Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 16

src: pixel.nymag.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 16

Email address as username

I went ahead and strangled Users: Barry on Exclaimit dot com, though no editing yet, about the theory that editing will not make a difference... mind? Is it better to wait for editing, as long as its name is not offensive? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I do not quite understand why we do not allow email addresses as usernames, and that policy does not explain at all. I would say it is a call rating thing, you can add discussion templates, but if they then start editing without archiving in WP: CHU, they will end up blocked anyway, so it might not make much difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I will buy it. If the policy is changed to allow email addresses, I will discuss rather than block. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 16

Username not allowed

Can we get some instances of usernames of types of usernames that are not allowed to be included in that section? Recently, almost every username I've listed in UAA as a promotional user name was notified that it was not a violation and took it to the COI announcement board, and that left me somewhat confused by what was considered a promotion. Ks0stm ^(ToCoG) 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, user name enforcement always has some subjective subjective assessment elements to it, and the example may not be so helpful and possibly inappropriate. There are many cases where one administrator may choose to reject a report while others will block it. If you notice the pattern of certain types of usernames that you believe are infringing but they are rejected regularly because your blocking might want to discuss them a bit more specifically so we can address your concerns. Or, if you see only one or two editors consistently marking them as COI, you may want to ask the special editor for some insight into why they disagree with you. Sher eth 19:42, 30 December 2009 ( UTC)

I do not have any specific examples I can think of right now, but (although this is indeed blocked), they are usernames similar to Users: Trillenium3Dmall. I usually see them in a new page patrol because it has created a promotional article on a topic whose username has COI. So I guess that's also the username that shows the COI, but is it used in a promotional way? Maybe I just answered my own question... and now looking around the arv tab in the twinkle I see an option under AIV "just-promotion account". Ok that solved my problem... thanks. Ks0stm ^(ToCoG) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a better example on the current page [1]. User: Lisajewel. Ks0stm ^(ToCoG) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the core debates behind promotional user name issues, but what you're talking about is a great "gray" example. Let's say there's a company called John Doe Motorcycles. No one would argue that an account named "Users: JohnDoeMotorcycles" is a promotion, and some would argue that "User: JohnDoe" is the name of the campaign. The gray area will decide whether names like "Users: JohnCycles" or "Users: JDM" are in and of themselves (note that there is a difference between promotional accounts and promotional usernames ). As a result, you will be signed in to some admins that will block this and some who do not. You may not consider reducing the report to reflect your judgment. Sher eth 20:26, 30 December 2009 ( UTC)

The name of the promotion is certainly not permitted by the policy. It is unfortunate that they often refuse from this bulletin board. Although no admins are required to create blocks, they must not reject the promotional name of this bulletin board unless it is unclear whether it is a promotion. The company name is a clear cutting violation that is explicitly prohibited by our username policy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see many cases where it is unclear whether the username is a promotion. This is a different question than whether the user has promoted something . Many of these cases can be handled very precisely with rapid removal and warning. If, once the promotional content is gone, you can not know what they're selling if you try, it's probably not the promotional username , nor is it a serious enough situation to justify any kind of block. rsp ?? r (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw an indef block applied to a username that is an attack on another user. Surely technical means may prevent users from embedding other usernames in the username of the new account.LeadSongDog comes howling 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It can cause many false positives - eg alt My users: Ukexpatmobile.Ã,-ukexpat (talk) 19:26, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Even worse than that, User: LeadSongDog would be a false positive/blocked by filter because of embedding User: A in the username. I think that's a better problem handled by humans at the moment. - C.Fred (talk) 22:28, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

src: cdn-s3.si.com

Template: uw-softerblock

I just made minor edits to soften, adding "take a moment to" to: "... please take a moment to create a new account with a username that only represents you." I remember refusing to "take a few seconds" (it was more than a few seconds and would sound a bit snarky) and "take a few minutes" (it did not take long on the end of the user, making it sound like more than one dealing out of it), and gave up... "moments" just came to me when I replied to an email. Btw, on that subject: something went wrong and the script did not keep soft notifications on this person's talk page, which is why he has to email me. I never get complaints about blocks when scripts work (which is almost always). - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WP: U # Removing account

