Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9

Rewrite of "promotional usernames"

Gurch's rewrite fixed some poor wording in the username criteria, but unfortunately he significantly changed the sense of the "promotional usernames" bullet point.

It used to say, rather redundantly, "Promotional usernames promote a company or group on Wikipedia, if the user promotes it." The last clause was there to remind editors that they should not block people for having usernames that might be used to promote, but haven't yet. A user with the name of a company, for example, should be warned about possible conflicts of interest and possibly encouraged to change their name, but should not be blocked outright unless they're already abusing their name. (If they create a new name like the block message asks them to, then they still have a COI but now we don't know about it!)

Remember that higher up in the policy it says: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended."

Gurch changed that to "Promotional usernames appear to promote a company or group on Wikipedia, which is not allowed". This changes the sense significantly, saying that users can be blocked simply for appearing to be promotional. That's not good.

I've rewritten it to something that hopefully captures the original intent of Mangojuice's version, without the redundant wording: "Promotional usernames are used to make edits that promote a group or company on Wikipedia." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've explained many times before why promotional usernames can be blocked without promoting a company, if it's non generic - we do it to stop spam in logs and histories and we don't want someone outside the company making edits that appear to be from the company. Promotion by editing is an editing abuse, not a username issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've explained many times before why instantly blocking people for promotion they might do, or for the rather ineffective "promotion" of having a company name in a history page, is unhelpful to Wikipedia. I don't think company names are exactly a great thing -- I agree with the "not recommended" wording -- but there are much more appropriate ways to deal with this besides blocks. As far as I know, this and WP:NLT are the only Wikipedia processes that use blocking as a first resort.

I am aware that there are disagreements over some parts of the username policy. What upsets me is that when people don't like the consensus policy we worked on for months, they prefer to just enforce the old version as if it never happened; they don't defend their position here until I bring it up. If you're proposing to change the "not recommended" wording, get a proposal started, but I'm against it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep on referring to editorial abuse - this isn't supposed to be under the scope of this policy. You seem to have decided on your own back that we are going to allow promotional usernames to edit if they don't promote. I'm sorry, but it is upto you to demonstrate consensus for something that has been widely accepted as policy for a long time. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How can there be a "promotional username that doesn't promote"? I support blocking promotional usernames, but names that are not used to promote are not promotional.

When Mangojuice wrote this policy, he acknowledged that there are certain cases where a username has to be taken as part of a pattern of undesirable editing, because you can't tell the intent just from the username. One of these cases is promotion. There are usernames that are promotional by their very existence, but they are somewhat rare. You can tell that names that simply name a company aren't part of this class, because the policy says under "Company/group names" that we don't block simply for having a company name. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A name can be promotional in and of itself, even if they have not made an edit yet. "User:myawesomewebsite.com"(assuming such a site existed) can be blocked on sight and we don't need to wait for an edit. So I think your provision is not conducive to existing practice and reasonable prevention of promotion. I have never seen a consensus that shows otherwise either. Ryan also makes a good point about editing violations vs username violations. 1 != 2 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this provision, I just reworded it. Gurch had a good reason to rewrite the previously existing text -- it was very awkwardly worded -- but he inadvertently changed the meaning.

When it comes to "conducive to existing practice", I don't think that's how policy should work. We shouldn't say "well, people don't follow this policy, we should be conducive to existing practice by changing it to what people actually do". That would result in a rather amusing username policy, looking something like this:

Usernames may be blocked for the following reasons:

• Ugly usernames offend someone's sense of aesthetics.
• Disagreeable usernames express an opinion that some Wikipedian disagrees with and wants to remove from Wikipedia.
• Mildly unpleasant usernames might bother some hypothetical person, somewhere.
• Unlucky usernames appear on the screen of a TWINKLE user.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Someone registers with a name of 'www.example.com', but doesn't make any edits - who sees this name? How do they get to see it? If WP wants to prevent url usernames it'd be easy to have that in the policy - "Don't use an URL as your username. It'll be blocked." Dan Beale-Cocks 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New user accounts can be seen at special:log/newusers, whether they have edited or not. Generally usernames which are inappropriate but have not edited are not blocked unless they are blatanly offensive (personal attacks, legal threats, profanity, or whatever) – Gurch 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that new users don't read WP:U, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, was it necessary to revert all of my other changes in the process of fixing that bullet point? – Gurch 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Sorry, I must have been looking back at what changed and clicked "edit" without thinking. I think I've now put it back to what it would be if I had done it correctly and others had made their changes after me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "conducive to existing practice", I think WP:POLICY puts it best when it says policy change comes from "The codification of general practice that already has wide consensus. These are statements of practice that document the way Wikipedia works. A single user cannot dictate what best practice is, but writing down the results of a well-used process is a good way of making policy. The easiest way to change policy is to change common practice first." 1 != 2 05:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There has not been a "wide consensus" to block more users for their usernames in a long time. There was a smallish consensus to rewrite this policy so it didn't recommend blocking in so many absurd cases. There have also been fairly wide consensuses in broader forums, like the Village Pump and MfD, that username blocks are out of control. But there's no wide consensus for more username blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points:

• Blocks are meant to be preventative, so if a name would be promotional if it was used to edit, such as a company name or url, then a block is warranted.
  • Blocks are not, however, for things the user has not done and may not do. If a username named for a company is used to discuss incorrect factual information on the talk page of the company's article, then the username is being used to disclose a COI, not to promote, and blocking it would be a bad move. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• A block does not require an assumption of bad faith, if a user did not intent to be promotional, but had the url of his blog as his username, it is still blockable.
  • Blocks are a tool to be used in cases where they would improve Wikipedia. Blocks on good-faith users do the opposite.
  • There is nothing wrong with URLs of blogs as usernames, especially when those are the standard on many other Web sites. We rightly let User:SchuminWeb edit under the name of his web site, for example. That's his online handle, and that plus ".com" is his URL. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Blocking a username is not blocking a user, the person can request and unblock to change their name or can just create a new one. If the admin did their job there will be a polite message explaining all this.
  • The person can also go on to a more welcoming Web site and tell all their friends how hostile Wikipedia is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Policy is descriptive of practice, not prescriptive.
  • That doesn't mean you can ignore policies that were made by consensus. If I were to block Jimbo Wales, I couldn't back it up with a "descriptive policy" saying that it's okay for Rspeer to block Jimbo because he just did. See your quote above, where descriptive policies require a wide consensus. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• No admin is required to perform a block if they don't think it is warranted.
• Anyone can request an admin action be reviewed.
• I have never seen the community decide a promotional name must edit to be blocked, nor have I seen such a block be reversed by consensus of the community.
  • The names you are talking about may not be promotional names, and in many cases (such as a company name) we can't tell until they edit.
  • Unrelatedly to the company name issue, the part of the community that cares about defending new users, including me, does not try to reverse blocks because we know there is no point. The user is gone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1 != 2 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one point at a time. There is a long standing practice that usernames that themselves are promotional should be blocked, this consensus is evident both in long standing policy and practice. If a user has chosen a promotional username then it is not a block for something a person has not yet done, it is blocking for choosing a promotional username. A person is welcome to discuss their company, but not in their username. Blocking a promotional username does improve Wikipedia by reducing promotion. While you think there is nothing wrong with urls, they have really only the purpose of putting links to a website after each signature and edit, and thus are promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to come to get hits on your webpage.

Yes a person can move on if they encounter one of our rules and don't like it. They same person may move on when they realize they need to cite their sources or don't like how we handle deletions. A promotional name is a name that promotes on Wikipedia, a company name has this effect regardless of motive.

We really have discussed all this over and over, and we know each others opinions. I know we disagree. So I will just make the point that there is not a consensus to change this long standing practice of blocking names that promote a company. If you think a name has been blocked that is not promotional then you can challenge the block through the blocking admin or WP:AN. 1 != 2 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My responses weren't just about the issue of company names and URLs, which I recognize are two (partially overlapping) gray areas. The arguments you have been using are arguments that I find very harmful when applied to all usernames, particularly the one where you say it's okay to block good-faith users. Perhaps I should focus on that point instead of the two cases of company names and URLs, and say it very simply: no, it is not okay to block good-faith users. If an unwritten Wikipedia tradition tells you that it is, that tradition is harmful and should be abandoned. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I've been away a while, and I come back, and some good stuff has moved on in terms of the username policy, but this point is still going. I'm not sure whether to be surprised or not. Here's my take.

