Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 2

message: Okay, this is not hypothetical anymore. Admins actually act upon this. See User:12123434 and User:1122334, for example. 
These aren't cases of someone choosing an offensive, or otherwise bothersome username, in fact there is absolutely no reason to think the name is malicious. Allow me to quote
Fearless Leader here:
:What we want to avoid is a situation in which people are blasted for petty offenses with rules that they could never have guessed at in the first place. Yes we have style standards for example, but if someone doesn't adhere, we just fix it and leave them a friendly note, rather than yelling at them for breaking a rule.
Not only do we yell at them, we block them on sight. As rulecruft goes, this has to take the cake. Objections to removing this rule? 192.75.48.150 18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is much better to leave a friendlty note to them. The above usernames are in no way malicious in nature. This is a classic example of rulecraft that had gone overboard a bit. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, it's totally random, one day someone might create  and wind up blocked, 1 hour later, some other person creates  for instance, and winds up growing up to be a constructive user--205.188.117.5 15:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, actually, this is not hypothetical either.  versus  versus  versus ... 192.75.48.150 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious 

message: I have an idea on this line between acceptable and un.-If someone has a username that is obscene but no big deaK like user:one damn fine bastard, for example dont block them -- Jig-Saw 02:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inapropriate 

message: I suggest the following addition to "troublesome" names (Not the block-on-sight-indef ones):
;Slogans or imperatives.
We have had bad experiences with users' whose names either sounded advocative or declaratory, or seemed to read like an order. Also, if you contribute to an articel that is related to your slogan-based username, many people will find it hard to not assume you are there to advocate the opinion expressed in your username, possibly at the expense of neutrality.
Look any good? 68.39.174.238 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea I'm floating 

message: I would like to add "Usernames that consist of nothing but a date" to the types of inappropriate usernames.  Recently, we had User:September 7th 2006... and I don't think we need to allow usernames like that.  Also, with the exception of certain very well-known dates, such usernames will be hard to distinguish from each other.  Any objections? Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Many objections. First: Unnecessary Rules For Rare Cases. Second: see above under "randomness". Third: the particular example is bad, as he was blocked for vandalism anyway, so what benefit would there have been? 192.75.48.150 15:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point.  As soon as I saw that username, I concluded the user in question was up to no good.  Better to block vandal usernames before they get used.  Mangojuicetalk 17:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you're really sure, better to block vandal usernames AFTER they get used. See, for example, User:SeptemberX1990. 192.75.48.150 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Objection. It's a stupid rule. IT'll become a rule that'll get innocent newbies banned for breaking it when they didn't even know it existed. It's not common sense, and having a date as a username is not "obviously" offensive. So what if they're hard to distinguise from each other? You don't make a username for other people's convinence. If it's not *bad* (i.e. offensive, causes technical problems..etc), then why should we disallow it? If we really wanted to avoid confusion, i say stop un-registered users from editing. No username is more confusing on "history" pages than whole lists of different (but similar) IP addresses. Yaksha 10:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using dates as usernames 

message: The policy says that Usernames that closely resemble any used by vandals are inappropriate.  But neither of the links in that section seems to provide any kind of a list of such names, or other way to identify them.  Presumably there is such a list (or other way to identify such names), under the principle of verifiability.  It would be much more useful if this information were included or prominently linked to by the section.  Otherwise it just makes it hard for beginners - you tell them that there exist names that are frowned upon, but give no way of knowing what the names are.  ("I have ... a list ..." [Joseph McCarthy])
:I believe that there used to be one, but that it was removed on the basis of WP:DENY. But this leaves us in the situation of giving rather useless advice to beginners. We should probably rethink this. 192.75.48.150 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest add information on how to find out what are vandal/sockpuppet names 

message: To clarify, since this is not explicitly stated here: Do the names of well known characters —fictional or otherwise— fall into the trademark category? For example:
*Can a bot account go by the username "Autobot", or use another well know name that ends in bot?
*Can someone create a user account with the username "Santa Clause" or "Eater Bunny" or "Ronald McDonald" or something along those lines?
*And can well know culturaly signifigant things like "67 Chevy" or "VW Bug" be used as a username?
I ask out of couriosity because this doesn't appear here, and the question has peeked my interest. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like just another rule we don't need. There is no legal issue here. 192.75.48.150 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPORTANT

message: As of September 26, 2006, the Mediawiki software was changed so the users may no longer register usernames with the "@" in them.  Existing usernames with the sign are not blocked, but should be encouraged to change their names as the sign interferes with some Mediawiki functions. Please see bugzilla:6849.  I added this to the page but the old paragraph may need to be rewritten. From Brion "Existing usernames won't be blocked for now, but they ought to get renamed..."  pschemp | talk 18:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the old paragraph is not necessary anymore. Your note is better as is. 192.75.48.150 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "ought to get renamed?" This may be a problem in the case of probably a few established Wikipedians that have @s in their usernames. (User:I@n springs to my mind first) Misza13 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's not an email either and exceptions can probably be made, but certainly the ones with 2 edits can be changed. pschemp | talk 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit unclear as to whether I need to change my username or not. "...interferes with some Mediawiki functions." sounds ominous.  What exactly is the issue?  (I'm not overly bothered about changing it BTW) -- I@n 06:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a potential problem unrelated to email: Stewards acting on Requests for permissions use usernames in the format user@wiki. See m:Special:Log/rights for an example of this. ~Kylu (u|t)  05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediawiki change affecting usernames

message: A friend of mine was looking to register for User:Garran, but it seems to be already taken. He thinks this might have been him, but if so he has forgotten the password and did not supply an email address. His IP is 64.180.173.135 -- is there a way to see if that matches that of the extant Garran? --Masamage 06:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so, not after several months have passed. 66.230.200.227 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, if WP:DUU90 gets its act together, the account will be deleted and he can take it. 66.230.200.227 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, thank you. --Masamage 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username question 

message: By law it is required to follow the request of a user to have his account deleted. So how can i do that. Please can anyone help me with this issue. Best let me know on my talk page.thx.Slicky 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accounts cannot be deleted see m:Right to vanish. See also Wikipedia:No legal threats--`/aksha 02:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can, however, add  to your user page and talk page, and those will be deleted. --Masamage 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do i delete or request deletion of my user account 

message: I have very recently made my account, and as such have not made any edits yet. Before I get started, I wanted to make sure my account was "legal" within the rules defined by this policy. I noted the one about no references to organized crime, but my name was not ment to alude to pirates as theives but rather a more romanticized vision of pirates and corsairs apparent in videogames, books, and movies etc, etc. Any one know if I should request it to be changed because its offensive?--The Corsair 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no authority, so wait for others to reply...but it seems okay to me. I like it. ^__^ --Masamage 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification, please.. 

message: I have rolled back changes to this, restoring to this version. The policy has been the way it was for a very long time, and therefore clearly there was consensus for that version. At this point there needs to be consensus FOR THE CHANGE here on this talk page, which there is not, before the page itself is changed. If reversion to a non consensus version continues, there may be repercussions. Please seek consensus to change away from a long time version before doing so. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: tjstrf: Along this vein, I think your proposed words have some merit, but you need to propose them here so we can discuss the changes first sincee this is obviously a contentious issue. Would you mind doing that please? pschemp | talk 14:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The page has been protected by  due to the revert warring. I support this protection as there were some folks warring over it without seeking consensus here first. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored to earlier version

message: I don't understand why there is a prohibition on non-latin names; it seems obvious to me that we should allow users on other projects to use the same names here.  (yes, some names are harder to type than others; but all can be cut and pasted.  some english names are harder to type than others too.  perhaps we could mandate that all usernames be no more than 8 characters?)  If anyone can find a link to the discussion that preceded adding that section to this page, please link to it here. +sj + 04:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually some can't be cut and pasted and we can't expect that the average wikipedia user will reconfigure their browser to display various and sundry obscure scripts. There have been various discussions about this all over but none has ever had enough consensus to remove the rule, and it will be difficult to track them all down (Think I've seen some here, some on ANI, some on CVU but not sure). I think the current feeling is that we're just kind of waiting to see what happens when we get universal login, at which point the whole policy will have to be looked at. pschemp | talk 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For some browsers these don't render properly, so you end up with ? or little square boxes or whatever instead (happens on my windows box). Making the usernames indistiguishable. --pgk 06:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "turning into "?" and little boxes" is the main problem...although that adds to the typability issue. From the looks of it, people just use latin letters in their username and go ahead with using wierd letters/characters in signitures (although that causes the same problem on talk pages...) --`/aksha 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's my problem with them. Right now there's a user I keep seeing around that has their signature as (apparently) "??? (????)". I can't figure out who they are (and can't install new scripts on some computers), or how to differentiate them from some other non-latin username with the same number of characters. Hence the problem. I'd encourage renaming for those users. -- nae'blis 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is to hover your cursor over the name link to see what their real name is.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could remember where I saw that username/signature, now. I got the impression that the username was encoded strangely too, but now I can't come across it. -- nae'blis 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it too, maybe on an AFD? I can't remember either but it was an attempt at rendering a script so obscure that firefox wouldn't recognize it (and I have firefox set to recognize as many script types as possible). pschemp | talk 03:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're talking about the same person, the username itself was wierd also. You actually had to click on the username to see who it was, hovering didn't work. --`/aksha 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the longest time User:Cyde's sig, when you hovered, gave a sideways arrow (the resize cursor) instead of details, unless you are a popups user, the popup came up eventually. Was that it? pschemp, do you have a doc pointer to how to set firefox to recognise lots of script types? that sounds handy... ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it most definately was not Cyde and this was recent. I saw it 4 days ago. pschemp | talk 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-latin names 

message: Does the inclusion of the word "evil" in my username make it offensive? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Whom would it offend?  Evil people or good people?  Chick Bowen 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about my username 

message: I want to use this username, but is already taken and is not being used right now, how can I use it? 201.130.66.5 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  username 

message: :Anons removing portions of policy without discussion and consensus could wind up getting blocked
I thought that's exactly what I did. Discussed on the talk page. Waited. No objection. So, it was removed. There was no objection till much, much later. On that basis, I don't think I did anything wrong, even if we assume that the rule is sensible to begin with -- and it seems I'm in the majority when I say that it isn't. 
Well, whatever. 192.75.48.150 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get "consensus" before... 

message: I just signed up as Segers_J and now I cannot log in. A warning that underscore "_" will break things is needed, I read the username page before I submitted, and it said nothing about underscore being invalid, and everywhere else I have a login they allow [A-Z] [a-z] [_-] further, can someone remove Segers_J as I have since registered Jerry Segers, Jr.  User:Jerry Segers, Jr. Also, what gives with the editing setup of this page, very clunky.
:I've redirected User:Segers_J to your currect userpage for you, not sure what else to do. The best place to ask about possible ways of making underscores work would probably be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --tjstrf talk 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more immediate fix would be to mention on this page warning about these characters. Does anyone have a complete list of problematic characters? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest invalid characters list be added to username page