Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-latin usernames, revisited

The issue of non-latin usernames has come up again, with the User:だってばよ request.

Some editors, myself included, favour disallowing non-latin characters in usernames because they violate the policy on confusing usernames, since they cannot be read by a majority of our users. Others point to the section that states that non-latin usernames are allowed.

While it's true that the whole world doesn't speak English, this is the English Wikipedia. It seems eminently fair to require all usernames to be readable by English speakers. Exploding Boy 23:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, but no - we can't do it. Unified login is coming in soon, so we have to let non latin character usernames edit, as some will be coming from countries that don't use atin characters. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

copied from WT:RFCN:

Proposal

Please see m:Help:Unified login before commenting here

My considerations:

  1. Non-Latin usernames allowed clearly by WP:U mainly because of m:Help:Unified login (which would otherwise be rendered useless)
  2. Naturally very few people on earth have the capacity of reading all scripts, so there are bound to be unintelligible usernames (for most/many/some/few --doesn't matter)

Solution which is already foreseen: WP:U asks politely to tweak signature to Latin.

IMHO the above solution is insufficient, and creates lots of windows for numerous trolls. It also makes it hard for users to locate a username which they cannot type.

Proposed Solution:

  • WP:SIG to clearly state mandatory Latin sigs (for example with the transliteration or translation of the foreign username).
  • WP:UP to clearly require mandatory Latin user redirects of the same signed name to the foreign userpage and talkpage.
  • WP:UP to clearly require a mandatory explanation on the foreign userpage concerning the chosen name, the signature, and the redirects that lead to it, by means of a template which will be created for this specific reason.
  • Third users to be able to create (and possibly protect) Latin-username-redirects (to the foreign-usernames) to help themselves (and others) navigate/locate the foreign-usernames.
  • WP:U to briefly mention the above, without implying that users failing to comply will be permabanned.

That, proposed by a Greek. NikoSilver 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I support restricting usernames to the Latin-1 character set because this is an English wiki and most people cannot type foreign characters on their keyboards to do things like directly go to a user page. I see no problem with using non-Latin scripts as part of a sig. If were to demand use of Devanagari my username would be बुद्धिप्रिय, by the way. Buddhipriya 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't restrict it due to unified log-in comming very shortly. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know very shortly? There seem to have been no updates since November 2006. Secretlondon 23:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan, but this is not sufficient apparently. See above, I hope that solves it. NikoSilver 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I support mandatory latin sigs here, on this version of Wikipedia. It's hard enough trying to read some people's user names, with all the bells and whistles people insist on attaching, and the weird characters they insert. This is the English language Wikipedia; users here must be able to read each other's user names.

Really, I don't see what's so useful about the unified login anyway. I also edit the Japanese Wikipedia sometimes, and I have to login there separately. It's not a big deal, and the unified login system won't remove the need to do some things separately on each local site a user edits. Exploding Boy 05:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing the unified usernames idea is not constructive. Anyways, we have a good suggestion from NikoSilver, which I support. However, there's no reason to require that the signature be a transliteration or translation. I think any latin character signature will do. nadav (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I obviously overestimated the possibility of someone using foreign usernames that are disallowed here (for example curses in foreign languages); but nobody guarantees they won't lie in the first place. I guess it can go, and be evaluated on separate bases. I'm striking it (modifs in purple color). NikoSilver 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which suggestion of NikoSilver's do you support? Ok, so let's say that someone has the user name 猫. If they use the signature "Neko," and I type "user:Neko" into the search box, will I be able to find that user? Exploding Boy 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, (if the second bullet is also mandatory). User:Neko will redirect to User:猫. The only problem remaining is that it will still read 猫 (not Neko) in history pages, but you can always click to see it's them (no biggie, I guess). NikoSilver 17:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, because currently that doesn't seem to work. Similar issues have come up with signatures as well, where users have signatures that are different from their user names, because there's so much potential for confusion, especially since some users change their signatures frequently. I think this makes it clearer: the best option is to require latin-character user names right off the bat. Exploding Boy 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't because there's no redirect in the name that appears on the sig. Click User:N! to see what will happen. NikoSilver 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit by NikoSilver under new user id: Please see what happens with User:Παράδειγμα (Paradigma). Check that User:Paradigma and User talk:Paradigma redirect where appropriate. Also check their proposed signature: Paradigma (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I tested the links and they appear to work correctly (assuming that correct result is redirection to the Greek-language version of the pages). This is an interesting method. I am unsure if this method will address the real problem on the English language Wikipedia, which is that most users on it will only be able to understand English. For example, if I did a similar redirection to my username in Devanagari it is quite possible that users who followed the link from User:Buddhipriya to User:बुद्धिप्रिय might become confused because they would not be expecting to see that result. From a usability point of view, arriving at a place you do not recognize after clicking a link is potentially confusing. But the technique you have demonstrated is quite interesting. Some scripts, including Devanagari, are not universally-supported on all computers, so I am also curious if in my example there are some viewers who only see little boxes where my username would be. ॐ गं गणपतये नमः Buddhipriya 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Shall we add to the proposal then:
  • WP:U to clearly require a mandatory explanation on the foreign userpage concerning the chosen name, the signature, and the redirects that lead to it.
This may be a little redundant, since the foreign page (if redirected from) will read above "Redirected by User:Paradigma", but I admit the comment is in rather small font and may go unnoticed. Comments? NikoSilver 19:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
We should create a template specifically for this purpose. nadav (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The template is a fantastic idea. I'm adding the proposal above shortly. NikoSilver 21:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I even added a proposed template text in User:Παράδειγμα. Please modify mercilessly (needs some code expert too for the variables). NikoSilver 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't solve the problem of characters not displaying properly. Characters in certain scripts appear for me as a bunch of squares, like: 口口口口口. I can easily imagine a scenario where several users with non-latin usernames all editing the same page could create chaos. Exploding Boy 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with characters not rendering correctly is so common with Hinduism and India articles that many of the pages have links to the following page which is just to help users figure out how to render Indic scripts: Help:Multilingual_support_(Indic). The little boxes are symtoms of Unicode characters that do not exist in fonts available on the user computers. Buddhipriya 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please. Let's all change attitude from "here, there's one more problem" to "that's what we can do about it". We are faced with some facts which are beyond our control:

We are compelled to accept Non-Latin signatures by force majeure. End of story!!

Now, I sympathize with the argument that two distinct same-letter-long foreign usernames may appear as identical same-length-squares in one's history page if he hasn't installed Hindu/Greek/Aramaic/Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Arabic fonts, but unless you have something to propose to solve the problem, then this is not helpful. I think my proposal above deals with most of the circumstances, and is the least that we can do for now. If you have anything to add, I am all ears for proposals, but commenting on the appropriateness of m:Help:Unified login is pointless. NikoSilver 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support this reasonable, pragmatic approach. If we all agree, will this be enough consensus to change the policy? nadav (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to require latin-character user names. Exploding Boy 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to indulge into meaningless discussions over issues for which we are not eligible to discuss or decide. I think that the proposal above is the mē cheíron véltiston, especially for you guys that want to wipe all non-Latin scripts from user existence. Bluntly, it's this, or nothing. NikoSilver 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to go bold in editing policy, so if there's anyone with an objection, please state it here. If no objections are posted for another three days, I'll go on and modify WP:U myself to include all three points proposed above. It is really frustrating that people sometimes jump in to state their objections only after someone has made the edit, so please spare us the back and forth by commenting here within this reasonable timeframe. NikoSilver 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying things like "this or nothing," and I support "this proposal." What do they mean? There are several options there that I can see, first of all, and second, why is it "this or nothing"? The obvious solution is to require latin-character usernames. By the way, it's interesting that you linked to that list of Greek phrases; most of them were unreadable for me, with little squares in many of the words. That type of thing is exactly what we want to avoid with usernames. Exploding Boy 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you have to be told by three people numerous times that rejecting non-Latin names is not an option. Do you understand this? NikoSilver 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not even clear that the unified login is going forward, and if it does, there's STILL no reason not to restrict usernames to latin characters only. Exploding Boy 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked specifically for that purpose in meta and got the response to check bugzilla:57. Everything looks like this is happening from moment to moment. Do you have different feedback? Also, please describe how the "STILL" comment is going to happen. NikoSilver 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's currently no consensus about the unified login. I've just read the talk page, and people are still talking about the feasability of the scheme, and about issues just of this sort. It looks to be a long way from being implemented. Given that it's easy to have all one's edits transferred from username to username, the best solution would be to move forward with the policy and state that non-latin usernames are not allowed. That could easily be changed if the unified login ever came to fruition. Exploding Boy 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I only see apparently you, so "people" is an overstatement. Frankly, I see no good coming from this discussion, and will stop here. NikoSilver 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the last part concerning user names, but if you trouble to read the entire talk page you'll discover that there is currently no consensus, so you can drop the "*sigh*" from your edit summaries, ok? Exploding Boy 18:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unified login may happen tomorrow, or it may happen this Fall. It's going to happen, probably sooner rather than later, and as soon as the bugs get worked out. This is an official Wikimedia Foundation Statement®. Cary Bass demandez 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Unified login is targeted for mediawiki version 1.10, the very next version which is already overdue. See mw:MediaWiki roadmap.
I see 2 issues here
  • people not being able to type the name of another user, eg: to talk about what they said earlier in the talk page. This could be solved by requiring at least some English text in their sig.
  • Not being able to find their userpage. This could be fixed by making their sig a link to their userpage as normal.
So a good sig would be बुद्धिप्रिय Buddhipriya. Are there other problems, or is this fixed already? --h2g2bob (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

None of this solves the problem of different users with non-latin usernames whose user and user talk pages are still unreadable. Requiring people to have latin-character sigs with redirects is an acknowledgement that a problem exists; what happens when I'm redirected to a page with a user name that looks like this: 口口口口口? And what if many people have non-latin user names, all of which don't display properly? No amount of signature modification will fix that. Exploding Boy 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy changes proposed above are too draconian, and won't be enforced; the old way of doing things (making suggestions and explaining the reasoning) is better. Seriously: a foreign user shows up and doesn't make redirects or a signature. So what? If they're making constructive edits and aren't needing to get involved in complicated discussions, there's no need to force them to do anything, (and none of the above would make a latin name show up in a page history, but there are links there anyway). If they are in some discussions, they should be asked to make a readable signature, so that other users don't get confused. If they're going to make lots of contributions here they will most likely be reasonable people and agree, so no need to force them with a draconian policy. And if someone doesn't want to obey, so what, I don't imagine anyone would be willing to block someone for this, unless the user had other behavior issues. After all, usernames that are a bit confusing are really not that big of a problem to anyone. Keep in mind that these are very likely established editors on other Wiki projects, and we should not be trying to keep them from helping. Mangojuicetalk 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What's "draconian" about requiring people to have user names that everyone can read? Exploding Boy 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Requiring" it. What do you suggest we do to people who don't have usernames that people can read, and don't follow the requirements? Currently, the default for violations of WP:U is indefinite blocking. If you're suggesting that we go a completely different way, I might not call it draconian, but the way this all reads now, it sounds like those who don't comply will have their accounts blocked. That's draconian in my book. Mangojuicetalk 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're refusing to follow the policy, which is what you seem to be describing, then they should be blocked, don't you agree? Exploding Boy 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Look, we don't even block vandals on their first edit, we warn them and try to let them know it's okay to edit Wikipedia while trying to correct their behavior. Even then, we are likely to give people second, third, fourth chances. In fact, just about every behavior issue on Wikipedia is handled where blocking is a last resort, and we accept inherently that we should only be blocking people for being seriously disruptive, especially non-temporary blocks. And yet, here, a much more harsh policy is being proposed for a violation of a common-sense behavior request that is a far lower priority than things like not making personal attacks or not vandalizing. Mangojuicetalk

