Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Username policy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pschemp (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 8 March 2007 (→Randomness policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Pschemp in topic Randomness policy
Learn more about this page
Shortcut

Archives

  • Deleted old content (mostly about a user whose name has been changed now) Martin 11:13 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC) Archive
  • Deleted old content (random freedom of speech debate) 9 Feb. 2003. Archive
  • Deleted old content (more freedom of speech debate, voluntary name change) 8 Oct. 2003. Archive
  • Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Usernames containing "God"

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

This issue has come up a million times on WP:RFCN. Our current guidelines say that no one can have the username "God" which makes sense. However, a lot of editors have taken this to mean that any username containing the word "God" is prohibited. In many cases usernames containing the word God are not in the least bit offensive to anyone, and most of them end up passing RFCN without much controversy. Obviously, many usernames containing "God" are offensive, but we need to clarify that simply containing the word "God" does not automatically warrent banning. Kaldari 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I support the change, I brought up a similar point here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
BTW, there are currently 1662 editors with usernames beginning with "God". I seriously doubt it would be productive to ban them all. Kaldari 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Most of them already are banned. I'm personally offended by any username that has God in it. Just as I am by any username that has Allah in it. I'd also like to see the proof for this statement: "In many cases usernames containing the word God are not in the least bit offensive to anyone, and most of them end up passing RFCN without much controversy." pschemp | talk 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is generally no need to "push the envelope" in a matter like this. While you yourself did not find the username "OhOurGod" offensive, there were four other editors in the thread on RFCN who said that they either found it offensive or that it made them uncomfortable. What purpose does it serve to create difficulty in this manner, when there are many non-controversial alternatives available, and when we are talking about an editor with no edits in the first place? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

But who would find a name like "Goddard" or "Godiva" offensive? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those are accepted proper names of non-divine figures. However, like Dio, they should probably be impermissible if coupled with other words to imply a religious reference. --tjstrf talk 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

There is a major discussion going on at WP: RfC/User names over the User JewishPride (talk · contribs). I reported this Username due to its promotion of religious pride. There is also a new User called MuslimPride (talk · contribs). I believe that Usernames containing the name of a religion (such as using "HinduHol;" this Username is made up, by the way), a member of a religion (i.e. "BuddhistBud"), or gives the impression of religious pride should be blocked. Users get banned for having religious figures in their names, so I think we should include these as well. I am not doing it because one of these Users is called "JewishPride," I would still propose this even if the User was called "ChristianPride." Acalamari 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really don't see how these names are problematic, assuming they are adopted in good faith. I think the number of people who would be offended by someone claiming the name of a deity would far outweight the number of people who would be offended by someone claiming to have pride in their religion (0?). Kaldari 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, claiming to be a deity has a high likelihood of being offensive, but the mere mention of a religion is so much more subject to context. Your proposal seems to be to ban any mention of religion, I don't think that is in our best interest. Remember, we are not discouraging opinions, we welcome opinions as a resource that can be used to find a neutral point of view. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, but users whose very names appear to promote a specific point of view are unlikely to help in that process, or to be taken seriously if they try. Personally, I would like to see Acalamari's recommendation expanded to cover ethnic and political affiliation as well. Usernames which create the impression that Wikipedia is a battleground are not helpful. -- Visviva 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would say that it needs to be less vague, not more. Ethnic and political affiliations are often indistinguishable from geographical labels. IsraeliDude or IraqiHappy could be seen as an ethnic or political affiliation, but what about HighInBC, or BostonMA, or American, these all show pride in a ___location, which could be seen as a political or ethnic affiliation. This looks like instruction creep, if a person is pushing a POV that is a separate issue than the name.
I would support a revision to the policy that specifically deals with soap boxing, but I think it is already there. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The name High in BC clearly shows affiliation with Bloc Pot. Off with his head. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)Lol, actually it is a reference to my enjoyment of hiking in the mountains and valleys of British Columbia, but then again, I do smoke pot when hiking, not really related to my name though. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • If Users wish to express their religion, I believe there are Userboxes to cover this. I have no problem with using Userboxes to display religion, but I think a Username with religious names, figures, etc, shouldn't be allowed. Geographical locations are fine, IsrealiDude, Iraqihappy, of HighInBC. Those names aren't religious. If it was JewishDude, Muslimhappy, or PriestInBC (sorry, HighInBC, it's just an example), that would violate the policy. As for Visviva's suggestion of expanding it to include ethnic and political affiliation...political no, as we don't want "DemocratDan," "RepublicanRon," or "LibertarianLarry," Usernames. Racial or ethnic names would vary. A name like "ScottishPerson" or "BlackMan1111" would be fine. If they were "ScottishPride" or "BlackPower," that would be offensive. Acalamari 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
What's wrong with pride in something? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nothing. I just want to keep religion and race pride away from Wikipedia in order to avoid conflicts. Look at how much discussion JewishPride (talk · contribs) has caused, as proof of what I've been saying. Acalamari 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
All I see there is a lack of consensus, that proves nothing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
We are moving the discussion here to try to get consensus. Personally, I don't think we should allow users to have usernames that create divisions. This username would be extremely divisive in a discussion about articles such as Judaism. Srose (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
How would you word such a restriction? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's the trouble. Wording it would be difficult. On the other hand, if someone edits an article that is related to their Username, and they edit not according to NPOV, they can be warned can't they? Acalamari 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
If someone edits an article against NPOV, then they can be warned regardless of their username. And if they maintain a NPOV then that should be allowed regardless of the username. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have to differ; if someone called "HinduPride" went and edited articles related to Hinduism in a non-NPOV manner, I would be suspicious of this User. Acalamari 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
In the spirit of assume good faith, I would not worry about the user until the user demonstrated otherwise. Nothing about the term "HundiPride" demonstrates an expected bias, everyone has pride in something. Most people edit the articles that interest them, and everyone has to overcome their own bias HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Latin character transliterations

Latest comment: 18 years ago42 comments15 people in discussion

As a result of this discussion at Request for comments:user names, and in forethought to the impending arrival of SUL, I would like to propose that transliterations be required and that the wording of this policy be changed from "If your name is written in a non-Latin script, consider providing a transliteration in your signature" to something like "If your name is written in a non-Latin script, provide a transliteration in your signature upon the commencement of active editing on the English Wikipedia." (Active being more than say, 5 edits) This will:

  1. Not force every single user with a non-latin username to provide a transliteration even though they don't edit here,
  2. Not force editors who edit once or twice to provide a transliteration,
  3. Alleviate many of the concerns of illegibility, slurs in other languages that English speakers can't read and distinguishability that are valid concerns of the regular English editors,
  4. Not make finding non-latin names a witch-hunt, since they are only requried to include a transliteration if they are active, and active means that likely someone will notice their edits to an article and then can politely ask them to provide this.

This seems like an acceptable compromise based on the many many conversations and concerns raised about this issue. Feel free to make suggestions about the exact wording etc... this is just a first draft. pschemp | talk 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about:
"If your name is written in a non-Latin script, you must provide a transliteration in your signature when you begin actively editing the English Wikipedia." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh yes, those words sound better. pschemp | talk 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
If they don't do it, what happens? Titoxd(?!?) 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Their account gets blocked. Cbrown1023 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
If they don't, we treat it the same way as we currently do when people are asked politely first to change their username. Indeed, constant non-compliance would result in a temporary block, until a transliteration is provided as until this time, these usernames are confusing for the vast majority of English editors. I'd suggest a {{transliteration}} be drawn up so that all such requests for transliterations are standard and polite and explain exactly how to add one. pschemp | talk 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree — it won't solve all the problems, but it will at least give a straightforward way of dealing with well-meaning users. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is nice, but doesn't do anything to make it possible to track the user through watchlists, page histories, etc. That's the real problem with these usernames, IMO, and is probably a big part of the reason why they are attractive to vandals. Hopefully we will have a server-side solution to this before SUL rolls out. -- Visviva 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well that's being addressed below. But we have to start somewhere. pschemp | talk 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is ridiculous. You're saying that I should be blocked if I don't provide a transliteration of my username in my signature, though I never would have even used my signature if people hadn't complained about my username in the first place? Am I not a good faith contributor who has been improving articles? Why would you block me just because my username isn't memorable to you? Does it matter that I have a username in a different script, when I'm certainly not hurting anything, and I am quite clearly acting in good faith to improve articles? We should not be alienating a massive amount of people who might just want to help to write the encyclopedia just because we have usernames that you can't remember? I can understand politely asking for transliterations if the user is actively participating on talk and project pages, but blocking good contributors for the sole reason of them having a signature that is in a different script is an incredibly bad idea. --المستهلك 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree. Minor inconvenience is not a valid reason to block a good-faith contributor. —David Levy 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
And is it more than a major inconvenience for this user to provide a transliteration? There was no discussion of a block; there was a discussion of a block only after the user didn't change the signature. The idea here is we politely say, via the template, "change your signature." Give the user a few days. Only then, after the user doesn't change the signature, is there a block. Just like we've done for User talk:Breast Cancer Fund (name of an organization). There seems to be some consensus on this. Part Deux 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm saying that while a polite request is fine, I don't view this as a big enough deal to warrant a block. Frankly, I'd prefer that we start blocking the users who refuse to change their ridiculous, HTML-filled, multicolored signatures. In my assessment, these are far worse than ordinary signatures in non-Latin scripts. To allow people to get away with deliberately creating problematic, non-standard signatures while blocking users for using standard signatures would be absurd, and I don't know where you're seeing this "consensus." —David Levy 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Frankly I'm tired of the attitude of some commenters here that the concerns of English speaking wikipedians are not valid or worth considering. The inconvenience is not minor according to a lot of views expressed on this page. It *does* matter to a lot of people that usernames are not readable, as that doesn't promote collaboration and indeed can promote confusion. Additionally, blocking would only occur after polite requests were ignored. This isn't a proposal to immediately block anyone. Good faith goes both ways. If you want to be an active contributor here, you should respect the culture of this wiki. This proposal doesn't *bite* anyone, it invites dialogue and polite requests first and blocking is only a last resort. There is no other mechanism of enforcement for *any* policy on Wikipedia, so that's what we have to use. If you'd like to suggest an alternative way to enforce policy, I'd be interested to hear it. (This is the exact same thing that is done in other cases. If a user choose "David Leevy" as a username in good faith and edited with it in good faith, but it caused confusion they would politely be asked to change it. Blocking would be the last resort after multiple attempts to communicate, but it is the only way to enforce the policy ultimately should the user refuse to change. There is no discrimination involved here, nor is a confusing username a minor inconvenience whatever language it happens to be in.) pschemp | talk 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, I suggest that you abandon this straw man about the concerns of English-speaking Wikipedians being ignored. They're being disagreed with. I wouldn't accuse you of failing to consider my opinion simply because you disagree with me. And for the record, I'm an English-speaking Wikipedian (and I don't speak any other languages).
Secondly, I needn't "suggest an alternative way to enforce policy," because I oppose adopting this as policy. I've yet to see anyone establish that the issue amounts to anything other than minor inconvenience (and simply saying so proves nothing), let alone something that would justify a block. If you can demonstrate that non-Latin usernames create a problem comparable to a situation in which one user is mistaken for another, I'll gladly reconsider my position. —David Levy 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
A block is a technical measure that prevents the username from continuing to be used without transliteration. Non-Latin usernames substantially do create the problem of confusing between two users; they are symbols unidentifiable to the vast majority of editors on the English Wikipedia. There is a small set of non-Latin usernames that would not cause confusion—though there remain the other non-Latin problems—but most of them are no more distinguishable than David Levi or Visviwa. We could technically allow any similar username, but there would be confusion between them and it would be necessary to refer to them only by using copy-paste. This defeats the entire purpose of usernames. Usernames that consist entirely of numbers and alphanumeric gibberish would be more conducive to identifying and typing than would non-Latin usernames, but numerical and gibberish usernames are disallowed, and do result in blocking. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please see my combined reply below. —David Levy 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since you insist on examples, 振り仮名 and 送り仮名 look very similar to English speaking people and they would be confused. Trying to tell the two apart is confusing for people who don't read these symbols, it nearly requires a magnifiying glass. The same with any non-latin script when things are just one character off. In Arabic script, ې and ۑ and also ڲ and ڳ are different letters, but when strung together in a name it is extrememly hard to tell them apart. Users with only this different would be mistaken for one another. Now I expect David that you will say, that personally, you will sit down and learn all the teeny tiny little differences in all the non-latin scripts, but expecting the majority of people here to do that is absurd. The difference in that first pair is a miniscule difference in how thick the part on the bottom is, not something people can reasonably be expected to notice. If these were the only difference in a name it *would* cause confusion between the two for people who don't read that script. Providing a transliteration is only a minor convenience for people who want to be part of this community. Using a name that can't be read nor distinguished from other similar ones is a major inconvenience for the rest of the community. As for the blocking, I meant suggest a different way to enforce "any" policy. pschemp | talk 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, "振り仮名" and "送り仮名" are no more similar than "Barry" and "Larry" are.
Secondly, no, I'm not going to learn non-Latin scripts. I just don't see what the big deal is, because...
Thirdly (in reply to both Centrx and Pschemp), the claim that someone would confuse two non-Latin usernames because of an inability to recognize the characters doesn't make sense to me. If someone sees a username in an unfamiliar script, why on Earth would he/she assume (without checking) that it belonged to a particular user who happened to have a similar-looking username? I don't even do this with usernames written in the Latin script! (There are some that are unavoidably similar in one respect or another.)
Fourthly (in reply strictly to Pschemp again), asking me to "suggest a different way to enforce any policy" is irrelevant, as I don't believe that this should be policy.
Incidentally, Pschemp, your apparent unwillingness to finish formulating your thoughts before posting your messages results in inconvenience for others (in the form of continual edit conflicts). Nonetheless, I won't propose that you be blocked. —David Levy 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, such rancor. I believe you are dead wrong about this though. English speakers will be confused when looking at similar names. In some cases, they won't even realize that they are different, so why would they check? You seem to be the only person around here that thinks that non-latin scripts will be perfectly readable and never confused by people who aren't literate in them though. I think that fact is quite telling in itself. pschemp | talk 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
1. I never claimed that these usernames are "perfectly readable" by people unfamiliar with the scripts in which they're written. I plainly stated that they result in a level of inconvenience that I consider minor. You're entitled to disagree, but please stop putting words in my mouth.
2. I'm baffled as to why someone would assume that a series of unidentifiable characters must belong to the same person as another series of unidentifiable characters. —David Levy 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Essentially, if non-Latin characters are freely acceptable with no limitations, that eliminates most of the reason for having a username policy at all. There is no reason why anyone should be prohibited from having "dfajlstwrtoppmaf" as a username if an equally unrecognizable name is allowed with a different lettering system—and there will even be usernames that are gibberish in the non-Latin language. There is no reason why "Fuck Allah" should be prohibited if someone can create an equally hateful username in non-Latin characters that creates an environment just as hostile for all the people being accommodated with non-Latin characters. A solution to the first issue is to require transliterations or alternate accounts; a solution to the second issue is to require that non-Latin usernames have equivalent, non-banned usernames on a Wikimedia Project of that language. —Centrx→talk • 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
1. While "Dfajlstwrtoppmaf" might seem no less useful to you than a username in a non-Latin script, the obvious distinction is that there's no valid reason for someone to select the former. Thus, we're able to greatly reduce the number of usernames that inconvenience editors here.
2. As I commented previously, there is no requirement that a user edit a Wikimedia project in his/her native language before registering an account (SUL in the near future) at Wikimedia projects in other languages (nor should there be).
We already have a solution to the problem of usernames with deliberate offensive meanings in other languages; when someone raises the issue, the account is blocked. I see no reason to deviate from this process even if such a username is accepted at another Wikimedia project (which may be lax in enforcing these standards).
If someone's non-Latin username makes no sense does not contain reasonably coherent syntactical structure in any language, that should be disallowed too. —David Levy 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
1. Someone wants to have a username of his choosing, regardless of whatever opinions about gibberish Wikipedia editors have. The only reason to choose "Dfajlstwrtoppmaf" is "Derek's fajita list with regard to opposing malefactors" was already taken. I don't see why Wikipedia should force someone to be creative. After all, the person's real name (say, David Levi) is disallowed, as is his birthday (e.g. User:1979-04-29). "∀me∈ℜ(me = ♦)" is also a nice sort of username.
2. And there's no reason why we should accept unusable usernames. The person is quite able to register an account on the English Wikipedia without editing in his native language.
3. How do we verify that the username is in fact inflammatory? Is there going to be a corps of foreign language speakers that responds to all these queries. How many people on the English Wikipedia speak Urdu and is this how they want to spend their time? How many people on the Urdu Wikipedia speak English? Can a vandal not waste everyone's time by creating non-Latin usernames and then complaining about them?
4. My username that does not "make sense in any language" does make sense to me, and there is no reason why any supposedly 'nonsensical' username should be disallowed on Wikipedia if non-Latin usernames are allowed.
What is the purpose of usernames? What is the purpose of the username policy? —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
1. One way or another, we're going to have arbitrary restrictions. You and I disagree on what some of those should be, and that's fine. There's no need to hyperbolically equate my opinion that "we should have x rule but not y rule" with an argument that "we should have no rules at all."
2. I deliberately noted that there is no requirement that a user edit a Wikimedia project in his/her native language before registering an account at Wikimedia projects in other languages. That doesn't mean that he/she won't want to do so after, and such an individual is likely to prefer a username (again keeping the upcoming SUL in mind) in his/her native language/character set.
3. We'll learn of the usernames' inflammatory nature when someone complains. If no one notices, it's hardly a pressing issue. Besides, how is it any better (or easier to identify) when someone registers an inflammatory non-English word or phrase as a Latin transliteration?
It's reasonable to assume that the number of Urdu-speaking users at the English Wikipedia is roughly proportional to the number of users registering Urdu usernames.
Your "vandal" argument is a bit of a stretch (and again applies to non-English usernames rendered in the Latin script).
4. My wording was a bit off (even after I changed it once), but you knew what I meant. I've changed it again, but you might well be able to poke holes in the new wording as well. (But you still know what I mean.)
As I noted above, the obvious distinction between "Dfajlstwrtoppmaf" and "편집자" is that there's no valid reason (based upon the standards laid out by Wikimedia projects) for someone to select the former. Thus, we're able to greatly reduce the number of usernames that inconvenience editors here. —David Levy 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

