubtful being left alone. That's my prediction based on general admin beahaviour, anyway. If reform of RFCN is supposed to have happened and hasn't, then some degree of pushing for it should happen. There's actually talk towards fixing some things happening on the talk page for RFCN at the moment anyway, including trying to stamp out the problem of names being brought there without discussion with the user in question. However, it sounds like there's more problem with implementation than with the policy. SamBC(talk) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there's no other venue. A user conduct RFC can cover any dispute over user conduct including username choice. Mediation also has the potential of solving this type of dispute, and if all that fails, there's always Arbcom. But part of my vision in this change is to make it so that if UAA fails, there will be no easy option for appeal; they will have to engage in discussion with the user, with admins on an individual basis, and in a lot of cases this will result in the issue simply being dropped. After all, part of the goal here is to reduce the amount of unnecessary username patrolling. Mangojuice^talk 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCU has turned back to the voting cesspit that was attempted to get rid of back in april. The whole process of dragging people to WP:RFCU without even trying to talk to the user is biting. Mango's idea should be taken seriously here. There is a group of usernames with on admin discrition are obvious bad faith names, everything else can wait while someone actually gasp, talks to the user. Its not like if someone takes Eagle 102, or the like anyone will get confused while someone is talking the user and informing them of the fact that I exist, (if they do get confused they can get unconfused, as its very unlikely for that second user to be making more then a few edits before they are spoken to on their talk page), and they might want to change usernames. I would not be here if I happened to be an unlucky guy to pick a "confusing" username, and subsequently got blocked. The username policy is fine, but we need to implant it better, and WP:RFCU is not cutting it, one user should not be able to drag another new user through that without at least talking to them before hand. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A second note, WP:RFCU was told to reform, we should not have to drag them through those reforms, if it can't reform, and right now it does not look like anything has had a lasting impact (things did improve after the MFD for a while), then it needs to go and we need to try something else. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The problem with RFCN is not its existence so much as the way it is used. Voting has crept back in over the past few weeks. And for the average problem username there is no harm in waiting a couple of days. The promotional/profane/impersonations will get blocked at UAA. "Problem" usernames that are never used/abandoned are not worth the time discussing. RFCN has a purpose, but it should not be needed as frequently as it is. In addition, I would urge people who scan through the username lists not to do that. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Part of the problem is that people move stuff straight from UAA to RFCN; I've added instructions to UAA saying not to do that. A few of us policing RFCN more actively will make a difference (it has been the last few days) and hopefully it'll stick. RFCN has been improving in the last week or so. Lets stick at it in the hope of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. SamBC(talk) 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the actual proposal, on balance I don't like it, although I like the intent. SamBC(talk) 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to hold off an WP:RFCN mfd a bit longer to see if the issues correct themselves. I'm not so hopeful though. What about the other idea in my proposal? That is, explicitly distinguishing blocks of "suspect" usernames (ie, preemptive blocks based on a reasonable perception that the user is here with bad intent) from blocks of "inappropriate" usernames (ie that don't give that perception, and are instead just poor choices for names created in good faith). Mangojuice^talk 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would make a slightly-alternate suggestion. The policy as it is now should be changed to only cover names that ought to be blocked, whether they're good-faith errors or bad-faith trouble-stirring (such as "HitlerRulez" or something). Names that indicate potential bad intentions should then be covered in a seperate section and the policy should not suggest blocking them, just keeping an eye on them for conduct problems that may warrant a user-conduct block. The choice of name in that case may be considered a component of the conduct.

This would largely mean a bit of tweak-editing and removing quite a few examples, followed by a new section that could include the excised examples. I think that actually fits the underlying spirit of your proposal. RFCN is still needed in that case for names that might be seen to meet the descriptions of should-be-blocked, but people don't feel confident to make that judegement. The criteria for names being inappropriate aren't, and could never really be, even as unambiguous and objective as the criteria for speedy deletion.

For me, the biggest thing that would make the system less rude to some new users would be changing (and possibly diversifying) the messages that are used for blocks, and mandating the block notice appearing on the talk page (so that people have a chance of being told, politely, before they find out the hard way about the block). SamBC(talk) 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make some wording tweaks to my version. I certainly don't mean to suggest that borderline "suspect" names should be blocked, I'll put some strong wording in there. I do think my way is a departure from current practice in that it hopes that every good faith username violation can be resolved without a block. I feel that if there's a compelling reason to ignore that and block a (probably) good-faith username without discussion, there is always WP:IAR. But we don't have to agree on everything. :) Mangojuice^talk 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think "we" in the more general sense will need to agree, generally, on anything that ends up in the policy. The best-practice, to my mind, in the kind of situation you describe, is a block that has a presumption of being removed if the user wants to change their name. If they've no edits, then there really isn't a problem registering a new name. The block just has to be done in a way which is clearly non-judgemental (as in, "it's not you, it's the name"). However, I can see that we both have the same overall goal - to avoid scaring off people who inadvertently create an account with an inpermissible name. SamBC(talk) 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SamBC, that's unrealistic. Blocks are harsh no matter how they're stated. Newbies do not react well to being blocked, so we need to reduce the number of blocks of good-faith newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To a certian extent, that's true (that block are always harsh). However, there's a wide spectrum of the harshness. The usual username block message is very impersonal, and it's even worse when the first time people can possibly see it is when they try to edit a page (ie, the message isn't posted to the talk page). While it's trivially and obviously true that it's good to reduce the number of blocks of good-faith new users, that has to be balanced with community consensus that there's certain names that really shouldn't be used. I know that you and I agree that the policy is applied rather too liberally, and this has been only slightly mitigated by recent clarifications that I (and others) have encouraged in the policy. Part of the problem is that there can't be any line that's even as objective as the criteria for speedy deletion in determining names that need to be blocked straight away, but I'm sure that even you would accept that there are some. Any example-based discussion will quickly lead to exceptions being found in both directions for any hard-and-fast line anyone suggests, IMO (I've had the conversation with myself a couple of times), so we're left with trying to make the best compromise we can. SamBC(talk) 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Great work. This is much better than the current wording. I think the key to it is that administrators should use their discretion - we don't need a huge list of usernames which aren't allowed or even general pointers such as we have now, at the end of the day, if it's innappropriate, it's innappropriate and can get a swift block. With regards to RFCN, without sounding too big-headed, I am possitive that I could make the correct decision with every single username that goes there without all the comments, I also trust many other admins to have the same judgement. If discussion is required, it could go to an admin board, but I don't see that happening too often. Let's face it, if it's borderline, there's not really a problem, mast username violations are clear cut, for the rest, let the sysops use their discretion. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to check, but you seem to be saying "allow admin discretion to see if a name is blatantly inappropriate, and if it isn't blatant, trust admin discretion to see if it's inappropriate at all". Judging by discussions at RFCN, there are names brought by admins that defy the initial reaction. Admins make mistakes, I'm sure you do too, and shouldn't be encouraged to make every decision on their own without consultation. The involvement of non-admin users is also a benefit, IMO. SamBC(talk) 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • some admins don't understand the username policy too well admitidely, but the admins that minitor UAA do understand it, they can either block it or not. Almost all that go to RFCN don't need any discussion, they are obvious blocks, or obviously not going to get blocked. We could still have a little discussion at UAA, however, we don't need half as much as we currently get at RFCN. I make mistakes, but I'm fairly sure that I could decide whether or not a username is in violation of the policy or not on my own. As I said, on the rare occasion where serious discussion is needed, the best place for that would be an admin board, likewise if someone disagree's with an admin decision to block or not block a username. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(<-)Can someone direct me to the reform that RFCN was supposed to go through? I'm relatively new there, and didn't know there was supposed to be any reform. Maybe many of the others there are new, and there aren't many around who were told to "reform". As I'm involved there, now, perhaps I can be instrumental in the changes that were supposed to happen. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names which should give an overview of all the problems with the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion immediate blocking is unnecessary unless the username is offensive. Alot of new users who intend on contributing positively to Wikipedia, change their name anyway if they are told about their concerning username. Alot of new users are unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and Im sure any new user would be discouraged from ever editing again if they were immediately blocked. So in my opinion, more concerning usernames should go through the warn user and then report to WP:RFCN after 24 hours process rather than going straight to WP:UAA, where discretions are significantly different depending on the admin. This should be made clearer in the policy as at the moment it isn't. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like most people who have compared Mango's proposal to the current version prefer Mango's proposal, so can we go live with it sometime soon? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to make such a major change to a policy when it's been discussed only on the policy's talk page and about half a dozen people have commented on it at all, even if 5 out of 6 support it. Even if such a small discussion group were acceptable, with a smaller discussion group even 1 opposition that actually gives cogent reasons implies a lack of consensus, especially where there's been no attempt to address those concerns. SamBC(talk) 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SamBC. To make an actual change would need a more community wide discussion at somewhere like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but im not sure how many users here agree on doing this. Also to take it to village pump, we would need to figure out what has been agreed on here in the 2 current proposal discussions and consolidate the proposal so that it is clear what is being proposed. It may also be better to put a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies up first if users here want community wide input. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An unsigned rant

