Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Proposed new policy: Talk Page Only accounts

It is reasonable to expect that organizations and corporations might want to provide factual information to help us improve Wikipedia articles. I propose a new policy, allowing for talk page only accounts with organizationally-identifiable usernames. A perfect example of such an account would be User:SChilds ConAgraFoods, who obviously is aware of our policies, requesting changes to the ConAgra article on that article talk page. This would be quite easy to manage, I think, with a policy saying "Declared corporate or organizational accounts are restricted to editing their related article talk pages and their user talk pages." This would also reduce the amount of username blocks; rather than blocking, we could just point to the restriction policy. I think this would also be more welcoming. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia lacks the infrastructure to verify that a username is actually under the control of the organization it purports to represent. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have two concerns with this:

1. Who is going to take the time to make sure these "talk-page only" accounts are sticking to the talk page only?
2. Most non-promotional company names could be blocked under the no-shared-accounts part of the policy (because they appear to represent the company, rather than a single individual), so a username like User:John's plumbing company, even if sticking to the article on John's Plumbing Company, could still be blocked.

I still have other reservations against this, although they are not major enough that I think they would make much of a difference attm. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Hadn't thought much about the verification, though that can be pretty easy -- OTRS or something could receive the equivalent of mail on a letterhead. Perhaps we can require the names to be quite explicit; "John Smith, XYZ Inc. TPO account" would stand up like a sore thumb if it is editing elsewhere. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that verification should be an issue. There is no requirement that corporate representatives identify their corporate ties at all in their username. We already have a policy against "misleading usernames" but do not make an attempt to verify any other user's identity. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tim that we generally AGF on claimed identities in user names unless shown otherwise. I'm not sure about the "talk-page only" aspect. Our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest do allow some limited editing, to revert vandalism or deal with blatant libel. As well, we encourage people to be bold, so actively forcing only talk page requests seems to go against that core tenet. Gigs (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that a talk-page restriction makes sense. I understand the reasoning behind it, but if the account name clearly expresses the user's corporate ties (in the example of User:SChilds ConAgraFoods), COI edits would stand out much more clearly anyway. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose this proposal. If some account with ties to an organisation poses a COI problem then this would be visible from the changes they make to content; and if somebody from organisational account wants to make constructive contributions, I think wikipedia should welcome their expertise - let's not trow the baby out with the bathwater. We should judge the content, not the person saying it. Who knows, maybe tomorrow somebody calling themselves DeathToUnbelievers will make changes to a religion article; but if the change is good (or uses good sources) then it's valuable to wikipedia, and if the change is bad then it should be reverted; the username shouldn't really be a factor.

bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear Bob, we currently block corporate usernames on sight. This would be a loosening of the policy. Gigs (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Serves me right for jumping in rashly. Reading "talk page only" as being more restrictive, I made an arse of myself. Thanks for pointing it out :-)

In that case I'll withdraw my objection (sticking vaguely to a principle of "judge the content, not the contributor")

bobrayner (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we should block "corporate personal" names on sight. Our concern with corporate names is largely about terms of service (specifically, the 'one human per account' part). "User:Jane Smith at Enron" doesn't make us wonder how many humans have that password. "User:Enron" would.

So would, BTW, non-commercial accounts: "User:UnivAdmissionsDept" ought to be reported as an account that's probably not connected to a single human. Ditto for "User:AmericanRedCross" and "User:OfficeOfThePrimeMinister". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support individual corporate name combinations as transparent and helpful. We don't have a problem with corp editors per se if they are well behaved (and in fact we might encourage them as adding coverage we dont have, if well behaved, though obviously handling the many who aren't is a perennial issue).

Also comfortable supporting a norm to the effect that:

Users editing with a clear connection on behalf of a group or organization, should restrict themselves to the talk pages of articles closely connected to the group or organization, except for obvious and minor copyediting, clear vandalism, and the like. When making substantial edits (or parts of such edits) they should more than most consider raising the edit on the talk page if there is a risk of being contentious, one-sided or promotional. In any event such edits should not be edit warred or reverted if another editor objects to the point of reversion, but should be taken to the talk page or a noticeboard. Editors on behalf of a group or business are reminded of Wikipedia policy and asked to ensure their conduct on this reference work is at a high standard.

Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

This page assumes that I want to make the rules, but I just want to know if this username is considered appropriate, and not to make waves if it is: User:Tucking fypo is an obvious spoonerism. Art LaPella (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He's agreed to change his name now. I found that name earlier myself, but forgot to report him. —Soap— 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Case conflicts in usernames

I would like to propose that usernames should not be created which are the same as existing ones, differing only in case, even if the existing account is long-dormant and has no contributions.

For example, if user Flashbangwallop existed, it should not be acceptable to create FlashBangWallop.

Of course these are two entirely separate accounts, but in practice there are at least two areas of user interface where this causes confusion and could lead to problems:

1. Search behaves unpredictably (to the end user at least) when pages with conflicting cases exist - or don't exist. For example, if User_talk:Flashbangwallop exists, but not User_talk:FlashBangWallop, and you want to leave a talk page message for FlashBangWallop, you might enter User_talk:FlashBangWallop into the search box. In this scenario you would silently be sent to the page of Flashbangwallop instead, because that exists and search is trying to make itself useful. You probably wouldn't notice that you were on a completely different user's page.

2. Usernames identify users to the software. But they also identify users to other users. Cognitive psychology and computer interface design best-practice suggests people are not good at distinguishing between names that vary only in case (because they don't differ phonetically). This can lead to confusion, and potentially, security issues if permissions are granted to the wrong person. Even for regular user interaction, it's highly unlikely that you would notice if you were dealing with Flashbangwallop when you were looking for FlashBangWallop. Imagine the confusion if Flashbangwallop starts using his account again and they both end up on the same talk page - or on opposite sides of an edit war (or worse, on the same side of an edit war, with one of them ending up blocked for a 3RR violation they didn't commit ;).

So my proposal is simply that we should stop creating such users. All requests with this problem will end up in ACC anyway, so it would be a simple matter of amending the ACC process so consider such names "taken".

Here are the very sensible objections I expect some people will raise, and my barely-adequate attempts to answer them:

1. There are already hundreds of usernames with this problem. It would be a huge mess to try and fix them all.

Yes it would, and that's why I propose not doing so. Let them be. Let's concentrate on not making it any worse.

2. You're cutting down the number of possible usernames. We'll run out.

The potential namespace for usernames is large to an incomprehensible degree. Even if ONLY letters A-Z, disregarding case, were available (which is not the case) and if usernames could ONLY be sixteen characters (which is also not the case) there would still be 26^16 possible usernames which is... a lot.

3. There's no evidence that this has ever caused a problem.

It's confused ME, so I don't need any further evidence that it confuses people. But disregarding that, there is a potential for harm here, albeit fairly small. There is a simple action which could be taken to avoid it with no real downside. Why wouldn't we do that?

4. Articles have the same technical problem.

Yup. But there is a policy on how to capitalize article titles, so it's possible to say which is "right" and which isn't. It's also considered unacceptable to have two independent articles with the same name, differing only in case. In the case of usernames, at present we are specifically saying that IS acceptable to have two independent users with such extremely-similar names.

Thparkth (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has come up in the past, and I agree it is confusing and shouldn't be done under normal circumstances. You will need to get the ACC patrollers including the people on the email list on board with this change though. I'm not sure that's the same subset of people that read this page. I think we are mostly UAA types here. Gigs (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I raised this here because of this section of the policy which I believe guides ACC. Thparkth (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a bold edit and we'll see how it goes. Gigs (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Objection! This would negate a huge role of ACC, not to mention needing to be implemented foundation-wide. I'm not sure how many projects have something comparable to ACC but it exists on ENWP as most people will have an account here in addition to whatever their home project is. Assessing the similarities and granting or declining them is a manual task because even now the spoofing check isn't perfect and can flag some names that are actually ok to have. This is more than a simple user name policy matter. Gigs telling you to be bold is in itself a very bold move. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 05:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This also raises a different concern. Thparkth, you seem to misunderstand what "taken" is for on ACC. What you speak of is actually "similar". The mix up between the two has already had some issue in the last week. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 05:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Grandfathering in existing accounts and applying what is essentially an MOS to all new names is not very welcoming to people. I don't do too much at UAA but i do make use of the user name policy at ACC and at CHU.

• 1) If you can't tell the difference between two user pages you should look closer before making an edit. It is impossible to programme and compose policy around individual humans' perceptions.
• 2) Assumption that an admin or bureaucrat will give out rights to the wrong account is to imply they need to be protected from their own carelessness. That generally does not go over too well.
• 3) I don't think you understand the reaches of the spoofing .... -LOL is too similar to .101
• 4) I did a little test in the ACC sandbox the other day.[1] JH0367 (talk · contribs) is ***NOT*** too similar to Jh0367 (talk · contribs) (which is my alt account) according to the spoofing check. This means that any account that truly is similar to an active account but is not caught by the spoofing check could still be created directly by the user themselves which would be in violation of your proposed change to the user name policy.

Most people do not have this issue with similar user names to the extent that they request broad sweeping policy change. Similar accounts are only created when there is a near certainty that the existing account will not be used at any future time. That is why there is a limit on total edits, a check of cross-project use of a user name, and a proscribed length of inactivity for the existing user name that is to be met before allowing a similar user name to be created. I myself am an exception to that as i had this account and then lost the password and my account went unused for about 3 years.

I would be willing to review with you the criteria for allowing similar user names and what you should be checking for before allowing one. I can show you more example than i listed here. The right to create these accounts is not given to everyone and is to be used only when appropriate. I realise you are fairly new to ACC but we are all there to help each other when one of us has questions or wants a second opinion on a request. Don't be afraid to ask. Everyone was in that position at some point. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Delieriousandlost,

You are mistaken if you believe I am proposing this change because I misunderstand the current ACC practice in some way, or that you need to review the criteria with me. I am surprised that you could think, "oh look, a new ACC user thinks that a wikipedia policy guiding ACC practice is wrong and has proposed a change to it - he obviously doesn't understand how to do ACC" (I apologise if this seemed condescending. It wasn't my intention!). Given that you appear to agree with my assessment of what the current policy is and what ACC actually does in these cases, I'm very unclear on what point you're trying to make here. In fact this is a very narrow proposal, about a very specific situation where usernames conflict, and where current policy and practice is that they may be created.

Moving on now to your more substantive concerns:

This would negate a huge role of ACC - that should not be a consideration in this conversation. Providing a solid supply of annoyed users who couldn't create their own accounts so that ACC will be busy is not a goal of this policy or the project. Even so, all of the users being discussed in this proposal would still end up in ACC - they would just be declined rather than created.

It would need to be implemented foundation-wide - not obviously the case. It's already true in many circumstances that someone's hu.wiki username may not be available on en.wiki.

If you can't tell the difference between two user pages you should look closer, imply they need to be protected from their own carelessness. There is a classic throwaway joke in the world of human computer interaction design, which was once my job. "Two options: We can change the design of the system, or we can change the design of the users." The implication being that "changing the design of the users" is a harder option. You may believe that you personally would never confuse two usernames of the kind being discussed here, but cognitive psychology suggests that you probably would, especially when distracted or stressed. If you are genuinely immune from ever committing this error, then you are definitely in a small minority. Generally computer systems are generally designed for people with normal cognitive processes, who therefore commit normal errors, and this is a fairly common one. That's why there has been a trend away from case sensitivity in system design over the last 30 years or so. Please understand that none of this is remotely controversial in HCI terms.

