Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 6

message: Boring procedural note- I see that this page is now very long. Do others agree that having a Bot work on archiving it would be a good idea? Perhaps all threads older than 7 days to be archived? WjBscribe 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A week is good.  I see too many places that use 24 hours, which is too short.  And 'automatic' is good... Shenme 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, autoarchiving is good, and a week is a good time limit.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 7 days sounds good. Clear out the cobwebs. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a template then... WjBscribe 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I've brought this up for discussion, as it's something I found out about today when welcoming a user.
I discovered  when RC-patrolling today, and this user's name broke the  template when I left a note on his talk page.
It doesn't seem to break the  template:
 but it breaks the welcomeg template.
Anyone else here think that the exclamation mark character should be disallowed in usernames, like the @ symbol is?? --sunstar nettalk 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally think that most special characters should not be allowed. If they want to have a bunch of !!!!'s in their signature then go ahead. I think it's destracting to have a bunch of ?<>!@#$%^&*()-+ in someone's username. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 13:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears the @ symbol is used as part of backend syntax... CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Proposed_amendment for more discussion on related matters. The @ sign was disabled to stop e-mail addresses in usernames, not for technical reasons(as far as I know). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, the problem with  is fixed. The name no longer looks bad. Tell me if you encounter any other such problem. Thanks! -- Ben TALK/HIST 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User names with exclamation mark character 

message: What about usernames like "Anytopic expert"? I didn't find an appropriate section in the policy, but I tend to believe that such usernames are likely to offend other users who may feel like experts on the topic themselves, and to bite newbies who may be discouraged by such an immediate display of over-confidence. After all, how are you going to convince someone who has the expert written in his username? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inappropriate to give an "expert" any sort of special treatment on Wikipedia, WP:V applies just as much to Stephen Hawking as me. I see no reason to prohibit such names. As for other experts getting offended at a person claiming to be an expert, well, I don't think we can always spare the feelings of the most sensitive. Has there been any problems with this type of name already? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "expert" 

message: Hi, User:Hillsong church is entering various negative POV items on Hillsong related pages, and is clearly not representing the church. They also entered defamatory information on the Bobbie Houston page, which I have warned the user about. I was going to add the  tag to his page but I'm not actually sure which part of the policy covers this, if any. I am assuming it would be considered inappropriate for anyone to sign themselves up with a username apparently representing any organisation or person (trademarked or otherwise) and then carry out actions like this. Any guidance appreciated - thanks! Halsteadk 12:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usernames that promote a company: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement. MaxSem 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation of organisation 

message: Are obfuscated e-mail addresses like "NobodyAtExampleDotCom" disallowed also?  The policy is unclear on this: it just states that usernames containing '@' are rejected by the MediaWiki software, apparently due to spam concerns. If this is the case, can we amend the policy to also say "Usernames that are not literal e-mail addresses but clearly convey one (such as "NobodyAtExampleDotCom") are also disallowed."? I bring this up because I noticed such a name get blocked. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obfuscated e-mail addresses disallowed? 

message: Should the policy about names of notabile people read "Well-known" or notabile since policy dictates not to equate the two?  Also does this apply to fictional characters?  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not deciding if we should build an article for them, but if we should let people use their names. We should have different, lower, standards of fame for simply protecting someone's name. WP:N which you refer to is about a persons worthiness of encyclopedic mention, which is unrelated to usernames. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question comes as what consitutes proof that User:John Doe or John Doe? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Usually we e-mail the person using an official contact number from a pre-existing official website. So if it was an actor we would confirm it through their agent or official e-mail address. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notibility vs. fame 

