Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 4

message: This issue has come up a million times on WP:RFCN. Our current guidelines say that no one can have the username "God" which makes sense. However, a lot of editors have taken this to mean that any username containing the word "God" is prohibited. In many cases usernames containing the word God are not in the least bit offensive to anyone, and most of them end up passing RFCN without much controversy. Obviously, many usernames containing "God" are offensive, but we need to clarify that simply containing the word "God" does not automatically warrent banning. Kaldari 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change, I brought up a similar point here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, there are currently 1662 editors with usernames beginning with "God". I seriously doubt it would be productive to ban them all. Kaldari 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them already are banned. I'm personally offended by any username that has God in it. Just as I am by any username that has Allah in it. I'd also like to see the proof for this statement: "In many cases usernames containing the word God are not in the least bit offensive to anyone, and most of them end up passing RFCN without much controversy." pschemp | talk 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is generally no need to "push the envelope" in a matter like this. While you yourself did not find the username "OhOurGod" offensive, there were four other editors in the thread on RFCN who said that they either found it offensive or that it made them uncomfortable. What purpose does it serve to create difficulty in this manner, when there are many non-controversial alternatives available, and when we are talking about an editor with no edits in the first place? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are accepted proper names of non-divine figures. However, like Dio, they should probably be impermissible if coupled with other words to imply a religious reference. --tjstrf talk 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames containing "God" 

message: Ok, I've been convinced in extensive conversations with Kim Bruning and others of the wisdom of taking baby steps here. So far, everyone agrees that including a transliteration is the polite thing to do. Certainly, were I to take up editing ja.wiki actively, it is the first thing I would do. Also, thanks to User:المستهلك who has voluntarily done this. (He totally replaced his Arabic name, I don't think anyone would object to a side by side use, like "المستهلك Al-mustahlika" which is what I was envisioning.) Though I don't agree that making this a requirement is tantamount to a block threat, some people do think this, so instead, I've concluded that we should change the wording to make the suggestion stonger, but not to a level of absolute requirement at this time. I'd still suggest preparing a  to make polite requests for them, especially since few new users bother with reading every single nuance of our policies. Then, it was suggested to me, if a majority of users with these names decide not to comply, stronger wording can be looked into. To that end, I've changed the policy to read:
:Some editors on this Wikipedia will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts, and for some editors names in these scripts may be displayed only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is written in a non-Latin script, you are strongly urged to provide a transliteration in your signature (which you can set in your preferences) either instead of or side by side your username, and a link to your userpage (and preferably your talk page) in your signature to allow other editors to contact you easily and to facilitate communication. 
Cheers. pschemp | talk 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, editing with a non-Latin username just doesn't rise to the level of blockable offence, or even one where the threat of blocking is appropriate, and I'm glad to see the threats removed from the new text.  Non-Latin usernames do not harm the encyclopedia.  We should be encouraging users to make productive edits, and threatening a new user with a block over a username instead of substantive problems in editing is a great big example of biting the newcomers.  So thank you for moderating your stance on this, and I urge you to not to be tempted back into stronger wording, even if it seems like the rate of adoption is low.  Suggestion: provide a link to Special:Preferences directly from the text? —CComMack (t–c) 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get that this isn't any more biting that blocking User:ComMack for having a confusing username, which would occur even if he was a "newcomer" editing in "good faith". There is nothing inherently discriminatory about that block either. I still strongly believe that providing a transliteration is the polite thing to do, and that if people willfully ignore this, they should be required too do it, however I think they should be given a chance to comply voluntarily first, which is what this is. We have other policies to enforce polite behaviour around here, like WP:CIVIL, and this is no different. pschemp | talk 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it sometimes is necessary to block accounts created in good faith as a means of policy enforcement.  I disagree that this issue is important enough to warrant such policy.  —David Levy 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Idea

