Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 Why do we still have "confusing usernames"? Is it just a pre-block for disruption? 2 Reversion of April 4 change to WP:U; see WP:AN#Solving the mess 3 Let's get down to forming consensus 3.1 Break 3.2 Return to the main thread 3.3 A summary of username policy discussion 3.4 Break 4 - back to discussion 3.5 Furthermore... 3.6 Successes of the policy 4 Length of otherwise-legitimate usernames? 5 The use of real names 6 more on Real Names 7 Can I create a user account for my aunt?

Why do we still have "confusing usernames"? Is it just a pre-block for disruption?

Well. A while ago I brought up the idea of no longer blocking "confusing usernames", as it is hard to see how a username could be so confusing that the user behind it needs to be indefinitely blocked (instead of asked to change their name). Remember that users who vandalize or make personal attacks (bigger problems than mildly confusing someone) get polite talk messages and multiple chances. When I brought it up before, I got bogged down in a mass of different opinions about why we have that in the policy and withdrew from the discussion for a while. My previous discussion has, apparently, disappeared without even being archived. Shrug.

We have a bot (HBCNameWatcherBot) that goes around suggesting that you might want to block people for having repeated letters in their username or even just repeating a short sequence of letters three times. After bringing this up on WT:UAA, I removed these cases from the bot's blacklist, but The Anome restored them with this comment:

I've re-added the typing pattern regexps to the blacklist. Whilst there is nothing offensive about typing-pattern usernames, they fail to meet the username policy requirements in two ways:

• confusion: typing-pattern names like sdsdfjs, sdlfjssdj, sdfjsdlj (just for example) are difficult to remember or distinguish from one another; similarly with (for example) lololololololol and lololololol or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee vs. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
• disruption: long experience has shown that users with typing-pattern usernames generally do not intend to use their accounts for constructive purposes

I find this highly objectionable, of course. The biggie is that we are not Minority Report. We don't block people for disruption that they seem likely to do but they haven't done yet. (Well, unfortunately, sometimes we do, but we really shouldn't.) And I fail to see why a polite comment wouldn't be a better way to tell someone it's not a great idea to be named "eeeeeeeeeeeee".

A bit of an opinion poll, then:

• Are there people here who actually support The Anome's suggestions (that you should block people -- not just warn, but block -- if their usernames are "difficult to remember" or imply that they might be disruptive in the future)?
• Should HBCNameWatcherBot be implicitly endorsing The Anome's version of the username policy by posting such names to WP:UAA?
• Are these the only reasons we keep "confusing usernames" around in the policy, or are there better ones?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My reason for disliking these types of usernames, and why I will always object to removing this part from policy is simple - usernames that are random, or consist of many repetitive letters are hard to distinguish from one another. The reason why we don't have problems currently is because we don't allow them. Any string of random letters would be extremely hard to tell apart from the next and therefore it is tough to tell who owns each edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even believe that the kind of names we block would make it "tough to tell who owns each edit". They tend to be more distinctive rather than less, even from each other, and the confusion doesn't even matter because MediaWiki helpfully provides links you can click on to get to their talk page and contributions. AntiSpoof and blocks for impersonation already take care of names that are misleadingly similar to each other. To me these names don't harm anything, so I think they should be allowed.

However, you didn't answer the full question -- I also asked whether you wanted to block those users, which is what is involved when their names show up on UAA. It's a common argument on this page to equate "don't allow" with "block immediately". It doesn't work that way elsewhere on Wikipedia, so I will call you on it every time you use that supposed equivalence here.

For example, we don't allow personal attacks, but we don't block people the first time they make one. Same goes with vandalism. Why is "making it tough to tell who owns each edit" -- even if that were actually happening -- a bigger problem than personal attacks or vandalism? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as I said the last 5 times this was brought up, the purpose of usernames are to distinguish users from each other, and if they don't do that(ie eeeeeeeeeeeee vs eeeeeeeeeeee) then it is not meeting its intended purpos. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And just as I've said whenever you've said that, if you have eeeeeeeeeeeee and eeeeeeeeeeee editing in the same place, that's impersonation. You don't block someone because someone could pick a name that looks like theirs and impersonate them. Recall the examples of "Resper" and "Until (1==2)". Nobody is safe from having a name possibly confused with theirs, except that when that happens we block the impersonator and not the impersonatee. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:

1. Are all confusing usernames equally confusing? What are the most confusing types of usernames?
2. Is there a grey area between definitely confusing and definitely not confusing usernames? If there is a grey area, would it be better to leave it alone, and block only the most egregiously confusing usernames?
3. What more can be done to reduce the inconsistency of interpretations of what is a blockable confusing username by different admins? Old admin school? :-) A better list of examples?
4. Is it right that even an editor with good edits but a confusing username can be immediately blocked without ever being asked as a sign of good faith to please consider voluntarily changing username? Should we first try asking such editors to consider changing username?
5. If a bot is capable of automatically flagging possibly confusing usernames after they have registered, why can't new users be warned or even prevented automatically while they are attempting to register a confusing username for an account?

- Neparis (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I keep seeing people say Usernames are to distinguish users from each other, and confusing user names make it hard to do this - Is this really true? Why am I allowed to have a sig that is completely different to my username? How many times do people type a username anywhere? Aren't usernames just a way for IPs to get a page that gives us tools to track our contribs and a talk page? Dan Beale-Cocks 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a username like User:eeeeeeeeeee or User:92813423894921 is a bad username. So I have no issue in thinking of this as a problem. However, I really don't think we should be handling this kind of username the same as we do for clearly offensive usernames or impersonating ones. User:eeeeeeeeeee, if they edit, will be a mild annoyance at worst, but any reasonable contributor who registers a username like that will be someone we can reason with, who will be willing to change to a good username. A bad contributor will end up being blocked for other reasons, and the confusing username might help that along. Mangojuice^talk 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some usernames are bad. I think it's a shame that a good faith editor with a name like "eeeeeeeee" is treated the same as an obviously bad faith editor with a name such as "allah is gay". The number example you give is excellent: Why is that more confusing than, say, "Dlabtot" or "Athaenara" or "Jasynnash2" or "Naerii" or "MBisanz" or "cordesat"? (Sorry to use real editors names; I don't disapprove of the names. And some of them are less confusing than others.) But some numbers have relevance, and just because *I* suck at math doesn't make the name confusing, it just makes it confusing to *me*. Also, I feel uncomfortable with the idea that usernames are used as a short cut to instant blocks. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel uncomfortable with it. A user who picks a random-looking username already looks suspicious to me, and so I'm more likely to block them for long periods if they misbehave. My point is: if they misbehave. We don't give temporary blocks for vandalism because vandalism isn't bad enough to block -- we give temporary blocks because we recognize that vandalism is sometimes innocent experimentation, which should stop, but which does not always indicate a contributor we don't ever want back. But something like a random username indicates to me that that conclusion is less likely. Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll say what I've said before: we should note that confusing usernames shouldn't be blocked, they should be discussed with the user. Fin. What else could we need to say? How to include that in the guidelines will take discussion, but I'd hope we could all get together on the basic point. SamBC(talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get the "We block them because we can't distinguish them from each other" logic. If so, why aren't we blocking "Shyam" and "Shyamal", too? Or "Morwen" and "Morven". Or "Sj" and "Sjc". Or "Tango" and "Tangotango"? All are actual admin accounts, by the way. Heck, I once confused Ryan Delaney with Ryan Postlethwaite. :) Why don't we do the sensible thing and wait until there actually is some kind of problem about distinguishing different users, and then nudge them to change their username. Or simply add a message on top of their userpage, stating that they shouldn't be confused with User:XYZ. --Conti|✉ 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We certainly make a distinction between good faith and bad faith username violations. In good faith violations we invite them to create a new account or rename their current, and make sure it is technically feasible to do so. With bad faith names we make so such invitation and block their ability to create new accounts.

We already treat "FJjgklsdfjg" differently than "<insert name here> is gay". One we politely explain the situation to and invite them back, the other we hard block. Please remember the difference between blocking a user and blocking a username. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference, yes, but I doubt a newbie user who gets blocked will know about that difference. Seriously, why do we need to block a user named "FJjgklsdfjg"? Why can't we just leave a polite message on his talk page without blocking him, and see what he's got to say about this? We can always block later if the user doesn't want to change his username, after all. --Conti|✉ 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Conti and (I suspect) Rspeer on this. There's no need to block. There's no harm from those names showing up in page histories. Polite notes are all that's necessary. Make the change to the policy I suggested, and have a second location reported to by the bot for "names for humans to look into". SamBC(talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If blocking someone is so friendly and welcoming, why don't we do it to all newbies? It could give them a taste of what it will be like being a newbie on Wikipedia. If they come back and we forget to block them the next time, good for them, no harm done. Besides, most newbies are going to be disruptive anyway, so the blocks will be correct most of the time, just like TWINKLE-requested blocks are. ;) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a real proposal. It addresses the issue of confusing usernames and confusing signatures, breaks out of the "we block them because we block them" cycle, and still allows for the actually disruptive users to be blocked.