message: User:Alison just posted here that by some definitions, defecation is technically not excretion. Perhaps we should try something along the lines of Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or bodily functions, including defecation, urination, and vomiting. Similar to an earlier suggestion, removes the word "excretory", which caused our problem. We definitely need more discussion on this. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The newer suggestion definately provides a more consise definition, and prevents most toilet humor that is not appropriet for this type of community. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the spirit of the policy to stop people from creating disruption via their usernames by forcing people to type in what they considered curse-words and whatnot, creating physical discomfort because they were being essentially forced to dwell on scatological topics?  Or was it to stop a fart joke?  I'm thinking some variant of the former, because Farty McGee doesn't seem to be the type of username that will "bring disrepute" onto the project (to paraphrase an argument I've heard recently in this discussion) or something that will cause mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc on the project.  That's the username that sparked this conversation here, and I think a little perspective is needed.  We're arguing about policy creep, and in an area that doesn't seem to need changing.  If someone names themselves User:ShitFilledToilet, then they're zapped.  But a username that makes a silly 2nd grade joke because it uses 'fart' in the name?  It seems like unnecessary policy sharpening that doesn't serve the interest of the project.  Either way, community consensus is what's important here, and it seems increasingly clear to me that a small, vocal group is currently best represented in this thread and, through effective communication, they have created the appearance of a widespread community consensus when I suspect that may not be true.  Before the changes to WP:U proposed are made, I hope we can get some more time to widen the net to make sure that the proposed changes actually meet the wishes of the editors. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that wider consensus should be reached before the policy is changed. RJASE1  Talk  15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Chairboy, what really is the difference between having a username that uses flatulence as part of a "silly second grade joke" and putting at the end of every post on a talk page "I Farted", which is also a "silly second grade joke". It may seem silly, it may seem stupid, but as I've stated elsewhere, I have to question the motivation of a user that insists to be refered to as a mechanism of toilet humor. This is not simply about flatulence and the term 'fart', 'farting', or 'farty', in direct reference to the name that sparked this conversation, it is about outlining certain forms of humor that are not appreciated in a community where the goal is to further knowledge. Just as walking into a board meeting in a company and using a fart joke is not appropriet, using one here I feel is equally inappropriet, as well as opening pandoras box for juvenile usernames of User:IPassGas or User:IFarted. If you look at a lot of the immature vandalism that goes on, it is simply inserting things like "Poop" or "I farted" into an article. That is what I'm looking at, not that it's "A harmless 2nd grade joke" that a few people might get a chuckle out of. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this changes everything.  The WP:U policy is specifically about the content of the usernames themselves.  If you're now arguing that you're just concerned about their motivations instead of the username itself, then you're essentially retracting your objection as it has no place in a WP:U discussion.  If the user is a vandal, then they'll be reverted and blocked as necessary.  Reading the motivation into the username is an exercise prone to failure at best, and in danger of punishing innocent people at worst. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was stating that I personally have to question the motivation... not that it needs to be written into policy. The rest of my argument still stands. Hope that clarifies things for you. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When did farting become obscene anyways? Must depend on who you are, because farts are funny in my family. Instead of saying "Excuse me", we all just laughed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 

message: Over a month ago a rewrite of this page was started at Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft, with the aim to clean up the page, remove redundancies, and clarify. This is not a change in actual policy, just in the wording. This has been discussed on the draft's talk page, as well as WP:LAP, WP:AN and the village pump, and is part of a general aim to keep our policies up to date and simple. If you see any problems, unclarities, or inadvertent changes, please edit the page and fix them. >Radiant< 09:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to make sure your draft reflects the current policy before replacing what we have. For example you re-added the prohibition on criminal names despite the consensus to remove it a few weeks ago. I support a re-write, but I have reverted until that re-write reflects the current set of rules. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm on further ivestigation it seems that was re-added some other time, I will return the draft for now and try to figure out when that modification came in. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scanning back over the last half year I am unable to find a version that does not contain this prohibition. That said I would not object to removing it; I have not seen it being a problem all that often. I think we have a MasterThiefGarrett somewhere, for instance. >Radiant< 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem with criminal names is that what constitutes a crime in one jurisdiction may not be a crime in others. Obviously murder is murder, but smoking marijuana (for example) isn't a crime everywhere. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised version 