All I can say is that I am oh so glad that this philosophy currently sandboxed to en.wikipedia and has not infected none of the other Wikimedia or Wikipedia projects. It will also be a moot issue anyway when the single user sign-on becomes standard, but that is yet another can of worms.

BTW, just to note, en.wikibooks not only permits non-latin characters in a user name, we even went so far as approving one user with only non-latin characters in their user account name to become administrator. What this whole discussion has to do with trying to catch vandals or spot people causing mischief is beyond me. This whole thing is making en.wikipedia the laughing stock of the rest of the Wikimedia projects, particularly on this one issue. If you havn't taken a breather for awhile, en.wikipedia only represents 18.5% of all Wikimedia "articles" (and that number is falling... see meta:Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size for details). All I can say here is mainly to relax and assume good faith, as if I need to remind anybody here about that concept. --Robert Horning 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how people could relax and assume good faith if they find themselves on an apparently pestilential laughing stock. If they want to have useless usernames, I suppose they can waste their time with that. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear Robert, you seem to be laboring under some false assumptions. For instance, you haven't seemed to grasp that the policy has alredy changed to allow non-latin usernames, period. Second, that nothing we do should be hindering communication. pschemp | talk 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

New Idea

Ok, I've been convinced in extensive conversations with Kim Bruning and others of the wisdom of taking baby steps here. So far, everyone agrees that including a transliteration is the polite thing to do. Certainly, were I to take up editing ja.wiki actively, it is the first thing I would do. Also, thanks to User:المستهلك who has voluntarily done this. (He totally replaced his Arabic name, I don't think anyone would object to a side by side use, like "المستهلك Al-mustahlika" which is what I was envisioning.) Though I don't agree that making this a requirement is tantamount to a block threat, some people do think this, so instead, I've concluded that we should change the wording to make the suggestion stonger, but not to a level of absolute requirement at this time. I'd still suggest preparing a {{transliteration}} to make polite requests for them, especially since few new users bother with reading every single nuance of our policies. Then, it was suggested to me, if a majority of users with these names decide not to comply, stronger wording can be looked into. To that end, I've changed the policy to read:

Some editors on this Wikipedia will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts, and for some editors names in these scripts may be displayed only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is written in a non-Latin script, you are strongly urged to provide a transliteration in your signature (which you can set in your preferences) either instead of or side by side your username, and a link to your userpage (and preferably your talk page) in your signature to allow other editors to contact you easily and to facilitate communication.

Cheers. pschemp | talk 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ultimately, editing with a non-Latin username just doesn't rise to the level of blockable offence, or even one where the threat of blocking is appropriate, and I'm glad to see the threats removed from the new text. Non-Latin usernames do not harm the encyclopedia. We should be encouraging users to make productive edits, and threatening a new user with a block over a username instead of substantive problems in editing is a great big example of biting the newcomers. So thank you for moderating your stance on this, and I urge you to not to be tempted back into stronger wording, even if it seems like the rate of adoption is low. Suggestion: provide a link to Special:Preferences directly from the text? —CComMack (t–c) 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
You don't get that this isn't any more biting that blocking User:ComMack for having a confusing username, which would occur even if he was a "newcomer" editing in "good faith". There is nothing inherently discriminatory about that block either. I still strongly believe that providing a transliteration is the polite thing to do, and that if people willfully ignore this, they should be required too do it, however I think they should be given a chance to comply voluntarily first, which is what this is. We have other policies to enforce polite behaviour around here, like WP:CIVIL, and this is no different. pschemp | talk 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it sometimes is necessary to block accounts created in good faith as a means of policy enforcement. I disagree that this issue is important enough to warrant such policy. —David Levy 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a great idea, as is the template you plan on creating. Transliterations are indeed helpful, but blocking good users is not, so rewording the section to more strongly ask users to provide a transliteration is certainly better than making it a requirement (and better than having a weak wording, in my opinion). I'm happy to see that we were able to come to a compromise that works for both sides through discussion. --Rory096 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discrimination

Please read what discrimination has to say about discrimination because of the use of languages. This proposal is discriminatory pure and simple. GerardM 07:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is the English Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Indeed it is. As I said, should I start editing ja.wiki, I would include a ja translation first thing. I'm not asking people to do anything that I wouldn't myself expect to do. "Discrimination" works both ways, and English is being discrimnated against here too. It is the same thing to force English speakers to have to deal with names that are unreadable. It is not the fault of the English wikipedia that English is used around the world and thus attracts more international editors than say, the Icelandic wiki. Those wikis don't have the issues we do because few editors use unreadable scripts there. In fact, I'd be surprised if it has any registered Arabic script usernames on the Icelandic wiki. IF this was a wiki that functioned in all languages for everything, I'd buy the discrimination argument. However, it isn't. We only allow articles in English here too. Possibly you should object to that policy and call it discrimination also. pschemp | talk 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed — this can't be called discrimination. And, as I've said elsewhere, I'd feel that I was being very discourteous if I refused to adopt a Japanese or Arabic user name when editing on those Wikipedias; these proposals should applied to all Wikipedias, mutatis mutandis. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I can't read that last statement! That is discriminatory against people who don't speak Latin! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, I have to agree with GerardM here. I know that a solution is needed because many people can only read Latin script, but blocking people because their username is in a non-Latin script is discriminatory. Surprisingly (or not) this requirement is only asked on the English Wikipedia, not on the German, French, or any other European languages Wikipedia. Do not ask me why... But there are no more people able to read non-Latin scripts in these Wikipedias than here. So blocking people is certainly not the only solution. Yann 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have no problem with non-latin characters, but if that is discrimination then our whole username policy is discrimination. By the literal definition it is discrimination, but the question is "Is this unethical discrimination", I don't think so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The reason is that English is a more universally used and taught language in international commerce than say, Danish. So of course they don't have the issues. They don't have nearly the number of people with different script name wanting to edit, so the confusion factor is low. Technically, the fact that we require articles to be in English is discrimination, but HIBC has it right. It isn't unethical discrimination to force people to write articles here in English, nor is it to ask them to include a transliteration in their signitures, because this Wiki isn't written in all languages. If it was, that would be different. pschemp | talk 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Latin character server suggestion

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I have a suggestion that would involve a fair, but not overwhelming, bit of work to the server software that would end the Latin debate once and for all - to the satisfaction of those who insist on Latin, and to those who insist on being User:Οτιδήποτεθελουν.

Why don't we just have two potential usernames per user record in the database - one allowing Unicode and one limited to a very strict subset of ASCII - and each user would have a mandatory ASCII username and an optional Unicode username, both of which refer to the same user object. Then the system could automatically cater to both groups. When I suggest a strict subset of ASCII, I mean to include letters, numbers, and a space, because I believe EVERYONE can type these characters in order to be using the Internet... but no symbols (example, in UK there is no $ on their standard keyboard). If any symbols, then only symbols that are allowable in DNS ___domain names such as "-". Reswobslc 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, yes there is, it's shift-4 (£ is shift-3, and # is on the same key as ~). --ais523 10:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Example message someone would see

Of course, this would only be shown to a user whose name included non-alphanumeric characters. Users who already fit this description would go on just like normal with their single Latin username. Unless other symbols were considered valid in alphanumeric usernames as well, a user who had a comma or dollar sign in their name would have to pick another (additional) name that didn't have the comma.

Welcome back to Wikipedia. You need to choose a new username. Wikipedia now requires that you choose an additional alphanumeric username that consists only of numbers, spaces, and the 26 letters of the alphabet used in English. Both uppercase and lowercase are allowed on this additional username, but no accents or other similar marks. This is necessary because Wikipedia is an international project that must include all contributors regardless of their language, and some users cannot read, understand, or type many non-alphanumeric or accented characters.
You aren't required to give up your current username, as each user is now entitled to two renditions of their username, only one of which must meet this restriction. Your new alphanumeric username will be displayed to users who cannot read or type the characters that are part of your existing name. Your existing name will continue to be shown to those who can.
We recommend that your new alphanumeric username be similar to your existing one, as most members of the community will see only one or the other. Please choose a new alphanumeric username now before you may contine to edit. (input box here)Reswobslc 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

For new users:

The username you have chosen is available. Please select a secondary version of your username that contains only letters, numbers, and spaces, which you may use in addition to the username you just selected. The secondary username cannot contain punctuation, as many punctuation symbols used in English are not available on international keyboards. The secondary username is for the benefit of users who speak different languages and who may not be able to read or type the non-alphanumeric characters in your primary username, and should imitate your primary username, as most members of the community will only see one or the other.

Why this is different than having two accounts now

I am proposing that the software literally be modified to consider the two to be one and the same. That would mean two username fields in each user record of the database. Blocking the user under one name would block the user under both names, since there's only one user record. In Special pages, edit histories, and anywhere else, the web site would automatically render the version selected by the user in Preferences, or perhaps after making an automated educated guess based on the browser version and capabilities reported over the connection.

For the sake of compatibility with existing bots, extensions, and such, all User_talk pages would still physically be at the Unicode-name URL, and a User_talk page referenced by an alphanumeric username would either have to be made into a redirect to the Unicode, or MediaWiki could automatically render a small blurb with a redirect link to the Unicode username, just like it does when visiting User_talk of an IP address, to remind you that you're at a talk page that could be shared by many people.

What edit summaries would look like

Assuming User:Yamaguchi先生 selected an alphanumeric username of "Yamaguchi Sensei":

For someone who in their Preferences had the Unicode setting:

For someone who in their Preferences had the Alphanumeric setting:

The preferences could even allow a mixture of the two for browsers that support Unicode but don't have Asian character sets loaded, or right-to-left text support (both are missing by default on English Windows XP unless explicitly turned on), showing Unicode most of the time, but substituting alphanumeric just on the instances of names that included Asian or right-to-left.

This would require a change to the software, but after done, I can't imagine who would be disappointed by the results. Reswobslc 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Others' comments

There is no point at all in your proposal unless the policy requires latin transliterations. I'd say, decide on the policy changes first, then look and see if there is an easier way to enforce it. Aditionally your proposal is too drastic, users can have accents and other diacritics in their usernames (in combination with latin script), and have always been allowed to do so: it was only other scripts that were disallowed. I think this proposal will confuse more people than it helps, even the explanation of it is confusing, especially considering that these people will be for the most part non-native speakers. pschemp | talk 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The proposal is technical only and doesn't exclude the possibility of requiring transliterations. Appropriate transliterations are just more subjective and inappropriate ones must be denied on a case-by-case basis, just like offensive usernames. The proposal wouldn't deny someone their accents and diacritics. It would just mean User:Frédéric would also be User:Frederic as far as the system's concerned, for those of us who don't have é on our keyboards and wish to type his name into a search/block/talk/URL box. URL's as a consequence would be cleaner, because he'd be reachable at /wiki/User:Frederic and not just at /wiki/User:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric. Reswobslc 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the transliteration policy is instituted, then this looks to me like a good way to go — especially if it can be made to include all Wikipedias, so that if I wanted to edit the Japanese Wikipedia, for example, I'd need to choose a second User-name in Japanese characters. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

And I'd need one in Greek. :) --Ρεζ-Ουαμπ-εσ-ελ-σι Reswobslc 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What happens when someone references a user by name? For example, if I see someone as 果実栽培者 and refer to him/her by that name, how will people who see the same user as Fruit farmer know who I'm referring to? —David Levy 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because you took the time to make 果実栽培者 a wiki-link to their user page, I can click it and find out. The template {{user}} is commonly used too, and this template could selectively render as necessary, and also add the transliteration as a mouse-over. It won't get any worse, as today if someone sees 5 boxes, it's as good as it's going to get. Reswobslc 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
What if I don't make 果実栽培者 a link? (People often don't.) If the transliteration/translation is confined to the signature, everyone will recognize that name. And if someone references the actual username instead (which could be discouraged), anyone using a non-broken browser would still be able to see it. —David Levy 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The hypothetical situation isn't consistent with common sense. On the English Wikipedia, someone who insists on a username of 果実栽培者 is probably going to get referred to exclusively by their English username, and a person who insisted on referring to 果実栽培者 in Chinese on the English Wikipedia without making it a link is going to be seen as just as obstinate as someone who έγραφε τα δικά του λόγια στη ξένη του γλώσσα on purpose without giving a translation and knowing nobody can read it, if that makes sense. Reswobslc 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, "果実栽培者" is Japanese (and I don't know why you would characterize someone who uses this as his/her SUL as "insisting" on it).
Secondly, your proposal calls for users to choose between seeing the original username or the Latin username, right? Everyone would see the user as either "果実栽培者" or "Fruit Farmer" (but not both), correct? Why/how would this individual end up being "referred to exclusively by their English username"?
Thirdly, I don't understand your point about linking. Do you always use a link when referring to other users? —David Levy 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
First, my mistake. Besides recognizing most kana and few grade-1 kanji, the only Japanese I really know how to say is, nihon go wakarimasen.
Second, I think it's safe to say the vast majority of people editing the English Wikipedia would choose to see a Latin transliteration of a Japanese username. To a person uninterested in Asian languages, all Japanese and Chinese characters look exactly the same. They look like random lines. They'd select the hypothetical option of "show me Latin instead of Asian characters".
Third, it is very common practice to refer to users on Wikipedia as [[User:username]]. Someone who elected to refer to a Japanese name in an English Wikipedia talk page would certainly have the wherewithal to understand that unless they used the English name seen by most everyone else, or provided a link to it, that they'd be failing to communicate and they might as well be writing in Klingon. Reswobslc 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's very common to link usernames. It's also common not to (especially when the user in question has edited the discussion). Why do you expect everyone to understand and remember that some users see can't see something in plain sight?
If "the vast majority of people editing the English Wikipedia would choose to see a Latin transliteration," you might as well make it mandatory or display both usernames side-by-side. It would leave far less room for confusion. —David Levy 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, I think the points we've covered are no-brainers to most people. It is just common sense that on the English Wikipedia, you have to write in English and not Japanese for people to understand you. The notion that people will be including Japanese characters in posts meant for English readers and expect them to understand them is nonsense to me and most others. (Anyone who disagrees, say something). If you want me to reply any further, post to my talk page. Reswobslc 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I prefer to keep the discussion right here. If you choose to ignore me, oh well.
You seem to be confusing comprehension with recognition. I can't read any Japanese text (and obtained "果実栽培者" as a computerized translation of "fruit farmer"), but I can recognize the characters when I see them repeated from above. There's one heck of a distinction between authoring messages in a foreign language and signing one's username (or mentioning someone else's) in a foreign language.
I don't know why you didn't address my second point. —David Levy 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removal of nutshell