On balance, it might be better just to refer people to WP: RTV regarding deletion of user talk pages, as there are some assessments and some delays involved, and the consensus is not that strong, even though WP: RTV says and says we did not do that. I am referring to this phrase: "Editors who seek privacy by their right to disappear can remove the user and user talk page and rename their account." The latest discussion is Wikipedia talk: Right to delete # User Talk. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Small tweaks: [2], but do not hesitate to take it further. - xeno ^talk 14:53, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

src: cdn-s3.si.com

The "Account sharing" section

The section that talks about sharing accounts states the following:

"If you are editing for a group or organization, keep the name that is not shared for your edit. Names like" Megawatt Inc., (John) "might be appropriate."

However, I have seen in WP: CHU that the name is not appropriate because of its promotional nature. I would suggest that this entire line be removed as opposed to the part of the WP policy: ORGNAME and giving editor's inaccurate suggestions. - On am a ? 18:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Work for me.Ã,-ukexpat (talk) 18:07, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

src: www.veteranstoday.com

WP: Update

Okay, we have a small problem. Ched got WP: Update/3 pages started, and that's where I think this page will be updated monthly, along with other behavior policies, but Ched is resting and nobody else is doing the job. Is anyone interested in monthly updates for these 8 policies? If not, would anyone mind removing WP: U and WP: SOCK into subcat enforcement so they get updates in WP: Update/1? 6 other behavior policies differ in some respects from other policies, and I'm not comfortable making consensus calls on those pages, as I do with the WP policy: Update/1. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no volunteers so far. No objects? - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

If you must. Can they be in both cats? Gigs (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

The six behavior policies are pretty stable because people roughly agree on what advice they want to give on the subjects of decency, consensus, possession, etc... to others. Few believe that they should be judged by what is on the page; people generally feel that they know when to look for consensus, that they are as screwy as possible (given the provocation they ought to endure), that they protect the integrity of an article rather than engage in OWNership, etc. The current page only supports because people expect others to read the suggestions and retrieve them. This sometimes causes arguments to whirl, and sometimes makes it impossible (for me, anyway) to make consensus calls at the end of the month, like I did in WP: Update/1. I do not think WP: SOCK and WP : U is included in the behavior of cats because I do not think they are suffering from the same problem. This is only one person's opinion, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know your dislike for trying to sum up the consensus on those pages. It seems unreasonable to take this action. Why should updates be encouraged by cats? Can not you cover what you want to cover, and leave the ones you do not want to touch open for others to take? Gigs (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is that 6 page behavior has many good things and lots of solid policies, but they are also full of suggestions that almost everyone considers optional... "it will be fun, time allows"... and if we keep WP: U and WP: SOCK in the same subcat, you risk that people will see WP: U and WP: SOCK in the same way... as an optional, good candidate suggestion. You do not expect to be blocked in WP: ANI because you did not explain one of your edits (CYCLE), or because you just state the position rather than taking the time to look for CONSENSUS, or because someone complains that you talk a lot and it makes them feel "tired" WAR), or because you passed the problem without fixing it (WP: PRESERVE in WP: EDIT). People generally treat this as a goal rather than as a policy, which makes the behavior policy seem different from other policies, to me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

src: media2.fdncms.com

User_talk: Dank # Gayguy69

I blocked this username, and there is some discussion about whether this is the right thing to do. I am very interested in feedback from women, as we are always looking to deviate from the current dismal women's 15% editorial participation, and I think maybe more women than men will feel offended by her name. (I'm posting this here and in WT: CHU, WT: RFCN, and WP: VPP; I'm trying to understand if women answer questions differently when they do not see themselves as a small minority in discussion, so if you know the lady editor You think you might be interested in the question, please show me the link.Even if this particular name is okay, I want to know if women find an offensive user name that can not be seen as anything other than a reference to a particular sex act.) - Dank (push to talk ) 17:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above discussions, please consider my additional comments here (which are highly relevant to this, the username policy, the board) as I go out for the night. Cheers, NJA ( t/ c) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Why is WP: REALNAME not valid for deceased celebrities?