JH0367 (talk · contribs) is ***NOT*** too similar to Jh0367 (talk · contribs) - very interesting. Since I think everyone agrees that such a creation attempt should go to ACC for manual review, I'm going to say that's a bug, which should be addressed regardless of consensus on other matters here.

Thparkth (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When you to claimed "I am surprised that you could think, "oh look, a new ACC user thinks that a wikipedia policy guiding ACC practice is wrong and has proposed a change to it - he obviously doesn't understand how to do ACC"." you became condescending. I did not say or imply that i thought you thought the policy was wrong because you are new to ACC. I disagree with your proposed change to the policy. I disagree with your assessment that the policy needs to be changed. I disagree with your view that this is a "very narrow proposal, about a very specific situation" and with your view that this is a "situation where usernames conflict". Your comments in IRC had not always been as assertive as those recorded here. I was once like that myself. I thought as one new to the project you might appreciate the offer of help and the assurance that asking questions is certainly welcome. Apparently i had a wrong impression and offered to help based on that impression. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The AntiSpoof software in use on ACC should be exactly the same as the one used on enwiki. Also, AntiSpoof does not check (AFAIK) local accounts on other wikis, which could potentially be made into global accounts too. Most usernames tend to go unused, so it's generally accepted at the moment that those accounts that are requested which differ in case can be created, because the unused account is unlikely to be confused with the new account. That way, we can give new users the username they want without having to jump through all the hoops of usurpation. Your proposal will be hard to enforce, and will likely only lead to the biting and turning away of yet more newcomers - which we need to ensure the continued survival of enwiki. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 14:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the good and constructive feedback. I think it basically comes down to this: most editors, particularly those with experience in designing and operating large multiuser computer systems, would probably be surprised that the decision was originally taken in mediawiki to allow two usernames differing only in case to exist in the first place. It's clearly far too late to put the genie back in to the bottle now, but it's still reasonable to ask - should we be allowing these users to be created in future? I understand from your remarks that there are edge cases with subtle complexities. On the whole I still believe it would be better to have a general policy of not creating such accounts in the future, even if there are some situations where they might still be necessary. Of course this is entirely a matter of judgement, and I completely accept that others may conclude differently :) Thparkth (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

<-- To be honest I don't think this would help anything at all, and will quickly annoy and frustrate new users far more then anything that happens right now. Regarding some of the already made points:

• 1. Doesn't need to be done cross-wiki -- Sorry this misunderstands the account creation methods crosswiki. I'm sure you understand that we have unified accounts and that is exactly the issue that would arise here. Of course there are hu.wiki accounts that you can pick up there and not here. But for almost any case that we would say no to here the user could go to any other WMF wiki, create the account and then promptly SUL over here and autocreate the account without us having ANYTHING that could stop it. Unless of course we block the account for a Username Policy Vio and do you think me or any other admin is going to block an account because they happen to have a case difference between a 3 year old dormant account? Delirious is right here, this would need to be implemented globally or it would just end up being confusing and unfair since those accounts COULD be created easily by them on any other wiki (and then used on En), we just decided to tell them no. Please remember that in general accounts are auto-unified now, someone doesn't even need to go in and press a button to do so.
• 2 Confusion between names: In general I think this is less of a problem then you seem to. Contributions are the the biggest giveaway for each account (and are basically ALWAYS looked at if you are giving them a flag) and the userspace issue is in some ways inevitable. Usernames have always been case sensitive, if you go to User:JamesOfUR you don't get to me (though perhaps you should). Do confusions happen on occasion? Of course they do, I don't think changing the policy in this way though is going to help it at all.

If you have other concerns I'll be happy to discuss them but in general I just don't see many benefits in changing this, and I see way to many cases where it would be quite problematic (the SUL issue is the biggest). James (T C) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I think it's obvious that there won't be a consensus in favour of what I'm proposing, so I'm happy to end this here, unless anyone else wants to comment. Thparkth (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't heard any compelling arguments why we should let two people have the same username. Technical cross-wiki issues are not a good reason to keep an incredibly stupid policy. To be honest this was news to me that this is ever allowed. The way I always read that section, it already says that similar username are forbidden. If ACC is allowing two people to have the same username with different case, it's already violating this policy as far as I'm concerned. Gigs (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same user name. Noöne would create Gigѕ (talk · contribs) (with a Cyrillic character) or χ! (talk · contribs) or Х! (talk · contribs) because Gigs (talk · contribs) and X! (talk · contribs) are established users. I allowed Felixelgato. (talk · contribs) SUL because it appeared to be a high probability that Felixelgato (talk · contribs) SUL had forgotten the password to his account and no longer had access to the email address recorded in Special:Preferences. The account Felixelgato has no edits on any project, the creation on DEWP was more than 6 months old, and the account on ENWP was over 2 years old. That met the requirements for creating Felixelgato. a little over a week ago.

The policy currently reads: You must not use a username that could easily be confused with that of an active contributor; a username that is similar only to unused or inactive accounts should not be a problem. [2]

If an account has any edits there must be approximately 15 or less, the account must be over a year old, the last edit and log entry must be over a year ago for a similar user name to be granted. If the account has no edits it must be over 6 months old for a similar user name to be granted. If the account has an SUL that happens to not include ENWP i decline a request for a similar user name (note, this takes a bit of searching on the SUL tool as it would not be caught by the spoofing check). If the exact name exists on another project and has even one edit without having an SUL then per current guideline the request is to be declined. Every care is taken to comply with the letter and spirit of the policy to ensure that no new user names are granted that could be confused with a currently or formerly active and established user. It is true that the user name policy does not define what makes an account active but there are criteria laid out at ACC, which in my opinion are quite reasonable (pending outcome of the discussion there regarding names on other projects).

The technical cross-wiki issues make it impossible to enforce the proposed change to the policy without blocking probably hundreds of users for nothing more than having a user name similar to that of an unused account. And those people who would be blocked here would still be permitted to use their user names on every other WMF project, thus forcing them to break their SUL. What if their user name on FRWP predates the similarity on ENWP but they only recently secured the SUL and created an account on ENWP? Who would you block as the similarity in that instance? I helped someone with this just last week. There is also the matter of sometimes cascading cross-project blocks for user name violations that start at ENWP or Commons or another large project. You could end up having a user blocked on multiple projects because an admin on whatever other project blocks the person there because of a block here due to their user name - the "taking the lead from ENWP that this user name is inappropriate {{usernameblock}}". Similarity to an inactive account here is not really a good cause for such a block and i don't know of any instances where a steward enforced something like this by locking a global account for similarity to an inactive account on this or any project where the account was not for vandalism.

Just to clarify, similarity is more than just case variation. Similarity includes additional characters tacked on the end or inserted in the user name, spacing, non-Latin characters, things like an upper case "i" looking like a lower case "l" or the number "1", the substitution of a period for a hyphen or dash, and probably a few others that are not coming to mind right now. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 06:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is being used as some sort of poor man's usurpation. If someone wants to usurp an old inactive username, they should usurp it, not be allowed to create the same account with different case. If the community wanted to allow ACC to do usurpations they would have given them the technical ability. This practice must be stopped. Gigs (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests coming to ACC that are for usurping or changing user name get directed to WP:CHU, where you could also find me. As to it being against policy or needing to be stopped forthwith i should direct you to among the earlier revisions of this here policy. While Ed Poor twice briefly turned it into a multiple account policy it reverted back to a policy on user names themselves. The first appearance of a prohibition on similarity to another active user's user name came over 6½ years ago, on 13 November 2003 A person may not wish to usurp a user name and may actually prefer the user name that happens to be similar to that of an inactive account. Six years ago a greater percentage of the accounts were active; now it is almost trendy to have a Wikipedia account even if you never use it. That means that there are thousands of accounts that will likely never be used or may be used for one day to make 3 or 5 edits and never anything more. Those are the types of accounts that we allow similarities of. I am fully aware that per the policy in force at the time ACC was set up someone could have taken a similarity to my account that very day. My account also could have been usurped while i was still trying to remember the password i set it up with. Such is the policy. Such has been the policy for half a decade. A change would require greater input and support than a handful of people.

Gigs, if you want to review what ACC does you can review the project guide/manual/documentation. We really are not that scary or mean or bad. Considering the accounts created via ACC come with the 'admin approved' stamp (we are not all admins but in some places it says so) we really are picky about adhering to policy. If after looking things over you wished to join i think you would be welcomed. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If ACC is approving confusingly similar names (such as your felixgato example which took me 2 minutes of staring to see the difference in the names) depending on whether the old one is active or not, that's usurpation, whether you call it usurpation or not. If the old account user decided to pick the account back up, there would be a problem that this policy (and ACC) is supposed to prevent. People should not be allowed to create accounts with effectively the same username as an older one without going through the usurpation process. User:Gigs vs User:Giggy is one thing. User:Gigs vs User:GIgs is another entirely, and should never be granted, no matter how inactive the old account was. Gigs (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, noöne is suggesting someone spoof your account. You long ago made the 15 edits to ensure no similarity is approved here, either at ACC or CHU. If you were to file a request at WP:CHU/U to change to a name similar to an existing account you would be directed to WP:CHU/S because it is not a usurpation request. A bot might even tell you before someone could manually leave such a note or relocate the request. Considering there is a bot (ClueBot VI) that checks this on WP:CHU/U it means this is supported by the bureaucrats who approve the bots and renaming requests and has broad acceptance. This is how similarity of accounts has been treated for over half a decade. As your feelings on this are quite strong you might want to consider taking it to wikipedia:village pump (policy) where it would be seen by those who do not frequently check in on this page. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried about anyone spoofing my account. I'm worried about us winding up with active accounts that have the same username differing only in case. I went ahead and moved the discussion here Gigs (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

WT:UAA#WT:RFA#When did active admins register their accounts?

