Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 9

message: I think this rule should be changed to read: Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless that verifiably is your name, in which case please note this on your user page.
We ought not be discriminating against the Michael Boltons of the world, right? —Random832 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrugs*.  Why don't they just go by "Mike"?  ;)  Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree if you share the same name as a celebrity that you should be allowed to use your name, but that a notice on your userpage declaring you are not that celebrity is important. The policy seems ambiguous saying "unless you verifiably are that person", if your name was truly Micheal Bolton, then you really would be that person even if you are not the celebrity. I think we could make it clearer once we decide what the consensus is on this matter. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity rule 

message: Is it possible to move my anonymous edits so that they show up under my username?  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  If you want to, you can list your IP address on your userpage so people can look at your anon editing history.  But I would hesitate to recommend that; revealing your IP compromises your privacy.  Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if you have a dynamic ip, the address is reassigned every time you recoonect to the internet and so other people's contributions may also show up. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP contributions 

message: I've been thinking about this policy a lot over the past few days and I really believe it's time for a change. I think we need to scrap quite a few parts of it that turn it into what is probably one of the strictest username policies on the internet. As a whole, Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored but this policy is full of quite a few silly rules that stop good faith usernames that won't offend anyone or really cause any problems. I believe there are two key parts to the policy which we should still keep; the offensive usernames (obviously so people aren't offended) and names which are similar to other users (so people don't get mixed up) - I really do believe the rest we can live without. At the end of the day, is it really bad for a user to use the name of a company unless the username itself is really promoting that company - if there's a COI problem, block them for editing abuse, but not for username. If the usernames apparently random, well who really cares? We have talk page and contrib links that are easily clicked on and let's face it, it's most likely a throwaway account as the user won't be able to remember their username themselves. Another thing that I think should be addressed is the use of blocks against usernames, our tolerance level at present is shocking, we block everything. Really, who is User:Poop going to offend? Hopefully no-one. Unless there's a very serious issue with a username, I say don't block and let them edit, if it may infringe on the policy, then let the user get on and edit. I really hope we can try and sort this policy out once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also say to keep a prohibition on overly long names, since those are annoying in signatures. But past that, I agree. -Amarkov moo! 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah, we want to block people for being annoying now? SamBC(talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the policy could do with a certain amount of de-CREEPing, although I'm not sure if the examples grew in the way they did because of creep or what. The basic principles are okay, particularly the five categories in my opinion, although offensive and disruptive ought to be combined into disruptive - disruptive to harmonious editing, as the policy says later on. SamBC(talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ryan, although I would include lengthly or confusing names; those are the only ones I have a particular problem with. i said 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The real problems seem to stem from some of the people applying the policy lacking common sense, or lacking the patience to discuss names with the users involved. If the only way to address that is to change the policy, then fine, but I'd favour a rewrite of the policy to emphasise the need to avoid WP:BITE and to discuss before blocking, and then to try and stamp out the instances of blocking borderline usernames on sight. Carcharoth 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. The current list muddles the issue by conflating different kinds of username problems that merit different responses. Mango, is your proposed IU replacement still relevant, or do you want to adjust it a bit? I think the most productive thing we can do here is to examine a single option and see who supports it over the status quo. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needed adjustment, and I have just done so.  Mangojuicetalk 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Change name or else.... Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forced rename" for non-blatant usernames with edits 

message: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination).  Mangojuicetalk 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some sort of campaign to make it hard for an admin to talk to other editors about a username before deciding on a block? I remember when I could pop by RFCN and ask about a name, now I pretty much have to decide myself. Thanks. 1 != 2 15:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, when in doubt, don't block?  Then you don't need backup opinions.  Mangojuicetalk 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How about when in doubt inform yourself, then make a decision based on that? 1 != 2 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate of interest 

message: I notice that coverage of issues such as use of non-Latin and unicode characters is split between the current username policy, the signature guidelines and Help:Preferences. I wonder how it could be improved. There seems to be a lot of duplicated content with slightly different presentations in each case and a degree of inconsistency. Has anybody else noticed it? I think it could even be a bit confusing and overwhelming for newcomers (the prose is very long and dense). Is it something we could address as part of revising and updating the username policy? - Neparis 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's only there because of cognitive dissonance. When the username policy was enforced in a way that blocked every username that confused a username reviewer in the slightest, yet they found out they had to allow non-Latin names, they responded by creating a pile of rules about how to use non-Latin names. I think the proper solution is to remove the instruction creep and chill out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy document exists to give guidance to users choosing names as well as to admins blocking (or not blocking) them. I suspect that it needs to say "non-english-language/non-latin names are explicitly allowed, although users choosing these names should be aware of some additional concerns, see some-other-page-not-sure-which". SamBC(talk) 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, non English usernames are a waste of time, even if redirects with English characters are created. In order to make changes to the policy, thorough consensus would have to be determined. Qst 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless of your personal tastes, whether to allow non-English usernames isn't an issue for the English Wikipedia to decide. It has been decided by the developers that usernames must be portable between different projects, many of which are in other languages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap of username policy and signature guidelines 

message: How about we never block anyone for just their name? How? Simply, with the help of the developers, to introduce a forced name change procedure, to temporary numbered generic usernames (e.g. "User:Temp00001", "User:Temp00002" etc), and this to be able to be done by admins also (aside from bureaucrats whose increased status secures mostly that the new username requested in WP:CHU is not taken or otherwise offensive -which can never be the case for a standard automatic temp name). The help of the developers is only needed so that the automated procedure is programmed, so that it can be done by admins, and so that the user in question be able to login under their previous login and password, and be able to see a boilerplate on top of their screen to warn them of the change (hell, if it can be done for donations to WP, it certainly can be done for those users too). This way, we let the "bad" username holder login without penalizing them, and we also prevent their "bad" username from polluting our history pages. Thoughts? NikoSilver 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only support that in extreme cases, like if someone put another person's personal information in their username.  If we do it too often, people will just end up using those temp names to edit, which would be bad because that would be very confusing.  Mangojuicetalk 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably I didn't stress "temporary" too much. I mean with a date of expiry (maybe related to their first subsequent edit also), after which it is blocked, much like we do now. NikoSilver 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting proposal, but I can't imagine that it would help in enough cases to justify the extra process. Also, it's DOA because it requires the developers to make a big change to possibly benefit one small aspect of Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough developers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good idea, we could reserve username blocks for bad faith users only and rename the rest. However it will add to the 'crat backlog. 1 != 2 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherry topping

message: Mangojuice, I notice that your proposal outline does not mention username warnings anywhere in it. Do you intend for "disallow" to mean "block", or do you intend it to mean "warn or block as appropriate"?
I would actually be okay with phasing out username warnings, as long as the policy is written so that it only covers names that actually need to be blocked. For example, if something about "confusing usernames" comes back into the policy, I would insist on keeping username warnings around, as most usernames deemed "confusing" are not so intolerable that they need to be blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My "disallow" is intended to mean that a user is told that their name is not acceptable and that they must stop using it or change it (similar wording to the current  message).  Such a message may or may not be accompanied by a block, based on the circumstance; if there is no block initially, one may be applied later if the user doesn't comply.  Mangojuicetalk 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username warnings? 

message: Hi there, does anyone here know why my English user name does not work when I try to edit the Chinese version of Wikipedia?  I wanted to insert a  sign but couldn't do it because the system does not recognized my English account.  In other words, I couldn't log in and the entry I was trying to edit, because it is semi-protected, requires users to log in.
Thank you for your explanation in advance. Arctura 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you register your name on the Chinese Wikipedia? Although some developers are talking about unifying usernames across all Wikipedias (the idea of which I support, though I think their implementation will cause serious problems), right now you have to register separately on every project. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your speedy answer.  I am new to Wikipedia and I incorrectly assumed that all versions of Wikepedia is run by the same organization.  Thank you for clarifying this. :) Arctura 02:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English user name does not work for the Chinese version of Wikepedia?? 

message: I want to change my username from Antonio.sierra to Hamsterpoop to avoid using my real name and to have the same username on all Wikimedia projects. I have never received a warning for conduct problems (or any other type of warning) and have edited the english Wikipedia since July 2006. This rename would make it a lot easier for myself to work on various Wikimedia projects (in both english and spanish) i.e. wikipedia, wikisource, wikibooks, wikiquote, etc. I proposed this on WP:RENAME but was denied because it was apparently offensive. I believe this was a misinterpretation of the username policy by following the literal rules and examples, and missing the meaning and spirit of said policy. The username is not offensive to anybody. In the argument I cited references to WP:IU, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:BURO, etc. The reason I'm here, talking about this, is that I want see if the same conclusion that was reached by the bureaucrat (I'm not renaming you to something with poop in. We routinely block usernames with poop in. Come up with a better name if you want to be renamed.) is reached by consensus. Thanks. --Xer0 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFCN might be a better venue for this. --Deskana (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names --Xer0 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonio.sierra ---> Hamsterpoop 

message: This sentence 
Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. 
seems not only unnecessary but also incorrect - we don't block shared accounts because of COI, we block them because that's part of how we establish legal liability - our editors are individuals. In other words, we don't need to explain further, or justify further, what we do in some specific cases when we block accounts; we have our policy, period.
I suggest removing the above sentence, since another sentence, above it, seems complete: For reasons of attribution and accountability, you are not allowed to share your account or password with others. If you do, and this becomes known, your account will be blocked. Why say more? -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, I've been bold and removed the wording myself. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary wording? 

message: I am just wondering if someone could tell me if someone has a name, such as the name of an organization, and they are not a member or representative of that organization, if they are allowed to posses a username that implies that they are, in fact, that organization. I believe that this isn't allowed, but please rectify me if I'm wrong. --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫íš†tell me about it 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of organization 

message: I'm considering changing my username to be my real name. The article says, "Wikipedia editors have been subject to severe harassment inside and outside of Wikipedia," and this seems an important consideration, but I am not readily able to find any discussion of such severe harassment. Is there some history documented somewhere to which that sentence could link, so users could make informed decisions? I see it as likely that what someone considers "severe harassment" is behaviour I could take in stride, as that I have no conception how bad things have gotten for others (e.g. I don't really need my kneecaps bashed in). —Christian Campbell 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation of "severe harassment (of editors) inside and outside of Wikipedia"? 

