Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 8

message: *My computer can properly display practically all languages, even though they aren't silly squares Arabic script Hebrew script and nearly all non-Latin script are unintelligible to me. So this Windows CD thing is beyond logic. It isn't like your understanding of the unintelligible text will change if you install the necesary files. If you do not have a specific language installed, it is your own fault. You reading the users username is not a critical aspect of RC patrolling.
*Assuming you aren't seeing boxes, even a 4 year old has this level of pattern recognition to differentiate the contributions of different users with non-Latin text.
*I would however recommend (not require) the usage of lain text in sigs for obvious reasons. However your discomfort is not a reason to create policy. Non-Latin usernames are not disruptive and I have seen no convincing evidence to the contrary so far.
-- Cat chi? 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:White Cat|White Cat]]'s approach

message: # User-option to show non-Latin-text usernames (and other fonts) as images on Latin-based wiki, and vice-versa, perhaps reusing current CAPTCHA text-to-image calls.  (Read more here)  Then...
# When referring to the author, their wikimarkup image-tag can be copied just like their text.  Also, there could be a number appended to the text in the image as a shorthand reference, perhaps made visible as needed per page by a wikimarkup directive.  Thus...
# No need (or desire) to ban non-Latin-char usernames.  And finally...
# Little boxes on the nil-side: Some say, if one doesn't have the right language-font installed, it's their own fault.  However, if the text is nothing but little boxes, one cannot even TELL what language-font to install (as in the "example history page" above).  Further, installing third-party things on Windows can be dangerous, so one must not only search for the font, but also an apparently trustworthy site to download it from. --- A lot of work to view a few names and words.
:PS: (from above) "I am also curious if in my example there are some viewers who only see little boxes where my username would be. ॐ गं गणपतये नमः Buddhipriya 19:34, 9 June 2007"
::Indeed, nothing but little boxes that all look just the same.   But, in the EDITOR they are suddenly all perfectly readable Devanagari! (like g?pty nm), unlike the "example history page" above, which remains boxes, and the "User:Παράδειγμα|Paradigma" which remains Greek (until copied to a non-wiki textbox).
: Wikicat (temp-2k7) 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikicat's approach

message: Right now, the disruptive usernames section contains this line among its defnitions:  Usernames that are similar to those previously used by persistent vandals or banned users .  It doesn't deal with people using names identical to those of current non-banned, non-vandal editors.
Propose for consensus: adding Usernames that are, or appear to be, identical to those in use by other users.  
I've encountered a situation where, by accident or design, someone seems to be impersonating another user by using a tilde sig which produces their IP, and then manually typing in "User:Example" after that -- in which Example is another person entirely and not their own log-in name  (so far as I know; checking on that now).  I looked hard for a policy on impersonation or imposture, and didn't find one.  Finally, I asked over at WP:AN  (responses presently located here) and all agreed it fits into the disruptive category, even though the language there is not explicit about it.  No one suggested any other policy that would apply to this kind of spoofing / misrepresentation / imposture / impersonation.
...are (or appear to be) is in there to address someone who codes their signature to substitute the numeral 1 for a lower case L, or o's for zeroes, etc., to try to produce a visual result which is hard to distinguish from the legit user's name.  "Are" refers to people who simply manually type in "User:Example" when that is not their name.  It does not refer to situations without the "User:" prefix -- a guy named "Jim" who just types "Jim" as or near his sig wouldn't fall afoul of this proposal. If someone has better phrasing, please suggest it.
As you comment here to consent or critique, could you also suggest what the shortcuts should be?  WP:IMP and WP:Imp are presently occupied.  Over at the AN, someone called it "imping" but WP:IMPING seems too arcane to be a good WP shortcut, at least for non-admins to think of offhand.  So does WP:POSEUR.  Dictionaries spell imposter/impostor both ways.  I was thinking WP:IMPOST, WP:Imposter, WP:Impostor, WP:Impersonation, WP:Impersonate as redirects to a single shortcut; but which one?  What word would someone inexperienced think of first, when they're looking for help or policy on this topic? Other possibilities are WP:Identity or WP:Spoof or WP:Falsify, but those may be better saved for some other nefarious activity.  I am into the shortcuts because I had such a hard time locating info about this.
I've never wanted to change a policy before, so I don't know how many responses constitute consensus.  Five? Fifty?  Do I make the change if there's consensus, or does some kind of policy czar do it?  I aspire to be BOLD, but I'm in unfamiliar territory. -- Lisasmall | Talk 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree these things shouldn't be allowed. But I'm pretty sure that they are already covered by WP:U#Confusing coupled with WP:U#Leet. As for spoofing a signature, I believe that is treated as pure disruption and is blockable. Perhaps an admin may have further insight here. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, "usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion" already covers that. >Radiant< 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks covered already, per Radiant. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus needed on imposter addition 