We take "confusing names" out of the "Wikipedia does not allow" section (because that section, in actuality, is equated with the "reasons to request an insta-block with TWINKLE" list). Likewise, we take it out of the list of TWINKLE boilerplate reasons (because the de facto policy isn't on this page, it's inside TWINKLE.) Below "dealing with inappropriate usernames", we add this section:

Confusing usernames

The purpose of a username is to identify contributors. If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above [removed:] because confusion is subjective, and because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block.

An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other policy violations such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption. As with all other blocks, admins should use their discretion and common sense.

In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption. [added]

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
edited -- rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving back to my original point, I object to this change. A confusing username makes it hard for others to contribute with the user, makes page histories confusing and makes it hard to tell a good faith editor from a vandal. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that a defense of insta-blocking them based on no other evidence, which is the only thing my proposal would change? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion isn't any more subjective than offensiveness is. --erachima talk 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you just want to take out the "because confusion is subjective" part? We could do that. I wanted to explain a bit in the policy why we were separating the two cases, but it's not essential. But I'd claim, incidentally, that confusion is much more subjective than offensiveness. At least there are a considerable number of names that everyone here can agree are too offensive to be on Wikipedia; you won't find many that everyone agrees are too confusing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's not much to discuss if the user has a name like that. Anyway, your policy change means that if the user refuses to change their name, they get to keep it, which I'm strongly opposed to. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"If the user has a name like that"? That's tarring people with the same brush a bit much. You're making assumptions that the contributor will be a bad one, just based on their name. There was a lot to discuss with Ggggggggggggggg12 if anyone had been willing to discuss things rather than break out the banhammer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What about giving the admin the ability to block after the confusing username replied to the request of a name change? --Conti|✉ 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Here's a part that I was thinking about putting in, but I could think of no realistic situation where it would matter. If a user is being a productive contributor to Wikipedia in every respect except that they refuse to change a name that some people object to, then perhaps those objections aren't all they're cracked up to be. But maybe it would assuage some people if we include this:

• If a user deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username can be blocked to prevent disruption.

Does that help? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support that on very strong terms. Blocking, even threatening to block, because we find a name confusing is just silly. We should be encourage a newbie to change his name - give him a few warnings (like we do for vandalism) even - before blocking, and in the case of confusing names, blocks should only be given if they absolutely refuse to rename and don't justify their current name (since confusion is subjective and it could make perfect sense when explained). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that a confusing username will have the same effect as any other sort of confusing action, that is to cause confusion. I am just going to let this topic settle itself, as I am pretty sure I have made my position clear. Please try not to overcompensate in reaction to any damage existing policy may have caused. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging, at least, that the existing policy has caused damage.

Causing a bit of largely hypothetical confusion -- confusion that doesn't necessarily confuse anyone and can be resolved easily -- is nowhere near as big a problem as biting newbies, so I hope a sufficient number of people here have their priorities straight. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

copied from UAA talk: Simply put: no. Proactively blocking obviously confusing usernames (e.g., foiwjeofiuyhwoieut; h1therej00l0vecak3; 1m 1n j0r p4g3s 3d1t1ng j0urtext) is better than letting them run rampant while we add even more bureaucracy to a place where it's clearly not needed for the overwhelming majority of cases. We have RFC-usernames for borderline cases already. Creating yet another process is excessive in my opinion, and unless you can conclusively demonstrate a need for such a change, I have to strongly disagree with it. --slakr^\ talk / 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, how about you conclusively demonstrate a need to block these users. We have demonstrated for months that "confusing username" blocks catch legitimate newbies.

When you non-specifically say these users are "running rampant", what exactly do you mean is happening? If it's so bad that you need to block people over it, why isn't it covered by another policy? The point is that now you can't just block newbies because you want to and blame it on their username. If a block is actually justified, there will be a policy justifying it.

And I'd be okay with doing away with the extra process (presumably not in the way you want), but the process came about because of a compromise, which is an important thing on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In you experience, how often does sitting down with a user with a name like those I've mentioned actually yield productive results? I'll be happy to switch my opinion and agree with you if you agree to provide some statistically significant numbers to support your viewpoint. Again, we have RFC for usernames, and we use it. I simply don't understand why we need to have two processes to achieve the same thing if having the second one has no logical basis for doing so. --slakr^\ talk / 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you still talking about the holding pen? I actually agree with you that WP:RFC/N would be a better way to deal with the occasional times that confusing usernames cause actual problems. I didn't write anything about the holding pen in the policy, that's just part of the implementation on WP:UAA.

It's hard to provide positive evidence of talking to newbies and having them agree to change their name, because the way a newbie changes his or her own username is to start a new account. We can't tell when we succeed. We can only see the times when the policy goes wrong and blocks a clearly good-faith user; I'll point to the perennial example of Ggggggggggggggg12, but there are plenty more. My point here is that a policy that sometimes blocks good faith users is a much worse thing than a policy that sometimes misses bad faith users (who can then easily be blocked under another policy). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of April 4 change to WP:U; see WP:AN#Solving the mess

Given the manifest lack of consensus for the April 4 rewording of the policy, as evidenced by significant opposition on this page (see above), and especially in WP:AN#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames, I have undone the April 4 change to the policy, and the reference to it in the header of WP:UAA. (I think I managed to re-integrate all the non-controversial housekeeping changes made since then; also, this should not be considered as expressing an opinion on the WP:SUL and non-Latin username issue mentioned in a section above - I just kept the latest version of the page as of today.) --MCB (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the significant opposition above? WP:AN I'll grant, but where above? Everyone discussing above was certainly aware of the change once it was made, and the fact that it was left in indicates that no-one objected to it; isn't that the point of WP:BRD? Of course, in this case, it was more DB-not-R, as is generally recommended for policy. SamBC(talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To get to the point, we can see from your edit exactly what the specific change we're talking about is; I now invite people to speak in support or opposition to the change itself, not how it was made previously. Please review the discussions that already happened, to get an idea of what points have already been raised and addressed, on both sides. SamBC(talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How is "confusing" defined? Some examples - user with a name "BOB", a new user should not have the name "B0B", any username with "bot" in it, any username with "admin" in it. How should confusing not be defined? 'something that confuses me' - for example "owyeoibndljknvc". EVEN if you think that long, complex, usernames should be blocked do you think they should be instantly, permanently, blocked, without any discussion with the user, before the user's made any edits (or without regard to any edits the user has made?) Or do you think it's better to ask the user if their name has some meaning to them, if they'd be prepared to consider a different name. Note that as soon as "owyeoibndljknvc" starts making bad-faith edits there are plenty of ways to block them. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it baffles me that WP admins will instantly, permanently block an account for having the "wrong" username but will give temporary blocks to [vandals who plan games off-wiki to disrupt the encyclopedia], especially when "wrong username" varies wildly from admin to admin. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. MCB unilaterally introduced a new version of the policy, calling it a "revert", but it is equivalent to no previous version of the policy. Of all the changes that have been made to the policy without unanimous support or a formal poll, he selectively undid the parts he didn't like. (Apparently, this includes taking the word "relevant" out of the "misleading usernames" clause, which puzzles me.)

He hasn't presented any actual defense of his version besides that we didn't have a poll for ours. This is a narrow view of how consensus works, and it's unhelpful to oppose things based on process instead of based on their benefit to Wikipedia.

MCB, as a critique of your version, you need to take into account the fact that the policy has further changed since April 4 with the introduction of unified login. Unified login and insta-blocks for confusing usernames don't naturally coexist, because we have seen time and time again that a whole lot of interwiki names are considered confusing by some administrators. If you don't sort this out in your proposal, you're creating a mess while you're claiming to be "solving" one.

I've explained on MCB's user page that consensus isn't about numbers, it's about discussion. I would rather that MCB joined the discussion and explained why his version of the policy would be an improvement, instead of continuing to say that discussing, collaborating, and compromising on a way to reform a broken policy doesn't meet his definition of "consensus". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And MCB re-reverts. Let me state again, for the record, that MCB is pushing through a new version of the policy that he created by picking and choosing edits to undo, without even discussing it here. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, I am extremely dismayed that you have elected to revert me and try to start a wheel-war, rather than make an explicit proposal and try to get consensus for it here with a transparent, unambiguous process. What I did was undo your change of April 4, leaving in place the other, non-controversial changes that occurred since then. (These consisted of changing "shortcut" to "policy shortcut" in a few places, and probably a couple of other things; take a look at the diffs.) There was also language removed by Kim Bruning based on WP:SUL which was re-instated by Mangojuice; I left that as is, and said explicitly that I was stating no opinion on that.