This is a very rational input from Mangojuice. For the record, I hadn't thought of what should be done to people "who refuse to obey". I agree that permablocking is indeed too hard. Polite suggestions may help better, and serious vandals often get caught further down the road. How about we just state these three in the #Proposal above in policy and then have the "legal background" in order to politely ask them? Let's just leave punishment for non compliance an open issue. NikoSilver 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I hate it that Exploding Boy wouldn't take the word of three users for it and we had to call the cavalry to convince him that m:Unified login is an uncontrollable reality. NikoSilver 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy states that in cases of inappropriate usernames "you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be permanently blocked." Seems clear.
To Niko, I object to your sneaky redirect, above. I wasn't failing to assume good faith; there's no consensus about the Unified login yet. Again: read the Unified login talk page. It may be that if people want to use the Unified login they will have use latin characters. We don't know yet. Exploding Boy 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding. Right? NikoSilver 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

About what? Have you read the discussion on [1]? Exploding Boy 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How difficult is it for you to understand that Wikimedia Foundation Statements® are not subject to any amount of debate? Did anybody ask you if e.g. you like the WP logo? NikoSilver 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one last time to stop writing offensive edit summaries ("sigh"; "double sigh") and using sneaky redirects. When you've finished making a big production of being irritated, perhaps you can read that discussion page and understand that there is currently no consensus about how the Unified login will work or how it will affect user names. Exploding Boy 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

@Mangojuice: What would you say if we alternatively added those bullets above to WP:UP and WP:SIG respectively (which are guidelines) and may help avoid the permaban issue, while also help the others advise users who do not comply, based on some sort of rule? NikoSilver 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If the "rule" was put in WP:SIG rather than here, I don't think there'd be a presumption that violating the rule would result in a long-term block. So yeah, that's a good solution. It should probably be mentioned here as a non-infraction, though, to be clear. Mangojuicetalk 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I modified the #Proposal to reflect that (I also removed the purple comments etc since they're obviously acceptable). NikoSilver 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I've read through the whole issue from top to toe now, Niko and I feel your three bullets above look like a reasonable compromise and something I could endorse - Alison ☺ 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, they are now four :-). Now we're left with only one problem. See the following example history page:

  • (cur) (last) 23:01, June 11, 2007 口口口口口 (Talk | contribs) (179,755 bytes) (→Proposal - comment)
  • (cur) (last) 22:59, June 11, 2007 口口口口口 (Talk | contribs) m (179,345 bytes) (→Proposal - p->P)
  • (cur) (last) 22:58, June 11, 2007 口口口口口 (Talk | contribs) (179,345 bytes) (→Proposal - modified)
  • (cur) (last) 22:53, June 11, 2007 Mangojuice (Talk | contribs) (179,110 bytes) (→Proposal)
  • (cur) (last) 22:13, June 11, 2007 NikoSilver (Talk | contribs) (178,665 bytes) (→Proposal - @Mangojuice)
  • (cur) (last) 22:09, June 11, 2007 口口口口口 (Talk | contribs) (178,297 bytes) (→Proposal)

This may show to one who hasn't installed X font. The worst part is that all four (in this case) "口口口口口" looking users could actually be different people. Does anyone have an idea on how this too could be sorted out? Popups would help, but not all have it/want it. NikoSilver 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Eep! This sounds like a developer problem. Wonder is it possible to render the usernames into some unique UTF-8 format, that could still be unique, yet (semi-) legible? It's a tricky problem ... - Alison ☺ 04:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) We have to allow non-Latin usernames
  • 2) Even if we were allowed to block non-latin usernames (which we're not) there'd still be usernames with non-latin characters existing on EN-Wiki. Username policy tends not to be retro-active, so those non-Latin chars would be grandfathered in.
  • 3) The username policy will probably need lots of tweaking to 'fix' stuff to fit with non-Latin chars. For example, what does "closely resemble another username" mean in the context of an alphabet that I have no familiarity with?
  • 4) The technical stuff (fonts etc) needs some clear, easy, walkthrough to allow users to update their system. Many people have no need to install fonts for other languages, and when they do they tend to install a limited set of fonts. It can see that it'd be a bit frustrating to have to install tens of megabytes of fonts just to be able to see usernames on wiki.
  • 5) The U page says (at the moment) that can't always see names written in another character set. This isn't the full truth - how do I get to the userpage of ???, and how do I disambiguate the useful contributor ???? from the nasty troll/vandal ????.
  • Just to make it clear: I fully support NikoSilver's proposal. Dan Beale 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I think we should put a note in WT:SIG and WT:UP for more input, since technically it is these guidelines that will be modified the most if this proposal goes through. Will do now. NikoSilver 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I heard an idea that would include the UserID next to the User name, thus allowing us to distinguish between 口口口口口 and 口口口口口 in the history. Bastique 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That would save it indeed. Although I am convinvinced that most users dealing with e.g. Korean articles get into the trouble to install Korean fonts. What do you think about the rest of the points Bastique? Should we encourage foreign users to help us navigate with the #Proposal above, or is it too much to ask? If the proposal went through, what would you do if someone persistently disobeyed? NikoSilver 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't support this proposal. I doubt we'll even have a significant issue with non-lat sigs and pages, and I sure as hell can't see us mandating this kind of thing. Maybe make it recommended, but anyone who wants to "disobey" damn well has a right to. I don't see a significant benefit (due to the lack of significant problem), and can see this just pissing a lot of people off because some joe shmoe says "you have non-latin characters in your username, and we're gonna block you because of that". If someone can't report some user for vandalism because of their font support, then install the required fonts and get with the program. We're Wikipedia, for crying out loud, and we don't live in the stone age. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A similar consideration was brought up by Mangojuice 3-4 comments above. He mainly objected to the fact that inclusion of such rules in WP:U (policy) would automatically result to permablocking of the violators, which he found too strict. The proposal was modified to suggest that WP:UP and WP:SIG (guidelines) were altered instead. I too feel that permablocking (or blocking in general for that matter) is too hard (well, except if we see apparent WP:POINT abuse by means of the foreign username). NikoSilver 08:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Astonishingly, there are increasing examples of users with non-Latin names. Two recent examples only slipped in WP:RFCN (although they are allowed) [2], [3], and check also how many there are in Greek and Cyrillic/Arabic/Hindu. Things are about to get much "worse" (scare quotes because my mother tongue has a non-Latin script and because I actually endorse them) with m:Help:Unified login coming shortly. In that sense, this #Proposal is preemptive, which is especially important since username violations that have been "grandfathered to" (i.e. problematic usernames created before policy tweak that bans them) tend to be forgiven, and stay. NikoSilver 08:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Their main objection to users who have politely requested to tweak their sigs (or create user redirects) was that "there's no such rule". The reason of the proposal is to give some sort of "legal background" to those who want to advise a user to help them navigate easier to locate their name (since they can't type it, and can't remember how it even looks). Given all that, would you suggest we reword the proposal a little to reflect that, or you still want to scrap it? NikoSilver (or ΝικοΣίλβερ, or НикоСилвер, or ..., go figure how to type it in Arabic/Chinese/Hindu/Korean/Japanese to find me without a link, or even refer to me in a talkpage if you can't read how 猫猫猫 is even pronounced!) 08:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We're asking users on ENWIKI to have a latin sig, do any of the other wikis ask their users to have a non-latin sig? Does, eg: JapanWiki ask users to romajify or kanjify their sigs? It'd be interesting to see if other wikis have had this problem, and how they've dealt with it. Dan Beale 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, the Latin alphabet is universally recognizable by most, so I wouldn't expect restrictions for that specifically. I would expect restrictions for e.g. Korean and Arabic in the Greek wiki and vice versa. The Greek wiki does not even have a SIG guideline yet, and the UPage/UName ones are sort of primitive too. Obviously, the necessity for these rules is proportional to the traffic, plus ENWIKI seems to be the favorite universal POV battleground for most foreign users (and trolls). In my experience very few foreigners (and trolls!) have visited ELWIKI (EL for Greek) and to tell you the truth I'd be surprised a lot to see a Japanese editor there. NikoSilver 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan Beale has raised some very good points here. Exploding Boy 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Thinking more about this, I can see supporting it as a strong recommendation, and/or even allowing others to make a redirects, etc, if said user doesn't wish to make them, stuff like that. The ban part really put me off, but other than that I can see the value in the guideline. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ned. Your input for allowing others to create redirects is very valuable and should have obviously been included earlier! I'll add it and hope everybody agrees too. NikoSilver 14:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Anything new here? Shall we proceed? NikoSilver 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's go ahead with it. If it's reverted we can discuss it futher. nadav (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I made the relevant tweaks in WP:U#NL, WP:UP#NL and WP:SIG#NL. Please correct me. NikoSilver 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I just found out that to add "East Asian" language support to Windows XP a user has a 230 megabyte download. Dan Beale 09:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The file should be on their original Windows installation CD. Anyone who has to download it has a pirated copy. There's no reason for us to worry about supporting users with pirated OSes. -N 10:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Very many people don't get install CDs, they have preinsalled OSs with a "recovery" partition. Sometimes the recovery partition is hidden in an HPA. Many users won't have ready access to the install CD, but they're not pirates. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

White Cat's approach

  • My computer can properly display practically all languages, even though they aren't silly squares Arabic script Hebrew script and nearly all non-Latin script are unintelligible to me. So this Windows CD thing is beyond logic. It isn't like your understanding of the unintelligible text will change if you install the necesary files. If you do not have a specific language installed, it is your own fault. You reading the users username is not a critical aspect of RC patrolling.
  • Assuming you aren't seeing boxes, even a 4 year old has this level of pattern recognition to differentiate the contributions of different users with non-Latin text.
  • I would however recommend (not require) the usage of lain text in sigs for obvious reasons. However your discomfort is not a reason to create policy. Non-Latin usernames are not disruptive and I have seen no convincing evidence to the contrary so far.

-- Cat chi? 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikicat's approach

  1. User-option to show non-Latin-text usernames (and other fonts) as images on Latin-based wiki, and vice-versa, perhaps reusing current CAPTCHA text-to-image calls. (Read more here) Then...
  2. When referring to the author, their wikimarkup image-tag can be copied just like their text. Also, there could be a number appended to the text in the image as a shorthand reference, perhaps made visible as needed per page by a wikimarkup directive. Thus...
  3. No need (or desire) to ban non-Latin-char usernames. And finally...
  4. Little boxes on the nil-side: Some say, if one doesn't have the right language-font installed, it's their own fault. However, if the text is nothing but little boxes, one cannot even TELL what language-font to install (as in the "example history page" above). Further, installing third-party things on Windows can be dangerous, so one must not only search for the font, but also an apparently trustworthy site to download it from. --- A lot of work to view a few names and words.