Oh dear, are you serious? No, Ryan, the point is that you're stupid, you treat people like crap, and you should only use your judgement if there is absolutely no alternative. I think usernames should be judged on the same criteria as comments, and only ones that break rules like CIVIL should be blocked. The basic rules for usernames (less that 64 characters, no fuck, shit, wikipedia, no impersonating other users) are enforced by the application, which does a decent job of it. Those cover all of the problems imo, so admins should be helping to enforce those rules, and catching what the filter misses. Your proposal contains some ambiguous criteria, like trolling and sockpuppetry that encourage admins to use their own judgement, and consequently fuck up. Trolls should be blocked of course, but not preemptively.

Suspect is also an ambiguous word. Suspicion of being offensive isn't enough, the name should have to be offensive. Maybe title the first section "Offensive Usernames" and remove that from the second section.

I also don't like the statement, "The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors, and you should not create new usernames for the purpose of trying to find this line." First, it could give people the wrong idea. Second, citing secret rules and not telling people what they are is unfair.

Throw-away names need to be in the inappropriate category, as moreschi explains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocked for no reason (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd. Does anyone know what would have inspired this comment? And are the presuppositions it contains true -- like does the software actually prevent certain names from even being registered? I didn't think that was the case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist; it does prevent certain names from being chosen as usernames. And the user is apparently upset about the username block here. (See the user's revision to his userpage.) I doubt it's the same user, though, the block was quickly reversed and that user has continued editing. Mangojuice^talk 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of RFCN would be a mistake, it was created because name reports were filling up AIV. Improving the process is okay, but getting rid of RFCN is misguided. Rlevse 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity rule

I think this rule should be changed to read: Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless that verifiably is your name, in which case please note this on your user page. We ought not be discriminating against the Michael Boltons of the world, right? —Random832 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrugs*. Why don't they just go by "Mike"?  ;) Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree if you share the same name as a celebrity that you should be allowed to use your name, but that a notice on your userpage declaring you are not that celebrity is important. The policy seems ambiguous saying "unless you verifiably are that person", if your name was truly Micheal Bolton, then you really would be that person even if you are not the celebrity. I think we could make it clearer once we decide what the consensus is on this matter. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant: obvious or egregious?

Per discussion at WT:UAA. How are we currently interpreting the word "blatant" in WP:U? I personally understand it to mean "obvious" rather than "egregious", but this may differ among users. For lack of creativity, the "pee" names to me are obvious violations of policy 5 insofar as they clearly refer to an excretory function (peewee, for example, does not meet this criteria), whereas others may see them as not egregious enough to warrant a block. My main concern with an emphasis on 'egregious' is that it is highly subjective, and it is unclear who should be Wikipedia's arbiter of taste. Once we establish consensus on which of these interpretations (or both) are guiding our UAA reports and username blocks, some rewording and clarifying of the username policy may be in order. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think it refers to how sure you are, not how severe the violation. I do agree with the idea of re-wording as this has been the source if much misunderstanding. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider it to mean "egregious". If it meant "obvious", then there would never be a case where you could be sure that leaving a username warning was the right thing to do. I'll elaborate, mostly by copying what I said on UAA.

Violating the username policy is just that, a violation of policy. Like most other violations of policy, we respond with a warning on their user page.

Some usernames are blatantly inappropriate. There's no point in leaving a warning and waiting for a response, because there's no conceivable thing we'd want to do with that username except block it. Such usernames might include racist slurs, attacks on other Wikipedians, impersonation, et cetera. Assuming there is not a glaring hole in the username policy, all blatantly inappropriate usernames should also be violations of policy. But there is no list of what makes a username blatantly inappropriate, because you're supposed to use common sense.

There is a well-defined class of violations that are not blatant. This doesn't mean you're unsure whether it's a violation, it means that you know it's a violation but you also know that a block isn't the appropriate response. A classic example would be Gggggggggggggg12. The name is confusing; even I often forget the number of g's to type (15) when referring to this incident. However, it was inappropriate to block the user, because he was a good-faith user and the block drove him away. If the admins who blocked him had recognized the existence of non-blatant violations, they would have left a somewhat friendlier {{uw-username}} message. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A username block does not need an assumption of bad faith. A well meaning editor can be required to choose a new name, it does not mean they are blocked from editing, only that they must change their name. I don't think a name has to be in the "oh my god that is terrible" category to have clear reason to block.

Frankly I think we do Gggggggggggggg12 a disservice by the suggestion that a username change might be optional and there should be a discussion when it is pretty much granted that the username will be disallowed. After all, the policy explicitly prohibits this type of name. Better to stop them from using the name sooner than later, if we are certain it is a violation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think we could have done that user more of a disservice than we did by blocking him. "We're blocking you for your own good" doesn't go over very well with anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that usernames that are neither obvious nor egregious do not get blocked. Usernames that are obvious and egregious do get blocked. Perhaps the appropriate middle ground to focus on, for the purpose of this discussion, is names that are obvious but not egregious violations. (Not to say the discussion wasn't already heading in this direction.) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I want to focus on. I think that the case of obvious but not egregious violations is exactly why we have username warnings, and that blocking the user without discussion is WP:BITEy, unnecessary, and out of proportion to most other remedies on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:U says "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive." So I say we don't allow them if we are sure they meet these standards, per existing policy, and per the fact that it is a good idea. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to you "not allow" means "instantly block", while to me it doesn't. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCN/talk page warnings should be for usernames that are not obvious violations. And as was said before, a username block is not assuming bad faith. One option would be to make the standard username block template more friendly and AGF, even though it already says in bold that "you are encouraged to create a new account", maybe we could change the tone of template to be more welcoming, and make it very easy to create the new account from the template, making it clear it's the name not the user. Obvious violations need to be blocked, and are already provided for in WP:U: "Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention", which supports the 'obvious' over 'egregious' interpretation. Unfortunately, then we have the somewhat contradicting previous line: "Unless a username is a blatant infringement of username policy..." and the following line: "The starting place to discuss a non-blatant username violation is on the user's talk page." I propose changing "blatant" to "obvious" and "non-blatant" to "non-obvious". With the recent reorganizing to emphasize the 5 general policies, this will hopefully still prevent "excessive" UAA blocks. ~Eliz81^(C) 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I support that change from "blatant" to "obvious". I think this will help reduce misunderstandings. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While perhaps this is an issue that needs to move elsewhere (suggestions?), I think rspeer's concern is valid in that we shouldn't needlessly scare off potentially valuable contributors with a big ol' block. The level 1 username block template isn't very nice, so I created a mock-up of a nicer one here. rspeer especially, does this address some of your concerns about WP:BITE? ~Eliz81^(C) 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shiny. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but they still see this which is less shiny. GDonato (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yes. It does have a certain sheen? Seriously though, feel free to comment on it and edit it. It ain't perfect, and the main 'create a new account' box could be even bigger. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, niiiiiice... much better wording. Two nits: to request a change in username the user has to get temporarily unblocked first, and the template seems to contradict that; also, might be best to have two version - one for users with contribs, one without. SamBC(talk) 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously proposing that we can make blocks "nice" enough that newbies don't mind when it happens to them? It won't work. See GDonato's comment about the fact that your "shiny" template will be surrounded by red boxes and X's. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm seriously proposing it. GDonato's point is taken, but I don't see why that precludes us from making the 'create new account' option more prominently displayed in the template. ~Eliz81^(C) 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to that because it would encourage username-blocking admins to take blocking even less seriously than they already do. You cannot make being blocked a nice experience, so don't pretend to be able to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant includes both obvious and egregious, so this is a non issue. Rlevse 10:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the change from "blatant" to "obvious." I think that would encourage bad practice in blocking users who have bad usernames, but who should be dealt with in a more polite manner. We already go way too far on the side of WP:BITE in implementing this policy. For a name to be blockable, it should be both (1) an obvious violation and (2) one for which a preemptive block is necessary (as opposed to talking with the user). Typically, (2) means the violation appears intentional or egregious. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While a vocal minority thinks names need to be "egregious" before blocking, I don't think consensus reflects this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've seen a consensus on username-related issues. Where is the consensus you are referring to? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