I realize that L in BLP is for Life - but I am wondering if there is any reason to allow the use of deceased celebrity usernames. Just look at Jacquescosteau (talkà ¢ â,¬ Ã,  · contribs) created at EN.WP today seems to be the SUL of the DE.WP account created yesterday. This account has no edits I can see on the wiki, but something about this just makes me inappropriate. Obviously everyone knows he is dead so there will be no confusion, but I would think we would include the famous names who had died in that policy as well, at least for the newly deceased (the last 20 years). Any thoughts what? 7 Ã, 01:44, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is not the best example. Jacques Cousteau is a famous name, but Jacques Costeau does not. LeadSongDog comes howling 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Fair for this case... The question is still there (let's pretend I can actually read, and let's discuss if REALNAME should be limited only to well-known names that live). 7 Ã, 4:57, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Reporting an inappropriate username

Where do I report inappropriate usernames? I'm not sure if User: Babiesloverabies would be considered an inappropriate nickname... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP: UAA.Ã,-ukexpat (talk) 19:28, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) WP: UAA is for violation of WP: U; I would suggest "baby likes rabies" probably does not (though it may be a band name or have other coi.) If you report to UAA and the reviewers reviewers do not feel it is flashy, they usually place notes. You may consider reporting it in WP: RFCN, but be sure to follow all procedures before filing it there. - Flyguy649 ^talk 19:34, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not being sarcastic, but wondering if we need to be more clear: when you came to the policy page, did you miss the "Dealing with an inappropriate name" section? NJA (t/ c) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NJA: Who do you mean? If it were me, in terms of "dealing with inappropriate usernames", I'm not sure if it would be considered an inappropriate username or not - it looks like a cruel name, but has no obvious obscenity.

Part of what made me wonder was the fact that the account was used for vandalism and I was wondering if that username was deliberately chosen to offend. In any case the account can now be unblocked.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

(note: the user has been blocked as VOA 7 Ã, 00:07, February 18, 2010 (UTC))

src: jech.bmj.com

Link to the username policy from the account creation page

Perhaps this has been discussed, but does not it make sense for us to link the username policy from creating the account page? While I can appreciate that we do not want to overwhelm new users who sign up, at least there should be the ability for people to see the policies of the page so they know some guidelines (eg famous, offensive/distruptive names and company names). 7 Ã, 23:12, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

No thoughts? I still see dozens of new accounts created each day that clearly have company names. 7 Ã, 4:55, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with it, although I doubt it will have many effects. --Conti |? 07:47, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Note that if you log out and sign in to create a new account link, it has more information than (here). The only time you only see the bottom (this) is if you create a new account when signed in with another account. Therefore for people who do not log in and create new accounts, there is extensive policy documentation already (ie both Fancycaptcha-createaccount and Signupend) templates. However, I've added a quick reference to the username policy again in the second bit for the people who signed up for the account when they signed in. NJA (t/ c) 08:06, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you NJA - You're right, I can not see it because I'm signed in. Glad it's there. 7 Ã, 08:21, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Bot catch-22

The bot approval process asks you to create a bot account linked to your account as a first step before requesting bot approval. However, you can not, because the names ending in bots are blacklisted. Are these some unforeseen consequences? How did you make bots these days? Gigs (talk) 19:15, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Create a bot account when signed in to your primary account (in Special: UserLogin). Make a note on your user/user's page bot account (from your main account) that the bot/approval app is being processed/pending, preferably with a link or dif. Even if the account is blocked, it can be canceled. Not a big problem. - Flyguy649 ^talk 19:22, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