PS: (from above) "I am also curious if in my example there are some viewers who only see little boxes where my username would be. ॐ गं गणपतये नमः Buddhipriya 19:34, 9 June 2007"
Indeed, nothing but little boxes that all look just the same. But, in the EDITOR they are suddenly all perfectly readable Devanagari! (like g?pty nm), unlike the "example history page" above, which remains boxes, and the "User:Παράδειγμα|Paradigma" which remains Greek (until copied to a non-wiki textbox).
Wikicat (temp-2k7) 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard blocking for username violations

Tangentially related to the above discussion, I'd like to talk about the practice of hardblocking usernames. WP:U#Reporting_inappropriate_names discusses that account creation may be disabled when blocking 'bad faith' usernames. First problem, 'bad faith' is an inherently subjective determination. Blocks like the above discussed 'badassbassist' show that subjective determinations can and do backfire because we all have different backgrounds. Second, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are plenty of folks who have no intention to disrupt who put in outrageous usernames, not realizing that it's against policy. Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially BAN someone from the project forever for a single misstep, and as noted in WP:U, we aren't morality police, so passing judgment on the basic character of someone who picks a stupid name to shock and assuming that they have no possibility of being a constructive user goes against the grain of the project. I wish to adjust the text so that the explicit endorsement of hardblocking usernames is removed, and then begin work towards changing our admin culture so that it's phased out as a practice. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If the username just happens to be one that is against our policy, then of course, softblock the account so that the person can create another username. If the username is deliberate trolling, such as naming an admin and saying that he "has a small penis" or that his "phone number is 1234568", then it is a disruptive sockpuppet, and should be hardblocked, just as we would hardblock a new account with an inoffensive name who began to post such things on Wikipedia pages. ElinorD (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I only block account creation if the username is clearly used to troll, such as User:I hate wikipedia admins or User:Sock of wikipedia admins or User:Real life name takes it up the arse. Even some very innappropriate usernames (e.g. User:I have a slack vagina) are often created in good faith, so I agree we should totally limit when we block account creation. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We block users that demonstrate they are only here to disrupt. We block vandalism only accounts, and if a name is clearly intending to disrupt a hard block is reasonable. There was even a discussion on WT:UAA that there were so many "PooPoo" names they were likely being created just to get on WP:UAA, may have been just a few people acting as many, and that they should have account creation disabled. Prevent account creation, don't feed the trolls. I agree it should be used with caution. Until(1 == 2) 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Template talk:UsernameHardBlocked#Is this needed?. WjBscribe 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, account creation blocking and autoblocking both wear off after a couple days, otherwise we would be blocking IPs like mad. Until(1 == 2) 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the endorsement of hard blocks. We can't trust admins to use them cautiously and responsibly in the current culture of WP:UAA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, of course we can trust admins to use them cautiously - that's what admins are for. If you think an admin is hardblocking when they should not, take it up with them. If they continue, we can have an RfC. But there are clearly circumstances when hardblocks are appropriate. WjBscribe 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, if you cannot trust admins to use the tools responsibly then there is a much bigger problem than the username policy. Until(1 == 2) 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A lot of Wikipedians don't trust admins to block usernames responsibly. Some quotes from that discussion:
  • "I took this vile place and this one off my watchlist months ago, because username blocks serve no purpose other than to fill the logs of the blocking admin and the edit count of the twinkling moron who doubtless reported the supposed 'violation'."
  • "This farcical process serves no productive aim whatsoever."
  • "They were banned for violating a policy that is not in the instructions."
  • "Indeed, where does username fascism stop?"
  • "The way we troll them, rather than talk, is appalling."
  • "Welcome to Wikipedia, newbie, we hope you enjoyed your seven minutes here!"
Are you just going to bury your head in the sand and assume that admins are infallible, or are you going to help discuss a way to fix the problem? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We're all willing to discuss the matter. You simply suggested that all username hardblocks should be stopped. That's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am more than willing to discuss alternative approaches or to talk to admins who may be getting over block-happy. But your suggestion was an utter failure to assume good faith on the part of other admins. To copy the list I made elsewhere, I believe the following are cases where username hardblocks are not only appropriate but desirable:
Are there any of these names you don't think should be hardblocked? WjBscribe 23:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Suppose someone posted "Fuck Nigga Pussy Cock Sex Gangbang Anal Terrorism" on an article page, where it would be far more visible than a username. They wouldn't be indefinitely blocked; they'd get a strong vandalism warning, and on the second offense they'd get blocked for 24 hours. The way the username policy is being enforced is way out of proportion to the rest of Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Most admins would block indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, I think. Someone who later wants to be a good contributor is not going to want such an edit in their contribution history, anyway. ElinorD (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was their first edit then hell ya I would block it, as a "vandalism only account". From WP:BLOCK: "accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely" Until(1 == 2) 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
For practicality. If we continually block those accounts with account creation enabled, then ONE person could register an infinite amount of accounts with dumbass names on quicker than admins could block single ones, ending up in four or five admins blocking stupid names non-stop because of person. I don't like this thought. Things are fine just they way they are. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where admins don't block you from repetitively creating accounts with stupid names, and instead waste their time letting you carry on doing it"? Not a good message. --Deskana (banana) 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I concede this point; some hard username blocks are justified. It would be reasonable to hardblock most of the names listed above, except I still have reservations about simple profanity such as "Cuntbitchfuck" -- that user may just be uncreative and juvenile, not malicious. Block the name, certainly, but give them the opportunity to change it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The uncreative juvenile user will have an opportunity to change it a few days later. The block at least sends a message that we don't want them wasting our time. ElinorD (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think of a hard username block as a disallowing of the username, plus a 24-hour block for disruptive behavior. After 24 hours, the IP will no longer be affected, after all. It's definitely appropriate to apply that kind of block in some cases. Mangojuicetalk 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that they create 18 such names in 2 hours. That is why we can block account creation. In 2 days they can come back and try again. Until(1 == 2) 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Technical question: if you soft-block an account and block account creation, doesn't that just prevent the account from creating more accounts? Can't the person log off and immediately create more accounts as an IP? The underlying IP is not affected unless you hard-block, i.e. turn on the autoblock. Please correct me if I'm wrong... —Wknight94 (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I just ask what the point of blocking usernames before they have edited is? It doesn't make the names cease to exist. I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored? Kamryn · Talk 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We can hardly say we're a serious encyclopedia if we have articles that are written by people called User:CuntBitchFuck and User:YoureAllFags. --Deskana (banana) 10:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? I think: "We can hardly say we're a serious encyclopedia if our more respected users spend vast amounts of time performing essentially pointless tasks in contradiction to one of our longest standing policies" is much more accurate. Kamryn · Talk 11:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's silly. Casual readers - which is the vast majority of the population here - are far more likely to notice terrible usernames in the article histories than take notice of which users are more respected and how they choose to spend their time. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to Kamryn, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. So if you know that a name is inappropriate to edit with then block before they edit is in line with this philosophy. After all, blocking an account prevents editing, which is what we don't want such names to be doing. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus needed on imposter addition

Right now, the disruptive usernames section contains this line among its defnitions: Usernames that are similar to those previously used by persistent vandals or banned users . It doesn't deal with people using names identical to those of current non-banned, non-vandal editors.

Propose for consensus: adding Usernames that are, or appear to be, identical to those in use by other users.

I've encountered a situation where, by accident or design, someone seems to be impersonating another user by using a tilde sig which produces their IP, and then manually typing in "User:Example" after that -- in which Example is another person entirely and not their own log-in name (so far as I know; checking on that now). I looked hard for a policy on impersonation or imposture, and didn't find one. Finally, I asked over at WP:AN (responses presently located here) and all agreed it fits into the disruptive category, even though the language there is not explicit about it. No one suggested any other policy that would apply to this kind of spoofing / misrepresentation / imposture / impersonation.

...are (or appear to be) is in there to address someone who codes their signature to substitute the numeral 1 for a lower case L, or o's for zeroes, etc., to try to produce a visual result which is hard to distinguish from the legit user's name. "Are" refers to people who simply manually type in "User:Example" when that is not their name. It does not refer to situations without the "User:" prefix -- a guy named "Jim" who just types "Jim" as or near his sig wouldn't fall afoul of this proposal. If someone has better phrasing, please suggest it.

As you comment here to consent or critique, could you also suggest what the shortcuts should be? WP:IMP and WP:Imp are presently occupied. Over at the AN, someone called it "imping" but WP:IMPING seems too arcane to be a good WP shortcut, at least for non-admins to think of offhand. So does WP:POSEUR. Dictionaries spell imposter/impostor both ways. I was thinking WP:IMPOST, WP:Imposter, WP:Impostor, WP:Impersonation, WP:Impersonate as redirects to a single shortcut; but which one? What word would someone inexperienced think of first, when they're looking for help or policy on this topic? Other possibilities are WP:Identity or WP:Spoof or WP:Falsify, but those may be better saved for some other nefarious activity. I am into the shortcuts because I had such a hard time locating info about this.

I've never wanted to change a policy before, so I don't know how many responses constitute consensus. Five? Fifty? Do I make the change if there's consensus, or does some kind of policy czar do it? I aspire to be BOLD, but I'm in unfamiliar territory. -- Lisasmall | Talk 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree these things shouldn't be allowed. But I'm pretty sure that they are already covered by WP:U#Confusing coupled with WP:U#Leet. As for spoofing a signature, I believe that is treated as pure disruption and is blockable. Perhaps an admin may have further insight here. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, "usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion" already covers that. >Radiant< 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks covered already, per Radiant. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming after Adolf Hitler

It seems that we are not allowed to name after him. Why? Such as User:Hitlersson666, User:Adolphus Hitlerius, they were blocked. Why? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they should let Wikimedia attorney Mike Godwin answer that. *Dan T.* 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we let Mike win a Godwin point so easily? I think section 5, Offensive usernames, fits for that kind of usernames. -- lucasbfr talk 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared accounts

I've just removed the section that said "School administrators for the purposes of cleaning up vandalism to articles about their schools and as a liaison with Wikipedia:Administrators for tracking down abusive students from within their networks" are allowed to share accounts. This was added without discussion and I don't see why we should make this exception. School admins can email admins if there is a problem with there IP's, and editing of their school page has a clear conflict of interest. I always thought it was a meta rule that shared accounts weren't allowed anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, please read m:Role account for the use of role accounts project wide. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to corporate and school IT administrators being allowed shared role accounts as long as they aren't editing articles directly. Having a visible presence is always a good deterrent to "anonymous" vandals if they know they can be held accountable. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree, a role account of a proxy/AN administrator is not a bad idea, so long as it is NOT editing articles. It may be helpful if it were to also require some sort of confirmation with a wiki admin that they are who they say they are. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I've sort of changed my mind. I thought at first that it would probably be okay, but the more I think about it the more I think it would be better if they just had their own accounts. What's the hassle in them having different accounts? The thing is they are going to edit articles. At the very least, they will edit the school's article(s). I also don't think it's compliant with the GFDL. Sarah 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Handling bad names

I've seen so many usernames being blocked. Why most of them were left alone without putting anything inside as creating userpage, while a few of them placed Template:Usernameblocked, a few Template:UsernameHardBlocked, and a few even Template:Indefblock!!?? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 10:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I see a name that was created simply to get a reaction, I often deny that reaction. Most names should get a message though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that some people created an account with bad names just to be simply blocked? If an admin block it with its IP blocked and/or account creation blocked, then UsernameHardBlocked should be used right? But why some were applied Indefblock instead? I thought that should be used for people with disciplinary problem such as continuous vandalism, edit war, continuous violation of WP:3RR... --Edmund the King of the Woods! 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get what you mean. What does "bureaucracy" has to do with bad names? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I mainly cannot understand why IndefBlocked is used sometimes. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What I meant is that people sometimes use different templates than you expect them to, and we have no effective way of making everybody use the same system. It does not appear to be problematic if indefinitely-blocked accounts are flagged as "indefblock". >Radiant< 08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that when we block for a username violation, we usually use {{Username blocked}} as the block reason, which makes the template appears as the block message. Therefore duplicating it on the talk page is overdoing it -- lucasbfr talk 15:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But what I think is, if there is such a template for blocked bad names, just use it! As IndefBlocked is so general. Furthermore, once I went for RfA, one who opposed pointed out an acceptable MISTAKE, which was I replaced an IndefBlocked with a Usernameblocked in a bad name's userpage. That's why I think there's a special case for IndefBlocked. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Something merely existing is a poor reason for using it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the existing and using which one? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Vulgar" usernames

