Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Username policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

"Iraq"

Why does usernames not allowed to contain the term "Iraq"? --58.178.164.57 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that idea; there are plenty of users with Iraq in their usernames: [1]. I also checked the username blacklist and "iraq" should not be included. If you're having trouble creating an account for some reason, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account]. Mango juice^talk 04:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Username across languages

Is it considered ethical, unethical or neutral to use the same or a different username between different language versions of WP?
If there is consensus about this question, the result might be usefully integrated into the username policy, since there are many multilingual editors aiming to work on several versions of WP. Clpda (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is considered highly desirable to use the same name, and the Wikimedia developers recently completed a complex project to enable it to happen. Please take a look at m:Help:Unified login for an explanation. Yes, it has implications for username policy, and we have had a number of discussions on the subject here. Cheers, MCB (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I watched the reference you gave me (very interesting) and I'll keep my username when registering in other WPs. Clpda (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear! Best, MCB (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Company names should be prohibited

The current policy stating that such names are not expressly prohibited should be reconsidered in my view, especially when a registered tradename is being used. Case in point: Southwest Airlines (talk · contribs) disruptively editing Colleen Barrett (the airline's president). JGHowes ^talk - 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would favor a blanket prohibition; it's hard to think of a case where a company name would be appropriate, since neither role accounts nor promotional accounts are permitted, and cases like this (a company name used in an unauthorized or disparaging manner) are clearly inappropriate. In any event, please report cases like this to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and they will quickly be blocked (as I have here). Thanks, MCB (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Often these blocks make sense, but you occasionally encounter company names being used in a non-promotional, non-disparaging manner. It's just someone from the company editing Wikipedia and being up front about their conflict of interest. There's no point in forcing them to hide their COI by blocking them under that name. Also, a company name doesn't imply it's a role account. In short, the cases where you need to block already fall under one of the existing reasons to block, such as "impersonation", "promotional", or the spam policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing company names is effectively turning WP into a vehicle for advertising for only those companies we "like". The net effect is free publicity and free advertising for a select group, and this is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia. I should be able to edit without being confronted with the spamming of company names in usernames. I also agree that they should be banned outright. It doesn't encourage openness, only the use of Wikipedia for advertising. I'm shocked this was changed at all. Allowing Wikipedia to be whored out to companies in the name of friendliness is wrong. Companies will take advantage of this, and the end result is that we're giving away the reputation of WP to some companies for their corporate gain and not others.pschemp | talk 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more about our attitude in dealing with them than anything else. I'm not aware of any company usernames that have been allowed in the long term. But I do think we should treat each case individually and recognize that there's a big difference in terms of damage to Wikipedia between someone trying to promote or advertise and someone trying to edit in good faith while obeying our rules on conflicts of interest. Mango juice^talk 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have other means for disclosure of COI besides a username. For that matter, someone unconnected to a given company with an ax to grind could use that company's name inappropriately to bring discredit on the firm. But that's beside my main point, which is that use of a registered trademark such as Southwest Airlines by any John Doe could be trademark infringement. Maybe Mike Godwin at WF should be consulted? JGHowes ^talk - 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that allowing company names as usernames essentially allows advertising on Wikipedia. We should outright prohibit it. _{1 != 2} 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A name of a company in an edit history has to be one of the least effective ways of advertising. I don't have much of a problem with company names, unless the user is also relentlessly promoting the company, or disparaging it. I don't think any harm is intended in most cases, and it's best to keep any possible COI out in the open. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of prohibiting company names, with reasonable exceptions. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

JGHowes, it is undoubtedly a trademark infringement (by the user), which is one of the reasons any such accounts are instantly blocked, and their edits reverted. In terms of protecting Wikipedia from liability, that is pretty much sufficient due diligence; it's not really an issue for legal counsel. In particularly egregious cases we could expunge the edits from the edit history, but I don't think that's necessary here. --MCB (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But, MCB, if that is so then there's a disconnect with what this page states, in part, under 1.2 Company/group names (emphasis mine): "Use of a company...as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended...". JGHowes ^talk - 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

MCB, that's not how trademark law works at all (though IANAL), and it's also not how Wikipedia works. I think you're just taking what you know about copyright law and substituting the word "trademark". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, using a trademarked name (which also happens to be a company name), without authorization, in a manner that could cause confusion to a third party, is an infringement of the mark. While the case of User:Southwest Airlines is clearly de minimis, and the liability would be the user's, except to the extent lack of due diligence on Wikipedia's part permitted the user to go forward with the unauthorized use, it's still not a good idea for Wikipedia to permit such uses; but as I said, it's clearly not a matter for Wikimedia counsel. (Note that use of the trademark is, of course, perfectly valid for discussion, parody, criticism, etc.) This differs significantly from copyright law; Southwest Airlines cannot copyright its company name in an attempt to prevent its being uttered by others. (The same is true, for example, for book titles, most of which would not qualify for registration as a trademark.) But yes, the idea that a trademark owner can prevent use of the mark by unauthorized persons is an absolutely fundamental principle of trademark law. (I know that citing credentials is somewhat disfavored on Wikipedia, but I have been a licensed attorney for 27 years, and if I remember correctly, I got an "A" in Trademarks in law school.)

JGHowes, I think you have a good point with respect to section 1.2, because I think that whomever wrote "not explicitly prohibited" did not contemplate the idea that the name might be used by someone not speaking for the company, in which case even though the likelihood of liability (there are common-law business tort issues beyond trademark law involved with that) is small, the risks undoubtedly outweigh the benefits to Wikipedia. Verification of the identity of the user and his/her authority to speak for the company is a complex and time-consuming process, involving email and an OTRS ticket, etc. In a cost/benefit analysis, it just loses badly, which is why a bright-line, blanket prohibition is a better policy. --MCB (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Egad. I will admit that I have chosen the wrong person to argue the legal issues with. However, I don't think Wikipedia is equipped to tell whether a mention of a company name is "unauthorized", and if it brings up legal issues, they're not our problem. Other web sites don't scrutinize their usernames to prevent trademark infringements, and I doubt anyone expects them to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't support completely prohibiting these kinds of names. The way we've been dealing with them now is just fine, and there likely are acceptable situations. WP:CREEP applies here. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia is best served by policies that are simple, clear, easy to interpret, perceived as fair, and free of loopholes and opportunities for wikilawyering. As it is, we prohibit the use of company, organization/group, or product/service names in (at least) the following circumstances:

Promotion, advertising, etc.
Group or role accounts
Unauthorized use (user is not actually affiliated with group)
Disparagement, attack, etc.
Names confusingly similar to other company/group/org/product/service names

That accounts for all but a very tiny number of cases -- but the problem is that everybody argues that their particular use falls within that tiny slice, which ends up being a contentious waste of time for all involved, which can easily be prevented by a simpler policy, which harms no one. --MCB (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

MCB's list should be an explicit part of the Create a username page. Kingturtle (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, MCB is unaware that "MCB" is a registered trademark? No fewer than nine current registrations for "MCB" are in effect in the United States, owned by parties as diverse as "Minnesota Corrugated Box, Inc." (Reg. #3300742), "McBaine Contracting Co., Inc." (Reg. #2506136), "Mountain Commerce Bancorp, Inc." (Reg. #3446286), and "Memphis Championship Barbecue Commissary, Inc." (Reg. #3342551). I suspect that the vast majority of usernames on Wikipedia bear at least some resemblance to a trademark registered by someone, and many, many common words are registered trademarks for specific purposes (apple, fossil, earth, air, fire, and water). I don't think a prohibition against use of registered marks would do at all.

The law of trademarks requires competing trademark use in commerce to raise a cause of action for infringement. Wikipedia, however, is making no use in commerce of the usernames selected by its contributors. Furthermore, even if the use were commercial, likelihood of confusion analysis takes into consideration the relatedness of the goods and services with which a mark is used. Wikipedia does not run an airline and Southwest Airlines is not in the business of offering an online encyclopedia. Now, if we get into the doctrine of famous marks, then we might have a reasonable basis for a policy, but the requirement of use in commerce is applied even more stringently against famous marks to protect the public right to reference them for non-commercial purposes. Besides, there is (unfortunately) no "registry" of famous marks, so it's a matter of guesswork in making that determination in all but the most straightforward cases (e.g. Coca-Cola, Toyota, Reebok). bd2412 T 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did that trademark search in connection with seeing what I could do with MCB.COM, back in the day <smile>. But I'm not sure what course you are urging here. Obviously no one is suggesting that admins do trademark searches at WP:UAA. While no one seems to disagree with the list of prohibitions above, I don't think that listing them at Create a username would necessarily help, either; I would prefer a simple blanket prohibition on company and organization names in the interests of simplicity, fairness, and ease of understanding. And yes, there are probably some boundary cases, like someone whose personal name is John Deere, in which case the number of possible user names he might use is diminished by exactly one. --MCB (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that although you might rightly think that no one would recognize MCB as a trademark, a policy prohibiting all registered trademarks as usernames would put Wikipedia in precisely the precarious position of doing that kind of search and analysis - and would give the various owners of the MCB marks circumstantial evidence to support an argument for likelihood of confusion, based on Wikipedia having such a policy. Suppose we just take a list like BPI's top 2000 brands (I know this list is a bit dated) and filter out the words that have common non-trademark uses (visa, dodge, saturn, sprint, discover, subway), and worry about the fanciful marks on that list? bd2412 T 06:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus for prohibiting all registered trademarks as usernames. However, a ban on recognizable company or organization names would not raise the difficulties you mention. Please remember that while attorneys may be used to trying to interpret highly complex statutes or contracts, Wikipedia is meant to be easily administered by people without any particular specialist training, using clear, obvious, common-sense policies that really don't have to be overly concerned with tricky edge cases. --MCB (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure every one of the MCB registration owners believe their company to be recognizable. Fortunately Congress has legislatively dispensed with "niche fame" in trademark law. Apple and Visa and Sprint are "recognizable" - famous, even - but I doubt that they should be taken out of the market of potential usernames. I understood your comments to be calling for a prohibition on the use of registered marks. If I misread you, I apologize. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree we should not allow recognizable company names as usernames. To do so would be a strange 180 on our no spam policy. Names like "Apple" are obviously not a problem, I think we can use a bit of sense there, just like we allow John Cockburn.

I don't think we should extend this to all trademarks because they are only protected in certain contexts. For example "Genesis" is trademarked in the context of video games, but I could make a movie or a shovel called "Genesis". _{1 != 2} 15:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue has created a heated discussion over at this page's evil twin. I'm not sure everyone there knows this discussion exists, but oh well. To very briefly summarize the position I lay out there: usernames should only be blocked for promotion when the username itself is an advertisement. When the username mentions a company name and discloses a COI, that helps us deal with the COI issues. (The assumption here is that the person is using the company's name in some non-misleading way, so that trademark problems don't enter into it.) It is silly to discourage being forthcoming about who you are by handing out username blocks over it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive" usernames

What's with the overly inclusive filter against so-called "offensive" usernames? Just a quick scan reveals a number of barely offensive words such as arse, balls, barf, bunghole, dookie, puke, turd .. the list goes on. Isn't this overkill? Take, for example, the hypothetical User:Barfdude. It would match the pattern and trigger a UAA report. Some of us (myself included) would likely remove the entry with no action, although there are some overzealous admins who seem quite willing to make username blocks for practically everything that trips the filter.