message: There has been a lot of controversy over at WP:RFCN where a user name User:TortureIsWrong was allowed by consensus, however some still feel it violates the policy.  I think it would be important the following (or a similar clause) to the username policy to prevent such controversies in the future.
"Usernames that are not blatantly innapropriate (I.E., would not be blocked on site if reported to WP:AIV), are subject to community review at WP:RFCN.  These usernames, many of them in the "grey" area of policy, will be left to the interpretation and consensus of the community which in turn will be used to determine the appropriateness of said username and will be the final word in such decisions.
Any body strongly disagree with that wording (I am assuming alot of people will, but i feel it is important). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing policy gives clearance for debate in some areas and not others. I think it is fine as it is. We need structure or it turns into a "ilikeit" "idontlikeit" vote. Remember, RFCN is a request for comment, not a request for decision. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it is not black and white.  It is very rarley ilikeit or idontlike it.  It is mroe often, i dont interpret this as a violation of policy.  If there are many RFCNs that state, "Allow - I like it" I would be all for not allowing it.  Also, I feel that current consensus over a username trumps past consensus of the policys defintion.  I.E. if at the time, policy would have prevented a broad array of actions, a current consensus allows a small subset of the previously disallowed "range" of actions, the current consenus takes precedent, especially in situations where current consensus allows something that is in the smaller subset of the previous consensus. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)What in the end needs to happen is that we need to decide whether we're going to interperate usernames based on the "spirit" of the policy, which is open to a far greater range of interpretations, vs. the letter of the policy, which is consise and may be interpreted, but it is much more narrow than the spirit. Otherwise, why do we have the subpoints of the policy? If we're just going to go along by spirit, perhaps the policy should be a short two-sentence policy of "usernames found objectionable by the community are not allowed, usernames that are not objectionable by the community ARE allowed." Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, i feel we are trying to black and white things.  I am sure there are a large subset of names that everybody agrees should be disallowed.  and, most of these wont be the subject of a RFCN.  I think the policy is important, but perhaps needs clarification when prohibiting large subsets of things, such as reer to violence.  There are many many words that may refer to violence, have other meanings, etc etc and in short, that part of the policy is open to interpretation.  Where, sometimes it works well, and others it is not as clear.  I think we need to make sure that the policy does not assume taht things are not al;ways black and white, however sometimes are subject to human interpretation.  Otherwise, if it was all black and whtie, we could have a bot doing our username blocks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If a decision is made on specific policy with an understanding that it is going against the spirit (aka, the actual wishes of) the policy, then a mistake has been made.  I believe the sub-points are intended to assist in establishing a framework to make the decision, not to always be hard-points that can pierce an argument.  An admin acting on his/her own should find more usefulness in the subpoints than a community discussion like RFCN, which I hope would be attempting to find the actual intention/spirit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What I see here is an attempt to turn this into some sort of guideline that we can follow or not follow. It is important that this be a binding policy. What happens when somebody mentions an RFCN on ani, and 15 people who haven't even read the policy start voting? Well, either the policy discounts their votes, or for one day only we do something different at the whim of the flowing masses. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem lies in the fact that when we try to do too much open interpretation, we loose the ability to be fair and consistant. Two usernames that are similar in nature may, at this point, get different results on different days depending on who votes with that emotion. By strictly sticking to the letter of the policy, there is interpretation, but it is far more narrow and does not permit emotion-based/Spirit-based inconsistancies. Two names that contain the word torture, TortureIsWrong, and TortureIsOkaySometimes will most likely get two different results based on spirit. Doing it based off of the letter of the policy prevents the latter user from accusing anyone of POV violation, etc. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed clause 

message: It has been suggested to rename this to "account policy", since its scope is slightly broader than what its current title suggests. Thoughts please? >Radiant< 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of this policy is unrelated to usernames? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "using multiple accounts" section for example has not much to do with usernames. "Account policy" might be technically correct, but it also sounds kinda awkward. --Conti|✉ 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and also the parts on account sharing and account deletion. I'd be happy to consider other names. For instance, we could simply call it "user accounts". >Radiant< 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: User account policy? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought WP:SOCK dealt with the Multiple Account Policy??Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also partially covered here, and is being incorporated here to reduce confusion and redundancy, and make related issues more comprehensive. >Radiant< 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we proposing a merge into a single policy?Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes. See also WP:LAP. >Radiant< 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And also, 