message: Please read what discrimination has to say about discrimination because of the use of languages. This proposal is discriminatory pure and simple. GerardM 07:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed it is. As I said, should I start editing ja.wiki, I would include a ja translation first thing. I'm not asking people to do anything that I wouldn't myself expect to do. "Discrimination" works both ways, and English is being discrimnated against here too. It is the same thing to force English speakers to have to deal with names that are unreadable. It is not the fault of the English wikipedia that English is used around the world and thus attracts more international editors than say, the Icelandic wiki. Those wikis don't have the issues we do because few editors use unreadable scripts there. In fact,  I'd be surprised if it has any registered Arabic script usernames on the Icelandic wiki. IF this was a wiki that functioned in all languages for everything, I'd buy the discrimination argument. However, it isn't. We only allow articles in English here too. Possibly you should object to that policy and call it discrimination also. pschemp | talk 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed — this can't be called discrimination.  And, as I've said elsewhere, I'd feel that I was being very discourteous if I refused to adopt a Japanese or Arabic user name when editing on those Wikipedias; these proposals should applied to all Wikipedias, mutatis mutandis. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, I can't read that last statement! That is discriminatory against people who don't speak Latin! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I have to agree with GerardM here. I know that a solution is needed because many people can only read Latin script, but blocking people because their username is in a non-Latin script is discriminatory. Surprisingly (or not) this requirement is only asked on the English Wikipedia, not on the German, French, or any other European languages Wikipedia. Do not ask me why... But there are no more people able to read non-Latin scripts in these Wikipedias than here. So blocking people is certainly not the only solution. Yann 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with non-latin characters, but if that is discrimination then our whole username policy is discrimination. By the literal definition it is discrimination, but the question is "Is this unethical discrimination", I don't think so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason is that English is a more universally used and taught language in international commerce than say, Danish. So of course they don't have the issues. They don't have nearly the number of people with different script name wanting to edit, so the confusion factor is low. Technically, the fact that we require articles to be in English is discrimination, but HIBC has it right. It isn't unethical discrimination to force people to write articles here in English, nor is it to ask them to include a transliteration in their signitures, because this Wiki isn't written in all languages. If it was, that would be different. pschemp | talk 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrimination

message: Of course, this would only be shown to a user whose name included non-alphanumeric characters.  Users who already fit this description would go on just like normal with their single Latin username.  Unless other symbols were considered valid in alphanumeric usernames as well, a user who had a comma or dollar sign in their name would have to pick another (additional) name that didn't have the comma.
Welcome back to Wikipedia.  You need to choose a new username.  Wikipedia now requires that you choose an additional alphanumeric username that consists only of numbers, spaces, and the 26 letters of the alphabet used in English.  Both uppercase and lowercase are allowed on this additional username, but no accents or other similar marks.  This is necessary because Wikipedia is an international project that must include all contributors regardless of their language, and some users cannot read, understand, or type many non-alphanumeric or accented characters.You aren't required to give up your current username, as each user is now entitled to two renditions of their username, only one of which must meet this restriction.  Your new alphanumeric username will be displayed to users who cannot read or type the characters that are part of your existing name.  Your existing name will continue to be shown to those who can.We recommend that your new alphanumeric username be similar to your existing one, as most members of the community will see only one or the other.  Please choose a new alphanumeric username now before you may contine to edit. (input box here)Reswobslc 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example message someone would see

message: Assuming User:Yamaguchi先生 selected an alphanumeric username of "Yamaguchi Sensei":
For someone who in their Preferences had the Unicode setting:
*(cur) (last)     00:25, 25 January 2007 Yamaguchi先生 (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 58.102.101.87 to last version by OrphanBot)
For someone who in their Preferences had the Alphanumeric setting:
*(cur) (last)     00:25, 25 January 2007 Yamaguchi Sensei (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 58.102.101.87 to last version by OrphanBot)
The preferences could even allow a mixture of the two for browsers that support Unicode but don't have Asian character sets loaded, or right-to-left text support (both are missing by default on English Windows XP unless explicitly turned on), showing Unicode most of the time, but substituting alphanumeric just on the instances of names that included Asian or right-to-left.
This would require a change to the software, but after done, I can't imagine who would be disappointed by the results. Reswobslc 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What edit summaries would look like 

message: I agree with it, the last thing we want is to oversimplify this policy that is so complex it has a rather active page dedicated to interpreting it(WP:RFCN). Nutshells are handy in some areas, but not here(in my opinion). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, more than most guidelines and policies, this page is relatively eclectic, with different issues about usernames in general. Anyway, a full, accurate summary should be made in the introduction, not a one-line summary in a floating template. —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Had I noticed that nutshell tag's addition, I would have removed it.  —David Levy 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of nutshell 