Wikipedia is not censored, so why should usernames be censored? I understand there are cases where particularly foul language may be considered disruptive, but in many cases it seems like little more than prudish behavior to block usernames as being "offensive". My little rant here was triggered by the appearance of User:BenBugger on UAA. This user has not edited so we do not know what their "intentions" are at this point - so why waste our time with a report? A user with that name could very well go on and edit articles in a sane, productive manner. Sure, someone along the line might whine and say "Gee whiz, that name could be offensive - we should do something about it!" But unless a user with a name like this is clearly disruptive, such as harrasing a user named Ben, it's little more than a case of prudishness and censorship.

I'd just as soon see many of these "mildly offensive" words redacted from the bot filter and rely on users to report these kinds of violations when, not if, there is an actual cause for concern. Shereth 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Those reports are for humans to consider. None of those reports are considered offensive until a human reviews them. The bot simply reports names it thinks need greater attention from humans. False positives("Beach Balls", "wristwatch") are simply dismissed. To summarize, no action is taken against users simply because they set off the bot, a human admin needs to determine it was in violation of policy. If there are any specific blocks you disagree with please bring them up with the blocking admin. Chillum 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that quite well. My point is to say that having the bots report something that is most likely going to be dismissed is an unnecessary waste of time, and it would be simpler and more efficient to not have those bot-reported. This way, only the egregious, likely to be blocked names ever find their way to UAA. Shereth 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the blacklist could be pared down slightly. In my opinion, it shouldn't try to catch every conceivable username violation, just the worst of the worst. For the most part though, the username bot does its job pretty well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The content of the blacklist is determined by consensus at User_talk:HBC_NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. It is mostly handled by those that answer the reports, but anyone is welcome to contribute. Chillum 19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think what it really boils down to is a certain amount of frustration on my part. I do a fair bit of work at UAA and it seems like there are a lot of administrators who have a "Shoot first, ask questions later" policy when it comes to "offensive usernames", particularly when some of them have been making good-faith and useful edits. It just seems counterintuitive to me that more care is not taken in these cases, as there is the real danger of running off would-be valuable contributors. I just wish a little more consideration would be given toward "questionable" violations, some more discussion with the user rather than hitting them with a block on sight. Shereth 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with the specific admins you think are doing this? Chillum 23:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I probably should. Shereth 23:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree however that some of the words on the blacklist don't belong. I you do see one that is causing too many false positives you really should bring it up at User_talk:HBC_NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. People take suggestions seriously there. We are able to use more complex expressions to detect names, we have special rules we can apply(like don't report till the user edits etc...), and we have a whitelist, these can reduce false positives. Chillum 23:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of the least offensive strings on the list should be removed. There are administrators among us (unfortunately) who take the "shoot first" approach to blocking, and having thoroughly non-offensive names constantly reported by the bot sends them the wrong message about what's acceptable to block. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, it's really not a bad thing if the bot doesn't report every name we need to block. We still do have a lot of users patrolling names. And if all of that completely stopped we'd STILL be fine: it's not like behavior-based blocking won't eventually root out all the really bad cases. Mango juice^talk 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sharing accounts

I want to say up front that this is a question of technicality.

Would User:Mario and Dario be considered to be violating Wikipedia:Username policy#Sharing accounts?

And if so, what would the suggested course of action be? - jc37 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that it is a violation to share accounts - but having an account name "X and Y" does not necessarily mean it is a shared account. In my opinion it's a bit confusing to have this little rule in the username policy, because it's not a username policy violation per se. If, however, it is determined that the account is being shared, then it would be appropriate to block it. Shereth 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, an as a matter of answering the question directly, yes this account is blockable as the user page explicitly states that it is a shared account. Shereth 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Real names, yet again

I've just been reading the archives. What is meant by OTRS verification? I ask because there is a newish user with the user name of a well-known person, who is claiming to be that person, and editing the article about him, and I'm intending to ask that person for verification that he is who he says he is. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Figured it out. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete an account

Hallo!

I'm de:Benutzer:Randalf. I want to merge my account, but en:User:Randalf is used by an other User. His first an last edit was at February 2007. Is it possible to delete this account to get a unique WP-Account? de:Benutzer:Randalf 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:USURP is what you are looking for - but generally there is no way to get an account that has made edits. Shereth 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this may be doable. Go to Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL, since I presume this is part of a global account unification attempt. (If not, you might want to do that; see WP:SUL). Mango juice^talk 05:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Handling violations - streamlining of process

Currently we have what amount to 3 different "processes" for handling violations of our username policy: One on one discussion with the user (generally with {{uw-username}}); discussion on WP:RFCN; and reporting to WP:UAA. Right now each of these processes is somewhat ignorant of one another, inasmuch as a user who is currently discussing their username may be reported to UAA and the name blocked prior to any kind of resolution to said discussion. This results in unfortunate scenarios where a "gentle" template stating "Hey, there might be a problem" is followed up with a "You have been blocked" message. At best, this sends conflicting signals to the user and causes confusion; at worst, it can be viewed as downright disrespectful to the user who has attempted to resolve the situation through discussion and compromise. There really needs to be some kind of better understanding/clarification of how these 3 methods relate to one another and when each is implemented. I may be incorrect, but I do believe that it is well understood - at least among those of us who dabble in username issues - that the following points apply:

WP:UAA is generally for blatant problems that require immediate administrative attention and blocking
WP:RFCN is for more borderline cases that require broader input to determine when and if action is needed
{{uw-username}} is for potential problems where a discussion with the user is likely to result in a resolution

Points 2 and 3 have some overlap, while point 1 does not. Put simply, there is never any need to template a user with {{uw-username}} in the case of a blatant violation; these should simply be reported to UAA. In some fashion it needs to be made clear that this template should not be used in dealing with blatant violations. Conversely, cases where there is active, ongoing discussion should not be blocked until that discussion has failed to return results. Therefore, there also needs to be some guidance clarifying under what circumstances a discussion may be considered "failed" and further action taken.

I believe these points need to be clarified and the Dealing with inappropriate usernames section of the policy need to be re-written to help avert some of these confusions. I have some ideas as far as changes to implement but I am holding off on suggesting any specific changes and right now am trying to get a feel for whether or not the community agrees there is room for clarification here. Shereth 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the following is a better description:

WP:UAA is for blatant problems that require immediate blocking.
One-on-one discussion should be used in all other cases; {{uw-username}} is one way to start such a discussion.
WP:RFCN may be used to bring more participants to a discussion, only if they have been asked to change their username and have refused, or have continued to edit without reply.

This is what the policy already indicates:

Usernames which are obviously inappropriate should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, along with an explanation of the issue, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator. Usernames which are not obviously inappropriate, but which may fit the criteria listed above should not be immediately blocked. The issue should be discussed with the account's creator, who may not be familiar with the username policy. They should be encouraged to create a new account with a more appropriate name. If this is unsuccessful, a request for comment on the contributor's username may be created, and the contributor may be required to change their username if a consensus to do so is established.

So I'm up for clarifying, but the policy already gets it right. Mango juice^talk 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Accidental irrelevant violations

Based on some discussion at RFCN, I'd like to modify the "Choosing a username" section by adding the text below in green:
Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts. Note that mere inclusion of these character strings is not necessarily a problem, if there does not appear to be any chance of confusion. For example, names such as "BadmintonFan", "BetsysOpinion", and "Edward Abbot" would be acceptable.
Are there objections? Note that we currently have some users (such as User:Badmintonhist) whose status would be clarified by this wording. Ma^t_chups 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have thought this was obvious, but I have no particular objection to it being added. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think this is a fairly obvious sort of thing. Shereth 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But as long as we're modifying the section, we may as well change "should not" to "must not." It would make things like the SunshineriotAdmin issue much less open to endless debate. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that some of these terms are not immediately familiar to new users (things like steward and checkuser) and it might benefit from a slight rewording to let new users know why these are essentially prohibited. How about a slight overall tweak:

Your username ~~should~~ must not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. The terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", and "developer" are reserved for special types of Wikipedia accounts and ~~must~~ may not be used as a part of your user name. Similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator" that also imply a position of authority are not permitted. Additionally, account names that end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts, must be avoided. Exceptions to this rule are permitted in cases where these words are included unintentionally. User names such as "Badminton Fan" or "Edward Abbot" would be acceptable.

I've also incorporated the less ambiguous "must not" as suggested above. Shereth 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have said "Your user name must not..." and "...reserved for special types of Wikipedia accounts and may not...." Exploding Boy (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - missed the first "should". How's that? Shereth 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is good, except "...are permitted in cases where these words are included unintentionally". I don't think the issue is with the user's intention, but the potential for the name being confused with account types or authority. For example, "Adminster" was deemed inappropriate because even though the user claimed it was unintentional (and gave a rationale for it), a change was still required on the grounds that it could have been easily mistaken as relating to "Admin". So instead of "...are permitted in cases where these words are included unintentionally." I suggest "...are permitted in cases where there is little chance of confusion with Wikipedia account types." -kotra (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary to clarify this. That section is just informal advice about usernames, it doesn't specifically address when a username will or won't be considered inappropriate. I can't imagine that honest users are very often going to be confused into thinking they can't choose a username like "Tom Abbot." But if we include it, I think honest, non-confused users will get a poor impression of Wikipedia, as if Wikipedia is full of petty rules-lawyers. Mango juice^talk 04:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's inaccurate to strengthen the language. It's certainly possible to include those terms without making it sound like you have special authority on Wikipedia; e.g. "Steward of the King" or "Livejournal Admin." Plus, we need the clarification even less if the language isn't as strong. Mango juice^talk 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadening real name ban

I note that BenAveling (talk · contribs) changed the wording to change from banning the use of the name of a well known person to any living person unless it really is your name. I have reverted this and brought it here for discussion. The specific issues that I have with this are twofold. Firstly, it eliminates any impediment to using the name of a well known person who is deceased.

