Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Clerk election

User:1234r00t is our first candidate for clerkship in this section at WT:UAA. Please vote if you're familiar with the candidate's work (or willing to get familiar), and please watchlist either WP:UAA or WP:Clerking for future candidates. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a pointer: WT:UAA#Message in User Reported section, in particular the last comment. I'm wondering if the method WP:MILHIST uses to elect coordinators would work for clerks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Video

I'm not sure that it adds much to the policy. It seems like PR fluff. Gigs (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I can totally see some of those usernames getting blocked as a username policy violation. --Conti|✉ 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional/Misleading question

Promotional is in the eye of the *general* population, but Misleading may be for a *subset*, right? Consider the following Scenario. Delta Gamma Delta Social Fraternity was founded in 1890, part of its history is that what brought the brothers together was defending the honor of the women of Mu Mu Pi Sorority. This is both mentioned in the ritual (so every brother knows), but is also in the public history which exists both on Delta Gamma Delta website *and* on the Delta Gamma Delta wikipedia page (It is in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, so there *is* a Secondary Source). However, Mu Mu Pi merged with another sorority in 1896 and took the name of that sorority so it no longer exists.

Delta_Gamma_Delta_Brother would be an inappropriate username because it is promotional, but my question is about Mu_Mu_Pi_Defender. *Any* Delta Gamma Delta brother would assume that someone with a username of Mu_Mu_Pi_Defender is a brother of DGD. Is Mu_Mu_Pi_Defender an acceptable username if it is held by a DGD brother or would that be Promotional? If that is acceptable, what if it is taken as a username by someone who is *not* a DGD brother, would that be unacceptable due to it being Misleading?Naraht (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think DGD_Brother is promotional. Fraternities aren't really selling anything. If someone defines themselves in terms of their affiliation with that group, that's their business. It's like "USAF_Bob" would probably be fine, we wouldn't block them for promoting the air force. A lot of it goes to the intent of the account in my mind, but this isn't universally accepted. Gigs (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, DGD_Brother isn't misleading, in that it states the individual's affiliation with the group only in a weak sense. Assume that, according to the article, the head of the national chapter is the Grand Poobah. DGD_Grand_Poobah or DGD_Webmaster would run afoul of the username guidelines because they imply the user is speaking in an official capacity (unless the individual is verified as such, and then the conflict of interest remains). Official_DGD would be outright misleading, and naming the account Delta_Gamma_Delta would be covered already under the restriction against organization names as usernames.

As for the promotional aspect, even though fraternities aren't selling anything, I would argue that Rush_DGD is a promotional username and could be blocked as such, especially if that user started making a number of POV edits to the DGD article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall I consider company/organizational that are not promotional to be misleading because it gives the appearance that the account represents a group/organization/company rather than an individual (relevant wording in the policy being "Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name; see Sharing accounts below." and "User accounts can only represent individuals.") Because these usernames are phrased the way they are, they show that the account represents an individual, so aren't misleading, and they don't appear to be inherently promotional. They seem fine to me. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about a user name of DeltaGammaDeltaSoc? Is that promotional/misleading? In this case the account is for a person who is the national webmaster for Delta Gamma Delta, a volunteer position, but a position where the position is determined by the elected fraternity officers.Naraht (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would almost say that's a misleading username, because I would interpret it as "Delta Gamma Delta Society", and thus appears to represent a group... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To your earlier example, I agree that Rush_DGD could be promotional. If a username says "My name is Bob and I am a common member of foo group" then that's one thing. If it implies "I represent foo group" then that's bad, and if it implies "Go out and buy/join/donate/support foo group" then that's bad as well. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional? Offensive? Not quite either...

I've just come across Jesusmessiahsaves (talk · contribs). I'm not a regular UAA visitor or and don't consider myself well-versed in the username guidelines, though I have read them, so I thought I'd bring the issue here. This username strikes me as worthy of discussion. My first thought was that it seems vaguely like proselytizing, which in turn is vaguely promotional ("Yay Jesus! Go team Christianity!"). My second thought, which may be reaching, was that its inherent assertion could strike some users as offensive ("Jesus saves, you say? False! Allah saves!") and that if we had a user named along the same lines, say, "JesusDoesn'tExist" or "TheDevilWillEatYourSoul", eyebrows would probably be raised.

The user appears (in their whole two edits) to be operating in good faith and I am hesitant to go on and warn them of anything about their name in case I'm just slightly crazy. So, opinions? Do others think that this username may pose problems and/or fall under any of the categories that would indicate the user should be asked to choose a new name? Or am I being overly-cautious? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chances are those are the only 4 edits they'll ever make. If I were concerned about it, I'd check the account again in a couple weeks to see if they ever became active. If not, problem solved. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Wikipedia:Username policy#Non-English usernames

I would like to add "You my request a change of Username Here." to the end of that section Not sure on consensus so opening discussion here. Thoughts ? Mlpearc powwow 01:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Further thought, this is just an ease of navigation. This does not change the policy in any way. Mlpearc powwow 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont' think that is necessary, and I personally think it may confuse users to provide a link to changing username after the rest of that paragraph which basically states that non-English names are fine, with caveats on signatures. The link to WP:CHU is already provided in this section.  7  02:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Sock" or "Sock Puppet" in usernames

Should alternative account usernames be allowed to include "Sock" in a tongue in cheek way? I feel that this is a bad idea because when seeing a username that signifies a violation of policy, users will feel compelled to investigate. This sort of false positive leads to needless wasting of time, and potential confusion. In general we do not allow usernames that suggest the account is used for violating Wikipedia site policies (e.g. User:Vandal). My understanding of WP:SOCK is that there are legitimate, alternative accounts, and there are prohibited sock puppet accounts. I believe there is no such thing as a legitimate sock. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a harmless bit of humor to me. Don't see any reason to prohibit this. Thparkth (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as the username and/or user page clearly indicate who the original user is (which is required anyhow), I don't see a problem. --Conti|✉ 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When a username pops up on my watchlist like "The Bad Sock" or "Pushing My POV", that is a red flag that makes me look closely at their edits. This is not harmless fun. It is disrespectful of other editors to create the appearance of wrongdoing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between just using the word "sock" (User:XYZ's sock) and indicating bad faith/disruption (User:The Bad Sock). The latter could be disruptive. But, generally speaking, if you click on the username, read the user page that says "I'm actually User:XYZ", then 3 seconds of time haven been wasted. I think we can live with that. :) --Conti|✉ 14:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to accept whatever the result of the discussion is. If I'm in the minority, I'll live with it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including "sock" as part of a username when used to indicate the account is a sock of another user. Sock puppet accounts are allowed, as you stated, for legitimate alternate accounts. Identifying the account as that sock account seems perfectly acceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really turns on whether someone reads "Sock" as "Abusive sock". Not everyone seems to. –xeno^talk 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Users should really be judged by their contributions rather than their username. Also, genuine abusive sockpuppets are highly unlikely to be called User:Sock, User:BadSock or anything similar. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 259° 38' 30" NET 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)