Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 7

message: I think this part of the policy is somewhat badly written, because it gets confused between types of usernames that are disallowed (or sometimes disallowed) and reasons for disallowing a username.  It would be good if we could make it clear why we block usernames, as opposed to just the various types that are blocked.  Here's what I've come up with:
# Usernames that make it unduly difficult to identify the user,  (eg. character repetition, random characters, too similar to another user)
# Usernames that indicate an intent or likelihood to cause disruption, (eg. "vandal", known sockpuppet names, profanity)
# Usernames that imply a misleading role, (eg. "Admin" or name of a famous person)
# Usernames that are offensive or inflammatory, (eg. insulting, pov-pushing, hate speech, etc.)
# Usernames that are used for promotion
# Other specific restrictions (eg. "Wikipedia" in name or email addresses / domain names) 
It would be helpful (I think) to make the spirit of the policy more clear.  Mangojuicetalk 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate names 

message: Requesting comments on a proposal for a guideline on Wikipedia:Personal security practices that I've been working on, mainly out of the discussion on this thread at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Part_two. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Thanks,—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal security practices 

message: At the moment the page seems to give the impression we block all usernames that refer to "sexual oritentation". We clearly don't - especially where people are making positive statements about their sexual identity or are using words in a manner that isn't offensive. See User:Proud dyke and User:Gay Cdn for example. We should allow people to make positive statements about their sexuality in their usernames. I think we need the policy to reflect this. WjBscribe 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly but there is a grey area such as "GayMonkey", or "CrazyGayGuy". Even "Proud dyke" uses a word that is often used as a slur, it is tantamount to "Wonderful fag" or "Super Nigga". I think that using terms that are often used as slurs should remain prohibited, but the mere mention of sexual orientation in a non negative, polite manner should be allowed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dyke is not seen as negative by lesbians. Secretlondon 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dyke is not seen as negative by _some_ lesbians. Dan Beale 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact "Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, sexual orientation, et cetera" currently links "sexual orientation" in with negative things. Homophobia is the issue and the equivilent to racism, not sexual orientation per se. We ban racist names, not names that mention the race of the user. Secretlondon 16:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that 90% of names the mention sexual orientation are high school students that think it is funny to call things gay. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "gay". *snicker*In all seriousness, I completely agree. Perhaps change it to "derogatory references to sexual orientation"? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it altogether.  The "et cetera" there will clearly capture this kind of thing.  Plus, a separate one includes "slurs" and another one includes "insulting" names, and obviously we still have the general "offensive names" restriction.  Mangojuicetalk 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation 

message: Would it be considered inappropriate (unprofessional?) to have a username which alludes that someone is a fan of a certain TV show, movie, actor, musical group, or brand? Would having a username like "CliksFan", or "Kermitismyhomeboy" (I'm just rattling off random stuff here...) be akin to using wikipedia as a soapbox? I'm just wondering, because I was thinking of changing my display name to TOSoupChef ("Soup Chef" is an L Word Reference.)
Dylan Slade 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a fan is okay, as long as you don't make a username that sounds like you're officially affiliated with what you're a fan of (ie. User:NewYorkYankees is not okay but User:YankeeFan is).  What you're suggesting is one step even farther removed from sounding official.  I'm sure that would be fine.  Mangojuicetalk 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that would be fine, per what Mangojuice said above. GDonato (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture/Corporate References 