Following discussion at WT:UFAA, it seems that general practice is to disallow names for being "vulgar". This doesn't seem to match any of the five reasons to disallow names, noting that vulgar does not necessarily imply offensive. Is the wider community in accord with this? If so, I would suggest amending the policy to specifically disallow vulgarity. My opinion, however, is that this swings too far towards censorship and is far too general. SamBC(talk) 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While one definition of vulgar is "offensive in language", it also means common[4]. The names being discussed are better described as crass, gross, or offensive. I am assuming you are talking about the whole "pee" "poo" debate. This seems covered by the existing policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
At least two editors, myself and User:rspeer, disagree on that interpretation of policy, hence the desire for further consultation. If policy can be read either way, it should be clarified. Which way to clarify needs further community participation. "Pee" is hardly universally (or even widely) offensive, in my opinion; it's more juvenile than anything else. Or do you feel it meets another of the 5 principle reasons? SamBC(talk) 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
They policy says "Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible". I would say that pee is generally offensive. I will continue to treat it that way. The fact is people don't like bodily fluids in polite conversation, that is why excretory references are specifically listed as something likely to be offensive. I just don't see what the proposed policy change is as the meaning of "Vulgar" is either "common" or "offensive". Offensive is covered, common is not an issue. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, dictionary.com feels that there's more meanings than that, as do I, which explains my point. Vulgar can mean pertaining to the masses (ie, common), it can mean "indecent; obscene; lewd", which is what you're saying now, but it can also simply mean "crude; coarse; unrefined" or even "characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste". The last of these is perhaps a bit ostentatious, but the second-to-last is how I would understand "vulgar" in the sense of the milder words for bodily functions, such as pee, or fart. I wanted to see what other people think, not just move the existing discussion. How about we both quieten down and let other people offer an opinion, hmm? SamBC(talk) 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Despite having been a part of the discussion at UAA, I'm a little confused by the conversation thus far. Sam, would you mind cut n pasting here the relevant wording of the policy you're referring to, and then indicate what exactly you're advocating: a change in the wording, change in the interpretation of the wording, or something else? Just for clarity, so we know *exactly* what we're discussing and the exact proposals at hand. ~Eliz81(C) 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, below is the relevant "general reason" and the text that appears after the general reasons. Apologies if more copied than really needed, but better to have too much than too little in this case, I think. SamBC(talk) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Extract from WP:U

  1. Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible; potential examples include but are not limited to:
    • Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view.
    • Usernames that are defamatory or insulting to other people or groups.
    • Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.)
    • Usernames that refer to real-world violent actions.
    • Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera.
    • Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way.
    • Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions.

A username that is inappropriate in another language or one that includes misspellings and substitutions such as through Leetspeak may still be considered inappropriate in general.

Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies: use common sense. In borderline cases, ask for other opinions before blocking the username. For instance, not every name that includes "Jimbo" is a misleading reference to Jimmy Wales or impersonating him; there are many people named Jimbo, and new users may not even know who Jimbo Wales is.

The above policies also should not be taken as a moralistic restrictions - Wikipedia is not censored. Using potentially offensive or ambigious terms in your username should instead be avoided for the sake of community cooperation and etiquette.

Further discussion

So, what I'm saying is, is there consensus that all "vulgar" usernames (such as "pee" or "fart" or suchlike) are to be considered offensive, or perhaps "disruptive" to match point 3 from the original (point 1 above is actually point 5). They seem to be being picked up as references to excretory functions, which are a specific example and policy currently says that matching one of the examples does not, in itself, mean a name should be blocked. If the community, wider than UAA/RFCN, feels that this is what they want, then some edit (I don't know exactly what) should clarify this. If not, then similarly, an edit should clarify even more strongly that specific examples are just categories that may meet the terms of the general reason, but should be considered individually. At the moment, common behaviour doesn't fit with what at least some editors believe the policy says. SamBC(talk) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, thank you very much for clearing this up. The debate about the use of the word 'vulgar' didn't seem an immediately obvious policy recommendation. As I suspected, there are several issues at hand. Allow me to make a first attempt at bullet-pointing them, and please feel free to edit. Once we get these sorted out, then we can weigh the pros and cons of concrete options.
  1. Reword the policy to make clear the relationship of the subheadings of the 5 principal guidelines to the guidelines themselves. Are they mere examples, or concrete categories?
  2. Reword the excretory functions example to include the word 'vulgar' instead of 'offensive.'
  3. Move the excretory functions example from point 5 to point 3, where there is already a similar example, since we're appealing to its disruptiveness more than offensiveness.
  4. Appropriate use of the UW:UAA template should be clarified, and how to handle borderline or incorrect reports to UAA.
What do you think? ~Eliz81(C) 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I added another potential point for discussion that Sam did not address. ~Eliz81(C) 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fine the way it is. Excretory functions are generally offensive, not just disruptive so I don't see the reason behind moving it. It seems clear already from the wording "Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies" that those are examples and that they should meet the larger criteria before being in violation. As for allowing vulgarity, I suppose it depends on if it violated one of the existing policy points, I don't think we need to specifically mention this rather ambiguous word. As for the UAA template, you never should have been given it, that name was a perfect candidate for UAA. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just of curiosity, what would be some examples of non-offensive vulgarity? referring to phlegm or something like that? I think point 3 is an okay option since excretory words are disruptive, and actually I'd support rewording the template for incorrect UAA reports, given the amount of discretion that goes into all decisions there. Specifically, I'd reword "Please remember you should only post blatant infringements on this page." to "An administrator feels that the name was not blatant enough for immediate blocking, especially if the user has not yet made an edit." or something along those lines. ~Eliz81(C) 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The line that jumps right out at me, and pertains to these "pee" and "poo/poop" names is: Using potentially offensive or ambigious terms in your username should instead be avoided for the sake of community cooperation and etiquette. While some people may not find these offensive, and may simply chalk them up to immaturity, the majority of mature editors do not use these terms in conversation, as mentioned previously, and the names could be potentially offensive to others, thus also making harmonious cooperative editing difficult. I personally would not like to have to refer to another editor by name if it were "pee pee pants". No, it is not blatantly offensive, but I find it vulgar, crude, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as this. Ariel♥Gold 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't help the clarity of the policy that that isn't in the list of actual reasons for finding a name offensive. It should perhaps be a note in reason 5, with more emphasis given to why it's bad to be offensive there, rather than a bit of the way down. This would lead to assessment of potential problems rather than discussing offensiveness qua offensiveness.
"Pee" is a terrible example for us to have been using, on reflection, because it is part of non-offensive terms sometimes. Even without that, with things like "poop", "fart", "pee", etc, there is an argument that people who object are frankly being "precious". I'm frankly not sure, although there is a general picture across wikipedia that avoiding offence to readers doesn't matter, but this implies that a little offence to editors is a big problem. I don't know where I come down. It all seems rather confusing and inconsistent. Sure, Until, you would say it's consistent, but that's just that you have a consistent view yourself; it doesn't mean it's consistent across wikipedia and across admins, let alone all editors. SamBC(talk) 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ariel that pee/poop and so on are flagged up by Using potentially offensive or ambigious terms in your username should instead be avoided for the sake of community cooperation and etiquette and so they are terms that should warrant action by UAA. SGGH speak! 10:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, I feel it should be made clearer in the list of reasons that names are considered unacceptable - that statement appears after the list of reasons to disallow. SamBC(talk) 10:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I second that SGGH speak! 16:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree too: I for one would like to see all those micro-specific reasons removed completely. They encourage legalistic thinking, which is a big waste of time with username blocks. That phrase is only below the "rules" because that's what I had to compromise on. Mangojuicetalk 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Mangojuice. In an ideal world where common sense was always applied, WP:U would be simple: if the username is likely to be contentious, it isn't allowed. I think everyone can agree on whether a username is problematic in most cases. Unfortunately, people try to "test the line" of acceptability, so we try to be more specific and give examples. Then, as Mangojuice said, people try to wikilawyer, leading to attempts at more clarity in the policy and eventually a series of sections on acceptability with subsections and whatnot </minirant>. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this too. I don't like the fact that each type of violation has several example sub-types under it, because it makes those sub-types treated as reasons in themselves; then we end up arguing pointlessly about examples of those, like whether six Z's in a row is okay but not seven, and they get used as a crutch by admins who don't want to apply common sense. The top level reasons plus common sense are all that is necessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with appealing to common sense is that it's not particularly common, and not necessarily always sensible either. One person's common sense may be another's nonsense. *Dan T.* 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I support Sam's suggestion for moving the general list of reasons (as the one in bold cited by ArielGold) ahead of the examples. I think the examples of each policy are necessary now, to avoid being completely vague. And as I've mentioned before, offensiveness is by far the most subjective one and we need to elucidate what can reasonably be constituted as offensive. That being said, I fully agree we should prioritize how we present the information, and the general guidelines and principles come way before nitpicking. ~Eliz81(C) 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The bit ArielGold bolded isn't even in the general reasons - it's part of an explanation after the general reasons. I feel that we should have the general reasons, each with a fuller bit of explanation as to why it's a problem, and then examples in a seperate section. The bit of text ArielGold bolded should be in the explanation for point 5, although that then implies that 5 is a subset of 3. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't bold that section to say that it was a policy/reason in itself, but to emphasize it was the rationale behind the policy. I agree with Sam that the reasons should have a bit more explanation, while still leaving them open for interpretation in the case of these "skating the thin line" issues. In those cases, the line I bolded should be considered, with regards to possible interpretations of those thin line names. Ariel♥Gold 06:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Real name warning

I would like to make it clear here that attacks and harassment occur not just offsite or off-wiki, but on and from Wikipedia itself, and might be allowed to stay at the discretion of administrators and arbitrators. Because NPA is a policy, new users might falsely believe that personal attacks won't be allowed to happen here, when in reality, Wikipedia might allow them or even actively solicit them (e.g. RfC/U and especially RfArb, arguably also RfA) where they will be published forever. New users should be made to understand that any real name or longstanding pen name might be dragged through the mud here, likely damaging their reputations, and by participating here, they agree that this will happen. Also, many people might naively assume that Wikipedia is a responsible publisher which would not allow libelous attacks. New users need to understand that such attacks are a known feature of this site, and that the Foundation won't take any responsibility for what appears here. We need something here to point to later when they inevitably complain.Proabivouac 08:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac is absolutely right. I have watched this situation with alarm - I assumed there were protections for RWI which are not, in fact, in existence. John1951 10:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone wondering what Proabivouac is talking about, it might be instructive to note that the 'harassment' seems to consist of Wikipedia administrators and arbitrators posting formal administrative notices that contained Proabivouac's former username (which is also his real name), in order to inform him and others that Proabivouac was violating arbitration sanctions imposed on that previous username. What these 'libelous attacks' consist of hasn't, to my knowledge, been made explicit. The ongoing discussion is, for the moment, here. --Aim Here 10:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good time to invoke WP:VANISH. Though that requires you leave. --tjstrf talk 11:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to warn other innocent people to help them avoid similar situations. That you'll be attacked here by anonymous trolls is a fact. That Wikipedia authorities allow this and will even solicit and facilitate it also a fact. That NPA might not be enforced, or even suspended entirely, depending on the whims of administrators and arbitrators is a fact. Don't you think that average citizens deserve to know these things before they choose a username?Proabivouac 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that people declare far to much to be a fact. That being said a warning would make sense, though there is no need to lay any blame down. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
People regularly ask to be renamed FROM a nick TO a personal name fyi. Secretlondon 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing confusion due to examples

Judging by a current discussion at RFCN, it would seem that the examples for each of the five reasons being included directly with the reason confuses people, and leads to them thinking that they are outright criteria for disallowing a name in themselves. This despite the clear instructions beneath the reasons.