message: I was just reading through the new username criteria and I think it is much more clear now than it was before. That said, I have one concern. The rewrite contains a section that prohibits long repetitions of the same character and apparently random strings of characters, however it does not seem to contain the prohibition against extremely lengthy usernames that existed before. Was there consensus to take this out? I recently brought  to WP:RFCN as an extremely lengthy username, but then going over the policy I was unable to find that clause that existed before. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the saying goes What looks good on paper doesn't always work the best in real life. I think that those working on the Draft version were looking to cut down on the clutter, they seem to have removed things that didn't need to be removed (isn't that a rewrite of policy). Not saying it was intentional, things happen. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's understandable, and as a whole the new version is much easier to navigate than before. I'd like to propose that a line reading something along the lines of "Are extremely lengthy" be added below the restriction against lengthy repetitions in the Misleading section, assuming there are no objections to this. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from the peanut gallery (myself). Considering it was in the origional version before v4/2/07 came around, I don't think it needs to go to a vote or anything. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We also lost the prohibition on trademarks - was that intentional? RJASE1  Talk  21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but it should probably be re-included. I have gone ahead and added span ids to the inappropriate username section, in order to allow the user of shortcuts again (like WP:U#Random and WP:U#Illness) that are common on WP:RFCN. If anyone should feel like it, please review the span ids I've added to make sure I chose span ids that fit the section they direct to appropriately. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I've replaced it. >Radiant< 08:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **I've removed it again, on second thought. The problem is that lots and lots of things are trademarks these days. For instance, fictional characters and movie titles (both a very fertile source of usernames) tend to be trademarked by their companies. >Radiant< 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree: trademarks don't need to be forbidden.  If a name is a trademark but it doesn't imply some kind of potential confusion about the user's role on Wikipedia, I don't see a problem, and I do agree that too many things are trademarked for us to need to prohibit all of them.  Spirit of the law is more important here.  Mangojuicetalk 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of the inappropriate username criteria 

message: Okay, do we have a blacklist for these?  We reached a point where otherwise reasonable names are blocked on sight because they have these words.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have, and "on wheels" is on it. I don't think the other two should be added, tho, otherwise we'll soon have every admins name on that list. --Conti|✉ 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy can be ok. Flyguy649talkcontribs 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion about this...click here!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Can't sleep..", "_Guy," and "_on Wheels" 

message: Do trademark restrictions apply to entities alone or products as well, like "Buick Century"? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the old policy, they didn't. User:Buick Century might possibly be disallowed because that is a tradmark, but not a fan-type name like yours. RJASE1  Talk  22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hm, come to think of it, I recall several other such names (like PepsiDrinker, for instance). It seems those are in good faith and should hardly be forbidden. But by present wording of policy they are; so it would be nice to fix this wording. >Radiant< 08:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademarks 

message: The username policy explicitly prohibits "random" usernames, this seems vague, because any username that has no meaning (like my username) would be considered "random letters". What's the exact meaning of it and what's the rationale behind it? Wooyi 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay I got it. Thanks. Someone else has also answered it in the talk page on RFCN. Wooyi 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I thought the policy was explicit about disallowing usernames that strongly embrace a controversial point of view (for instance, User:OutlawAbortion, or the likes).  This seems to have been lost in the recent rewriting.  Mangojuicetalk 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV usernames

message: Sorry for the foul language, but wtf. . An edit summary of "see talk" and there's NOTHING on the talk page supporting this? Nardman1 04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Revised version. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As well, the draft itself Wikipedia:Username_policy/Draft and its  talk page (the link was hidden next to the archive links) Shenme 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Longstanding editors who existed before policy change should be grandfathered. Anyways, what's the rationale of prohibiting email address? I see lots of users exposing their email on Wikipedia. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I will review my block of Renegade_cash@hotmail.com in the morning in light of this new information, but it is late here, and I have a wife to cuddle with, goodnight. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We can fix such problems. I've added an exception note, please copyed. >Radiant< 09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy change on email addresses

message: Hey I'm new to this and I'm hoping to avoid being called a 'sock puppet', I signed up to the German wikipedia project but I would also like to be able to sign in to the english site. But I find that I get an error message when trying to log in. Can I sign up to the english wikipedia project with the same user name? >PattyM< 23:42, 5 April 2007 (NZST)
*Answered on User talk:121.72.240.101. >Radiant< 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Language Editor

message: Having used wikipedia for a long time, I thought I'd give editing a try. I was hoping to use my first name (Rabi) as my user name, but I get a "Username entered already in use" error. The user has no User Page or Talk Page, and has zero contributions. Is there any way I can acquire this user name? 74.225.52.253 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:USURP for a relatively new procedure, for just this kind of situation.  I can't seem to see when the previous user was created, so maybe it was quite a while ago?  (even better for your request?) Shenme 03:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactive User?