It's best not to block good faith users. However, it does sometimes happen that a used has a really really not good username, and is a truly good faith user. That has to be dealt with. I am confident that it's possible to use blocks in this case and make it clear that it's just the username, not the user themselves, that is being judged. I think I've even seen it done, although not through use of the templates alone. There has to be a real message on the user's talk page as well, not just a block that a user won't have any way to know has happened until they try to edit.

Thing is, I'm sure I've said all this before, and I think other people have to. It's like there's a tape-loop going on... SamBC(talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am arguing is that a username can be promotional even if the user with that username not edited, and that the wording "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia" is a reasonable definition of what a promotional username is. If there is a disagreement as to if a username is promotional or not that is one thing, but I cannot see the benefit of a hard and fast rule requiring that a name edit before being promotional. It just does not mesh with the reality of the situation. 1 != 2 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally against hard and fast rules, especially of the kind "every time you see this kind of name, block it". Rules can't tell you when it's a good idea to block and when it's not. As an example that fits the current discussion, you often need to wait to see if a username is really promotional, because if you don't, you have nothing to go on but overly simplistic rules like "company name = promotion". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, a company name as a username is generally seen as promotional depending on the name itself. BravoGolfHotel, wasn't it, was a rather silly example. Similarly, any company name which could be seen as a reasonably normal phrase is probably not something to be blocked. Claiming the the set of wikipedia usernames and the set of all company and website names anywhere in the world must be disjoint is, to be frank, silly. However, names that are clearly that of a company, and there's no plausible idea that they might be used except as a reference to that company, are promotional in the eyes of a great many users, myself included. SamBC(talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of this tempest in a teapot. Basically all usernames that match a company are here for illegitimate purposes and those users aren't surprised to be blocked. If there are official company representatives out there that do get blocked for this kind of reason, it's an error that can be corrected, and it's not the greatest username anyway to just match the company name (remember, they may work for the company but that doesn't mean that they and the company are one and the same, as such a username would imply, plus there's the role account issue). Despite that Until has continually espoused opinions I strongly question concerning these borderline username issues, they just don't come up very much. Mangojuice^talk 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Promotional usernames?

The opposite of promotional usernames, those usernames that denigrate or serve to attack persons or companies, isn't explicitly covered under this policy, but would seem to be inappropriate per se. I noticed this after observing the edits of new User:FormerDeltaCustomer which have been solely attempts to add the external link www.deltareallysucks.com to the Delta Air Lines article. Shouldn't this type of username be covered explicitly in the policy? AUTiger » talk 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already covered. That user ought to be blocked for linkspamming, and that block ought to be indefinite as the username itself is part of the pattern of behavior. (Bullet point 3 under "dealing with inappropriate usernames"). Mangojuice^talk 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely believed it was implicitly covered, but didn't see anything explicit; if the consensus is additional language is unnecessary that's fine. AUTiger » talk 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you do with a productive editor who has a name of "Former_Company_X_Customer", especially if that user makes no edits to any articles related to 'company_x'? I hope that blocking is last on a list. Poor behaviour gets blocked for the behaviour. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They would not be blocked (though they may be encouraged to change their username). See the third bullet point under "dealing with inappropriate usernames" as referred to by Mangojuice – if a user is blocked for, say, spamming, then their username may be taken into account, and may for example allow a limited block to be extended to an indefinite one in order to disallow that username, while permitting the user to return with a more appropriate username after a short time – Gurch 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think FormerXXXCustomer is inherently inappropriate (until edits prove otherwise) although it raises warning flags for scrutiny. However, certain variants pretty obviously would be blockworthy on sight. e.g. DeltaSux, FireRonZook, ImpeachBush. AUTiger » talk 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples linked in