Secondly, and I believe far more significantly, it effectively bans the use of any form of pseudonym that has the remotest possibility of being the real name of another living person. I believe that there are likely to be quite a few existing names that would immediately be affected by this change. I personally know of one editor in good standing to whom this applies. --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your revert, but would add that the use of another real person's name (including those who are not public figures) in order to impersonate, attack, or defame them, or cause confusion about the user's identity, would be a violation of policy, and the paragraph in question should probably include that. --MCB (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text (bolding only for discussion here):

You should not edit under the name of another living person unless it is also your real name. If you share the same name as a well known person, or you are a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear whether or not you actually are the well known person in question. Usernames that appear to violate this policy may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

My change wouldn't make any difference to using a deceased person's name - there is currently no restriction on it under this policy. I did think about taking out the word "living" but that would invalidate a lot more user names than my change does. As for user names that accidentally hit real people's names - the policy just says you shouldn't, and that such names may be blocked. I thought about trying to say when it is and isn't valid to use other people's names - by accident? only if the name is common? It gets complicated. I ended up deciding that the policy says "should not" and "may be blocked", which strikes me as true. It isn't a complete ban, just a strong suggestion not to, and permission to block if an admin thinks it appropriate. You shouldn't use someone else's name, even a common one, even by accident. Probably it won't cause trouble if you do, but if it doesn't no-one will ever care, so this policy doesn't come into play. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a shocker here. I misread your change. For some reason, I didn't realise that the "living" was already there. On the other point, I am still concerned that there is a potential to look at a username and say "That's not the person's real name, and it is conceivable that a person exists with that name", and potentially block on the basis of the first sentence of your revised wording, even if that name is a well established pseudonym for the editor. I guess that my concern is that, by dropping the "well-known" from that sentence, the "real" becomes a big issue for anyone who uses a pseudonym online &/or in real life. --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the change is too restrictive. First of all, how do we know that a username that looks like a real name is really that user's name? Second, having "may be blocked" in a policy usually means "There is one admin out of the thousand that are active who will block you for it". I know that I'm not really assuming good faith here, but that's my experience with these things. What about this:

You should not edit under the name of another living person in order to impersonate them. If you share the same name with a well known person, or you are a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear whether or not you actually are the well known person in question. Usernames that appear to violate this policy may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

I've removed "unless it is also your real name", since that should go without saying. I don't see anything wrong with someone using a generic username that looks like a real name (A few admins have such usernames, if I recall correctly) that could be someone's real name. --Conti|✉ 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is still some ambiguity in this wording, because it implies that it's OK to use your real name (as a well-known person) and you only have to make it clear, but then goes on to say you might be blocked. That point should be cleared up:

You should not edit under the name of another living person in order to impersonate them. If you share the same name with a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear that you are not the well known person in question. If you are, in fact, a well-known person and wish to edit under your real name, please contact us at info-en@wikimedia.org to verify your identity. Usernames that appear to violate this policy may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

This way, we are not implying that a simple statement to the effect that placing "Yes, I am the George W. Bush" on one's user page is sufficient to allow for the use of said user name. Shereth 15:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to make it seem like only impersonation is not permitted, because then whether the name is appropriate becomes about the user's motivations, which will just be a headache in reviewing these. I also don't think we should be blocking people for using someone else's real name unless that person has either complained or is extremely conspicuous. Per WP:AGF, if someone uses a real name, we should just assume that the name is genuine. Mango juice^talk 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Motivation isn't be important. The question is - will it cause trouble or confusion. What about:

You should not register under any name that would lead others to assume your account is associated with any person other than yourself. If you share the same name as a well known person, or you are a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear if you actually are the well known person or not. Usernames that appear to violate this policy to the extent of being problematic are likely to be blocked, as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. It makes it clear that using an unknown person's real name isn't good, but doesn't go so far as to imply that you have to prove who you are in order to use your own name. Mango juice^talk 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But there are cases where a user may have to prove who they are in order to use their real name, in the case that they are a well-known person desiring to use their real name. Shereth 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. --Conti|✉ 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a very good wording to me. :-) --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put it in. I'm not completely happy with it - it's a bit long and legalistic. And it is a bit pre-emptive. I'd like to make it all a bit more 'on request' - that is, make it clear that if no-one has a problem, there isn't a problem. And I'd like to find a way to say that without making it longer and more legalistic. :-) But I think this is an improvement, so I put it in, and if anyone can address my concerns, please do! Regards, Ben Aveling 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an account with no contributions

I've automatically registered an account in another wiki (by mistake). Can it be deleted, if it doesn't have any edits? --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "automatically registered" or "another wiki"; could you explain a bit more? User accounts on Wikipedia are generally not deleted; if you wish to change the name you can apply at Wikipedia:Changing username, but if it has no edits, you should simply register a new one (and they'll tell you the same thing there). If the account is not on Wikipedia, we have no control or influence on the policies and procedures of other wikis. --MCB (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking to user pages within articles

There's a conflict here with common sense in some situations. Take, for example, the MediaWiki article. Brion Vibber, being the chief developer, clearly has to be mentioned, and he is. There's even a picture of him. However, the keepers of the "notability" guidelines have decreed that he doesn't merit a Wikipedia article, so I can't just put brackets around his name. If he had a biography page on his own site, or a Wordpress blog, or something similar on any external site, it would be entirely fine to link his name to that. But he's primarily a Wikpedian, so his most accurate and up-to-date bio is his user page. Not having a link at all is clearly wrong--what the hell is the web for, if not to link to the best info available on the topic at hand? Having a link to a less relevant site is also clearly wrong. So there's no way to do the right thing here while keeping in line with policy--so clearly either this policy or the notability policy has to change. --LDC (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Use an external link instead of an internal one, then Wikipedia:External links applies. Then again, we shouldn't use external links inside of our articles (instead of in the "external links" section), so I'd say we shouldn't link to Brion's user page either way (just as we shouldn't link to his wordpress blog or personal homepage at MediaWiki). --Conti|✉ 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above; linking to a userpage within an article is unacceptable. That said, this really isn't the venue for this kind of discussion, as this policy pertains to the content of usernames, not the placement thereof. Shereth 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Linking to user pages within articles is phobited" appears in this policy--indeed, I cut-and-pasted it to form the title of this section, and there is a 'bot currently enforcing it, so this is indeed the right place to discuss the policy. Personally, I'd prefer the "notability" policy be the one that changes--if you ask me, the fact that a product or other accomplishment such as MediaWiki has a page (and certainly should), and the fact that it would clearly be wrong not to mention those most involved in it, ipso facto makes those people fit subjects for the 'pedia itself, if only for a stub with a link back to the thing they do. But I'll probably lose that argument. --LDC (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

I made a modification to the Single-purpose accounts paragraph, which has been reverted. What I proposed was

A single-purpose account (SPA) is an account that contributes regularly, but does only one particular thing, such as edit a particular article or put forward a single opinion. By contrast, most regular contributors will edit and discuss many different things. Single-purpose accounts are entirely legal; new editors will necessarily start on a single topic, and there is no reason why they should not continue to concentrate on subjects where they are well-informed. However, this pattern of contribution is also often associated with sock puppetry, although it should never be used to prove that without supporting evidence. Contributors should assume good faith when dealing with such accounts.

The existng text says in the middle of that paragraph

Such accounts are permitted, and such a pattern of contributions may simply indicate a new or inexperienced contributor. However, it may also indicate sock puppetry.

which seems to imply that SPAs are deprecated, and that only "new or inexperienced contributors" will have them in good faith.

I can find nothing nothing in the WP:five pillars which throws any doubt on SPAs, so it seems odd that they are described so grudgingly here. Some editors with specialised knowledge of a particular subject may choose to help Wikipedia by contributing to the article on that topic. On the face of it there is no reason why they should then feel obliged to start editing on other subjects where they are presumably less expert. Conventional encyclopedias work entirely with SPAs; the editorial board invites an expert to write on his subject, and he does just that.

I am aware that there is believed to be a statistical correlation between SPAs, obsessive POV-pushing and sock puppetry, but that is all that it is. There are certainly some SPAs who are good editors. POV-pushers can easily be diagnosed as such on their contribution records. Sock puppets similarly can be discovered by their behaviour. If they are SPAs that makes it easier to discover them, but that is no criticism of SPAs as such. POV-pushing and sock puppetry are only problems with contentious articles. Most articles (I guess) are fairly uncontentious, but many are short of good information. It seems a pity to discourage potential contributors who might wish to clean up just one of them.

An advantage of SPA editors is that, at best, they develop their expert knowledge of their chosen subject, and know how to provide really good sources. In this they may contrast with those many editors who flit around the system making well-intentioned but unresearched and unsourced additions on subjects which they might or might not know anything about. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that whole section needs to be dramatically pared down. This is not the user account policy, this is the username policy, and I don't understand why we are trying to encapsulate Wikipedia's policies on multiple accounts or accounts that might look like sockpuppets here. We ought to remove everything under "Using multiple accounts" after the second paragraph, and instead refer the reader to WP:SOCK#Alternative accounts. Mango juice^talk 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice and wouldn't object if the section ended up like that. If it is to stand, though, I made some additional changes to the paragraph, most importantly changing "entirely legal" to "generally permitted", which I think more accurately reflects policy, removed "new editors will necessarily start on a single topic" (which simply isn't the case), and added reference to COI, which often comes up in discussions of SPAs. But Mangojuice is right, this is the username policy, not a user conduct policy. --MCB (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am totally at ease with Mangojuice's suggestion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and made the change. I also rewrote things a bit, to try to present the information in terms of what an editor needs to know if they're considering using multiple accounts, to leave the true policy to the WP:SOCK#Alternative accounts page. Mango juice^talk 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Characters

What's the policy on usernames named after fictional characters? I don't see anything specific on the page. I'd like to change my username to "Natan Zingari," based on the character Nathan Zachary from the Crimson Skies series. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're under arrest for copyright infringement. You will be thrown into a federal jail and when the time permits, launched into the sun via rocket. Furthermore the United States Government reminds you that naming yourself after a person from a TV series is completely illegal and you are stealing from the copyright holder. Good day. *launches* CompuHacker (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, you'll be fine. CompuHacker (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Runtshit vandal

I don't understand how the Runtshit vandal gets away with continually creating obscene/threatening user names which are essentially BLP violations against a WP user in good standing. Could there not be a bot check against the particular string that he likes to use? Itsmejudith (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's something you can define a regex for, and it won't cause false positives/collateral damage, you can add it to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist with the <newaccountonly> parameter, and it will be blocked from creation. --MCB (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion and sorry not to reply before - I've been away. Unfortunately, I think it would create false positives. The vandal may be aware of this. What's needed is for an attempted account creation with the string to ring an alarm and for someone to check it out manually. Honestly, he is doing it day after day and the user tells me it is combined with off-wiki threats of violence. So it does need attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Some help

I'm a huge Idaho Vandals fan and i wanted my username to be TrueVandal, but apparently the name is blacklisted. most likely because of the term "vandal". Any chance i could get my username created? it's a great username, and i see how it could be misleading; but i do not intend to vandalise wikipedia. 66.139.122.102 (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how the software works, but I think any admin should be able to create it for you. It's a bit of an unconventional username, and it may startle the RC patrollers, but I don't think there's any reason we can't get this done for you. It would probably be a good idea to make a note on your userpage explaining your choice of username, as you've done here, but I don't have any strong objections. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You can request the account be created here. Be sure to include an explanation in the comments field. Is he back? (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:ACC acbout username policy and consistency between pages that state the policy.