message: Note: moved here from WP:RFCN.
===Reachouttrust===
:It is a promotional username for reachout trust - if you check out their contributions you'll see that the only edits to are to Reachout Trust. NOTE: Check the block log before you start asking why I haven't left a  template, also check this thread on WP:AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should allow it.  The account did insert a bit of text that was vaguely promotional, but the article Reachout Trust was already in existence and they merely edited it.  This is somewhat unlikely many other situations where a company creates a role account and then a blatant spam article on itself, or possibly inserts a bunch of linkspam.  The interest of this account (from its edits to Talk:Reachout Trust) seems to be to keep the material accurate, or at least that's one facet of its interests.  That is something we generally allow people with a conflict of interest to do, per WP:COI, as long as they follow policy (which they maybe didn't in their one edit, but hey, it's a newcomer).  As Doc said, it's better that folks with a COI declare them, and this is a declarative COI in a very strong way: they can't hide from this.  I support the general rule but in this case I do not support a block.  Mangojuicetalk 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, also, I don't know if this is a great venue.  This seems like a better topic for an admin board... but it has been discussed there already per your link above.  Why bring it here?  Mangojuicetalk 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I wasn't sure about the venue myself, I'm just not happy with the response from AN, there seemed to be no consensus and it was more of an argument as to who was right with the block/unblock in the 1st place - I just want neutral comments on the username now. As to declaring a COI, I don't agree with that one bit - every time the username edits, they're spamming the history. WP:U#PROMOTIONAL doesn't say it's OK to have a promotional username to declare a conflict of interest - in fact, it clearly states that a promotional username editing there own article is even worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to that a quote from WP:U: "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it," now to me, even editing the article could be seen as attempting to promote it. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, maybe it should be clarified.  If an organization is already relatively well-known (as would be the case here), then a username with just the name of the organization is hard to describe as "promotional," especially when they restrict their editing to the article on their organization or related articles.  Who is the username advertising to?  The organization is already known to people who edit the page, probably.  So, I would worry about a username like User:Microsoft mainly because it might act like an official representative of Microsoft without really being one... but merely being User:Microsoft and editing Microsoft-related articles doesn't seem like advertising.  Now, if that user started making widespread contributions in other areas generally, I might take it as an attempt to make the company name appear in lots of places in order to promote it.  And I would certainly have a problem with a slogan name like User:BuyMicrosoft.  (Maybe we should go to WT:U?)  Oh, also note :meta:Role account, although that's really more about accounts that belong to an organization but not to any individual.  Mangojuicetalk 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly something that we should take to WT:U, as policy currently reads - the username infringes on it. I've got to say as well, that this does seem like a role account - I think the organisation are using it to edit their own article - these generally aren't allowed (although by the looks of things, they are in a couple of cases). Personally, if we disallow one username for being promotional, I think we should disallow all - as long as it's not too generic. Maybe the key is, what is promotional? Is stating the name of a company of group promotional? Or to be promotional should it actively encourage the group/company? It's a tough one! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, moved the thread.  I feel that we can maybe get around the "role account" worry (which per the meta page seems to be about multiple people using the same account) as long as the user confirms that only a single person will be using the account.  I also think that we should explicitly discourage that user from participating in areas of the encyclopedia not directly related to their own company using that account, as it could be viewed as an attempt at promotion.  What I worry about, though, is the precedent: it seems reasonable in this case, but tomorrow a similar account will pop up from a nn company or group and be blocked and sooner or later they'll find this precedent.  We should probably make a codified, sensible set of rules for this type of account.  Mangojuicetalk 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clear Conflict of Interest stuff. We don't want representatives of organisations editing their articles. Secretlondon 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, we do allow it for certain things.  For instance, we allow the subject of Wikipedia articles to edit those articles in a neutral way, and to repair factual errors.  In any case, isn't it better to all the user to keep the official-sounding username and edit with a declared COI than encourage them to make the same edits under an innocuous username?  Mangojuicetalk 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. I think transparency is of utmost importance here. The alternative is corp. representatives to use misleading names. We strongly encourage some sort of standard username for companies, e.g. "[company] representaive" or "[company] employee". The current policy against "Usernames that match the name of a company or group" is based on flawed reasoning and is incompatible with WP:COI's promotion of transparency.  nadav 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there for a reason, to stop users creating an account with a comapany name then desparging it, also it's spammy, it also implies a role account, oh yeah - it's a severe conflict of interest and there edits will be looked upon in that way. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we want to be bothered with ensuring that people editing under an organization (company or group) name are authorized to be public representatives for that organization? We require it for individuals. I don't believe that we cannot do the same for organizations. In my opinion, given the restriction on role accounts, it far easier to just ban organizational names then to ensure that it's a single person and that single person is an authorized person to represent the organization. -- JLaTondre 00:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional usernames vs. legitimate representatives. 

