Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Doppelganger?

How the heck does a doppelganger account prevent impersonation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unknown Hitchhiker (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't do much, it just prevents that particular username from being registered by someone else. Mangojuice^talk 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but having another account doesn't really prevent the username from being registered by someone else. It's just an account...right? O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, once an account has been registered, no one else can choose the same username. Mangojuice^talk 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it could prevent confusion by keeping anyone else from taking on a deceptively similar name. For instance, The Unknown Hitchhiker at a glance could be impostured by The Unknown Hitch Hiker. MMMMMMMM (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia in username

I know I've seen this issue addressed somewhere, but are there ever cases where the full word "Wikipedia" is allowed in a username/sig? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine so long as it doesn't tend to imply some kind of special authority. However, the use of "Wikipedia" would very often do this, even unintentionally. Consider User:Wikipedia Editor -- to those familiar, this is just another term for a user, but to someone unfamiliar it may sound like the person is the editor of Wikipedia. There are certainly examples that are non-problematic, for instance User:JoeOnWikipedia or User:HappyWikipedian or such. But I do seem to remember that someone higher up (Jimbo? or the WMF?) had insisted that "Wikipedia" not be included in usernames. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I too thought there was more discussion on this somewhere. I went looking for it when I found WikiPediaAid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but so far haven't found the discussion. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin, Sysop, Bot, Script

We seem to be seeing a lot of "XXXadmin" and "XXXbot" accounts at UAA. Wouldn't it be simpler to just block automatic creation of them in the registration process and direct people to WP:ACC when they try to register them, the same as with usernames too similar to others (or if the user can't use CAPTCHA)? The only real burden would be that real bot accounts would have to be approved via WP:ACC but that's a relatively rare occurrence compared with all the XXXadmin and XXXbot stuff we see here. Who should we approach with that as a proposal for the developers? --MCB (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We could use the MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist. I note that "Admin" is already a rule there but perhaps it could stand debugging. I don't know about using it for Bots -- there's no way to circumvent the username blacklist without an admin's help (but usernames admins create are exempt.) Plus, a regular expression with "bot" will be prone to false positives. Mangojuice^talk 05:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I see that Admin (etc.) are already there, but a number of the regexes look broken. I'll post on the talk page, maybe someone groks the intricacies of Mediawiki regex syntax better than I do. --MCB (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Specification of violation

I think we should add into the policy that admins are expect to specify to a user, when blocking for a username violation, exactly which violation they have been blocked for. We can't expect new users to be mind readers, or expect to help them to understand the username policy. Educating these users will help them to create a more appropriate username in the future. {{UsernameBlocked}} isn't the most helpful in giving a user an exact reason for being blocked and exact reasons would certainly help blocked users. This would obviously only apply to usernames created in good faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree, and I just added that to the instructions for admins in the WP:UAA header, which now includes the language "Be sure to specify the reason for the block, using the "reason=" field of the template, and cite the specific reason in the block log as well." That strikes me as the place to put it, rather than WP:U itself, although it could be mentioned there as well. --MCB (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that it should go into the WP:UAA header, but I think that it should be clearly stated in the policy as well so admins know they are expected to give the specific reason to a user that has been blocked. It's in line with other kinds of blocks - if an admin used a generic reason and templated "disruptive editing" for every editor that acted disruptively (3RR, vandalism, trolling, incivility) it wouldn't be appropriate because it doesn't explain to the editor exactly what they've done wrong - I don't see what's different with WP:U. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the usernames were created in good faith, why again are we blocking them without discussion? I do think that it's a good idea to give a reason in the template, though. It can help to clarify the borderline cases. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the evidence suggests an account is bad faith, it's still only fair to actually tell people in what way it isn't allowed, partly because we could be wrong about the bad faith, and partly because it's generally considered fair. SamBC(talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The default message says the concern is that the username may not be appropriate. I think in a lot of cases, the user would be well aware of what's inappropriate about the name.. but certainly when the issue is something obscure like "bot" or "admin" in the name, or a company username, it needs to be explained. But I see no reason why we can't template, we just maybe need to refine our templates a little. We have {{spamusername}} which suffices for most promotional username blocks. And we could make {{botusername}} and {{adminusername}} which will handle those more unusual cases.. any other common situations we should consider? Mangojuice^talk 13:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, we could just as well write a few words to make clear what part of this policy the username is violating. There's the big field of "confusing" usernames where an explanation would be very helpful (Username too long, made up of random characters, made up of confusing characters, made up of repeating characters, etc.). We could create a template for all these cases, of course, but I don't really see the point in it. Neither do I see the point in creating a general "confusingusername"-template telling the user that his name is confusing, without actually telling him what about his name is confusing. --Conti|✉ 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. However, with templates and block-reason drop-downs, admins are just not listening to little reminders to be informative. If we want to improve this, making templates is the way to go. Not ideal, but people will get used to it and use it. (As for confusing usernames, I feel such usernames should never be blocked without prior discussion... so any block that is appropriate will be one where the user has already heard what is wrong with the name.) Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish admins would listen to little reminders. They're supposed to, after all. But I suppose having a few more drop-down block-reasons can't hurt. I agree with you about confusing usernames, by the way. --Conti|✉ 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think admins would pay more attention if more of them did unblock reviews: then you get to see the consequences of poor block summaries, both to other admins and to the blocked user. But I think a lot of admins have a police mentality, where they worry more about processing as many violations as possible rather than doing them right. Mangojuice^talk 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Given that there only seems to be support for this, I've added it into the policy - please feel free to copyedit it. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiding usernames from the user list