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Clerking" may or may not be live ... I guess it's live if people start doing it :) See WT:UAA#Clerking for ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what people are interested in voting on at WT:UAA#Voting? - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Symbols as usernames

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are HTML symbols explicitly prohibited as usernames? They've been blocked in the past but, technically, username policy does not say they aren't allowed, does it? For example, ♠, ♥, !, * etc. Swarm^Talk 05:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Δ hasn't had any issues with it. Though, being himself, he's had issues with other things. --erachima talk 06:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It gets a bit dicey because of single user login; people who originally registerred at other language Wikipedias with other policies, or other character sets, and then migrate their username over here, have broadened the sorts of usernames that show up. However, I am of the opinion that anything not overtly offensive or spammy should generally be allowed... --Jayron32 06:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking because many of these users have been indef blocked for the reasons of "Pick a new name" or "username" or something like that. Based on username policy, I simply don't see how these blocks are legitimate. Swarm^Talk 22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a softblock on the username of account that hasn't made any edits yet I don't think there's much of a problem. -- œ^™ 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Those kinds of usernames occasionally get reported to UAA, but as far as I've seen, admins routinely decline to block them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• We allow users to edit with usernames in Cyrillic or Arabic script, I can't see how this is any different. To someone unfamiliar with it Arabic just looks like a bunch of squiggles. A symbol is actually more comprehensible. WP:SIG actually suggest using symbols:"As an alternative to using images, consider using unicode characters that are symbols, such as these: ☺☻♥♪♫♣♠♂♀§." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  ...but not as a username, but as a way to decorate your signature (if you are so inclined). –xeno^talk 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but if it's ok to have it in your sig, how could it violate the username policy? I am concerned by the statement above that there are numerous users that have been blocked for this, some links would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff you can put in your sig that you can't put in your username. Like a /. =) –xeno^talk 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not much of an expert on signature policy, having a fancy sig has never been important to me. Getting back to the original point, I don't see any reason to disallow symbols as usernames, and I don't think there is any specific prohibition against it at this time, although some admins and users are willing to stretch the whole "confusing username" thing to absurd limits sometimes confusing names are not blockable in and of themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they're a fscking pain to type, but agree there's nothing blockable absent any actual disruption to go with it. –xeno^talk 20:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that one before, when somebody has a long or confusing username I just copy/paste it instead of typing it. I can't type in Arabic or Mandarin either... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This one most particularly [3]. And Beeblebrox here are these too as a microtinysampling: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. If you want some examples that have such characters in the middle or end of a user name then you can look yourself; there are thousands of them to be found if you read then entire user list. This is the lone example from yesteryear that i have found where such a block was later overturned.[14] Many of these blocks are courtesy of gurch. He seems to have been an enforcer of the non-Latin=block-on-sight policy that existed here some years ago. It does still happen here, just not so obviously and not so frequently as it had in the past. Just for good measure i throw in a courtesy bonus block that explicitly states non-Latin characters as the cause [15] despite being entirely made of characters used in Latin script.

If you want read up on what was going on at the time of the SUL implementation and the feelings on ENWP about allowing anything that had non-Latin characters in the user name then Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 3#Non-latin characters and Unified Login is the place to start. It is not a pretty read but it shows where the policy on characters came from. Even now people who come here from another language are told to create a dummy account. We can use popups, click a link, or copy and paste; we do not need others to cater to our base level.

To œ, your statement is exactly the concern. There should be no softblock for user name on all of these accounts yet they exist by the thousands. Due to their existing from the past there remains the precedence to block for the same reason today. And some admins from that time period are still around this morning. Most likely wouldn't block an account for this today however so long as one person who thinks it ok to block for unconventional characters can cite one example of an active block for such then it remains part of the common law of English Wikipedia and is likely to come up again, next year or this afternoon. And to fetch, who as of writing this has a comment just below me, too bad. And you have one such character in your signature too :P, the " · ". delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think they're a blockable offense by themselves, but such signatures really are annoying. The best method, imo, is to nicely ask them to consider a rename and just use it as a sig, as a courtesy to others. —fetch·comms 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Geez, D&L, do you stay up at night looking for this stuff? Since we don't have a policy against it now and there aren't any recent blocks based on it I fail to see the problem. If any of those users want to be unblocked they can ask, more likely they registered a new account four years ago after they were blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, bb, you asked for it. I read. I chose to read the user list and find examples for you. There are recent blocks. I was involved with one. Rather than list current, active users and potentially subject them to 2nd rounds of blocks i explicitly chose to omit those that i know of. I don't have a million edits so if you take the time to read through my user talk edits you will find the user i speak of as an example of a recent block for characters. All but one of the blocks from years ago listed in my previous post are still actively blocked as far as i know despite now being permissible per policy. And as to my delayed response, i am back here to see what came of the discussion before this on user names and companies. So yes, i stay up to read. Sometimes it is the articles. Sometimes i read the behind-the-scenes. That is what this is all for. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For usernames in en.wiki, we should allow all characters from all thirty-some languages that Wikimedia has Wikipedias for, and nothing more. Kingturtle (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Usernames that predate this policy are not in violation of it"

That was added this morning; what's the issue here? Does someone have an email address or url as a username and want to keep it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. User:[email protected]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that has been part of the policy for a long time and must have been removed at some point. The issue is that some old usernames contain an "@", and that it's silly to block them now for it after they've edited for months or years. --Conti|✉ 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section, pending discussion here. I don't think it makes sense (as least, as worded). When was the username policy implemented? What's the cut-off date? I think the better idea is to use common sense - if someone like [email protected] or 7 have been around for a while and edit constructively, there's no issue. Also, the instructions at UAA say that stale accounts should not be reported. TNXMan 13:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:[email protected]. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm in allowing [email protected] to keep the username. It is not offensive, and it will not inspire other users to make similar usernames--the system won't allow new usernames like it. A change will be necessary only if [email protected] decides to become an admin. As I recall, the system won't allow usernames with @ signs to be promoted. Correct me if I am wrong. Kingturtle (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Notes about the policy: This particular section was added in July 2009 by User:Rspeer. It did not include that sentence. Conti is incorrect, as the sentence was never in the section until User:Rrius added it a few days ago. Swarm^Talk 05:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Are symbols as usernames allowable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm closing this discussion as use common sense. Multiple points have been raised here, and enough have been brought up to close this now. The basic points raised by the "allow" side consist of the fact that there are non-Latin scripts with accounts, and with SUL, the number should rise; some symbols are easily typed by keyboards, and the fact that quite a few symbols are in the Edittools window at the bottom of the edit box. On the other side, the major points include the idea that it interrupts discussion and accessibility, it breaks bots (such as ClueBot VI), and that it's difficult to access a user (talk) page in the browser.

The thing is, I'm almost certain that not everyone is talking about the same thing here. Almost everyone seems to agree that ₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣ is across the line, and symbols such as $, #, and ! are not across the line. It's what to do about the gray area there. Some editors only talk about "fun" usernames, such as ✄. Others only talk about usernames that have real meaning in other languages, such as رلي. However, the general consensus is that characters that mean something in another language are allowed, but usernames that consist only of meaningless symbols require extra discretion. Thus, each name takes certain discretion, and common sense. As such, I'm closing this, and will not change the policy page.

As a side note, it was not until after I wrote this message that I realized I had a symbol in my username. (X! · talk)  · @205  ·  03:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Are symbols such as ♥, ♠, !, $, etc. allowable in or as usernames? They have never been prohibited, but there is currently no consensus for allowing them, either. Does it make a difference whether the symbol is easily recognizable (such as ♥ or =D) or virtually unrecognizable and meaningless (such as ▞ or ❖), or should they be allowed or disallowed outright? (Note: The closest current guideline regarding this is WP:Username policy#Non-English usernames.) Swarm^Talk 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• As I indicated here (request to usurp User:♠ filed by OP), I am sympathetic to the view that these names tend to hinder collaboration and provide no particular benefit to the encyclopedia apart from an editor happy that they now have a "cool symbol name" - which is no doubt negatively offset by however many number of editors annoyed by it. See also the discussion regarding Betacommand's transmogrifying himself into a triangle. I don't think these usernames promote harmonious editing, but neither are they explicitly prohibited by the username policy. –xeno^talk 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC

• My personal view is that if it can't be easily typed by most users, then it shouldn't be allowed for the reasons given by Xeno above. Thus, ! and $ would be fine but ♥ and ♠ would not. --Deskana (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've always found the objection that they can't be easily typed to be a bit silly. I don't type anyone's user name 90% of the time, I just copy/paste it. As I mentioned on the last discussion about this, I can't type in Hindi or Mandarin or Arabic either, but we allow usernames in those scripts which are at least, if not more, meaningless to those who are not fluent in those languages. I can't see any compelling reason to prohibit them from being used in usernames, but if we do it would be terribly inconsistent to continue to allow non-Latin characters. Most browsers these days allow you to easily insert special characters anyway:₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣. That took me about fifteen seconds to add to this remark. I think this more related to some users finding it annoying than it being an actual serious problem in need of a new policy to rectify it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  You should not assume that everyone is like you and thus there is no problem: I rarely copy and paste usernames (in fact, I almost exclusively only copy and paste usernames for users with symbols in the username), and I often manually type usernames into the search box to reach a user. –xeno^talk 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Beeblebrox. We allow non-Latin scripts that for most Westerners are even more untypable than the ☮♥☺ type of names because most Westerners cant tell the difference between the 40000 different Chinese hanzi or the many swishes and swirls of Arabic. However if name like ₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣ appeared I would suggest that that person was trying to be disruptive. —Soap— 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  Where do we draw the line? –xeno^talk 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  I would say that there should be no "line" established by policy; every name that is questioned should be handled by RfC/U, as we do for other names such as Pussywolf and Gonads3. However I think commonsense blocks of names that have no meaning in any language without RfC should be appropriate. For example, if there was a user named ☮♥☺ I would not have a problem with it, since most of us probably know that it means "peace, love, and happiness". (Though even for that, I'd suggest maybe confining the symbols to their sig and using the spelled-out version as their name). Whereas the aforementioned ₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣ cannot passably be said to have a meaning, in any language, unless you reeeeally stretch the imagination. It may seem like my opinion is weak and based on inconsistent feelings, but I believe that I'm essentially in agreement with the policy as it is now. —Soap— 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm with Soap. Encoding "intelligibility/meaningfulness" into an unambiguous guideline would be extremely hard. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I actually agree with Beeblebrox. Typing shmyping, i copy and pasted Bb's user name into my post from the text just above this. Almost all of the time i am looking to get to a user / user talk page i click a link somewhere, typically in a signature. Be the name English, French, Hindi, Japanese, Arabic, German, or whatever typing is a last resort i barely ever user. If a signature has no links and is not the user's current user name, as checked with a quick copy & paste after the prefix "User: in the search field then the link in the page history is how i navigate to the user's talk page to leave a note about how to customise a signature and include at least one link. That works with letters and symbols, even those cute square boxes should i be using an ancient computer that is not configured to display the characters. One could speculate that some people pick user names in other languages whilst editing English because the character(s) look like a smiley face or some other symbol. Wikipedia is so full of links i am honestly humoured by the thought of anyone needing to type a user name.
  One such issue came up some months ago with a user who has a name written in Morse code. He is a simple, quiet editor who wanted a simple, non-descript user name. Avraham approved the name. [16] but thanks to a glitch in the writing of the CHU note template on the user's talk page it gave the impression there was concern with the new name and the user was blocked for it about 2 weeks later. Technically this is a non-Latin name but since one could argue that Morse code is written in symbols i thought to mention it here.
  And this has now been edit conflicted by Soap thanks to being a long post. To make it a bit longer let me say i agree with Soap too. One symbol is fine. A series of them is not so ok. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Don't forget WP:ACCESS these often read as User:? to people using screen readers . Recently {{cards}} was changed for this very reason and there is a proposal to MOS Access be changed to prevent these symbols in articles Gnevin (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• While this is not that big an issue now, eventually (hopefully) we will have to deal with the fact that a large portion of our editors will start to come from Asia and the Middle East, where the use of the Latin alphabet is not nearly as prevalent as it is in areas where most of our editors come from today. Will we not allow User:ॐ and User:安 because it is impossible for most of us to easily type out? NW (Talk) 17:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• If non-latin scripts are permitted I see no reason to disallow symbols. I don't think it's particularly "cool" to have symbols in your name but neither do I care. It presents no greater difficulty to me than non-latin scripts do, since I have no realistic means of typing those either (I know how to configure Windows to use such scripts easily enough but other than Hebrew I don't know the keyboard layouts at all for non-latin scripts). In fact, most symbols present less of a problem since at least I can identify what the symbol is, and even if I don't type it I can easily remember that "this is that user with x symbol text" or whatever. Contrast with most non-latin scripts where I have little ability to memorize what the name is and identify that person later. Is this guy with a Hindi name the same one I saw earlier? Only way I can tell is by looking at contributions list, the name itself gives me no clue. - OldManNeptune (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Usernames like all wiki items exist to facilitate a project. A username that is hard to type, distinguish, or in any way use, is a problem from that perspective. Also note many symbols look like other symbols. The occasional ! or $ is fine, as with any username there is judgment. Hence disallow usernames that are hard to type or distinguish for the average local language speaker much as (and for the same reasons) we already disallow usernames that are hard to distinguish (random character sequences etc). For clarity I would expect any confusing Latin symbols could be seen as unhelpful for non-English wikis. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Non Latin usernames (such as Chinese) are hard to type and distinguish for the average user, but they're specifically allowed by username policy. This RfC is an attempt to come to a consensus about symbols that don't belong to any language or alphabet, as their allowance isn't really defined. Swarm^Talk 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Who cares?! I'm sure there's more important things to discuss and do on WP than have a completly pointless debate to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether you consider it to be a problem is one of personal opinion, but this is not a "merely academic" question, it is one that has presented itself twice in as many months. –xeno^talk 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Twice in two months out of 135,000 active users in that timespan? High priority stuff indeed. Lugnuts (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful input. For what it's worth, my suggested venue was RFC/N (over the specific request), the user chose to bring a more general discussion (which isn't unreasonable). –xeno^talk 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Anytime, chief! Let me know of any other debates looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place, and I'll be straight onto it.Lugnuts (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is an old problem: there was a user who insisted on a handle that was not in Latin characters (now banned, IIRC for reasons unrelated) several years back. He was forced to change his name because it was too disruptive. As for the current discussion, I have two observations:
  (1) If we require usernames in Latin characters, due to Unified Login, all anyone who wants a username in Greek, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc. characters needs to do is create an account on one of those Wikipedias & then enable it here; we can't keep out people like this without affecting good faith editors.
  (2) The chief problem with non-Latin character names is that other users will resort to various nicknames to refer to these usernames; using the example Xeno mentions way up there, I refer to that username as "Delta" -- which is the name of the symbol. (If the editor doesn't like being called "Delta", which I can't see as being anything but a neutral description, then he's welcome to go back to his old username.) However in more complicated situations, I can foresee less neutral descriptors: in the case Beeblebrox provides, that username will end up being referred to as "that wing-dings guy", "Wing-dings", or even "Gibberish" -- all with no intention of incivility. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Leaning toward acceptable; as long as the symbol is not so obscure that very few fonts/browsers support it. How do we tell if it's obscure? If it's not listed in MediaWiki:Edittools. That will allow users to be able to insert the characters when editing (or they can copy/paste). Foreign language characters are fine, so the "basic" symbols should be, too. However, that means not everything listed under unicode symbols. Sorry, no ☃s should be either necessary or allowed. —fetch·comms 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a reasonable place to draw the line between what symbols are acceptable. Swarm^Talk 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Addendum: Obviously, if they are using random symbols to be disruptive (creating an account called " ~|¡¿†~|¡¿† m²m³♭♯♮©®™↓•¶ ", for example), then a block is easily justified. But if I were to ask for a rename to Fetch©omms, that shouldn't be a major issue. Note that some common characters like "♥" are not in Mediawiki:Edittools; that's too bad, in my opinion. It's just extra complication and is not a real language, (like the artist formerly known as Prince's name). Wikipedia is not the place to have overly-annoying usernames for "coolness"; use a custom signature. —fetch·comms 23:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer only latin characters, but the unified login thing tends to kill that. So my preference would be only characters that are a part of "real" languages. We can debate real later if needed. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any problems with having symbols for or in usernames, for the average user on enwiki, I don't think "♥" is any more difficult than, say, "胡言亂語". But the latter is already explicitly permitted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC).
• This is a non-issue. I just tried to register with the name ₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣, and the system did not allow it (Login error. The name "₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣" is not allowed to prevent confusing or spoofed usernames: Contains unassigned or deprecated character. Please choose another name.) --Blitzer Van Susterwolf (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Incorrect. Many accounts have been created under the name of single symbols. See. Swarm^Talk 05:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Hobit. Non-latin characters are undesirable but cannot be avoided due to SUL. But we should not add more such names than is necessary for SUL-purposes. A name like ✄ might look nice for the user but it
  • might confuse people (especially new users and users relying on screen readers (as said above) or older/less sophisticated devices)
  • makes it harder to contact them without following links (I can type "User talk:Swarm" easily but I can't type "User talk:✄" without having to first copy and paste the symbol from someplace else)
  • possibly cause bots and scripts to malfunction (for example, when Swarm filed his request that prompted this RFC, ClueBot VI produced an incorrect clerk note).