I'm happy to go ahead and refactor the examples into a seperate section, if there's no objections. What do people think? SamBC(talk) 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it's worth a try at least. Can I put in a plea for removing the HTML anchors linked to each type of example? That just encourages treating them like rules. Mangojuicetalk 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree, but I'd want more consensus for that. I'm going to give it another hour or two for objections before I make the refactoring, in any case. SamBC(talk) 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I, of course, agree, and I think that by now you're free to be bold and make the change. I think there's eventually more to refactor than just that, though, because WP:U is a prime example of policy creep throughout. Paragraphs barely flow together because everyone's wedged in their own pet peeve about usernames or their own idea about how the policy should be applied. And we've seen the effects of this, in WT:UAA debates where everyone's conflicting point of view is backed up somewhere by WP:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Right then, that's done. Who wants to lay odds on how long 'til it gets reverted? SamBC(talk) 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Leeway per WP:BITE and real names

Please read WP:AN#Blockage

  • Is it appropriate to drive away positive (as well as potentially-poisitive) contributors for having usernames which are non-blatant violations by blocking them? Should it be explicitly disallowed to block usernames which are, for example, the user's real name or a perfectly understandable and memorable 50-char sentence? GDonato (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Short answer, no. Long answer, well, look at ҈ (talk · contribs). A new user that uploaded really nice images, forced to change their name and now has not edited since. Will he/she ever contribute again? I dunno. I can't blame the person either way. The username enforcement seems whacked to me, lots of sympathy for pee and poop, but when a real good faith user comes along, letter of the law. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, vis-à-vis that situtation, his name was 39 characters long, one under the forty the bot will report. But it it's long, and isn't easily typable. I would've rather that gone to RFCN instead of blocked on sight. But I dont see any reason to allow very long/non all Latin names just because they're someone's real name. As for a 50 chars, that should be discussed at RFCN. But really, all but blatant ones should go through RFCN first. — i said 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The default signature has a link, the history has a link. Why would anyone ever even need to type a username in? I have never typed most people's usernames that I visit, I just click a link. I think it is a bad block, and a shabby way to treat a user who chose his real name. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, who are we talking about? For the symbol one, the impetus of that discussion was the fact that I cannot see links to the name at all, and many users don't render properly. And they would need to type a name in if they didn't feel like going digging for a page the user in question had commented on, just to find a link to their page. — i said 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It was bot-reported and I refused it. I for one don't think names that could be actual life names should even be challenged! I have worked with a lot of Indian people who would not take too kindly to being told their names are too long for something. A silly long name or pointlessly-odd name as the one above (which I don't think I'm even seeing correctly) can be challenged if good edits have come but still shouldn't be blocked without an RFCN. But this poor person with valid contribs and a long Polish name - Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs) - has a right to be quite insulted at this afront. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Part of the problem here is that usernames can be refused at WP:UAA and just re-reported until someone blocks. This isn't the only case of its kind that I've seen. How do we ensure that if someone refuses, it doesn't come back? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Smarter bots ;) GracenotesT § 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-language character usernames

Per discussion of User:҈ at WT:RFCN and WP:RFCN, it seems that the user policy should explicitly forbid non-alphabet/language character usernames (non-Latin characters which are used in languages other than English are explicitly allowed by WP:U). This would include names consisting of pure or mostly punctuation and special characters such as above. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As Ryan mentioned earlier, at some point in the future, all languages will log in from the same place, so any policy change to WP:U should be clarified to note it is specific to non-language symbols, such as the above, and [5] User:↻, as neither of those are symbols used in any language, and are what some administrators term "vanity" symbols. Ariel♥Gold 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I do have to say that there isn't really a large amount of editors wishing to explicitly forbid the names. I'd let it play out a bit longer to see what the opinion is. i said 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say that my previous name as no more influenced by "vanity" than any of the names you chose. I frankly don't see where vanity enters into it. Wordless symbol 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an obvious comparison to be made with regard to vanity.... But anyway, that alone should not be a major concern. The only issue that I can think of, from my perspective, is that usernames such as these are hard to remember in comparison to a name or word of some kind and they lack an identity (what do you call someone who has a little circle of dots for a username? User:Littlecirclreofdots?). Thus, they can make user interaction a little bit harder at times. I will leave it to others to assert whether that is enough to instigate a ban – I am not sure that it is. Adrian M. H. 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A minor point, made days after the discussion, but is that usernames such as these are hard to remember in comparison to a name or word of some kind could be changed to is that usernames such as these are hard for some users to remember in comparison to a name or word of some kind. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not harder to remember than any strange foreign character. And I supplied the word "Sunshine" as a meme for my symbol. I changed my name because it was easier, not because you folks were right. I read the policy first. Perhaps you can re-word it to show what you really expect. Wordless symbol 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
User:҈ already changed his/her name to User:Wordless symbol. The question is, should we change the policy to specifically prevent the use of such symbols? User:Wordless symbol chose their original username in good faith after having read the policy.-- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is that many users cannot actually display the username - it displays as a ?. People cannot type in a person's username, they need to copy and paste it in from somewhere. These are all barriers to creating an encyclopedia - the only benefit is to the individual user who gets a vanity username. Secretlondon 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the aim of user names (like all user personalizations) to be used within the limits of "does it cause a problem in making a better encyclopedia"? We set restrictions on user space, for example, and what may be put in it, on grounds mostly that some activity there can cause trouble at a project level.
User names are an identifier the community allows users to choose, and they have two main functions (other than IP masking which does not demand any given charset):- personalization of the user's own activity ("a pseudonym of my own choosing") and reference by other users (in debates or other matters, etc). The latter is a project necessity, the former is personal enjoyment. Names should have a modicum of ease of representation, and ease of reading and referencing, otherwise that latter goal is not met - and that's an important functional aspect of a username. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am one of those that doesn't see the circle of halfmoons, which meant that a) the "sunshine" meme meant nothing to me, b) other people with names that aren't normally renderable will also render as a ?, thus meaning it would be hard to tell who was who, and c) it renders differently on the 3 different browsers (Camino, Safari, Firefox) I have on my Mac OS X system. Given User:I's reported problems, that means there are at least 5 different ways that this username can be seen, rendering the ability to reference that user in discussions practically impossible (please note, this is not an attack on Wordless symbol, I truly believe the name was chosen in good faith, but it has identified a serious problem). — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I used a friends Mac OS X to view the name and I didn't see a circle of half moons. On my Windows with Firefox I saw the circle but it over rides "User" which obfuscates part of the word. I have no doubt it was chosen in good faith but it would be problematic to many users to try to include the name in any context. I don't see any reference to it here in section 1. Confusing usernames, but it seems there could be, because it is confusing.--Sandahl 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I sometimes use different computers to browse wikipedia, and have noticed that some will display a symbol username properly whereas others show something like this ៛៛៛, when the actual username is this ʑ for instance. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
However, I think it should be more clear that those kind of usernames should not be allowed, so I suggest ammending WP:U, to include something of the nature. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with this one bit. It's just lazy if you don't want to copy and paste someones username - the fact is, that templates still work the same such as the ones in the mediawiki software so there is little problem with it. Also, this is no different to just about any other non-latin character, so the fact that it is not an actual letter is a little moot really. The policy works fine as it currently is, if we just forget about these usernames, and get on with something constructive, we would all be better off. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with Ryan if the non-letter characters were displayed properly by all browsers. -Freekee 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone whose browser doesn't display those characters, and can't upgrade their browser so the characters are displayed, may just have to be confused occasionally. A little bit of confusion in such circumstances is not that terrible. However, wasting our time trying to be overly legalistic about usernames and biting new users for not being aware of these difficulties is damaging. Mangojuicetalk 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
this is really an unfair approach--WP has always made some considerable effort to accommodate technical limitations, though the degree of the limitation changes with time. Not everyone even has unicode, and it will be some years until they do, especially in schools which unfortunately often need to use obsolete equipment. The primary purpose of user names is to communicate, and a user name that can not be seen by any substantial number of users is not communication. There's a secondary purpose to express individuality, but that cannot be allowed to interfere with the first. (I still do not know just what the cryptic name is -- it does not show up on my system. It's time we got back to reality. WP may have started out for geeks, who keep up with technology, but it is now of somewhat broader appeal. FT2 and Random Editor have it right. DGG (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's somewhat reasonable to say that usernames with symbols from non-Latin languages should be allowed. But this symbol is used in no language, and my browser, which displays nearly all other scripts, can't display it. -Amarkov moo! 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Accessibility has to win - sorry. We are about writing an encylopedia - we are not a social networking site. Secretlondon 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As the user who saw nothing, I'll weigh in. I dislike non-Latin usernames. They're difficult to type, and for many people they don't show up as they should; which makes the self expression aspect moot, as well as the readability. I would support a disallowing of non-Latin usernames. As for characters with ÁÈÎõü things in them, I think those are okay; I don't know if they would be included in the scope of non-Latin names, but there you go. i said 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We can do nothing about non-Latin usernames (i.e. usernames in languages that don't use Latin characters). Universal log-in is coming soon whether we at English Wikipedia like it or not. The issue of non-Latin characters that have nothing to do with language could be decided by us. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got just about every font under the sun on my computer (Mac OS 10.4), and I can see just about all these examples, but regardless, I'd say no to non-language character usernames. If for the only reason of not being retarded, let alone all the other reasons. We only allow non-latin stuff because of the universal login, and that doesn't give a free pass to every unicode character under the sun. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes for administrators and WP:BITE

What is needed, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Blockage and Moreschi's post here, is a section in the policy firmly telling administrators (and other users making reports and using templates) that it is important to welcome editors first, before slapping on templates and blocking people for minor infractions of the username policy. Does anyone want to make a start in writing this new section? Carcharoth 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See above - #Leeway_per_WP:BITE_and_real_names GDonato (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it. I want something quite a bit stronger than that. Something making sure that admins stop and think about the spirit of WP:BITE before implementing the letter of this law. Not just a bit of leeway. Carcharoth 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes with the intent of reducing WP:BITE, discourage speedy blocking etc. GDonato (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
We'll never get it right for everyone but I think the major issue is actually COI. We get many that are people using their userpage as an advert - and the only edit is to the userpage. Currently they get blocked and the userpage gets speedied. As we are not a free webhost that is fine (I think). Whether we should block all mentions of commercial entities is another question - currently we often do even if it is a fan reference. I think the major problem is people treating policy as law and wikilawyering over it. The case of sunshine was classic - people who thought it was fine wikilawyered over whether ot not it was breaking any policy - despite the fact that many editors couldn't even see it! We are in danger of forgetting our key purpose which is to write an encylopedia. Everything is secondary to that. Secretlondon 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made a change to the policy which means fan usernames should no longer be blocked. GDonato (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've undone that per WP:BRD, as I think the specific change needs more discussion. Usernames that simply match the name of a company (that isn't horribly obscure, at least) are problematic in themselves, as previous discussions here and at UAA and RFCU have discussed. Every entry in the edit history becomes an advert. However, that shouldn't cause a problem for TV shows or such, simply because they aren't companies. SamBC(talk) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Sam was right to revert. I wonder how a fan showing off his team is not promotional? TV shows are the product of a company, I think they qualify as promotion for the company. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
In which case, does that mean that the change I made makes no difference anyway? GDonato (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like we also need a way to mark entries that have been refused. I had already refused the Polish name at WP:UAA and maybe 10 other admins did too. But if any one of the other 1,000 admins sees it at WP:UAA, they have no idea that it's there for the 15th time. (Sorry if this seems out of place. We seem to have too many sections going on simultaneously here.) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree but I think WT:UAA would be a more suitable venue. GDonato (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, you could add them to Category:Users whose names are not considered blatant violations by at least one person, or something along those lines. Of course being removed from UAA in no way prevents a username block if another admin thinks it is needed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the idea is to stop forum shopping or "asking the other parent" which seems like a common problem on a wiki. GDonato (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That is an issue to take up with users who use that tactic, as the problem applies to far more than usernames. I do see the advantage of making it clear to admins that the username has been looked at. A category would do that(with a shorter name of course), but who adds the cat? Perhaps a bot could do so, but then the user will notice the cat tag being added and may get confused. Not sure really. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy change proposal