message: The grandfather policy keeps getting mentioned on the discussion page, yet it does not appear on the project page.  Could someone who claims to know what the grandfather policy is get a version of it on the project page for discussion here. Is it as simple as this?
* Every username in existence before 2005-12-08 doesn't come under this policy. patsw 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to have the date there, I support that edit. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandfather policy 

message: I just noticed a change, I like it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's perfectly in line with the spam policies/guidelines. RJASE1  Talk  01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New change to promotional policy 

message: I'm concerned about the wording here, in particular: "....only exists to push a single opinion" followed by "Such accounts are not forbidden".  I thought POV pushing was against our policies.  Having a separate account to edit in a specific area or on a single article seems fine, but an account to expressly push a single point of view shouldn't be condones whether its a sockpuppet of not should it? This seems at odd with other policies.  -- Siobhan Hansa 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it is against policy, but not against this policy, then why mention it here? If we are going to mention it here, why say it is not forbidden? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a poor idea to have writing that could confuse users about one of our core ideals.  I suggest a change from "push a single opinion" to "edit a single article or topic area". -- Siobhan Hansa 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single purpose account 

message: I know that several of you are hell-bent on some kind of mass-merger campaign, both in the notability context, and it seems, here too.  Well, it's not appreciated.  Knock it off!  The SPA designation is used all of the time in Afds, and is useful because you can cite to it and people immediately know what policy you are referring to without making them wade through the entire username policy.  Please leave it just as it is.  Thank you.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed some mass-merger campaigns going on... I'm not sure of the motive. It is not like it makes things easier, but fact, more difficult. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not mergers make things more difficult, the complaint by MD is incorrect. A shortcut or a wikilink can put the reader right into appropriate section (see, for example, WP:SOCK); no one will have to wade through the entire username policy if WP:SPA were to be changed to redirect to this policy.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, if you want a merge then you really should put merge tags on both pages so that people are aware of the proposal. Secondly, the pages don't cover similar ground. Wikipedia:Single purpose account is closer to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry than it is to the username policy. Thirdly, the former is an essay (and a fairly controversial one) and you're proposing to merge it into a policy page. Have you thought the implications of this through? --bainer (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you missed the fact that WP:SOCK is being merged here too, and WP:DOP already has been. Hence my rant below. Not that it surprises me that you missed it, considering that no one seems to use merge tags anymore. They apparently discuss changes everywhere except the pages effected then declare consensus was reached and merge away. Never mind that people who care about these pages don't necessarily read the WP:LAP talk page. For that matter, why should we be expected to?--Dycedarg ж 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Being an SPA is not a violation in policy.  A merge of that is inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to the merge, it makes no sense. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No to Merge with SPA Policy

message: I'm sorry if I missed some big talk page discussion concerning this, and if I did so feel free to point me to it so I can cross-post this, but I must ask: Why is WP:SOCK being merged here? For that matter, why is there a shortcut box preemptively claiming that WP:SOCK links to that section when it doesn't and never has? The reason I object to this merger in the strongest possible of terms is the fact that "Usernames" are not "Accounts". When I got my username change I did not delete one account and transfer all contribs to my new account. I changed my username. The account remained constant. Usernames are the tags by which accounts are identified, but they are not the account itself. No other website anywhere on the internet that I have spent any time with refers to an account as a username. Accounts are accounts, and they have usernames. Sockpuppetry in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with them, except for the fact that the accounts have different usernames. For the same reason, I also object to WP:SPA and WP:DOP being merged here, though I'm apparently too late for the latter page. This page goes on and on about usernames and how to choose them, which ones are appropriate and which ones are not, then suddenly how to delete an account, although that kind of makes sense because it is assumed that anyone reading this policy is about to make his first account and such information is relevant to that (not to mention that section has been there a while), but then suddenly we segue into sharing accounts, multiple accounts, single-purpose accounts, doppelganger accounts, etc. Does this transition actually make sense to people? If so, why? Are we going to transition to saying "You can't use that sockpuppet like that. It's a violation of the username policy." which makes absolutely no sense? If you're going to put all the account-related rules here, then rename the page. I object to the idea either way, because you're mingling two completely different concepts for no apparent reason. WP:LAP does not apply, because before those sections were added, there was no overlap or redundancy. I would propose that if we want all the account stuff in one place, that it be put on a page devoted to such things. WP::U is not it. Sorry that this turned out longer than I intended.--Dycedarg ж 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow missed all this talk too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for my knowledge, when did it become standard practice to discuss mergers everywhere except the pages to be merged or the destination page, merge the content into the destination page, and only then mark the pages to be merged for merger? I'm sorry, but I think the content for WP:U should be decided on WT:U, since this is the page people interested in the policy are going to check. Consensus on WP:LAP, a page I hadn't even heard of before today, does not equal consensus here.--Dycedarg ж 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not standard practice. Merges should be announced on both the "from" and the "to" page. --bainer (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems what is being attempted is some kind of overarching "user account policy", but the way this is being carried out is by merging everything into the username policy, which makes no sense. By all means, create an overview page which discusses the policies, guidelines and maybe even essays which relate to user accounts, but they shouldn't all just be dumped into the one page. --bainer (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how there topics belong together. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed a few movements going on within Wikipedia... to kill anything perceived as bureaucracy, policy creep, etc., by those very means. People taking on WP:RFCN because it is too bureaucratic, yet discussion of a merge of non-relative policies go on off radar of those that haunt those pages, disputes over projects like WP:AMA, etc., all of which come back to a single pattern: kill bureaucracy with bureaucracy, headed by someone who has decided to act as an authoritative figure on the subject matter, and go so far as push for reforms, etc., based on I Don't Like it. </rant> But, I digress... these two polices definitely belong on separate pages to make them easily digestible and prone to being read. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When I was a new user I found the separation of the policy pages very helpful. Most websites have a 30 page "Terms of service" that is written in legalese and have everything together. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account stuff 