All while not adding a single benefit to the project itself apart from the user being somewhat happy to have a "cool" "unique" name - that is until everyone wants one and we have more symbols than names. Regards SoWhy 06:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow - The whole point to alphabetical user names (or names in general) from the Latin alphabet (Latin-1 symbol set or character encoding) is to facilitate recognition and association. Some of that recognition and memory is cultural (Anglophone in this case), but some is physiological, ie - the way the human mind is wired. We use easily remembered names to connect with the memories related to that name. I know who User:Beeblebrox and User:xeno are, and I remember seeing them here on WP. It isn't just a case of cut/paste, or clicking on a user wikilink. How many of us can remember IP addresses? Or could remember the examples by NW, User:ॐ and User:安, especially if there were slight variations. And where do we draw the line. Will glyphs from the IBM or MS-DOS Code page 437 (AKA extended ASCII), such as the box-drawing characters be allowed? (If so, I have mine picked out). See also: List of XML and HTML character entity references. So I'm against symbols as usernames, or in usernames. I'd prefer alphabetical latin characters only, per Hobit, FT2, and others. See discussion mentioned by xeno's above: discussion regarding Betacommand's transmogrifying himself into a triangle. He will probably now be called "delta" in discussions, which we all can deal with. (Although "β" would have been cool as well before the change.) The spirit of WP:ACCESS should also apply to usernames. — Becksguy (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow. Usernames that contain symbols make the site less accessible because they can hinder interaction due to various technical limitations, while providing no benefit to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not an exercise in self-expression.  Sandstein  08:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow: It is important to support editors from other projects and their need or desire to have universal accounts. For usernames in en.wiki, we should allow all characters/letters from all thirty-some languages that Wikimedia has Wikipedias for, but nothing more. keep it to letters and numbers. Kingturtle (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. existing accounts should not be asked to change. Kingturtle (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow per the accessibility issues. Yes, I most often get to a user's page and contributions through a direct link from their edits...but I have had reason to go to a user's edits from typing their name in and I'm not really sure how I'd go about typing a (spade). Syrthiss (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ♠ - done with the little ditty at the bottom of the page to insert a symbol. It is an option in Preferences - check a box and you can have this feature too, unless you are using an ancient browser. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • AFAIK that is not an option if I am trying to type 'User:(clubsymbol)' into the Search box, which was my point. I suppose I could open up a page to edit, use the special characters function to create the symbol and cut and paste it into the search box, but I'd prefer to take the simpler approach and just not allow them. Syrthiss (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • What exactly is the situation where you want to lookup a user's edits but don't have their username within reach of copy-paste? --Cybercobra (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Two come to mind: checking for similar names in the userlist for sleeper socks (tho possibly being able to cut and paste may help in this case), and at times in the past I have wanted to look up a user that I had previously interacted with but who I had de-watchlisted. Yes, I could start digging in my contributions list to try and uncover their name...or if I had the foresight at the time I could put their cryptic icon in a note on my userpage...but unless there is extensibility given to the search boxes for nonstandard characters I'm going to remain opposed. I do realize that at current, I wouldn't be able to do either of the above for Cyrillic or heavily accented characters either, but willing to deal with that for global accessibility. Since I am not aware of any culture that only communicates in Wingdings, I don't see this is an unreasonable burden of exclusion. Syrthiss (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • So basically, alphabetic-logographic-syllabaric chauvinism. Well, at least you're forthright. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
            • If by that you mean I think that (spade) is a stupid username, then yes. ¥ℳℳV Syrthiss (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow Per Sandstein. This is en.wiki; I would expect non-latin script to be acceptable elsewhere, and it would be reasonable for me to choose a local representation of my username were I to ever edit in another language wiki, out of respect for and harmony with that site's native language users. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow all non-latin, non-ASCII characters in usernames on accessibility grounds, but continue to allow them in signitures. Try submitting a post to WP:ANI about User:نسر برلين in mainstream browsers such as Firefox and Safari. Fiddly at best, and I imagine virtually impossible on a touchscreen. --WFC-- 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you heard of the reciprocal animosity that came/would come again from barring all non-Latin characters here? Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 3#Non-latin characters and Unified Login The next step in what you propose would be to return to the block-on-sight of all non-latin user names. 2 steps forward, 9 steps backward. If one were forced to have multiple accounts due to ENWP user name prohibition, each now automatically getting their own SUL when created (if available), should you edit in Japanese, French, German, Korean, and English you would likely end up eventually creating all of those user names here when you switch languages. That would have you socking and using prohibited names. By accident. How many blocks do you want to collect? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty drastic suggestion, considering that the English Wikipedia has over 30 non-Latin sister projects, any users of which can have a SUL and also contribute the English Wikipedia. Swarm^Talk 02:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Call it extreme if you wish, but having read bits and pieces of archives 2 and 3, it would appear that the only reason policy was changed was due to unified login. If consensus is against non-latin names, but technology dictates that we must have them, there are ways and means to overcome the problematic part of it. Requiring users to have a latin-character Doppelgänger advertised in a prominent place on their talkpage, for instance. --WFC-- 03:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • But seriously, ... if you can find their user talk page to read a notice of an account in a latin script then do you really need the direction to their talk page? I read archives 2, 3 and the related pages' histories on meta and to be blunt and simple: the contempt, arrogance, and hostility found in this page's history outright disgusts me and does not fit with the general sanity found on the related meta discussions. Do i want Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic named accounts for when i pop over there to leave someone a note about their request to change their user name on ENWP? I would not even remember my own user names as i do not know any of those languages. The Japanese wiki promised to force that 3 or so years ago if we maintained the policy you want to go back to. Do you think they won't follow through on it just because some time has passed and we were mutually respectful these last few years? Imagine having an SUL for Latin, and then one for Hebrew, one for Japanese, one for Korean, one for Arabic, and one for Russian. It really does kill the purpose of the Single Unified Login, doesn't it. While not affecting all of them, the promised fallout from Japanese Wikipedia, should they follow through on the promise from those many moons ago, would reach so far as to block the global rollbackers, global sysops, stewards, staff, board, and founder and force them to get Japanese usernames for JAWP use. Not to mention every single user with a non-Japanese user name guilty of nothing more than including JAWP in their SUL being blocked there. I am pretty sure Brion would have some issue with that were he to find himself blocked. Do you really want to start a war? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • 90% of wars start because one or both sides were not prepared to listen (or read, as the case may be). Please see my previous post for the logical workaround. --WFC-- 07:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow, but give the admins some discretion. The hypothetical User:₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣ would clearly be ridiculous and shouldn't be permitted, but non-Latin usernames are just as opaque for most people, so I can't find good grounds to deny fairly simple symbolic usernames. --C᷂y᷂b᷂e᷂r᷂c᷂o᷂b᷂r᷂a᷂ (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow, for the love of ☦ No comment, but allow it. CompuHacker (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow - As with the rationale behind transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6, use of new characters can considerably increase the maximum number of unique identifiers available to new users. Though the case of accessibility expressed here is a valid concern, the same is true of any existing Arabic or Japanese username, which most certainly should remain permissible. I do, however, agree with Cybercobra in that the community should be able to exercise a minimal amount of discretion with regard to the use of symbols. Usernames should be logically intelligible (e.g., User:RockPaper✄). Patent nonsense, such as User:₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣, should probably not be used.   — C M B J   Edited and rewritten 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow any names not readily typeable on the standard keyboards of languages used on the person's home-wiki (that is - one's using shift-key, but not using alt-key). Further that anyone using symbols be debarred from complaining about people referring to them without using such symbols. Further that we well ought to consider not having such symbols in "signatures" for posts (some editors use weird signatures to avoid being noted by name on pages when one searches the page for their entries). WP, by the way, is nowhere near the limit for even 10 character names based on words and numbers (by about 20 orders of magnitude or so), and does not even have that as a limit, so the claim that we will run out of usernames is not valid. Collect (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A theoretical maximum number of word-number strings does not necessarily prove the number of permissible usernames. Think Wikipedia:Username policy#Similar usernames. If someone simply starts appending numbers to an existing username, such as User:Jimbo10 or User:CMBJ2, it is very likely that they will end up in hot water. I did not mean to suggest what you inferred, so I have recomposed my post accordingly.   — C M B J   22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "Further that anyone using symbols be debarred from complaining about people referring to them without using such symbols." I endorse this. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow We certainly, certainly, should allow usernames in non-Latin scripts—it would be intolerant to do otherwise. I don't see anything seriously wrong with allowing other symbols, especially if, as suggested by Cybercobra, some discretion is given to admins. —innotata
• Neutral. I'm all for creative usernames, but a username and signature don't always have to match.. My username is in normal Latin characters but I sign with a single ligature (trademarked) ;). And other users may refer to me in a number of different ways. -- œ^™ 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow - We're obliged for reasons of tolerance to allow non-roman characters. At that point, there's nothing gained by prohibiting symbols too. They're no more typable than the former. --Bsherr (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow - Usernames in non-Latin scripts or characters should be allowed, especially since this Wikipedia is used by many users who choose to contribute to it in addition to or instead of their native-language Wikipedia. It seems rather intolerant, as several users have mentioned above, to ask a user to change his or her username simply because it is in non-Latin characters, especially if is user's real name or has special significance in the user's native language. While names consisting of excessively long or illogical strings of characters (such as the hypothetical User:₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣ cited above) should be asked to change, just as names consisting of such strings of Latin characters are, applying this policy to prohibit all non-Latin characters in usernames is going too far, and even usernames using non-language characters should be allowed within reason, in my opinion. In my opinion, this discussion should not have broadened to "deal with" the non-problem of non-Latin usernames. Intelligentsium 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow - non-Latin names are permitted at present, with some justification, despite the trouble they may cause. But until there's a Symbol Wikipedia, the same logic simply does not apply. So why make life harder for people? The issue of non-Latin names could also be revisited, though I doubt it would lead to a change in the status quo. Rd232 ^talk 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow The argument that non-Latin characters and names are allowed distracts the point. It should be easy to use Wikipedia. Trying to deal with a username made up of cutesy characters is difficult and confusing for a lot of people. I would also add that we might also want to govern other difficult to read names like those people choose to render in light pink (like the user above who renders his/her signature as delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~). I can hardly read that on a white screen and the extra characters are just distracting. And why use the word "hugs"? I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to exert our creative inner selves. --Crunch (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  WP:CUSTOMSIG is an entirely different topic than what this RfC wishes to address. Furthermore, if you have a problem with an editor's signature, talk to them. If you have a problem with a different guideline, start a discussion. But what you're doing, by singling out an editor that you have a problem with in a policy RfC is counter-productive and discouraged. Your opinion is valid here, but commenting on individual editors is unhelpful. Swarm^Talk 05:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  So you want to govern my signature now? Seriously? You think this wouldn't get a response from me? Which means yet another signature of mine on this page. Thank you for also presuming i am a guy. I don't know how many ways you offended me and i have yet to finish reading your post. You object to my having ^~hugs~ as the link to my talk page !!!!????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Well let's see: it is a not-so-light-pink (#ff69b4) to tell you masculine pronouns are incorrect should you be not inclined to look up my name; the unicode symbol is completely permitted per signature policy; the hugs are a friendly gesture. SoWhy, CMJB, Sandstein, WFCforLife, and Intelligentsium all have something other than "Talk" as the link to their talk page if they even have such a link in their respective signatures. All can be found further up in this discussion. I happen to be fairly involved with use of the user name policy so when a matter of interest is raised here yes i might just comment a few times on the topic at hand. Swarm and i may disagree on some of this but we do agree that your picking on my completely permissible signature is so off topic to this discussion that it does not belong here. delirious & lost ☯ ^{no hugs for you} 13:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sounds like someone needs a hug.. -- œ^™ 10:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Allow I don't see a problem with it. Hinata talk 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow, pretty harmless. Incidentally, I just registered User:✄, although I'm not sure if I'll remember how to type ✄ in order to log in. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow any which are not explicitly disruptive. As we allow non-Latin characters in usernames to fit in with SUL, I see no valid reason to disallow unusual symbols in usernames. They are not any easier or harder to type than theunusual symbols one might come across (such as those in my sig). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  What about those who consider them inherently disruptive? Most users accept that due to the global nature of the project, some editors will have non-Latin characters. However, this doesn't immediately mean we should allow ✄, ♠, etc. as they may impede collaboration and do not have the SUL-based justification. As far as referring to your sig: they are not required to reach your userpage. –xeno^talk 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  The disruption caused by usernames is due to (1) inability to easily type the name (2) inability to easily remember/distinguish the name. User:漢字畑 fails (1) for English-speakers, and if one is dealing with multiple users with hanzi-based names, also fails (2); yet we allow that user anyway. User:☯ still fails (1) but doesn't fail (2) [obviously, confusing examples do exist, but as a class, symbol-names are less likely to fail (2) than non-Latin1 names], yet you wish to disallow them. What's the justification? If someone wants to be disruptive, User:漢, User:稿, and User:穣 are superior to User:☮, User:♥, and User:☺. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Use case for symbol usernames: A very international Wikipedian who edits on many language editions. In this case, a symbol username can minimize total disruption across all language editions. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• allow. No big deal. As long as non-Latin characters (more precisely, characters that cannot be typed with a single keystroke on a plain English keyboard) are allowed, purely ornamental characters are the lesser evil (can you recognize Hebrew or Gujarati characters as easily as ☮?). East of Borschov 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow we should disallow characters and all symbols that aren't on a standard english keyboard. --GrapedApe (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Allow. This is turning a minor annoyance into a huge problem.  --Lambiam 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow per WP:ACCESS, which is about function and as such seems a bit more important then free expression. I would like to note as well that a large percentage of arguments in favor (not all, but a bunch) are, well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, an argument so devoid of logical standing that we have a shortcut for it. Just saying. -- ۩ Mask 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  Would you also disallow symbols in mathematical formulas per WP:ACCESS? The problem with screen readers, if that's what you are referring to, exists equally with user names using other scripts, such as the Arabic alphabet or Hangul, which are much more common than symbolic user names, so unless other scripts are also disallowed (undoing unified login and forcing these editors to change their user names) disallowing symbols in user names will not have much effect on accessibility.  --Lambiam 00:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  Access can be sacrificed when there is no other practical way to represent the information. In math, that's pretty tough beyond basic algebra to use prose, but we do until the prose gets to be overwhelming and the only practical solution is TeX markup. A unique identifier (a username) can be accomplished with a practical solution without need to sacrifice WP:ACCESS. I do believe we should disallow names in other scripts IF not pronouncable by common screen readers, but that isnt up to us anymore, SUL doesn't jive with that policy, and the devs dont answer to en.wiki, so we're along for the ride. No need to extend the barrier to access and contribution even farther then that required by our foundational technology though. -- ۩ Mask 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Allow if easy to type If it cannot be typed with a standard keyboard (i.e. @, %) then it should not be allowed for ease of other editors. For example it is easy to find User:& but very hard to find User:☺.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  User:☺ may be hard too find because they were indef-blocked over the user name and the user page was deleted, but I can't find User:& at all. Seriously, I find it easier to copy-and-paste "User:☺" than to type "User:&".  --Lambiam 08:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow A username should be as easily accessible as possible, since you cannot always copy and paste it. Chinenese and other language characters should be excluded from this rule because they have a true meaning such as being someone's name, but symbols without a clear purpose only make things more difficult. If users want top use special characters they can just register an easy-to-type account and change the signature they use afterwards. For example, User:Smilie could sign as Smilie(☺) if he wishes to use the character. I don't really think signing as a symbol only is a good idea, since we could theoretically get a user:smilie, user:Happysmilie and user:Thesmilies who sign with the exact same signature ☺. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Still neutral, but to provide ammo for the Disallow camp, here is at least one reason why allowing usernames with non-standard characters might not be such a good idea... -- œ^™ 05:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hope any reasonable admin discretion would bar that name. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That name would clearly fall within the current WP:U criteria on offensive and disruptive user-names. Regardless of whether or not we forbid user names consisting of symbols, they are subject to the exact same rules other usernames face. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That username is no more problematic than this one.   — C M B J   21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