Hello all. I just noticed an inconsistency in a rather often hit policy between a couple of policy pages on Wikipedia. The policy concern usernames and company/group names. WP:ACC says: "Your username must not: ... contain existing company, organization, or group names (including non-profit organizations)". I've noticed a lot of requests in the manual account request tool being bounced as user name policy violations because of this. On the other hand, WP:U, the actual consensus-blessed policy says: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." This doesn't seem to support bouncing a request as a username violation. There are, therefore, also cases where an apparent company name account is created over at WP:ACC. Since the contradiction is between these two pages, I thought it best to mention it on both talk pages.

The main discussion is at: The request an account / accountcreator talk page.

Thanks, ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "Is Love really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename?" an acceptable username or not or debatable?

I believe the username I have chosen for multiple complicated reasons "Is Love really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename" to be a valid question and acceptable within Wikipedia's username policy though I have discerned I should ask for comments and clarifications here. Please comment here and/or on my discussion page. Is Love really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename? (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of blocked 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Obvious sock. MMMMMMMM (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A unique user name

I was using the ACC interface today and I encountered a request for the user name 'Unique user name' (this user had previously made a request for a username that was too similar to another username for it to be created). Do usernames such as this one conflict with the username policy? My guess was that this username was probably okay, but since I wasn't sure, so I didn't create the account. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with that username. --Conti|✉ 14:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Claimed credentials and "undue authority"

The Crats (and friends) have been discussing name change requests and claimed credentials in this thread at BN.

Users interested in this policy may wish to read the thread.

Any discussion of blocking existing users on the basis of claimed credentials vs "undue authority" should take place here, not at WP:BN, but you may find the conversation to-date useful background reading. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, notice that the bureaucrats are reluctant to deny people renames based on claimed credentials, and denying a rename is a less serious action than blocking. I don't think we'd ever want to block such a name on UAA unless there were something else wrong with it. I'd say the usual thing I say about mildly problematic names: talk to the user if you have a problem with their name, and if they see your point, they may very well go ask for a rename. Then you've still got them as a potential contributor. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Different usernames on Wikipedia and Wikimedia

I recently attempted to use Wikimedia to upload a picture. I found out I could not log in using my Wikipedia username, and I also could not create an account with the same username as my Wikipedia one. However, when I created a different username on Wikimedia, it also kept me signed in to that name when I came back to Wikipedia. When I attempt to create an account on Wikimedia with the same username that I am using here, I get an error saying there is already a username in existence; if that is the case, and usernames automatically transfer between Wikimedia and Wikipedia, then why was I able to create this user account if the one with the same name already existed on Wikimedia? I know that you can have the same username on both Wikimedia and Wikipedia and it will in fact be the same account. However, I am also wondering how I can do this with my current Wikipedia name, which I created on Wikipedia first, instead of Wikimedia. Tim meh ! 00:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is what you are referring as "Wikimedia" the Wikimedia Commons? Presuming that's the case, or if you are referring to a different Wikimedia/Wikipedia project, please see the Unified Login help page for information regarding how to unify your accounts on different projects. Best, MCB (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted to unify your login, through your Preferences yet? Also, how many of these accounts are not you? It could be possible that the local Crats at those projects will help you usurp any that are not "you". --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. It does not work because all of the "Timmeh"s on the other wikis are not me. If you could tell me the appropriate method/place to request a usurp of the wikis, It'd be great. Thanks. Tim meh ! 13:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you have two choices. You can either go to WP:CHU and change your username here to something that has no conflicts elsewhere. Or you can try to usurp all those others. The former is quicker, but less satisfying, I'd guess. When I unified my login, I used this technique: I visited Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and used the interwiki links on the left to find its equivalent page on other projects where I needed a usurp. I then clicked on Crat names on those pages to see their userpages and found ones with claims of decent levels of English and asked them to sort it out for me. It worked, but took some time to do. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How confused do I have to be?

I note the policy on the project page regarding 'similar' or 'confusing' names. Yet I came across a match up today because of a recent query from me to User:King Of Hearts, then a mention in passing of User:KingsOfHearts elsewhere.

User:King of Hearts has been editing from May 5, 2005 and is an admin, thus a possible target or choice name to confuse with.

User:KingsOfHearts has been editing from Dec 30, 2007, so they've been around for awhile, but other than the very first interaction "Who are you?", [2] I haven't found where anyone has 'noticed' the similarity.

User:KingofHearts was blocked as a impostor back in 13 January 2006, so there is some past for my concern.

Possibly because of this User:King Of Hearts was created as a doppelganger account

Now I can well understand that partial matches are okay, as something like User:Kings Of Spades is "different enough" to not easily confuse. But 'KingsOfHearts' and 'King of Hearts' were so similar that I had to find the admin account to verify.

So, what is going on here? Is it just that no one saw the similarity? Or is this just not similar?

And since they have quite a history of ill-behaviour and at least two blocks, it's not like people haven't interacted with them... I'm confused as to 'application' of policy. Shenme (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're asking, but User:KingsOfHearts has been indefinitely blocked (apparently today) by admin Blueboy96. And User:King Of Hearts is a legitimate doppelganer as you note. So to answer the question I think you're asking, if you see an account like User:KingsOfHearts which is an obvious attempt to impersonate another editor, by all means report it at WP:UAA. Thanks, MCB (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ЈІМВО ЩАГЕЅ

I just saw this user. Does it violate the "Real names" section as it resembles somebody else's name? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think something like this needs to be treated like we would if somebody registered the name "Britney Spears" or something: block until OTRS can verify. Though my inclination is that this is pure trolling. And don't we frown upon Cyrillic letters that resemble Latin letters? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I just left a message about this on UAA that, summed up, stated that you'd have to be clinically retarded to confuse Jimbo with this editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him, a softblock with an added non-bitey note since his edits are OK. It's not the actual confusion factor, it's whether it would be disruptive because it looked like an attack, parody, trolling, etc. And nothing to do with it being Jimbo-related, either. We routinely block imitations of other editors' names even when there is no credible possibility of confusion. You'd block User:EVoooooola, wouldn't you? --MCB (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Username###

What is the policy on usernames with numbers after them that are similar to existing usernames? For instance, User:Tombstone00 was created this past November. Shouldn't the system prevent that creation? If not, what is the policy? If so, is this a bug? But my real question here is, can I get such accounts blocked, and if so is UAA the place to go? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We have millions of user accounts on Wikipedia and we can't have people staking out big areas. Wikipedia can tolerate a Tombstone and a Tombstone00, so long as no one is trying to be an impersonator. The system does lock out names that are too similar to established existing names, but that lock out can be circumvented with admin help. Mango juice^talk 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Imposter account

Please note the following;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Timelord69

An email address to my domain was added to the account and I received the activation email - which I will not be activating. The IP address noted identifies the person responsible and this act is very likely to cause trouble for Wikipedia, and more importantly for me. I realise that it might not be appropriate to ask that this account be blocked immediately, but I ask that it be watched very closely in case he tries to flagrantly impersonate me. Watch in particular pages concerning pro wrestling and the Autistic Spectrum. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the account's talkpage. But your username are substantially different so I wouldn't worry about impersonation. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am known as "Timelord" elsewhere on the Internet, particularly in the areas of pro wrestling and the online Autistic community. That is where the impersonation lies. Thanks for watching the talk page, but I would be watching contributions as well. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "timelord" in your email address? If so, it seems likely to me that there's another Timelord out there who might have simply misspelled their own email address. Mango juice^talk 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have one in it, but it's not the one used here. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, problem solved. Because this person used an email address that I have access to I was able to change the password to take control of the account. But I won't be using it. I'll link the user space to this account per WP rules when I have a chance. Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe thats the appropriate approach. Taking someone over someone elses account(even if they try to impersonate you). This would be a major violation of the Wikipedia:Code of Conduct and the Wikipedia:Privacy Policy. Unlawfully taking control of someone else's account is also a breach of Wikipedia:Civility. In fact, it may be a violation of the Internet Security Act and possibly fraud. This was absolutely not the right thing to do.Smallman12q (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They signed up with his email address. Maybe they did it as a favor for him.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that an email address of mine was used makes this a moot point now. It wasn't a favour. It was an attempt to make me look bad by using my screen name from elsewhere. If he hadn't used an email address in the domain of my website of course that would be different. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A doppleganger question

Okay, I am being told that my DOPP pages came up in a report, Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space; "Looking at the toolbox, they don't have user related options, contribs, logs etc, all (I've) done is create userpages for them".
It was never my intention to edit from these usernames, but rather to use them as a buffer against impersonation. Halp! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Obscene?

I stumbled across a user by the name of Teledildonix314. The word "dildo" is in there, not too subtly embedded. I wanted to find out what should be done about it, and I went to this page. I read the policy. I went to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, and read this: "For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention." But I did a <CTL-F> search on this project page, the policy, and nowhere does the word "obscene" appear. You see my quandary. (I'm no prude, but that sort of childish, unnecessary smuttiness is out of place here, I think.) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Teledildonics is a field of robotics. I know a guy working in the field. It's probably someone in a similar line of business, though the name of the field itself... Well, I wouldn't want it on a degree from MIT, but I wouldn't consider it 'blatantly' inappropriate, in any case. Crickel (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need examples

This page should have a list of examples as to whats offensive and whats not.Smallman12q (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I also have several questions:

Is having @yahoo or @gmail in your username appropriate as it advertises the site.
Is having curse in your username appropriate?
Is having a website in your username appropriate?
Is having a number in your name appropriate? such as Call me at 563-094?

Thankyou for taking the time to answer my questions--Smallman12q (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well, firstly, you shouldn't be asking if a username is "appropriate", you should only be asking if it's "inappropriate".