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I agree with it, the last thing we want is to oversimplify this policy that is so complex it has a rather active page dedicated to interpreting it(WP:RFCN). Nutshells are handy in some areas, but not here(in my opinion). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, more than most guidelines and policies, this page is relatively eclectic, with different issues about usernames in general. Anyway, a full, accurate summary should be made in the introduction, not a one-line summary in a floating template. —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Had I noticed that nutshell tag's addition, I would have removed it. —David Levy 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alternate suggestion

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I think everyone would be better served if we divorce the signature issue from the username issue. I suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph on Non-Latin usernames be changed to read, "'Note:' If you select a non-Latin name your default signature will be in violation of Wikipedia:Signature, please consider updating your preferences immediately." Additionally Wikipedia:Signature should be updated to say that signatures need to consist of at least one word made up of plain Latin alphanumeric characters for ease of reference as most contributors are using English keyboards. This way we will have all non-Latin accounts which are using signatures required to provide what is being asked of them, non-Latin name which never use a signature will not be in violation of policy, and no one can suggest en.WP is discriminatory because the same policy applies to everyone equally. --BirgitteSB 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. However, the argument seems to be that its unfair to block people to enforce this. And since blocking is the only way we can enforce any policy ultimately, David and those above in the transliteration discussion will no doubt oppose this because "good faith contributors will be blocked." Technically, those without latin characters are already in violation of WP:SIG, the way that policy reads right now. That whole transliteration discussion *is* about signatures, so your suggestion is not fundamentally different, except it points to a different policy. How will that be enforced? pschemp | talk 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It would be enforced as other WP:SIG issues are. Generally this is done by politely asking people to comply with the policy linking to the appropriate sections so they may see for themselves. Could enforcement hypotheticaly involve a block? Yes, but I doubt someone refusing to cooperate so far as to as to recieve a block will be only in violation of WP:SIG by that point. The main advantage of this suggestion is it would leave people alone until they actually start participating in areas needing signatures, which is one of the concerns raised above.--BirgitteSB 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's exactly what I tried to explain above as that's how non-vandal usernames are dealt with too. And the other proposal leaves people alone too, until they start contributing actively. Yet it was still protested as a requirement in signatures. How is this proposal actually different in practice? pschemp | talk 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the best practices of either proposal would be very different. I think when put into use the other proposal is less likely to achieve best practices than this one. And I think this one has a better chance of demonstrating consensus than the other. I could be wrong. The fact that this has not solicted any posistive responses means I am likely wrong, but the above was my thinking.--BirgitteSB 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, my response is positive. I agree this is a better route to go because the SIG policy is already in place and will not require a policy change. You haven't actually recieved any negative responses, which is find curious because this gives, in practice, the same results as the other proposal. So let me make it clear, I'm in favor of this. pschemp | talk 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions

a) Does this proble apply in reverse - ie someone whose Wikipersona is based around a Latin-script name who then goes into a non-Latin script Wikipeda?

As it is possible to have links using "variants of a word" (eg text as is requires a plural when link is singular or eg the (London)Derry divide) could something similar be developed for names and signatures (ie on shifting between Wikis with different scripts the name/signature is automatically transliterated)?

b) I assume that most people will get the sense of the text reference to "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people... unless you are that living person." as not requiring ghosts, vampires and suchlike constructs (indulging in a touch of pendantry). Jackiespeel 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Answer to a - It doesn't right now, but I think it should. It would be terribly cool if when you went to another wiki, your sig was automatically converted. That's a difficult thing to code though. And b - ghosts vampires and such are not "real" things, so no that doesn't apply. pschemp | talk 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
This does not apply in reverse, although it is possible some other wiki's have a policy that is effectively the reverse of this. All wikis develop their own policies independantly of one another. Although of course there is some influence where people overlap. Some wiki's don't even have a username policy, I would imagine a greater number even do not have a signature policy. Although if people do believe this is a good idea I would encourage them to practice it in reverse as simply a best practice even if it is not required.--BirgitteSB 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
While I have no proof of this, I imagine other language wikis have no problem with Latin-script signatures/usernames, for the simple reason that English is such a dominant language. The vast majority of people on this planet have had at least a small amount of English instruction, even if it's just learning to recognize the alphabet, so those people CAN recognize Latin-script signatures/usernames, whereas the vast majority of English-speakers will not recognize those in Chinese/Arabic/pick-your-script. Even those who haven't received any instruction in English, per se, will still recognize the Latin alphabet. That said, if I edit the Chinese Wikipedia, I would not object to being required to use a Chinese signature (which I would probably do, anyway).
And, just to add my two cents, I think requiring a simple ASCII (or at least partly ASCII, half-and-half would also be acceptable) signature on the English-language Wikipedia is not discriminatory, it is just good sense for the reasons (mostly stated above) that:
1. Many (probably most, or almost all) editors on this Wikipedia will not be able to display non-ASCII or non-Latin characters, and
2. Whether or not they can display them, they won't be able to type them, or be able to refer to them in any meaningful way in discussions like this one. --Aervanath 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why not just update this page (it's the first page newly registered users see) with translations of this line:

If your username contains non-English characters, we request that you include a transliteration (a representation using English characters) of them in your signature. Please change this now in your preferences.

Then get translations in zh, ja, ko, ar, fa, etc etc.

--pfctdayelise (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Account deletion vs blocking

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi.

Even if one cannot delete their user account due to the possibility of authorship claiming, could one request an indefinite block on it that would keep the account but ensure it is useless? 74.38.35.171 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would be much easier to just not use it, but you can also claim your right to vanish. Titoxd(?!?) 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Copyright?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi.

I saw this:

"Accounts with contributions cannot be deleted since this would allow another user to create the account, and claim authorship of those edits. It is not possible for your edits to be removed entirely. They can only be reassigned to something else so as not to violate the GNU Free Documentation License. "

How would removing them completely be a breach of the license? 74.38.35.171 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because on the vast majority of the cases, edits pile on top of one another, and the text added by one user cannot be completely extracted without screwing an article up completely. The text you add, for example, would need to be extracted from every single subsequent revision after yours, which requires a) tampering with the database, and b) tampering with the edits of other users. So, AFAIK, that is why it is not done. Besides, it's not as if we actually "deleted" edits as such; we just shove them into a dark and inconspicuous place where they get stored, to not leave any revisions hanging. Titoxd(?!?) 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Then perhaps the statements should be reworded, as this suggests it is also a technical problem. It does not provide a useful rationale, it simply asserts something without explaining how one thing follows from the other, namely how removing the edits violates GFDL, and that there are also technicalities too. 74.38.32.195 07:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The GFDL licence requires that you show all authors. If a person makes a change, and that change is built upon we need to credit that change. It is not a technical problem, but a legal issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kim's change

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, since we don't agree, we really should use the talk page. My problem with the addition is that technically, according to WP:SIG, a tranliteration *is* required. But, the word required is not used here, and I feel strongly urge is obvious that it is a strong urge. If this policy meant required, it would say required. The addition is redundant and unnecessary. Though we might want to deal with the fact that the two policies conflict too. pschemp | talk 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think requiring it is a major problem, can we change it on both as quickly as possible? It is unacceptable to the larger wikimedia community, and I have already stated in public that it has been fixed.
Someone was complaining about the old policy on slashdot even, so I checked back to ensure that this guideline now states what it was supposed to state. --Kim Bruning 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Um, except the right now, the words are "strongly urged", not "required", on WP:U. The sig policy has been in place since last June. It doesn't use the word required either though, but could be interpreted that way. pschemp | talk 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
1. As currently worded, the advice can be interpreted as tantamount to a guideline (not strictly enforced in 100% of cases, but you'd better have a good reason for not abiding by it).
2. Please keep in mind that the text in question applies to people with varying levels of English comprehension. There's no harm in spelling this out as clearly and unambiguously as possible. —David Levy 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if the disagreement has anything to do with this point or not. However WP:SIG requires the use to ASCII characters not necessarily a tranlisteration of the username. MAny people seem to use signatures with no relation to their actual username on this wiki, in my experience.--BirgitteSB 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Compromise is possible, but requiring ASCII might go a tad too far. --Kim Bruning 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the text at the signatures guideline page entirely again, because no one replied to me there. I really want to stress that this is not a requirement, since I suspect we might have had something like 10-20 fubars based on this rule already (not to mention the one case where the ja.wikipedia admin actually complained ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 12:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am all for being less retrictive. But I really think it is better to simply point people to WP:SIG and whatever consensus shows there instead outlining signature issues in this policy. Many people who edit as IP currently and will be affected by SUL in the future will never contribute where a signature is needed. Those I have looked into before mainly edit pictures and interwiki links. That these people can continue to contribute without being hassled once SUL is implemented in my primary concern. Whatever is decided about signatures is less of a concern to me, but I personally do not see the need to be very restrictive. Lately since this issue was brought up recently, I have been noticing no small number of editors here actually use non-ASCII signatures, so I don't even know what en.WP consensus is on this issue. Whatever en.WP consensus turns out to be, I do not see it a hardship for those editors who will be active enough to contribute to talk pages to conform to it. If all English en.WP editors are asked to change their non-conforming signatures, I see no reason to except non-English editors. --BirgitteSB 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The one issue I see is where the default signature issued de-facto by the software might be seen as non-conforming. That would be ...strange.
I guess the solution to that is to either change the signature issued by software (possibly AI-hard?), or always accept the default signature as being valid.
--Kim Bruning 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I want to reiterate one more time that we need to stress in the strongest possible terms that changing of username is NOT REQUIRED in the case of usernames with non-latin characters. We now have a list of over 200 suspected cases where admins may have misinterpreted this guideline and issued a block when they shouldn't have done so. --Kim Bruning 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't stress that the transliteration isn't required, because it is required (and if it weren't it should be). And I agree with BirgitteSB's points above (note: how would I have said that if she'd been using a non-Latin-Alphgabet signature? With considerably more difficulty...). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

To prevent typos, I always cut and paste peoples names. So for me, there's no difference in replying to Birgitte or to for instance ビルギテ (bi-ru-gi-te). But that's beside the point.
The remaining problem is that there's not much point in allowing all usernames (as needed for the Single User Login transition) if we then block based on the software-generated signature. Sure, you get 100% score on bureaucratically correct compliance, but what was the point of the exercise? --Kim Bruning 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't think tranliteration should be required. I think if there are any restrictions they should be that whatever consensus is on WP:SIG should be upheld equally to all editors who use signatures. Transliteration per se is not a good solution, because the result is not unique. Also many people already use signatures here which have no relation to the username on their account, so I do not see why the requirements should be different in that regard for non-latin usernames. Kim I think the idea that someone will be actually blocked for a violation of WP:SIG is an exageration. Unless someone plans on making a WP:POINT violation out of the issue, I don't see how anyone would actually be blocked. Admins are not trigger-happy about WP:SIG like they are about WP:USER (and I will say they have been trigger-happy about the entire policy not just the non-latin part). Look how many people are currently going around with non-compliant signatures, it is just not something that makes asmins reach for the block button.
Just to be clear on my position, I would be perfectly happy if people could use whatever signature they liked. The issue has never bothered me. However if there really is consensus on any wiki that signatures should be restricted to certain things, even if this consensus is more restrictive than the username policy, I don't think it is on the same level as what was happening before.--BirgitteSB 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with the last point, though clearly we're in mild disagreement over whether a transliteration should be required. It should be pointed out, though, that the username and the Signature policies aren't the same, and that problems arising from requirements concerning the former needn't affect requirements for the latter. It would be good if those who have opinions on this went to Wikipedia talk:Signatures to join in the discussion there. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Countries et al

Latest comment: 18 years ago42 comments7 people in discussion

1. First question: Suppose we had editors called User:Malvinas, User:Falklands, User:Somaliland, User:TRNC, User:Abkhazia, (see list of unrecognized countries, but not only, virtually every country, or territory, or province, or area that has whatever disputes).

Does that fall within...

...WP:U#Choosing a username paragraph 2 where it says:

  • any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

...and within WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames:

  • Names that refer to symbols of hatred, including historical figures or events that are widely associated with such
  • Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view.

Given the above, is it forbidden to use such usernames? If yes, should we make it explicit?

2. Second question: Now suppose these editors constantly make POV edits regarding these areas. Or further suppose that their userpages are designed to create confusion with the respective main articles (i.e. Malvinas, Falklands, Somaliland, TRNC, Abkhazia etc). I've even seen some with interwikis around! Is this a prerequisite for them to be forced to rename, or do you suffice with question #1? Is it a violation of WP:USERPAGE or WP:USERNAME? Or is it the violator of a combination of the two that should be forced to rename? And when; immediately, or after polite requests to either rename or change content? If they removed that content and kept that name, is there ability to police their userpages for reinsertion? And if they reinserted it? Or if they chose to rename, and kept/reuploaded the content?

3. Third question: Suppose the country(/territory etc) named after the user has no apparent disputes. E.g. User:Switzerland or User:French Republic. Do we allow for users to have exact names of countries(/territories etc)? (Also consider with/without provocative userpage content and/or editing practice per q#2 above). Do we discriminate between "problematic" countries(/territories etc); and if yes, on what grounds? Or do we prohibit all of them indiscriminately? Given that we have prohibited the usage of admin-like bot-like etc names, isn't it an omission that we haven't prohibited the usage of country-like names? Is the fact that they "imply an official role" of an admin (or a bot) more important in WP than the implication of an official role of a whole country(/territory etc)?

Bottomline: I'm initiating a discussion for expanding the restrictions of WP:U to include such names. I know there are some editors around with names describing origin (hypothetical example: User:English), but that's completely different than explicit country(/territory etc) names (hypothetical example: User:England). Your input is valuable. NikoSilver 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Having said all that, I propose the following additions:

In WP:U#Inappropriate usernames:

  • Names of countries, territories, political entities, provinces and other areas which may or may not have disputes over international issues. The use of such names creates confusion with the synonymous Wikipedia articles, and may advertise "a cause" that may not be helpful to the project. It may also create a sense of "officiality" in the particular user's edits.

And, in WP:U#Rationale, to expand with an additional paragraph as follows:

While sharing particular points of view is not technically a violation itself, and has occasionally proven constructive in terms of reaching consensus among different views, users who use their usernames in parallel to their editing practices and possibly their userpages in order to promote those particular POV's are highly discouraged. The username may not be used as an alternative title for an article who's content does not match the user's POV.