rspeer's concern is valid. Blocking people is never a kind thing to do, especially to brand new users. If a username is really so bad, they should be blocked at the software level. (we have a username blacklist around here somewhere), just add a regex that matches 10 or more of the same letter repeating, then the user gets a message saying his name is not appropriate at the point of account creation. The only few times in which I feel a name should be blocked are those that are very obvious. User:IHATEJEWS, User:ARABSSUCK, User:WHITEPEOPLEARERACIST. All these without the caps. Its damned obvious to pretty much any reasonable mind that those are offensive. The other 'class' that I see as block on sight would be those such as XXXX on WHEELS!!, or names that are associated with well known vandals or sock puppets. Others I can think of would be clear cases of advertising, etc. Everything else can wait until the name actually edits. Evaluate the contribution, if you thought a name was promotional, wait and see if the user goes to promote a product, if they don't then who cares. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE was never designed to stop blocking new users due to policy violations. What is more you cannot just use a regex to prevent these names because offensive names are often made from non-offensive components, and they have a high likelihood of prevent legitimate usernames. The fact is that the policy lists types of names that are not allowed, so we should not allow them. Leaving a message on their talk page is useful if you are not sure of it is allowed or not. But if you are sure it is of the type to be disallowed, then we should not allow them, it is that simple. Soft blocking prevents a username from editing, not an editor. Yes, people will get pissed off, but they also get pissed off then they find out we don't allow original research, that doesn't mean we let them do it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that position has agreement, perhaps its time to have a policy request for comment on these issues? (can you point me to where it has been agreed WP:BITE does not apply?) And yes I think WP:BITE does very well apply. You can indeed block nonesense names at a software level. User:Gggggggggggggggggasdf whatever can be prevented by regex. I know what I'm talking about here. ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'll do you one better, there is a significent portion of our community citing WP:BITE as a problem with our username practices. (by the way WP:RFCN has sorta regressed from the prior MFD of reform.) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Newbies have not read the username policy. And I think your comparison to original research is apt: when a newbie tries to do it, we leave them a note saying it's not allowed. We don't block them the moment they do it. One reason for this is because -- guess what -- WP:BITE does in fact apply to policy. (What the heck else would it apply to? People who bite newbies for fun?) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Except in the case of usernames the user cannot help continuing to violate the policy unless they change usernames. The only way a user can head this warning is to change usernames. The block is purely preventative in a manner that a warning cannot be. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How bad for Wikipedia is it if someone edits with a violating but non-egregious username? Do any of you know the user User:Yuckfoo? Well, I had a hard time respecting him/her because their sig always made everything they said look like an insult. But I am mature enough (and I think most of our users are) not to take it personally, and I'm not bothered enough by it that I would want to intrude on Yuckfoo's personal business enough to say that he/she should change usernames. That username isn't a good idea, but who does it hurt? It hurts the user who chose it; it makes them seem immature or rude when they don't intend it, and doesn't ultimately have a meaningful effect on the project. Blocking users for this kind of thing is a very firm approach to a problem that isn't that big of a deal. Even if they understand that we still welcome the contributor, just not the bad username, it is still basically a zero-tolerance policy and quite unfriendly. Mangojuice^talk 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think a particular type of violation should be disallowed, then it should be your goal to remove it from the policy. But what we should not do is decide it is not allowed, then allow it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. Once again, there are appropriate courses of action that fall in between "allow" and "block them with no warning and no discussion". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But what about users being blocked for a policy violation that does not exist? Or what about the users not being blocked for a violation that does exist? Changing policy only works if RFCN is following policy. A few discussions show that it clearly isn't. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the negative effect of blocks on new users, and the fact that nothing hideous happens just because there's a few signatures and log entries from a bad username, I don't think that block-without-attempted-discussion should happen with non-egregious names. It's hard to define, but I think we should have a go. Generally speaking, there is an argument that no user should be blocked on the grounds of username without discussion unless it's egregious or clearly deliberate. A more polite block notice, posted to talk rather than just in the block comment, does a lot to help, but talking about it first is even more polite and will, I reckon, annoy/scare off far fewer users. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if a name is clearly not allowed by policy, but it is not egregious, then I talk to the guy. What do I say? Do I tell him he has some sort of choice in the matter when he does not? Do I tell him if he continues to edit under the same name he will be blocked? What would I have to talk about with Mr. GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG47? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't pretend to have a magic answer. I'm expressing a problem as I, and others, it would seem, see it, and looking to the direction of possible solutions. The solution is likely to be a compromise somewhere between the status quo and the idealistic "never block when non-egregious". Stating the goal, even if it's not attainable, tends to help. SamBC(talk) 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They have as much of a choice as someone who's warned for vandalism does. Let's talk about it in terms of vandalism first. Such a user can keep vandalizing (and get blocked), stop vandalizing and go on editing Wikipedia, or disappear from Wikipedia.

A user who gets a username warning has similar choices. They can disappear from Wikipedia, they can request a name change or start a new account, or they can ignore you and keep editing, which can result in them being blocked.

It is exceedingly rare for a good-faith user to refuse to change their name from one that violates the username policy. I've never seen it happen. If it does happen, it's probably because they disagree that there's any problem with the name, so it's the kind of situation that should go to RFCN. It's also the kind of situation that RFCN is meant to handle.

As for what you say to a user with a bad username: you don't have to worry about it too much. Other people have already thought this through and come up with the {{uw-username}} template. I'm not asking you to have a soul-searching discussion with the user.

I really hope you can see the difference between a user taking the step to change their name after they've been asked to, and a user being forced to change their name by a preemptive block. The second is an unpleasant situation no matter how you try to sugar-coat it, and it reinforces the stereotype of Wikipedia admins being closed-minded and on a power trip. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

debate of interest

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination). Mangojuice^talk 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there some sort of campaign to make it hard for an admin to talk to other editors about a username before deciding on a block? I remember when I could pop by RFCN and ask about a name, now I pretty much have to decide myself. Thanks. 1 != 2 15:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about, when in doubt, don't block? Then you don't need backup opinions. Mangojuice^talk 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about when in doubt inform yourself, then make a decision based on that? 1 != 2 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Limit length

There seems to be a lot of confusion about long usernames where some admins block and some don't and such blocks are viewed as bitey. I therefore propose that a technical limitation be placed on username length at 32 characters to ensure a fair application of policy. GDonato (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is a string of 32 characters:

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

-Amarkov moo! 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is adequate for everyone to think of a nickname and the overwhelming majority of real names. GDonato (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed to add a hard limit of 40 characters at MediaWiki talk:Usernameblacklist. I'm choosing 40 instead of 32 because that's what the WP:UAA bot automatically reports. Mangojuice^talk 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the software already had a hard limit. Is 32 / 40 / xx characters enough for name sin all languages? I think this is a good idea. (but what are you going to do with someone who either has a name of zaqxswcdevfrbgtnhymjukilop (26 chars, non random)) Dan Beale-Cocks 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Long names are only disallowed if they are confusing. I suppose we could switch to a blanket prohibition, I just don't see it as being much less bitey, though I don't think enforcing policy is biting at all unless done in a rude fashion. 1 != 2 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Any number is only going to make sense if whatever is counting it (bot or software) treats multibyte characters (as in unicode in UTF-8) as single characters. Just a thought. SamBC(talk) 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the username bot counts multi-byte characters as one, not sure about the username blacklist. 1 != 2 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot certainly wasn't recently. I don't know if it was fixed, but names with around 20 characters were being reported. I did report it as a bug, but didn't keep track of what happened. SamBC(talk) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I could be wrong about that, I just know that perl has multi-character text mode support, it probably needs to have a variable put through utf8::upgrade to work properly. 1 != 2 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this is tried on the blacklist, at least the user is turned away at the software level, and can immediately change names, rather then being blocked later for failure to read a policy. (come on they are a new user!, the vast majority of new users probably never read WP:U). We can actually try it now... just make it an very high limit.. (100 chars anyone ;) ) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It will be more acceptable to them since they know everyone who has selected an excessively long name will get the same treatment, rather than You have been blocked, which is bitey no matter how it is done. GDonato (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already a hard limit at 64 characters, so setting the limit at 100 chars would seem to be, uh, sub-optimal. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IP contributions

Is it possible to move my anonymous edits so that they show up under my username? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. If you want to, you can list your IP address on your userpage so people can look at your anon editing history. But I would hesitate to recommend that; revealing your IP compromises your privacy. Mangojuice^talk 15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also if you have a dynamic ip, the address is reassigned every time you recoonect to the internet and so other people's contributions may also show up. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've been thinking about this policy a lot over the past few days and I really believe it's time for a change. I think we need to scrap quite a few parts of it that turn it into what is probably one of the strictest username policies on the internet. As a whole, Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored but this policy is full of quite a few silly rules that stop good faith usernames that won't offend anyone or really cause any problems. I believe there are two key parts to the policy which we should still keep; the offensive usernames (obviously so people aren't offended) and names which are similar to other users (so people don't get mixed up) - I really do believe the rest we can live without. At the end of the day, is it really bad for a user to use the name of a company unless the username itself is really promoting that company - if there's a COI problem, block them for editing abuse, but not for username. If the usernames apparently random, well who really cares? We have talk page and contrib links that are easily clicked on and let's face it, it's most likely a throwaway account as the user won't be able to remember their username themselves. Another thing that I think should be addressed is the use of blocks against usernames, our tolerance level at present is shocking, we block everything. Really, who is User:Poop going to offend? Hopefully no-one. Unless there's a very serious issue with a username, I say don't block and let them edit, if it may infringe on the policy, then let the user get on and edit. I really hope we can try and sort this policy out once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also say to keep a prohibition on overly long names, since those are annoying in signatures. But past that, I agree. -Amarkov moo! 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, we want to block people for being annoying now? SamBC(talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy could do with a certain amount of de-CREEPing, although I'm not sure if the examples grew in the way they did because of creep or what. The basic principles are okay, particularly the five categories in my opinion, although offensive and disruptive ought to be combined into disruptive - disruptive to harmonious editing, as the policy says later on. SamBC(talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, although I would include lengthly or confusing names; those are the only ones I have a particular problem with. i ^said 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problems seem to stem from some of the people applying the policy lacking common sense, or lacking the patience to discuss names with the users involved. If the only way to address that is to change the policy, then fine, but I'd favour a rewrite of the policy to emphasise the need to avoid WP:BITE and to discuss before blocking, and then to try and stamp out the instances of blocking borderline usernames on sight. Carcharoth 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Ryan. I've been thinking about this quite a bit after the MfD for RFCN started. The amount of manpower that's spent on policing usernames is extraordinary. We have editors (mostly people who are aspiring to be admins) trawling through the username creation logs, looking for the slightest violation of the username policy and reporting loads of names using Twinkle. These reports then get dealt with by a complicated system with arbitrary standards, and take a lot of time for admins.

Trying to change the process by "adding instructions to contact the user first" or "adding more links to WP:BITE" etc has been tried ad nauseam. To be honest, I think Wikipedia would be better off with a much more radical approach:

• Get rid of the username policy altogether - the part in Wikipedia:Vandalism about "malicious account creation" is enough.
• Only block clearly and unquestionably offensive or attack usernames, and if someone chooses a "borderline", "annoying" or "confusing" username - well, it's their choice to make a fool of themselves.
• Delete WP:UAA and WP:RFCN altogether - since we're only going to deal with the really blatant usernames, the number of reports will be dramatically reduced, and it can be dealt with by WP:AIV or WP:ANI.
• Get rid of username reporting via Twinkle.
• Decide a maximum length for usernames and enforce it technically - the software already blocks names longer than about 60 characters, and I'm sure it's easily doable to reduce this to whatever the community decides is a reasonable max length.

I honestly think doing this will be an improvement - it will free up a lot of time for admins who can help improve the encyclopedia instead of policing usernames, and I don't think there will be any problem with blocking fewer names - we will still block the grossly inappropriate ones, and as Ryan said I know no other site that has such a strict username policy and such a large bureaucracy for checking people's usernames.

Note that I voted "keep" on the RFCN MfD. That is because, given the current situation and policy, I believe that we need RFCN to provide an outlet for names that might otherwise be blocked, but if we implement my solution above and just stop worrying that much about username "violations" that nobody other than the UAA/RFCN regulars will notice - there will be no need for this bureaucracy at all - and at that point, both UAA and RFCN can be deleted. Is he back? 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is a breath of fresh air, and I wholeheartedly support it. Working within the system has gotten me nowhere, as it makes me keep running up against the same three or four people who believe that it helps Wikipedia to religiously enforce the strictest possible interpretation of this policy. There are so many out there who agree that the current username-blocking system is completely out of control. It's time to shut down this broken, self-perpetuating process, because it's not possible to make it saner from within. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's lots of stuff wrong with the policy. "Similar names" is used to block names that are not really that similar; "too long or confusing" is used to block names that are neither long nor confusing; "the same as a famous person, unless you are that person" is daft, considering how common some people's names are, and how 'famous' is interpreted to mean 'anyone that's had some mention in an obscure source at some time'. Some stuff could be useful - does wiki want 'promotional usernames'? - but the way they get implemented is bizarre. Changing this policy, and serious reform at RfCN, would get rid of a huge amount of IDONTLIKEIT. (Or get rid of a huge amount of IDONTSEETHEPROBLEMBUTIHAVENTREADPOLICY - see username mentalbreakdown as an example.) Dan Beale-Cocks 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm personally delighted that Wikipedia has a strict username policy - WP is not Myspace, Utopia or the International Court of Human Rights - and for the most part I think it gets implemented as sensibly as can be reasonably expected, by people who are willing to deal with username matters. I don't believe for a moment that doing away with RFCN or UAA will suddenly free up significant amounts of admin time to do other things - people work on what they want to work on, hence you won't see anyone eagerly rushing over to deal with backlogs just because the name boards disappeared. Re: WP:BITE, I don't like to see anyone get bitten, but I think some people need to accept that internal affairs on WP are always going to have an element of rough-and-tumble, and that serious editors will be happy to choose normal usernames. I was recently quoted BITE and CIVIL for blocking a disallowed username, which the user was aware was being debated, with a perfectly charm-schooled explanatory note. If that's biting, some people need to get off the island, because here there be tygers. Deiz talk 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Yes. But we tend to try and keep the tygers penned up in the interior and allow the newcomers to paddle around in the shallows and play around in the large sandbox/beach. Really, we don't want tygers prowling along the shoreline and bounding into the surf to scare off newly shipwrecked editors. They might decide to swim off to another desert island, after all. Ooh. Did you just hear that loud twang? I think the analogy just snapped under the strain. :-) Carcharoth 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite Deiz's comment there seems to be pretty strong consensus for a rewrite here. I certainly agree. My feeling is that we need to think more carefully about why we disallow usernames. I think it comes down to an even more basic list: preemptive blocks applied to bad-faith usernames, blocks applied to usernames that are actually used for an inappropriate purpose (like offending or needling others, or advertising), and "bad idea" usernames that we should just let slide, as it does more harm than good when we insist on changing it. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. The current list muddles the issue by conflating different kinds of username problems that merit different responses. Mango, is your proposed IU replacement still relevant, or do you want to adjust it a bit? I think the most productive thing we can do here is to examine a single option and see who supports it over the status quo. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needed adjustment, and I have just done so. Mangojuice^talk 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about all this more, and following on from what I've said at other WP:U-related talk pages (I forget what was said where), here's what I think are the key elements of the "problem" (or how the policy is bad):