You can not create bots, even when logged into your main account. That's the catch-22. (Edit: You have a sysop so it may be different for you) Gigs (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a failed attempt to introduce sanity in last year's username policy aspect. It's a totally ridiculous situation if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good point. I guess you have to go through Wikipedia: Requesting an account. I hope it helps; I have never done anything in the corner of the project. - Flyguy649 ^talk 21:14, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

See this just a few months ago. Not specifically talking about blacklisting in relation to bots, but that's for Stewards, which is another limitation we decide is exaggeration because it does not exist, but the black list is in meta. There is a local whitelist en-wiki, although I'm not sure of its usefulness. NJA (t/ c) 22:05, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the regex for bots on the local blacklist or meta you linked to. Can you tell me where that entry is? I see that the old discussion is whether it should be limited, so I guess we have not immediately talked about blacklisting one or the other. Gigs (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How to blacklist? The meta list is blacklisted, so if there's no doubt I'm restricted. For example I just came out and managed to create User: Test Bot without warning or problem. NJA (t/ c) 07:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

I must have hit different regex for this (doh). I'll see you later today. Gigs (talk) 13:29, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WP implementation: ORGNAME to non-commercial products

WP: ORGNAME states that "explicit usage of company or group, company or product names as user name is not allowed". Does this ban also apply to products that are (usually) non-commercial, such as Free Software? I just found the exact same username as the popular Free Software package. In this case I am not particularly concerned with the promotion aspect, but rather that the use of an editor in its name implies that it represents or is in some way connected with the author of the software. --Psychonaut (talk) 00:23, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

We treat the same nonprofit entity as the corps. Gigs (talk) 00:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Most nonprofit groups are companies. The bottom line is that one can "sell" a nonprofit organization, a government. agency, club/church/club; and in this case the spam name is the name of the spam. - Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a conflict of interest issue that we block, it's the fact that the name is used by the organization and not someone personally, therefore they can not release their edits under copyright. So whether it is free or not if it is tied to an organization then there is a problem with the username policy. Promotion and conflicts of interest are a separate issue. NJA (t/ c) 07:51, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I left a message

src: i.kym-cdn.com

CAT: UAA admin reminder

Heya, I hope to remind fellow admins who watch a lot of UAA and/or blocking usernames to try deleting category [[Categories: Wikipedian username editors expressed concern]] of userpages they blocked. That way the category remains current with a list of only names that have active issues (ie they are not blocked). I just passed and deleted about 70 names from the last ten days, so on average we had ten days. Over a month will be hundreds, so please spend a few extra seconds to remove the category from their user pages while blocking. Thanks, NJA (t/ c) 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already made a bot request. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Is the category even useful? Does it have thousands of stale useless names that are not blocked in it? Gigs (talk) 14:42, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is useful, and there are no thousands (921 to be exact). The first step is to make sure that the blocked name is deleted (it's done, but manually now), the second is to determine how long it takes to be stale and then delete the names as well so it's more useful than it already is. I imagine 30 days without new activity after enough notice. NJA (t/ c) 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot has gone through it and deleted the blocked account from the category. KittyBot or something. I see it in my watchlist pretty regularly. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, KittyBot. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's my old butt doing it manually. If someone can write real code to do it, I'm all for it. :) NJA ( t/ c) 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a great bot, I have to say it.., Ã, Â · Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:02, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you will give jd a run for the money;). BRFA filed WP: Bots/Request for approval/KingpinBot 3 - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah thank you for cleaning it. The last one I have checked it has expanded but it is definitely before your cleaning. Good work. Gigs (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Stale?