All I have done is removed a specific change that did not have consensus. If you want to reinstate that change, make a specific proposal, with specific language, bring it here, and ask for opinions. If, as you say, your point of view represents consensus and wide support, it would transparently and unambiguously decide the issue. While non-controversial policy changes do not need a lot of process, something as contentious as this needs a full airing. It's what we do for deletion discussions, RfAs, controversial page moves, and other matters of wide interest. Why are you so resistant to this? Please: seek consensus. Don't wheel-war. --MCB (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did all that long ago. I sought consensus in the same way that it is sought for nearly every policy, which has nothing to do with voting. You never brought your version here and asked for opinions; you just reverted the changes that you have defined as "controversial" because a handful of people just complained on AN. You're wiki-lawyering, and you're also misusing terms such as "wheel warring". Meanwhile, your demands are empty because you haven't addressed any of the numerous objections that people here have brought up regarding your change.

Why are you so resistant to a perfectly sensible change that happened a while ago, especially when you've got no defense of the pre-change version? What is your motivation for all this? My motivation is making Wikipedia a better place to be a newbie, about which you'll find an essay on my user page.

I really wish you would back off from setting this discussion back a month just because you don't like the way it happened. I would start another discussion of the WT:U version if I must, but then I expect you to seek an equal amount of discussion for your version. A good way to start, to show that you intend to follow through on this, would be to give us a single reason why you're doing what you're doing, besides that it's the opposite of what I did. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "my version". As a matter of fact, I didn't write any of it. All I did was undo your change of April 4, restoring the status quo ante of the policy. It's not that I "didn't like the way [the discussion] happened", it's that I believe you inferred the need for a policy change from the tenor of a long, disjoint discussion, and the result of that inference was a policy change that did not enjoy consensus. So, after further discussion, and announcing my intention to do so, and receiving at least nominal support, I changed it back to what it was. That's all. If you or anyone else proposes to change it, just make a proposal. The floor is open. Please be specific. Rather than wasting time attacking my motives, accusing me of wikilawyering, or setting back the discussion, etc., just make your proposal. Again, if, as you assert, it enjoys wide support and consensus, it will surely be adopted, no? What do you fear from an open poll? --MCB (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I made my specific proposal, meeting all of your criteria for a proposal except the "open poll", three weeks ago. The thing I fear most is that I would have to waste a significant quantity of time organizing a discussion for everything we already discussed, except this time with a poll because you insist that consensus can't happen without one. Consensus frequently does happen as a result of disjointed discussions, in many places, so please don't go reverting all of those.

I'm not really attacking your motives, because I have no idea what they are. Why are you storming in here and wasting everyone's time by insisting on a poll for something that happened three weeks ago? What do you have to "fear" from simply continuing the discussion instead, in the way that all healthy policy pages work? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that consensus does not currently support the change; hence, your edit was reversed as it does not accurately reflect policy. --slakr^\ talk / 09:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have objected to the way the change was made, insisting for some reason on a poll; not sure when that became required, but there you go. No-one has given a cogent, reasoned objection to the content of the change. If no-one has such an objection, then it certainly enjoys consensus among those who've discussed it. People breaking the new version of policy doesn't mean that it's not got consensus support, it means that people break rules willingly or through ignorance. Is the chance to bite people really so important? SamBC(talk) 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. People use automatic tools to report usernames. Once you tell them that a name cannot be confusing by itself, thaat it needs something else to be confused with, they're happy to stop clicking the buttons on their scripts. Some editors have stopped reporting usernames to UAA (for an instant, permanent, block) and have started asking users about the name on the user's talk page. I ask several questions below; anyone reverting to the old policy needs to answer those. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• What disruption does a long complex ('confusing') username (eg "jwicuwein cebece" cause?
• Is that important enough to deserve an instant block, or should discussion be attempted first?
• What if "jwicuwein cebece" is someone's real name?

To answer a few points before they get made: B0B is not confusing or disruptive. If BOB already exists then B0B can be blocked fro being confusingly similar. Most names with 'bot' or 'admin' or 'crat' etc are blockable as being "confusing". A user with a long complex name who starts making bad faith edits can be blocked very quickly, you don't need to assume bad faith and block them before they make any bad edits. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think admins should be able to use discretion in this area as we always have. I don't think there really was consensus to remove that discretion, there was plenty of objection and it was proposed and reject several times in the past before it got in, I would not be surprised if time showed that "consensus" to make the change to be misleading. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some admins will block very much quicker than others. Be honest, how would you have felt if someone had templated you before your first edit saying that your username was nonsense and you've been blocked indefinitely? Almost instant, indef blocks, on the whim discretion of whatever admin is looking at UAA seems very bitey to me. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get down to forming consensus

Stop being effing wikilawyers. Polling is not permitted at any rate. The current wording on the page accurately reflects the current Best Practice on the wiki, afaict. Where it does *not* accurately reflect that best practice, please describe here, and/or feel free to modify the page and list diffs. (I find diffs easier to read than complex paraphrasing). This is a wiki. Wikis are for editing. Let's stop bickering and get down to editing, shall we?

I've made the first edit. Who will join me? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I agree with what should happen now, as I indicated above. I also agree with your edit, personally, in terms of it representing current best practice. SamBC(talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Polling is not permitted? Nonsense. While I think that direct discussion is more useful in this case, polling certainly is permitted. What is not done is using a poll for the sole basis of decision. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia policy poll I have seen has been a complete clusterfuck. I would prefer that didn't happen to this talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:POLL is rejected, the current guideline is Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You are right, Until (1==2), To be more accurate, polling in the manner suggested here is not permitted (and is in fact a perennial proposal). Thanks for pointing out the nuance there. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I make this into a poll if I'd say "I fully support agree with this edit"? :) --Conti|✉ 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 %-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) meanie! Though if you also explain *why* you support it, we might let it slide, today. :-)

Well, it just seems to be the more sensible way of handling confusing usernames to me. --Conti|✉ 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kim. Now, I recognize there may be people such as MCB with concerns about this version of the policy. We've succeeded before in addressing people's concerns in the policy without having revert wars, and I think we can do it this time. What I'd like to know is: MCB, what are your concerns about the policy? What are your goals for it? If you prefer the pre-April version of the policy, why do you think that version better reflects best practices? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

@SamBC: Did I miss fixing the links? Sorry about that ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See, this has happened over and over. This is how a minority faction attempts to dictate a policy position by ducking a poll, claiming "polls are evil!", and engaging in an edit war until the other side(s) simply give up. The essays and guidelines on polls are contradictory and inconclusive: I'd agree that polls should not be used to decide article content or factuality, but they are very useful in other areas, and are used for such important matters as RfAs, deletion discussions, page moves, and policy alternatives. Indeed it is true that polls do not create consensus, but are very valuable to measure consensus. Since Rspeer claims that there was a consensus for his April 4 changes, demonstrating that via a poll should be a slam-dunk, no?

So, again, instead of an orderly, collegial, unambiguous process we're left with an edit war. When reverting to the pre-April 4 version of the policy, I made the mistake of assuming that the faction opposing confusing-username blocks would leave the policy as is, make explicit proposal(s) and abide by the result of an opinion poll, but instead we have a revert war and waving the old "polls are evil!" canard. Sadly, I had expected better. --MCB (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong section for wikilawyering, that was the previous one. Here we just want to figure out what the best possible wording is. So no worries :-)

Why do you personally oppose the current wording? Can you give some good reasoning? (If you already said so earlier, a link or diff is ok too, I'll read :-) ). I promise to listen carefully.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MCB talks about "factions" and "revert wars". If it helps I promise to make no edits to the policy at all, ever. He wants specific wording; what's wrong with the policy as it exists right now? Dan Beale-Cocks 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, take it easy, you don't need to promise that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When you use words such as "orderly" and "unambiguous", are you sure you're talking about policy polls? Have you seen any policy polls? Again, they're clusterfucks. They don't create consensus, they destroy it. Discussion creates consensus, as you should know because you are editing a wiki. We are inviting you to discuss the issues. Please drop the polling idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer: I think (s)he's got that now. :-) Can we continue on? Are there any ways the wording could be improved further? I'm also still waiting for a response from MCB. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. People such as KnightLago complained about one part that seemed to conflate confusion with disruption. I think it's this one:

In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption.

I put that in as a compromise, and I'll agree that the "to prevent further disruption" clause is kind of weird. I wrote it, but only because other people wanted it, and I don't understand the motivation behind it. We're talking about a situation where a new user is editing in good faith, some other editors ask that new user to change their name, and the user in all good faith says "No, I won't". This isn't really disruption, it's just a really weird standoff.