I have noticed that alot of usernames reported to WP:UAA are blocked unnecessarily and that many users have very different opinions of what is a blatant violation of WP:U. Some actions taken by users according to poolicy may go against WP:Bite. I am suggesting that all users should be given a message suggesting a name change. An exception to this would be blatant vandal usernames or accounts. For example blocking lengthy random character usernames straight away may be inappropriate. These are likely to be new users who don't understand wikipedia policy very well. If after being warned, the user does not respond for a long time or blanks the page with the message, the suer can be reported to WP:UAA or WP:RFCN. I also suggest that the policy for usernames is more like WP:CSD in that there are criteria for blatant vandal usernames e.g. clearly offensive usernames. What do other users think? Tbo 157(talk) (review) 10:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last bit, certainly. GDonato (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points. One is that I don't think there's really such a thing as a "vandal username", and it's not an idea that's supported in the policy. A number of highly-specific criteria for never-acceptable names might be plausible, try developing it off the policy page and getting consensus here before adding it. The other point is that, if a user is blocked correctly (using templates etc), then they get some quite polite explanation and are advised to just create a new account, or ask for an unblock in order to request a change if they want to keep their contribs. SamBC(talk) 13:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there can be such thing as a vandal user name. People can and do sign up with names using some leetspeak permutation of "I heart vandalism" and so on. But I agree with having a sort of two level policy, one for obviously inappropriate usernames and one for more questionable ones. Natalie 14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There are loads which seem to be made just to be blocked. When there was a debate on whether 'poop' was acceptable in a username we had a flood of 'poop' names made. We get names that refer to admins, even names that refer to the blocklog. Secretlondon 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This would be new to the policy. Right now it distinguishes between clear and unclear, that is to say names you know are in violation, and names you are not sure about. I think the idea creating "names that can wait a little" and "names we just don't want showing up in the history and should be blocked on sight" types of rules is an interesting idea.
Looking over the rules, they all seem pretty important to keep out of the history other than "confusing" names, and only some of them. Offensive, misleading, promotional, and disruptive names should be blocked on sight. And so should confusing names that resemble existing users or parts of the Wikipedia interface. So all told, most names should be blocked on sight.
Perhaps instead of dividing the list in two lopsided sections, we could simple add a "no hurry" provision where admins are encouraged to take their time in certain circumstances at their discretion. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
A "no hurry" provision is not a bad idea. It seems to me that a short paragraph explaining that some "violations" aren't so big a deal as to require an immediate block, no questions asked (names that are somewhat long, names composed of repeating characters), and strongly suggesting that admins discuss names with these users first wouldn't hurt. Natalie 16:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Natalie, and also that the 4 criteria except "confusing" names should all be blocked, or if not blocked, maybe an admin should immediately start a discussion with the user and recommend his/her changing the username. Then if the user refuses, blocked. RainbowOfLight Talk 07:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Don't push it"

Deskana, re this edit:[6]
1) Does Wikipedia assume responsibility for attacks, or not? 2) Do administrators and arbitrators have the right to post the real names of pseudonymous contributors, or not?
It seems that we insist on stating it one way, but playing it another. A.k.a. dishonesty.Proabivouac 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I amended this text:

Wikipedia editors have been subject to severe harassment inside and outside of Wikipedia as a result of their contributions.

To this

Wikipedia editors have been subject to severe harassment inside and outside of Wikipedia.

because the previous text blames the victims of harassment.
2. I added this text:

Whatever name you chose to use, you may be attacked on Wikipedia under that name. By default, these attacks will be published here indefinitely, regardless of their validity. The Wikimedia Foundation assumes no responsibility whatsoever for any damage to your reputation or any other damage which might follow from these attacks.

3. I added this text:

Even if you use a pseudonym, Wikipedia administrators and arbitrators may post your real name at their discretion.

Is any of this false? If so, that's wonderful news, for which I'll be most grateful. Otherwise, we owe potential contributors a heads-up about what kind of environment they can expect if they chose to contribute here.Proabivouac 09:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an extraordinary case used to generate bad law. This guideline is aimed at those choosing a username for the first time and those who choose to change their names under normal circumstances. The extraordinary instance of someone changing his username in a way that effectively dodges an ArbCom probation is what resulted in ArbCom posting an editor's real name in connection with his account. I preserve anonymity when editors reveal their real names in the process of emailing me. I'm sure ArbCom and other administrators do the same, so warning them about an extraordinarily unlikely case is futile. The first addition is also a warning about an unlikely, but more common event. Besides, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks' non-policy status notwithstanding, we do remove some personal attacks. The dour warning is misplaced.
Proab, you may well be angry about all this, but POV pushing on policy pages won't re-bury the account connection.--Chaser - T 09:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Chaser, it's not "extraordinary" at all that editors are attacked on Wikipedia, nor that these attacks may be published here indefinitely. You and anyone else who's participated for awhile (me more than most of you) knows this to be normal for Wikipedia. Even arbitrators now admit and accept that editing Wikipedia is a "position where [one is] likely to be subject[ed] to" the "unacceptable and inappropriate."[7] Maybe we can simply quote them, state that Wikipedia is full of "unacceptable and inappropriate" attacks, and that contributors who might be too "weak" to handle this should stay away? Attacks:Wikipedia as heat:kitchen. You heard it from the arbitrators themselves.
Though awfully irresponsible, it's still a fact, isn't it, that the Foundation doesn't take responsibility for what it publishes about its contributors? If it does, then let's say that. What I see here is analogous to a cigarette manufacturer fighting to keep health warnings off its packs. All I'm asking is to tell the truth, the whole truth etc. An honorable organization honors its word, even if/when it finds this inconvenient. An honorable organization is upfront about the costs its contributors are likely to entail by working with us.Proabivouac 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with the removal of "as a result…", as it's essentially true that people will be hounded for no good reason. However, the rest of it is right out. This page isn't the place for disclaimers, for starters, and including this in policy isn't just warning that it happens, it can readily be read as giving permission for it to happen, which I'm sure you would not intend. SamBC(talk) 09:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SamBC here Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the intent of 'as a result of their contributions' was to connect the stalking with their decision to participate in the project, not to suggest that it happened because they wrote the wrong thing. There may be a better way to express it, or it may not be necessary to include anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, such attacks wouldn't be allowed, but so long as they are, you bet that intend that potential contributors should know that. You're talking to a person who reads policies and takes them seriously. If I saw such language, I would have adjusted accordingly, either using a pseud from the get-go, or not contributing at all. What I sense here is the fear that if we are honest about what happens here, we'll lose some potential contributors. True. That's a moral choice every business and every salesman faces, every day. There's only one ethical answer: represent your product honestly, with caveats where caveats are due, and let those who don't want it opt out accordingly. Otherwise, you're just defrauding people.Proabivouac 10:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. But what's relevant to a user's choice of username is a brief discussion of the kinds of anonymity concerns users do and should have, plus some discussion about what a username is for. Which is, basically, already there. Mangojuicetalk 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, we can "best approach this issue" by you not trying to use policy pages to make some sort of point. --Deskana (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not pleasant to hear, and this may not be the place to put it, but what Proabivouac says is true. Tom Harrison Talk 12:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anyone's arguing that the essnetial basis of Proabivouac's points are incorrect, just that this really isn't the place to do anything about, if anything is indeed to be done. SamBC(talk) 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's my feeling too. This seems like essay material; such an essay could be linked from here. Mangojuicetalk 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fair to ask Proabivouac conside writing an essay. But given what Tom Harrison writes these proposed edits merit full discussion. I think that what we have here is a classic case of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you all assume good faith and are willing to compromise I am sure you can work something out. 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a warning without laying blame? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed policy, change of emphasis needed

The emphasis here is all wrong. It's a basic principle of law that everything is permitted unless it is specifically prohibited. This focuses way too much on blocking and not enough on permission.

Furthermore, this is not the policy that will make or break Wikipedia. What we call ourselves is ultimately irrelevant besides what we write. The encyclopedia must come first.

This policy has caused far too many problems, too many bad blocks of good-faith users who are not even given the time to change their name, too much admin time wasted on blocking users that have never edited and most likely never will edited, and too much silliness in general. I make plenty of other pertinent points here. How many great articles are we losing via ridiculous blocks?

What is needed is a drastically slimmed-down policy/guideline that simply says "Everything that is wilfully offensive, block. Everything that is not, talk first". Much more has to be left to sensible admin discretion and not bound by robotic and overbearing rules that simply cannot cover every single situation. Moreschi Talk 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is one of the policies where admins have the most discretion. It has 5 simple classes of bad usernames, and some examples, some advice on how to handle it. It does not seem overly prescriptive to me. Do you have any specific changes that you would make? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll second moreschi here, there really is no need to have "username patrol" as I have seen it referred to as. If a name is a problem talk, if its really bad it should be very obvious. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is people get obsessive about it and spend ages looking for dodgy usernames to block - the emphasis is wrong. We block usernames not because they are breach of the policy, but because they interfer with the process of writing an encyclopedia. The username policy is a means to that end, and that's all. It has no worth in itself - if a username that very clearly interferes with the process of writing an encylopedia (like one 50% of the users cannot display) isn't covered by the policy it will be blocked regardless (sorry). Many of the dodgy names are tipping us off for other violations - a username with a childish obscenity in is probably a vandal, a username with a company in is probably a spammer. Secretlondon 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Confusing usernames" section is fine but confusing usernames are not a sign of bad faith and should never be blocked on sight. Ditto for usernames that look like bots. Ditto for promotional usernames, for the most part, especially if that username has not edited (if it has edited, and is spamming, then fine). Block offensive/disruptive stuff and judge the rest on a case by case basis. Encourage discussion and username changes, not blocks. This is much more in line with WP:BITE and WP:AGF. How discouraging must be being blocked before you even edit, for whatever reason, be? Moreschi Talk 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why they can't be blocked on sight. A username block is not an assumption of bad faith. I agree some confusing usernames can wait, but what about names the closely resemble other users? They should be blocked on sight, no assumption of bad faith. They are given a nice message explaining what went wrong and that they are not in trouble and are still welcome. I agree that some usernames can wait for a discussion, but good faith, bad faith, does not enter into it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with 1==2. If it's a clear vio, it can be blocked without assuming bad faith. They can easily get another name and edit.Rlevse 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If a username closely resembled mine, I would not block it on sight, because I should have been blocked on sight. Check that for as to why. I didn't realise this until about six months after I joined. In fact, my username is a reference to the people listed at Moreschi. Picking a username is a tricky business!
Blocking has a highly discouraging effect. People bother to sign up, and then they're blocked and don't even get the chance to edit! No matter how friendly the template, 9 times out of 10 they probably won't really understand why they've been blocked and are unlikely to give it another go. We should be far more tolerant and understanding, and encourage discussion and username changes. Moreschi Talk 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Blocking is hostile, blocking a newbie (who is making good faith edits) because they have a username that is one character off a current editor is wrong. Secretlondon 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
1==2, WE know that people who mistakenly choose bad usernames are welcome to edit with appropriate ones, but you are totally dismissing the discouraging effect we are producing by the way we handle this. THEY don't know that, or even if we tell them that, they still feel so unwelcome that they probably won't come back. Names that are merely "confusing" are a particularly bad choice for blocks. I have been active in this area for quite some time now and I have still yet to encounter a single situation where the "confusion" caused by these names has had any real effect on editing whatsoever (except for blatant impersonation attempts, that is). People love to throw around theories of how someone could potentially get confused.. but my reaction is, so what? If someone gets confused, they can get unconfused, it does no real harm. But blocking the people can do real harm. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Mostly concur with Moreschi, and other comments about blocking bad behaviour because of the behaviour not the names. A few names are blatently blockable, but many names reported here are only blockable because of policy, not because there's been any kind of disruption. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, people get discouraged by a username block, they also get discouraged when their writings get deleted as OR. We still cannot have people with certain inappropriate names filling the history. This needs to be done on a case by case basis, some need immediate action, others can wait. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec)So perhaps we need to change our approach: block obviously inappropriate or patently offensive usernames and obvious attempts at imitating or harrassing other users, but in the case of names that are probably good faith, discuss first and ask the user to take an appropriate step. In some cases, like names with non latin characters or repeating strings, and some names that are very similar to an existing user, the user could simply be encouraged to modify their signature to make the name more legible and/or more clear. Basically, I'm suggesting that the policy be rewritted to clarify that "Fuck you guys" and "Kill Muslims" should still be blocked on sight, but that "Natalie" or something written in kanji should be discussed with the user first. Natalie 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may, non latin usernames are allowed under WP:U. Personally, the only part of the policy that I might object is the "too long usernames" one. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the policy itself isn't really a problem. The problem is the implementation, which could be (partly) fixed by notes on the policy page. Being blocked is discouraging, and a lot of the time more care could be taken. That said, people need to accept that username blocks aren't assumption of bad faith, and the blocks also need to make that clear. SamBC(talk) 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing more notes about implementation will create is policy creep. We need a simple reworking of the proposal that reflects what it's actually meant to do, like what Mangojuice proposed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Mangojuice's proposal, while undoubtedly well intentioned (and I agree with the aims) is such a vastly different beast than the current policy that it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to adopt it through discussion here without wider community involvement. I personally oppose the detail of it, as I think the basic structure of the current policy is alright, and the proposal will be more confusion. Remember, explanation isn't policy creep. If it helps people understand without actually creating more instruction, that's not a bad thing. And I think we agree that something needs to be done to help people to understand. SamBC(talk) 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The policy should be clear on its own. If people need extra explanation just to reasonably apply the policy, then that explanation is effectively part of the policy. Adding more explanation creates policy creep.
Just because the policy is currently being applied more sanely -- and I think much of that comes from me and others actively confronting those who misuse it -- doesn't mean that sanity is going to stick. I'd rather focus on other areas of WP and be able to assume that admins won't go crazy with username blocks again.
Mango's proposal makes an important distinction that the current policy doesn't, between usernames that appear actively malicious and those that simply ought to be changed. If we can't make this distinction, then people will keep applying blocks to good-faith newbies with the second kind of username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that distinction should be made, but I think that Mangojuice's proposal changes a lot more than that, and even if it didn't the change should have wider scrutiny. I accept and support what I believe to be the spirit of the proposal, but not the specifics. Let me have a bash at some "hybrid" language (introducing that distinction but changing little else) this evening (it's quarter to 7 in the evening here as I type), and see if we can use that to see... something. In terms of getting wider consensus, it's usually easiest to get for small, incremental changes, not a large monolithic change. While I'll give my support to a change that I do generally agree with, including the specifics, if it makes a large difference to the policy I won't endorse the change actually being made without wider consensus, and I wouldn't recommend presenting the wider community with even the appearance of a fait accomplit, it usually results in a bad reaction. SamBC(talk) 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree we should seek larger consensus before adopting my proposal. But this can be done by soliciting comments at WP:VPP and other public places. I don't think we need a truly massive discussion like that WP:A vote. Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with you. I wasn't suggesting some sort of mass undertaking. They rarely end well. SamBC(talk) 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