message: :It is a promotional username for reachout trust - if you check out their contributions you'll see that the only edits to are to Reachout Trust. NOTE: Check the block log before you start asking why I haven't left a  template, also check this thread on WP:AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should allow it.  The account did insert a bit of text that was vaguely promotional, but the article Reachout Trust was already in existence and they merely edited it.  This is somewhat unlikely many other situations where a company creates a role account and then a blatant spam article on itself, or possibly inserts a bunch of linkspam.  The interest of this account (from its edits to Talk:Reachout Trust) seems to be to keep the material accurate, or at least that's one facet of its interests.  That is something we generally allow people with a conflict of interest to do, per WP:COI, as long as they follow policy (which they maybe didn't in their one edit, but hey, it's a newcomer).  As Doc said, it's better that folks with a COI declare them, and this is a declarative COI in a very strong way: they can't hide from this.  I support the general rule but in this case I do not support a block.  Mangojuicetalk 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, also, I don't know if this is a great venue.  This seems like a better topic for an admin board... but it has been discussed there already per your link above.  Why bring it here?  Mangojuicetalk 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I wasn't sure about the venue myself, I'm just not happy with the response from AN, there seemed to be no consensus and it was more of an argument as to who was right with the block/unblock in the 1st place - I just want neutral comments on the username now. As to declaring a COI, I don't agree with that one bit - every time the username edits, they're spamming the history. WP:U#PROMOTIONAL doesn't say it's OK to have a promotional username to declare a conflict of interest - in fact, it clearly states that a promotional username editing there own article is even worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to that a quote from WP:U: "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it," now to me, even editing the article could be seen as attempting to promote it. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, maybe it should be clarified.  If an organization is already relatively well-known (as would be the case here), then a username with just the name of the organization is hard to describe as "promotional," especially when they restrict their editing to the article on their organization or related articles.  Who is the username advertising to?  The organization is already known to people who edit the page, probably.  So, I would worry about a username like User:Microsoft mainly because it might act like an official representative of Microsoft without really being one... but merely being User:Microsoft and editing Microsoft-related articles doesn't seem like advertising.  Now, if that user started making widespread contributions in other areas generally, I might take it as an attempt to make the company name appear in lots of places in order to promote it.  And I would certainly have a problem with a slogan name like User:BuyMicrosoft.  (Maybe we should go to WT:U?)  Oh, also note :meta:Role account, although that's really more about accounts that belong to an organization but not to any individual.  Mangojuicetalk 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly something that we should take to WT:U, as policy currently reads - the username infringes on it. I've got to say as well, that this does seem like a role account - I think the organisation are using it to edit their own article - these generally aren't allowed (although by the looks of things, they are in a couple of cases). Personally, if we disallow one username for being promotional, I think we should disallow all - as long as it's not too generic. Maybe the key is, what is promotional? Is stating the name of a company of group promotional? Or to be promotional should it actively encourage the group/company? It's a tough one! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, moved the thread.  I feel that we can maybe get around the "role account" worry (which per the meta page seems to be about multiple people using the same account) as long as the user confirms that only a single person will be using the account.  I also think that we should explicitly discourage that user from participating in areas of the encyclopedia not directly related to their own company using that account, as it could be viewed as an attempt at promotion.  What I worry about, though, is the precedent: it seems reasonable in this case, but tomorrow a similar account will pop up from a nn company or group and be blocked and sooner or later they'll find this precedent.  We should probably make a codified, sensible set of rules for this type of account.  Mangojuicetalk 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clear Conflict of Interest stuff. We don't want representatives of organisations editing their articles. Secretlondon 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, we do allow it for certain things.  For instance, we allow the subject of Wikipedia articles to edit those articles in a neutral way, and to repair factual errors.  In any case, isn't it better to all the user to keep the official-sounding username and edit with a declared COI than encourage them to make the same edits under an innocuous username?  Mangojuicetalk 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. I think transparency is of utmost importance here. The alternative is corp. representatives to use misleading names. We strongly encourage some sort of standard username for companies, e.g. "[company] representaive" or "[company] employee". The current policy against "Usernames that match the name of a company or group" is based on flawed reasoning and is incompatible with WP:COI's promotion of transparency.  nadav 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there for a reason, to stop users creating an account with a comapany name then desparging it, also it's spammy, it also implies a role account, oh yeah - it's a severe conflict of interest and there edits will be looked upon in that way. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we want to be bothered with ensuring that people editing under an organization (company or group) name are authorized to be public representatives for that organization? We require it for individuals. I don't believe that we cannot do the same for organizations. In my opinion, given the restriction on role accounts, it far easier to just ban organizational names then to ensure that it's a single person and that single person is an authorized person to represent the organization. -- JLaTondre 00:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reachouttrust

message: Nishkid recently added a prohibition against usernames with the % symbol.  Why?  What do people think of this change?  Mangojuicetalk 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the prohibition of the = symbol was not accepted by the community I think a consensus should be formed for this new rule before it is added, unless there is some urgent reason I do not know about. (H) 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, it probably screws some template up - but it's clear that putting 1= before a username in a template will make it work. That's the only reason I can think of. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering usernames with spaces mess up some template, I think template use is a poor reason for forbidding usernames. >Radiant< 08:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  % symbol 

message: Some admins appear to be somewhat too triggerhappy with respect to username blocks, so I think it may be good to add some counterexamples that are acceptable. One thing that comes to mind is a user with a "Pot" related name, that some people objected to as a reference to marijuana, irrespective of the fact that it could be a reference to pottery or any number of other things called "pot". >Radiant< 11:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter examples may be a good idea, but we must agree on them. Would someone like to come up with some examples? Ryan Postlethwaite 11:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples could be endless- just tell admins to use common sense. GDonato (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but the point is that some of them aren't. I've seen at least three admins in the past month that were overdoing it with respect to username blocks. Any thoughts on alleviating that would be appreciated. >Radiant< 13:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not the best example, because even if a word like "Cannabis" with no other meanings is used, there is no rule against drug references(unless it is promoting it in a controversial way like "Smoke Cannabis through your ears!"). I am all for counter examples though. (H) 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way to avoid bad username blocks is to specify the policy less, not more.  This is what I was aiming at when I rewrote this section to be more clear about the reasons for username blocks rather than the specific rules.  Mangojuicetalk 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caveat 