So the policy shouldn't phrase this part in terms of disruption, I suppose. Maybe someone who believes these kinds of blocks are important could help by contributing some better wording. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone here should read the policy tag at the top of U. It says, "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." The problem is that the changes made are not a widely accepted standard. Nobody but the small group here is following them. Confusing usernames continue to be reported and blocked on sight. So the truth of the matter is, you can play with the policy page all you want, nobody is going to abide by it because there is/was no consensus for change. KnightLago (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Most people do abide by it, actually. UAA has become a much more pleasant place. Even most TWINKLE users don't report confusing usernames any more, and most admins don't block them if they are reported. Yes, I recognize that a few people are exceptions. It's a good thing that these people are actually starting to talk on this talk page: now we can start a discussion and find out where we differ and why.

You seem to strongly support the pre-April version of the policy. What are its advantages, from your point of view? What changes do you want to see in particular, and how would they benefit Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we've already had the policy-wonking several times now. Thank you very much for that input. :-)

I understand that a fair number of people are blocking on sight. However, I also understand that this might be a Bad Idea (tm). After all, a fair number of people also vandalize wikipedia every day, but no-one is saying that that's a good idea either. :-P Now, Some people don't block on sight. Apparently they have had good experiences with that.

So we can update this page to explain what we think the best known method is at this point in time. Then each time someone doesn't use the best known method, we can enlighten them :-)

If you think that your own method (or a method you have observed) is better than what is described here, please document it so that everyone can learn. That's what is meant by "please ensure that your revision reflects consensus". Consensus is that project pages document the known best practice (which need not be the most common practice... yet - if no one knows about it... that's one reason why we're documenting, right? What else would these pages be for? :-P )

Anyway, please do explain if you know of better practices. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) If we stated the common practice instead of the best practice, we might end up telling people to vandalize and edit war all day. That's not quite right :-P

(two edit conflicts) I concur with KnightLago, who said it better than I could have. It's the reason I have not further reverted, suggested some hypothetical "new policy language", or for that matter, posted very much of anything on this today. I have been acused of wikilawyering, had my motives impugned, and there has been vast handwaving and argumentation (on my part as well), but really, what is going to happen is that the greatest number of of editors and admins are going to continue to do the right thing with respect to all the names reported to WP:UAA, and tinkering with a few sentences here and there -- which is what we're talking about -- is not going to change that. At this point, continuing to try to push for process is just not worth the heartburn. My worry that a minority faction will dictate a policy position is, ultimately, unfounded; they may control the language of a policy document, but if it is not widely accepted, it does not really matter in the long run, and at some point a third party will notice that and fix the language to conform with the practice. --MCB (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any actual reason to reject the policy change, apart from "No one is going to follow it anyhow"? That kind of reply is a bit frustrating, because you just can't argue against such a subjective statement. And what would be needed to make the change "widely accepted"? An RfC? More discussion? Or do all admins have to stop blocking confusing usernames all of a sudden for the change to be accepted? --Conti|✉ 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

MCB: Could you please explain which practice you prefer and especially why? That's the important thing, and I haven't managed to quite figure that out yet. You refer to "continue to do the right thing." Can you explain what that is, and why? I would very much like to document that! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Break

Ok Kim, enough with the trolling. You don't need to throw around accusations of wikilawyering and patronizing comments about documenting things. Your comments are driving away the very people you want to discuss the issue with. We could always just return to AN and keep complaining there.

Overreaction and poor choice of words on my part for which I have apologized. KnightLago (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for not being more clear about my intent. I'm trying to think of ways in which I can be clearer that I am genuinely interested. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Rspeer, who I thank for actually trying to address the issues: I think we should move beyond the argument of how it is being implemented at UAA. We obviously look at the situation differently and could both make arguments for either side.

In relation to the policy, I find myself torn at this point. The first changes made were a confusing mess which led to the uproar at AN. At this point, I understand what you are trying to do, but I question some of the changes to the policy and whether they are really needed, and whether there is community support for it.

Under both policies the user is forced to change their username. Under block on sight the admin would simply block and tell them to create a new username. Under this new policy, the username is going to be blocked at the end, but it forces the admin to do additional work and pretend with the user that they actually have a choice in the matter. If someone refuses to change their name, they are blocked. Why go through the trouble of forcing an admin to post a note, monitor what could be a large number of users' talk pages for a while, and then block. Or, if the user responds, pretend with them that they have the option of not changing their name. This just seems to add work to a job that could be done as it is with a template. We also have to consider whose time we want to waste. Admins are usually very heavy contributors to the project, why force them to spend time going through this process when the ending is predetermined? The current way this is done, or was done, was to block and leave a template with instructions on how to create a new username. While admittedly good faith users are/were being caught, it is not hard to create another account. Account creation and the number of new and active users was not stunted under the old policy. Maybe the template should be rewritten in a nicer, more conciliatory manner, but I think the template should do the job.

As for the changes in the current form now, I think there has been improvement from their initial introduction, but I still question some of their form. KnightLago (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Several months ago, and advertised at the VP, a debate started about the "shoot-first" policy of username blocking, and the general consensus, after much discussion was that it was WP:BITEy. That was certainly a discussion where a very broad base of editors had the chance to participate, so I feel that it could be seen as a general consensus. That's why there were huge changes to the policy. This carried on with corollaries of this conclusion and practical knock-ons, like removing the examples (as they were taken to be criteria themselves), and, most recently, this bother with confusing names.

The basic point is that if a username is problematic but not critical, then nothing is gained by immediate blocking, and something is lost by biting the newcomer. The experience of recent times of discussing rather than blocking seems, anecdotally, to be leading to better retention. It doesn't take a degree in psychology to know that a user who is asked politely to change there name will respond better than someone who is blocked but told "it's okay, just pick another name". This is completely setting aside the fact that insta-blocks don't give people a chance to explain themselves first, and indicate why their name isn't a problem. SamBC(talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link, I would like to read it? KnightLago (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion will be in the archives here, with some in the archives at the VP (policy, I think; that's where it ought to have been). I don't have time to go looking for it; I'm only up this late because I have MSc work to do, and I'm done for the night (I'm on UTC+1, y'see). SamBC(talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing to note is that a number of editors were initially opposed to a lot of specific changes and points, and eventually came round (more or less). So, if you find the start of it and there doesn't seem to be consensus, remember to read further through, because consensus took a lot of discussion for all of this. SamBC(talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will read the discussion and reply. KnightLago (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, That's the first time I've ever been accused of trolling on wikipedia, ever since my first edit in 2001. Pretty odd spot for it to happen really. Are you sure you meant it that way? Would you like to rethink that comment? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Return to the main thread

The main consideration here is that in my experience, a large number of Wikipedians find confusing user names (those made up of random letters, strings of digits, odd capitalization, excessively lengthy, etc.) to be annoying and distracting from project, and they're hard to use to address or refer to people, make discussions hard to read, and pretty much force you to copy/paste the user name in order use it, assuming you have it handy on a page. (Hence the large number of reports of them to WP:UAA, via TW or manually.) Since that seems to be pretty much agreed, it seems to me to be a pointless and somewhat demeaning (to the user) process to go through the motions of asking someone to change it, when you're going to enforce the rule anyway. Plus, it's additional work, there is a delay involved and the risk of losing track of them, and so forth.

The way to make that initial block non-BITEy is to come up with a template or boilerplate text is isn't bitey, and basically says, hey, come on back with another name that's a little easier to deal with. And while the user is blocked (because that's what the software and WP:BLOCK calls it, we could just say that their account is, say, "deactivated" until they pick a new name. And the point of doing it quickly is to avoid the situation of having them do a bunch of editing, get attached to their name, go through an edit-preserving name-change request, when a simple block with a here's-what-you-need-to-do template would solve the issue before it becomes a problem.

One thing that would help immensely, and that I proposed informally in a response to Rspeer on my user talk page, would be to have different templates for different types of username blocks. One {{uw-ublock}} clearly does not fit all. Mangojuice took the lead on that with {{uw-spamublock}}.

Lastly, while clearly WP:SUL needs consideration (thank you, Kim Bruning, for bringing it up) I'm not sure exactly what impact is has on this. If the individual wikis no longer have control over the acceptability of usernames on their wikis due to SUL, then it's a much larger issue than this particular policy dicussion. (Which was bound to come up anyway; a personal name or mild oath in one language may well be an offensive phrase or mortal insult in another.) --MCB (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally bringing up your concerns with the policy!

The big thing is that the process is not just "going through the motions" before we "enforce the policy anyway". As I mentioned on WT:UAA, I don't think we've ever had to enforce the confusing username policy by blocking since April 4. The message we leave encourages newbies to change their username by starting a new account; when we don't hear back from the newbie, it could be because they actually started the new account. (Or it could be because they were never going to edit anyway. There are lots of those.)

In some cases, the user defends their username. A username that appears meaningless can have a valid but non-obvious meaning behind it. It could, for example, be a name in Polish. In these cases, the situation gets cleared up and we don't have to block.

And, of course, in some cases they're vandals. And they get blocked for vandalism; our RC patrollers are really good at that. A username block instead of a vandalism block would be distinctly the wrong response in those cases, because it leaves them the option of coming back to vandalize again.