But more to the point I was trying to make is that because usernames can be created by arranging non-standard block characters into pretty much anything, including profanity or offensive "drawings", there's a strong potential of abuse and disruption by allowing these kinds of characters, especially in logs, category listings, and revision histories, where those sorts of usernames would be an eyesore and stick out like sore thumb. For instance, I'm sure the creator of that username totally intended to attract attention. -- œ^™ 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Allow, within reason: Usernames that are patent gibberish shouldn't be allowed—no monkeys with keyboards, please. Otherwise, I think any username that can be composed in Unicode should be allowed. Isn't that why Unicode was invented? If we limit non-Latin characters, sooner or later someone will be offended, and rightfully so, because their native language has been discriminated against. As for the parts of Unicode that are symbols, and accessibility: every Unicode glyph has a name associated with it. I would expect that accessibility software would refer to those glyphs using those very well-known and standardized names, just as any reasonable screen-reader software will handle "&" and "#" and other common symbols with aplomb. (Can one truly call @ and & and # "Latin" characters with a straight face?) In other words, I tend to think any accessibility issue would be with the accessibility software, not Wikipedia. I am definitely all for accessibility... but I'm not for eliminating huge swaths of options for all simply to appease those who have software that cannot adequately handle a world standard like Unicode. (If you need such software, and your software doesn't handle Unicode, shouldn't you be angry at the software vendor and not Wikipedia?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • no monkeys with keyboards, please is a very astute comment. We do not allow usernames such as User:IDFSRWDFHBDFERRHHR because they cause confusion and disrupt normal navigation. Kingturtle (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Another thought on accessibility: While the encyclopedic content obviously must be accessible, do user names have to meet the same standard? Is Wikipedia still useful if a subset of users cannot easily parse the usernames of some contributors? (For me, the answer is "yes, obviously so.") If you believe the answer is no, where would you draw the line? Non-Latinized names? Names that [insert your nationality here] people find hard to pronounce? Names that aren't represented with the 7-bit ASCII character set—tough luck if you're José Piña, you're Joe Pine on Wikipedia or you're not welcome! Yes, it's reductio ad absurdum, but it still shows that the argument can quickly become absurd. Keyboard mashing, no. Willfully, patently offensive, no. Otherwise, how can you justify a line? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow characters that aren't easily typed - this makes it very difficult for other editors to refer to the editor in question or to find them in a search. Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How do you define "easily typed," though? Getting ñ on my Mac is easy: Option-n, n. On Windows, I have to use a cheat-sheet to remember: hold ALT and type 0241 on the number pad. A Mac user would probably say ñ is easy to type; a Windows user probably would not. My concern with the phrase "easily typed" in this context is that it's very subjective, depending very much on the editor's operating system and their comfort with entering non-ASCII (never mind non-Latin) symbols. (Could the search objection be handled if the Wikipedia search function did fuzzy matching, e.g., would match ñ and other glyphs that look like n on a search for n?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• disallow Non standard characters make it harder for user with access difficulties; I'm not sure whether they go against the letter of universal access requirements, but they go against its spirit. We of all sites -- with our basic principle that anyone can edit -- should avoid raising any possible difficulties or bar. For example, I'm not sure how such characters work on a screen reader? Universal access is an overriding consideration, more important than any matter of style or individual expression. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  I've just checked with the OSX default speech software. It does not read symbols. Not even ! and $. But it reads ñ as n, even if I change the language setting to Spanish. I imagine there are more sophisticated screen readers, however. I consider this a reason to avoid all symbols in user names. I note the default software does not seem to read Greek or Cyrillic, either let alone Asian languages, which may be more of a problem. We cannot ask for English-only user names, because of the unified sign-in. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Allow Since technical reasons say mean that we must allow non-Latin glyphs used for other languages, I don't see why we should prohibit other types of glyphs that aren't used for the representation of sounds. I don't find Betacommand's new name problematic, and since names such as ₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣ are technically prohibited already, I don't see this as a big problem. Expanding on Macwhiz's point — some of the characters given in the intro to this RFC are actually quite easy to type from a Windows machine. Turn on your Num Lock, hold down Alt, and press 3 on the numeric keypad, and you get ♥. What's more, I don't see the problem with characters that are on all English-language keyboards; I always have a far harder time remembering and typing the vowels in User:Kralizec! than I do the exclamation point. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow per WP:ACCESS and because these are likely to have a detrimental effect on collaborative editing. I don't think SUL is a strong argument for having these. If someone cannot use their SUL name on a project due to that project's local policies, they have two choices: (1) use a different account on that project or (2) rename their global account to something acceptable on all projects. WJBscribe (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow, of course. Not even sure why this needs to be a discussion. This isn't some web game for 14 year olds. Gigs (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Holding pen

Just a pointer to WT:UAA#Holding pen. Some people watch here and not there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk election

User:1234r00t is our first candidate for clerkship in this section at WT:UAA. Please vote if you're familiar with the candidate's work (or willing to get familiar), and please watchlist either WP:UAA or WP:Clerking for future candidates. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a pointer: WT:UAA#Message in User Reported section, in particular the last comment. I'm wondering if the method WP:MILHIST uses to elect coordinators would work for clerks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Video

I'm not sure that it adds much to the policy. It seems like PR fluff. Gigs (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I can totally see some of those usernames getting blocked as a username policy violation. --Conti|✉ 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional/Misleading question

Promotional is in the eye of the *general* population, but Misleading may be for a *subset*, right? Consider the following Scenario. Delta Gamma Delta Social Fraternity was founded in 1890, part of its history is that what brought the brothers together was defending the honor of the women of Mu Mu Pi Sorority. This is both mentioned in the ritual (so every brother knows), but is also in the public history which exists both on Delta Gamma Delta website *and* on the Delta Gamma Delta wikipedia page (It is in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, so there *is* a Secondary Source). However, Mu Mu Pi merged with another sorority in 1896 and took the name of that sorority so it no longer exists.

Delta_Gamma_Delta_Brother would be an inappropriate username because it is promotional, but my question is about Mu_Mu_Pi_Defender. *Any* Delta Gamma Delta brother would assume that someone with a username of Mu_Mu_Pi_Defender is a brother of DGD. Is Mu_Mu_Pi_Defender an acceptable username if it is held by a DGD brother or would that be Promotional? If that is acceptable, what if it is taken as a username by someone who is *not* a DGD brother, would that be unacceptable due to it being Misleading?Naraht (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think DGD_Brother is promotional. Fraternities aren't really selling anything. If someone defines themselves in terms of their affiliation with that group, that's their business. It's like "USAF_Bob" would probably be fine, we wouldn't block them for promoting the air force. A lot of it goes to the intent of the account in my mind, but this isn't universally accepted. Gigs (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, DGD_Brother isn't misleading, in that it states the individual's affiliation with the group only in a weak sense. Assume that, according to the article, the head of the national chapter is the Grand Poobah. DGD_Grand_Poobah or DGD_Webmaster would run afoul of the username guidelines because they imply the user is speaking in an official capacity (unless the individual is verified as such, and then the conflict of interest remains). Official_DGD would be outright misleading, and naming the account Delta_Gamma_Delta would be covered already under the restriction against organization names as usernames.

As for the promotional aspect, even though fraternities aren't selling anything, I would argue that Rush_DGD is a promotional username and could be blocked as such, especially if that user started making a number of POV edits to the DGD article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall I consider company/organizational that are not promotional to be misleading because it gives the appearance that the account represents a group/organization/company rather than an individual (relevant wording in the policy being "Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name; see Sharing accounts below." and "User accounts can only represent individuals.") Because these usernames are phrased the way they are, they show that the account represents an individual, so aren't misleading, and they don't appear to be inherently promotional. They seem fine to me. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about a user name of DeltaGammaDeltaSoc? Is that promotional/misleading? In this case the account is for a person who is the national webmaster for Delta Gamma Delta, a volunteer position, but a position where the position is determined by the elected fraternity officers.Naraht (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would almost say that's a misleading username, because I would interpret it as "Delta Gamma Delta Society", and thus appears to represent a group... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To your earlier example, I agree that Rush_DGD could be promotional. If a username says "My name is Bob and I am a common member of foo group" then that's one thing. If it implies "I represent foo group" then that's bad, and if it implies "Go out and buy/join/donate/support foo group" then that's bad as well. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional? Offensive? Not quite either...

I've just come across Jesusmessiahsaves (talk · contribs). I'm not a regular UAA visitor or and don't consider myself well-versed in the username guidelines, though I have read them, so I thought I'd bring the issue here. This username strikes me as worthy of discussion. My first thought was that it seems vaguely like proselytizing, which in turn is vaguely promotional ("Yay Jesus! Go team Christianity!"). My second thought, which may be reaching, was that its inherent assertion could strike some users as offensive ("Jesus saves, you say? False! Allah saves!") and that if we had a user named along the same lines, say, "JesusDoesn'tExist" or "TheDevilWillEatYourSoul", eyebrows would probably be raised.

The user appears (in their whole two edits) to be operating in good faith and I am hesitant to go on and warn them of anything about their name in case I'm just slightly crazy. So, opinions? Do others think that this username may pose problems and/or fall under any of the categories that would indicate the user should be asked to choose a new name? Or am I being overly-cautious? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chances are those are the only 4 edits they'll ever make. If I were concerned about it, I'd check the account again in a couple weeks to see if they ever became active. If not, problem solved. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Wikipedia:Username policy#Non-English usernames

I would like to add "You my request a change of Username Here." to the end of that section Not sure on consensus so opening discussion here. Thoughts ? Mlpearc powwow 01:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Further thought, this is just an ease of navigation. This does not change the policy in any way. Mlpearc powwow 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont' think that is necessary, and I personally think it may confuse users to provide a link to changing username after the rest of that paragraph which basically states that non-English names are fine, with caveats on signatures. The link to WP:CHU is already provided in this section.  7  02:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Sock" or "Sock Puppet" in usernames

Should alternative account usernames be allowed to include "Sock" in a tongue in cheek way? I feel that this is a bad idea because when seeing a username that signifies a violation of policy, users will feel compelled to investigate. This sort of false positive leads to needless wasting of time, and potential confusion. In general we do not allow usernames that suggest the account is used for violating Wikipedia site policies (e.g. User:Vandal). My understanding of WP:SOCK is that there are legitimate, alternative accounts, and there are prohibited sock puppet accounts. I believe there is no such thing as a legitimate sock. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a harmless bit of humor to me. Don't see any reason to prohibit this. Thparkth (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as the username and/or user page clearly indicate who the original user is (which is required anyhow), I don't see a problem. --Conti|✉ 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When a username pops up on my watchlist like "The Bad Sock" or "Pushing My POV", that is a red flag that makes me look closely at their edits. This is not harmless fun. It is disrespectful of other editors to create the appearance of wrongdoing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between just using the word "sock" (User:XYZ's sock) and indicating bad faith/disruption (User:The Bad Sock). The latter could be disruptive. But, generally speaking, if you click on the username, read the user page that says "I'm actually User:XYZ", then 3 seconds of time haven been wasted. I think we can live with that. :) --Conti|✉ 14:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to accept whatever the result of the discussion is. If I'm in the minority, I'll live with it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including "sock" as part of a username when used to indicate the account is a sock of another user. Sock puppet accounts are allowed, as you stated, for legitimate alternate accounts. Identifying the account as that sock account seems perfectly acceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really turns on whether someone reads "Sock" as "Abusive sock". Not everyone seems to. –xeno^talk 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Users should really be judged by their contributions rather than their username. Also, genuine abusive sockpuppets are highly unlikely to be called User:Sock, User:BadSock or anything similar. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 259° 38' 30" NET 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Conti on this, but I'm biased because I have User:Useight's Public Sock. Useight (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also like Conti's comment a lot. "It depends" is a good answer to my question. If "Sock" is used in a confusing way, it should not be allowed. If used in a way that is clear (e.g. Useight's example), then it is acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If the community had no problem granting admin rights to Master of Puppets, I guess it's safe to say it doesn't mind accounts that humorously reference sockpuppetry... WJBscribe (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Puppetry is a distinguished art form, not to be confused with base sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I used to watch a sock puppet theater when I was young. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy in username