message: It seems that we are not allowed to name after him. Why? Such as User:Hitlersson666, User:Adolphus Hitlerius, they were blocked. Why? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they should let Wikimedia attorney Mike Godwin answer that. *Dan T.* 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we let Mike win a Godwin point so easily? I think section 5, Offensive usernames, fits for that kind of usernames. -- lucasbfr talk 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming after [[Adolf Hitler]] 

message: I've just removed the section that said "School administrators for the purposes of cleaning up vandalism to articles about their schools and as a liaison with Wikipedia:Administrators for tracking down abusive students from within their networks" are allowed to share accounts. This was added without discussion and I don't see why we should make this exception. School admins can email admins if there is a problem with there IP's, and editing of their school page has a clear conflict of interest. I always thought it was a meta rule that shared accounts weren't allowed anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, please read m:Role account for the use of role accounts project wide. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared accounts 

message: I've seen so many usernames being blocked. Why most of them were left alone without putting anything inside as creating userpage, while a few of them placed Template:Usernameblocked, a few Template:UsernameHardBlocked, and a few even Template:Indefblock!!?? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 10:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if I see a name that was created simply to get a reaction, I often deny that reaction. Most names should get a message though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't get what you mean. What does "bureaucracy" has to do with bad names? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I mainly cannot understand why IndefBlocked is used sometimes. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that people sometimes use different templates than you expect them to, and we have no effective way of making everybody use the same system. It does not appear to be problematic if indefinitely-blocked accounts are flagged as "indefblock". >Radiant< 08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that when we block for a username violation, we usually use  as the block reason, which makes the template appears as the block message. Therefore duplicating it on the talk page is overdoing it -- lucasbfr talk 15:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Something merely existing is a poor reason for using it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling bad names 

message: I would like to make it clear here that attacks and harassment occur not just offsite or off-wiki, but on and from Wikipedia itself, and might be allowed to stay at the discretion of administrators and arbitrators. Because NPA is a policy, new users might falsely believe that personal attacks won't be allowed to happen here, when in reality, Wikipedia might allow them or even actively solicit them (e.g. RfC/U and especially RfArb, arguably also RfA) where they will be published forever. New users should be made to understand that any real name or longstanding pen name might be dragged through the mud here, likely damaging their reputations, and by participating here, they agree that this will happen. Also, many people might naively assume that Wikipedia is a responsible publisher which would not allow libelous attacks. New users need to understand that such attacks are a known feature of this site, and that the Foundation won't take any responsibility for what appears here. We need something here to point to later when they inevitably complain.Proabivouac 08:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone wondering what Proabivouac is talking about, it might be instructive to note that the 'harassment' seems to consist of Wikipedia administrators and arbitrators posting formal administrative notices that contained Proabivouac's former username (which is also his real name), in order to inform him and others that Proabivouac was violating arbitration sanctions imposed on that previous username. What these 'libelous attacks' consist of hasn't, to my knowledge, been made explicit. The ongoing discussion is, for the moment, here. --Aim Here 10:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good time to invoke WP:VANISH. Though that requires you leave. --tjstrf talk 11:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to warn other innocent people to help them avoid similar situations. That you'll be attacked here by anonymous trolls is a fact. That Wikipedia authorities allow this and will even solicit and facilitate it also a fact. That NPA might not be enforced, or even suspended entirely, depending on the whims of administrators and arbitrators is a fact. Don't you think that average citizens deserve to know these things before they choose a username?Proabivouac 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a fact that people declare far to much to be a fact. That being said a warning would make sense, though there is no need to lay any blame down. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: People regularly ask to be renamed FROM a nick TO a personal name fyi. Secretlondon 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real name warning 