A user changing their own username after a polite request (no edit-preserving name-change requests are typically involved) is much better than a user being forced to change their username, especially because we may be mistaken in the request. Clearer templates are a great idea, but an unnecessary block is still an unnecessary block no matter how well you write the template. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

and vandals with complex names can be blocked quicker than vandals with regular names; I don't think anyone's trying to stop that happening. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A summary of username policy discussion

I really do welcome this new involvement in the username policy. A discussion is never hurt by people with new viewpoints arriving, as long as they are willing to have a reasonable discussion about those viewpoints.

There's a lot of discussion to read, and I understand that it's a daunting task to go back and read all of it back to July or March 2007 or whenever it makes sense to start reading. So I'm going to try to summarize the events here, to assist people who are making the effort to follow what has gone on here in the last year or so.

March 2007

Users who are concerned that WP:RFC/N bites newbies nominate it for deletion. The result of the discussion is that it should be reformed.

Note that, around this time, the policy contains 30 different reasons that a username can be inappropriate. It suggests several remedies for inappropriate usernames, including discussion, blocking, and having a bureaucrat forcibly change the name (think about that one for a moment...) Around the time of the MfD, Radiant! drastically simplifies the policy so that there are only 18 ways to violate it.

April-May 2007

Another MfD. As an attempt at reform, WP:UAA is created by Ryan Postlethwaite.

May 7, 2007: The username policy by now contains 20 "examples" of problematic usernames under five general reasons. All 20 of them appear in a drop-down list of reasons to block in TWINKLE. Mangojuice changes the policy to say that usernames should only be blocked for the five general reasons. Practice on UAA remains unchanged for several months, largely because of TWINKLE.

July 24, 2007

Ggggggggggggggg12 (an associate professor of medieval literature) is reported, blocked, and declined to be unblocked by editors on UAA. The reason given by all three people involved in blocking was that fifteen g's followed by a 12 was "confusing". This event is kind of the Lexington and Concord of username policy reform, because g¹⁵12 did something most blocked newbies don't: he stuck around briefly to tell us, calmly and clearly, how unnecessarily crappy we had made his Wikipedia experience.

August 6, 2007

Trollderella brings the g¹⁵12 incident to the attention of the Village Pump, and the discussion is shortly thereafter brought to this page. Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 7#Username blocking and discussion at WP:VPP was the original thread on WT:U; Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 7#Biting newcomers was the larger thread brought over from the Village Pump.

September 20, 2007

SamBC edits the policy to de-emphasize the examples that are being misused on UAA.

September 23, 2007

Moreschi tags the page with {{disputedpolicy}}. A significant discussion begins on WT:U about the intent of the username policy.

October 10, 2007

Some discussion about whether confusing usernames are "blatant" enough problems to block. There are two aspects to the discussion: what exactly is the problem with confusing usernames? And is blocking newbies always an acceptable way of enforcing policy?

October 23, 2007

Mangojuice proposes an overhaul of the "inappropriate usernames" section, including removing the 20-odd examples that are being used by TWINKLE as reasons to block. He also introduces a new class of usernames that he calls "bad ideas", which might cause minor problems but should not be blocked. This includes most confusing usernames.

December 3, 2007

Mangojuice implements a more moderate version of his proposal. He leaves "confusing usernames" alone for fear that it would not reach consensus.

December 30, 2007

Gurch rewrites the policy again, removing some of Mango's changes while building on others.

January 29, 2008

After some discussion with AzaToth, I add one more criterion (for "disruptive usernames"). AzaToth then changes the dropdown list in TWINKLE to make it use the same five criteria. For the first time in seven months, the username policy and TWINKLE are relatively consistent with each other. However, the "confusing usernames" bullet point still remains.

January 30, 2008

Wknight94 unblocks Ggggggggggggggg12 as a symbolic gesture, six months after placing the block. He calls it a "tempest in a teapot".

February 6, 2008

I restart the discussion about confusing usernames.

February 8, 2008

I jump the gun and remove "confusing usernames" from the policy. Ryan Postlethwaite reverts. I work on other things for a while, and try to come up with a way to deal with "confusing usernames" while addressing objections such as Ryan's.

April 3, 2008

Branching off from a general discussion about what kinds of names should be blocked under the different criteria, I revive the "confusing usernames" discussion after talking personally to Ryan Postlethwaite about why he objected. I propose a compromise version in which "confusing usernames" can be blocked after the user is first given a warning and a chance to respond, much like the implementation of vandalism and other policies, and Ryan Postlethwaite supports it.

April 4, 2008

I implement the compromise proposal, and it sticks this time.

April 5, 2008

Ryan Postlethwaite introduces the "holding pen" to UAA as a way of implementing his part of the policy. Three days later, people begin to use it.

Meanwhile, I try to introduce a space for "recently resolved" username reports, to draw more attention to contentious reports. I get reverted by bots. More importantly, nobody sees a need for the new section and MCB opposes it, so I leave it out.

April 6, 2008

So in this summary I've been skipping over the other issue that interwiki usernames, created by WP:SUL, will often look confusing to English speakers. Various changes were made to the username policy over the months to address this, but they contained a lot of instruction creep. On April 6, Kim Bruning shows up to tell us we're not doing enough to accomodate these usernames (despite the change in "confusing username" policy).

April 22, 2008

A discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard leads some people to oppose the changes of April 4, while others defend them.

April 25, 2008

A substantive discussion about the username policy begins. People with different opinions explain their motivations for wanting to reform the policy or wanting to revert to an older version, and work toward a new consensus within WP:BRD. (Okay, I'm not actually clairvoyant. But I can hope!)

That's it for my not-so-brief yet not-so-complete history of the username policy. You may notice some patterns: for example, although we've had many significant disagreements and we have basically never had unanimous consent for any change, we have also never needed to have a poll. Is that amazing or what?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I support what Rspeer has done and the way Rspeer has done it, and the clear and patient way Rspeer has explained what has happened. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 4 - back to discussion

Rspeer, thanks for the history lesson. I spent some time reading some of the old discussion and I think I have been won over. Though I think the wording could be changed in some ways and maybe the concept of the holding pen incorporated into policy somehow. But I now agree with change. So my questions/thoughts:

Why was confusing username removed from the inappropriate usernames section? Confusing usernames are still inappropriate correct?

If a name's really confusing, it can be a bit inappropriate, but it's just not on the same scale as the other problems. The reason for having it in a separate place is clarity and pragmatics. Experience has shown (unfortunately) that when people see a bulleted list on the username page, no matter what it says above or below the list, they think of it as a list of reasons to place instant blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the actual text of the policy:

The purpose of a username is to identify contributors. If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion.

Unnecessarily confusing usernames can be a red flag for other problems. An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other policy violations such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption. As with all other blocks, admins should use their discretion and common sense.

In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption. (Though the latter practice is considered somewhat controversial).

I think the second sentence of the first paragraph is convoluted. It is much improved from the original change, but it still could be clearer. The second paragraph seems fine. The third I think could use some work. What is the process when dealing with a confusing username? As I understand it, you want an admin to talk to the person first. But where does the other editors agreement part come from? Essentially, if the user refuses to change the name, the admin is going to block them. There is no real agreement anywhere. And the part about being blocked for further disruption. We are not really blocking them for disruption, we are blocking them for having a confusing username right? And I think the part in parentheses can be removed now since it is commenting on the policy itself (though I understand Kim was just trying to acknowledge there is ongoing discussion about it).

So what are your thoughts behind the holding pen? Should it be incorporated into the policy or at least be mentioned. Looking at its history it doesn't seem to be getting much use.

Just a few thoughts for now. KnightLago (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• The three quoted paragraphs above seem to me to be largely essay-like, representing Rspeer's thoughts. While they're an interesting aside, and worth talking about, I don't think they should be in the policy document. And of course, I specifically disagree with "However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion."

• The holding pen may be useful, but not in the case of confusing usernames. If the objection is to the name itself, there's no real reason to use the holding pen, since it's not the user's condict we're concerned with. The value of the holding pen, if any, would be in the case of a name that might be promotional if used in a promotional way, so we want to wait until the user edits. (There was a user reported that was something like User:John Smith Photography, who had no edits, which could either be a business or just the user's hobby or something, and that was a good case for the holding pen.)

• I've also read through the discussion above, including the timeline (which I probably would have phrased differently, but no matter), and don't see anything that would change my point of view. (I also don't find Rspeer's often-cited case of User:Ggggggggggggg12 (or whatever it is) to be particularly persuasive. I think we are entitled to assume a certain level of maturity on the part of our contributors, and if someone is unwilling to comply with a relatively simple rule and leaves in a snit, there's really not a whole lot that can be done about that.) --MCB (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Where does the idea come from that the name "Ggggggggggggggg12" is immature? g¹⁵12 showed far more maturity than the admin who refused to unblock him. You make assumptions about what people are like based on their usernames, and these assumptions aren't necessarily true. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore...