message: I commented on this as part of my change above at #Inappropriate usernames (section 33), and no one ever had anything to say about it.  As I explained there, it's pretty obvious that a username that can be taken as promoting or endorsing violence will be "offensive" (that being the real reason for disallowing), but merely referring to a violent action is prone to stretching and in many cases would not be disallowed.  Take "Kick" for instance.  Or "Slam".  What about User:Killswitch?  I think it's clear that such names cross the line into offensive when the promote or endorse the action, or can be taken that way.  So a name like User:Killerman would still be prohibited, because it makes it sound like this person approves of killing.  But User:Don'tkilltheleprechauns - refers to violence but doesn't endorse it, and isn't offensive.  Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are these innocent names being blocked? Do you have examples? I think we use our sense fairly well when making decisions, it is not like admins are computer programs blindly following the letter of policy. (H) 18:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were theoretical, if the rule is rigidly "refers to" we risk blocking things like User:Punch, those promting and/or endorsing should certainly be blocked but names simply referring to violance should not always be blocked, however in other times they should, rather than being too reliant on the letter of the username policy all the time we can ignore it and use common sense when necessary- spirit over letter. GDonato (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, we should use "common sense."  Or, in other words, block the name for being offensive and not block if it's not offensive.  See the previous section: I'm not the only one who sees a problem with people being trigger-happy.  And in addition, it's not just those who ultimately enforce the policy that matter: we have a lot of well-meaning but at times overzealous non-admins who report possible violations at WP:UAA, and I would prefer to rein them in a bit.  Mangojuicetalk 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But it has been that way for a long time, and no examples are forthcoming, so I am not entirely convinced of these theoretical problems. I think we have been using common sense. (H) 03:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hilarious - this call for examples of non-offensive usernames that have been blocked!  This from the same people who NEVER provide any examples of any disruption or offense caused by the names they fight so constantly to block.  It's not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic before it sinks - it's rearranging them over and over again on a ship that has never been in any danger of sinking.  It's the same old crap no matter how many times these policies are tweaked - entrenched regulars (and always the same names cropping up) enjoying themselves by abusing newcomers with their beloved process and rules that end up serving NOTHING. The refer/promote/endorse dispute would shame the most hidebound Stalinist party hack. TortureIsWrong 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of mocking our attempts to create policy, perhaps you have something constructive to contribute. (H) 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refer to vs. "promote or endorse" 

message: Is this page not supposed to auto-archive? GDonato (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not archiving 

message: I just noticed a large number of retroactive username blocks, mostly for usernames created in early 2006. Has there been a recent change in the username policy that explains this?--VectorPotentialTalk 13:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of names are you talking about? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Email addresses mostly, but I think I figured out why. Someone just reported a few dozen of these to UAA without indicating that they were created in early 2006. The only reason it even occured to me to double check these against the usercreation log is because usernames with the @ symbol have been blacklisted by the software since 2006, so they couldn't possibly have been created recently--VectorPotentialTalk 13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think that email addresses were a recent addition to the policy. That being said, I also know that they have not always been part of it so it could be that somebody just had some time on their hands and decided to peruse all usernames looking for violations? WHo knows. We should all spend more time writing articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: E-mail names created before the rule are exempt from it. Unless the rule is to prevent bad faith names, we normally do not retroactively enforce username rules. (H) 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactive? 

message: I see above that there has been discussion of character names before, such as Captain America. My user name is also a character name, as someone pointed out to me recently. I'd like to check here what the current stance on this is. I've been browsing through random user names and admins, and found a few examples of character names. It wasn't something I thought of when creating my user name over 2 years ago (I was thinking then of something distinctive, yet still informative about me and my interests), but times change and I wonder what people think of this now? Note that a distinction probably needs to be made between works out of copyright, and those still under copyright, and between trademarked names and non-trademarked names. Also, this wouldn't just be about character names, as people also take on place names from books and films as well. Carcharoth 10:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have nothing to worry about. Company, and to a lesser extent, charachter, names are only usually blocked if they are promotional in nature. GDonato (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I'm aware there's no legal issue. --Deskana (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using names from copyrighted works is not a legal problem, unless such names are trademarked (which, incidentally, most of them aren't). >Radiant< 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character names and other names taken from copyrighted works 