message: Why not just update this page (it's the first page newly registered users see) with translations of this line:
If your username contains non-English characters, we request that you include a transliteration (a representation using English characters) of them in your signature. Please change this now in your preferences.
Then get translations in zh, ja, ko, ar, fa, etc etc.
--pfctdayelise (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update [[MediaWiki:Welcomecreation]] 

message: Hi.
Even if one cannot delete their user account due to the possibility of authorship claiming, could one request an indefinite block on it that would keep the account but ensure it is useless? 74.38.35.171 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be much easier to just not use it, but you can also claim your right to vanish. Titoxd(?!?) 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account deletion vs blocking 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"Accounts with contributions cannot be deleted since this would allow another user to create the account, and claim authorship of those edits. It is not possible for your edits to be removed entirely. They can only be reassigned to something else so as not to violate the GNU Free Documentation License. "
How would removing them completely be a breach of the license? 74.38.35.171 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because on the vast majority of the cases, edits pile on top of one another, and the text added by one user cannot be completely extracted without screwing an article up completely. The text you add, for example, would need to be extracted from every single subsequent revision after yours, which requires a) tampering with the database, and b) tampering with the edits of other users. So, AFAIK, that is why it is not done. Besides, it's not as if we actually "deleted" edits as such; we just shove them into a dark and inconspicuous place where they get stored, to not leave any revisions hanging. Titoxd(?!?) 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then perhaps the statements should be reworded, as this suggests it is also a technical problem. It does not provide a useful rationale, it simply asserts something without explaining how one thing follows from the other, namely how removing the edits violates GFDL, and that there are also technicalities too. 74.38.32.195 07:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The GFDL licence requires that you show all authors. If a person makes a change, and that change is built upon we need to credit that change. It is not a technical problem, but a legal issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: Are there any previous discussions about usernames and userpage content kids can have? For instance, this user claims to be (and obviously is, if his contribs are any indication) eight years old. His full name is his username, and he also gives out quite a bit of personal information (date of birth, home town, and even the elementary school he goes to) on his userpage. Do we have a guideline for that sort of thing? Kafziel Talk 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left anote at WP:AN/I which is where similar incidents were dealt with before from all I could uncover.--BirgitteSB 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids 

message: I am proposing that we include in the guidlines of WP:U (specifically in the section inappropriaste usernames) that names which include characters that could cause technical difficulties to wikipedia should not be allowed.  This is due to a recent case at WP:RFCN where concerns were raised that User:% could create problems when manually entering his username into the address bar due to % being used as ( in the address bar. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a courteous and considerate thought, Ryan, but I think the developers have shown themselves amply capable of screening out such characters at account creation time, rather than leaving such a problem to the chances of being spotted and dragged to an RFC. Nor would they leave fixing a real system-threatening problem up to an RFC consensus. ("Hey, this will crash the system! Should I fix it, or is it okay if I don't?")  Wikilinks like User:% and  =  work just fine. Even  =  (the correct URL) works just fine! There's no technical problem with the username itself. -- Ben 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern here is that when you manually type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:% into the address bar you get an error. Hence why I've made the above proposal as many user will simply add User:% to the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki to quickly move to that page. I just think this small addition will stop problems with usernames like this in the future RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, with the full url template you get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:%25, not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:% and hence the problem RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fullurl template gives you the correct  URL. "That's a feature, not a bug." If you insist on handcoding a URL, it's up to you to correctly encode non-alphanumeric characters like spaces (%20) and percent signs (%25) -- and if you get those wrong, it's not the username's or article title's fault. -- Ben 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical problems with usernames proposal 

message: It means quick, and is no way a trademark violation, the distinction should be made clear--70.107.112.158 03:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And no one is talking about blocking usernames with just wiki in them. Never were. pschemp | talk 05:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at [ WikiRegulator] (disallowed), versus [ Wikipediatrix] (allowed), on the same archive page. Even though the first had just "Wiki-", and the second had a full "Wikipedia-" -- but the first seemed to claim authority, while the second did not. -- Ben 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *Ahem* Wikipedia is a trademark, [[Wiki (disambiguation)|Wiki]] is a word 