message: On Friday, December 7, 2007, I found my account on Wikipedia was no longer there.  I had to create it again.  Why was the account deleted? tharkun860 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the account?  Accounts can't be deleted but things are case-sensitive.  You can try a search at Special:Listusers if you can remember your username, to see if the account still exists.  Accounts can be renamed without your permission (see Wikipedia:Usurpation) but only, pretty much, for unused accounts.  Mangojuicetalk 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe you're confused between your account being deleted and having to log back in. You weren't deleted, as evidenced by the fact that you're posting and Special:Contributions/Tharkun860 shows all your edits, including this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Now that you say it it's obvious.  Tharkun860 - you have contributions on this account dating back over 2 years.  Surely, you just had to log in again.  Mangojuicetalk 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my account deleted? 

message: "The username policy covers accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia for accounts created after 2006-12-08." This sentence was added in this edit by Patsw in April 2007. However, there is a typo that no one has noticed for almost a year, evident in the talk page discussion that led to the date being added to the policy; Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 6#Grandfather policy refers to the date as 2005-12-08. With this, I have to ask a few questions: Which one is the typo? Given that the current state has stood as is for the last 8 months, should it stay even if a typo? Is/was there ever a consensus on such a date and its implications? Does this date actually matter; would any problems arise were this sentence to be removed or the date altered? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that sentence; apart from anything else, as written it would exempt accounts older than that date from the whole policy, including the stuff about multiple accounts, which is obviously not the case – Gurch 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandfather date 

message: I've added a line clarifying some main types of "misleading" that might not be obvious.
:* Usernames which imply collective basis ("Military articles squad") - names with "squad", "group", "project", "team", "taskforce" give edits by that username an apparent weight which it usually does not merit. A username that suggests the weight of some "group" or "authority" is likely to be misleading.
:* Usernames which imply authority ("NPOV_enforcer"), ditto, likely to mislead and imply authority.
:* Usernames that mislead in other ways.
Hopefully helpful. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I think the policy was made too generalized. Some more specific examples are helpful. 1 != 2 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There used to be dozens of such lines covering various things, which were mostly taken out and reduced to the basic four a while back. I can't recall the exact rationale, perhaps something to do with being less prescriptive here. Still, I can't see any problem with your addition – Gurch 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I tried to resist the generalization of this policy, but after several weeks I just let it go. 1 != 2 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A /Examples page maybe? (Like WP:WHEEL and WP:NPOV.) And yes I agree, keep it simple :) FT2 (Talk | email) 13:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: try this? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a non prescriptive page to clarify the communities feelings on the more detailed areas. Good start. 1 != 2 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "misleading" 

message: I recently renamed this page and rewrote most of this policy. Initially I did this all at once and it was difficult to see from a diff what I had done, so I reverted it and re-instated it in two chunks. The part in which I actually changed stuff may be found [ here]; I then moved a lot of stuff around, and made quite a few subsequent edits to tidy things up. I do not consider any of my changes to constitute actual policy changes, merely clarifications and rearrangements.
The following is just hypothetical at the moment, and I'm certainly not going to try it just yet, but ultimately I believe that we really only need one page to cover use of user accounts. It should be possible to merge the actual policy part of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which is actually not that much of the page, with this policy, leave that page as an information page, and still not have this page be much bigger than it was before I rewrote it. There would be several advantages to this:
* Simplicity is good, instruction creep bad; the fewer policies the better. It would only be necessary to read one page – which, given that this page already defines sockpuppetry and states our policy on multiple accounts, would barely be longer than it is now – to see our policy on user accounts, rather than having to wade through Wikipedia:Sock puppetry picking out the bits that are actually policy.
* Contributors would be able to add to, update and otherwise modify the useful information about possible uses of sockpuppets, ways of identifying them, suggestions for legitimate uses and so on on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry without worrying that they were messing with official policy. I think that at the moment this is discouraging people from doing so; since this information is not actually policy at all, this is a bad thing.
* I feel that even those bits of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry that are policy are mostly redundant fluff. People make far too much fuss about sock puppetry, which I am convinced is at least partially responsible for its prevalence. If the policy basically stated what is stated under "Sock puppetry" on this page now, with a little extra explanation, I think that it would be just as effective; really, I can state our policy on sock puppetry in seven words: malicious use of multiple accounts is prohibited. An entire page to elaborate on variations of this is unnecessary; a single section will do nicely.
Again, none of this would involve any actual policy changes, just a change in the way policy is presented. Were it not for the fact that it would involve removal of the "policy" tag from a page, it would be no more difficult than the rewrite I have just done, but people love their tags and removing one is guaranteed to create a fuss. Gurch 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Sock puppetry is enough of a unique problem that I think it serves us better on its own page. There is such a thing as over simplification. 1 != 2 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree it deserves its own page. Just not necessarily its own policy – Gurch 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is an issue unto itself, I think it does need its own policy. Sock puppetry and other user account issues really don't have much overlap. 1 != 2 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and possible merge