1. Misuse of WP:UAA and WP:RFCN - there seems to be widespread misunderstanding of these, especially among those who don't regular discuss (in the case of RFCN) or block/refuse (UAA).
2. The section on unacceptable usernames has become rather chaotic.
   1. The 5 categories aren't necessarily things that should be handled in the same way.
   2. Disruptive and offensive are basically the same, given the reason to take issue with offensive names (makes harmonious editing difficult): perhaps both could be described by "disruptive", or even better "uncivil".
3. Simply disagreement between policy and practice - practice is being far more negative, blocking and bitey than sanctioned by policy, which could be seen as a breach of trust by administrators. Of course, administrators have discretion and are human - I'm not slamming all (or any) admins here.

I will probably put this into a more concrete proposal at some point, but the way I see it there's names that we don't want, ever (promotional, certain sorts of misleading), and then there's the ones that make harmonious editing difficult (generally the uncivil ones). I think this works along similar lines to Mangojuice's proposal, but subtly different in ways I can't quite put my finger on while I feel annoyingly sleepy. SamBC(talk) 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Forced rename" for non-blatant usernames with edits

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Change name or else.... Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate names change proposal

I'd like to put forward my draft User:Mangojuice/IU as a potential replacement for the current "inappropriate usernames" section. In a nutshell, the big changes are: (1) focus on why certain usernames get blocked, as opposed to what's wrong with the username itself, (2) just allow usernames that are merely "bad ideas" - don't force such users to change names and don't block them, unless the name is actually causing problems.

The main purpose, for those not familiar, is to revise Wikipedia's username policy which is one of the harshest on the Internet, and to simultaneously try to reform current practice so that good-faith users who aren't causing disruption are not treated overly harshly.

This is a big change, and to get anything done we need to avoid two things: first, if there are details that aren't quite right we can always edit more later on. For now, better to get an idea if this more or less is right. Second, let's try to see if this can more or less satisfy people before we start seeing parallel proposals (or we'll run into a too-many-cooks problem). If this looks like it's getting preliminary support, I'll advertise the issue more broadly to get wider input. Mangojuice^talk 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, you should probably put up a notice on WP:VPP and WP:AN, and perhaps a couple of noticeboards to ensure that no one can later claim they didn't know about this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion about long names or confusing ones. Was this intentional, an oversight, or something I missed? i ^said 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I know the answer to this one. The new policy is about why to block names, while the old policy was about which categories of names to block. A long, confusing name might be a suspect username (such as if it looks like a throwaway sockpuppet account), in which case it should be blocked; it might simply be a "bad idea" username, in which case there's no reason to block; or it might be a perfectly legitimate non-English username, at which point you shouldn't even be thinking about blocking. The old policy conflated all of these cases. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, you've got the right idea there. Basically, if a username is so confusing, it's disrupting things, then it can be blocked. But if not, as would be the case most of the time, it would just be a "bad idea." Fly: I will gladly post to WP:AN/WP:VPP, but I'm holding off; I want to make sure this satisfies those who comment here first. Mangojuice^talk 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Suspect" usernames being blockable seems to be a poor choice of words. It implies "hmm, that's suspicious, better block it". I like the gist, the intent, but not the specifics. I know I've been saying I'll draft something to clarify what I mean, but I've been busy. I would include a category of "incivil usernames" that are blockable-on-sight (if sufficiently incivil), much like the union of the current disruptive and offensive usernames, but with some added sanity. I'll review more if and when I have time. SamBC(talk) 06:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Uncivil" (not "incivil") lowers the bar even more. People already pretend to be offended by words such as "kickass", and it's easier to call something uncivil than offensive. And "uncivil" isn't even covering the same names as "suspect"; if we see a name that follows a sockpuppet pattern, there may be nothing uncivil about it but it should still be blocked. "Suspect usernames" is right on, encompassing the names we can and do block because we can tell they're up to no good.

And I'm sorry, Sam, but I strongly urge you to hold off on making your proposal, so it's not concurrent with Mangojuice's. On Wikipedia, as soon as you have two simultaneous proposals, you have no progress. I've seen this many times. It would make a lot more sense for you to work with Mango's proposal now -- which I would think you'd prefer over the status quo -- and if that proposal doesn't pan out, we can try a proposal of yours afterward. rspeer / ɹəəds</ span>ɹ 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The "suspect" wording can be changed. Perhaps the section should just be about "preemptive blocks." Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this draft, and I supprot your changes. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the username policy is ambiguous as it is, and I really believe this draft makes it even more so. I'm also not sure about the wording, it tries to bring in editing patterns with username violations and generally speaking, editing patterns should have nothing to do with it - that can be delt with via disruption blocks, not username blocks. A username block should almost always be down to the username and nothing to do with the editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice gave me an example of why it can be important to take edits into account. Imagine a new user named "Resper". It's a perfectly valid name, and there's no reason to assume any ill intent -- but if they adopt a signature similar to mine and go around pretending to be an administrator, they should be blocked for impersonation. If the policy doesn't allow distinguishing users based on how they use the username, then we either need to have a separate process to block the malicious "Resper" (even though it's really a username issue), or worse, people will assume impersonation and block names like Resper preemptively. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's a conduct issue more than a username issue. I understand what you're saying here, and most admins would hard block it as a username violation. What I'm suggesting is that this situation is in the minority with regards to username blocks - most should be done entirely on the username, as I said - if there's editorial problems, we can block for those. I agree that ocassionally you have to take into account edits, but not that often. In many ways I agree we should change practice to only block names that are causing a problem, rather than creating a perceived problem that hasn't happened yet. I like parts of this, but I just feel it's going to make it more confusing than it already is. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I look at username blocks as a conduct issue. It's part of the user's behavior on wikipedia: a user should not have their username taken away unless they do something wrong with it: otherwise we might end up blocking non-offending users "for their own good" which they really don't understand well. Mangojuice^talk 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames or not just about conduct, but also good faith decisions that lead to problem. That is why we do a soft block on 95% of username blocks, because no assumption of bad faith is needed. 1 != 2 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some inappropriate usernames are created in good faith, but not appropriate here on wikipedia, I guess that's why I don't see it as a conduct issue. My take on it is if we block account creation then it is a conduct issue, if we don't block accound creation, then it's soley a username issue. Anyway, there looks to be quite good support for your proposal so far, and although I'm not too keen with it, don't let that stop you adding it - that's not how consensus works. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the missing part about apparently random or confusing names. There is a long standing practice of soft blocking names such as "User:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and "User:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" due the the confusion. Also names like "User:21jknv8914nvoiQH894" should be soft blocked. Policy should be descriptive of practice, and this is the practice. Otherwise it seems to be a good start, it may be missing other things, but this is the part the leaps out at me. 1 != 2 16:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The practice exists only because it's what's written in the policy. When I ask people why they want to block such usernames, their answers are either "they confuse me" or "it's policy, see?", neither of which is founded in a good reason to block. The proposal here is to change the policy, and one of the changes is that confusing an admin is no longer punished by insta-blocking.