Shouldn't this policy be dealing with attribution issues? To me [at least], an inappropriate username would be one that would get Wikipedia into controversy when somebody uses a name that is the same as a well-known person, band, etc. That would cause a revision of an article to be attributed (GNU FDL requires attribution) to the username that is the same as a well-known person, band, etc. Thoughts? —O (说 • 喝) 03:57, 01 October 2007 (GMT)

That would require some sort of assumption that, where a username is conceivably a real name, it is the real name of the user. Along with the fact that, where it's a personal name, it's "the" person of that name, not just "a" person of that name. In the case of organisations and corporations, we already disallow those names for other reasons. If it's a legal concern, then it'd be best if we don't all go amatuer lawyering about it, and instead try to seek an opinion from Wikimedia's general counsel. Not sure how one would go about that. In any case, I doubt that anyone would seriously assume that a self-chosen username would bear any relation to the real identity of a user. SamBC(talk) 04:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames that match personal websites

I've just seen the username policy taken to what seems like a ridiculous extreme, at Wikipedia:Request an account#z0rz. User:FastLizard4 denied the username "z0rz" to a user because he wanted to use the same name he uses elsewhere on the Internet, including his website, http://z0rz.com.

The requested username is clearly not promoting the website. It's referring to the person behind it, with an identity they use elsewhere on the Internet, and that can hardly be a bad thing. If xkcd decided to start editing Wikipedia under his online name, (not that he'd likely want to draw so much attention to his Wikipedia account) would he be blocked for promoting his comic of the same name hosted at xkcd.com? Am I promoting myself with my username, because I am in fact R. Speer? By the twisted logic of username blocks, perhaps I should be blocked, because my name matches a few web pages I control of the form http://something/~rspeer .

This has come up in other cases, such as a user who called himself something.de, which matched a server that was probably his personal server. It was serving a very minimal page over the Web, but an admin blocked him because the page linked to forums and things that were presumably run by the same person. And that made it promotional.

Elsewhere on the Web, there is a trend toward people identifying themselves with domain names -- look at the OpenID system, which requires it -- but when people try to use their established Internet identity on Wikipedia, we block them without a warning, for a crime of "promotion" that they're presumably not even intending to commit. This is just another case of one minor point of WP:U being enforced to the letter and then extended to any cases that are remotely similar, with no regard to common sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that promotional usernames need to be considered carefully, both in context, and in the contribution history. As I've mentioned a few times at RFCN, some names may be simply coincidence, and with no proof of promotional intent, should be allowed until proved otherwise. Now, if this user had wished to have the name zOrz.com, then obviously, that name in itself is promotional, but as he's only requested zOrz, I see no problem (given that he understands he may not promote his website in any way, of course). I would think that it would be fairly easy to simply add a caveat to the existing policy that common sense should be used: If no promotional intent has been exhibited, and the name is not immediately obvious to the majority of editors as being linked to another site, the name should be allowed (until proven otherwise). However, I would not think that allowing usernames that have .com, .net, .org, or even .de in the name acceptable, especially when those names match an existing website (whether the user is associated with it or not), as those are inherently promotional; someone would see that name, and automatically realize it is a website. Without explaining some of the issues about this, (WP:BEANS), I'll just say that even if the site is innocuous and not a business or company, I still don't believe they should be allowed, but that's just my personal opinion. I do think the current policy could be re-worded a bit to allow innocent coincidences not be punished by current policy. Ariel♥Gold 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Rspeer, but this is a clear case of someone not reading the policy carefully. Right now the wording refers to usernames that match "a company or group." z0rz doesn't seem to be a company or group, just because there is a domain. I would be concerned that User:z0rz is actually the same z0rz (is that a famous person?) But otherwise, yeah, that's wrong. Mangojuicetalk 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The rule against promotion refers to companies or groups, not individuals. We are allowed to choose an alias to be attributed under and simple having a website by the same name is not a violation in my eyes. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand that either, SGGH is what I use on other internet accounts and forums. In fact someone messaged me on the police forums asking if I was "the SGGH from wikipedia" :D SGGH speak! 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If xkcd decided to start editing Wikipedia under his online name Are you under the impression that he does not? —Random832 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* *cough* *cough* Man, I should see a doctor... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's almost tempting to take you to to WP:RFCN just to make a point… SamBC(talk) 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