message: Such as .x.princess4eva.x., a username I noticed was just created.  The ".x." seems to be purely decorative.  Exploding Boy 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in policy that states that these aren't allowed (I'm guess that's why you brought it here), and there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed - they're not hurting anyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Software blocks names like that. GDonato (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I see what you mean, I'm not sure how the software would handle a username with an underscore as the first character. The major problems comes with templates, for example, a username such as _()(&*'-_@}} (Yeah, I know we wouldn't allow this because of random characters - I'm just using it as an example!) would no doubt screw up this template - . There is a magic trick, which means that any characters can be used at any point within a template, you simple put 1= before the username and the templates work fine. So, for our example username, here you have it... ! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, by the looks of things, underscores at the start of a name screw it all up still, but as GDonato pointed out about - they're software blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the issue with such names, you can have decorative elements to your name as far as I know. (H) 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no issue here.  I can't imagine these being confusing, either... if anything, they help avoid confusing situations.  Mangojuicetalk 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names that don't begin with a letter or number 

message: Hmmmm, I just created the _Ryan Post username. The software automatically created Ryan Post (minus the underscore), wouldn't it better for the software to completely block all usernames starting with an underscore than to generate a new one for a user? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames created with an underscore as the first character 

message: A bit more than a month ago, I added to the username policy that usernames with the %(percent) symbol should not be created. On May 22,  undid this edit because I hadn't obtained consensus. I thought it was pretty straightforward reasoning, but I guess I was mistaken. For example, take a look at  (blocked now). If you go to the URL bar, and type in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fj5%JF", you get a 400 Bad Request Error. Since some people use external links to link to user pages or user talk pages, I thought it would be best to avoid any usage of the percent symbol in usernames. Tell me what you guys think. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These should be software blocked as the "%" sign breaks URLs. (would need to be replaced by %25) GDonato (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [ec x 2] Is there a way to use "%" that doesn't give a 400 (for example in the end)? If yes, then I'd agree re-adding with that exception. If no, I'd say the benefit of banning them altogether is worth the few who will be restricted in using it. NikoSilver 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you enter User:Fj5%JF, MediaWiki fixes it to ..../User:Fj5%25JF but entering direct or using certain templates will not work. GDonato (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the problem arises when you directly type the username into the URL bar. It doesn't automatically format it with the "%25". Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It won't. Check out the link I provided above. If you type the % symbol in the URL bar, you will always get a 400 Bad Request that states "[y]our browser sent a request that this server could not understand." Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the message I get in Firefox. If you try it in Internet Explorer, you just get a "Page cannot be found" error. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nishkid's proposed addition then. NikoSilver 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the templates I've tried seem to work but I'd still support disallowing them. GDonato (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't get why. Unless you physically want to type the address into the address bar to get to his userpage - it works fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan has a valid point: few would use the url-bar; and even those have a solution (add "25"). Can we verify that it works everywhere else? NikoSilver 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But hardly anyone will know about the "%25" solution and it's bound to break some poorly-designed template, somewhere. GDonato (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me an example of one template it breaks. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe ;-) Sounds like a challenge, off to search every user template. GDonato (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is! But also, the 1= feature exits on a template, so if a template doesn't work, try it with that. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem would not occur just for typing it in the URL. It occurs when you click on an external link to the user's pages (assuming you just copy and paste the username into the link). Nishkid64 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what wikilinks are for! Does it screw up diffs? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's a stupid question - diffs are already formatted! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Policy should not be written/changed with every single "what if?" situation in mind. Do we need to protect users who clumsily generate URLs? No. At the risk of sounding like a jackass (not that it's stopped me in the past), if someone can't figure out how to properly make a URL, fuck 'em. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fucked. :( Nishkid64 (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, see . I didn't notice that it was brought up for discussion here earlier. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I hereby confirm I belong in EVula's afore mentioned group. NikoSilver 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to enter information right into the url, you need to understand url escaping or it will not work. (H) 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, Niko and I don't understand that. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we ban users who type in the url-bar instead? NikoSilver 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hate to see you two go, but... ;P EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames with percent symbol 