In answer to the questions :

It's is not automatically inappropriate - it depends on the edits being made. If you have "moneymaking@gmail.com" and you're spamming links to a moneymaking website, then it's blockable. If, however, your username is just "joebloggs@gmail.com", then it's not blockable. It may be unwise, but it's not blockable.
It depends on the severity of the curse. "Fuck" would be inappropriate, but "damn" probably wouldn't be. The bots are generally better at picking up usernames with swear words in them, as they've got almost all of the possibilities programmed into them.
It's not against the username policy to have the name of a website as your username, or in your username, but using that account to promote that website would be against the username policy, and thus blockable.
It's unlikely (I've seen one or two). Again, it would depend on the nature of the edits being made. If it is clear, from the username and edits combined, that the person isn't here to contribute constructively, then they can be blocked._Gb^T/c 10:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for answering my questions. Smallman12q (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good answers on the specific questions. But for the record, I oppose the (re-)introduction of examples on the page, because when examples were present before, they became firm and arbitrary rules in themselves; the current approach forces a common-sense approach. Mango juice^talk 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Should random names be blockable

I propose that random names should be made blockable. For example sdjfhsdjfsdfsd, djn45ln32h6uj, etc. Would anyone care to comment on this? §hawn hath 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, you mean an automated blocking of them. The problem with this is, if someone really does want a name like this, they wouldn't be able to get it. A better idea is if the system detects a name is like this, it'll put the user through a series of questions to determine if a human is really creating the account. Hellno2 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess automated could work, but also I mean like where I reported 3 names here, they were promptly removed without any discussion. In policy it says that they cannot be blocked, and I believe that should change. Whether or not its automated or you still need to report it, I think that they should be considered disruptive. §hawn hath 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting question. On one hand, I think that usernames comprised of a lengthy series of apparently random characters make it difficult to identify the contributor, like I can easily identify you, Shawnpoo, and you, Hellno2. On that same hand, I think, there are admins who do block as violations of the username policy accounts with names like that, and they are rarely questioned about it. On the other hand now, because of SUL, we might run into trouble disallowing usernames that are allowed on other wikis and are part of one's unified account. Imagine blocking as a username policy violation fictitious User:NHUnsc8cxcjh88sd3, an admin, crat, junior god-king, and all-around nice guy on Simple English Wikipedia - doesn't sit well with me. I've traditionally been against random usernames, but I'm thinking now, in practice, how does User:NHUnsc8cxcjh88sd3 who signs posts as "Will" differ from User:ユーザーの名前が who signs posts as "Will"? You probably can't understand either name and probably can't type the latter, but that one is explicitly protected by the policy. wodup 05:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We could make it only apply on new names and/or names with less than 100 edits. §hawn hath 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Do you consider new users more expendable? rspεεr (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is, where do you draw the line to determine what is disruptive? Really, you need a human to ultimately determine if a username was intended from the beginning to be disruptive or automated. There is already a screening process that is used to weed out automated registration, and it is applied to anyone who registers. If this needs improvement, it can be addressed. As for seemingly random characters, it may appear that way to some people, but to the user, it may actually have an intelligent meaning. Hellno2 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WODUP. We need to be careful with this. What may be seemingly random to one may be something notable to someone else. If someone made a seemingly random jumble of alphanumerics (within reason, too many letters would just be ridiculous.) I would pay more attention to their edits but not ask them to change it unless it was egregious. Perhaps they have positive things to contribute but they just have an unusal name, I'd be careful with handing out the warning to have them change their name. I would look at it on a case by case basis. Valley2city^‽ 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the real question here to be, why should they be blocked? Such random usernames are often associated with disruptive users, and they get blocked quickly, but other times they are constructive users who use a disposable account for a variety of reasons. If they are being constructive they should be left to finish their work. It's not as if anyone is going to want to repeatedly log in as 'oiuflksajfbhaksjdhlkashvcdszdas', is it? And if they do they can be asked nicely on their talk page to reconsider their choice of username. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a constructive user with such a name? Chillum 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I see a lot of usernames and won't be able to find one promptly, but if you are doubting they exist I can assure they are not uncommon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is just that in 3 years I have never seen a random name being constructive. I am sure they exist, but I am about as sure that they are a rare animal indeed. Chillum 00:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen many. We block on behaviour, and if it's a disruptive user they get blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any. I guess until I do I will consider them rare. Chillum

A cursory look the histories of articles, and especially the early days of WP:UAA will soon show you some:

Bh02306069 (talk · contribs)

Pzyxcvlkqjwhber (talk · contribs)

Gha agdrgzbhe (talk · contribs)

Twiztidjuggalo074 (talk · contribs)

but I think you'll find the most educational to be this one: G8d9f08g (talk · contribs)

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well your last one listed isnt really random. Also my point is that it is confusing to the community, not whether or not they have good intentions. I am by no means suggesting hard blocks but rather soft blocks. Also I believe this should only be implemented on new accounts. §hawn hath 02:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bh02306069 - Good contributor, very constructive edits.

User:Pzyxcvlkqjwhber - Only edit (singular) is to the sandbox.

User:Gha agdrgzbhe - 1 edit [3] (added Christian Bale to a disambiguation}}

User:G8d9f08g - 5 edits, 3 to a user's talk page and 2 adding a name to a list

--§hawn hath 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly meriting a block. I forgot to mention that one of the three usernames which started this thread was a constructive user (the other two weren't disruptive users), and like the others if they were blocked we would not have their contributions now or in the future. G8d9f08g is random as the user explains, and was also considered random enough to be blocked according to a policy which blocked random usernames (much to his disappointment). There is still no reason to block these accounts and drive away these new users, because they generally have no intention of interacting with a 'community'. They are here to contribute content (or vandalise) and go. There is a much better argument to implement technical restrictions through the username blacklist than let them create an account only to have it blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly makes it hard to identify someone. Just try carrying on a conversation with klfasdj and klfsadj without getting the two confused. I will certainly say that if you watch the contributions of such names they are almost always throwaway accounts used for disruption. The person creating the account adfjkghdfjklh will not even remember the name, they create the account and fuck around till they get blocked. Why not skip a step? Chillum 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a straw man that has been shot down again and again on this very talk page. If you're having a conversation with klfasdj, and klfsadj jumps in, it's almost certainly because klfsadj is clearly trying to impersonate klfasdj and should be blocked for impersonation. If there's no impersonation involved, you're hypothesizing a situation that effectively never happens. For every case of "klfasdj" versus "klfsadj" coming up by chance instead of by impersonation, you'll have a billion cases of "klfasdj" versus "ggg8888889". Should we make our policies harsher to prepare for one-in-a-billion coincidences? rspεεr (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, these things do happen, but that's got nothing whatsoever to do with "confusing" usernames. See User:Morven and User:Morwen, for example, both admins. Or User:Tango and User:Tangotango. But it would be pretty silly to want to block any of them because their usernames are alike, wouldn't it? --Conti|✉ 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of what I was getting at. More understandable names (for whoever's definition of "understandable" you use) are more likely to be similar to each other, because the space of understandable names is smaller. "Random" names are actually much more distinct compared to the rest of the names you will encounter on Wikipedia. So I don't buy the argument that random-looking names make it harder to distinguish names from each other, and I don't think there has been a single example of the "klfasdj vs. klfsadj" sort that keeps being brought up as a straw man. rspεεr (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it should mean an immediate block. Having a random name doesn't mean that someone doesn't want to contribute. If anything, they should be prompted to create a more appropriate and understandable username. KJS 77 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I block obviously random usernames on sight. They've always been blockable on sight, and if it's magically being construed as that no longer being the policy, then it's been the result of policy creep and should be subject to actual community-wide consensus— not merely discussion on this talk page between vested interests that had the motivation to alter the policy to remove blocks against random usernames.
As I always understood the policy, as long as a user name is random to a sufficient length (e.g., I wouldn't block block "asdfjkl" but would likely block "asdfjkl23fwjkelfzztf," can't even look like they might have meaning ("jrdjonzz" could be interpreted as "jarod jones" or "j-rod jones"), and they don't have any good contribs. In these instances, they are almost always throwaway accounts in my experience. Unless someone can demonstrate statistical significance of the alleged underwhelming minority (if they exist) of those that go on to make productive edits, I see no reason not to block them. That said, one should still assume good faith and block without autoblock enabled, without account creation blocked, and using the {{usernameblock}} template as, in its current incarnation, it's friendly and also assumes good faith.
--slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Most username blocks don't require a belief in bad faith. Soft blocks simply mean that the user is both invited and required to pick a different name before editing. The template they are given is exceedingly polite, friendly, and inviting. Chillum 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter what template is involved, being blocked from editing can never be inviting. Even if there were a coherent problem here that required solving, blocking would not be the solution to it. rspεεr (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that many Wikipedia editors do not want their real life identity revealed under any circumstances. These people may pick a name that seems to others like a nonsensical combination of letters and/or numbers.Hellno2 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the past. I'm not sure why we're focusing on gibberish usernames as opposed to confusing usernames: the only plausible argument that gibberish usernames are blockable before discussion with the user is that they are confusing, which makes them no different from other confusing usernames. A classic example is User:Ggggggggggggggg12, a literature expert who ended up blocked out of hand for his confusing username, and was so badly bitten that he ended up leaving the project, when he could have been a very valuable contributor. People pick random usernames sometimes, it does not indicate any inherent problem. Sure, in 99% of the cases we don't lose anything by blocking them, but blocking and losing one user like Ggggggggggggggg12 is worse than allowing a thousand confusing usernames to remain unblocked: if those users go on to vandalize, they'll be blocked; if they never contribute, it doesn't matter, and if they do contribute and really want to stay they will probably respond well to a request that they change username. All damage done by leaving these users unblocked is easily fixable but the other way around doesn't work. Wikipedia:Editors matter. But beyond this argument, no one has ever presented a satisfactory explanation of why having a confusing username is especially damaging to Wikipedia. Sure, vandals pick random usernames sometimes but that can't be our thinking in blocking random usernames: WP:AGF really does apply there. Mango juice^talk 12:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As I mentioned, we already do have a system intended to determine if one who registers is human. That's really what matters here. If one forms a bad-faith single purpose account, regardless of whether the name sounds intelligent or a random set of characters, this will likely be detected early on, and the account will be blocked. In the case of an account used to make a combination of productive and disruptive edits, counseling methods already in place will be employed. But regardless, what matters most is not one's name but one's contributions. Hellno2 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC This sounds like a bad idea. One person's lucky and bizarre string can be another's random username. Why not block for actual bad behavior, rather than assuming bad faith usernames? That a username is confusing is no great inconvenience -- we are all familiar with copy/paste, are we not? Ray^Talk 14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here we are faced with two choices. One doesn't harm the encyclopedia, and the other does.
The encyclopedia is not harmed in any way by people having "confusing" usernames. If these users turn out to be vandals, they get blocked for vandalism just like anyone else. However, many valuable contributors have had usernames that one user or another could deem to be "confusing".
The encyclopedia has been harmed by the practice of blocking confusing usernames (and people who continue to do so, such as slakr, should be aware that their actions do not have the support of consensus). Wikipedia has lost valuable contributors by having one of the most restrictive username policies on the Web, something that catches most new contributors completely by surprise. When legitimate users get blocked within a few minutes, even though we have a "friendly" message encouraging them to try again, they have little incentive to do so instead of finding a more welcoming Web site.
On top of the fact that it's a bad idea that accomplishes nothing useful, there is simply no acceptable standard for what is "confusing" enough to block. Most names that people suggest should be blocked for being "confusing" are entirely made of Roman characters and are therefore relatively easy for English speakers to reproduce. But because usernames are now global, we have valuable contributors (who we absolutely must not block) with names in Arabic script, Chinese hanzi, or any of the other hundreds of scripts in use around the world. These are strictly more "confusing" to most English speakers then the names that the blockers fret about. But what all these names have in common is: even if you don't know how to type them, you can still copy and paste them (or simply click on them, in most cases). Problem solved.
The only sensible resolution is: if you are easily confused by names, deal with it and stop trying to use blocking as a blunt tool to get your way. rspεεr (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As ever, if a username comprises of random strings of letters than it can be blocked by an administrator. I'd stated my reasons for why I believe things should be kept like this on a number of occasions; When a user edits with a random username, it would be very difficult tell one user with a random name to the next. We don't notice it at the minute, because we don't allow random usernames. If we did, then we certainly have issues distinguishing these users from one another. People claim they can use different signatures. Well that's indeed true, but many users make few talk page edits and there is still the issue of identifying users in the history. Things can stay as they have been for a long time and we can block random usernames. Of course, if there's any doubt discuss it with the user and use RFCN if needs be. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- You know, it happened to me multiple times now that I've mistaken you with User:Ryan Delaney when reading comments on WP:ANI. The possibility of mistaking one username for another username has nothing whatsoever to do with how "random" these usernames are, as Rspeer has pointed out above. It's entirely possible that two random usernames are alike, just like it is entirely possible that two normal usernames are alike. So why is one worse than the other? --Conti|✉ 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