Rejecting reports about two weeks of editing (here) seems inconsistent with our instructions on WP: NPP. We encourage people to work from the back of the queue, which has pages not reached for up to 1 month. Mind? - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not waiting for a discussion on this, but the spam on their user pages and talk page is so striking that I have deleted it and blocked the account. Since they are inactive I use the "soft block" option. If the account is six months old, there may be no point in blocking it, but even then spam should be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. It might be pointless to block this one, but at least the spam needed to go, and blocking does not cost anything. I find that as time goes by, my attitude towards spammers has hardened and I have little patience for them. While I'm trying to assume good faith with all new users, if someone even knows what the word "encyclopedia" means then it stretches credibility to assume they are honest believing it's okay to promote a business inside one. Finding and removing spam and spammers is at least as important as performing the same task as troublemakers, perhaps more because so many vandalisms are restored within seconds by CluBot or stopped from being posted in the first place by the edit filter. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete spam according to policy, but any old account without new edits is unlikely to be edited again. Excessive blocking. If we reduce the backlog in the queue, persistence will run by itself in time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have proof that people who have not edited in two weeks hardly ever edit again? - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that most of the accounts I marked as stale are often not edited outside the initial burst, is it a week or a year? Most of these accounts just put something here and then moved to Facebook, LinkedIn, and whatever they use. Since they did not get any contact from our site, they never bothered to check back. Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

(conflict edit) I will use WP: UAA/I when I create that report, which indicates that unedited usernames in the month need not be reported implying that two weeks is not long enough to be considered stale. If an account is made solely for using their user pages to advertise, they have no reason to edit again after they create the page unless it is deleted, in which case they might want to recreate it as it happens here - at least blocking might prevent that, and the softblock template assumes good faith. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen an account like that again, save it to start spamming another article (in this case they are subject to blocking for it). I honestly, personally, consider UAA reports which accounts have not edited in the last few days to be stale and not worth the time and resources needed to block them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to make two points, one of them in WT: ADMIN WT: POLICY and one here. Look at my protection logs from last spring and last summer when I was more active in removal work, or protection logs from anyone who is very active in CSD, and what you noticed right away is that the person who submitted the promotional material hardly ever returns if the name Their users are blocked, but they often return if they are not blocked but their pages are removed, and then the diligent admin will "salt" their pages against redevelopment. The current suggestion in UAA/I, which will block if they have been edited in "several months", is very efficient, as it gets new contributors to help us out by choosing by themselves... if they just post things to see if anyone will stop them, then they leave when we stop them, but if they think they have a case, or if they value 2-way communication, then they say something, and I never block them if they seem to respond to anything we say. OTOH, I agree that UAA is only the first line of defense for these issues and it's okay to leave it to others, as long as we do not shy away from our responsibilities; if Daniel and others really believe this, I can live by changing the advice in UAA/I into one month. I can not approve less than a month as the new page queue is a month; I am very skeptical that there will be consensus for that, and even if there is, I think it will confuse and alienate the patrols. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I posted a public observation on WT: POLICY because the related question just appeared there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think I see it like this: I have had to investigate it to evaluate the report. I've deleted the spam they post. Blocking takes just a few more seconds. Maybe it's overdone, maybe they will not even try to go back, it does not matter if you think about it, block free and if this edit is fresh there will be no question. I do not think blocking them is certainly wrong because they will be blocked for spam if they return. But if you really evaluate the report and respond to it, I think you should continue and remove spam whether you feel inclined to block or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually assume unedited accounts in the last 2-3 weeks are stale. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When should 'Request for account' be used?

Currently, the policy says If you want to request consent for a username, you can do so by submitting a request on Wikipedia: Requesting an account.

I do not really think that this is the purpose of the ACC tool. The main purpose is for those who (for whatever reason) can not create an account - for example, it's too similar to the current account, or the user can not read the CAPTCH image.