message: I was about to post the following comment in WP:ANI, but edit conflicted [sic] with Viridae closing the debate there, and prompting to use this page. So here goes:
*FWIW I too think that we're too lenient with apparently [partly] offensive usernames. I consider the right of few not to be offended more important than the right of one not to change a name. Especially when those "few" become "many". I think the word "may" in the nutshell (and the policy itself) describes what I'm saying. Unfortunately, I am a minority in this interpretation, and it is interpreted that all have to be offended in order for action to be taken, or that "few"/"many" is not enough of a violation of WP:U... NikoSilver 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a suggestion that would give us a less blurred line? Few is pretty vague, should one person be enough, two? (H) 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My general rule is a consensus.  If a majority of editors appear offended, I have no problem blocking it.  The problem is that most names are not black and white however the outcome generally is(I.E., there are differnt levels of offensive and the outcome is they are blocked or not).  The sad thing is almost any name can offend somebody so it makes it difficult to make decisions.  I think this is where interpretation of the policy is important, as well as attempting to gain community input WP:RFCN.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should go by consensus, like we do with everything else. (H) 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus is how practically everything is decided on Wikipedia. I fail to see a reason to treat this any differently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentlemen, consensus must not be of the form "USSR is bad, let us nuke USSR" or vice versa. Those "few" may be 25% or 10% or even 5%. The are still many, yet they can hardly enforce their opinion when the rest oppose! When I express my opinion in RFCN, I do so by taking in mind what those few may think; not necessarily what I think. Sadly, I notice that others express their own perceived offensiveness/non-offensiveness. WP:U says "may", and it says so clearly. NikoSilver 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Other than that, I agree with H's comment that the line is blurred, so I think that no-consensus should default to "disallow", rather than "allow" that it does now. NikoSilver 09:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To give an example, I think that the recent "ChicagoPimp's" username will be offensive for a sufficient amount of people so as to warrant forcing him to change it. I, personally, may not be offended by "pimp", or may actually see the good interpretations of "pimp"; yet some others (49% - 30% - 10% --I don't particularly care) will obviously find it offensive. They are doomed to accept it because the rest of us are simply more. I think this is bad. NikoSilver 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "no consensus" should default to rename is something to consider. However, I am perturbed by your suggestion that a small minority of people should be able to dictate sensitivities to the majority and the user concerned. I can see bad things in store for such policy. It's susceptible to the slippery slope, and I can easily image bad-faith name change requests getting more attention and weight than they deserve. I think consensus is still the best fundamental approach.  nadav (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not let me be misunderstood. Yes, consensus is the best approach, but practice shows that people do not consider the minorities in question when they cast their opinions. They consider what "pimp" may mean for pimp to be excused; not what "pimp" may mean for people to be rationally offended (not necessarily including them). "It doesn't offend me because there are alternative meanings too" is in my opinion fallacious. My approach would be "it may/may-not offend me, but some people are likely to be offended by one interpretation [the most prevalent in this case], so we cannot allow it". Unfortunately, that is not the case with the votes; people are saying what they think, not what others may think, even if they are few.NikoSilver 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would find it detestful if minorities governed us. I also find it detestful that minorities are to be oppressed because sunk in our own biases we fail to take them into consideration. In a world where voters and admins in RFCN could speak for others, consensus would be correct. The case in practice, however, shows that everybody speaks for themselves, and minorities are bound to be oppressed. NikoSilver 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting offended on behalf of hypothetical other people, and using this as the basis to try to ban something, strikes me as extremely busybodyish. *Dan T.* 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We run by consensus, that is not vote counting. If people said "USSR is bad, let us nuke USSR", then a proper view of consensus would ignore such opinions as not based in policy. (H) 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be the right thing. The question is, do you feel we are doing it? I don't. NikoSilver 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent discussions were tricky because they very quickly got very hot.  Is this a problem with RFCN or policy?  Maybe, partly, but there were problems with a few users too. Also, about policy: Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to: [. . .] Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way seems pretty clear to me.  So how does stuff like Ment4lbreakdown get closed in under an hour?  Maybe the list of reasons for blockable names needs to be on the actual report page, so that people say why they're bringing the name for comment, and people involved in the discussion refer to what the policy actually is.  Dan Beale 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Policy says "may"; we are practicing "mostly by far". NikoSilver 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we are applying policy with sense. If anything the policy should be changed to reflect our practice. How about "likely to offend"? (H) 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the policy as is to make great sense. I find no sense in our practice. I would love if our practice was changed to reflect policy. Offending many people over one's right to [borderline/lame/trollish/abusive] self-identification is wrong in my view. NikoSilver 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is key to many of the username disputes. Personally, I think we're fairly strict on usernames, far more so than any other major website such as yahoo or google and I really don't think we should get any stricter on usernames. In my opinion, it would be best to open up the username policy a bit, allow a few to get through, I mean, come on - how is poop offensive to anyone?! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, "poop" is far better than "pimp". I think that we should enforce what we decide strictly, and what we decide must be correct. But making the policy to include too lame things in order to apply it leniently is wrong IMO. NikoSilver 19:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the policy is fine. I think we have been making username block decisions fine. I cannot see any decision I disagree with(other than allowing "everyonehateschris" which is just as bad as "diepauldie") in recent time. (H) 13:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you wanted to change policy to reflect our more lenient practice. In any case, I don't want to be the one with the stick next to the horse carcass here. If most of you think it is OK to suppress the perceived (or not) offensiveness of users who share the view that e.g. "pimp" is offensive, because of the fact they may be fewer than the rest who don't, fine by me. I've made my point. NikoSilver 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes Exploding Boy, we actually agree all along in the general directions in both sections (here and above). We only disagreed on the procedural solutions for the same (or extremely similar) end results. I think that the new considerations of Mangojuice and Ned Scott above shed some more light as to what is actually feasible or not (regardless of Foundation statements; but also from feasible consensus). From my part, I apologize for assuming that your position in not taking Unified Login as an incontrovertible fact could hinder the #Proposal, and I would appreciate your explicit support there too, given that even if Unified Login doesn't go through as planned, it is highly unlikely that we can gain consensus for harder measures (including permaban/blocks for violators of my moderate proposal, not to mention banning of non-Latin usernames altogether, which some users above consider to be sine qua non). NikoSilver 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my proposal above almost emulates (indirectly) your required result, with only the history-pages left partly unsolved. (The latter could be solved also if the user number is also included as Bastique said would probably happen). You'll have a Latin username to refer to, to type and locate a user, and a way to call them. What do you say? NikoSilver 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think policy does reflect practice. Pimp is just not that offensive, at least consensus did not find so. (H) 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-Lenience 

