Wikipedia talk:Username policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Non-bots with[edit]

Lots of usernames with "bot" are not bots, either because the creator meant to have them marked as bots and never did (e.g. ThreeBot), or because they were formerly bots and aren't anymore. These accounts are technically prohibited by our current wording, Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type, since they're not of that type, but of course we're not going to block a "bot" username just because it's not yet approved. Anyone object to my clarification of the wording? Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I can live with it, :) Mlpearc (open channel) 04:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Being a bot doesn't necessarily mean you have a bot flag. Some bots are asked to edit without a flag by the Bot Approvals Group, normally because their edits are something that a human would want to be told about. Others are inactive, but the account still isn't being used for non-bot edits; it just isn't being used at all. For instance, my bot User:Bot523 is retired (and had the flag removed to avoid potential issues if the account gets hacked), but looking at its contributions, I seriously doubt that anyone would consider the account to be anything other than a bot. --ais523 05:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If you find an acount ending with "bot" which you believe is currently being used by a human being, feel free to discuss it with the user and, if no agreement is reached, report it to WP:RFCN. Any account with no activity should be ignored. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I just ran into a similar issue where I was disallowed the name "HotnBOThered" for a bot testing account because the bot was not approved yet (nor likely to be, since it's strictly intended for testing on a mature wiki that has significant data and the latest MW release). WP:BOTAPPROVAL specifically allows for bots to do limited testing, provided that no edits are made outside designated areas (see paragraph starting with "Operators may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval..."). If an account will only ever be used by a bot, whether or not it's approved and has the bot flag, it seems to me that it should be marked as such in some way. Doing so by the name itself seems preferable to me than an explanation of a second account on the bot's talk page. Neither the wording on the page, nor the suggested clarification allow for this scenario, though. RobinHood70 talk 15:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is very clear on the matter, "If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved." (underlining mine). Reading through the instructions for creating a bot, section 1 bullet 3 says, "You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)". That is the proper way to do it. I see no reason to change the wording to include "intend", one of the most ambiguous words I know for The road to hell is paved with good intentions... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, though? Generally speaking, bots should be tested before they're approved. Sure, you can use your own account, but that brings SUL issues into play (like getting logged out by the bot, then making an edit, nominally with your "real" account, not thinking that you've been logged out), not to mention the possibility that a user might have elevated rights over what their bot would have, meaning that testing could be imperfect. Similarly, you can make test edits on other wikis better designed for that sort of thing or on your own testing wikis, but again, these don't fully replicate being on Wikipedia itself.
Of course, your quote brings up an inherent contradiction between two pages. According to WP:BOTAPPROVAL, as I cited above, you can carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval under any account, yet the policy you quoted says that any bot must first be approved. This portion of the discussion is probably best off being moved to one of those talk pages, however. RobinHood70 talk 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning for real name/impersonation[edit]

For WP:REALNAME, is there a user warning template that I don't see that kindly requests the user to disclose their identity/affiliation with the famous person? Or is the best route to report at UAA with a request to use {{Uw-ublock-famous}}? This route for this is a little vague as written in the current policy. czar  23:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As I read it, in order to avoid mischief, the policy is to block with the template you reference. If it's really them (and not just somebody affiliated with them), they can then follow the procedures offered under the block template message. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, because the thing potentially valuable contributors really love is following obscure directions because you blocked them first and asked questions later. I hope there are still other people left on Wikipedia who think this is insane. rspεεr (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense to block immediately because of the obvious potential for serious BLP issues. The directions are hardly obscure but if you think they are then feel free to make them clearer. Sam Walton (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: You have no recollection of what the experience of a new user is like, do you? You should perhaps do a thought experiment: if you're a new user who's been username blocked, and you know zero Wikipedia policies, what do you need to do next? I want you to write down every link they would have to click, and every sentence they'd have to read, before they were able to edit again. Tell me if you still think this is simple when you're done.
So, changing the directions does not fix the problem. Changing the thing that happens is the only fix. This is Wikipedia's problem, where it needs to stop encouraging difficult and actively hostile user experiences. rspεεr (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The block template in question, Template:Uw-ublock-famous, is fairly straightforward in my opinion. There are three options:
  • If you are the person in question then you send an email, hardly an arduous task.
  • If not and you don't mind losing track of current contribs you can create a new account, something the user will have already done.
  • The hardest option involves copying some text ({{unblock-un|your new username here}}) clicking the blue link to go to your talk page, and changing "your new username here" to your requested username.
I think the first two options are perfectly simple, and the third, if anything, could be improved with some better wording. Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you're skipping steps, such as even getting to the point of seeing that message. Are there statistics on how many people actually get unblocked through requesting an unblock using a template (by the way, there's no way to make templates make sense to new users), or through e-mail? I bet the most commonly chosen options are none of those: they're (1) give up, or (2) register again. rspεεr (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If users aren't going to follow the steps in a block template then they're not going to follow the steps in a warning template surely? Sam Walton (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015[edit] (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 17:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015[edit] (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)