Blocking usernames simply for being "confusing" is one of the things that makes username blocks so arbitrary. By meta-policy, we have to allow usernames in other languages and other scripts, which are often far more confusing than repeated letters. However, people still use this to justify blocking names for having repeated letters or being in a foreign language, without applying the common sense check of "does this block help Wikipedia?". The new policy should not retain harmful parts of the old policy just for the sake of tradition. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the usernames are harmful, and that the part of the policy not allowing them is helpful. Such names are difficult to distinguish from each other, and fail to "identify" the person as is the point of a name. It is in policy because there was consensus for it, not because of tradition. I still think there is consensus for it. What is more, it is not about "confusing the admin", but confusing the community. They are also not being "punished" as you say. 1 != 2 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will never comprehend the argument that a block is not a punishment. Some serious changes to the MediaWiki interface would be necessary for it to even be possible to place a block that does not inherently punish the user.

But it looks like Mango has added "Usernames should not be exceptionally confusing" to the "inappropriate use of usernames" section. I am concerned about it -- there are many people here who are prepared to declare a native Nicaraguan name "confusing", and might escalate that to "exceptionally confusing" -- but that won't stop me from supporting the proposal. I'll just keep a close eye on how that part is applied if the proposal goes through.

I'd suggest a "Note 3" pointing out that usernames in foreign languages or scripts cannot be considered "exceptionally confusing", to comply with the meta-policy (which is also just a good idea) that users must be able to use the same username on multiple projects. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The (not) being punished issue seems to be at the heart of the differences between the two "camps" here, which I seem to merrily stand astride... I think the situation is that people aren't being punished, but will feel that they are. This is one reason to prefer giving an opportunity to request a change in the vasy majority of cases. However, the name change system doesn't allow this; in those cases, telling people they can re-register is fine. However, it is understandable, and we have seen it happen, that a user turns up, gets a username block, and then doesn't bother to come back because it just isn't a good welcome. The seperate concerns must be reconciled. SamBC(talk) 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)FWIW, the WP:BLOCK policy states up front "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", and that usernames may be blocked to prevent disruption. The perceived harshness and inherent punishment/biting of blocking is outside the scope of this discussion, especially if much of the block template formatting is at a Mediawiki level. The question is how we can best write username policy so that inappropriate usernames not disrupt the building of an enyclopedia, which is also fair to policy-ignorant, well-meaning newbies. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer I agree with your concerns regarding "Usernames should not be exceptionally confusing" being too wide. This is why I like the current wording which is much more specific "Usernames that consist of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters, e.g. "ghfjkghdfjgkdhfjkg" or "aaaaaaaaaaaa"". I also this "excessively lengthy" is an issue as well. 1 != 2 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One most important clarification is to not discriminate against non-English usernames, whether because of their length, so-called 'confusion', for containing non-English characters, or for containing inappropriate words in English (e.g., Thai names with 'porn' in them). We simply must be all-inclusive in this respect, and the current username policy should more clearly reflect this under the 'confusing' header. Any confusing, lengthy username- be it proper name, nickname, or other Non-English words- where it could reasonably be another language should not be blocked on sight. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that real names should not be disallowed due to being "confusing" or containing a string that would be rude in another context. Of course common sense should apply to names like User_talk:Cuntass, even if it is a real name. 1 != 2 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to comment on this, or do I have a COI? :-/ Dan Beale-Cocks 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the need to block random/repetitive names, but this is not the essence of the proposal, so I just went ahead and added that to the list of ways in which a username can be inappropriate. It doesn't discuss random/repetitive specifically, but it does now mention confusing names. Mangojuice^talk 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-English names include more than real names. We have to allow non-English pseudonyms as well, because users are encouraged to reuse their username across projects. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and clarified my comment to reflect this: ny name I meant username. ~Eliz81^(C) 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the issue of why we block names that are "random-looking" or have repeated letters. Until's argument for doing so is that they are difficult to distinguish from each other, but we don't block other kinds of names for the difficulty of distinguishing them from unused names. I would have trouble remembering the difference between "Until(1 == 2)" and "Until (1==2)", but it's not an issue because the latter username doesn't exist.

There's no confusion in someone having 14 h's for a name -- at least, not any more than someone having Chinese characters for a name. (14 h's are in fact considerably easier to type.) If that user becomes established and then someone shows up confusing people by having 15 h's for a name, then by all means disallow 15 h's. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's scary, I was about to post exactly the same counterargument: User:Until (1==2) or User:Until(1==2) or User:Until(1 ==2), et cetera. Let me aslo make the point that I would never expect to get "RyanPostlethwaite" correct without looking it up, and there are dozens of other users with the same kind of issue. Honestly, typeability is just irrelevant, because we all know we hardly ever type in someone's username: more likely, we go from a watchlist, a signature, or a contribution in a page history or contributions list. On the other hand, I do feel that these usernames can be inappropriately used, and in some cases are suspicious. If someone registers a random username, my immediate reaction is that they don't intend to edit on Wikipedia after today, which throws up all kinds of red flags; same with a very repetitive name, so if such a user starts vandalizing, I'd probably quickly apply an indef block. And in some cases I might do a preemptive block. But if the user has a name that is unique the user isn't trying to interfere with my ability to locate their user page and contributions, I would think the name is, at worst, just a bad idea. Mangojuice^talk 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So what kinds of names are supposed to be "exceptionally confusing" besides names that are already suspect for being throwaway names? The only examples I can think of are names that make non-standard use of Unicode... like that guy whose name was a circle of half-circles around the "r:" of "User:", or hypothetically names that made unnecessary use of RTL marks or non-printing characters. But I'd like to be able to clarify that these are a much different problem than "too many a's". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with blocking someone for appearing to be a throw-away account, as I do not think we should use usernames to profile accounts for whether they are vandals or not. Username blocks should be done solely based on whether the username is bad, not that it makes us think the user might vandalize in the future.

Also, I frankly think that the whole "promotional usernames" thing has gone a bit overboard. Almost 50% of all usernames blocked at UAA are blocked because they match a company or group. The issue of companies promoting themselves through Wikipedia edit histories seems a bit far-fetched, I think Pepsi would gain much more by promoting themselves through an advertising campaign than by registering an account called "Drink Pepsi" and make contributions to Wikipedia. Now, if "Drink Pepsi" engages in vandalism, he should be blocked for that, and if he adds false negative information about Coca-Cola or false positive information about Pepsi, that's a COI issue. But the current rule that prevents usernames from "matching the name of a company or group" just causes problems for newbies who choose the name of a band they like, or things like that. Almost all usernames that are blocked for matching a company would have been blocked based on their contributions (COI or vandalistic) anyway. Is he back? 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, at heart, about how misguided most of the username rules are, but fuming about it won't build a consensus to change the policy. (A consensus to change the policy is much harder to find than a consensus that policy needs to be changed, as anyone who frequents RfA knows.) This is why I'm supporting Mangojuice's proposal. It does have a couple of parts that I don't like, such as when it says that "being exceptionally confusing" to someone is an example of misusing a username, but on the whole it's a vast improvement over what we've got. The most important change is that it focuses on reasons that you would need to block a username rather than categories of names that should be blocked just because the policy says so. Maybe in the future we can talk about those reasons and find a consensus to stop placing preemptive blocks, but let's take one step at a time. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, I strongly support a rewriting of the username policy based on Mangojuice's proposal, but just wanted to point out some parts of it that I would suggest be amended. My concern is particularly with the "promotional" category, which is (IMO) seriously overused. As an example, the account "Jenny20" was reported at WP:UAA because it matched a small company's phone number. I therefore think we should consider the wording of the new username policy to address this problem. Of course, the biggest problem is that Twinkle and the culture at UAA are encouraging "username patrol", where people are reporting names on more and more flimsy grounds. Is he back? 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, I wonder how I read your statement as disagreeing with Mangojuice's proposal in the first place.