distinguishing ryans is a little different from distinguishing between a username with 12 g's and 13 g's in a row, or distinguishing asdfjkl123 from asdfkl1234. Check out the user prefix list for asdf. Imagine just two of those involved in the same mediation case. Or rfar. Or ani. Or rfa. And no blocking does not chase off editors. And no, we actually don't have one of the most restrictive username policies-- we have one of the most lax. SlakrMobile (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We will never know for most cases whether a username block actually makes a user leave or whether the just return with a new username. It's pretty pointless to speculate about it, but we do have a guiding principle: Wikipedia welcomes newcomers and doesn't bite them for being new. I can tell you from doing a lot of {{unblock}} patrolling that, apart from the promotional usernames, people tend to be quite upset and feel very unwelcomed when they are username blocked. I've seen a lot of people get unblocked for name changes, but I'm aware of only one example of a user who was username blocked that went on to establish a long and productive edit history afterwards: User:American Eagle who used to be "America Needs Jesus". Almost everyone else just fades away, often with bitter complaints. I think you misunderstand: we do want people with confusing usernames to change their username, it's just that we can tolerate those usernames until the users can be convinced to change, and only blocked as a last resort (sort of the way we handle, you know, all other types of rule violations). Mango juice^talk 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that a problem that we can deal with when it actually happens? It seems odd to me that we immediately block a user named asdfjkl123 on the premise that there might be one day a user named asdfkl1234, and that those two users might be one day involved in the same mediation or arbitration or ANI case. Why don't we instead go to their talk page and say "Hey, it might be a good idea to change your username to something more intelligible", and if they don't, and there actually is a user with a very similar name editing very similar pages, we can still block (or, alternatively, slap a message on the top of their user page saying that they shouldn't be confused with each other). Sure, it's much easier to block be done with it, but the easy way isn't always the best way. --Conti|✉ 12:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that in a perfect world, we would have people who are willing to monitor every single problematic username to encourage them to change their usernames; guiding them through the confusing-for-a-newbie process of adding a request to change a username, waiting for that change to happen, then finally getting back to editing (if they even remembered what they were going to edit in the first place. I applaud those people who have that kind of dedication and time to do such things. That would be awesome...

...unfortunately. the problem is that such things take time. It takes resources, and the people that seem to most vocally express their beliefs that we should be taking the time to do such things and/or believe that the policy should be changed, don't, themselves, take the time to do put action to the notion. For example, I'm having difficulty finding evidence of Conti (talk · contribs)'s willingness to it, for example. In Rspeer (talk · contribs)'s case, it would appear most of his disputes arise with a blocking administrator after a block of a long/confusing username—despite zero attempt to prevent the block by contacting the user in the first place. Mangojuice (talk · contribs), on the other hand, does, indeed seem to attempt to resolve random username issues with the user, and I applaud Mango for that kind of dedication. Unfortunately, changing the policy isn't going to create more mangos.

In the end, it's nice to stalk a policy talk page to advocate policy change (or yell at people who don't do things your way); it's quite another to actually embody the change you're demanding, thereby being its role model, if you expect to see others doing the same thing one day.

In my opinion, it truly is easier, quicker, and more user-friendly to get to the person before they've made edits on the new username, give them a friendly, non-judgmental reminder of our not-otherwise-prominently-displayed high points of our username policy, and a direct link back to our tiny registration form, thereby letting them make another username in a few seconds and get back to editing. The alternative is to bother them months down the road, when they've happily settled into their username, make them go through some b.s. process request to change it, wait, then go through the "btw, this is my new username" crap on every talk page they might be involved on.

Sorry-that-username-is-not-acceptable-here errors are universal on the internet, and our {{usernameblock}} message tries to replicate that so that editors&mdash users and admins alike—can get on with their lives, and get on to editing the encyclopedia. We'd love to have more dedicated UAA monitors that have the desire to every day do the exact same thing, keep tabs on all of the users with random usernames, and guide all of them through to making new usernames. Show me some evidence that it works, doesn't result in burnout, and that most people are doing it that way (not hand-picked case studies, but rather some solid numbers), or that our current way of blocking random usernames clearly results in a net negative impact to the project (again, statistics are needed), then we can change the policy to reflect what we do; Wikipedia policies are descriptive— not prescriptive. A handful of hand-picked "but what if in this case" exceptions to the rule don't cut it in my opinion, much like they don't cut it when formulating or repealing laws in the real world.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of yelling at people for not doing things your way, you seem to be saying that the effort I put into defending newbies isn't worth anything unless I do it the way you like. You're taking it as an axiom that, one way or another, we need to defend Wikipedia from "random" usernames. I have seen no coherent arguments for what damage these names cause, or what benefit we would get from preventing them. Your argument seems to be based on the "what if"s that you claim to decry, such as "what if two users have meaningless names that are too similar" or "what if they turn out to be vandals".

I don't think it is necessary to spend any effort on the non-problem of random-looking names, which are at worst a mild annoyance, and only to people who choose to be annoyed by them. Such people can continue talking to the new users and encouraging them to change their names, but I'm not going to support the idea of using blocking to make that self-imposed task easier, or to take that task upon myself when I don't support it. rspεεr (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a user account should be blocked just because the name seems arbitrary and meaningless to someone. Unless a username is causing specific problems (impersonations, offense), I feel strongly it should be allowed. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose What is "random" to one person may have some meaning to the person who made the name.--Rockfang (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this also. I don't see a problem with a user having a "random" name. If somebody is using their username in a disruptive then action needs to be taken, but until then there isn't a problem to be solved. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

email addresses as usernames

I don't see anything written on WP:Username policy about using an email address as a username. I've seen instances before, and they don't sit right with me. Is it acceptable? Should it be something we recommend people change? Kingturtle (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommend they change. The software prevents email addresses in the standard format, but there may be old usernames that got in before that feature. In some cases, such a username could be promotional, but barring that it's their own privacy that's being affected, not ours. (I suppose, if someone registered a username with someone elses email address, it could be viewed as disclosing personal information, and further steps would be required.) Mango juice^talk 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Company names not (as yet) being used for spamming

The language at WP:SPAMNAME is a trifle ambiguous. It says "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" but then says "Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted". How do we make that distinction? To me, it seems simpler and uncontroversial to just say: No company names as usernames, period. Comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always viewed it as a matter of admin discretion, but it would be nice if the policy was more clear on the issue. Regardless, it's certainly contradictory. Here's the wording I propose: "An account may be blocked if its username is identified as a company title", or something to that effect. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this idea. It's another one of those situations where blocking is the wrong action. Ask them to change their name, tell them about the conflict of interest policy, and block them if they spam. (A template can take care of the first two.) If you username-block them, it's saying "please continue editing with your conflict of interest, just don't let us know about it". rspεεr (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, even posting a draft article on your company in user space, even a true attempt at an encyclopedic article, will often be regarded as spamming enough to merit a block. I think it's fair to say that we take a fairly proactive approach to company usernames -- basically, they're strongly indicative of a single-purpose account intending to edit contrary to the conflict of interest policy if not worse. I'm in favor of making it clear that company usernames will be blocked -- the policy should fit practice. Oh and Rspeer: we typically use {{spamusername}} for this situation, which conveys quite a different message from the basic {{usernameblock}} message. Mango juice^talk 01:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

{{spamusername}} is for blocking them when they've already spammed (and the username got your attention). It is accompanied by a hardblock. Are you proposing to hardblock users whose name is a company name before they've done anything? That's the other possible response to "softblocks of company names don't make sense", but it strikes me as disproportionately harsh. rspεεr (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find {{spamusername}} a silly and unnecessarily complicated template. All you need to say is "You spammed. Now you're blocked". The username has very little to do with it at that point. rspεεr (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to hardblock or softblock names like this before any edits. But I do think we ought to say they're against policy. As for the template, feel free to improve it, but it's worth a different message from the spam-only messages because the username also has to be addressed before unblocking. Mango juice^talk 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm arguing that blocking is the wrong tool for the job, but few other tools currently exist, I've gone ahead and made a user warning for this case: {{uw-coi-username}}. Anyone have thoughts or suggestions for wording? rspεεr (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing, Julian. One thing, though. I actually had a reason to leave out the "discard your account and create a new one" suggestion: we want to still know what that account is doing after they change their name, in case they do edit with a conflict of interest. Encouraging them to use CHU makes this more likely. rspεεr (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the wording on the page is still contradictory and possibly erroneous. I like Rspeer's solution, though, and there seems to be consensus for it here. I'll try and work on the wording later. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth do we block company or organization representative usernames if they do nothing wrong? Sure, block them if they spam, but let them be if they don't. Also, creating or editing the article about the group itself is not spamming. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is doing something wrong, because Wikipedia is not a vanity press and such edits are in violation of our rules on conflicts of interest, even if they are not blatant advertising. Mango juice^talk 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:COI? Many such accounts only want to point out errors in the article which is definitely allowed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, creating it is certainly a violation of COI. Editing usually is too, although correcting simple factual errors is all right. But I remain convinced that such a COI-abiding company account is a mythical beast; I've never heard of one actually existing, but in principle, I would be against blocking one... though I would still prefer for them to use a different username, because of other concerns (claiming official representation we can't/don't verify, and the whole role account issue). Mango juice^talk 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is worst with company or organization usernames, as opposed to company or organization representative usernames, since the former are obviously role accounts and should be blocked on that basis alone. But I've never seen a legitimate reason for a username like JoeFromMicrosoft, much less MicrosoftPRSally; they have always turned out to be COI problems. We don't want people to edit as representatives of some corporate entity, we want them to edit as human beings. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In the broader sense of "human beings" which encompasses oranges, mangoes, etc., of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem that has been ongoing, and I think we need to address it, because of the issues that this particular policy raised.