Without naming real instances, can we be clear if advocating a social or political position in a username, e.g. the (putative) names User:VoteJones or User:MyColdDeadHands, would be acceptible? I tend to think it is less that crystal clear whether the wording for "promotional" covers this. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't be clear because it is not as black and white as all that. In the examples you have given, I would block VoteJones at the slightest evidence of advocacy for someone named Jones, but MyColdDeadHands is not explicit enough even if they edited NRA I still wouldn't block. Actions are really more important than username violations, which is why only the most explicit violations need to be blocked. If they are pushing a POV with their edits, it is much more reasonable and useful to block them for that as opposed to their name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I was overly obscure in my examples. If it is clear what position the username advocates, is that promotion? e.g. User:LarryKingForPresident2012 or User:BanPersonalNukes or User:DownWithRIAA?LeadSongDog come howl! 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

disruptive use of non-Latin usernames

• The discussion at User_talk:贾宝玉#Your_user_name_and_signature is just crap and if username policy allows this usability impairment then policy should be adjusted. This is English Wikipedia and the burden imposed on other users having to cut and paste usernames like this (plus the near-impossibility of remembering or searching for them) makes them disruptive. The user appears to be gaming the system, and should be told to make an appropriate sig link or be blocked. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you want the policy to be changed, you need to convince the whole of Wikipedia to change, as that policy was the result of a long and drawn out series of discussions over the past few years. —Soap— 15:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One of the reasons non-Latin usernames are permitted is because of the unified login. Our username policy shouldn't restrict someone who registered their account on a different language Wikipedia. TNXMan 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That person didn't register their account on a different language wikipedia. They're just being annoying. My view is that "strongly encouraged" can in general be treated as "required unless some reasonably persuasive rationale is presented for not doing so". Wikipedia is not Myspace and usernames are for identifying the user, not for personality displays. They should never be used as a vehicle for uncollegial behavior, as this user is doing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where they registered their account first. Our username policy allows usernames such as this in order to allow more smooth interwiki collaboration. You not liking that is not going to change it. As Soap already pointed out, you're going to have to convince a lot of people to change the policy, and that's extremely unlikely to happen. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Grossout" usernames

Must usernames necessarily be sexual or profane in order to qualify as "offensive" or "disruptive"? There's one active contributor (who I'm not going to name at the moment) who has a very "ewwwwwwww" username. However, I'm not sure if simply being gross is enough to qualify as inappropriate. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, but if you have a problem with a particular username, you should bring it up with them openly. Otherwise nobody's going to do anything. The policy is deliberately vague because it's been generally agreed that borderline cases should be discussed individually since opinions will likely vary. In my experience, the username policy was more lax a few years ago, and there are some users who joined early which would likely be blocked if they were just registering today. But none of them is highly active, so they don't get noticed very often. —Soap— 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Which user are you talking about? We can't know who are you talking about if you don't say who. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Subsections

I believe it's misleading to have the subsections regarding inappropriate usernames in the "Appropriate usernames" section. New users shouldn't believe this means that Internet addresses, company/group names etc are allowed. I suggest either renaming the section to just "Usernames" or moving the inappropriate usernames to a new section named "Inappropriate usernames". HeyMid (contribs) 14:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User names that have known companies in them

I want some comments regarding usernames that contain known company names like User:AMD64, etc. I think those usernames should be blocked outright because a. they contain a trade mark (company name) and b. they seem to imply they are from that company. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This is a no-brainer, in my arrogant opinion, because to tolerate such names is going to lead to the perception that "Bill at Microsoft" or whatever is a perfectly acceptable person to be editing articles on Windows. In some cases I've blocked such accounts when their behavior made it particularly obvious that they were here as representatives of their COI boss/band/team/agency/client. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Support proposal: IMHO there is no practical difference between a user name that comprises the company name only, clearly a breach of WP:CORPNAME, and the "user at company" variation. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - please note that there was an extensive RFC discussion earlier in 2010, aimed at harmonizing the policy with actual practice at WP:UAA, which led to the current wording. Thparkth (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any change in policy to make it more strict. Virtually any name may be the name of a company somewhere in the world, and determining whether the name "seems to imply they are from that company" will always be a judgement call for administrators. Thparkth (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The intention is not to make our practice any more strict, it is to clarify that User:Bob at Microsoft and variations are a violation of WP:CORPNAME just as User:Microsoft would be. – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Bob at Microsoft" is already a clear violation of the policy as written. "AMD64" is a case where under the present policy, they would probably only be banned if their editing behaviour suggested they were promoting or connected with the company AMD. I believe this is the correct situation. It is also what the policy already says, and consistent with practice at WP:UAA. I don't think anything needs to be changed. Thparkth (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some admins appear to disagree on that. – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Another issue I'm seeing is users naming themselves from known products. For example (no such user) User:Corei7 or User:WindowsVista or User:Nortonsucks (I think there might be a sure by that name or near that name). That's obviously would be a trademark infringement but some admins I spoke to at webchat said that its perfectly OK. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

THe current policy reads that those users would only be banned if their edits constitutes a WP:COI/promotional --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the username policy needs to be changed as it already addresses this issue. We allow some usernames to contain the names of companies or products as long as it's something like "User:Companyfan" or "User:Productrules" and as long as they aren't making edits which violate WP:COI. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So if they aren't volating COI they are allowed? Isn't it a. Violating Trademarks? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the trademark issue is relevant as it is unlikely that a legal argument that a Wikipedia user name is a trademark infringement would succeed (and yes, FWIW, I am a lawyer). What concerns me more is the inconsistent application of what we are told is current policy and practice at WP:UAA. How does one explain the refusal to block User:Mark at Alcoa, for example? – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this user is violating Username policies because of a. of possible WP:COI vio and is used for promotional purposes (editing a company article of the same name). For example, would Mike from Symantec be banned if he is editing the Norton Internet Security article? I think he should. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So would someone that have a company name in its username allowed? SO can User:Mike from Symantec edit the NASA article and not get blocked whereas if he edits Norton Internet Security or Symantec article he would be? I think the rule should be based upon a. the username itself (regardless of the edit) and b. his/her edit. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK slow down a minute. What we are being told is that User:Mike from Symantec would be blocked as a de facto user name violation, irrespective of the articles they were editing. That's great, but it is apparently not being consistently applied by all admins as the User:Mark at Alcoa example shows. If we all agree that the name at/of/from etc company form is a violation, then I am OK with that, provided that it is being consistently applied, which it isn't. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Mark at Alcoa" represents a voluntary disclosure of a potential conflict of interest. Those commenting above should remember that, according to the current revision of the guideline, COI editing is merely strongly discouraged not prohibited. –xeno^talk 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it now seems that it depends on which admin you ask. User:Prodego at irc said that User:AMD64 is not a vio but User:Cirt think he is and blocked User:AMD64. So now the rule is if you can't get someone to block a user, approach another admin. There is no constant "rule". --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So now we have a conflict between WP:COI (a guideline) and WP:UN (a policy)? I am all for voluntary disclosure of a COI, but if a user name does that in breach of the user name policy, it is still a breach of the user name policy. There are other ways to disclose a COI than a user name that breaches policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re to Xeno: That's what I'm proposing. Outlawing all "from" usernames and obvious COIs. I would like to push further to outlaw all username with "famous" company name in there (compromise becuase they maybe some discreet companies with name similiar to established users). Or what we could do is ask them to rename themselves or force rename them rather than ban them. In addition, User:Nvidia has been argued by some admins that it is a spanish/other language for something that is not a company name). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to go that far, and frankly it is not an argument that you are likely to win - if the current user name policy is consistently applied by all admins, that should be enough, but at the moment there is a rather glaring inconsistency in application and some rather, in my opinion, flawed justification for it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's the problem there isn't a "clear" cut of which user name is in violation and which is not. It also depends on the blocking admin. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I don't block the kind of names we're discussing here because I just don't want to get into an argument about it. Some guidance in the policy would be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree make it clearer! There should be more clear yes/no line and few eh maybe... The current rule is there are tons of eh maybes and yes/no depending on different admins. Imagine a country with many presidents (admins) where if you ask different politians you get different answers and they would act differently. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Thparkth above thinks it's clear ("Bob at Microsoft" is already a clear violation of the policy as written.) as do I, and, I suspect, many others who regularly make and review WP:UAA reports. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

SO User:AMD64 is a vio? I think so but those I ask at the IRC doesn't. They said its the name of a chipset and a name is a name... I previously ask that username at WP:UAA and I get a response that its not a vio and its stale. According to User:Prodego at IRC, User:Corei7 is allowed as well. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, Tyw7, that the main reason that the report was declined, aside from the fact that it wasn't considered a blatant violation, is that the username (along with the many other reports you made at the time after digging through old users for them) is very stale, and not worth blocking anymore. Remember that we only block to prevent damage to the project; what possible damage could be caused by failing to block a user which hasn't edited in years and probably never will again? The policy on not blocking stale usernames is a seperate issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus is to disallow a company name as _part_ of a username, the guideline should be amended to explicitly reflect that. Currently it may be interpreted differently. And it should be noted that "Xeno", "Tyw", and "UK Expat" are all used by companies somewhere in the world. So it's really not so black and white - actions speak louder than usernames. –xeno^talk 20:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well how about make if "famous" companies and COIs. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That's just venturing into the absurd; how do you define what's a "famous" company? And should we allow a username whic his a starting-out company, and block them later when they become successful? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But the problem is that most people would ban User:Microsoft and is hesistant to ban User:Joe from Microsoft or any varients of such. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well how about products of companies? Are they included in the current definition? Should User:Corei7, User:SonyVaio, User:AMDPhenom, and User:Studio15 (I don't think there is such user names) be blocked? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really convinced there's a point in stating that we should block any username which has a company in it; the important thing is that we should, and generally do, block any username which suggests that the user is editing on behalf of, or promoting a company. That is already defined in WP:ORGNAME. Usually a name like "Bob from Microsoft" would be discussed with the user as it implies that the user is editing on behalf of Microsoft. You can see a very similar case at WP:RFCN at the moment, and I think that and discussion with the user is the best option, unless their edits are already implying that they're editing on behalf of the named company, in which case it's a blatant WP:ORGNAME violation and will be blocked. But username violations aren't so cut as dry as "anything and everything with a company in the username must be blocked"; that is often inappropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the company's product name? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bang on about the User:Mark at Alcoa example again, but it is relevant to your post. That user has clearly stated that they intend to edit on behalf of Alcoa, so under your reasoning should be blocked. But they have not been, and moreover, a change of name to User:Mark at Alcoa was expressly allowed because they declared their COI. To my mind all of this "well they have a COI but they are not abusing it" prevarication and hand-wringing can be removed by simply clarifying that WP:CORPNAME applies to the name at company and similar forms. Quite frankly, as I stated at the beginning of this discussion, I cannot see the difference between those forms and the straight companyname form. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Mark at Alcoa", anyways? Aren't we supposed to encourage our users to disclose possible conflicts of interest? --Conti|✉ 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that's akin to Bill from Microsoft or Tim from Symantec which most users/admin agree to block. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with those two names, either? :) --Conti|✉ 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