Opinions please? NikoSilver 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. A username called after a country is nothing but a benign place name. A nationalistic POV screed would violate WP:UP and WP:NPOV regardless of the username. The name is not the problem. --Ginkgo100talk 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, since none of you seem to be aware of the past, let me tell you what has previously been done with usernames of countries. It was decided that just like using the name of famous living person if you are not that person is not allowed, we don't allow country names because there is no single person who has the authority to edit as a country. All the user names of countries that could be thought of at the time were blocked, and still are. Any new ones should be blocked also. That being said, it wasn't codified into policy because it is just common sense. Furthermore, it was decided that adjectives describing nationality were fine, as most users who use them are not causing problems. IF Niko had taken the time to check, he would see that user:Iran and many of his examples were blocked 10 months ago, and hence will never be a problem. pschemp | talk 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

[after edit conflict]
Whereas a sensible person might thing that someone editing as, for example, Noam Chomsky, might actually be Noam Chomsky, no sensible person would think that Mozambique or Germany was editing... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Er yes, except that sensibility goes out the window when things like genocides committed by certain countries get mentioned and then country names just fan the flames. A specific incident of that is what prompted the blocking. There are users out there that are nationalistic enough to think that they are editing for their country. Go read the history of Armenian genocide. pschemp | talk 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I was just dropping random names there. So if it's common sense, can we please make it specific in the policy because one user above finds it's not common sense and he chooses to oppose, while another user points out it's covered (which the first user fails to understand)? NikoSilver 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why stop at countries then? What about BostonMA, clearly a reference to Boston Massachusetts. I believe User:Heligoland was allowed, despite being the name of an island. I can certainly see why this was not codified into the policy. As far as precedent goes, it is informative, but not binding. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
First, countries were blocked because there were a few users causing problems with it. No more than countries was done because we've never had any serious problems with city names, and there is far less potential harm in someone editing with the claim to be representing a city. (Cities tend not to do things like commit genocide in the name of the city and such.) Plus a bunch of admins created all the country name accounts and then scrambled the passwords...so these weren't active editors or anything. I think perhaps 2 or 3 had been registered, and they agreed to change. When crazy POV user Boston starts wrecking havoc on the wiki, we'll look at it. Until then, I don't see a reason to change. pschemp | talk 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, if in practice it's prohibited, then why not inform the readers of this page? Are we hiding it behind other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure like HighInBC points out above? Make it explicit. Mel thought it wasn't and shouldn't be prohibited. NikoSilver 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just don't think its neccessary. If you've got a specific problem you're observing, it should be looked into, but there's not much point in changing the username policy. Like I said, its covered already. If this really, really concerns you, go create the accounts and scramble the passwords. Then those usernames can't be registered. There are only so many countried in the world, I don't see the point of changing the guideline for that finite amount. pschemp | talk 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And what if I told you that there is one already taken? How can I scramble that? Do we force a rename, or do we ban given the content of the userpage (repeatedly and after admin deletions too)? NikoSilver 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What if I also told you that prominent admins do not ban the user because the policy doesn't say so? NikoSilver 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, if you a specific issue, please point it out. That's something different. If it is the content of the userpage, it should probably be brought up on ANI. pschemp | talk 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please bring it up then. NikoSilver 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Um, Macedonia isn't a country, so this precedent doesn't apply. However, I do think the userpage has issues. Make a post on WP:ANI about the content of the userpage. pschemp | talk 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Republic of France aka France is neither? We have a Republic of Macedonia article, but hey! thanks! (Typical Greek POV is "there's no country called 'Macedonia', it's the Greek region of Macedonia and nothing more in the world!") :-) NikoSilver 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Technically no, it the the French Republic, not the Republic of France. pschemp | talk 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I don't get it. It being the French Republic (technically) allows me to start a User:France? NikoSilver 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
User France is blocked. so is User:Republic of Macedonia. pschemp | talk 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, as of this moment, nobody has ever blocked User:Republic of Macedonia. Bastiq▼e demandez 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually in practice it is, since I was the one who registered the account and scrambled the password. pschemp | talk 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why is User:France and User:Iran blocked? Shouldn't you (technically) block User:French Republic and User:Islamic Republic of Iran? NikoSilver 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would consider it if they were causing problems. But they haven't been registered. Most people know better than to do that. pschemp | talk 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
But I thought you said that country names are prohibited in practice. Isn't Macedonia a country name (among other things that it is)? You also said precedent... I'm really confused... NikoSilver 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
No. Macedonia is not the official country name of anything but a long dead empire. Please, if you have a problem with this user's behaviour, and userpage, post about in on WP:ANI. If you have an issue with the username, post on WP:RFCU. This isn't the place to get someone blocked. pschemp | talk 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Then can we rename that article to FYROM? NikoSilver 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and the 'dead empire', was actually (technically) the Kingdom of Macedon. NikoSilver 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! We're over here... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I always wanted to be a leftist! :-) Anyway, guys, this terribly sounds like double standards here. First we block users like France and Iran etc (while technically we should block 'French Republic' and 'Islamic Republic of Iran') creating a precedent for country names in the short form. Then we allow a User:Macedonia to be around spreading hate (see his talk), pseudoscience (see how he relates the modern day country with the ancient kingdom), nationalistic propaganda (see 'names of villages renamed') etc, and we say that 'technically' we should block 'Republic of Macedonia' because there's no country by the simple form name and because 'he doesn't create trouble'? Please see to it, because me being a Greek somehow automatically makes me biased and wanting to block a guy for no reason out of my nationalistic spite. It's a terrible abuse of a (common) name, and it should be blocked per all relative precedents. No excuses. NikoSilver 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
In principle, I'm with Mel Etitis insofar as I think a general prohibition of country names isn't necessary. However, I must agree with Niko - and increasingly so, after first being more reserved - in his assessment that the behaviour of that one specific account, Macedonia (talk · contribs), has been highly problematic. Since the new year or so, this user has done basically nothing else, besides one or two POV-pushing and revert-warring incidents in mainspace, than decorating his userpage with problematic non-free images and political rants. I don't really think that's a topic for this page though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yup. That's why I suggested ANI. pschemp | talk 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was until we clarified:

  • It was decided that just like using the name of famous living person if you are not that person is not allowed, we don't allow country names because there is no single person who has the authority to edit as a country.
  • All the user names of countries that could be thought of at the time were blocked, and still are.
  • Any new ones should be blocked also.
  • That being said, it wasn't codified into policy because it is just common sense.
  • Furthermore, it was decided that adjectives describing nationality were fine, as most users who use them are not causing problems.
  • ...user:Iran and many of his examples were blocked 10 months ago, and hence will never be a problem.

Quotes by pschemp here

  • ...countries were blocked because there were a few users causing problems with it.
  • Plus a bunch of admins created all the country name accounts and then scrambled the passwords...so these weren't active editors or anything.
  • I think perhaps 2 or 3 had been registered, and they agreed to change.

Quotes again by pschemp here. Note, obviously Macedonia slipped the renaming process...

Can someone please ask User:Macedonia to change his username like we did with "2-3 others", being "common sense", since "any new [username of countries] should be blocked also", because "it was decided"? Why do I have to go to ANI? The problem is not just the userpage content, and the problem has already been dealt with: We have already "decided". NikoSilver 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • This is not dispute resolution. If you want the username changed, go to WP:RFCU, where it will be discussed. We don't decide specific cases here, that is was WP:RFCU is for. If you have a behaviour problem, then this is even less the appropriate place, and the place that is dealt with is WP:ANI. We aren't going to change the username policy for this one guy. The rest of your complaints are off topic. I have clearly pointed out the correct places to have them addressed. We aren't going to address them on this talk page. pschemp | talk 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong oppose It may have been discussed in the past, but that does not mean it is policy engrave on slabs of marble. Policies and guidelines can always be changed if there is consensus. Toponyms are, in my opinion, neutral terms in and of themselves. Some people even have country names as their first names (e.g. India, America). User behavior, specifically violations of the user page and NPOV policies, are problems that can be addressed as necessary. But in my view there is no reason to complain about an editor with a place name (including a country name) who is civil, neutral in point of view, etc. --Ginkgo100talk 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rename this policy

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest we rename this policy "Acceptable usernames". The current name of "Username" is weird, and neither describes what the policy is about, nor describes what the policy is. Anyone mind if I be bold? Stevage 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, definitely - thanks for asking first. The policy covers selecting, changing, and deleting usernames; it also covers multiple usernames (accounts). Most of the text here isn't about acceptable versus unacceptable.
I've reordered a couple of sections in the policy; I hope it's clearer, with the reordering, what the scope of the policy is, and that "Username" is a good name. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
How about "Username policy" then. Then it would be in line with "Deletion policy", "Vandalism policy", "Category deletion policy", "Undeletion policy", "Banning policy", "Blocking policy", "Protection policy", "Semi-protection policy", "Image use policy" and "Editing policy". Stevage 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Works for me. You might want to wait a day or so to see if anyone else chimes in, though. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Makes sense. Deiz talk 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This seemed a no-brainer to me, so the move has been made. Note that there was already a page at "Username policy", but it only had four edits back from October 2003, and then was merged into the "Username" page anyway. I've undeleted those edits so they remain in the history, although that will make some diffs look a bit funny. I think I've got most of the double redirects now, but there are tens of thousands of pages linking to this one, so I may have missed one or two. --bainer (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kids

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are there any previous discussions about usernames and userpage content kids can have? For instance, this user claims to be (and obviously is, if his contribs are any indication) eight years old. His full name is his username, and he also gives out quite a bit of personal information (date of birth, home town, and even the elementary school he goes to) on his userpage. Do we have a guideline for that sort of thing? Kafziel Talk 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I left anote at WP:AN/I which is where similar incidents were dealt with before from all I could uncover.--BirgitteSB 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical problems with usernames proposal

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am proposing that we include in the guidlines of WP:U (specifically in the section inappropriaste usernames) that names which include characters that could cause technical difficulties to wikipedia should not be allowed. This is due to a recent case at WP:RFCN where concerns were raised that User:% could create problems when manually entering his username into the address bar due to % being used as ( in the address bar. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a courteous and considerate thought, Ryan, but I think the developers have shown themselves amply capable of screening out such characters at account creation time, rather than leaving such a problem to the chances of being spotted and dragged to an RFC. Nor would they leave fixing a real system-threatening problem up to an RFC consensus. ("Hey, this will crash the system! Should I fix it, or is it okay if I don't?")  Wikilinks like [[User:%]] and {{user5|%}} = % (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) work just fine. Even {{fullurl:User:%}} = //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%25 (the correct URL) works just fine! There's no technical problem with the username itself. -- Ben 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My concern here is that when you manually type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:% into the address bar you get an error. Hence why I've made the above proposal as many user will simply add User:% to the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki to quickly move to that page. I just think this small addition will stop problems with usernames like this in the future RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note, with the full url template you get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:%25, not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:% and hence the problem RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The fullurl template gives you the correct  URL. "That's a feature, not a bug." If you insist on handcoding a URL, it's up to you to correctly encode non-alphanumeric characters like spaces (%20) and percent signs (%25) -- and if you get those wrong, it's not the username's or article title's fault. -- Ben 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Policy addition to disallow Wikipedia references from usernames

Latest comment: 18 years ago63 comments14 people in discussion

From meta, it is quite clear the word "wikipedia" is a trademark. [1]:This policy affects all trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, including the names and logos used for its various projects, i.e. Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikiversity. Some of these trademarks have already been registered, but please note that a registration is not necessary to own a trademark.

This should be written into policy to show that wikipedia references in wikipedia are not allowed RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • The page you cite, meta:Logo and trademark policy is clearly labelled at the top: "This draft policy is currently under discussion by the Board of Trustees and the legal mailing list. [...] This policy should not be seen as an official policy of the Wikimedia Foundation until it is moved to the Foundation wiki". You shouldn't cite a draft as though it were active policy already. -- Ben 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
works for me. Where should it be added? pschemp | talk 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been bold and added it into policy, see this dif to show what I've added RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

great. I fixed it. :) pschemp | talk 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Cheers for correcting my mistake, think this will work well RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing special about the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation as opposed to the trademarks of other organizations (in fact there would be less legal trouble if it is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation). If the problem is trademarks, then it applies to any trademark, and the item has been clarified by using examples other than sports teams, as it does and has always applied to any obvious trademark usage. If the problem is the use of "Wikipedia", then it belongs in the "Wikipedia terms" section. —Centrx→talk • 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Friends, this was a helpful thought. Thank you for looking out for the community. On re-reading WP:U, I see three specifications that already forbade such usernames: (1) "Wikipedia terms. This includes commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or names implying an official position on Wikipedia"; (2) "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups,...."; (3) "Unique trademarked names". Adding a fourth such specification might be a tad redundant, giving not much return on your effort or the additional line. But this did demonstrate your eagerness to look out for potential problems and resolve them in advance, and I for one am grateful to you. Thanks again! -- Ben 02:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

But there has been a massive discussion at WP:RFCN regarding this and it is obviously not clear enough, hence why we added it in to make it clear RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Right. What I think he is referring to is that theoretically, the username policy already forbade usernames with "Wikipedia", etc. Though, it is unclear whether Ben is sincere or is mocking us in good humor. —Centrx→talk • 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am not mocking anyone. I was not addressing you at all, Centrx, since you had not posted when I started writing, in fact my post was delayed by edit conflict due to your post. Ryan and pschemp were making a real attempt at problem-solving, though it might have benefited from a bit less haste and more consultation before editing policy. I would certainly have liked to discuss "Usernames with wikipedia in, or any other username with terms trademarked by the wikipedia foundation" before it was put into policy. Leaving aside the lack of capitalization, and the distinctly British clause-ending "in" (like Terry Pratchett's "Music With Rocks In"); there is no "Wikipedia Foundation". If this line really must be added, may I suggest:
  • Wikimedia Foundation project names, such as "Wikimedia", "Wikipedia", "WikiSource", or "Wiktionary".
Truly, I think it's already covered, but that would phrase it more clearly. -- Ben 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I will ask is that you not alter policy so hastily and without consensus. These are the rules that we're all supposed to live by, not a sandbox page. To write in, rewrite, or erase text here deserves more consideration and broader consent than this change had. I'm reverting the addition. Please discuss before adding it back in, or preferably something better formatted, spelled, capitalized, and thought out. Wikipedia policy bars the use of Wikipedia terms ("Revert", "Edit war", "POV") as usernames, not necessarily in usernames. "User:I don't get angry if reverted", "User:No more edit wars please", and "User:Trying for NPOV", would all be fine. Likewise, "User:All Quiet on the Wikipedia Front", "User:The Wiktionary Witch of the West", and "User:I Love WikiMedia" should be non-objectionable. -- Ben 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quick policy note: It's ok to edit a policy page upfront (see Wikipedia:Consensus, Be BOLD), but if the edit gets reverted (like you actually did) Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRD both suggest that people should now discuss until you get some kind of agreement. Have fun! Note that it's ok for people to put up a "how does this look" kind of thing, though they shouldn't be surprised if they occaisionally get reverted, in this case. --Kim Bruning 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. Still, I'll make this proposal here for discussion before I simply insert it, in case anyone has objections: Extend the entry that currently reads --
  • Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator".
-- to "explain the rules further" and cover project names --
  • Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator"; or consisting of a project name such as "Wikipedia", "WikiMedia", "Wiktionary", or "Wikinews". (This does not forbid clearly non-official names such as User:John Doe on Wikipedia or User:I read Wikinews.)
I'll wait a day. Anyone have a problem with, or suggestion for, that amendment? Please say so! -- Ben 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Your proposal sounds good to me Ben, it would bring clarity to the issue RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ben, I have a mild suspicion that you've been reading too much Ian M. Banks ;-)not a sin, that . Other than that, just go ahead and insert that... we'll find out soon enough if you get reverted. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Having said I'll wait a day for objections or suggestions, I intend to do just that. The world turns; there's sunrise in a new time zone every hour; people wake, work, and wiki-edit on their own schedules; and finally the world will turn back around to the same time of day I posted that, with every interested editor in every time zone having had a chance to comment. This way I'm not making changes during the sleeptime of someone who might otherwise have had a strenuous objection, on the far side of the globe. Even the staff of Olympus Station on Mars could comment, despite the radio-signal lag time. No hurt feelings about being blindsided. There's no risk in waiting (since it's not an emergency) compared to the risk in haste. -- Gravitas, What Gravitas?, er, that is, Ben 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hey dude, it's a wiki! If you make a change to the page, there's a change to the page, and people will respond there! too much gravitas for my taste. --Kim Bruning 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's also supposed to be "revert once then discuss" rather than "edit war" (e.g. by repeatedly restoring a deleted text without fixing the problems or addressing the objections). Also, the box at the top of the policy page says, very specifically: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." One thing the discussion (and reversions) made clear is that the text in the above diff doesn't have "wide acceptance among editors". -- Ben 13:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
That change has been made. (I waited nearly 26 hours, on the principle of the Baker's Dozen.) I hope that further significant changes to policy  will abide by the same courtesy: "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Thanks! -- Ben 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, well, since I still think the policy/guideline/essay tags suck to start with, I never looked at them in detail. I don't think I'm going to bother fixing that particular issue. :-P
At any rate, people are more likely to see a proposed change when you've actually made it. Sure you shouldn't be quite so BOLD with admin tools, but everything fully reversible should likely be BOLDable, I think. Especially if it's a change, not a revert. The way you're working costs you an extra 24 hours each time. OTOH- I guess if you're in no hurry, it does seem somewhat less confrontational. :-) (though in extreme cases you may fail to reach consensus, I guess.) --Kim Bruning 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. You are missing the day when the direction from the foundation came down that said that pictures based on the Wikipedia logo, and unauthorized use of the logo were trademark infringements. The same goes with wikipedia in usernames. It has never been allowed. It implies the person is acting as an official representative and very clearly violates the meta policy against non-confusing use. Whine away about good intentions, but that's not what the username policy, nor the legal issues here are about. Any combination with wikipedia is unacceptable. Deriviatives, such as wiki and wikipedian (note this is a different word) are fine. pschemp | talk 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