The idea that the attempted policy change of April 4 was successful or widely adopted is simply not correct. Kim Bruning says in a section above, "I don't think we've ever had to enforce the confusing username policy by blocking since April 4." For better or worse, that's just not the case. Here is a list of blocks for confusing usernames since April 4, in roughly reverse chrono order:

• User:Eeeeeeeeeeeeeesdgsrbvgxdvgdfs (blocked indef by The_Anome)
• User:1qazxsw23eqefdgv8dh99shgubievgndfjnjndkmjn (blocked indef by Gonzo_fan2007)
• User:123456789101112131415123456789101112131415a (blocked indef by Blueboy96)
• User:Xs3v3n3l3v3nX (blocked indef by Orangemike)
• User:ZODi90000005555 (blocked indef by MCB)
• User:Tenretni1234128932189dnasjnd (blocked indef by Gb)
• User:Hjfyigivdufhuihvoufdbvoufdhvfdouvhfbuohvudfoiv (blocked indef by The_undertow)
• User:Asdfghjklqwertyuiop77 (blocked indef by Gogo_Dodo)
• User:Dthippfdsgdsgsdfga (blocked indef by Soumyasch)
• User:Asdfsdaf (blocked indef by Soumyasch)
• User:123456789666666six (blocked indef by Soumyasch)
• User:Yotyolfngndfgjsksdkkekekekekekekekekekekekekeke (blocked indef by The_Anome)
• User:Bhoffggjhjgvfhhjgfgjjfdfghyhgikfifkejkf (blocked indef by Seicer)
• User:Asdfjkl;aasdfasdfasdf (blocked indef by Longhair
• User:Yfhxfchxgfc (blocked indef by Rjd0060)
• User:Gbcnvnbvcnvcnvcnbcnvcngcngvcnvcnbvcn (blocked indef by Oxymoron83)
• User:Rhwejhwjhrthwrthrh (blocked indef by Tony_Fox)
• User:Ftghjdghfiujkajnfckhnsd9iuhk (blocked indef by Jj137)
• User:Fgsvbfhgxfyvgdb (blocked indef by Jj137)
• User:Batman1234567898765432100 (blocked indef by Jj137)
• User:Asrghasrhiojadrhr (blocked indef by Bearian)
• User:Ggttthhheeeeswsss (blocked indef by Rjd0060)
• User:Qawsedrftgyhuj (blocked indef by Alexf)
• User:AAAAAAAAAA42 (blocked indef by Jmlk17)
• User:Gfigudisjvcdxkzcm x (blocked indef by The_undertow)

These were all blocks where vandalism, disruption, offense, etc. were not mentioned in the block message. All but a couple were ABD, leaving the user free to choose another name. (There were many more with similarly confusing names, but where the block message mentioned vandalism or other disruption, or the names contained some offensive words or phrases as well. I removed all of those from the list.) In addition, Rspeer preemptively removed several names from WP:UAA; I suspect most or all would have been blocked if that not been the case.

So again, I think that leaves us with the case that the policy change is neither descriptive of actual practice nor does it enjoy wide support, except possibly by a small but vocal faction here on WT:U. --MCB (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be clearer about what I meant: we have not placed a block under the current confusing username policy since April 4. Context should have made this somewhat clear: you expressed a concern that the new policy was just an unnecessary delay that would have to end in a block anyway. I was pointing out that applying the new policy basically always ends in an acceptable resolution that does not require a username block.

Yes, we have some admins who are unfortunately following the old policy. This doesn't mean the new one is doomed. Changes take time. People were still blocking under the pre-May 2007 policy in December! I'll have to leave messages for the ones who are doing it repeatedly; some of those are pretty egregiously needless blocks. I mean, most people agree that Ggggggggggggggg12 was a mistake, so how could it possibly be a good idea to block AAAAAAAAAA42?

Many of the examples you listed, by the way, weren't just about the username. The current policy -- yes, the one you don't like -- says it's okay to block disruptive users quickly when their username appears to be part of the disruption. I seriously don't understand why people claim it's about the username and leave a softblock in these cases! They're vandals! Here people are misapplying the username policy in the other direction: people who should be hardblocked under the vandalism policy are instead getting softblocked because they also have an ugly username. This just shows even more, I'd say, why it's important to establish that the username isn't the big problem.

Now, a pertinent question for you. You seem to think these blocks are a really important thing to do in the cases where the username is the only problem, because confusion should be avoided at all costs. For now, we'll put off the discussion of whether confusion is actually that big of a deal, and first establish whether it's actually happening. Can you inform me what I'm supposed to be confused about in the name "AAAAAAAAAA42"? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another point -- certainly, these username blocks have not halted altogether since the policy change. You have to expect that, it takes time to inform everyone and for people to get used to the change. However, there appears to have been an immediate impact. Going off the history of WP:UAA, MCB lists 26 usernames blocked between 4/5 and 4/25: a span of 20 days. However, you only have to go back to 3/30 to get 26 *more* confusing username blocks - a span of 7 days. This suggests that the block rate for confusing usernames has been cut by two thirds... but obviously there's some error in that. Mangojuice^talk 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An aside: please stop using the "small but vocal faction" rhetoric. It generally doesn't advance a discussion to belittle those on the other side or to claim that you have a silent majority behind you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone post a few examples of where the new policy has been implemented successfully? I would like to see how it went. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay nice folks :-) I second KnightLago's request. That's entirely reasonable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I really don't want happening. User_talk:Agdsgasdghahjasdhgsda makes two good faith edits. Then, without any attempt at discussion - *bamm* they get a huge template telling them to fuck off. Imagine if they had got some welcome template after their first couple of edits; maybe they'd have made further contributions. (I'm still waiting to hear why the name is harmful, and I'd really to to find out why, because I'm sure that we can sort that out) Current policy says that (unless there's bad faith edits) you should attempt discussion first. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I even tried to remove that one and found I was too late. Gb was really quick about that one. I've already done the unpleasant job of telling an admin they made a bad block tonight, though; anyone else want to talk to Gb about it and hopefully do better at it than I did? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of us have our noses buried so deep in the backlog that is WP:SSP that we may not be aware that policy has changed. I've discussed it with Dan and the user's been unblocked. _GB^T/C 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank GB - especially because i was a bad-tempered git and s/he was polite and willing to talk to me. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Successes of the policy

Okay. These are sometimes hard to find, because it's rather difficult to search for a negative. The best successes are the cases where good-faith users are not blocked, and you can tell they're good faith because they proceed to not do bad things. In addition, the preferred outcome when we contact the user about a confusing username is that the user just creates a new account, at which point all we can see is the lack of further edits under the old name. But here are a few examples I've found:

• 1123581321 (talk · contribs). This user was reported to the holding pen as someone to watch to see if he was disruptive. Turns out he wasn't. He's made 115 edits in the last week, generally on the topic of tall buildings. His edits include checking references, adding references, layout, and organizing external links. If this user had been reported to UAA a month ago instead of the holding pen now, it is very likely that an admin would have blocked him right away. (Incidentally, showing how "confusion" can simply reflect lack of understanding, the user was reported on the basis of possibly being a "randomly-generated number". The username actually comes from the Fibonacci sequence.)
• L2a3!sgr5e1o (talk · contribs). Kurt Shaped Box asked him to change his username. The user didn't edit under that username, so maybe he did.
• Vfcgyxbycfvfx (talk · contribs). Instead of being pre-emptively softblocked for the username, this user was correctly blocked for vandalism. The username helped make their vandalism easy to detect.
• Mmmmmqqqqq (talk · contribs). This user was also correctly blocked for vandalism. I'm impressed by the self-control admins had here, because before that, TWINKLE users had reported him twice to UAA on the basis that he should be username-blocked for repeating letters.
• WUpD8FS1a0r2R09pzJ (talk · contribs). I removed this user from UAA as an invalid report. The user has been welcomed and has made two constructive contributions so far. For those of you who are bothered by complex usernames, you could go thank him for the contributions and politely suggest he change his name.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess here is where I get confused. Is a confusing username still a reason to block it? I know you want people to request the user change their name first. But WUpD8FS1a0r2R09pzJ (talk · contribs) and Agdsgasdghahjasdhgsda (talk · contribs) are confusing. And if I understand the policy should be blocked. And the idea that no blocks under the new policy since April 4th sounds good, but does that mean confusing usernames are no longer being blocked? Am I missing something? KnightLago (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started to talk about "complex" names. To me a "confusing" name is one that is too similar to an existing name, or has "wiki" / "bot" / "admin" (etc) in it, or the like. So, explain why confusing usernames are bad, ask the user to change their name, and block. But for complex names? I don't get why just the name is bad. People do still block for complex names, but I've never found anyone who's been able to say why the names are harmful. Most people reporting are using twinkle. Most people are happy to stop reporting once they know that maybe there are better ways to do things. As soon as they start to make bad faith edits the username is part of that, and they get blocked quickly. But, as said above, they get a hard block for vandalism, not a soft block for the username. And finally, there's the Polish/Welsh real name thing - in general a real name is never inappropriate, and many foreign names will be "complex" - seemingly random, hard to pronounce, possibly in a different character set. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Short version -