What do others think? - Phantom Steve / talk | contribs \ 16:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

If the user who evaluates the request is familiar with the username policy, cool actually helps prevent the user's first experience here as a username block. I do not know that this is what the ACC is referring to, but it seems a harmless suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Beeblebrox rating. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How to do the same for MediaWiki: Loginend Note: I myself think that these additional changes are not necessary, but, as long as we promote the ACC, we can go ahead. Manish Earth ^{Talk o Handle} 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Ã, Done . Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:11, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Small tiny error: You have placed it under the "Secure your account" header. Instead, place it outside the list (On the top or bottom). Manish Earth ^{Talk o Handle} 06:21, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation of the dead?

I have read some threads in the archive about this, but can not see anything on the policy page about it, so I'm not sure if any consensus really is achieved. What is the username against the policy if it is the real name of someone who is the subject of Wikipedia article, but has been dead for 10 years? Since the person is dead before Wikipedia starts, it can be said that the user is not trying to mislead anyone by thinking that they are a questionable subject. However, they edit the articles in question, may have a personal relationship with the subject that has died, and the possibility of a conflict of interest. While their edits may be considered problematic for another reason, is their username specifically against the policy? - Beloved Freak 15:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy specifies only those who are still alive ( Do not edit with the name of a famous person unless it is your real name, and you are either a famous person or you make it clear that you are not ) - does not oppose the policy of having the name of a deceased person. If the editing is vandalism, then the user can be blocked. If the person dies, the article is not a BLP - but whatever is not soured can still be deleted, if necessary. From that point of view, the name of the editor is irrelevant - if they add useful things, it's fixed; if not, it is removed and warnings are given if appropriate. - Phantom Steve / talk | contribs \ 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. That's pretty much what I think.-- Beloved Freak 12:34, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to expand disruptive username category

I would like to suggest that we add to this list any names that include the terms "marketing", "publicity", "SEO" and the like, as they declare themselves to have the intention of interrupting Wikipedia editing in ways that undermine our purpose. - Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest not including SEO because it is a Korean name (see Seo (Korean name)) - however, the other two terms are a clear indication of the account's intentions. - Phantom Steve / talk | contribs \ 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If an editor sends spam to Wikipedia, we already have a way of handling it quite effectively, regardless of whether the editor has the term "marketing" in the user's name or not. --Conti |? 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Username that looks like a Wikipedia timestamp

Per recent incident with Users: 21: 48, May 9, 2008 (UTC) reported on WP: ANI # Block review, it would appear that this area is not covered by the username policy.

This needs to be handled in particular, and appropriate words need to be added to a username policy that states that usernames that look like a timestamp are forbidden, and explain that the use of such usernames tends to create confusion. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be handled definitively here. I would be very glad to be included in the list of 'prohibited' names. - Phantom Steve / talk | contribs \ 11:09, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Misleading usernames are one of the "big 4". I do not think we need wp: bean every instance that people think. Just softblock them. Gigs (talk) 12:50, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

This happens quite often (especially with similar usernames with IP addresses, similar related issues) that I have WP: BOLD adds a clarification statement to the page. Feel free to rewrite, delete, or change. Just stab it. - Jayron 32 15: 05 , May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Even though I was the one who made a lot of noise about the block, part of the reason was that I had never seen such a case before, and that would not happen often in the future. I do not think we need to mention the timestamp specifically. In addition, it seems that the addition of Jayron actually reflects the current consensus, as we know yesterday. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of promotional usernames, policy/practice sharing

Hi. Occasionally I throw on a username board. After a helpful conversation with User: Daniel Case, I became increasingly aware that there was a difference between practice and policy. According to the policy:

The explicit use of a company name, group, or product as a username is not permitted. Your username must represent you . Accounts representing an entire group or company are not allowed; see Share account below. Since a username that is a company or group name creates an intention to promote that group, accounts with company or group names as usernames will be blocked indefinitely.

This is a fairly simple "if then" relationship: " if the company name, then block ". But I know this is not universally recommended, and sometimes the company's name is rejected on the bulletin board.