pschemp, there's a distinction between using a term as a username and using a term in a username. As pointed out earlier, Wikipedia policy bars the use of Wikipedia terms ("Revert", "Edit war", "POV") as usernames, not necessarily in usernames. "User:I don't get angry if reverted", "User:No more edit wars please", and "User:Trying for NPOV", would all be fine. Likewise, "User:All Quiet on the Wikipedia Front", "User:The Wiktionary Witch of the West", and "User:I Love WikiMedia" should be non-objectionable. -- Ben 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Suddenly this all seemed just so familiar... and there it is, at the top of the page, from just a month ago: WT:U#Usernames containing "God", where it's pointed out that "User:God" and so forth are forbidden -- but usernames containing the word "God", while avoiding any claim of being God, are permitted. "User:God Bless You" or "User:May God Help Us All" might be examples; "User:Goddard" was one example actually given. Yet one person argued that even usernames containing the word "God" were against policy. And here we are again, different words at issue, but the same stance. I'd be tempted to point out that usernames containing the word "hemp" are impermissible drug references, but I don't actually believe that. Do you? -- Ben 06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are you refering to something specific? As discussed on foundation-l a few weeks ago there is no official policy on the use of the Wikipedia logo (as seperate from the Wikimedia logo, for which there is official policy). Though the foundation clearly asserts copyright and trademark rights to the Wikipedia logo, the acceptability of derivative uses has been left ambiguous. In other words, when directly asked about using the logo in other images on Wikipedia (something many people favor), the foundation has neither said: "Yes, we are okay with that.", nor "No, they should all be deleted." Legally they have the right to stop such uses, but have almost never asserted that right (with the exception of the deleted CVU logo, which raised concern about an unofficial (and sometimes controversial) Wikiproject appearing as an official project). Dragons flight 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Specifically, the Logo and Trademark Policy on meta, cited at the top of this thread, is an unofficial draft policy (and has been for 22 months). Dragons flight 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
And using the word wikipedia is already disallowed under the trademark section, the non-confusing username section, and the no wikipedia words section. This is no more than a clarification of something already disallowed. Whether the policy's exacts words on meta are adopted or not, the word is still a trademark. pschemp | talk 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't actually care about the word Wikipedia (or for that matter the username issues at all), I was responding to your "the foundation came down and said...", which to the best of my knowledge isn't exactly the case, especially as regards images. Dragons flight 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Not just "the foundation" but Jimbo himself, according to what pschemp claimed in WP:RFCN#Wikipediasteve (talk • contribs): "this is not something for consensus to determine, this was a directive from Jimbo". No link to that directive has been provided, nor has it been announced that Jimbo and the WMF have lost the ability to speak for themselves and that pschemp has been appointed their spokesperson. Since verifiability (not merely the claim of "truth") is such an important principle of this project, you might think a source could and would be cited, but no: pschemp says there, "jimbo discussed this off wiki, so it isn't recorded." (Place, date, and context all unprovided.) Rather a careless way for Jimbo to issue a "directive", wouldn't it be, considering how much else he's been perfectly able to put on the record, online, on-Wiki, and linkable -- and considering how hard he's insisted we should not rely on any factual claim that can't be verified, not take any editor's unsupported word for it? Suddenly he's issuing unrecorded "directives" by word-of-mouth? And we're supposed to change written policy on the basis of such an unsupported claim? -- Ben 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • To put it much, much more simply: Jimbo knows how to edit Wikipedia. Jimbo knows where the policies live. Jimbo has a Big Pulpit wherefrom he can announce his directives in Big Bold Permanently Protected Linkable Text, very much On The Record. What Jimbo wants, Jimbo gets, without having to go offline to whisper it in anyone's ear and hope it percolates back to the rest of us. Does anyone on any Wikimedia project have even the slightest doubt about this? -- Ben 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

*Ahem* Wikipedia is a trademark, Wiki is a word

It means quick, and is no way a trademark violation, the distinction should be made clear--70.107.112.158 03:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And no one is talking about blocking usernames with just wiki in them. Never were. pschemp | talk 05:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Look at WikiRegulator (disallowed), versus Wikipediatrix (allowed), on the same archive page. Even though the first had just "Wiki-", and the second had a full "Wikipedia-" -- but the first seemed to claim authority, while the second did not. -- Ben 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Applying the reasons behind the rules

(Copied from an RFC/NAME discussion that may be closed at any moment:)

Long long ago, there was a desktop-publishing program called "PublishIt", whose users sometimes found that they literally could not discuss or even mention it on bulletin-board systems devoted to software discussions -- because the BBS automatic-censorship feature would block their posts, or at least mangle the program name into "Publi****". (The feature was simple-minded enough that changing "i" to "!", or "t" to "+", would evade such blocking, so those who actually intended obscenity were not impeded until the "banned-words" list was updated -- which encouraged continually innovative spellings, but that's another story.)

My point is that the auto-block feature wasn't "stupid", it was merely mechanical, as befits a simple string-searching subroutine -- but such behavior would have been stupid in a human being.

Jimbo and the WMF have always had the option to automatically prevent certain characters or strings from ever appearing in usernames, from the moment accounts are created. Not very long ago they chose to exercise that option against email-ID usernames (containing "@"). But mostly they prefer to trust human judgment rather than a mechanical process. When we behave mechanically, we betray that trust.

There is a rational and consistent reason some usernames containing "Wikipedia" have been blocked, while others have not: the blocked names gave the false impression of official authority (or contained other offensive or obscene terms, etc.), while the never-blocked names did not. We should continue to apply that rational and consistent reasoning to current and future cases, not turn our minds off and behave like one line of a subroutine ("if CONTAINS-WIKIPEDIA then DO BLOCK"). -- Ben 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Motion for status quo ante (before 17 Feb 2006)

i'm moving for status-quo (the policy before 17th Feb) until an agreement on this matter is reached, either by consensus or whatever it is. (remove the line that says "usernames that contains wikipedia in it or the line that says something like that). i would like to see the discussion go forward. --RebSkii 17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go for it the until the dicussion is over RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It has been my uderstanding that the name Wikipedida is a registered trade mark (as seen below) but is Wikipedia public ___domain? I think the usage of the name Wikipedia should be used but not as so that the name implies ownership,adminship ect.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator".
-- has been extended to say --
  • Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator"; or consisting of a project name such as "Wikipedia", "WikiMedia", "Wiktionary", or "Wikinews". (This does not forbid clearly non-official names such as User:John Doe on Wikipedia or User:I read Wikinews.)
Of course, further discussion can always go forward. As Kim Bruning points out, "it's a wiki!" I do hope further significant changes to policy  will abide by the same courtesy: "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Thanks! -- Ben 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Question:Does this mean then that the discussions about usernames here [2] are now moot? We should close discussion on them and begin blocking all usernames with "wikipedia" in them? There are a LOT! --Kukini 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Uh, no, Kukini, that's not at all what the above policy snippet is saying. Let me quote one sentence with added emphasis: "This does not forbid clearly non-official names such as User:John Doe on Wikipedia or User:I read Wikinews." Does NOT forbid. If there's some way to phrase that more clearly, please tell me. Thanks! -- Ben 05:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ask Jimbo?

Would anyone have any problems with me asking Jimbo for clarification on the wikipedia trademark and the wikipedia foundations policy on allowing wikipedia in usernames? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am all for it. He and those at central may be key in this issue. Note, this policy has not been in play in the years that wikipedia has been around. It should be interesting. Thanks for taking the initiative, Ryan. --Kukini 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've just emailed him. To all sides, it was a very neutral email so don't worry, but I forgot to save the email before I sent it otherwise I would have posted it here RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is one of those few times where "ask Jimbo?" doesn't make me cringe. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm pleased to hear that as I wasn't sure! I'm putting an editted version of my email on his talk page now RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, put a message on his talk page. He'll come here, or want to discuss this there. Anyway, asking Mr. Jimbo Wales about something isn't a bad thing, depending on what you ask him. Just make sure the circumstances require his attention. Acalamari 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The email can now be viewed on Jimbo's talk page RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I saw it. Nice one. Acalamari 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
That ought a clear things up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Email from Jimbo

I received the following email from Jimbo, hope it helps RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


In my opinion, "wikipediasteve" is inappropriate, but borderline. I wouldn't suggest blocking anyone who is using such a name already, but they should be banned going forward. I don't understand why they haven't been already, always.

It isn't about the trademark, at all. It's about good user behavior, I think. The point is, we should not represent ourselves as being official or whatever.

I see that WP:USERNAME contradicts me to a degree, and I am not really willing to make a ruling from the top on this one.

I guess that is not much help, eh?

--Jimbo

So how do we go forward in the future regarding these names? Simply block usernames which have the potential to sound official on a case by case basis? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, yeah. If a name says just "Wikipedia" (no addition) or adds something official-sounding ("Wikipedia Office", "Wikipedia Bureau", "Wikipedia Department", "Wikipedia CEO", etc.), that could lead a new user to believe this is someone with authority. But who's going to believe that "Wikipediasteve" or "Wikipediawonder" or "The Wonderful Wizard of Wikipedia" is an official ID? -- Ben 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks, Ryan, that's great. I'm just glad to know it isn't the trademark at all as it was doing my head in trying to understand how a name like say, wikipediatric could be both allowed and disallowed (read as wiki pediatric or wikipedia tric) lol. Thanks, Sarah 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • My take is allow no new names with Wikipedia in them, but allow the existing names that do not imply some sort of officiallity(or violate another pre-existing rule), such as "WikipediaUser". HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • there is no clear ruling from Jimbo, thus, i agree with HighInBC, allow existing ones, ban new users from creating those usernames. --RebSkii 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • A wise suggestion, HighInBC. Keep existing users with Wikipedia in their name, but all new ones should be blocked. Also, the response from Mr. Jimbo Wales to RyanPostlethwaite does help this situation. Acalamari 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Names that contain the word "Wikipedia" or the name of any of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects should not be used. Names that contain such words prior to the addition of this rule may be allow if they do not imply an official position at Wikipedia, or violate any of the other existing username rules" What do people think about that? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that seams fair, maybe put the date of the policy in to clarify when it starts? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think that should be done. This is a new policy. Acalamari 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I will add it, with the date. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done[3], however someone might want to go over and bold a few words to make it look like it's neighbors. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Did some cleanup rephrasing to match format, meaning unchanged.* -- Ben 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

*Usernames that contain the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project. (Rule added 19 February 2007. Such usernames created before this date may be allowed if they do not imply an official role or authority, or violate any of the other existing username rules.)

Disallowing .com names

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I propose that add an addition to WP:U that forbids creation of any username with .com in. This would remove ambiguity for any username that isn't quite spam but has the potential to be so in the future. I can't think of a legitamate use of this in a username RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to expand this to TLD's in general. A .co.uk or a .nl username has just as much spam potential as a .com username. AecisBrievenbus 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I agree and should realy have had that in the proposal RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suggested addition

Any user name which contains a ___domain or implies a web address. This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other similar suffix.

Any thoughts on that?RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps "any other top level ___domain", to resolve ambiguity? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I'd go for that;
  • Any username which contains a ___domain or implies a web address. This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other top level ___domain.

RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Done with this diff RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Username length

Latest comment: 18 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion

I propose we change the statement;

  • Extremely lengthy usernames

to

  • Usernames which contain more than 35 characters

This would bring clarification to the policy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good on the surface, just a few questions. What about already existing names longer than that size? Why 35? Does this need to be a policy, since if we reach a consensus to a fixed limit it can be added to the software? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regarding existing users, might be better to put a date in to show when it is applicable from. 35 character was just an estimation after looking at borderline 32 character usernames at WP:RFCN. I still think its a good idea adding into policy even if the software developers decide to block longer usernames upon creation, at least this will give a base as to why the username was blocked and surely only usernames rejected by WP:U should be software blocked? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Valid point about the policy, @ signs are mention even though it is not technically possible to make those names anymore. I also agree with the "grandfathering" of this policy where only usernames created after the policy change are effected by the new policy. Of course older users will still be subject to the old rule where consensus can determine if it is too long(so as not to give a clean ticket to ridiculous previously created usernames). I am not so sure I agree with 35, but I will think more about that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I support a 35 character limit. 35 is still long (35 characters=aaaaabbbbbcccccdddddeeeeefffffggggg), but it's better than usernames which are even longer. Existing usernames that are more than 35 characters can either stay, or the users can be asked to consider changing their names. Acalamari 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a need to change this. Why should we allow "aaaaabbbbbcccccdddddeeeeefffffggggg", but disallow "aaaaabbbbbcccccdddddeeeeefffffgggggh"? They can both be seen as "extremely lengthy" and should be disallowed, while User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg is even longer, but should not be disallowed IMHO, because some people do have long names, and I don't see anything wrong with that. --Conti|✉ 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Good grief, the cases being offered in support of a length-limit are not only "lengthy" but unbroken strings, while actual names with spaces and pronounceable, meaningful words can be longer! I can't wait for the unified login and the influx of Finnish and Russian names -- the latter are even longer if they use the Latin-alphabet transcription; the three components can easily average over 12 letters apiece, so the users will get blocked merely because their culture tends to long names... and won't we just hear about Western-cultural-centrism then! There's no harm this proposed rule would prevent, but there's harm it could cause. Please, drop this bad idea. Why this quest to keep imposing new rules and new limits? -- Ben 09:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
What's the reason for this exactly? I'd say limit it to unbroken strings only, and also shouldn't this be on WP:SIG instead if the issue is page-widening? --Random832 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


I think what we need to do here, is to put something in the policy which could act as a guidline. Usernames which are greater than 35 characters in length are generally disallowed - This would still allow genuine really long names to be considered, as they guidline is not too definate RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As long as so many of us feel strongly about the length of usernames, at the very least, a guideline like that suggested by Ryan above seems at minimum needed. We really shouldn't leave this to the random whim of whomever might be looking at the new user names on a given day. I move that we do something along the lines of Ryan's suggestion. Kukini hablame aqui 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please explain how long usernames are inherently problematic? Random strings of characters are confusing, but how is the aforementioned Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg harmful?
To me, this seems like a solution in search of a problem (and one that would cause problems). As Ben noted, the introduction of the SUL system will render any such attempt highly impractical and disruptive. —David Levy 19:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem with excessive usernames is when manually typing the username into the address bar, or typing a wikilink to a user. Large names are extremely hard to accurately type and one error will mean that the link or address is wrong. Also, if a user has got a sig which is different from its username (even if its just a small difference such as a capital letter) will make checking for errors in the link much more problematic RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why would anyone want to type long usernames manually? Are there situations where copy & paste doesn't work? Also, usernames written in non-latin scripts cannot be typed manually at all by most of us, but that doesn't mean we forbid them. Copy & paste works fine. --Conti|✉ 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. Why is anyone manually typing any usernames? I routinely copy and paste all of them (to avoid making mistakes).
The signature issue applies as much to short usernames as it does to long ones.
Speaking of signatures, I find it amusing that both User:Ryanpostlethwaite and User:Kukini have long, decoration-filled signatures (which are far more annoying and problematic than long usernames are). —David Levy 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agree here, usernames like this could be shortened to User:Abu al-Makhiri as this is the likely real life name of the user. Even if we cut the username limit down to 35 characters, theres still billions of names available (I'm sure someone can work out the exact number!) and usernames with random characters are already accounted for in policy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
And while we're at it, let's shorten usernames like the above to "Ryan Post". It's really not necessary for surnames to be longer than four letters, especially as "this is the likely real life name of the user." Adding random sequences of letters like "lethwaite" is a violation in itself, right? -- Ben 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that, as worded, the policy allows for some long usernames to be allowed while others are not based nearly purely on the random whimsy of those overseeing the issue at the moment. Rules that are undefined allow for the application of them to be inequitable. --Kukini hablame aqui 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The "random whimsy" is called common sense, and usually works quite fine. If you disagree with a decisions, there's always WP:RFCN. I rather have some area of discretion than usernameblocks based on a more or less arbitrarily chosen number. --Conti|✉ 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Given that the reasons for the rule have to do with human beings, not computer hardware or software limitations -- otherwise the account creation process could limit the length more than it does -- it's those human reasons that need considering, not an arbitrary number length. The username exists to mark out each individual editor's contributions, tying those edits and the resulting reputation to that editor. We disallow socks, and gently ask editors to limit legitimate alternate-IDs, because they make it harder to tie contribs to editors. We disallow random strings and much-repeated-character strings because it's too hard to tell which contribs are Gfjfxjfgjfjfj's versus Gfjfgjfxjfjfj's, or OOOO00000OOOOOO's versus OO00OO00OO00OO00's. If usernames that are very long look too similar to each other, they fail the purpose of distinguishing the editors. "This is the beast that never was, its silvery fur shining in the dark" and "This is the beast that never was, its shining fur silvery in the dark" would look too much alike, and it would be easy to confuse the two. On the other hand, there'd be no trouble telling the difference between "And Death Shall Have No Dominion" and "In His House At Sunken R'lyeh Dead Cthulhu Waits Dreaming" and "Throughout History Man Has Observed Society And Its Changes". I'd think they should all use shorter signatures on talk pages, and they'd be addressed by shortened forms anyway, but I don't see how the length of those examples would get the editors confused with each other. -- Ben 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My actual name is Ryan Stephen Postlethwaite, but I don't go around calling myself that all the time. I'm very sorry my last name is so long and I hope it doesn't offend you - but my point is people call themselves by their first and last names - there is no need for middle names on wikipedia if it creates a huge username. There are 330000000000000000000000000000000000 potential usernames if characters are restricted to 35 letters and this is enough for everyone (plus per Kukini)RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
You don't offend me at all, Ryan, and I apologize for using your name as an opportune example. But you're making some very insular assumptions about names. Take "people call themselves by their first and last names - there is no need for middle names..." -- in Russian culture the middle name (proimya, patronymic) is not only significant, but friends address each other by first and middle names, letting the last name drop out: Vassily Feyodorovich Gorodetskiy is "Vassily Feyodorovich" to his friends. Likewise, among Spanish-speakers it's often important to use both family names; you'd never refer to José Ortega y Gasset as simply "José Gasset". Wikipedia is worldwide; it shouldn't be constrained to the names you'd expect in your neighborhood. -- Ben 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
And I neglected to mention a well-known British example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who should never be referred to by just the first and last words of his name, nor indeed by the last word alone. (The Wikipedia article correctly refers to him in brief as "Conan Doyle", and correctly alphabetizes him as "Conan Doyle, Arthur", under the Cs not the Ds.) -- Ben 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a good idea. And really, we should also ban short usernames. Usernames are to distinguish and identify people, and they are not distinctive enough. I mean, who can keep the Bens distinct from the Dans? They look and sound so similar, I find it really quite inconvenient and somewhat offensive. And that's sufficient reason for a new rule. Now, I can hear some of you protesting already, but people with shorter names can just add a qualifier or initial or whatever. Get over it. What's the big deal. Furthermore, since anything less than a clear, sharp line is intolerable, then let us make the minimum 10 characters. To be perfectly honest I don't see what purpose it serves to use borderline names that violate or come close to violating the rules which we worked so hard to pull out of our posteriors, when one could easily have chosen one of the huge number of alternatives available which meet our arbitrary and feebly justified requirements (at least, until we shift them again). Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri (35 characters, so there) 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is me heaving a deep sigh of relief that my actual username is 17 characters long, and that I just use a shorter sig to take up less room on talk pages: *whew!* -- Ben 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Concern over the concept of "apparent"

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

We have a policy that currently reads "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character." (my bolding) I am wondering if we are building in too much room for the judgment of others to presume what is apparent with this wording. Why not allow the user opportunity to clarify why her or his username is not actually random? I move that we remove the word "apparent" from policy. --Kukini hablame aqui 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The case under current discussion relevant to this concern is here: User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, with the discussion here: [4]. --Kukini hablame aqui 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Imagine names that are the Log of 30 which is "1.4771212547196624372950279032551", that is not random. I can move my finger in an organized pattern like so: "QAZXSWEDCVFR", just starting at the top right, then going down, then up and so on, that is not random either. That is why we have apparent in the policy. It does not matter if the user knows how the name was formed, or even if they can explain it. The fact is that is makes names hard to read, remember, track, and type. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I fear that the "difficult to read" argument will not suffice over time, as our numbers continue to grow, all the words that we perceive as easy to read will eventually get used up. --Kukini hablame aqui 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is an unlimited number(atleast bigger than the population of the Earth) of acceptable usernames, we aren't asking people to pick it out of the dictionary. Kukini is a fine name, but it means nothing to me, but it is not random or hard to remember/type/track/distinguish. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
With the digit limit and the presumption that we need apparently non-random usernames (a nearly entirely subjective judgment), I fear that there is not an unlimited number of usernames out there. This site's userbase is growing very quickly. --Kukini hablame aqui 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I disagree, the exponential nature of letter arrangements means there will be WAY more than 6-7 billion reasonable usernames. Also, if in the future we start to run out(say new planets with bigger populations join Wikipedia over the GalaxyNet(replacement of the internet)), policy can change. I see no reason to change it now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nonetheless, the subjectivity involved in deciding if something appears random seems quite heavy handed when considering the spirit of wikipedia WP:AGF. But I will hush up on this now and see if WP:CCC there is ongoing consensus on this issue. Kukini hablame aqui 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
WP:U is supposed to be subjective, that is why we have WP:RFCN. But of course, I agree that we need more opinions. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the problem with random usernames appears when they are of unwieldy length AND random, not simply when they are random. The problem is when the name is not anything that actually has thought put into it, just keyboard pounding like a;oihad;fkjnaw;oius;knmkasd or whatever. As usual, I'll disclaim this statement by pointing out my own signature. --tjstrf talk 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is a related discussion in the history, here is a link Random_Letters_3: The Debate, there is also other related discussions on that page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK...thanks for discussing this with me. I think I understand the spirit of the policy now. Kukini hablame aqui 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I await with resignation the day that names like Einojuhani Rautavaara, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde; Parekura Horomia, Kōmihana Tirotiro Whanonga Pirihimana, and Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi; Simeonie Keenainak, Irene Avaalaaqiaq Tiktaalaaq, and Kenojuak Ashevak; are all blocked as "apparently random sequences of letters or of extended repetitions of particular characters, some of unwieldy length (>36), and all of them hard to read, remember, track, and type." -- Ben 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just checking here...but aren't those actually articles, and not usernames? Kukini hablame aqui 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's right: real names of real people -- artists, composers, and so on -- who might be fascinating Wikipedia contributors if they ever logged in, except they'd be indefblocked for their names before they could type in their first edits. -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Those don't look remotely random to me, they look like names or words in another language. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Languages plural, of the Finnish, Maori, and Inuit peoples respectively. I would have gone on to Hawaiian, Mongolian, etc., but real life called. -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. They also don't look like usernames, which was the subject of this discussion. --Kukini hablame aqui 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
But Jimbo Wales, Sarah Ewart, John Broughton, and Ryanpostlethwaite do look like usernames to you, right? -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Of course they do. The word "User" just prior to the names on those pages is the biggest indicator. --Kukini hablame aqui 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
One would hope that if any of those notable persons decided to become a Wikipedia editor, it would suffice for them to use less than their full names (he says as he starts thinking about usurping the account of User:John B ... -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
For a signature/nickname, maybe, maybe not. I sign with a short form of my somewhat longer username, just to save space on the talk pages. It's often advised not to use one's full real name on the Wikis, due to the chance of real-world harassment, but it's certainly not forbidden... except now maybe to Finnish, Maori, and Inuit users.... -- Ben 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I didn't have to wait long for the calls to block foreign names as "apparently random": Vivekvaibhawdwivedi (Vivek Vaibhaw Dwivedi) was nominated for just that reason, and has already collected some "disallow" votes. -- Ben 06:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suggested modification

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

I'd like to suggest a modification to WP:U that I hope will raise the bar on username blocks to an appropriate level. While reviewing WP:RFCN and the block logs, I perceive a trend tending towards blocking usernames that the blocker feels 'might be seen as obscene by someone'. Specifically, the blocker isn't blocking a username that he/she finds offensive, instead the admin or concerned user is blocking/advocating the block of a username that they think someone, somewhere might be offended by. I feel this sets the standard for this specific type of username block too low, and that the language should be modified slightly to reflect that someone _does_ find it offensive, not that some unspecified third party _might_ be offended by it. Under the current policy, person X could block, say, User:Piehole, and then argue that someone might find it offensive. Anyone who disagrees can only assert their own non-offendedness but cannot authoritatively say "Nobody will be offended". The burden is inordinately skewed, in terms of backing up the assertion, in favor of the person reporting the theoretical case.

The current language lists, as unacceptable: "Usernames that contain profanity, obscenities, or other potentially offensive language (including non-English profanities)." I propose that it be modified to remove 'potentially', along the lines of "Usernames that contain profanity, obscenities (including non-English profanities), or other reasonably offensive language that a user has specifically objected to." The burden should be placed on the accuser, not the defendant, to shamelessly analogize the essential matter. Better language suggestions for the above are welcome, of course.

The current wishy-washy 'well, someone SOMEWHERE might be offended' text creates a 'follow the letter, not the spirit' environment surrounding WP:U and cheapens its role in the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely disagree. I feel the current language serves us well, and I don't think blocks have been excessive. No one person can dictate what is offensive, therefore, the potentially needs to remain. There is no burden on anyone as WP:RFCN is not supposed to be used to review blocks, just to have conversations about them before if an admin feels they are borderline. Nowhere does RFCN state that reviewing already made blocks is its purpose, and though some use it for that, it is incorrect. You cannot say authroitatively that nobody won't be offended either. The potentially offensive wording has been long standing and useful. I see no good reason in your arguments to change it. If you have an issue with a specific block, you should be talking to the admin who made it. In practice, the potentially offensive argument is not abused like you are implying it is. pschemp | talk 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My main request is that the person applying the block or reporting an offensive username actually believes it to be offensive themselves or has seen a complaint about it. I'd appreciate any insight you can give as to why that would be an unreasonable request. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
And indeed, I don't block it unless I feel it is offensive. Your argument is a bit silly though. You don't have to be required to be personally offended to block something. While I might not be offended by User:fuckJimbouptheass because I don't like Jimbo, the name should still be blocked. It is clearly potentially offensive, and as such, the wording of the policy works perfectly. I don't think waiting until someone complains about that name is reasonable either. "Potentially offensive" forces people to consider the whole wikipedia population and think past their own personal biases. Taking that away just results in dictating morals. pschemp | talk 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I also strongly disagree with this change. Pschemp has already put it better than I could have. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I half agree half disagree. I don't believe the intent of the policy is to prevent pretty innocuous names which just could be found offensive by the one-eyed eskimo called Pete, whilst at the the same time as pschemp points out there are a number of names which I personally don't find offensive but I'm pretty confident others will. I doubt any change will have much effect, if I block name X merely because I think someone else might find it offensive, if asked I could just say I find it offensive (which by your criteria is end of discussion). That is to say I agree there maybe some problems with application of the policy, but it isn't the policy which is faulty. I also certainly believe we shouldn't be going out of our way to look for offense, and the idea of listing up every borderline case somewhere, so a group of people can hypothesise as to if someone could perceivably find it offensive is a complete non-starter for me. I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere about the way I look at these, if it's obvious to me that it is offensive or that someone else will find it offensive, I'll block it, if not I'll leave it be (There are enough people look at these, such that if we all let it be, there is a good chance the name simply isn't a problem). -pgk 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
We are really talking about a very small grey zone here. There is no reason why any editor should ever pick an obviously offensive username... except to be deliberately offensive. Doing something that is deliberately offensive goes against several wikipedia guidelines and policies. They should be slapped down hard. I would hope that every editor would have the maturity to avoid even potentially offensive usernames. But when they don't, they should be notified and politely, but firmly asked to choose another. The only time there should be a question is when someone picks a user name that they thought was fine, but turns out to be offensive. For example, (and I am deliberately going to extremes here) a new user chooses User:Joeblow as his name. He honestly feels that this name is acceptable and inoffensive. To him it is a common reference to annonimity. Now there is an "off chance" possibility that "someone" might find this offensive - since it could be construed as a reference to homosexual acts, or cocaine abuse. However, this is an unlikely occurance. In this situation, an admin needs to use good judgment let the name stand until someone actually complains. Blueboar 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Blueboar's comment about names not known to be offensive seems reasonable. A more plausible example might be a user that only speaks one or two languages and chooses a username that is perfectly innocent in those languages but also is an obscenity in some unrelated language. They've picked a potentially offensive username, but have no idea that they did it. This should be able to be handled gently by discussion without blocking. Remember the urban legend about the name of the Chevrolet Nova. GRBerry 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with the proposal and have even removed the word "potentially" myself only to be reverted. WP:RFCN has become a joke. More than half the names that are nominated there are so innocuous as to be laughable. We have users who seem to live for nothing else than to find every username in Wikipedia that contains a religious or political term and nominate them for banning (usually without discussing the issue with the "offensive" user beforehand). Ironically many of the users who vote to ban these usernames have "potentially" offensive usernames themselves. Maybe that's how they found out about RFCN, I don't know. The whole process is like watching someone make sausage. I finally had to take it off my watchlist in disgust, as I was afraid if I participated much longer I would lose my ability to remain civil. It's also worth noting that RFCN is hopelessly skewed to a Western/Christian POV. Usernames that would get people beheaded in other countries are ignored, while usernames like SouthernPride or ILikeJesus are crucified. Kaldari 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Potentially is there for a good reason. We don't want people dancing on the line. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have to reluctantly agree that having the 'potentially' there to provide a grey area is a better option than without. To my mind it should be seen as a way of saying "I can't define disruptive behaviour, but I know it when I see it. And I see it in your username. *zap*" However, there is a clear history of people here stretching the grey area far beyond that. To shift it back where it belongs, could I suggest something along the lines of "language that is considered likely to be offensive, in the judgement of (an administrator|an impartial person)"? Sure, it's not perfect (How do I know how likely it is? How likely is likely? Why does person X get to make the judgement?) but I can't think of any arguments that can't be equally applied to the 'potentially' wording. And to anyone claiming that the current language isn't abused - if that were true, I wouldn't be here right now. A year ago I was asked to change my name, evidently on the basis that there were a handful of country names that could be potentially used to potentially annoy people, and therefore we must systematically seek out everyone with a country name and get them to change their username. That incident undoubtedly coloured my view of the Wikipedia project, and put me off making a larger contribution to it. Today I see the same arguments still going on. I wouldn't normally get involved in Wikipedia policy as I find most of it (harmlessly) tedious, but this is an exception - it creates a scattergun culture of randomly pestering well-intentioned editors. It needs to be fixed. Slovakia 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Statistics