• Names that can be confused for other names, or for bots, or suggest adminship or official wiki authority are blocked.
• complex names that make bad faith edits get blocked very quickly, but usually under other policies (eg hard block for vandalism, not soft block for username)
• complex names that are very long and complex get talked to first. Maybe they're only here to make a few edits, so the name isn't a problem and a nice welcome might extend their stay. Sometimes a complex name will be someone's real name. Sometimes people with complex names will happily change it to something less complex. Adding CamelCase usually helps. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to use the term complex. What you are actually referring to are confusing username, we don't need to add new terms at this point. Lets not confuse everyone further. Confusing usernames, after discussion, should be blocked. That is the policy as it stands now. We must take care to distinguish between someone's real name, and something random. But confusing still equals block. So is everyone open to working on clarifying the changes as I suggested above? KnightLago (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy to drop complex. Now, please, why should "confusing" equal block? That's the thing I still don't understand. What harm does "ownohwihfwe" do? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Complex" is not a good term. User:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1 or User:12345678901234567890 are not at all complex, but are certainly annoying. Plus we had a spate of (MySpace inspired?) User:IAmSuChAtOtAlGoThDuDe type stuff, which is also non-complex (long, alternate caps) but is equally annoying. --MCB (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So the point of username blocks is now to avoid "annoying" names? That's getting far too subjective and BITEy. SamBC(talk) 08:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But what harm does the name "12345678901234567890" do? Why are you blocking names like "12345678901234567890"? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Names that can be confused … for bots, or suggest adminship or official wiki authority" are misleading under the current policy, not confusing (here we see the rare downside to the removal of the examples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs)

Ah, yes. I'll stop using complex and stick to misleading for thaat kind of name. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that blatantly confusing usernames should be blocked as such without discussion. We do not need a User:Po8PLVXYY7r9ESWgMY4bJqdS9faVWRI98FqUghidjGGYshsa88hsJHsgxah77saGYSjiaalOWlssSrhdYdb8sgdxHGdsdxgKhshhsYG766G3qKUGpNhgGwHea60OltiEwq, and when xe is blocked, xe receives a very polite message explaining why and what can be done about it. Usernames such as 12345678901234567890 should not be blocked on sight. While this name is lengthier than some, it is not a lengthy and apparently random collection of characters; it is not a blatantly confusing username. WODUP 10:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your very long user name wouldn't be allowed by software. Noone is suggesting a change to allow names that long. But the first 70 characters are "Po8PLVXYY7r9ESWgMY4bJqdS9faVWRI98FqUghidjGGYshsa88hsJHsgxah77saGYSjiaalOW". So, why does that need to be blocked? "We don't need it" doesn't make any sense. "blatantly confusing" doesn't really make any sense either - I get that some people are confused, but so what? What's the harm? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of lowering the software-enforced length limit on usernames to 40 characters (where I thought it was). The longer a name gets, the more problems it can cause with wrapping and stuff. These problems certainly aren't worth blocking over, but they could be worth a simple change to the account registration.

A Nicaraguan who tries to register under their 45-character-long real name, for example, shouldn't be too put off by the software not letting them do it. And enforcing this in software, while people are still in the process of coming up with their username, is the non-bitey way to do it.

For the record, these are the kinds of names I would consider "unreasonably confusing":

• Names that use Unicode tricks, such as a non-linguistic use of RTL marks, to mess with the interface surrounding them.
• Names that make it so you can't really tell there's a username there. (Mr. Circle Of Crescents Around Whatever The Preceding Word Was would be an example of this. A username consisting entirely of non-printable characters would be the same.)
• Very long character strings with no spaces, which are only a problem because they mess up the interface. WODUP's example would be one of these. This is why I'd support using software to minimize these cases.

That's about it. Extra complexity doesn't really add any confusion after a point, because if you need to talk to them you'll click on the link anyway, and if you need to refer to them you'll easily come up with a nickname. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

KnightLago, I don't understand the need to change things to emphasize that "confusing equals blocked". The way the policy stands now is that if you have no other way of stopping someone editing with a username that is far too confusing (and you've tried discussion), then you can block them as a last resort. This has never been necessary, because what happens first is either that they vandalize and get hardblocked, or they agree and register a different name, or they point out that their name is more meaningful than you thought and the reporter agrees.

Sometimes the policy gets painted as saying we can't block someone with a name like "Po8PLVXYY7r9ESWgMY4bJqdS9faVWRI98FqUghidjGGYshsa88hsJHsgxah77saGYSjiaalOW". Now, if you said "hey, that name is annoying, could you change it?" and Po8longname responds "screw u, I like it", that would be the kind of case where you can block. But as far as I can tell, this doesn't happen.

The "shadow policy" that a couple of people such as MCB like to enforce has a failure case that is worse: under that policy, we can't block Po8longname for vandalism, because they end up username softblocked first. By being overly agressive about usernames, ironically, the "shadow policy" ends up giving a "get out of block free" pass to vandals as long as they have an ugly username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't understand your logic there at all. Are you talking about creation of multiple names in a serial fashion? If so, that would be quickly recognized as vandalism and hardblocked. And if they vandalize with edits, that would be seen and hardblocked as well. But if they don't vandalize with edits, or edit at all, their confusing username remains softblocked and unusable, so they either (a) come back with positive contributions, or (b) don't come back. So I'm not sure what case you're addressing here. --MCB (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

He's addressing the case where someone with a confusing username that is vandalising is username blocked rather than hardblocked as a vandalism-only account. Not only does this allow them to register a new account right away, it also invites them to do so. Obviously, if the blocking admin is careful and is using common sense, they will block as a vandalism-only account and not bring the username up.. but allowing insta-blocks for confusing usernames on their own can lead to this kind of mistake. Mangojuice^talk 04:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, I am fine with what you are saying and agree with it now. I just think the policy could written in a clearer way. As it stands I think it is still confusing and a little convoluted. I am not trying to emphasize the confusing equals block, I was just trying to make sure I was on the same page with you. Can we try and work on the wording? KnightLago (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of otherwise-legitimate usernames?

Is the length of the username when it otherwise doesn't fail any other issues on this page a possible problem? This user's name is very very long but seems perfectly in line; the length breaks the default undo (in that the edit summary cannot contain all of the wikicode for the standard undo revision) and it can make the watchlist page screen messy, but it otherwise seems to have no harm involved. --MASEM 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it, either. Edit summaries can (and should, in most cases) be filled out manually, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, usually when I undo, I'll add more besides the default/courtsey "Undo revision # by User:Name|Name" that comes up when one clicks "Undo", but that user's name fills up the 230-odd character limit on the edit summary; I usually delete down to "Undo revision #" to leave some tracking there as needed. But if the length is completely fine and there's no pressing concerns, then there's no need to change it. --MASEM 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The user's name is only 39 characters long. There are plenty of longer names. He does have ", Bucharest, Romania" in it. Perhaps he'd change his name if someone asked him nicely? Do you think his long name is harmful to WP, and how? Dan Beale-Cocks 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be unnecessary. Long names are annoying, for one, because they're difficult to type in; I sometimes make mistakes typing my own username, even. The way, the truth, and the light (talk)

How often does anyone type a username other than their own, anyway? More importantly, what specifically are you saying is unnecessary? SamBC(talk) 16:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Having "Bucharest, Romania" in his user name. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It would perhaps be something to mention to the user. But yeah, I don't see the point in trying to type the name. Anyone who's in the habit of typing all the names they come across will be very sad when SUL goes into full force. I've learned Japanese for a year and a half and I am still just barely able to type a kanji. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a maximum length enforced in software; if all names over a certain length were problematic, that maximum should be reduced. As it is, I don't see the problem. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the maximum? I know my user name is very long, but I considered it OK since it's a series of common English words and is easy for anyone to remember. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the length is 40. I'd say we should never block users just for having a long name; if we don't like long names, it's much better to prevent them in software than to expect newbies to know such an obscure rule. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just created Username length test1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 (talk · contribs) at 60 characters (which was rather quickly blocked), but a 70 character test didn't work... -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The length of 40 is a widely accepted limit. Anything over that is considered too long. Maybe we should talk to them first, but to say never is incorrect. KnightLago (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What harm does a 55 character name do? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyguy: Admins creating accounts can bypass the name blacklist, character limit, etc. Gracenotes^T § 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gracenotes, the software wouldn't allow me to register the 70 character test. Unless I screwed up the captch. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no 40-character limit. The namewatcher bot was (is?) set to report usernames of that length or larger, but AFAIK the blacklist contains no restriction, and usernames up to around 64 characters are allowed by the software. Mangojuice^talk 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of real names

While the text there seems fair, I think it should be strengthened/expanded. For one thing, I've seen several editors find that they needed to (after-the-fact), not only change their username, but go back and edit every signature. Why? Well in at least one case, their Wikipedia work was generating more search engine "hits" than their RL work. Ouch.