message: I think it should be added that well known fictional characters shouldn't be used, partly due to trademark/copyright issues, eg. a username of Naruto, or a possible confusion of connection between the name of a fictional character, and the actor or actress who portrayed the role, eg. User:Danieljackson and Michael Shanks. Apologies if this has been discussed and allowed, I have no emotional attachment either way, but this page should give or deny permission, which, AFAICS, doesn't do either. Irashtar 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have a problem with fictional character issue. I think real people should be allowed to use their real name, even if it is identical to that of a fictional character. Fictional character names have always been used on the Internet, for usernames in forums or for e-mail addresses. I've never seen any problems arise, so I don't think preventing fictional character usernames is a good idea. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would J.K. Rowling have any case to sue User:Harrypotter? *Dan T.* 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Clarify "Misleading usernames" 

message: Shouldn't the "create account" page feature a disclaimer regarding privacy and raise awareness to potential problems that may arise from giving away your real name? I'm not saying it should be decidedly discouraged, but some kind of warning could do no harm, but may prevent a lot, seeing what happened to user:H. Where would I go with such a proposal? —AldeBaer (criticise) 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea, I'm not sure of the exact mediawiki text that would need to be edited, but I suggest we limit it to when users attempt to create an account, it highlights problems users may have when using their real names has usernames. Something along the lines of;
*Be aware that using your real name as a username could lead to real life privacy concerns. 
Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'd rather not.  I mean, people know that if they've been on the internet more than a few minutes anyway.  And those that don't, won't read the disclaimer.  And having the text makes an implication I'd rather avoid: Wikipedia allows anonymity, but I don't think we should be explicitly encouraging it.  Mangojuicetalk 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And rather let the occasional unsuspecting, open-hearted person run into a stalker who harasses them and possibly (as has happened) threatens their life? —AldeBaer (c) 02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems like a simple and reasonable proposal. Support. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems good. With all the things Wikipedians may do to get on someone's nerves, we don't want that mad person to know your name. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer regarding real names 

message: Can someone justify why we must block usernames that look like they might be bots?  I was thinking about it, and I don't see a point.  It's important that bots have usernames that imply they are bots, but what damage could a non-bot do with a bot-ish username?  (If they weren't actually pretending to be a bot, or running an unauthorized bot, that is.)  Mangojuicetalk 14:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One idea is that users may tend to neglect browsing their watchlists (or even mouse hovering over in case of WP:POPUPS) for changes that seem to have been made by bots; thereby inhibiting vandal-patrolling. Reasonable inclusion of the -bot suffix has been allowed in practice in rfcn, but I'd definitely disallow a User:Niko-Bot. I think there's no reason one would choose such a name other than create trouble, yet I'm open to second thoughts. NikoSilver 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imply a bot? 

message: The softwae has a hard limit on the length of usernames.  Does there need to be a vague, undefined, soft limit on usernames mentioned in policy? Dan Beale 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of names 

message: Numbers don't fall into WP:U unless the username has long random numbers. Certain numbers however, can be offensive. I think we should include numbers such as 88, 666, and 69 into the policy. Thoughts? ~ Wikihermit 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already clauses for racist usernames, and usernames that may cause offence.  88 can be tricky, because it could be just a number, or it could refer to the racist org (I forget the details now) but it requires other evidence to make a decision.  666 is tricky; some people clearly find it offensive but others think it's daft to be offended by a number - but policy is clear "may cause offence" and 666 "may cause offence".  I was born in 1969.  I agree that numbers could be tricky, but I think they're already covered in the policy.  Maybe a change in the examples given in policy to cover troublesome numbers? Dan Beale 09:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I find the number 654 deeply offensive. We should ban the Featured Article Director immediately – Gurch 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Since when are $ signs blacklisted? As far as I can tell they don't cause any problems with templates, and don't seem unnecessarily confusing. Maybe I'm missing something?--VectorPotentialTalk 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Userlinks|(ry$$eo}} 

message: There are Template:Usernameblocked and Template:UsernameHardBlocked. Which one should be used for which circumstances? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Username blocked is for when the account is blocked with account creation allowed and the autoblocker disabled, this is the one usually used. Hardblocked is for when account creation is blocked and autoblock enabled- this is used for particularly bad names e.g. User:AdminXisGay or User:WikipediaVandal etc. GDonato (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some admins also use hardblocked when they see a username with gross vulgarities. I guess it looks like those type of users would probably have bad intentions here. Personally, I try to assume good faith and do hard username blocks only when it is absolutely necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, some people find different words offensive to different degrees. Hardblock should be used only when really necessary with usernames. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which template to use? 