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've put together some statistics based on the recent database dump - here. I haven't made any effort to double check these so take them with a pinch of salt (and indeed some are not necessarily in line with my expectations.) The block information is based on the block log and IIRC some entries are missing from that log due to a bug in mediawiki, I haven't looked into that and if it was in effect for the date range covered. --pgk 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting. So far it seems like usernameblocks are indeed a very small percentage. pschemp | talk 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Issue with trademark policy

Latest comment: 18 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

I would like to raise a few issues with the current trademark policy. First, I'll quote it as it stands:

Unique trademarked names: Non-trivial trademarked names that undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark, such as "Google", "Wikipedia", or "New York Yankees", but not necessarily "AIBM" (IBM), Accord (Honda Accord), Goggle (Google) may be blocked on sight because of legal concerns involving copyright and trademark issues.

Problem #1: This policy invites a group composed mostly of non-lawyers to make a subjective determination about whether a name is a "legal concern" for Wikipedia.

Problem #2: This policy doesn't give any clue as to how "unique" or how strong of a reference constitutes a violation. Clearly "New York Yankees", but where does "Yankees fan" stand? How about "Jazz fan", which could refer to the Utah Jazz, or to jazz music? How about a john-at-comcast-dot-com, which while discouraged as an e-mail address, isn't prohibited, and contains a reference to Comcast? How about User:BuickCenturyDriver, which is undoubtedly a reference to a Buick Century, but certainly not a trademark infringement in the legal sense.

Problem #3: The notion that words like "accord" or "goggle" should be blocked is highly misleading and open to misinterpretation. A lawyer can likely tell you that using these as usernames doesn't even come close to violating any trademark law anywhere. With the amount of stretching that this "policy" demonstrates, just about any username could be accused of being "similar" to somebody's trademark.

Problem #4: The policy is awash in legal inexpertise. If the person who wrote the policy doesn't even know that copyright law (as mentioned in the policy) doesn't even deal with trademarks AT ALL, then the rule was clearly written with an insufficient level of legal knowledge to be doing such a thing. (The person who wrote the policy probably doesn't know that using a trademark as a username on an online forum isn't a trademark violation either, even if it's a blatant use of a trademark, save the exception that the person is trying to impersonate a representative of the trademark owner.) Intellectual property law 101: Trademarks exclusively cover use of commercial marks, and copyrights exclusively cover works.

This rule should either be stricken, revised, or evaluated by Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer, as it clearly wasn't written according to Wikipedia's guidelines for self-imposing rules for legal reasons. "The community [consisting mostly of non-lawyers] should not use its incomplete comprehension of legality to impose restrictions upon itself", and "the Wikimedia Foundation employs a lawyer who will inform [them] if and when restrictive actions are necessary." - See WP:PEREN#Legal issues.

--Reswobslc 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the rule is doing fine, have you an example of where this has caused a problem? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's a restriction just for the sake of restriction that doesn't serve a practical purpose. It's like prohibiting cannabis. Reswobslc 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm with HighInBC, the current policy is fine - non trivial trademarks are disallowed - this removes any potential for legal issues RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is simply wrong. If the name is spammy or confusing, that's one thing -- but that is independent of whether or not the name is trademarked. On the other hand, if a username contains a trademark, but is not spammy or confusing, then there is no issue. The given justification for this rule was legal, and I seriously, seriously doubt there are any legal implications here. I think the whole trademark thing was a red herring, and I have removed this rule. Perhaps you can give an example of where there are legal issues. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Reswobslc, plus what exactly does "non-trival" mean, operationally? Until 02:06, 17 February 2007, that passage read: "Unique trademarked names:' Complex trademarked names that undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark, especially sports teams like the Miami Heat, the Carolina Hurricanes, or the New York Yankees." "Complex" as in word-combinations that made up the unique trademark, as opposed to single words like "Heat", "Hurricanes", "Yankees", "Apple", "International", "Business", or "Machines". "Apple Computer" may have changed its name to just "Apple", but that word by itself is not only (or "uniquely") a trademarked name. The current passage, with ill-fitting terms like "non-trivial" and "copyright" tossed in like gravel in a salad, simply doesn't work. I'm reverting to the version just now quoted, the last before that revision. If it needs to be updated from that, get input from Brad Patrick or someone else up there who actually knows what the WMF wants and needs said. This is a Wiki, yes, but on legal issues it shouldn't be the Amateur Hour. -- Ben 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This rule didn't come from the WMF. Jimbo has an issue with "Wikipedia" in a username, but again Nothing To Do With Trademarks. Just nuke the rule. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Stongly oppose nuking the rule - there are potential legal issues if this rule is not included RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's not, but if you're concerned, go ask Brad Patrick, general counsel for the Foundation. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ryan, I agree with Titoxd there's not, and you are not a lawyer, and until Wikimedia's counsel advises otherwise, the community should not arbitrarily restrict itself based on an inaccurate knowledge of the law as you insist it should. Reswobslc 06:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Uh, last time I checked, I was agreeing with you. Titoxd(?!?) 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're right. Response was to Ryan (as I hoped the indentation level would suggest). I clarified it. Reswobslc 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually the old version is worse. "Miami Heat" is a perfectly reasonable username. It is hot in Miami, and it is not our concern if sports teams choose generic names. For other names, regardless of any legal issues, usernames should not pretend to be those of some company. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A better example could be given. My concern was with the text outside the examples. -- Ben 09:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sports teams were the original motivating example, and copyright the motivating reason, actually [5]. It was also added without discussion. Now that it has been discussed and debunked, we can nuke it. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Comment to everyone, I've asked Brad Patrick about this so hopefully he can sort this out. The page has now been fully protected so we need clarification from him before we can move on' RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


  • Removing the trademark rule, which should not be put back except under the direction of Wikimedia counsel.
  • If WMF has a problem with this rule, they are capable of removing it. I do not see that you have any special authority in the matter.) [6]

In defence of this user, I don't think this was a claim to speak for WMF. Rather, because this rule was not "from above" to begin with, I think the point was that if the WMF wants a rule to protect themselves from trademark infrigement action, they can direct us. I believe the advice cited above (WP:PEREN#Legal issues) is what was being followed here: in absence of such direction, we should not have rules based on bad legal reasoning like this. I also agree with this advice. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In defence of common sense, people shouldn't be editing on behalf of organizations like Google. And fanboys are nuts and shouldn't be editing on behalf of their favorite sports teams either. These names cause problems. The rule is fine. Its meant to *avoid* legal issues in the first place. There is nothing wrong with this approach. pschemp | talk 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
In defense of common sense, my common sense isn't your common sense. In America common sense says we eat cows and never horses - in India common sense says we eat horses and never cows. It's one thing to be impersonating Google, which is already addressed by the impersonation rule. It's another to forbid every user name that refers to a trademark, especially to do it based on an incomplete comprehension of the law. If the Wikimedia lawyer says we need the rule to avoid legal issues, then so be it. Short of that, the community need not restrict itself unnecessarily (did you get the memo? WP:PEREN#Legal issues) Reswobslc 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are talking about an abuse of the rule situation. However, that hasn't happened. pschemp | talk 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It might be better to refer to "company names", etc. rather than trademarks, which is the intention of the rule. —Centrx→talk • 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with that. pschemp | talk 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thats already covered; Usernames that promote companies RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Poop in usernames

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

I've recently noticed a lot of usernames with poop in are blocked for having offensive usernames, would anyone agree that this is not offensive and should be written into policy as an example of a username which is not offensive? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to say, the word "poop" does not really offend me. Nor "caca" for that matter. --Kukini hablame aqui 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, I think the rules against excretory references is just fine the way it is. Using children's language does not make it any more appropriate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Is poop appropriate in the sense of "poop deck" on a ship?? Not being frivolous, but it can be a legitimate username element.

--sunstar nettalk 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And even if its not used in this respect, surely no-one would find poop effensive, mildly comical at worst RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I don't see any value to Wikipedia in making that special exception, nor harm from not doing so. The policy ain't broke, so don't "fix" it -- please. -- Ben 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Sounds like instruction creep to me, as always it's about applying common sense a name which fits the list may be fine don't block it, others not on the list will be inappropriate, block them. We've had 1000 upon 1000 of these, those which haven't been blocked immediately seem to have invariably involved in vandalism. Much of the origin of the username policy is to maintain a certain amount of integrity to the project, I can't see User:Poopeater being a ringing endorsement of our status as a serious project, no matter how good their contributions may be (IIRC the example name there was CumGuzzler or some such, which need not be considered directly offensive). Sure that'll look great in press articles article on <famous person> had libel introduced to it on wikipedia, by users such as Poopeater, I love Poop etc. etc. --pgk 11:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • There's not much in this world that offends me, but as Pgk says, names like that are simply an embarassment to the project. I don't know if we really need to specify either way on this particular issue, but as long as it is left at our discretion I will continue to block them. Kafziel Talk 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree with some of the above comments. I'm not offended by poop, but it refers to an excretory function. Many harmless exceptions to this are possible, but allowing them would mean we will eventually need to throw away the rule altogether. Either we forbid all references to excretory functions, or we forbid none. At the moment we forbid all references, and this includes poop. AecisBrievenbus 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Edit war

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I have protected the page from further editing until the conflict over the "trademarks rule" has been settled. Having a revert war on official policy, especially one we ask new users to review before creating thier username, is a very bad thing. Please continue the discussion on the inclusion/exclusion, and request unprotection when the dispute has been resolved. Administrators are reminded to avoid editing or unprotecting protected pages if they are parties in the dispute; please ask an uninvolved administrator to make any necessary edits or unprotect the page. Essjay (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any chance you could give User:Brad Patrick the heads up to come and solve this? I've already asked him but I'm not sure how much weight he'll give to my comments on his talk page RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Any chance we don't go crying to brad or jimbo about every little silly detail of this policy? Seriously. It isn't broken, I don't know why people think it needs to be so "fixed". pschemp | talk 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going crying to Brad, the page has been protected and this seams like a legitimate answer to the problem - he's the best person to advise us on this RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You have a handful of people saying a policy is needless and created for legal reasons by a non-lawyer and enforcing it like hapless rookie cops, then you have a handful of people who value restrictive policies without regard to their purpose, because "that's the way we've always done it". And if nobody from Wikimedia can be bothered to say a word, then it's the lost leading the lost. The version selected for protection was selected by pure timing and chance, not by any amount of rational thought. If the big "cluster fuck" isn't apparent by now, then I don't know how to explain that to you. It would be trying to explain why you can't see the forest because the trees are in the way. Imagine if retail stores couldn't be bothered to set their own policies, such as their return policy, and customers were debating semantics and legalities back and forth in the aisles. If the current state is "We're protecting the page until it's resolved", and the only person who can really "resolve it" doesn't bother to... in the military, that's called a cluster fuck and gets people killed. On Wikipedia, it just makes Wikimedia look stupid. Reswobslc 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Lets all be civil here, geez, it is a policy discussion, don't take it so personally. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your best bet is to email him and point him here; his email is at the top of his talk page. I have no idea if he'll be willing to make an official statement on this, though. Essjay (Talk) 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can agree on a ceasefire and unprotect the page, or will that result in edit warring? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I am unprotecting this policy as it has several productive proposals on the table and it is not good to keep it locked for too long. Please do not edit war, it will be taken seriously. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Addition

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

Would it be possible to add "developer" to this section as an extension to this wording: Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator". to make it more explicit. The matter arose today at WP:RFCN. Archive link Thanks. Bubba hotep 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be up for that addition, think its should be made clearer in the policy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yep, me too. Also add whatever other role may exist in WP. There are legit normal professions out there that may just be the user's occupation. We should make clear which ones do carry an official WP role, because next we will have a username e.g. "User:Entrepreneur Joe" and people may suggest that it is confusing with WP entrepreneurs such as Jimbo Wales. NikoSilver 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be added, it clearly implies an official role. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Along with "Steward", and "Bureaucrat". There are union stewards, cruise-ship stewards, etc, and legions upon legions of bureaucrats; one or more of them may likewise think of putting the word in their names. I thought WP:U was pretty clear about the examples already given not being an exclusive list, but that didn't prevent a lively debate about "DeveloperDan" on RFC/NAME on the grounds that he was a real-life (off-wiki) software developer and used that name as a "handle" elsewhere. -- Ben 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and added it to further clarify the various official role names that should not be allowed.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I seem to think that it's impossible to solve this supposed problem by creating a list of words. No matter how many words are listed, there's always a legitimate use for each, and there's always going to be more words that could imply official status. Example words that could imply official status: patrol, manager, supervisor, agent, director, operator, controller, auditor, technician, server, guardian, watcher, programmer, editor, chief,... I could go on and on. Examples of uses of words unlikely to be confused as official: User:747 stewardess, User:Aspiring FBI bureaucrat, User:AZHomeDeveloper. Reswobslc 05:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agree with the above comment, I can't see much point in this (not necessarily any harm at this stage either). As always it is the intent not the absolute letter of the policy which is important. We aren't going to be able to list out every possible way that a name can misrepresent authority on wikipedia. Attempting to do so would merely makes the list unwieldy and if it either purports or appears to be intended as a definitive list makes it subject to (more) lawyering when dealing with those not listed. One of those mentioned on the list is moderator, this was added I believe after a username (Moderator2000?) was apparently being treated as an admin and indeed was encouraging such, at that point I'm not sure anyone had seen a problem with the word moderator as we don't have moderators, the problem was "ordinary" editors often don't realise that, otoh I'm not sure even a brand new user seeing just the word Steward or Developer would see any real significance to it without some other words to indicate official capacity. --pgk 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Meh. Per WP:CREEP, we shouldn't be adding every single example on the planet. That's why admins have brains. pschemp | talk 09:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

RFCN

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Some clarity on this would be great. Recently, my bee in my bonnet has been people reporting new editors to RFC purely because of their name, with no effort whatsoever made to contact the new editor first. This, to me, smacks of newbie biting. This policy - WP:U - says that if a username is borderline inappropriate, you:

  1. Ask them politely to consider changing it
  2. Wait for a response (should this be clarified with "a reasonable amount of time"?)
  3. If no response, submit to WP:RFCN.