There is virtually no evidence that points to the fact that company names as usernames actually harm the Wikipedia project. Furthermore, as COI is not actually a policy but a guideline, you can't use that as the basis for creating a policy. I challenge anyone to find out why this policy was included to begin with.

There is quite a bit of evidence that actively blocking people for this reason actually hurts the project; the simple plethora of usernames that have been created (and blocked on this basis) says that this type of name is a natural choice for many such users.

Furthermore, I'd much rather be able to see when someone is actively doing self-promotion--we can certainly work toward helping them learn our policies and guidelines without kicking them off the project for having a username that relates to a company or organization. These are my current thoughts about this. I'm not saying that people who have been arguing for this policy are themselves damaging the project; but I do believe that there is a greater issue going on.

I would much rather admins ask themselves why this is even mentioned in the policy before they auto-block. Maybe you're actually going to turn off a potentially valuable contributor in the long run. Bastique ^demandez 22:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've long wondered about the reason for this part of the policy. Must be long forgotten in the mist, I haven't been able to find out what the original motivation was. The ideal that only individuals with no other affiliations should edit Wikipedia was perhaps a reason early on, but with the real world role Wikipedia now has it seems a touch naive.

I basically fail to see how blocking company or organization usernames which have no otherwise problematic edits is conducive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. The basic message these blocks send when new editors are told they must choose another name is "Yes, please edit the article as long as you hide the fact that you're affiliated with the organization". It's a huge newbie biting problem as it leaves many good faith users trying to fix inaccuracies in their company's or organization's articles blocked for simply telling us who they are. What possible advantage could there be to forcing them to hide the fact that they are affiliated with an organization?

If they start having COI or promotional problems the relevant policies should be explained to them and the reasons for us doing things the way we are talked about. In the mean time, the fact that they are plainly affiliated with an organization can only help other editors on these articles. I would suggest this part of the policy should be stricken as historical as no longer in the best interest of the project. henrik•talk 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cary makes a good point here, we should respond for how a user acts, not what their name is. If they choose to self-identify as a company, that may be ok. If they choose to promote or spam, then we can deal with that under other policies. But we should AGF until they prove otherwise. MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been five days with no comments contrary to the above. I've edited the policy to reflect the above, removing the policy justification for immediate blocks of company or group names. henrik•talk 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. Wikipedia is fairly strict about not allowing advertising. If a user is called "Milligan Network Solution Cmp." then each signature and each entry in the history of each page edited becomes an advertisement. We can't be allowing people to have company names in their usernames because that alone is promotional, even if their edits are not promotional. We don't let people advertise in their signatures, allowing company names would be doing just that. Such users should be required to choose a username that is not spammy. Chillum 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you bring that up at WP:AN? I've started a thread there on this subject in an attempt to consolidate discussion. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some good reasons for allowing that username: The main reasons is makes COI edits much easier to see and confront and reduces newbie biting. Basically there are three scenarios:

"Milligan Network Solution Cmp." registers but does not edit, no one sees the username. No problems, in fact we would not block that user today.
The account registers, and edits the Milligan Network Solution Cmp article and talk page: the fact that this user is affiliated with the company is obvious and our COI guidelines can be explained immediately: net improvement from today.
"Milligan Network Solution Cmp." registers and edits articles productively. We get a better encyclopedia. An unfriendly welcome by instablocking for a bad username will likely scare away a large portion of users. Net improvement from today.

I don't think that spammers will be able to profitably use usernames as promotion vehicles while simultaneously not running afoul of any of our other polices. Basically, given the advantages in transparency and friendlier welcome to new users we shouldn't be over-sensitive in interpreting things as advertising. henrik•talk 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Henrik and his change to this policy. That's how the rest of the discussion above is trending as well. It may take an RFC to get a final answer though since the discussion at WP:AN didn't go very far. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion continues below, I don't think the wheel has stopped spinning for this particular discussion. To be honest I didn't even notice this discussion until the change was made to policy, and it seems that is the case with others too. Happy April 20th! Chillum 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a shortcut that redirects here

I'd really like to claim the WP:UNC shortcut that redirects to the "Changing your username" section of this page for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Possible alternatives for a "Changing your username" shortcut are:

If I can have the WP:UNC shortcut for the new wikiproject, I will manually change all the links that currently link to this page to whatever the new acceptable shortcut is. Thanks. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:RFD would probably be the best place for this. –xeno (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that existed, but it seems to be more focused on deleting redirects as opposed to reassigning redirects. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was only for deletion, it would be called "Redirects for deletion" rather than "Redirects for discussion". –xeno (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the RfD page, "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point." So I'm assuming this is the place to at least start this discussion.

I would still really like to have this redirect reassigned. Is there anyone who objects to this? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt many people are watching this page, that's why I suggested RFD. The problem I see with retargeting WP:UNC is that even if you fix the existing links, there may be editors who would use this shorthand in a future conversation, not knowing it had been changed. FWIW, WP:UNCCH is available and would better describe the WikiProject... –xeno (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno. Since it has been here for a long time, it will more than likely continue to be used. Why not WP:UNCCH? —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(I exercised my right to remain WP:BOLD and made the redirect.) —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to get a final answer...

FYI, I have attempted to start a discussion about this and WP:UAA at WP:AN#Username blocks - can we clear this up once and for all?! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea

I don't know if anyone else might agree with me on this, but for a user with a name that is spamming or offensive in the most obvious manner possible that might get them immediately blocked, how about a template along the lines of this:

== Your username ==
Hello (the name of the user), I would like to suggest you change your username, as names that promote or advertise a company or entity are strictly against our policies on spamming. You may make your name change request here. Continuing to edit under your current name may result in you being indefinitely blocked for editing under an inappropriate username. Feel free to reach me on my talk page if you have anymore questions. Thank you. ~~~~

This is in cases where using Template:Uw-username is a bit too soft for the username in consideration, as User:Communityserviceaccount demands a username change way more than User:Cold damn. There could be variations of the template for names that have swear words, names that may throw off an ethnic group, etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting this template be used in cases where the user has made some clearly unconstructive edits, because the user's intentions would be made all too clear in their contributions, but there are some users who, believe it or not, genuinely do not know better, and this warning would be clear and stern without being too bitey or too soft. If the user continues to edit without changing their username after being given the warning, then they can be unquestionably blocked without complaining that nobody told them about the rules on usernames. If anyone objects to my proposal, then please do so without an "Are you really serious about this dumb idea?" attitude. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But "names that promote or advertise a company or entity" are not actually "against our policies on spamming". First, you link to WP:SPAM with "policies on spamming" but WP:SPAM is a guideline, not a policy. Second, WP:SPAM doesn't mention usernames at all. Third, even this policy doesn't mention spam usernames. Essentially it currently says that spammy usernames are okay, but using them to do spammy edits are not. Even before the latest edits, it said that role accounts are prohibited, not that promotional usernames are prohibited. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow spamming in any form Knight. Wikipedia is not the place for promotion, and we act to prevent that. Promotional anything is not allowed. Chillum 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A username is an identifier, not spam. If someone wants to identify themselves with a company name, I don't see the harm. On the contrary, it's actually helpful for us to know the account's affiliation. If they start making spammy, or otherwise disruptive edits, then that is when a problem arises. And it's a problem that is dealt with through the normal warning and block system - not the block first, warn later approach that you are taking. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do you identify spam accounts as not being role accounts? It can't be always easy to prove. Suppose three people sharing an account know how to keep their edits consistent enough that they won't set off any suspicions. What then? Besides that, the template I suggested won't be just for spam names, that was just an example I gave. It could be it for names that are considered offensive in general. No one's giving their opinions on this? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with change

I disagree with this change [4], as do multiple other users at WP:AN [5]. For one, it is in direct contradiction with WP:Role account. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, just because someone uses a company name as their username does not mean that it will be used by more than one person. –xeno ^talk 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is implied, and is not conducive to constructive editing - and it certainly violates the spirit of WP:Role account. Cirt (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I think we should agree on a venue to discuss this. Here, WP:AN, or somewhere else doesn't really matter as long as we can keep the discussion in one place: otherwise it's likely to become a very confusing debate. henrik•talk 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a better agreement before allowing role/promotional names. Using your company as your username is spamming plain and simple, even if that is not a user's intent. Chillum 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Chillum (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But there are some who may use the company name but aren't actually from the company –xeno ^talk 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Then they should not be using the company name, as it is misleading. Cirt (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, it could be anyone taking the company name. How does it look to the company if some low level employee or even competitor register their name then edit their article in a POV fashion till they get blocked. We let celebrities edit under their own names if they don't violate COI, but we require proof it really is them. If we allow company names it could be anyone and it could be unfairly damaging to the companies reputation. That is just one of the many reasons we don't allow role accounts, or accounts that give the impression of being role accounts. We don't let companies edit, only individual people. All that, and it is promotional. There are many good reasons that we have never allowed this type of name. Chillum 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nike is a company name and a Greek goddess. AdultSwim is a company name and the time at which you can get in the pool without a bunch of children urinating beside the water intake. The Gap is a clothing company, or the space between one's teeth. ;> –xeno ^talk 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we throw common sense out the window. We often accept otherwise inappropriate names if there is a) an appropriate alternate meaning, and b) the inappropriate meaning is not excessively so. Chillum 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though, common sense is something I've recently realized is quite relative =) –xeno ^talk 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All you're doing with the spam name block is driving the people underground. Now they'll continue making the same POV edits, only they'll be hidden from plain view. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That assumes that they are here to perform POV edits. They may just want to edit normally with a spammy name. Regardless, POV editing is not hard to see without taking the username into account. They can proclaim their biases on their userpage like I have: [6]. Chillum 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well even better. What's the problem with editing normally with a spammy name? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is spammy. You don't earn the right to advertise on Wikipedia by editing well. That would be an interesting project indeed, but not really Wikipedia. Chillum 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Better to know what each editor's biases might be than to force their suppression as someone just said on WP:AN in a different context. henrik•talk 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So how do you decide what's a spammy username and what isn't? Is "ILikePosicles" spammy? What about "ManowarIsTheBestBandEver", or "I<3Microsoft"? And, again, why should we care if the users in question actually don't do anything wrong? --Conti|✉ 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs)? Yes, he's an administrator here. Would've been cute if he was spamusername blocked on Day 1, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Spam. Chillum 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with the change. The overwhelming majority of these are just plain promotional accounts, out to publicize their company, band or non-profit group. The current wording is far too mushy around the edges about our positions on role accounts, COI and spam-only "editors". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much debate that company names in usernames are often undesirable. The debate is about whether they're more undesirable than various alternatives, and about what to do when one shows up. We're trying to decide what templates, technical measures, and so on, would be most beneficial in this situation, and to write the policy in such a way that lets us use them. (In the current situation, policy and practice are mismatched with each other and not even particularly self-consistent.) What would you suggest? rspεεr (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to address the issues at hand

While I don't think we should allow promotional usernames, I do see the merit in attempting to reduce the harm to the user in question. For that purpose I am attempting to draft a new template which I think will go a long way to reducing any feelings of not being welcomed a problematic username may cause. This template is specifically for usernames that appear to be company names and attempts to address the very specific issues related to company names. This is my draft: User:Chillum/Company name (draft) .