message: (Copied from an RFC/NAME discussion that may be closed at any moment:)Long long ago, there was a desktop-publishing program called "PublishIt", whose users sometimes found that they literally could not discuss or even mention it on bulletin-board systems devoted to software discussions -- because the BBS automatic-censorship feature would block their posts, or at least mangle the program name into "Publi****". (The feature was simple-minded enough that changing "i" to "!", or "t" to "+", would evade such blocking, so those who actually intended obscenity were not impeded until the "banned-words" list was updated -- which encouraged continually innovative spellings, but that's another story.)My point is that the auto-block feature wasn't "stupid", it was merely mechanical, as befits a simple string-searching subroutine -- but such behavior would have been stupid in a human being.Jimbo and the WMF have always had the option to automatically prevent certain characters or strings from ever appearing in usernames, from the moment accounts are created. Not very long ago they chose to exercise that option against email-ID usernames (containing "@"). But mostly they prefer to trust human judgment rather than a mechanical process. When we behave mechanically, we betray that trust.There is a rational and consistent reason some usernames containing "Wikipedia" have been blocked, while others have not: the blocked names gave the false impression of official authority (or contained other offensive or obscene terms, etc.), while the never-blocked names did not. We should continue to apply that rational and consistent reasoning to current and future cases, not turn our minds off and behave like one line of a subroutine ("if CONTAINS-WIKIPEDIA then DO BLOCK"). -- Ben 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying the reasons <u>behind</u> the rules 

message: Would anyone have any problems with me asking Jimbo for clarification on the wikipedia trademark and the wikipedia foundations policy on allowing wikipedia in usernames? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for it. He and those at central may be key in this issue. Note, this policy has not been in play in the years that wikipedia has been around. It should be interesting. Thanks for taking the initiative, Ryan. --Kukini 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just emailed him. To all sides, it was a very neutral email so don't worry, but I forgot to save the email before I sent it otherwise I would have posted it here RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is one of those few times where "ask Jimbo?" doesn't make me cringe. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to hear that as I wasn't sure! I'm putting an editted version of my email on his talk page now RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, put a message on his talk page. He'll come here, or want to discuss this there. Anyway, asking Mr. Jimbo Wales about something isn't a bad thing, depending on what you ask him. Just make sure the circumstances require his attention. Acalamari 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The email can now be viewed on Jimbo's talk page RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it. Nice one. Acalamari 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That ought a clear things up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ask Jimbo?

message: I received the following email from Jimbo, hope it helps RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we go forward in the future regarding these names? Simply block usernames which have the potential to sound official on a case by case basis? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah. If a name says just "Wikipedia" (no addition) or adds something official-sounding ("Wikipedia Office", "Wikipedia Bureau", "Wikipedia Department", "Wikipedia CEO", etc.), that could lead a new user to believe this is someone with authority. But who's going to believe that "Wikipediasteve" or "Wikipediawonder" or "The Wonderful Wizard of Wikipedia" is an official ID? -- Ben 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah that seams fair, maybe put the date of the policy in to clarify when it starts? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that should be done. This is a new policy. Acalamari 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I will add it, with the date. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, however someone might want to go over and bold a few words to make it look like it's neighbors. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some cleanup rephrasing to match format, meaning unchanged.* -- Ben 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Email from Jimbo

message: I propose that add an addition to WP:U that forbids creation of any username with .com in. This would remove ambiguity for any username that isn't quite spam but has the potential to be so in the future. I can't think of a legitamate use of this in a username RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to expand this to TLD's in general. A .co.uk or a .nl username has just as much spam potential as a .com username. AecisBrievenbus 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree and should realy have had that in the proposal RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "any other top level domain", to resolve ambiguity? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'd go for that;
*Any username which contains a domain or implies a web address. This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other top level domain.
RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disallowing .com names 

message: Any user name which contains a domain or implies a web address. This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other similar suffix.
Any thoughts on that?RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "any other top level domain", to resolve ambiguity? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'd go for that;
*Any username which contains a domain or implies a web address. This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other top level domain.
RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition

message: We have a policy that currently reads "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character." (my bolding) I am wondering if we are building in too much room for the judgment of others to presume what is apparent with this wording. Why not allow the user opportunity to clarify why her or his username is not actually random? I move that we remove the word "apparent" from policy. --Kukini  hablame aqui 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case under current discussion relevant to this concern is here: User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, with the discussion here: .  --Kukini  hablame aqui 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine names that are the Log of 30 which is "1.4771212547196624372950279032551", that is not random. I can move my finger in an organized pattern like so: "QAZXSWEDCVFR", just starting at the top right, then going down, then up and so on, that is not random either. That is why we have apparent in the policy. It does not matter if the user knows how the name was formed, or even if they can explain it. The fact is that is makes names hard to read, remember, track, and type. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that the "difficult to read" argument will not suffice over time, as our numbers continue to grow, all the words that we perceive as easy to read will eventually get used up. --Kukini  hablame aqui 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an unlimited number(atleast bigger than the population of the Earth) of acceptable usernames, we aren't asking people to pick it out of the dictionary. Kukini is a fine name, but it means nothing to me, but it is not random or hard to remember/type/track/distinguish. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the digit limit and the presumption that we need apparently non-random usernames (a nearly entirely subjective judgment), I fear that there is not an unlimited number of usernames out there. This site's userbase is growing very quickly. --Kukini  hablame aqui 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, the exponential nature of letter arrangements means there will be WAY more than 6-7 billion reasonable usernames. Also, if in the future we start to run out(say new planets with bigger populations join Wikipedia over the GalaxyNet(replacement of the internet)), policy can change. I see no reason to change it now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, the subjectivity involved in deciding if something appears random seems quite heavy handed when considering the spirit of wikipedia WP:AGF. But I will hush up on this now and see if WP:CCC there is ongoing consensus on this issue. Kukini  hablame aqui 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:U is supposed to be subjective, that is why we have WP:RFCN. But of course, I agree that we need more opinions. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem with random usernames appears when they are of unwieldy length AND random, not simply when they are random. The problem is when the name is not anything that actually has thought put into it, just keyboard pounding like a;oihad;fkjnaw;oius;knmkasd or whatever. As usual, I'll disclaim this statement by pointing out my own signature. --tjstrf talk 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a related discussion in the history, here is a link [#Random_Letters_3:_The_Debate Random_Letters_3: The Debate], there is also other related discussions on that page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK...thanks for discussing this with me. I think I understand the spirit of the policy now. Kukini  hablame aqui 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I await with resignation the day that names like Einojuhani Rautavaara, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde; Parekura Horomia, Kōmihana Tirotiro Whanonga Pirihimana, and Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi; Simeonie Keenainak, Irene Avaalaaqiaq Tiktaalaaq, and Kenojuak Ashevak; are all blocked as "apparently random sequences of letters or of extended repetitions of particular characters, some of unwieldy length (>36), and all of them hard to read, remember, track, and type." -- Ben 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking here...but aren't those actually articles, and not usernames? Kukini  hablame aqui 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right: real names of real people -- artists, composers, and so on -- who might be fascinating Wikipedia contributors if they ever logged in, except they'd be indefblocked for their names before they could type in their first edits. -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Those don't look remotely random to me, they look like names or words in another language. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Languages plural, of the Finnish, Maori, and Inuit peoples respectively. I would have gone on to Hawaiian, Mongolian, etc., but real life called. -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. They also don't look like usernames, which was the subject of this discussion. --Kukini  hablame aqui 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Jimbo Wales, Sarah Ewart, John Broughton, and Ryanpostlethwaite do look like usernames to you, right? -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they do. The word "User" just prior to the names on those pages is the biggest indicator. --Kukini  hablame aqui 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One would hope that if any of those notable persons decided to become a Wikipedia editor, it would suffice for them to use less than their full names (he says as he starts thinking about usurping the account of User:John B ...   -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a signature/nickname, maybe, maybe not. I sign with a short form of my somewhat longer username, just to save space on the talk pages. It's often advised not to use one's full real name on the Wikis, due to the chance of real-world harassment, but it's certainly not forbidden... except now maybe to Finnish, Maori, and Inuit users.... -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't have to wait long for the calls to block foreign names as "apparently random": Vivekvaibhawdwivedi (Vivek Vaibhaw Dwivedi) was nominated for just that reason, and has already collected some "disallow" votes. -- Ben 06:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern over the concept of "apparent"