The examples page for usernames, suggested a while back, has been linked in. Hopefully not too prescriptive, just a simple explanation and main examples. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. We had a long debate about the examples quite recently, they were removed deliberately and for good reason. I would have objected earlier but I haven't been on Wikipedia as much as usual due to the holidays. Mangojuice^talk 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked and saw discussion of specific issues (name length being one on this page) but no voices saying a general clarification was unhelpful to take note of. Link? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling. Apparently the bot automatically archived that discussion to /Archive 9 but there was no link above. There is now. This was a long-term, consensus-based decision. Also, note the second section on the current discussion page. Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad consensus can change because I think examples are very useful. While there may be a consensus to keep the examples out of the policy, I see no harm in linking an essay containing those examples to the policy. It can be marked with a tag that makes it clear it is not policy. 1 != 2 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful to who? To you? Mangojuice^talk 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To those who find it useful, it can be available. To those who cannot see the use, they can just not read it. 1 != 2 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And those who find it harmful, what should they do? I'm serious, though - who is this really useful to, because I don't believe it's needed by anyone. Certainly seasoned admins don't need it; it confuses the issue for new and/or aspiring admins, who should focus on the high-level principles not the low-level examples. For those trying to pick a username, (1) no one ever reads this policy first, and (2) a list of what not to do for them is in any case a violation of WP:BEANS. Mangojuice^talk 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. I think the examples can provide useful clarification. However, there is also reasonably evidence that they are harmful (spurious reports from Twinkle users still come in, because the examples are still in Twinkle even if they aren't in the policy). Giving the examples any sort of "official" sanction will, in my estimation, generate that sort of problem and misunderstanding. However, without examples the policy is a little theoretical and becomes a bit too much "I know it when I see it". SamBC(talk) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples are clearly written as principles with fairly non=contentious examples of each. A user who rejects usernames wrongly is as much open to being left a note (or explanation, or warning) as one who tags articles for deletion wrongly. We can handle both. But it's hard to improve without examples to refer to for those seeking information. We don't delete CSD because people may tag incorrectly. We teach people how to use the information given, and we put it in terms of principles that are broadly useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is much more akin to someone creating a bunch of speedy deletion tags for criteria that don't exist. We would delete the tags in those cases. Examples are not reasons but they will be used as reasons if they are linked in from the policy. I am happy to try to correct the behavior of those who make bad reports but having the list of examples makes it very difficult to point out the error. Yes, it says right there that people should "use common sense" and not regard these examples as prescriptive, but it's hard to tell someone not to go reporting User:Kicking222 because it's not offensive when they point to the list of examples and mention that this refers to a real-world violent action. I've tried doing this before but it's not worth it, it's too difficult. Plus, those examples REALLY need to be removed from Twinkle, which User:AzaToth has been extremely slow to do despite months worth of complaints, and putting them back in will only impede that. Mangojuice^talk 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly oppose putting back the examples. Username blocks should come from high-level policies and common sense, not from "your name sounds kind of like this one example". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You do know it when you see it. When we try to lay down strictly-defined rules for what can't be in a username, we just catch new users in traps for no good reason. The advantage of high-level rules, like what we have now, is that you can combine them with common sense and your good judgement about what will improve the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The buying and selling of usernames.

I just saw this. The buying and selling of usernames on Wikipedia seems to be supportive of violations of WP:Sockpuppetry. Imagine: A troll doesn't NEED to gain the trust of the Wikipedia community. He can just buy an admin account on eBay. Zenwhat (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That post looks like a joke. Transfer of accounts in this way would constitute account sharing, which is already prohibited; there should be no need to mention this specifically. It's also extremely unlikely that it would actually happen – Gurch 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Real names stuff

As folks may have noticed, MangoJuice recently excised the statement "if your real name appears to be inappropriate, but you wish to use it, you should e-mail an administrator to work out a solution". On my user talk and the edit summary, Mango suggests that this is redundant to the section on real names. Of course, we both agree that the section on real names doesn't say the same stuff. Mango suggests that it is also unnecessary because the policy says that a real name is never inappropriate. I think that it doesn't quite ever say that, although there's an implication.