message: This has probably been suggested before, and this probably wouldn't be the place to suggest it, but seeing as how we have a rule against "extremely lengthly" usernames, is there any way at all to create a built-in limit on the number of characters allowed when creating a new account? For example, if someone attempted to use the account name "ThisIsIncrediblyLongAndObviouslyIllegal", it would either be truncated to "ThisIsIncrediblyLongAndO" (24 characters or something around there) or just refused straight off the bat. It seems as though this would prevent a lot of work and confusion for admins and new members, and might get us more people to stay. I'm afraid that an immediate block for long names might deter new users who want to contribute. Ideas? Hersfold (talk/work) 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THought that might be it. Thanks. :-) Hersfold (talk/work) 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like previous consensus was to leave it vague and up to the discretion of blocking admins. There's no way of knowing if this blacklist will affect existing users such as yourself, anyway... so maybe it's best to leave it off for now. Sorry to those who do edit with long names, Abu-Fool in particular. :-) Hersfold (talk/work) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a way of knowing whether or not the blacklist affects current users. And the answer is no it does not.--Dycedarg ж 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character cutoff 

message: :moved from WP:U --MaxSem 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I clearly need more coffee. *blush* Secretlondon 07:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that the assumption is that if other users mispell your name as something often enough to warrant your creating a redirect, that mispelling is close enough to your name that no one could register it anyway without breaking the rules against having a name similar to someone else's. I've mostly seen it used for capitalization issues anyway.--Dycedarg ж 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Username disambiguation

message: Recently User:Jimbo3374 was blocked because his name is too similar to User:Jimbo Wales. This seems a little harsh, lets WP:AGF, do we really want to prevent anyone else called Jimbo from having a username similar to their own name? LukeSurl t c 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you take it up with the blocking administrator? The policy is up for interpretation but I don't think it would stop names like Jimbo3371, the admin is User:Wafulz. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF is not the issue. Taking the name of the only person who does not need consensus to act unilaterally here is bound to cause confusion amongst our less experienced editors. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I dissent with that, and have noted so on the blocking admin's talk page. We also have a User:Jimbo3, User:Jimbo68 and User:Jimbo79 who don't seem to be problematic. >Radiant< 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, the old "there are others like it" argument. Well I don't hold too strong an opinion on the matter, but I do think the names are problematic. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be blocking usernames that include "Jimbo" except if they look like they could be legitimately confused with the real Jimbo Wales.  However, if anyone pretends to be Jimbo, they should be stopped from doing that.  Someone who pretends to be Jimbo, if their username helps them, we should block the name.  Mangojuicetalk 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We've recently renamed a User:Jjimbo too. He'd been told by someone to change his name. Secretlondon 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that one I think was more sensible: at a glance, it looks just like plain "Jimbo".  Mangojuicetalk 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo