Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 1

message: I added this (grudgingly). I'm tempted to just change the page to say "no inappropriate usernames" and indicate that the community decides what is and is not appropriate. Hmm. Martin 19:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  No deliberately confusing usernames 

message: I cannot find anywhere a list of which special characters are allowed in usernames (or maybe not allowed). For example, are apostrophes allowed e.g. O'Reilly. I have found lots of special characters but not a single username containing an apostrophe. If someone knows the list could you please add a section on this article? Thanks, Nanobug 15:19, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowed characters 

message: Many computer languages have a (short!) list of reserved keywords, which you are not allowed to use to make your own identifiers.
Perhaps wikipedia could have a similar list, and reject names and article titles that are in that list. This would help prevent bugs and perhaps prevent certain classes of exploits (be they software or wetware). Specifically this would help prevent people using confusing interface or wikipedia terms.
Words that *do* appear in the list can then safely be assigned special properties. (though not all words on that list need have such properties) Kim Bruning 12:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC
=== Policy may be too weak ===
"Edgy" user names give the project a bad name and waste resources and debate.  I think the policy should state more clearly that user names that communicate any sort of POV, agenda, power, sponsorship, special status, corporate backing, etc etc are inappropriate.  Same should be true for sigs but that is, IMO, less important.  If a user name causes controversy or annoyance to even a small fraction of the community, if the objections are reasonable, the name should not stand.  It simply isn't a part of the project where we need a lot of indulgence.  Like edit summaries, user names are widely visible, and are likely to be part of any alternate distribution of the Wikipedia content (for GFDL compliance).  They also transcend any category boundaries that we might have in place, so if we develop (for example) an elementary-school edition that is a subset of the content, most user names will still be visible.  UninvitedCompany 03:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I support that. Martin 13:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: That said, if we are serious about getting rid of inappropriate usernames, we really should start removing them from the history via an enforced rename. I hope the devs sort out a way to allow sysops to rename users. Martin 13:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserved Keywords 

message: "Edgy" user names give the project a bad name and waste resources and debate.  I think the policy should state more clearly that user names that communicate any sort of POV, agenda, power, sponsorship, special status, corporate backing, etc etc are inappropriate.  Same should be true for sigs but that is, IMO, less important.  If a user name causes controversy or annoyance to even a small fraction of the community, if the objections are reasonable, the name should not stand.  It simply isn't a part of the project where we need a lot of indulgence.  Like edit summaries, user names are widely visible, and are likely to be part of any alternate distribution of the Wikipedia content (for GFDL compliance).  They also transcend any category boundaries that we might have in place, so if we develop (for example) an elementary-school edition that is a subset of the content, most user names will still be visible.  UninvitedCompany 03:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I support that. Martin 13:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: That said, if we are serious about getting rid of inappropriate usernames, we really should start removing them from the history via an enforced rename. I hope the devs sort out a way to allow sysops to rename users. Martin 13:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy may be too weak 

message: Can the "Choosing a username" section be updated to include an explanation of what the limitations on usernames are? By that, I mean:
*Is there a minimum or maximum length?
*Are usernames case-sensitive?
*What special characters (spaces, punctuation marks, etc.) are allowed?
Stuff like that.
Pat Berry 18:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: ===Proposed policy===
:In extreme cases (for instance, a username consisting of a highly offensive statement or a string of profanities), sysops make on-the-spot judgements that a username is against our username policy. They base this decision in part on discussions on the user's talk page, and the requests for comments page. They also base it on any relevant precedents.
===Support===
# Qualified support, only for "extreme cases" as stated on the policy page. I don't think we need discussion to figure out that a username should be blocked if it consists of a highly offensive statement or a string of profanities. Contrary to what is on the policy page right now, I think the user's behavior is not relevant to whether an inappropriate username qualifies as an "extreme case"; the content of the name itself is what matters. --Michael Snow 17:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysop blocks of inappropriate usernames 

message: # Qualified support, only for "extreme cases" as stated on the policy page. I don't think we need discussion to figure out that a username should be blocked if it consists of a highly offensive statement or a string of profanities. Contrary to what is on the policy page right now, I think the user's behavior is not relevant to whether an inappropriate username qualifies as an "extreme case"; the content of the name itself is what matters. --Michael Snow 17:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # I oppose banning of inappropriate usernames without prior discussion. The user in question should be asked nicely to choose another name and given ample time to do so. Immediate, unexplained banning could scare off new users acting in good faith, who might otherwise have become valuable contributors. Mkweise 16:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: So, let's see how much support there is for this. Martin 15:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ok, I'm making two changes to the current policy. I'm accepting the failure of the proposal to allow sysops to block extreme cases on sight to win over consensus. At the same time, this policy needs to reflect reality, and the current RfC page, and at the moment it doesn't. So:
# RfC subpage can also be user's talk page, where this is more convenient (simply provide a link to user's talk from RfC).
# Time delay isn't fixed at one week, but varies between one day and one month
# "general consensus" changed to "rough consensus", mirroring deletion policy.
# Where inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames are coupled with vandalism, the username may be blocked indefinately on sight.
Any objections, let me know. Martin 21:24, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy changes to forcing 

message: Real names and religious names overlap. E.g. Krisna in India and Jesus in Spain. What about Mohammed? I think the policy should be abolished. Andries 14:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I object to the policy to dicourage religious names

message: Lately, I have noticed some people putting images in their signatures (~~~~). I don't mind people putting ornamental Unicode characters in their sigs (but changing colours using  is borderline IMHO). However, using scaled-down images is just a waste of server resources. For some examples, scroll through WP:VFD. Right now, I see three different images: The EU flag, The Italian flag and a bulldog. Apart from using bandwidth, database and other server resources, the images attract unnecessary attention to the signatures that use them. — David Remahl 11:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's slightly annoying. I think font color and unicode is okay as long as it's text only (or I'd put an American flag, A russian flag, a Latvian flag, and my pic :D) Ilyanep Old sig...back wen I used templates...now gone 13:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One can do tricolours without images. <B>zoney</B> | <B>talk</B> 14:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another bonus is that the text can be kept the same size as page text, and will scale (should one scale the browser text, Ctrl -/= with Mozilla Firefox) <B>zoney</B> <FONT SIZE=-1><FONT COLOR="green">█</FONT><FONT COLOR="white">█</FONT><FONT COLOR="darkorange">█</FONT></FONT> <B>talk</B> 14:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you happen to know an easy way to show a cross design (as in the Scandinavian flags) like you do the Irish flag? (I know, I know, probably a dumb question, but I'm curious, and my HTML is rusty.) Cheers Io 15:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree, image sigs are beyond the pale. And actually I'm not too keen on colours and flags either. Anything that makes one editor stand out more than another breaks the general egalitarianism of Wikipedia. Sysops aren't supposed to have more authority than a newbie, but a new editors might not realise that the opinion of a hyper-sigged editor carries no more weight than anyone else. -- Solipsist 22:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Font coloring is OK with me. Fancy font usage is borderline, but not so bad. Images, if they are very tiny and tasteful, will not cause me to lose any sleep. These animated images are getting out of hand, though. They are distracting and annoying, almost as much so as blinking text. The Village Pump already takes a fair amount of time to load up; if half the conversation is signed by personalized animated GIFs, it makes the problem far worse. I hesitate to make anything like a policy against this (even though to me it's verging on being akin to inappropriate usernames), but in the interests of maintaining a non-hostile community we should encourage people to avoid doing stuff like this. Please, if you are using an animated image in your sig, take it out. -- Wapcaplet 18:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Another problem with image as signatures, is when they're used in place of the name. That reduces searchability. For example, I tried to find all Theresa Knott's comments on this page, but had to browse through it manually since the signature was an image. — David Remahl 21:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd welcome a good policy based on recommendations, for example to avoid sigs with only pictures, blinking things etc. I was inspired when I saw the first user putting in an image in his sig (User:Cow) and has since tried different things, to inspire other wikipedians to follow and test the usefulness. David raises a good point; a point against having all images in your signature. Eventually I hope there will be a simple command like the one I use ( to include your sig. This would have to be included endlessly, but I think it is better than pasting three lines of font color=blue tags into the wikitext, making it unreadable. ❝Sverdrup❞ 21:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution (for the future) that you suggest could also facilitate a user preference to standardise or allow signature customisation. It would be a bit heavier on the servers (more database queries to get the sig template to include, etc, but perhaps it would be negligible.) — David Remahl 21:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did post a SourceForge Feature request on it, I will get the tracker URL to anyone who wants it.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I tried using a template as my sig for a while (User:Ilyanep/sig) but since after 5 times on one page the template stops working, I gave up.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Your animated sig didn't irritate me personally, but on pages such as VfD and VP it takes an hour to load on DSL.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not abandoning it completely, I'm going to keep it for ocassional use on my user page and user talk page.Theresa Knott 17:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in by-lines (copied from [[WP:VP]] 13:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)) 

message: Copied from the project page:
:Also if you use a pseudonym rather than a user name that identifies you with your real name U.S. copyright law grants you only a fixed period of copyright rather than one based upon when you die.
Is this a relevant issue on Wikipedia, given that we work under the GFDL?  Or are there situations where this distinction would matter.  Just wondering.  Sewing 15:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudonyms and copyrights

message: A couple (actually a triplet) of questions regarding signatures:
*Q: Is the use of images allowed?
**A: Generally discouraged.
*Q: Can one use a Wikipedia:Template for the username? Wikipedia:Template namespace seems to suggest this is OK.
**A: I think that templates only work for 5 instances on any one page. So it's probably not a good idea Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 00:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures 

message: A recent edit says that people shouldn't select usernames "endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure".  I don't see any justification for including that in the username policy.  The usernames don't appear in the articles.  For those readers who do look at the page histories or the talk pages, it can't hurt to know that a particular edit was made by a user named BushIsMyHero or whatever.  Beyond that, such a guideline would generate disputes aobut what it did or did not permit.  Why should there be a ban relating specifically to "a public figure" but not to a religion, a country, a political party, etc.?  Does that mean that User:BushIsMyHero would be unacceptable but User:Capitalistroadster and User:Radicalsubversiv can keep their names?  (I mention two "opinionated" usernames that happen to occur to me offhand.  I'm sure there are plenty of others.)  Splitting hairs about usernames is generally an unproductive use of time.  It should be reserved for names that pose serious problems for the project by being confusing ("Administrator") or offensive (insert sexual vulgarity of your choice). JamesMLane 12:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV usernames

message: I was about to revert this edit, which removed a comment by User:GeorgeWBush, who was blocked for having an innapropriate username.
Is it official policy to remove such comments? --pile0nadestalk | contribs 01:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting comments on talk pages by people with blocked usernames? 

message: and  recently came to my attention, and I brought them up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. These are problematic for several reasons:
#These characters won't render correctly (if at all) in many browsers.
#They are generally confusing, even if they do render.
#It is impossible to type such a name without doing a bit of copy-pasting.
#Searching for a username would prove difficult.
#How would one refer to ░ in a talk page discussion? Mr. Shady Character?
Since this is the English Wikipedia, usernames ought to be constructed using English characters, with allowances for scripts from other languages (é, û, ß, ñ, Đ, etc.) I propose that usernames not typable from a standard English keyboard (or, alternately, from a standard English keyboard plus the little box below the edit box that has all the special characters in it) be disallowed unless there is a good reason for using the special characters, such as:
#The special character is part of a foreign-language word or name (e.g. Peña)
#Special characters are kept to a minimum in an otherwise-normal username (e.g. Ûbereditor)
Of course, this policy would not apply to signatures. Put as many funky characters in those as you want (and indeed, I have in the past). Comments? android79 16:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you thought about restricting logins to alphanumeric characters & certain length. There's a relative simple way of calculating how many combinations one can achieve a subset of ASCII character set. My 2c. --Vlad 19:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility might be to require that for each username there is a language that uses all the characters in the username other than numbers and punctuation.  So Πρτ would be accepted but not Μαçôn.  This would forbid the use of bizarre Unicode characters and would also make it a bit harder to make new usernames that look like existing ones.Dfeuer 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: After I wrote this I realized it would be too restrictive. Dfeuer 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Unicode and other odd characters in usernames 

message: Hello!
I might have missed, but in the list of unappropriate names I do not see websites as usernames. Should this considered spam, when for instance, the site is one of "free online announcements"?
Then this username should be changed, right?
Thanks! --Vlad 17:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about websites used as usernames? 

message: Please take a look at WP:AN#User:Kswheels. I'm not sure the "resembling infamous usernames" section should be here at all, as it implicitly gives license to admins to randomly ban any account containing "Willy", "wheels", or "WOW", which some are doing. ~~ N (t/c) 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overzealous blocking of Willy-like usernames 

message: User:Schneier has chosen as their username the name of the well-known cryptographer Bruce Schneier, and gone on to edit articles about cryptography.  To me this is highly misleading and may lend their edits a false authority.  I asked about it on their talk page but received no response.  Is this against policy?  If not, should it be? — ciphergoth 16:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the famous 

message: I think that the policy should be changed so that people whose usernames resemble that of someone else should not be blocked, unless the user actually claims to be the other user. Suppose that we have a user named "Fred". Another person tries to register as "Fred", but the name is already taken, so he chooses "The Real Fred" instead. An administrator blocks "The Real Fred" before he has the chance to make any edits. This is why I propose this change.
However, people with offensive usernames should still be blocked. After all, people with offensive usernames are usually up to no good anyways. --Ixfd64 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocking usernames used for impersonation 

message: Wiki already has enough rules. Constantly making more, perhaps just to satisfy a small group of members, will rapidly take the fun out of the site. We don't need potential new editors passing the site by because they are afraid of something as simple as choosing the wrong username.
Obvious offensive ones, that is usernames that would offend almost everyone, should be taboo...that's just common sense, But when you start banning names simply because they fit some characteristic that someone has invented is getting VERY close to "over the line". I'm sure that someone here can find something offensive in every single name here.
Some say "GeorgeWBush" shouldn't be used. What are you gonna do when a REAL GeorgeWBush shows up?? Tell him he can't use his own name?? What's so different between his & yours?? Somebody out there shares your name also.
When "Jesus" decides to be an editor, are you going to tell him his name isn't allowed?? What about "Mary", "Joseph", "Mark", "Gabriel", & "Muhammed"? When you get done with the "names" catagory and get all those banned, which catagory will you start on then??
My username implies that I will fight a war for the highest bidder. I will not, but I'm sure that's offensive to SOMEONE out there. Guess what it is...an 11 letter username, that is all. Seems to me like it's getting just a little carried away. Just my 2 cents. MercForHire 06:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be very careful on this issue 

message: *Also, beware that the letter capital i and lowercase L look exactly the same (I/l) on certain fonts, as do numeric "1" (1/I/l) and numeric zero ("0/O/o"). This should be taken into account, and creative use of one in place of the other (I where L whould be normal and vice version) is discouraged, given its past misuse.
This seems a little ill-worded to me, although I'm not sure how it would best be fixed, save to say that it should explain that it's number one (1), capital i (I) and lowercase L (l) that are confused, as are numberic zero (0) and capital o (O). ConMan 13:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording Issue 

message: when i fell in love with wikipedia, i made a few minor edits w/o an account. then i created one, but my legal name and common username alyosha was unavailable, so i went to ALYOSHA and made a few edits under that. then that started to feel like shouting, so im looking at settling on "alyosha". is that ok? are either of these too similar to alyosha? -- im not trying to impersonate. but alyosha will show up Alyosha, right?  and are "s ok?  thx for any help. "alyosha" 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  newbie username question 

message: As usernames cannot be deleted, may I propose allowing administrators to hide blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public? I am proposing this while I have seen too many offensive and insulting usernames at Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wiktionary where I am an administrator. Many of them make personal attacks, especially to Zhou Ji, the education minister of the People's Republic of China. In Chinese language, calling someone a pig like these usernames is very offensive and this kind of publicly insulting someone may even constitute a criminal offence in certain countries and areas.
As administrators may delete copyright violations from the public view, I would like to propose allowing administrators to hide indefinitely blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public.--Jusjih 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting on the wisdom of this remedy, let me mention a similar problem. We've had some people attempt to harass other users by using their phone numbers as usernames. All we could do in these instances was block the account, then tediously remove that username's edits from the history. Some solution would be beneficial, recognizing that these problsms occur only rarely. -Will Beback 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked accounts remain visible at Special:Listusers, right? My point is whether we should eventually allow administrators to hide blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public view, which is currently not possible.--Jusjih 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing administrators to hide blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public 

message: There was a line about username changing being disabled, hence the policy on it being moot, so I've made that more clear. But WP:CHU doesn't seem to say that at all? Is it possible to rename users with problematic names? Stevage 11:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, username changing is not broken. It can be done by bureaucrats, and that has been the case for a few months now. It is definitely possible to rename any user with less than 20000 edits. However, I suspect that section was written a long time ago, because it had a link to wikipedia:Wikipedia-L, which became a redirect on 20 November 2002! I've removed references to username changing being broken, and have bypassed the very old redirect. Graham talk 07:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is username changing broken or not?

message: How despicable! I never knew something this toxic existed on WP until I accidentally ran into the controversy surrounding JebusChrist. This is contrary to freedom of speech. Just like content should not be removed from articles just because they may offend certain people, usernames should not be deleted because they offend certain people. Stop this unhealthy policy that's scaring away potentially valued contributors. I appeal to the best judgments of the people! Loom91 15:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't whole-heartedly support this policy, I don't really see why we would want users who pick names like User:SuckMyDick and User:ImATrollingVandalAndFlamerReadyToStartInnumerableEditWars? Do you really think they have much to contribute to this site? B.Mearns*, KSC 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right. Let me rush off and register Joe_is_a_motherfucking_cunt right away. All for free speech, of course. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to make a fool of yourself, I see no reason for others to complain. And that's the whole point of freedom of expression. Everyone can stick to high ideals in favorable conditions, the true test is sticking to it in adverse conditions. Everyone can practice non-violence among friends, but only the great people can practice it among enemies. If we promoe freedom of expression when people are saying things favored by me, and then start banning them when they are speaking against me, I'm just being a hypocrite. This policy should be declared invalid because it violates the more fundamental WP policy of WP:NPOV. Censorship is POV. I'm filing an apeal with Jimbo about this. Loom91 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no policy of freedom of expression on Wikipedia. Any such freedom is de facto only. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly true. In fact, WP only has policies against freedom of expression, as demonstrated by this page. That is what I proposed to change in the original post. Loom91 11:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is neither an experiment in democracy nor a vast parody of MySpace. The single driving goal of every Wikipedian should be the development of an encyclopedia; freedom of expression is completely irrelevant to that goal. In many cases, it becomes harmful to that goal by sidelining the encyclopedia. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hear, Hear, Loom, excatly what I feel.  Just look down in my post, 'Wikimedia in general'.  I feel excactly how u feel.  Interesting view, on the freedom of expression.  Definately, the policy of the usernames has scared me from joining; if I'm allowed to delete my account, I'd love to join.  Well put Loom!  Your a writer of intelect, one I look up to!  Excatly [bout the hypocracy].24.70.95.203 14:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I see quite a great deal of discussion about usernames, and their banning, I feel that it is simply solved... Read the rules - if your (prospective) username meets the rules, then use it, if not, then think of a different one.  There is always going to be "differences of opinions" between people, users and admin.  Its part of the human psyche. It is such a difficult "line" to place and control, especially to keep it fair. I fail to see the need for a controversial username on wikipedia, when it serves no useful purpose.  As pathoschild mentioned, the main aim of all users here should be the development of an encyclopedia. Having read through the rules and conditions, it is explained very clealy that Wikipedia is not a place for personal expression.  --Ericdog 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this policy? 

message: This page seems to suggest that having "Winston Churchill" as a username would somehow be impersonation.  Sadly, Mr Churchill is dead, and is therefore not in a position to be editing Wikipedia (or is he...editing from beyoind the grave!!!) --David.Mestel 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not most users will believe that the user is their namesake isn't particularly relevant. It is impersonation in that they are intentionally taking that person's name and will be associated with that person on Wikipedia. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so we don't have to worry about a User:Napoleon Bonaparte being active I guess, though we did have a User:Bonaparte and a User:NapoleonBonaparte. Alexander 007 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impersonating Churchill"? 

message: Looks like you guys have a problem with vandals.  Well delete thier accounts.  Yea, you don't have to delete thier M.O. pages because we could use them for future reference. [I might feel different about this later in my life, but this will suffice for now.]
Wikimedia is an elitist community.  I'd like to vote, but I want the security of being able to delete my account.  Is this fair representation??  Also, deleting accounts saves server resources. 24.70.95.203 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the community discussion page for feature requests. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting accounts 

message: Is User:Slim Shady an inappropriate user name, since Slim Shady is synonymous with Eminem? The User:Slim Shady account is not blocked. Alexander 007 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Slim Shady]]

message: I think we should consider not allowing users to have user names such as User:Bulgaria, User:Romania, User:Serbia, User:Macedonia, User:Mexico, etc.---here is my reasoning: imagine if a User:Bulgaria logs in, and turns out to be a horrible troll, but like many trolls in Wikipedia, he goes on editing for years; or a User:Serbia logs in and happens to be an eccentric homosexual who often engages in personal attacks and blasphemy against all Orthodox Christianity, etc. This is like a User:Winston Churchill logging in and being a troll, which would not be tolerated, and I don't think we should tolerate a User:Serbia of that nature either.
You'll notice that there is already a User:Macedonia, who, while not a troll, is a nationalist editor (though not always engaging in nationalistic editing) who is almost always in an edit dispute with someone. Alexander 007 07:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More examples to illustrate the problem: it would be quite a catastrophe if User:Bonaparte had instead logged in as User:Romania and went on an edit rampage and sockpuppetting spree as he did under User:Bonaparte; or imagine how numerous editors would feel if User:Miskin had chosen the user name User:Greece---I know numerous editors who would groan over that :-) These kind of user names don't seem appropriate. Alexander 007 07:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "I'm sorry, your username could be politically divisive. It could be interpreted as you claiming to be editing on behalf of the country of Romania, and that would cause issues.  From the policy, "Wikipedia is a world-wide source book, so take care to avoid anything that might cause offence to someone from a different culture, religion, or ethnic group."  This name falls under that category. Please choose a new one, multumesc. pschemp | talk 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I encourage giving fair warning first; letting them voluntarily choose to make a change, rather than just being outright blocked, as that may cause them to leave, and we don't want to lose good editors over something we could have done without a block. I'd suggest a templated message that says something on the line of "Please request a change within 48/72 hours/a week/etc. or we will be forced to block your account." Also, a dedicated editor who was willing could solve a lot of these problems by taking the time to go down a list of countries (I'm sure we have one somewhere) and create all the usernames; just be sure to tag them with  first. Essjay Talk • Contact 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of User:Macedonia, he should be warned/notified. His username is not appropriate, and it is sparking tension constantly. It seems so un-Wiki-like. These kind of usernames create the atmosphere of an ethnic and nationalistic battleground. We are writing an encyclopedia, this is not a nationalist Usenet :-) Alexander 007 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is consensus that the username is inappropriate, I will warn User:Macedonia myself. But I would like affirmation that I have consensus behind me, rather than making an empty threat. How should we proceed? Alexander 007 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, as a neutral party I'll do that, you don't need to.pschemp | talk 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, this is not a case of trigger happiness, but fair application of the rules to everyone. Recently there have been dispruptions caused by editors with these types of usernames, thus it has moved from hypothetical to reality.  Even so, potential abuse is often used as a reason for blocking usernames with vulgar words in them and the policy clearly states (using the word "potentially") that this kind of heading off at the pass is acceptable. Aditionally, I am not the only admin who has blocked countries as usernames, just the one that is doing the front line communication. Thank you for your calm commentary on the matter.pschemp | talk 19:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at User:Jordan and agree that that was most likely collateral damage. The block has been removed. pschemp | talk 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Jumping in way late after running across this page, I would like to register disagreement.  pschemp in the initial post states "imagine if" and that's precisely where I have a problem.  If a user is agenda pushing, then I hope an admin can use a username as a possible aggravating solution, but are we seriously saying that Chad, Chihuahua, Annapurna and Georgia all are block on sight usernames?  If user Boston spends all his time ragging on the NY Yankees baseball team, then I have no problem with a block.  I do take issue with the assumption that users Tasmania or Sahel would have some nefarious reason for selecting their username. I may be alone is prefering that admins use their judgement in determining if a username is meant to offend.  - BanyanTree 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: JESUS! Does that include ME? Are you serious? NO! I refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse and REFUSE!   ₪Hellenic Republic₪  (T) 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to disagree with my sockpuppet! (I think it is forbidden to agree, anyway, right?)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of countries, or of large or disputed regions

message: I don't think we should continue to include the section which discourage people from using their real names in certain cases (viz. Willy, Jonny, Cunio, etc.) without qualifications. Real names are a good thing. I'd like to add some wording to indicate that names like this might be problematic, but, if this really your real name, you should contact and admin and we'll figure out a work-around. Comments? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real names are a bad thing when mad vandal stalkers start sending you death threats. Just a thought. pschemp | talk 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true. However, I tend to file that in the category of "shit happens." That is, there are various situations in life in which you open yourself up to stalking and/or various other dangers and nuisances. There are, in turn, a variety of steps you can take to avoid that, some of which you will deem worthwhile and some of which you won't. Personally, I never use my real name elsewhere on the internet, but I make an exception for Wikipedia. I can understand where some people might not want to do that. However, if there are people who do want to use their real names, I think, on principle, we should not discourage them. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at WP:CHU right now. Bout 50% of the requests are to changae away from people's real names for privacy reasons. That should be a good enough reason to leave the policy as it is.pschemp | talk 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Just an observation about the policy...does anyone know of any person with a real name that includes "On Wheels"? Just curious. B.Mearns*, KSC 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate real names? 

message: Looking through Special:Logs/newusers, you will notice at least a few email addresses. These are, in my opinion, not appropriate usernames. Should we put in a line saying that these are out, and create, say  to say, basically, "You have been blocked for good because we don't allow email addresses for usernames, please hang up and try again?" I have never seen a good account with an email address; they just want people to email them (I won't go into posisble reasons why).--HereToHelp 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition:No email addresses 

message: I thnk that email addresses should not be used as user names. I propose to add some wording to this effect. These are my reasons:
* We do  not know if that user email address is such, It can be easly abused using someone else email address as a username, vandalize or push a POV in WP and get smeared as a consequence
*It the email address is abonafide email address of the user, it will attract spam to the email address as it will get farmed by spammers
≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first reason (not the second, that's their problem if they put their email address on the internet, though it might be worth a friendly reminder). It seems like a logical extension to the impersonation clause. B.Mearns*, KSC 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was recently asked by another user, User:Bigtop to block two users because of their use of e-mail addresses in their usernames. The users don't seem to be causing trouble, one has no edits at all. I read WP:U which doesn't encourage addresses in usernames, but I am not sure if it prohibits them and warrants a block like Bigtop has requested of me. Any opinions or references to help me with this quandary?  DVD+ R/W 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  email addresses as usernames 

message: Less than a week ago some changes were made to this page that implied usernames cannot be that of real people, even if they are dead (e.g. Ben Franklin). Let's remember the mischief rule, people. This policy exists to prevent confusion between people on Wikipedia and celebrities; that's it. There's no risk of confusing User:General Eisenhower for the real Ike. If nobody objects, I'll remove the Ben Franklin example in a few days. (The Chuck Norris example is valid because Norris is still alive.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've seen usernames that were the names of famous dead people (e.g. Benjamin Franklin) blocked before so I thought this was policy.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Franklin? 

message: Someone recently added a notice to this page stating that administrators should not block users on sight that have usernames similar to "block me" because they might be trying to cause an autoblock. I have decided to remove it because technically any username created intentionally inappropriate could could be intended to cause an autoblock.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice about users trying to cause an autoblock 

message: I don't see anything suggesting that company names are inappropriate if the editor is not affiliated with the company. I just noticed User:Studio Ghibli, who doesn't seem to have any connection with Studio Ghibli; it seems a little questionable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business names 

message: I'm proposing a change to MediaWiki:Signupend that, I hope, will help new users avoid blockable usernames. Please see MediaWiki_talk:Signupend#Usernames_that_will_be_blocked. FreplySpang 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change to the text that users see when choosing a username 

message: *'Copyrighted sports team names: Team names such as the Miami Heat, the Carolina Hurricanes, and the New York Yankees (whether it's whole or just the team) should not be used in a username. Team names are copyrighted by the owner of the team. Anyone being caught by an administrator will be blocked.
This is a minor point, but wouldn't team names be trademarked rather than copyrighted? -Will Beback 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team names 

message: blocking over use of an email in a username?? seems like a stupid policy, probably a rouge admin involved somewhere--Email@domain.net 02:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  meh? 