Given the above comments, I think the policy and username process need revamping. I have a draft in my userspace at User:Mangojuice/IU designed to replace the entire WP:IU section. In a nutshell: we distinguish two types of blockable usernames - (1) usernames that we block either as part of a pattern of misbehavior, or preemptively when such behavior is expected, which I call "suspect usernames", and (2) usernames that the community feels are not appropriate, but which aren't suspect usernames. My draft makes it clear, I hope, that blocks should not be issued when a username is in this second category, except as a last resort when communication has failed. I also removed all mention of WP:RFCN as I think that process is broken and is a terrible substitute for good-faith discussion with a user about their username; I actually think the time has come to delete/decomission WP:RFCN as the reforms that were promised back in April have clearly not come to pass. Another big change is to completely remove the list of examples. We just don't need them. Legalistic thinking with no common sense has become a big part of this issue, and the examples clearly exacerbate the situation, as a few recent incidents have shown. Mangojuicetalk 03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that your revamp is a great idea. "Suspect usernames" versus "inappropriate usernames" is a distinction that needs to be made. But I think you might have trouble getting rid of RFCN, even though it's utterly failed to reform -- some usernames will probably still need to be discussed, so does this mean all discussion will happen on UAA and abruptly end every time someone chooses to block one of the names? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your suggestion is very sensible as well. However, the immediate problem I spy is with the inclusion of offensive usernames in both the suspect and inappropriate categories. A lot of the username blocking debates have arisen over just what constitutes an offensive name, and what should be blocked on sight. Although I realize you're trying to not include the examples to avoid wikilawyering, since being offended is highly subjective, how are we to distinguish between 'blatantly offensive' and 'inappropriate'? ~Eliz81(C) 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Offensive names are only in the suspect category under "trolling" (oh no, do we have an examples vs. reasons problem with Mango's new policy already?). Admins should be able to use their common sense to tell what's trolling and what's not. The policy, as I read it, doesn't support the current practice of actively looking for things to be offended by. Mango, am I interpreting it right? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Eliz: there's a reason offensive usernames are split up the way they are. Deliberately offensive usernames are considered suspect: someone who is making their username offensive on purpose (e.g. User:FuckArabs) can be blocked immediately and treated as a bad-faith contributor. On the other hand, someone who probably doesn't intend to offend people (e.g. User:Punk bitch, to cite a real example) is treated quite differently. Rspeer: If people want to go looking for reasons to be offended, its hard to stop them... but part of my vision is to get rid of WP:RFCN. Ultimately, an unreasonable accusation of offense will look unreasonable in a process where the offending user has an equal say. This is not really the case at WP:RFCN, though, where the user rarely if ever comments, and where, if they did, their comments would be relatively lost among all the votes. Mangojuicetalk 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
And to respond to your first question, Rspeer, I see discussion with the user replacing WP:RFCN, and only when that reaches an impasse will something more be required; I was thinking, an ordinary user conduct WP:RFC would be better. Which means that after a possible initial UAA report, more than one person will have to try and fail to resolve the dispute through discussion first (a good sign that there is really a problem, not just one easily-offended user), and also RFC is a more balanced process, in which the offending user will be treated more equally. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the intent and idea is great, but the specifics are a little off. All 5 current "master" reasons can be inappropriate and worth blocking on sight - in some instances. I would suggest a new section/subsection supplementing IU, along with some editing of IU, and replacing the current examples section. This would give clear guidance as to the fact that some examples for each reason represent potentially-problematic ("suspect") names, and some represent oh-no-you-don't immediately-blockable names, and clearly delineate between the two. I do think that clearer delineation between the two is important. SamBC(talk) 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of a username that is merely "confusing" that (1) needs to be insta-blocked, and (2) would not be taken as a bad-faith contributor? I had thought of the "bot" example, but that could always just be a separate exception. For that matter, when would any good-faith username need to be blocked immediately? Mangojuicetalk 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, when it's clearly easy to confuse with another user, for the most obvious one. "Misleading" names can also be created in good faith, and we still can't have users running around with names that sound like they're in a position of power. New users could easily not realise that "beauraucrat"(sp?) is a position of "power" on wikipedia, but we don't want anyone wandering around with that in their name. However, users as such should be blocked nicely, which isn't actually that hard if people would take the time and care to do so. SamBC(talk) 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's probably about as good an example as one could come up with... but I don't actually think it's a problem for someone to temporarily use a username "bureaucrat" if they aren't pretending to be a bureacrat, e.g. by trying to control RFAs or being active on WP:BN. Also, User:Bureaucrat already exists and is blocked; future examples are likely to be more along the lines of User:Bureacrastinator or User:Bureaukat, et cetera, where potential damage is even less. Mangojuicetalk 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
On the issue of RFCN, I don't think that getting rid of it will ever work because discussion is often needed, even for names that are probably immediately blockable. However, I do agree that genuine reform of the system is needed, including a proper process for input from the user in question. SamBC(talk) 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
RFCN isn't a discussion, though, which is why it has to go. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Like every other RFC, it's meant to be a discussion. Do you think that scrapping it and replacing it with something fulfilling the same role, but in a different place with different stated process, will make a difference and work? SamBC(talk) 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I can't promise it would work, but let me put it this way. This doesn't work. And apparently MFD's concluding that RFCN needs to be reformed have not had a real effect, so scrapping it does seem to be better. I don't think we should have any other process fulfilling the "same role" or we'll have the same problem. But we can have regular WP:RFCs for when a username issue is actually that difficult to resolve, and where people care about the name enough to escalate to that level. Mangojuicetalk 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, there isn't currently any other RFC venue for it, and a decent number come up that seem to need broader discussion. Without that avenue, it's quite likely that some that shouldn't be blocked would be blocked, rather than everything doubtful being left alone. That's my prediction based on general admin beahaviour, anyway. If reform of RFCN is supposed to have happened and hasn't, then some degree of pushing for it should happen. There's actually talk towards fixing some things happening on the talk page for RFCN at the moment anyway, including trying to stamp out the problem of names being brought there without discussion with the user in question. However, it sounds like there's more problem with implementation than with the policy. SamBC(talk) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that there's no other venue. A user conduct RFC can cover any dispute over user conduct including username choice. Mediation also has the potential of solving this type of dispute, and if all that fails, there's always Arbcom. But part of my vision in this change is to make it so that if UAA fails, there will be no easy option for appeal; they will have to engage in discussion with the user, with admins on an individual basis, and in a lot of cases this will result in the issue simply being dropped. After all, part of the goal here is to reduce the amount of unnecessary username patrolling. Mangojuicetalk 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
RFCU has turned back to the voting cesspit that was attempted to get rid of back in april. The whole process of dragging people to WP:RFCU without even trying to talk to the user is biting. Mango's idea should be taken seriously here. There is a group of usernames with on admin discrition are obvious bad faith names, everything else can wait while someone actually gasp, talks to the user. Its not like if someone takes Eagle 102, or the like anyone will get confused while someone is talking the user and informing them of the fact that I exist, (if they do get confused they can get unconfused, as its very unlikely for that second user to be making more then a few edits before they are spoken to on their talk page), and they might want to change usernames. I would not be here if I happened to be an unlucky guy to pick a "confusing" username, and subsequently got blocked. The username policy is fine, but we need to implant it better, and WP:RFCU is not cutting it, one user should not be able to drag another new user through that without at least talking to them before hand. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A second note, WP:RFCU was told to reform, we should not have to drag them through those reforms, if it can't reform, and right now it does not look like anything has had a lasting impact (things did improve after the MFD for a while), then it needs to go and we need to try something else. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The problem with RFCN is not its existence so much as the way it is used. Voting has crept back in over the past few weeks. And for the average problem username there is no harm in waiting a couple of days. The promotional/profane/impersonations will get blocked at UAA. "Problem" usernames that are never used/abandoned are not worth the time discussing. RFCN has a purpose, but it should not be needed as frequently as it is. In addition, I would urge people who scan through the username lists not to do that. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Part of the problem is that people move stuff straight from UAA to RFCN; I've added instructions to UAA saying not to do that. A few of us policing RFCN more actively will make a difference (it has been the last few days) and hopefully it'll stick. RFCN has been improving in the last week or so. Lets stick at it in the hope of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. SamBC(talk) 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the actual proposal, on balance I don't like it, although I like the intent. SamBC(talk) 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to hold off an WP:RFCN mfd a bit longer to see if the issues correct themselves. I'm not so hopeful though. What about the other idea in my proposal? That is, explicitly distinguishing blocks of "suspect" usernames (ie, preemptive blocks based on a reasonable perception that the user is here with bad intent) from blocks of "inappropriate" usernames (ie that don't give that perception, and are instead just poor choices for names created in good faith). Mangojuicetalk 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I would make a slightly-alternate suggestion. The policy as it is now should be changed to only cover names that ought to be blocked, whether they're good-faith errors or bad-faith trouble-stirring (such as "HitlerRulez" or something). Names that indicate potential bad intentions should then be covered in a seperate section and the policy should not suggest blocking them, just keeping an eye on them for conduct problems that may warrant a user-conduct block. The choice of name in that case may be considered a component of the conduct.
This would largely mean a bit of tweak-editing and removing quite a few examples, followed by a new section that could include the excised examples. I think that actually fits the underlying spirit of your proposal. RFCN is still needed in that case for names that might be seen to meet the descriptions of should-be-blocked, but people don't feel confident to make that judegement. The criteria for names being inappropriate aren't, and could never really be, even as unambiguous and objective as the criteria for speedy deletion.
For me, the biggest thing that would make the system less rude to some new users would be changing (and possibly diversifying) the messages that are used for blocks, and mandating the block notice appearing on the talk page (so that people have a chance of being told, politely, before they find out the hard way about the block). SamBC(talk) 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make some wording tweaks to my version. I certainly don't mean to suggest that borderline "suspect" names should be blocked, I'll put some strong wording in there. I do think my way is a departure from current practice in that it hopes that every good faith username violation can be resolved without a block. I feel that if there's a compelling reason to ignore that and block a (probably) good-faith username without discussion, there is always WP:IAR. But we don't have to agree on everything. :) Mangojuicetalk 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think "we" in the more general sense will need to agree, generally, on anything that ends up in the policy. The best-practice, to my mind, in the kind of situation you describe, is a block that has a presumption of being removed if the user wants to change their name. If they've no edits, then there really isn't a problem registering a new name. The block just has to be done in a way which is clearly non-judgemental (as in, "it's not you, it's the name"). However, I can see that we both have the same overall goal - to avoid scaring off people who inadvertently create an account with an inpermissible name. SamBC(talk) 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
SamBC, that's unrealistic. Blocks are harsh no matter how they're stated. Newbies do not react well to being blocked, so we need to reduce the number of blocks of good-faith newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To a certian extent, that's true (that block are always harsh). However, there's a wide spectrum of the harshness. The usual username block message is very impersonal, and it's even worse when the first time people can possibly see it is when they try to edit a page (ie, the message isn't posted to the talk page). While it's trivially and obviously true that it's good to reduce the number of blocks of good-faith new users, that has to be balanced with community consensus that there's certain names that really shouldn't be used. I know that you and I agree that the policy is applied rather too liberally, and this has been only slightly mitigated by recent clarifications that I (and others) have encouraged in the policy. Part of the problem is that there can't be any line that's even as objective as the criteria for speedy deletion in determining names that need to be blocked straight away, but I'm sure that even you would accept that there are some. Any example-based discussion will quickly lead to exceptions being found in both directions for any hard-and-fast line anyone suggests, IMO (I've had the conversation with myself a couple of times), so we're left with trying to make the best compromise we can. SamBC(talk) 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Great work. This is much better than the current wording. I think the key to it is that administrators should use their discretion - we don't need a huge list of usernames which aren't allowed or even general pointers such as we have now, at the end of the day, if it's innappropriate, it's innappropriate and can get a swift block. With regards to RFCN, without sounding too big-headed, I am possitive that I could make the correct decision with every single username that goes there without all the comments, I also trust many other admins to have the same judgement. If discussion is required, it could go to an admin board, but I don't see that happening too often. Let's face it, if it's borderline, there's not really a problem, mast username violations are clear cut, for the rest, let the sysops use their discretion. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to check, but you seem to be saying "allow admin discretion to see if a name is blatantly inappropriate, and if it isn't blatant, trust admin discretion to see if it's inappropriate at all". Judging by discussions at RFCN, there are names brought by admins that defy the initial reaction. Admins make mistakes, I'm sure you do too, and shouldn't be encouraged to make every decision on their own without consultation. The involvement of non-admin users is also a benefit, IMO. SamBC(talk) 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • some admins don't understand the username policy too well admitidely, but the admins that minitor UAA do understand it, they can either block it or not. Almost all that go to RFCN don't need any discussion, they are obvious blocks, or obviously not going to get blocked. We could still have a little discussion at UAA, however, we don't need half as much as we currently get at RFCN. I make mistakes, but I'm fairly sure that I could decide whether or not a username is in violation of the policy or not on my own. As I said, on the rare occasion where serious discussion is needed, the best place for that would be an admin board, likewise if someone disagree's with an admin decision to block or not block a username. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(<-)Can someone direct me to the reform that RFCN was supposed to go through? I'm relatively new there, and didn't know there was supposed to be any reform. Maybe many of the others there are new, and there aren't many around who were told to "reform". As I'm involved there, now, perhaps I can be instrumental in the changes that were supposed to happen. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names which should give an overview of all the problems with the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion immediate blocking is unnecessary unless the username is offensive. Alot of new users who intend on contributing positively to Wikipedia, change their name anyway if they are told about their concerning username. Alot of new users are unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and Im sure any new user would be discouraged from ever editing again if they were immediately blocked. So in my opinion, more concerning usernames should go through the warn user and then report to WP:RFCN after 24 hours process rather than going straight to WP:UAA, where discretions are significantly different depending on the admin. This should be made clearer in the policy as at the moment it isn't. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like most people who have compared Mango's proposal to the current version prefer Mango's proposal, so can we go live with it sometime soon? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to make such a major change to a policy when it's been discussed only on the policy's talk page and about half a dozen people have commented on it at all, even if 5 out of 6 support it. Even if such a small discussion group were acceptable, with a smaller discussion group even 1 opposition that actually gives cogent reasons implies a lack of consensus, especially where there's been no attempt to address those concerns. SamBC(talk) 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SamBC. To make an actual change would need a more community wide discussion at somewhere like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but im not sure how many users here agree on doing this. Also to take it to village pump, we would need to figure out what has been agreed on here in the 2 current proposal discussions and consolidate the proposal so that it is clear what is being proposed. It may also be better to put a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies up first if users here want community wide input. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An unsigned rant

Oh dear, are you serious? No, Ryan, the point is that you're stupid, you treat people like crap, and you should only use your judgement if there is absolutely no alternative. I think usernames should be judged on the same criteria as comments, and only ones that break rules like CIVIL should be blocked. The basic rules for usernames (less that 64 characters, no fuck, shit, wikipedia, no impersonating other users) are enforced by the application, which does a decent job of it. Those cover all of the problems imo, so admins should be helping to enforce those rules, and catching what the filter misses. Your proposal contains some ambiguous criteria, like trolling and sockpuppetry that encourage admins to use their own judgement, and consequently fuck up. Trolls should be blocked of course, but not preemptively.

Suspect is also an ambiguous word. Suspicion of being offensive isn't enough, the name should have to be offensive. Maybe title the first section "Offensive Usernames" and remove that from the second section.

I also don't like the statement, "The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors, and you should not create new usernames for the purpose of trying to find this line." First, it could give people the wrong idea. Second, citing secret rules and not telling people what they are is unfair.

Throw-away names need to be in the inappropriate category, as moreschi explains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocked for no reason (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd. Does anyone know what would have inspired this comment? And are the presuppositions it contains true -- like does the software actually prevent certain names from even being registered? I didn't think that was the case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
See Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist; it does prevent certain names from being chosen as usernames. And the user is apparently upset about the username block here. (See the user's revision to his userpage.) I doubt it's the same user, though, the block was quickly reversed and that user has continued editing. Mangojuicetalk 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of RFCN would be a mistake, it was created because name reports were filling up AIV. Improving the process is okay, but getting rid of RFCN is misguided. Rlevse 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_account_policy/Archive_8&oldid=1146672166"