Also, I observe that even the culture at UAA is fed up with TWINKLE now. This doesn't have to go in the proposed policy, but I'd suggest that if the policy gets implemented and we need to redesign UAA, we should simply disallow TWINKLE reports. Of course, we'd leave open the possibility of allowing them again, but AzaToth would have to be willing to talk to us about a less misleading interface, which he hasn't been so far. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Overlap of username policy and signature guidelines

I notice that coverage of issues such as use of non-Latin and unicode characters is split between the current username policy, the signature guidelines and Help:Preferences. I wonder how it could be improved. There seems to be a lot of duplicated content with slightly different presentations in each case and a degree of inconsistency. Has anybody else noticed it? I think it could even be a bit confusing and overwhelming for newcomers (the prose is very long and dense). Is it something we could address as part of revising and updating the username policy? - Neparis 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's only there because of cognitive dissonance. When the username policy was enforced in a way that blocked every username that confused a username reviewer in the slightest, yet they found out they had to allow non-Latin names, they responded by creating a pile of rules about how to use non-Latin names. I think the proper solution is to remove the instruction creep and chill out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy document exists to give guidance to users choosing names as well as to admins blocking (or not blocking) them. I suspect that it needs to say "non-english-language/non-latin names are explicitly allowed, although users choosing these names should be aware of some additional concerns, see some-other-page-not-sure-which". SamBC(talk) 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, non English usernames are a waste of time, even if redirects with English characters are created. In order to make changes to the policy, thorough consensus would have to be determined. Qst 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal tastes, whether to allow non-English usernames isn't an issue for the English Wikipedia to decide. It has been decided by the developers that usernames must be portable between different projects, many of which are in other languages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A more moderate proposal

So I think the proposal I put forward gained some partial support but where it lacked support was primarily in that it went 100% towards treating username blocks as conduct issues, when others take the view that sometimes username blocks are not conduct blocks. I maintain the strong opinion that at least most of the time, username blocks should be conduct-related (even if the conduct was an honest mistake). So here's a different idea; the following is a list of changes I think are good ideas that don't go as far as the proposal. Also, the ideas are separate; once I get an idea what people like and don't like, I can make a draft that fits. Here are the changes:

1. Remove the "detailed examples" section. Rationale: most of the examples are either obvious and don't need mentioning, or have the serious potential to be misapplied. Also, since the 5 top-level reasons are the main thing anyway, the examples have been deprecated for a while now. All they are doing is supplying questionable "reasons" for WP:TW username reports. The exception: the ones under "misleading" do probably need to be spelled out specifically; those are hard to guess.
2. Bad idea usernames. Add the paragraph at User:Mangojuice/IU#Bad idea usernames. Rationale: if a username causes only minor trouble or no trouble to users other than the user with the name in question, we should not be forcing a change, in the interests of welcoming our volunteers and not biting the newbies.
3. Preemptive username blocks. Mention the practice of preemptively blocking users when we have good reason to believe they are here to cause trouble: trolling usernames, vandal pattern usernames, et cetera. Mention the distinction between this kind of block and an ordinary "inappropriate username" block: we should not mix the two up, because of WP:AGF.
4. Conduct-related disallowal. Mention that any block for a user's behavior can be extended to an indefinite block if the blocking admin feels that the user's choice of username is contributing to the problematic behavior; specifically mention WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:CIV/WP:NPA as examples. Such blocks are meant to, in addition to blocking the user, to disallow their username. We should make a new template for this kind of thing.
5. Wording of "offensive usernames." Offensive usernames that are blockable should "be expected to make harmonious editing nearly impossible." This is stronger wording that the current "likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible." Rationale: let's back off. A name that's only offensive enough to make it "likely" to make editing "difficult" is probably not offensive enough to deserve outright disallowing.
6. Wording of "promotional usernames." Add a requirement that the account be used to promote the company/group. Rationale: If they don't promote anything, it's really no big deal. Companies may have legitimate editing purposes on Wikipedia (e.g. keeping articles on their company free of libel/defamation, and accurate) and WP:COI allows for editing with a conflict of interest, within narrow guidelines.

I think of points 3 and 4 as uncontroversial, merely additional documentation that already describes common practice. 2 is my favorite part of my previous proposal; I also think this meets the spirit of what Ryan proposed at #Overhaul. Points 1, 5, and 6 are the big changes. Comments? Mangojuice^talk 04:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support all of these. I'd like to draw particular attention to #6, because it corrects a situation where our current policy is arbitrary and nonsensical. It makes no sense that we ask people with names that state their potential conflicts of interest up front to disguise themselves. It also makes no sense to consider an e-mail address "promotional" instead of simply a bad idea. What can you promote with an e-mail address besides getting yourself spammed? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of #6, doesn't a company-based username create other problems? It's supposed to be a single person per account right, with special dispensation for the one single group account (I remember reading this somewhere). So User:Taco Bell's edits might appear to be representative of the company as a whole, or a company account, not an individual fan. However, I think some modification to this section is appropriate, and certainly we can't fault users for being up-front about potential COI. And a user's name which mentions a company but doesn't appear to BE the company or a company account should be fine, like User:TacoBellisYummy or User:JoeTacoBell or something like that. Potential COI shouldn't be a reason for blocking, wait til edit is ok for dealing with that issue. But if a username purports to be a representative of a company, or the company itself, I think that's still problematic. My concerns about notable company names are similar to that of celebrity names, more misleading than promotional. Perhaps company names could be added to misleading and removed from promotional? And yeah, not sure where the email-as-username fits in with that. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should probably make it clearer that accounts are for individuals, not groups. However, even when someone picks a name that sounds like they are a group, we don't typically block for that unless it actually seems that a group is using the account. Also, on the misleading thing: I would have a problem with someone claiming to be an official representative of a company if that wasn't true. But merely using the company's name as their username doesn't imply that. Also, I just don't see the same potential for abuse: no one would think that User:Taco Bell is Taco Bell, whereas people might think that User:Britney Spears is Britney Spears. Mangojuice^talk 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Most accounts named after a group are used by a single person (such as a communications officer for a company). Sometimes these accounts cause a conflict of interest and get blocked. Other times, they carefully discuss and correct misinformation, the way they're supposed to. It's an extreme assumption of bad faith to block them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Extreme assumption of bad faith" is a little strong wording, rspeer. I never said that company usernames were intentionally created to mislead or harm the encyclopedia. But by their very nature, they are misleading, in that they imply that a corporation and not an individual is behind the edits. I do not share Mangojuice's assurance that notable company names aren't misleading and confusing. But yes, making it clearer in the first place that accounts are for individuals would help. I support changes which will prevent problematic usernames from being created by well meaning users by making our guidelines clearer up front, instead of UAA or RFCN or a later process dealing with it. (I haven't thought about the other proposed points, but I'll comment on them too.)

To get consensus on these proposals, we need to hear from many, many more voices. We can do our part to encourage this participation by treating all users and their ideas with respect, by observing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL even more carefully. Discussion is notoriously difficult and treacherous in this medium already. Let's make absolutely sure in our noble quest to reform this policy that no one is inadvertently attacked or intimidated. Let's be sure not to label other users' ideas as "ridiculous" or with other such unnecessarily harsh language. Just some words of encouragement for our constructive dialogue, and I do hope to see more editors of all opinions commenting on this proposal. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my wording was a bit strong. But that wasn't directed at you, by the way; ever since I encountered it a few months ago, the username policy (and the conventions that have grown around enforcing it) has struck me as extreme (as in, much more restrictive than nearly anywhere else on the Internet) and involving frequent assumptions of bad faith.

Back on this topic, I don't consider group names particularly misleading unless they're used for impersonation. If they make you think the views of one Wikipedia editor within a company represent the views of the company, that's bad for the company, not for Wikipedia. They tend to have big legal disclaimers that try to avoid that kind of thing. The only group names we need to avoid are things which are trying to advertise their very existence, like an SEO company run out of someone's basement. Yes, sometimes it's hard to tell, but the old policy was applied too broadly -- I don't think the United Nations Evaluation Group had any malicious intent, for example.