message: Judging by a current discussion at RFCN, it would seem that the examples for each of the five reasons being included directly with the reason confuses people, and leads to them thinking that they are outright criteria for disallowing a name in themselves. This despite the clear instructions beneath the reasons.
I'm happy to go ahead and refactor the examples into a seperate section, if there's no objections. What do people think? SamBC(talk) 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it's worth a try at least.  Can I put in a plea for removing the HTML anchors linked to each type of example?  That just encourages treating them like rules.  Mangojuicetalk 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, but I'd want more consensus for that. I'm going to give it another hour or two for objections before I make the refactoring, in any case. SamBC(talk) 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, of course, agree, and I think that by now you're free to be bold and make the change. I think there's eventually more to refactor than just that, though, because WP:U is a prime example of policy creep throughout. Paragraphs barely flow together because everyone's wedged in their own pet peeve about usernames or their own idea about how the policy should be applied. And we've seen the effects of this, in WT:UAA debates where everyone's conflicting point of view is backed up somewhere by WP:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Right then, that's done. Who wants to lay odds on how long 'til it gets reverted? SamBC(talk) 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing confusion due to examples 

message: Please read WP:AN#Blockage
*Is it appropriate to drive away positive (as well as potentially-poisitive) contributors for having usernames which are non-blatant violations by blocking them? Should it be explicitly disallowed to block usernames which are, for example, the user's real name or a perfectly understandable and memorable 50-char sentence? GDonato (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Short answer, no. Long answer, well, look at . A new user that uploaded really nice images, forced to change their name and now has not edited since. Will he/she ever contribute again? I dunno. I can't blame the person either way. The username enforcement seems whacked to me, lots of sympathy for pee and poop, but when a real good faith user comes along, letter of the law. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, vis-à-vis that situtation, his name was 39 characters long, one under the forty the bot will report. But it it's long, and isn't easily typable. I would've rather that gone to RFCN instead of blocked on sight. But I dont see any reason to allow very long/non all Latin names just because they're someone's real name. As for a 50 chars, that should be discussed at RFCN. But really, all but blatant ones should go through RFCN first. — i said 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *The default signature has a link, the history has a link. Why would anyone ever even need to type a username in? I have never typed most people's usernames that I visit, I just click a link. I think it is a bad block, and a shabby way to treat a user who chose his real name. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, who are we talking about? For the symbol one, the impetus of that discussion was the fact that I cannot see links to the name at all, and many users don't render properly. And they would need to type a name in if they didn't feel like going digging for a page the user in question had commented on, just to find a link to their page. — i said 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **It was bot-reported and I refused it.  I for one don't think names that could be actual life names should even be challenged!  I have worked with a lot of Indian people who would not take too kindly to being told their names are too long for something.  A silly long name or pointlessly-odd name as the one above (which I don't think I'm even seeing correctly) can be challenged if good edits have come but still shouldn't be blocked without an RFCN.  But this poor person with valid contribs and a long Polish name -  - has a right to be quite insulted at this afront.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Part of the problem here is that usernames can be refused at WP:UAA and just re-reported until someone blocks.  This isn't the only case of its kind that I've seen.  How do we ensure that if someone refuses, it doesn't come back?  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ****Smarter bots  GracenotesT § 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeway per [[WP:BITE]] and real names 