message: What does "unless you verifiably are that person" really mean?  How is the user expected to verify it exactly?--P4k 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes we request a picture of them doing a specific thing that you normally can't find a picture of. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you can email the foundation to verify you are the said person. ~ Wikihermit 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: names of well-known people 

message: Our  template implies that usernames can be blocked if they "contain the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project", but this appears to no longer be the case.  Previous versions of the policy (like ) used to have this exact wording, but now we disallow only "Usernames that confusingly refer to a Wikipedia process, namespace, or toolbar item." I feel this is a much different rule.  Does anyone remember why we previously disallowed "Wikipedia", and why we have since relaxed that rule?  (My guess is that "Wikipedia" was disallowed during time of the trademark ban, which has been lifted.)   Anyway, I think we need to reconcile the UsernameBlocked template with the current policy.  Is it sufficient to simply remove the "Wikipedia" clause from the template, or replace it with the current wording? -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I bring this up now because recently DAWikipedia (talk · contribs) was brought to RFCN and Not Wikipedia Administrator (talk · contribs) was username blocked. -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like someone updated the template. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the Template message changed on July 12 to reflect the wording change in WP:U (see Template talk:Uw-ublock#Block for "Wikipedia"). Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I think the rule has been strengthened.  In addition to not having Wikipedia in your name (it's a namespace), you also couldn't have, say, Username policy. I assume the prohibition on Wikipedia in names is to prevent users from appearing to be Wikipedia officials.  — The Storm Surfer 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "contains the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project" 

message: So, I'm a little confused here, because it didn't seem clear enough to me. Are email address usernames currently phrohibited or not? -- Reaper  X 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes GDonato (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "E-mail addresses or web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional, and are currently prohibited. However, this policy did not prohibit them in the past, and therefore usernames created before January 1, 2007 that are email addresses are grandfathered under this policy and are not prohibited.
Does that sound okay? -- Reaper  X 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email usernames 

message: Are these allowed? I am inclined to believe that this is explicitly forbidden. -- Cat chi? 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we allow userboxes of that kind I don't see any reason why we should ban usernames. Kamryn · Talk 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about usernames not userboxes. Also "other stuff exists" is a poor way to construct a rationale. -- Cat chi? 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. "I support x" "x is the same thing as y" "therefore i support y". It's called not being a hypocrite. Kamryn · Talk 11:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" are not allowed if they are offensive or otherwise inappropriate. So I guess it would depend on the individual case. Until(1 == 2) 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "long live" France/Nazi Germany/Palestine/Israel/United States/etc etc... be appropriate? Some o the terms are controversial to a lesser degree (such as long live "France/United States") but I would see it problematic to see a "User:Long Live United States" edit articles that relates to the United States in a controversial manner -- Cat chi? 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you are unsure, WP:RFCN is your best friend. Until(1 == 2) 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that, it was closed in less than 24 hours with minimal discussion: . I do not believe my argument was given adequate consideration. -- Cat chi? 19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So...  is this thread to be a 'RFCN Review' thread or something?  C'mon, sour grapes and all.  RFCN doesn't mean Respect For Cat's Notifications, sometimes the consensus is "No, you're being silly".  I have plenty of experience in that department, it's part of working on a collaboration with lots of people. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not make nominations simply to occupy server hard drive space. I see no consensus on that particular case. No real discussion for that matter. For me Kurdistan is an inflammatory term as is Nazi Germany (not that I am comparing the two). -- Cat chi? 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is that really. Until(1 == 2) 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It'd be nice if all RFCNs could be left open for at least 24 hours.  Even  if they're really obvious.  I agree that incivil snippy discussions are not useful and should be closed early.  "LongLivePalestine" is not really a problem.  A user called "LongLivePalestine" adding justifications for suicide bombing to all sorts of articles would be a problem.  But then the problem is the user behaviour, which can be dealt with, and not just a username. This is a really long winded way of saying AGF. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usernames should be allowed to edit any and every article without any kind of problems. If the user in question agrees to stay away from all articles related to Kurdistan, I'd be fine with it. However he demonstrates an interest on the topic. I would find it disruptive and trollish for a user:LinglivePalestine/user:LongliveIsrael to edit articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What kind of a message does such usernames send to a random person reviewing the people who wrote the article? -- Cat chi? 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames advocating potentially controversial political views