And while we'd like to think we all are at least roughly aware of the dangers of personal info online, Wikipedia is a bit more than the average site/page/blog, simply due to traffic. What someone may consider "no-big-deal" in having on their homepage (which gets a couple hits from their family and friends, and the occasional lost soul), may be a big mistake being posted on Wikipedia.

Thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. - jc37 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much you can do through this page. No matter how good the advice here is, most people don't look here first when making their user name. And as some people are aware, due to recent events, if some asshole has enough motivation, not even a fake name will protect you. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a note could be placed at the username creation screen? KnightLago (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering an essay about this. Might be time for me to knuckle down and write it. -- Kesh (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jc37, I'm not sure what you mean by "strengthened/expanded"; it sounds like you mean that the text should be more discouraging about using your real name, or contain additional warnings. I would certainly oppose anything that discourages using your real name, or a form or it, as your Wikipedia user name. See, for example Wikipedia:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal, which I did not write, but in general endorse. --MCB (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be good to repeat here, as something I just said on Wikipedia talk:How to not get outed on Wikipedia

As someone who's used his real name online since the age of 11, I can tell you the real issue behind "getting outed" has nothing to do with these kinds of details. No matter how much we try, we are never truly anonymous, and we should never feel comfortable simply by using another name. The major outings of Wikipedia have occurred because the person who outed them had some motivation. The lesson we learn is this; if you are going to put yourself in a position on Wikipedia where you will be critizised, or where you will be making important decisions, you need to know that there are risks. Ideally, only people who are not bothered by having that kind of information out in the open (even if they're not making it well known) are probably in the best position, because then there's nothing for these trolls to find. Those who aren't open about those real life details can still gain these higher positions, but must understand the risks. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In reading the above, it merely sounds like a variant of caveat emptor.

Thing is, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia - due to size and trafiic, and subject matter, for that matter - isn't like your average website.

And while it's nice to hear that you two aren't concerned about this, that doesn't mean that others aren't or wouldn't be. It isn't until you're involved for some time that you finally realise the breadth of the traffic here. - jc37 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, it's not that I'm not concerned about it, rather the opposite. What I'm saying is that hiding details, or being anonymous, doesn't give sufficient protection when someone is motivated enough to find out who you are. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I learned quite a long time ago in system design: In designing a system, the goal should rarely be to stop the determined hacker/vandal/troublemaker. It's to proactively prevent the opportunist or casual troublemaker, such as "playful" school kids and the occasional disgruntled editor. Most locks aren't designed to stop those who are determined to bypass the lock. They're there to stop the "average person" from access to the locked area. This is no different.

And since modern society places more than a fair amount of "weight" upon identification based on a person's name, I would think that suggesting that editors not use their "real name" would be a good idea. Do you disagree? - jc37 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that line of thinking, I just thought perhaps this was a reaction to a recent event. My mistake. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But anyway, we're a bit off-topic. What I was requesting is some ideas for enhancing the text. Anyone have any suggestions? - jc37 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

more on Real Names

What is the policy on a real name that is not the user's real name. For example, what if someone wants to be User:David Archuleta but is actually Joe Doe Archer, and not David Archuleta. And what if someone wants to be User:Hannah Arendt, but obviously isn't because Hannah Arendt is dead? Kingturtle (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot be named after people who are notably in real life or recently died, unless you are in fact that person and this would require OTRS confirmation. Users which use the names of famous people should be asked to change their name and/or blocked. The reason behind this is because we don't want the famous person being mistaken for the Wikipedia user and his views. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan meant to say "can't." Yes, such a username would be misleading in a relevant way. Mangojuice^talk 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thanks Mango ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is recently dead? A year? A month? 5 years? 10 years? I bring this up specifically because User:Ncmuseumofhistory wants to change to User:GovDLRussell, in reference to Donald S. Russell, who died February 22, 1998. Kingturtle (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we write this into the policy page? Kingturtle (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's way too soon. When we say recently dead, we're talking about people that died within the last 25-50 years(ish) as a rough guide. I'd certainly be happy to discuss putting a firm figure in policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It has to have been long enough so that no one could plausibly believe that the user is, or is connected with, the historical figure. There is also the fact that some authors and entertainment figures have estates who control the right to the name and associated publicity rights and intellectual property of the deceased person, and would have the right to object to use of the name, or could attempt to hold the user (or conceivably Wikipedia) liable for the use. (Elvis Presley has been dead over 30 years, and no one would plausibly believe that User:Elvis Presley is him, but it might still not be advisable to allow that as a user name. User:Elvis fan, of course, would be fine.) --MCB (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that would be a distinction we don't need to make. We don't need to voluntarily put Wikipedia in the position of enforcing other people's publicity rights. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is not to enforce publicity rights, but to protect Wikipedia and its users from liability, the same as we do with copyvios (and external links to copyvios). That's clearly an appropriate use of policy. --MCB (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add more policy to defend against a remote possibility that may never have happened to any website? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but a website getting sued because the name chosen by one of its users matched someone long dead sounds pretty far-fetched to me.) There are so many more important things to be concerned with. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not "adding more policy". Existing policy bans misleading user names, which includes the names of famous people. No addition to policy is necessary. There is a question of interpretation, in terms of actual misleadingness, recentness of the death, likelihood of publicity rights issues, and I favor the interpretation that best protects Wikipedia and its users. --MCB (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am almost certain that no other website in existence scrutinizes the usernames its users choose to make sure there aren't any famous dead people in the list, and I can't imagine even the most common-sense-addled lawyer insisting that a website should have such a responsibility. There's nothing to protect against. And I don't consider it "relevant and misleading" to say you're Elvis any more than it's relevant and misleading to say that you can fly. Nobody sane would think it's really the case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Died before Wikipedia's opening" isn't a half-bad rule of thumb. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The specifics of the case escape me, but I seem to remember about two years ago I brought up on a noticeboard a user that had the same registered name as a living person, though it was not them. It was pointed out to me that the user had been registered since 2004, and the policy had been recently rewritten that prohibited BLP names. The result of the discussion was agreeing to grandfather in accounts registered before the policy change. If we intend to word this into policy and leave it to discretion whether or not the decedent has enough time since passing, please add wording that would exempt older accounts. Keegan^talk 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with grandfathering in this policy. I will say that anyone whose username was once okay by policy and is no longer okay should be given the courtesy of a discussion and not blocked immediately but since I feel that pretty much all pure username blocks should be handled that way it's not saying much. But seriously -- if a username is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, and it wouldn't matter when it was chosen. In the case you bring up, I would expect the user to change their username. (Which is possible now, but may not have been at the time.) Mangojuice^talk 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Mangojuice on this; if a name is bad, it's bad, and as names can be changed we shouldn't have new users being told they can't have names that are acceptable for older users. Such users should be forced, however gently (very very gently, I guess), to change their name. SamBC(talk) 12:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, we've said that someone's real name is never inappropriate. So if "bo schmoe" is actually "bo schmoe, but not the notable bo schmoe" do they have to change their name? Dan Beale-Cocks 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If your real name is same as someone famous, and you wish to use it here then generally speaking, we reqire OTRS confirmation that you have the same name. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Can anyone tell me what communication happened with [[User::PhilLaak]] be they were blocked? Dan Beale-Cocks 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of off-topic: As I'm sure many people do, I've Googled my own name from time to time. There was once semi-famous photographer named Ned Scott, and I've often pondered making an article for him (would have to dig deeper to see if he would actually pass the notability guidelines), and came to the conclusion that if I did I would likely make the article using a another account (an admitted secondary account) simply to avoid confusion. It could even be something like "User:Ned Scott but not that Ned Scott" (ok, bad example..). It really wouldn't be an issue, since the guy's been dead for a while, but you never know what some people might think. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some twinkle user would report the name quick-smart, and would probably tag the article too. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I create a user account for my aunt?

I'm a long time user and I think my aunt might enjoy WP as well. Can I create an account for her? What I'd like to do is create the account and populate its watchlist with stuff I think she would enjoy, maker a nice userpage, etc. I would know the password to start, so I would have her change it right away. If she didn't use it, I would ask to have it deleted. I know I could have her create it, then do a bunch of pasting into the raw watchlist/userpage or whatever but she isn't great with computers and I'd like to make it really simple for her. Is this the right place to ask? Is it OK? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, though I wouldn't say this is the place to ask, unless you were planning on naming her "Peregrine Fisher's Aunt". :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Funny reply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)