I think that something along the lines of that and the section Mango removed (and I reinserted) should be said in the real name section. The policy as it stands certainly implies that a real name may get blocked, although it should be unblocked once the person's identity is established. I think the excised section is meant to lay out a path in the situation where this can be anticipated, and dealt with in advance. It might not do it correctly, but I think something in the policy should do that. So, let's talk. SamBC(talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say that a real name is never inappropriate. But real names are (basically) never inappropriate. A real name cannot be confusing or misleading; it's ridiculous to call it promotional even if the user creates vanity pages on themselves, and while in theory someone could have an offensive real name this doesn't actually happen. And if it did, how is some random administrator supposed to respond to an email that says "Hi, my real name is Stalin McHitler and I want to use it on Wikipedia. What should I do?" Mangojuice^talk 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Largely true, but some people have real names that do get brought up as problems (especially foreign names that happen to have english profanity as a substring, but also with surnames like "Cocks"). I think that what's there isn't right, but it does aim at something that should be aimed for. Say I'm a new user who is called Stalin McHitler (now you've said that, I can't think of a less silly hypothetical for offensive) or Anthony Blair or suchlike, and am actually reading WP:U before registering (it happens occaisionally). It would be nice to have some guidance as to some sort of way forward. Contacting an admin probably isn't the best path, but I think something should be said to speak to this situation. SamBC(talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a stab at rewriting now. I think I can see what the issue is. Mangojuice^talk 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I think it says what needs to be said, succinctly and without being misleading or weird. SamBC(talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Listusers

I noticed on this User talk:209.105.213.101 the template {{Schoolblock}} whcih includes a link to Special:Listusers all of which is great. But when you open the list of user names the are almost exclusively deleted vandal only accounts or offensive ones like User:(2) Heil Hitler, motherfucker!. While I can see where directing school children to a list of user names that have been taken could be helpful could we find a way to provide the list of active accounts? {{Schoolblock}} is used on school IP's that have been blocked for vandalism, directing to a list user names created mostly to vandalize Wikipedia may not be the best choice. Jeepday (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this to Template talk:Schoolblock. Mangojuice^talk 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

I recently found this username: User:و. I think it's awesome! Are such usernames allowed? If yes, I may want to change my username.Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. However, please don't change your username to something like that. Non-latin characters are allowed, but choosing a username like that because you think it's awesome to have a one-symbol username with a symbol most users can't understand violates the spirit of this policy -- that would be intentionally confusing. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive" vs. "disruptive"

Based on a question by AzaToth on WT:UAA, I'd like to propose that we change the label "offensive usernames" to "disruptive usernames" while leaving the description the same -- that is, it would now say "Disruptive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."

This won't really change the policy, because it's intended to mean the same thing, but if the current policy is (finally) going to go into TWINKLE it will help to have clear labels for things. I think "disruptive" would be a better description because:

• It gives us a clear category for attack usernames such as "Jimmyblowsgoats", which should clearly be blocked, but the word "offensive" is a bit of a stretch.
• Losing the word "offensive" would help clarify that we're not just here to censor bad words. When such a usernames are a problem, it's not because they include dirty words, it's because they're meant to be disruptive. Then, we can refrain from blocking, say, everyone who harmlessly self-identifies as a "bitch".

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best solution. I agree that all disruptive usernames are offensive and also make harmonious editing impossible. However I don't think that all offensive usernames that make harmonious editing difficult or impossible are names everyone would feel comfortable applying the label 'disruptive' to. I would rather just put "disruptive" back as one of the ways in which a username can be inappropriate. (Which we should probably do anyway, after Gurch changed the order of that section so that the types of blocks are discussed after one of the types is discussed in detail.) I would favor "Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks" or something like that. Mangojuice^talk 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all disruptive usernames are offensive, though it could depends on the definition of offensive. A username that is similar that of an banned vandal is disruptive, but it's not really offensive. (also, I did include disruptive in TW) _→AzaToth 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm okay with that change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm excited about TWINKLE actually matching the username policy for once, so I went ahead and made the change. We can of course continue to discuss the exact wording. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it did match the policy! _→AzaToth 03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to abandon "confusing" as a criterion?

Here's a discussion we put off for later when revising the username policy. It's later now.