Despite my strong wording, I don't consider this one of the more important parts of the policy. I only said "extreme" because dealing with minor problems by blocking always strikes me as extreme. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, more broadly about the proposal. I especially like point 4, and upon further clarification of that, I will support points 2-5. For example, offensive usernames. For the blatant-but-not-egregious (or "bad idea") category, would this lead to an indefinite block after a single edit of vandalism (i.e., we're tipped over the edge to assume bad faith)? Normally it would be around four edits/warnings if the username is not problematic. I don't agree with point 1, but I would support trimming down examples and placing less emphasis on them. I'm all for emphasizing conduct in blocking, but let's make sure it's clear when a username block requires an editing component and how much assuming good faith/concern about biting plays a role in blocks for each of the 5 categories. Mango, could you give some examples of non-offensive username violations that you would envision being blocked before the user edits, falling under the other 4 top-level reasons? And for point 6, I agree we need editing evidence to be a promotional/COI username, but I still think company names and those implying an official position are misleading. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Bad idea names: No, the test would be whether the username is part of a problem or not. So, User:MoreGunsinSchools should not face an indef block for violating WP:3RR, but might, if they were trolling on Columbine High School massacre. (2) Examples - surely, we can lose a lot of the examples. For instance "Usernames that are attacks on specific users." are obviously disruptive, no need to mention it; while "Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." is vague and unnecessary. I would like to hear which examples you and others think are essential and why. (3) Blocks before the user edits: Confusing - I have no examples, I doubt it's ever necessary at all. Misleading - User:BureaucratJoe or something like that. Disruptive - User:Mangojuiceisgay, or other obvious trolling, etc. (though point #3 could be used instead). Promotional - User:Get Vi@gara NOW!!! and save - username itself is spam. (4) Point 6 - I think, if a blocking admin shares your concern that such a username is misleading, they'll still be able to block underthe policy. My own interpretation is that I don't share that concern without any specific actions. But that isn't going to be written into the policy. Mangojuice^talk 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For examples: I think they serve an illustrative purpose for both UAA-reporting types and users with potentially bad names, so that they have concrete examples of what's ok and not ok. If we're worried about promoting nitpicky username reporting, maybe the examples could go on a different page (e.g., a friendly username guideline page directed at newbies), or we could give a few specific username examples, to convey the meaning of the 5 points, but not to act as sub-points. Since you can't think of confusing usernames offhand, I think it's even more important to have some examples. And thanks for the clarification about point 4, but could you say how vandalism might fit in, if at all? ~Eliz81^(C) 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I would interpret vandalism as it relates to point 4. If someone was vandalizing and had a name like "Poopmeister" or such, where you can strongly suspect that they are here for no good, I would indef-block in pretty short order; probably about when I would issue a first vandalism block. Mangojuice^talk 01:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean first vandalism warning, not block? If so, I agree, and support 2-5, with openness to some of the spirit of 1 and 6 if tweaked. Seems like a good way to deal with less egregiously offensive names. And maybe it'll help deter the username creation trolls. ~Eliz81^(C) 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean block, but that doesn't mean I would necessarily wait for warnings first. Mangojuice^talk 11:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with spammers and accounts is a greater issue than just the username policy. Our current policy on role accounts is that the only one allowed is Schwartz PR. We are getting hundreds of spammers a day making spam articles about themselves and using their user pages as adverts. I don't think being nice to them is the way forward. However our current policy that says we get them to rename is also broken - we don't want spammers even if they are pretending not to be. Secretlondon 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with spammers is the pages they create about their products, not their usernames. Unless they're going around making tiny edits everywhere with a name such as "b3stRX - www.example.com". Dan Beale-Cocks 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to disallow role accounts. But preemptive blocks on users because their username vaguely implies they might be role accounts aren't the right way to disallow them. It's also not a particularly urgent issue, compared to more easily-detectable problems like COI and spam. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mangojuice for this - it looks good and I certainly support it. --Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also support these changes, and I add something for consideration in a separate subsection below. NikoSilver 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cherry topping

How about we never block anyone for just their name? How? Simply, with the help of the developers, to introduce a forced name change procedure, to temporary numbered generic usernames (e.g. "User:Temp00001", "User:Temp00002" etc), and this to be able to be done by admins also (aside from bureaucrats whose increased status secures mostly that the new username requested in WP:CHU is not taken or otherwise offensive -which can never be the case for a standard automatic temp name). The help of the developers is only needed so that the automated procedure is programmed, so that it can be done by admins, and so that the user in question be able to login under their previous login and password, and be able to see a boilerplate on top of their screen to warn them of the change (hell, if it can be done for donations to WP, it certainly can be done for those users too). This way, we let the "bad" username holder login without penalizing them, and we also prevent their "bad" username from polluting our history pages. Thoughts? NikoSilver 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would only support that in extreme cases, like if someone put another person's personal information in their username. If we do it too often, people will just end up using those temp names to edit, which would be bad because that would be very confusing. Mangojuice^talk 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably I didn't stress "temporary" too much. I mean with a date of expiry (maybe related to their first subsequent edit also), after which it is blocked, much like we do now. NikoSilver 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposal, but I can't imagine that it would help in enough cases to justify the extra process. Also, it's DOA because it requires the developers to make a big change to possibly benefit one small aspect of Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough developers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea, we could reserve username blocks for bad faith users only and rename the rest. However it will add to the 'crat backlog. 1 != 2 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Username warnings?

Mangojuice, I notice that your proposal outline does not mention username warnings anywhere in it. Do you intend for "disallow" to mean "block", or do you intend it to mean "warn or block as appropriate"?

I would actually be okay with phasing out username warnings, as long as the policy is written so that it only covers names that actually need to be blocked. For example, if something about "confusing usernames" comes back into the policy, I would insist on keeping username warnings around, as most usernames deemed "confusing" are not so intolerable that they need to be blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly inappropriete names

I recently received a notice questioning the point in reporting usernames that never had edited [1]. From my understanding, there wouldn't be any point in reporting borderline names, but names that are totally unacceptable get blocked on sight regardless of edits[2] [3] [4], etc. It also doesn't state that the accounts have to have edited on WP:UAA. So what I'm asking is if an account never made an edit, and the name is totally unacceptable, should I not report it?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with those reports is that the names are old usernames that have never edited and are never going to. The point of a block is to prevent someone from continuing to edit; if they're not going to edit anyway, why draw attention to their despicable name by requesting a block? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You make excellent points. Blocks are to prevent, not to punish. And two, it's important to deny recognition. I now understand why not to report any username under these circumstances.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for DENY but forgot the name of it. That's very useful to refer to.

Incidentally, I'd like to clarify a part of this that I think affects the reform discussion above. Although the purpose of a block is to prevent and not to punish, new users don't know that. Any newbie who sees a big red box that says "You have been blocked from editing" will interpret it as a punishment. This is a big part of the reason we need to be careful with blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I see no harm in these reports and the potential to prevent sleeper accounts being used later to edit semi-protected articles with racist names. Good job, keep it up as far as I am concerned. If it is decided that these reports should not be reported here, I will make a subpage in my userpsace where you can report them. 1 != 2 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, really, deny recognition. Don't make a Racist Username Hall of Fame in your userspace. I don't think the problem you're hypothesizing actually exists, as an attention-getting username would kind of defeat the purpose of a sleeper account. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear to me. Care to make a note regarding this matter on WP:U#Inappropriate usernames?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the extra instructions are particularly necessary, as this is covered enough by other policies like WP:DENY. Also, we're talking about replacing IU anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

English user name does not work for the Chinese version of Wikepedia??

Hi there, does anyone here know why my English user name does not work when I try to edit the Chinese version of Wikipedia? I wanted to insert a sign but couldn't do it because the system does not recognized my English account. In other words, I couldn't log in and the entry I was trying to edit, because it is semi-protected, requires users to log in.

Thank you for your explanation in advance. Arctura 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)