There is a discussion currently underway on meta with a view to requesting that the developers allow the hiding of usernames from Special:Listusers - see Metapub discussion. As many will be aware, the user list contains a large number of obscene names some of which are particularly aimed at attacking contributors. At the moment there is little we can do about them, as renaming them simply moves the problematic content from the list of users to the rename log. Hiding them on the user list would be a good way to stop the use of abusive names to bully and harass users and is a change I am very much in favour of. If this issue is of interest to you, please take the time to visit that discussion and express an opinion. WjBscribe 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WebTrain company name in username

User Gary WebTrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently began editing Wikipedia with the primary intention of gaining exposure for his company on Wikipedia.

His articles have so far been deleted three times (see WebTrain Communications and WebTrain deletion logs) as per the blatant advertising WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criterion and the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy.

He has been sporadically re-writing his article on his main user page, a problematic issue which has been questioned on User talk:Athaenara#Deletion discussions and, today, on Wikipedia talk:User page#WebTrain company article in userspace and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Gary WebTrain.

According to Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names the username is not specifically prohibited but is "not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." Should it be proposed that this user with a strong conflict of interest change the username? — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I beleive a change in username is appropriate--Matilda ^talk 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it doesn't particularly matter if his intent is only to get the article on his userpage to a passing level. If he does start editing outward, a change is probably imperative. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we're giving him the benefit of the doubt by letting him build up an article in user space, because he says he's trying to get an article written to Wikipedia standards. So I would assume good faith, even though spammers also like to build articles in their userspace. If he goes away without bringing the article up to our standards, we should delete it. Given the situation, I think the username is fine. It identifies the user and the conflict of interest, and it's not blatantly promotional. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doppelganger question

Out of curiosity, is it acceptable to create a doppelganger account as a preemptive measure, or must there be signs or a history of vandalism against a user first? --.:Alex:. 12:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, anyone can create a doppelganger - you should clearly state that it is your doppelganger though on your userpage. I've got one; User:Mclovin. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Company/group

I've come across a somewhat disruptive editor, Go-here.nl (talk · contribs), who has named their account to be the url of a web site that they are apparently involved with. When it was suggested that it wasn't appropriate, the response was a wikilawyering style of behaviour, as can be noted on their talk page. They pointed out that the username policy doesn't explicitly specify that a website name is not permitted, although I would have interpreted it as being covered by "Company/group". Should we perhaps look at explicitly including "website" in the policy? --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also interpret it that way, and so would most of us. It's probably best not to include the explicit wording: no need to play into an unsuccessful Wikilawyer's world view. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be disruptive. If the rules state I cant have this user name I want to see it.

• 1 - terminate the account immediately!
• 2 - quotate the exact rule dis allowing the username.

That is what the page says? no? Go-here.nl (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)