However, the RFCN header ({{RFCUsername}}) says "please consider asking first". Given that this is the root policy, I've amended the RFCN header to match - changing "please consider asking" to "please ask". I raise this here rather than on the template talk page as this should (hopefully?) recieve more input. Is this a reasonable change? IS this how we want it to work? I am very much in favour of always asking politely first (we even have a suitable template to do so). Proto ► 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Got to admit I hate people shouting WP:BITE as it tends to be quite emotive. There are many ways new users can feel pissed off such as the old joke of first showing users how we create new pages and then we show them how we do speedy deletions... I think it makes not a jot of difference, new or established user. That said I suspect from what I've seen of WP:RFCN recently It might need a more significant overhaul, in the grand scheme of things a borderline username is not a big deal, I suspect (though I haven't checked) that a few people list the majority of the names, which if true suggests it risks becoming a rules for the sake of rules situation. Certainly if doesn't appear to fit the mould of other RFCs, rather than being about general comments/observations to enabled those involved to resolve any problems (No blocks issued by RFC), it seems to be approaching a simple vote with consequence. (I'll hasten to add I haven't looked into this that deeply and I may just have been unlucky on the couple of days I did look....)
The other aspect I personally consider in the borderline cases, is that if the user is here to be disruptive in someway, they'll normally end up getting blocked pretty quickly anyway for that reason, often it's best to just keep an eye on someone if they are contributing constructively there simply isn't a good reason not to approach them in due course and ask them to change. --pgk 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Proto, I agree with your change, and certainly with the preferability of having a one-to-one conversation* with the user before dragging the issue to an RFC. I suspect the reason for "please consider asking" was to bend over backwards to avoid appearing to give an order ("you must ask"). But "please ask" isn't an order, either; it's a perfectly reasonable and civil request. Good change. Full endorsement. -- Ben 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
         * :My work on the RFC-related templates (see {{RFCtemplate}}), especially {{ArticleConcern}} and {{ConductConcern}} and {{UsernameConcern}}, actually owes something to Lanza del Vasto of the Community of the Ark, who'd told me that when anyone came to him with a complaint about another community member, he'd take the one by the hand, lead him to the other, and say to the other, "This person has something to tell you." He'd let them try to work it out together before getting anyone else involved. Then, if necessary, one mediator. Then, if necessary, a group of three. The community as a whole wouldn't get involved until as a last resort -- and its decisions were by consensus, there meaning that the meeting didn't end until everyone either agreed or voluntarily chose to leave the community. (Don't let anyone tell you that pacifists are pushovers or soft.) -- Ben

New addition

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I saw Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made an addition to the list of inappropriate names. I'm just wondering how closely related does the username have to be to warrant a username block? I mean, I don't see blocking Yankeesfan94, or Yankees4life indefinitely. Is it just referring to team names and such? Also, ::the examples posted were all team names, but would this same thing apply to companies and such? I have blocked a handful of usernames because their name implied commercial ties. Thanks, Nishkid64 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

An example I just encountered is: Yankee42pitcher (talk · contribs). The user name was just created less than thirty minutes ago. I'm wondering whether the changed policy would apply to this. Nishkid64 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd say let it go on this one, the page has been fully protected as there was an edit war regarding whether trademarks are an issue or not, I don't see how we can block a username when there is the real chance that this particular part of policy will be removed in a couple of days, hope that helps RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmm...okay. Another question, where exactly do we draw the line for vulgar names? I mean...I've been iffy on blocking users with the word "bastard" or "fruitcake" in their name. I left the bastard one for now, but I already blocked "totalfruitcake". Nishkid64 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I think you might have got it the wrong way round! Think bastard is generally clear cut, and would merit a block on sight. Totalfruitcake, I don't really think infringes on policy, he's saying hes a total fruit cake and I can't see any profanitites or outright vulgar words in there. Generally speaking, usernames that contain words such as fuck, cunt, twat, slag, slut e.t.c can be blocked on sight. The thing to remember really is sometimes these words can be inside other words and be totally harmless, e.g. User:Darcyshitum, on first sight this looks offensive, but actually this could be his name, its cases like these that an RFC/N is probably a good idea RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay. Well the guy's name is Creativebastard (talk · contribs) and all he did was post his Myspace link at his user and user talk page. :-P I didn't block this guy because bastard refers to someone who is an illegitimate child. That's not vulgar, but can be used in vulgar, in a sense. Totalfruitcake just gives me the impression that it's not the food he's talking about, but the inflammatory term. Nishkid64 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what inflamatory term there is in "totalfruitcake", in the UK slang it could be someone saying they were a total nutter (An eccentric, insane, crazy or reckless person.) - Deriving I assume from "nutty as a fruitcake". OTOH Bastard I hear used as a direct insult more often than I do as a factual statement of someones parentage. I don't think either are offensive, but that isn't necessarily the only consideration as per the above discussion on poop. Personally I'd block neither --pgk 07:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Total Biscuit is a character in a Discworld book. It could, I guess, be a take on that. Proto ► 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed amendment

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

I would like to add that username with the = sign be forbidden as that breaks templates such as {{vandal}} and others. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Example: Using the {{vandal}} template on User:Billbailey=legend will result in:User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Suggested wording

Technical problems: Names that contain the character "=" will stop certain aspects of Wikipedia from working properly. Names with the "=" sign in it are not allowed for this reason.

Feel free to edit it mercilessly, I will add it once we agree. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about:

Technical problems: Names that contain the character "=" are not allowed because they result in confusing the code (mainly in certain Wikipedia templates).

Thoughts? (how about we also add it and tweak it there along with its context?) NikoSilver 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Real names - asking in advance

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Username says:

If you wish to use your real name, but it appears that it might violate any of the rules on inappropriate usernames, please contact an administrator. A mutually acceptable solution can very likely be found.

It may not be obvious to a (potential) new user how to "contact an admin". Even if there is a wikilink to (say) the page with the list of admins, it's still a random thing as to whether (a) the admin contacted is inactive or not; (b) if active, the admin is on a wikibreak; (c) the admin notices and responds; and (d) the quality of the answer of one person who may not have much experience with inappropriate usernames.

So - a suggestion, for discussion: What about an (additional) section at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names where someone could ask about the proprietary of their real name as a user name? (I'm not suggesting a section to ask about potential usernames in general; that invites policy-testing and game-playing; only about real names.)

In a nutshell, what about changing the policy from "contact an admin" to "post at WP:RFC/U"? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Muhammad

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

There's an interesting issue with Usernames containing the word "Muhammad". Muhammad (name) is a very common Muslim/Arabic name (it is the most common first name and the most common last name in the world). However, by the letter of WP:U names like User:MuhammadRahman (literal trans: Muhammad merciful) would be banned, since they refer to a religious figure. (Just google "Muhammad Rahman" to see how common this name is)

There was a very recent WP:RFCN here on the name User:MOHAMMED NO, closed as no consensus. This, imho would have almost certainly been deleted without my intervention. I'm pretty certain no one from an Arabic or Muslim community would take offense at this name, as it would more likely refer to a person's name, nickname, or initials (e.g. Muhammad Nor Othman). The issue I have with Username policy is that we have Americans and Europeans with scant knowledge of Islam and Arabic culture making judgments on what would be offensive to our communities. In the discussion I linked to, the nominator didn't even realize that "Muhammad" and "Mohammad" were different transliterations of the same name. One of the voters referred to Muhammad as God, an assertion that would get you stoned to death in some countries. I'm sure they mean well, but can these people really decide what is offensive to a Muslim and what isn't? I suggest that rather than posting on WP:RFCN, usernames that might be potentially offensive to Muslims be referred to Wikiproject Islam instead. Borisblue 13:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad I was spared the stoning! :-) Btw you are right, of course, but still it could definitely be interpreted as an implicit reference to the founder of Islam (which is also not allowed IMO by WP:U). I strongly believe that in such usernames where sensible doubt can be raised, the "burden of proof" should lie on the user's side. If there is adequate clarification that no implication of religious figures is intended, then everything is OK. However, if there are doubts, and even if non-eligible (in this case e.g. Christian) users perceive it as "inflammatory", then the username should IMO be disallowed, on the grounds that this confusion will be extended to the editors that interact with the user concerned on each and every edit of his. Wikiproject Islam (or whatever applicable), while obviously more conscientious on the issue, will not be there to clarify every confused fellow editor. NikoSilver 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As an admin I would not block usernames with Muhammad on that factor alone. Just like users with Jesus Gonzoles (or other similar Spanish style username) for jesus as that is a common username there also. But there should be other factors that play into the block. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Me neither, but if I were an admin, I'd certainly block usernames such as Muhammad/Jesus coupled with "NO"/"NEVER"/"NO WAY"/"NADA"/"KAPUT"/"ZILT"/"NEIN"/"NICHT"/"NON", and I wouldn't care if some wild Google search provided the (extreme IMO) possibility that they could be "real names", unless and until it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is so. It is these cases I refer to as "potentially offensive", and not "Jesus Gonzales" or "Muhammad Noah" or whatever else that cannot be misinterpreted as a potential religious offense. NikoSilver 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof should be on the community's side — and it should be a strong demand for proof. At the moment the letter of the law is being pursued with scant regard for common sense; people who are either oversensitive themselves or overprotective of the supposed sensitivities of others are bringing ridiculous cases to WP:RFCN. OK, they're often laughed off the page, but not always (not often enough, I think).

WP:U offers guidelines, not polcies, and shouldn't be treated like an inflexible law to be applied without thought or question. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree on the burden of proof being the communities. However, it is a policy, not a guideline. It is arbitrary enough for interpretation though. HowIBecameCivil 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed that it is a policy but one requiring interpretation. That is what WP:RFCN is for. I would like to see a consensus for allowing the names Mohammed (and variations) and Jesus when it is not clear they are meant in a way that would be considered offensive, inflammatory, or blasphemous to Muslim and Christian believers, respectively, due to the fact that these are also common names. --Ginkgo100talk 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, yes, I was careless — a policy it is. As Ginkgo100 points out, though, it doesn't replace our intelligence abd common sense. It was created for a reason, and applying it where that reason is absent goes against its spirit if not its letter. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unprotected

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have unprotected this page because there are a few proposed additions that seem likely to succeed. A major policy should not be protected for too long. I please do not engage in edit warring, it is often preferred to block users than to protect pages. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Randomness policy

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

I have restored the policy in the edit before this edit [7] one, as the page clearly says: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus". As there was no discussion whatsoever before making the change, the revision did not reflect consensus, it was just one user's opinion. Although the change has been there a year now, that doesn't necessarily reflect any consensus, as the page clearly says at the top [This page represents consensus]. So a user making an out-of-process unilateral change effectively creates consensus, because subsequent readers would then read the page and believe that its state represents consensus. This is clearly contradictory with the statement that changes should not be made without consensus.

Accordingly, I have reverted the edit, as the original change was invalid as it was made without any consensus, mention, or discussion whatsoever (not even in the edit summary), and I don't see that I should have to justify removing a change made on the basis of one user's opinion Nssdfdsfds 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

For everyones information, the part that Nssdfdsfds reinstated was originally removed by an IP earlier today [8] Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think you're misreading the edit history..... Nssdfdsfds 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So I am, in that case, your removal of the statement about usernames which contain random or apparently random letters was against consensus, please could you revert yourself and discuss it here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I didn't remove it, I restored it to before when it was changed against consensus here. [9] As I explained above..... If you look at the talk archives, this change was entirely unilateral, without any discussion at all, let alone consensus. So as I see it, if someone makes a change against consensus without so much as a word about it on Talk, it doesn't magically become consensus, because as I explained above, any change made to policy becomes *APPARENT* policy, because of the disclaimer at the top telling people not to change without consensus - subsequent editors to the page assume it is consensus policy, because of the warning, even though it's not. So any editor just inserting his own opinion can undermine the process. This should not be allowed to stand. So I don't see any reason to revert what is after all a change made against the explicit statement on the page to get consensus first. Nssdfdsfds 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd say you need to quit reverting it as you're only guilty of behaving in the way in which you accuse User:Freakofnurture of behaving. You're not so much reverting as making a policy change at this point. It needs to be discussed first now, as two so-called unilateral edits will not make it right - Alison☺ 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I already reverted twice and stated my rationale, but Nssdfdsfds reverted back. However, I'm not getting into a revert war over this - Alison☺ 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's the Talk Page when Freakofnurture made the unilateral change. There's nothing to justify the change..... No consensus, not even a mention of it. [10] Nssdfdsfds 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is a very respected part of policy which many people abide by, there have been no requests for its removal completely that I am aware of, again, please revert yourself and we can discuss it here first Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As I've said, if somebody decides to change the policy then people will abide by it and uphold it, just because it is understood to represent policy. That doesn't mean the change was valid.
By analogy, if the police are told that there is a new law in the land, they will uphold that law without question - it's obvious that any system of upholding rules works this way. But if it turns out the law was never actually passed, and in fact someone at the printers just decided to add it on to the lawbook, it is in fact not valid law, and then they would have to STOP enforcing it, and then the lawmakers would need to decide whether in fact they did want to make that law. Any quasilegal system has to work in this way.
For this reason telling me to revert is absurd, as you've asserted that there is consensus without establishing that any such consensus exists - you are effectively endorsing people to make their own unilateral changes without consensus, even though that is against policy. This is logically contradictory. Nssdfdsfds 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
There has been consensus here because its been in the policy for over a year, hence why I am asking you to revert, because you've removed a sentance from policy without discussing it first, regardless of when or how the original statement was added, this is an excepted official policy which noone but yourself wishes to change Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Un-indenting for simplicity of editing: It's been discussed several times since Freak made the edit, so even if it wasn't endorsed as consensus at the time it was made, it's certainly endorsed now. Examples of discussion on the subject are cited in the RFCN thread on your username (including a re-confirmation of the policy from last month). Also, re-reverting.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er, as I've said, the fact it's been in the policy for over less than a year proves nothing. The policy says at the top that it represents consensus. Therefore nobody's going to change it because they've been told it represents consensus, even though it was a unilaterl change. So that's a non-starter as a justification. And consensus? Looking at your link, I don't see any. The only user who was endorsing the policy as it was unilaterally created was inBC, Kukini wanted to modify it, as did Benedict_the_moor, and tjstrf. And that's with these people starting from the assumption (which is incorrect) that as the policy is on the page it must have followed consensus. Nobody noticed that some user just took it upon himself to add it, but despite that, there's still no agreement on it. So I'm not sure why you're saying it's been endorsed, as it clearly hasn't Nssdfdsfds 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • "Therefore nobody's going to change it because they've been told it represents consensus" - not true. It's being discussed here right now, so state your rationale and let's go for consensus. You're challenging it, right? - Alison☺ 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nope, I'm saying if you want to make it policy, establish consensus. That's the correct thing to do. Until there's consensus established (rather than just changing it and nobody noticing/objecting), it should not be in the policy. Nssdfdsfds 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
"Nope, I'm saying if you want to make it policy, establish consensus" - great. So go ahead and do just that, because right now, it is policy. - Alison☺ 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • If anybody wanted to change it back at that point, they would've changed it back. It's not like this snuck under the radar... That said, consensus can change, so if you want to have another debate on the merits of the policy, that's fine. I think it should stay the way it is because it's difficult to type, and it'd make it difficult to distinguish between different users with nonsense names if we permitted nonsense names. Also, I think it helps discourage a certain amount of casual vandalism (by discouraging the creation of throwaway accounts), which is a good thing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy&oldid=113482110"