message: What is needed, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Blockage and Moreschi's post here, is a section in the policy firmly telling administrators (and other users making reports and using templates) that it is important to welcome editors first, before slapping on templates and blocking people for minor infractions of the username policy. Does anyone want to make a start in writing this new section? Carcharoth 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - #Leeway_per_WP:BITE_and_real_names GDonato (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw it. I want something quite a bit stronger than that. Something making sure that admins stop and think about the spirit of WP:BITE before implementing the letter of this law. Not just a bit of leeway. Carcharoth 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some changes with the intent of reducing WP:BITE, discourage speedy blocking etc. GDonato (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We'll never get it right for everyone but I think the major issue is actually COI. We get many that are people using their userpage as an advert - and the only edit is to the userpage. Currently they get blocked and the userpage gets speedied. As we are not a free webhost that is fine (I think). Whether we should block all mentions of commercial entities is another question - currently we often do even if it is a fan reference. I think the major problem is people treating policy as law and wikilawyering over it. The case of sunshine was classic - people who thought it was fine wikilawyered over whether ot not it was breaking any policy - despite the fact that many editors couldn't even see it! We are in danger of forgetting our key purpose which is to write an encylopedia. Everything is secondary to that. Secretlondon 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a change to the policy which means fan usernames should no longer be blocked. GDonato (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone that per WP:BRD, as I think the specific change needs more discussion. Usernames that simply match the name of a company (that isn't horribly obscure, at least) are problematic in themselves, as previous discussions here and at UAA and RFCU have discussed. Every entry in the edit history becomes an advert. However, that shouldn't cause a problem for TV shows or such, simply because they aren't companies. SamBC(talk) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Sam was right to revert. I wonder how a fan showing off his team is not promotional? TV shows are the product of a company, I think they qualify as promotion for the company. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, does that mean that the change I made makes no difference anyway? GDonato (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like we also need a way to mark entries that have been refused.  I had already refused the Polish name at WP:UAA and maybe 10 other admins did too.  But if any one of the other 1,000 admins sees it at WP:UAA, they have no idea that it's there for the 15th time.  (Sorry if this seems out of place.  We seem to have too many sections going on simultaneously here.)  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree but I think WT:UAA would be a more suitable venue. GDonato (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you could add them to :Category:Users whose names are not considered blatant violations by at least one person, or something along those lines. Of course being removed from UAA in no way prevents a username block if another admin thinks it is needed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is to stop forum shopping or "asking the other parent" which seems like a common problem on a wiki. GDonato (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an issue to take up with users who use that tactic, as the problem applies to far more than usernames. I do see the advantage of making it clear to admins that the username has been looked at. A category would do that(with a shorter name of course), but who adds the cat? Perhaps a bot could do so, but then the user will notice the cat tag being added and may get confused. Not sure really. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for administrators and [[WP:BITE]] 

message: Shouldn't this policy be dealing with attribution issues?  To me [at least], an inappropriate username would be one that would get Wikipedia into controversy when somebody uses a name that is the same as a well-known person, band, etc.  That would cause a revision of an article to be attributed (GNU FDL requires attribution) to the username that is the same as a well-known person, band, etc.  Thoughts? —O (说 • 喝) 03:57, 01 October 2007 (GMT)
:That would require some sort of assumption that, where a username is conceivably a real name, it is the real name of the user. Along with the fact that, where it's a personal name, it's "the" person of that name, not just "a" person of that name. In the case of organisations and corporations, we already disallow those names for other reasons. If it's a legal concern, then it'd be best if we don't all go amatuer lawyering about it, and instead try to seek an opinion from Wikimedia's general counsel. Not sure how one would go about that. In any case, I doubt that anyone would seriously assume that a self-chosen username would bear any relation to the real identity of a user. SamBC(talk) 04:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Mangojuicetalk 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *cough* *cough* *cough* Man, I should see a doctor... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost tempting to take you to to WP:RFCN just to make a point… SamBC(talk) 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames that match personal websites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Mangojuicetalk 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unsigned rant