Why do we block usernames for being "confusing"? Why, for example, do we waste the time of the good faith User:Askdnapn39nfkjfen (who has even posted an explanation of what his name means) instead of welcoming him to Wikipedia?

The reason I generally hear is that someone could impersonate someone with a confusing username by creating a similar name. But that's ass-backwards. When someone is being impersonated, you block the impersonator, not the impersonatee! Any name can be impersonated, and there's no point in blocking people to protect them from that.

Furthermore, by meta-policy we have to allow non-English (and, indeed, non-Latin-alphabet) names such as User:المستهلك. English speakers, of course, can't really tell that name apart from User:المستهك, so I think this just helps to show the irrelevance of that argument.

This part of the policy has resulted in some of the more egregiously bad username blocks, like User:Ggggggggggggggg12, and it doesn't seem to have much benefit except that sometimes people use it to preemptively block vandals. (And I don't think that's even a good thing: what if Askdnapn39nfkjfen had been "preemptively blocked" for the vandalism he never did?) So what are the arguments for keeping this in the policy?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 'confusing usernames' should be removed or clarified. Many of the concerns about usernames that are confusing also fall under misleading. Impersonators can be stopped by the antispoof extension, and that is more misleading than confusing. References to Wikipedia can also fall under misleading usernames. And while the meaning behind a seemingly random username may be confusing, the policy states that it must be easy to identify the username. I don't see any problem with identifying the user amongst a list of other users. I may not be able to remember it, or spell it, but I don't think that should be the criteria for usernames. -- pb30<talk> 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It can't get much more confusing than names like User:المستهلك which we are going to have to allow because of unified login. Still, I would think it's legit to block someone who deliberately made their username confusing in order to avoid scrutiny. But that basically never happens. Mangojuice^talk 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with this, if we start allowing apparently random strings of characters then we open up the potential for a lot of users, with very confusing usernames that although are individually very different, are very hard to tell apart collectively. I'll give you some examples;

• agkykyohdk
• agkhkjonko
• adktockhkb
• adgktmwenn
• adngtuvuzs
• akftmcktmk
• aruvjgjvng
• adktiwchrm
• advujnvjhm
• acgfidjtjv
• avcufjvbjg
• artvhfcdhh

All these usernames are very different, they couldn't be considered similar to one another, but they are indeed confusing becuase you can not easily recognise one from another. Confusion is inevitable here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion is just not ever that big of a deal, though. A lot of people use signatures that make it look like their username is something else. For instance, User:AGK signs as "Anthony" -- clearly that must be his name, but that's confusing. Username changes are another thing. I tried to compile some data about who participates in RFAs and found that it was just too much of a pain because so many people didn't have a signature that matched their username, and they changed signatures over time, and sometimes changed username. This practice actually interfered with my ability to do something I think would have been valuable, and this practice actually annoys me. But editors matter, and I would rather make valued contributors feel comfortable and accepted than have a less confusing Wikipedia. I think this kind of confusion is just inherent in the system, we all have to deal with it, and so we shouldn't make a big deal out of it, especially when it's done in good faith by a contributor we value. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryan, just wondering how is it any different to allowing usernames that are probably confusingly similar to many editors here such as:

• User:المستهلك
• User:للمستهلل
• User:للمستهلك
  

(and longer ones)
- Neparis (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't know if the example I gave has real Arabic names; it's probably not a good example. What I meant is that confusing but legitimate usernames can exist which may not be resolvable by asking people to change usernames. There are many Arabic real names which may appear confusingly very similar to people not familiar with Arabic, and Arabic people are as entitled as anybody to edit under their real names if they want to, so it would be wrong to ask an Arabic person to change a username which is a real name simply because it looks confusing to people who don't read Arabic. I can foresee a long list of Arabic usernames, which is equally confusing in its own way as the list of usernames posted by Ryan. - Neparis (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another response to Ryan: Why would you ever encounter a set of names like that and have to distinguish them all? Would all those editors be editing in the same places? (I, for one, would suspect sock puppetry, but that's another issue.) If you encountered an improbable situation like that, you might start by telling them "Look, I have trouble following your discussion because your name looks a lot like these five other people in the discussion. I'm not sure why you did that, but could I encourage you to change your name to make this discussion easier?" Probably a few of them would, and the problem would be solved without having to block anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like consensus. Let's remove it from the policy and see if the Wiki comes crashing down in a mass of confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it really just a matter of whether or not the individual could be identified easily, or referred to easily without copy and pasting. The confusion lies in the intuitive or cognitive recognition of the user name for expedience sake. A user name like fdlsjfdlsafdlsafjl should never be allowed to edit, despite WP:AGF - it's not that the user is presumed to exploit, disrupt, or vandalize wikipedia, it's that the user could easily come up with another suitable username while avoiding the eyesore. Wisdom89 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a clear line between ok and "confusing" usernames that wouldn't conflict with meta policy on allowing non-English and non-Latin alphabet usernames? Where is the cut-off point? f? fd? fdl? fdls? fdlsjfd? 8 or more Latin characters? Lack of vowels? Somebody's initials? Mixtures of Latin and non-Latin alphabets? How would you know at a glance that any of the Arabic usernames given above are not in fact random Arabic strings no different in kind from fdlsjfdlsafdlsafjl? - Neparis (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people with names as short as 6 characters usernameblocked. It doesn't appear that there is any one particular threshold for randomness versus non-randomness.--VectorPotential^Talk 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps the only place in Wikipedia policy where mildly annoying one admin leads directly to a block. I don't think the community at large would support your suggested criterion that you can block someone for being an "eyesore". In fact, that's a pretty straightforward example of biting the newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this change was made. Random strings of letters make it more difficult to recognize or remember an editor to contact them later without finding their printed name. And shouldn't these sort of changes be brought up on AN? Lara❤Love 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the change was made, but there probably should have been a post to WP:VPP first. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

and I've reverted it back. We've discussed it many times before, so I don't agree that a there should be a change in policy less than 48 hours after it was suggested, when many times before there has been no consensus to do that. I would agree that a VPP posting should have been made. The problem here doesn't seem to be the policy - it should only be used to block usernames that are random making them confusing. A 6 character username should never be random enough to warrent a block. When blocking random usernames, I always look for 12 characters (at least) before even considering a block. I fear the problems here are associated with wrong interpretations of this policy by some admins who believe 5/6 character usernames could be random enough for a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Random or seemingly random? If a user can explain their name is it still against policy? And if there are problems with people misinterpreting policy, isn't that (at least in part) a problem with the policy being too vague? -- pb30<talk> 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. How about cases when users choose names of notable living people (actors, politicians ...) ? Is it permitted ? - Darwinek (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's not allowed. You can only use real name of a living famous person if it's actually your real name. See WP:U#Real names. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what should I do with one user, who uses a name of a famous Czech actor as his username ? - Darwinek (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything unless the person is very high profile. If the actor is very famous, but his/her name isn't especially rare, tell the user they need to make it clear they are not the famous person, say, on their user page. If the actor is very famous and the name is unlikely to belong to anyone else, I'd be willing to block as a likely impersonation. Mangojuice^talk 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the case of Bolek Polívka, who is a well-known Czech actor - IMDb, ČSFD. His surname isn't common in the Czech Republic. He is impersonated by User:Bolekpolivka, who was blocked in the past for sockpuppeting - [1]. What do you recommend ? - Darwinek (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will talk to him. Mangojuice^talk 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

The block template reads: "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, ..." Where in the policy does it speak on length? Because I don't see it. And confusing just got removed from the policy, though I don't agree with the change. Lara❤Love 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference to lengthy usernames got removed in this edit. The template should be updated accordingly, I guess. --Conti|✉ 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated it. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I didn't realise that templates had been changed when I reverted back - I'd should really have taken care of them, but I see Mangojuice has taken care of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So character length is no longer limited as long as the name makes sense? Lara❤Love 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, although I believe there is a hard limit in the software (not sure how many characters) so it doesn't get silly. The problem isn't with length of names - if they're easily recognisable there shouldn't be an issue. The problem comes when usernames are confusing and you don't really know who you're editing with. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)