THat's why I have been proposing to the user to rename themselves to User:MarkA or User:MrkAA. That would clearly put him out of the red. Plus, there are tons of names s/he can choose that DOES NOT contain a company name or "from" or "at" so and so company in them. According to the current example, a burgular can continue robbing houses as long as he "declare" he is going to do so. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's more like telling the burglar that it's okay to rob the house as long as he's not announcing it. If "Mark at Alcoa" changes his name to "MarkA", will he suddenly stop having a conflict of interest, or will he suddenly stop editing Alcoa? If not, then what's the point of this? --Conti|✉ 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I edit company articles (Symantec) but nobody have ever accused me of COI. Plus the username have a company name inside it. Plus, most admins readily block Bill at Microsoft but not Mark at Alcoa or User:employee at some obscrete company. I have also cross with names like User:WindowsVista fan which I thik is obvious Username vio. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to my question. A conflict of interest does not appear or vanish with a username, it's either there or it's not, regardless of the username. And I personally prefer users with COIs to be as open about it as "Mark at Alcoa" instead of forcing them to hide their COI. --Conti|✉ 21:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But one can avoid COI if their usernames is different from the article/company they edit. As long I understand COI existists if

1. you quote yourself
2. your username is the same or similiar to the company article you are editing or
3. If you write your own biography
4. You edit an article relating to your research/case/etc

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Now, again, will "Mark at Alcoa" stop editing Alcoa if he changes his username? If not, then what's the point? The conflict of interest will continue to exist, exactly the same as before. If that's what you're trying to prevent, you need to block the user, not force him to change his username. --Conti|✉ 21:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's what I was orginally suggesting but due to negative feedbacks from fellow editors, I back away. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's an inherently bad idea. My point is that the username is not the actual issue here. --Conti|✉ 21:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is my orginal proposal:

• Ban/rename all "at so and so company" usernames editing an article with relating to that company.
• Rename/Ban all usernames that is named after products like User:AMD64/User:Corei7/User:NortonInternetSecurity/User:Studio 15
• Recommend those registering new users (there is a committe that create new users) a more strignent approach to make sure the name they are registering does not contain a company name/pose a possible COIs --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we need any changes to the policy. Trademarks are only protected in certain situations. Simply using a trademark itself does not automatically violate the trademark laws. This is why we can have trademarked names, phrases, and images on Wikipedia under open source licenses such as CC-BY-SA. If someone trademarks "The Best Beans in Town" or the name of a bean company, those trademarks will generally apply to bean related sales/issues. It prevents other bean sellers (or anyone else that would hurt the brand/sales) from using the trademark, but not -everyone- from using the trademark.

SO I guess, a computer company can use the name "Best Beans"? I doubt so... cue lawsuits and copy right infringement. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our current COI policies pretty much cover anything we need to worry about here. That being said, I don't think that "User:Bob at Microsoft" should not be allowed to edit articles relating to Microsoft. The username in that situation is far more about transparency than promotion, and simply working at Microsoft doesn't mean that Bob can't edit related articles (COI doesn't ban those situations, but rather says we should take caution with them). I think Giftiger wunsch put it best in what they said above in that it's not so cut and dry and would need to be discussed with the user. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also contesting User:AMD64's ban by User:Cirt and plan on escalating the issue if necessary. We're a volunteer site, and we should not ban good editors because they like certain products. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That being said, User:AMD64 edits Advance Micro Device related articles. It is partially promotional (same name as product s/he edits. Secondly, just like User:Bob at Microsoft is not allowed to work on Mirosoft related articles, User:AMD64 should not be allowed to edit AMD articles. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ned Scott on this. If a username is not (1) being used as promotion (e.g. User:Buy microsoft!) or (2) implying official representation of a company, the username is not the problem, WP:COI is. That's my position on the policy. As for User:AMD64 I think it's harder to say - does this meet my idea of a problematic username or not? I wouldn't disagree with requiring a change of username if some people feel it's a problem; I don't know if the -64 makes it clear enough that this user is not an official representative. And if they're editing Advance Micro Device inappropriately, it's another problem. But regardless this case should be this case and not a wedge to change the policy. Mangojuice^talk 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyw7, what gave you the idea that "Bob at Microsoft" is not allowed to edit Microsoft articles? You may wish to reread the WP:COI page. And if AMD64 was making edits that improved the project, I don't think they should have been blocked based on the username alone. –xeno^talk 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out the most obvious here, tyw7 would fall into this group of banned/forcibly-renamed users that tyw7 is advocating. TYW is a New York Stock Exchange symbol and if adding a 64 to AMD is of no consequence then adding a 7 to TYW should matter not. tyw7 could own 1/7 of the company or be the 7th employee they hired. Further, my brother used to work for a company called UKExPat. If i looked harder i am certain i could find more issues where there is the remotest of correlations. Everyone has a conflict of interest regarding something. If openly declaring a conflict of interest is now to be punishable by block & forced rename which would hide the conflict of interest then here are my conflicts: i like tv, i like indie music, i like Canadian and some American indie films. People have called me crazy for offering hugs in my signature. People have told me to get lost. I have watched or and listened to many works that come into those broad classifications. I know some people who are involved in those fields. A few of those people might maybe remember who i am but that is unlikely. My user name here comes from a film i love that is now 10 years old. I have no greater connexion to it than owning the DVD and trying to sneak into the theatre when the festival screening of it in my hometown sold-out before i got a ticket. I have edited the article a few times. O my! I think those account for 0.1% of my edits. I was going to point out that xeno is another word that would result in the canadian stranger having to block and rename himsef because it is used by some companies... but he already mentioned that. Now i have repeated it. Does anyone want to tell SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs) there is yet again another proposal that would result in a block or ban or rename for him? I say another because this came up a few months ago. Someone with a blatant conflict of interest will not inherently make inappropriate edits. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about tyw7 being a violation of this amendment, note that AMD64 isn't a violation because it's AMD with 64 stuck on the end, it's a violation because AMD64 is specifically a product: it's a line of processors. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You missed my point; the broad and ambiguous sweep put forward by tyw7 that would catch such user names would also catch tyw7 for being too similar to the stock exchange symbol of a company. It would catch most accounts. It would even catch my name as there is an online porn star and a real life escort who share the same name as myself and i could be seen to be promoting either of their businesses if i were to use my name here. There are users with names of various other products: DVD, BD, Pepsi, CNN, Dominos, Chevy, Coke, Apple, KISS. If you can't be a fan of Taylor Swift or use your real name if it happens to be Jesus or Allah then GiftigerWunsch you would be caught up in the proposal for using a name which you also use for professional purposes (your programming centre); AMD64 is more widely known without the aid of google but maybe sometime you could maybe tell my why this php i was trying keeps failing. Still, i didn't see any bad edits by AMD64 from my browsing yesterday.
Prodego has a very generous application of the user name policy and has told me on many occasions i am being to strict. Tyw7, if you think that those who handle requests for accounts are responsible for those who create inappropriate accounts without our assistance then i am not sure where to begin to correct you. Can you point to one name that is inappropriate that someone created at the request of a prospective editor? If not then perhaps don't make such broad sweeping accusations. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I fully understood your point and agree with it; I was just pointing out that there was a significant distinction between AMD64 and a couple of letters which may potentially be an abbreviation for a company, along with some unassociated numbers. Regarding "generous" application of the username policy, generally that is the case with most admins at UAA (though not all of them, which leads to inconsistency). I think it may be worth having a careful discussion about whether or not some aspects of the written username policy actually represent the reality of its enforcement, and whether it should be amended to better reflect its application at WP:UAA (as well as WP:RFCN and other appropriate venues). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, and suggest that someone consider a FAQ for this page to deal with this perennial proposal. I've added a few examples (deliberately selected to be extreme; feel free to tweak) to help new readers understand what we're really aiming at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Giftiger Wunsch reverted all five examples five minutes later. Giftiger says that concrete examples are not helpful. I disagree, especially given the number of people who misunderstand this section of the policy. The examples I added were:
    • Yes: User:Steve at Apple or User:I love my iPod (but will be blocked for abusing a conflict of interest if promoting the company or product)
    • No: User:Microsoft Marketing Department or User:Go to Microsoft.com or User:Group 3 for Ms Smith's class project
  • As an example of the first category, which seems most contested here, let me suggest that you all consider the case of User:Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK. This editor is the employee of a large pharmaceutical corporation. Don't you think that disclosing that significant conflict of interest with every single action could be helpful to Wikipedia? Such names have been permitted in many cases, including, e.g., User:Mark at Alcoa.
    Product-related usernames are equally easy to find: User:Ipodnano05 has over 12,000 edits during the last year and a half. User:Apple2gs and User:MacsBug, both named for products related to their edits, have been active since 2005. Nobody seems to be hassling newbies User:IpodGuru, User:Macclassic44 or User:Macbookairpeter over their usernames. Nobody seems to think that computer professional User:Macwhiz is "promoting" a product. And why should we? They're not hurting anything, and in some cases they may be making it easier for us to spot critical conflicts of interest.
    I think we should provide examples so that editors know what the current state of the policy is. Including examples will reduce confusion and reduce inappropriate complaints about acceptable usernames (and perhaps redirect some of the complaints to the much more relevant forum, e.g., COI/N). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support tempered with discretion and common sense. I think we should indeed probably block "Bob at Microsoft". When you come to Wikipedia, you should come as you are, a person, not a representative of your employer. We can't verify that Bob really works at Microsoft anyway, or has permission to use their trademark in that way. At the same time, "USAFDave" who might be a retired officer is fine, unless he engages is obviously promotional behavior, which we could block for. I don't think it's as simple as blocking anything that might be a company name somewhere (after all, Gigs, Inc is a company!), but at the same time, I think the benefit of a "disclosed-in-username" coi is outweighed by allowing people to bypass our intended atmosphere of peer interaction by implying employer representation in their username. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I realize this thread is kind of dead but I can't let this one go. "Tempered with discretion and common sense." That's the rub. I was active in reforming this policy about 3 years ago. The problem then and the problem now is the overapplication of this policy. People want a hard and fast rule so they can plow forward without thinking too carefully, without discussing, and without having to justify subjective decisions if they are challenged. We have to constantly swim against this tide. That's why it's important that the policy remain about the reasons usernames are disallowed and not about the fine-grained details of what makes one name or another fit those reasons. Mangojuice^talk 13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Some may be hesistant to oppose a "Microsoft" or "Symantec" employee's edit to the company's article. Disallow all "at" articles. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to get back to this. Does anyone think that these are good/valid/desirable names?

• Generally not acceptable: User:Microsoft Marketing Department or User:Go to Microsoft.com or User:Group 3 for Ms Smith's class project

If no one objects, then we might add at least this much. We're getting complaints about confusion, so we really ought to try something to improve clarity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the bottom line here is that users who are making good edits should not be summary blocked just because of their username (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers). We should not jump to blocking users such as "AMD64 (talk · contribs)" who are making good edits otherwise. If they are making good edits, who cares what their username is? Suggest they change their name, if they disagree, take it to RFC/N if you feel the name is such a problem. If they are making promotional edits, then block them for making promotional edits. I've tweaked the policy to reflect this. –xeno^talk 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However, users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked if their edits are otherwise constructive; instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. Disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.

Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name; see Sharing accounts below. Please note that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of user name, and you should generally avoid editing articles with which you may have a conflict of interest. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's guide to editing with a conflict of interest.

• I welcome that change, well done, Xeno. --JN466 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)