message: I notice that the policy has been changed, perhaps as a result of my comments above. Unfortunately, I think that the change may make it worse than before. It is less discouraging of people choosing email addresses for usernames. However, if you edit in high profile places, like commenting on the administrator's noticeboard a couple of times in an active discussion, or if you make lots of edits so that you show up on recent changes a lot, you are virtually certain to get blocked for having an email address as a username. Many of the usernames are blocked immediately after they are created by admins who watch the new user log. 
It does not matter much if you do not think that such usernames need to be blocked. The fact is that a lot of admins block such usernames and they will continue to do so, even with the current wording of the policy, and probably even if it is changed so that such usernames are allowed. This is because the majority of admins would be unaware of the change. There would have to be notices of some kind to get the word out and admins who miss the notices (many edit infrequently or irregularly) would have to be informed by those who saw them. People are unlikely to put much effort into this because it is not something that people care much about. I have experienced this problem with the A8 speedy delete criterion. Admins continue to delete articles that are more than 48 hours old and/or not from commercial content providers despite extensive attempts by me and a couple of other editors to get them to stop. Even worse, in the case of A8, the requirements were part of the policy from the begininng, not modifications like this one would be. As for me, I do not care that much one way or the other. I think that we should be consistent about it and not alienate new users, although I do find the use of email addresses for usernames awkward. 
The username policy should be modified so that it states that usernames consisting of email addresses are prohibited. First, it would save work for admins, since not as many usernames that consist of email addresses would be created. Second, fewer editors would be blocked for using an email address for their usernames. New users may be hurt that they were blocked and simply leave the project rather than getting a new username, or start to vandalize in extreme cases. Third, if the editors who are blocked have read the username policy and saw that usernames consisting of email addresses are not prohibited, they may feel lied to when they are blocked. Fourth, editors would get less spam because some would read the policy and decide not to use their email addresses. Users that are blocked are not saved from spam because if they do not have a user page and/or user talk page already, one will be created to tell them that they have been blocked. Also, if they were not caught right away, their email addresses may be on other pages, like other user talk pages, article talk pages and Wikipedia namespace pages. Fifth, even disregarding the spam issue, alienating new users and saving time, having an email address for a username is awkward. Usernames consisting of random letters and/or numbers are blocked for a similar reason. 
I made a feature request for users to be prohibited from using @ in their username, but it might be a long time before it is done. I hope the Wikipedia bugzilla system is better than the Firefox one. I do not think that we should wait for the feaure to be implemented to change the policy. Actually, it might not be implemented until the policy says that usernames consisting of email addresses are prohibited. -- Kjkolb 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email addresses for usernames, again 

message: If you create your username as User:IKEA, would that be an inappropriate username because it is the name of an existing company (IKEA)? Please contact me as soon as possible. Thanks! --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IKEA 

message: As part of this edit on March 15, 2006, Freakofnurture added the following:
::However, feel free to use other alphabets as alternate link text in your signature.
I'm not sure why this is explicitly permitted on this policy page (especially when this policy has nothing to do with signatures). We do not have a signature policy but the WP:SIG guideline page states,
::Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive.
Some users disguise their username in scripts that are gibberish to most readers on English Wikipedia.  Sigs are meant to identify the user first and act as a vehicle of creative expression second. This disruptive behavior should not be sanctioned by policy, and I'd like to remove that line from the policy. (I would be bold but I don't think that's the correct procedure for policy pages). — GT 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold it is then. — GT 06:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy supports disruption 

message: Is it appropriate for a company (or institution) to create an account with it's own name and maintain it's own page?
:Generally, the answer would most likely be no and the same applies for living people and their own pages. This is because of a conflict of interests. As an organisation, you would want to paint yourself in the best possible light, and state things that you have decreed or decided. However as an editor, you will want to maintain a neutral point of view and only record things that qualified and respected others have said about you (so as to be sure that they have been verified). LinaMishima 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV and self-interest can coincide. Why should a company not be able to act in an official fashion to bring light to instances of harmful misinformation or outright libel? Would you really consider a company trying to clean policy-violating statements out of its article to be engaging in POV-driven and abusive edits? WhoMe? 14:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company/institution