The key features of this template are:

It does not have a template box or a red icon in the corner, it is meant to look like someone talking to you not a template.
It starts by welcoming the user and expressing appreciation for their attempt at editing
It explains how their username could be seen as promotional
It also explains how we cannot properly confirm they are indeed a true representative of the company and that we do have issues with people misrepresenting companies.
The term "blocked" is known to many people as an IP block and can confuse people. Instead of saying blocked I explain what is happening by saying "We have disabled this username's ability to edit"

I intend to add a "notblocked" switch to the template to use alternate wording if the block is not needed at that point.

"I would like to make it clear that we do not think you have done anything wrong, nor do we assume it was your intention to promote anything." makes it very clear that we are not mad at them.
It goes on to explain to them how to create a new account and links them to the create user page

If they use this link instead of logging out first then the original users account creation log will show the new username. This allows us to watch for a possible COI.

I intend to add text about how to request a rename or to contest the issue.
"If you have any questions about this or anything else you can ask here and I will be happy to help." shows that the person talking to you is listening as well. People who use this template should keep the page on their watchlist and be willing to respond to questions.

This is still a work in progress, the wording is clumsy in areas and it needs some important points covered still. I would appreciate it very much if people could give comments and/or suggestions. Chillum 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Big problem right in the first line: "...we do not allow people to use company names as usernames." That is not written in this policy and I haven't found a revision where it was written. Can't say it if it ain't true. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We can change policy. We don't really allow promotional usernames anyways if you look at the block logs. It is better that policy reflect practice. Chillum 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Or instead of changing policy we could reword it to say "We discourage usernames that can be seen as promotional"? The template will have two modes, one for blocked and one for not blocked so it will not be making any assumptions there. Chillum 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Better look at the latter because I don't see consensus for the former. Our warnings need to match our policies. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded it. Promoting the company aside the very real concern about a low level employee or even someone outside the company with an ax to grind misrepresenting the company is something that needs to be considered. This is why we don't let people edit as celebrities unless they can prove it. I don't think we want to burden OTRS by asking them to verify company names all day. Chillum 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I also made an attempt, perhaps something can be synthesized from the two versions :-). I would actually be okay with this if - and this is important - assuming the user hasn't blatantly spammed they're given a chance to respond and change names voluntarily before being blocked. I realize this would require us to keep track of these users, which can be quite numerous, and I don't want to burden volunteers doing that. However, I believe it could be fairly easily done with technical means (appropriate categories and bots, for example), making it a relatively low maintenance task to avoid the unfriendly instant blocks. henrik•talk 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked schmocked - there is still nothing in this policy saying that people with a company name for a username will ever be blocked. To me, if someone named User:Widget Makers, Inc. makes a new article called Widget Makers, Inc., gets warned for COI and SPAM, and then goes on to write 57 featured articles and become an abitrator, what's the harm? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I basically agree, but I'm willing to settle for improving the situation over today, even if it is an incremental improvement. henrik•talk 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this one: Apple Inc. (talk · contribs · block log). I can't help thinking this is a righteous block, even though they didn't edit. I'm rather tolerant of company names, and if they spam I will politely point out our policies, which are often a complete revelation to them. But I think Chillum is onto something with the representation and role account issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That I have no objections to, but surely the handling of users like User:Medisave (to pick a recent example) could be improved. Juliancolton is applying policy as written correctly, so I'm not faulting him, but it still results in a horribly unfriendly welcome to Wikipedia for a new user. henrik•talk 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One serious issue, spamming put aside, is that User:Apple Inc. very likely not a representative of Apple. The same goes for less well known companies, but with more serious repercussions. When such a user makes an article and it goes through an AfD and is declared "Not-notable" and the user ends up being blocked for being nasty it really looks bad on the company through no fault of theirs. I have seen this more than a couple of times at OTRS where companies are asking that AfDs be blanked, saying they have no idea who this person claiming to represent them is. We need to be more responsible than that. Chillum 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to share my perspective on this issue. I've been rather involved with this policy over the last year or so, but it comes, primarily, from my work as an unblock reviewer. I've reviewed dozens of these blocked corporation names, and I can say this: these users are remarkably well-behaved compared to other unblock requests. The process we use isn't off-putting to them at all. They are more than happy to post an unblock request and apologize for their inadvertent choice of the poor username, claiming ignorance of the policy. They are quick to add that they just wanted to add information, not to promote or to advertise. They are not at all surprised to be blocked, for the most part: they know, in their hearts, that they are trying to use Wikipedia to further their business' interests and when caught are not particularly surprised that this results in a block (though some users are perplexed that some competitors, usually much larger and more established ones, have articles). My conclusion is that these users do not feel especially badly treated. For the most part they are confused about Wikipedia rules; I always do my best to explain the WP:COI issue (the main problem). I've even written a page WP:BESTCOI detailing the kind of behavior they ought to agree to in order to edit. Most users admit their editing is against the rules and fade away but some have other interests and get unblocked. I think if we want to handle the situation differently, we should have a friendly but firm warning we can leave new users to try to forestall being blocked, but above all we have to be clear about Wikipedia's expectations. Mango juice^talk 00:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Mango puts things very well here. His long term experience in this area has given him ample perspective on the issue. Chillum 05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mangjuice and Chillum's endorsement. I am usually prepared to assume good faith but if we really think that users who create company name user names do so completely innocently and are here to contribute constructively, we are seriously deluding ourselves. I suspect from MJ's experience that they are seeing how long they can get away with it until they are caught in flagrante delicto. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. They actually all think there's a way to promote themselves within the rules until they are thoroughly disabused of that notion. They are sure that other companies do it. And there probably are lots of cases we don't catch, but you can't catch all the fish. Mango juice^talk 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My e-mail box is full of e-mails from accusatory spammers saying, "But you let Microsoft and Google write articles about themselves, and I was just modeling my article about MyLittleCompany on their articles. Why can they get away with it and I can't?" 99.999% of these company/band names are there to promote their company/band, and the spammers think it is unfair of us to discourage or prevent them from doing so. "How else do I get my NGO/church/software's name out in front of the public? That's what Wikipedia is there for!" I found an article on a website for non-profit organizations a couple of years ago, urging the members of this website to come to Wikipedia and increase their importance by creating an account and spamming us with all sorts of links and mentions about the important good work their agency was doing. When I sent a polite note to their webmaster, he replied by telling me I was just narrowminded and not open to the wonders of social marketing in a good cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know there was a big debate already going on about this, and I'm not going to pretend I read everything on this page. Today I've seen several obvious spammers not get blocked. If someone has what looks like a promotional name, but they are not using it for advertising or promotion, fine, let them be. But if an account has clearly been created to spam Wikipedia on behalf of a particular organization, obviously it should be blocked, whether it says "incorporated" or whatever in it or not. I think Mango's comment right above this one sums it up nicely. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, assuming they get the proper warning, etc. We get scorned if we block a vandal without warning after s/he writes "poop" in an article two or three times. To me, that's a pretty clear indicator of their intention. Why can't spammers - who might stand more of a chance of writing something useful - be treated worse than someone screaming "TODD IS GAY" in the middle of Nowhere? Wknight94 ^talk 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to warn them, when their username justifies a block. W, perhaps I am wrong, but I would appreciate seeing some examples of spammers who have reformed. Mango juice^talk 02:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wknight, we don't need to warn a vandal that has done nothing but vandalize, they are called vandal only accounts and may be blocked on sight. I would also like to see an example of a reformed spammer. Chillum 05:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So if a new account is created and writes "poop" to a single article, I can immediately hard-block indef?! Wow, my last break must have been longer than I thought... I think I'd be taken to task pretty quickly if I did that - but okay, I'll give it a shot. Wknight94 ^talk 12:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure when you last read the blocking policy(there was a brief period when this part of the policy was stored on a subpage but has since been moved back), but it has been that way for at least 3 years since when I started here. From WP:BLOCK: "accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning". The idea is that when it is obvious the person is here for inappropriate reasons we can skip the bureaucracy and just move ahead. I don't think we have ever required all the paperwork of warning the user in triplicate when it clear a block is needed, we just use common sense. If I see a new user post "TODD IS GAY" somewhere I hard block them without warning. If an experience user did that I would block them too. As for promotional usernames, a soft block is a warning. Chillum 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked, Chillum and Mangojuice: User:MichaelQSchmidt is an example of a reformed spammer, COI and promotional user. He came here with his publicist to edit Michael Q. Schmidt but has turned into a tour the force in article rescues and a great net positive for the project. If we by treating a hundred real spammers and promotional editors less harshly get one more user like him, I think we'll have done well. He was almost scared away by the usual unfriendly welcome, but User:BQZip01 among others tutored and helped him understand the policies and convinced him to stay, but it was only by a stroke of luck that no-one indeffed him before under this policy and for his initial frustrated outbursts. henrik•talk 13:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I properly explained my request for an example. We are talking about users who use their company name as a username. I would never use the template under discussion(remember the template?) for a user such as MichaelQSchmidt, as it is a totally different circumstance. The name itself is not promotion in the case of MichaelQSchmidt. Chillum 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Having been informed that I was being used as an example, I want to clarify something before it gets in any ways misinterpreted. The "spammer" user:henrik speaks of was a publicist who used wiki to promote me and others. The publicist was never told or instructed by me to use Wiki. That decision to use Wiki was was his alone. HOWEVER, and because I edit using my own name rather than some made-up one, I am VERY aware of COI issues. and I do have BQZip01 and many others to thank for their mentoring and continued friendship. So as I do agree with the sage advice to treat newcomers with patience in order to help them become suitable editors, I wish to distance myself entirely from any preception or inference that I was ever here to SPAM wiki. Never the case. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with treating newcomers with patience. The idea is if a username is promotional that we patiently make them pick a username that is not promotional. The old account with the promotional username is disabled and they are left a polite message explaining what is wrong and how to create a new account and that we are not upset with them. I would like to get your perspective on that MichaelQSchmidt, do you think that is rude or unwelcoming, or do you think it is a reasonable step to prevent promotional usernames(We are talking about company names like User:Wellman Accounting Services). Chillum 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's a very good example. The publicist, User:Cinemapress, is indefinitely blocked. And User:MichaelQSchmidt seems to have never edited his own article. Mango juice^talk 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)