I think we need to do something to bring policies and practices in line to avoid confusing contributors, especially those who keep an eye out for policy name violations. If the blocking relationship is not so simple, they need to know it. I hope that some types of conversations can clarify the policy here to reduce frustration for contributors and to ensure that all admins are on the same page about when and if they should block the account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you. I do UAA in a reasonable amount (not as much as Daniel Case thinks of you). I tend to block company names but I have dodged them in the past when their edits did not contain their company's spaming. You are right, as per their policies should be blocked. They will from here, except policy changes. - Alexf ^(talk) 12:48, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Why do volunteers time to nonprofit organizations? To feel that they make a difference, they do it the right way, and they are rewarded for it. The fastest way to get people out of a nonprofit project is to give them the feeling that they are not there to do a well-defined project, they are there to serve responsible people, to sweep or make coffee or do what people do- people who feel like doing that day. I agree with MRG. As has been pointed out many times by many, it does not really matter where we draw the line, because if someone is promoting they will eventually get caught on the line. Blocking for "technical" reasons is just an efficient, and often less confrontational, way to stop problems before they start, and sometimes keep contributors who will be lost if we let them follow their instincts without stepping in. But wherever we draw the line, that's where the line is, and while I do not expect any contributors to understand all of this, it makes sense to expect it from the admin. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance that someone can enlighten me on what exactly should be reported in WP: UAA? I have found some but the instructions show that it does not need to be blocked unless there is "proof that account was created in bad faith" that seems to conflict with the policy MRG cited above. Up to now (and following the instructions in WP: UAA) I just dropped {{uw-coi-username}} on their page and let them in their happy way, because evidence of bad faith looks like a bar high enough for me. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The current guides are somewhat clearer. So far, there is no consensus or even suggestion here that the policy should be changed, so the instructions have been updated to comply with the policy. We do not require bad faith to block company account name, product name, end with bot or include the word Administrator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of the more active admins in the UAA, I will immediately block (using {{softerblock}}) usernames matching the company/organization name when they promote the organization in some way (adding external links to company website, create articles for organizations that match user names, have user promotional pages, etc.). I believe this is a pretty standard procedure. I think the latest change in instructions in UAA is right. Requires proof of faith account creation that is unclear and subjective, and too conservative in comparison with stated policies and current practices. Requesting a blocking admin to determine the reason for blocking in that situation makes more sense. - Ed (Edgar181) 15:01, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both. I think that's my cue to go ahead and report a dozen or more of the names of the organizational organizations I meet. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I should rather disagree with Dank. "Civil disobedience" in the form of rejecting names that should be blocked per policy is not something I think we should tolerate. If someone declines an article marked with a CSD that clearly falls within the CSD, we'll stop it. An admin who disagrees with a username policy does not give them the right to pretend it does not exist. Gigs (talk) 04:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not clear, because I agree with you; I am just trying to explain what I see as the negative side of "civil disobedience" to someone who voluntarily seeks guidance. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see that now. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong read WP: U

WP: U has answered your question, Moonriddengirl, although not in the form you are looking for: You must report the name to UAA if "need to be blocked immediately".

If you think WP: U contains any instruction from the form "if there is something, then unblock", you misread it. One of the most common ways to misinterpret it, as some people appear in this discussion, is to read the section on "The appropriate user name" as a list of instructions on when to block people. That part is not for you. This is for beginners. This is the first notification on the page:

As with all blocking cases, you must apply common sense and think about what action is best for Wikipedia and its users. Not blocking someone because you have a better idea of ​​how to approach the situation is not "civil disobedience", it is a good administration, and I think there is often a better way to deal with a good contributor who has a company name. rsp ?? r (talk) 00:32, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

#To resolve an inappropriate username, as you say, not for new users. It is said, that the cases are clearly appropriate for reporting and blocking in WP: UAA. The policy language explains that:

The explicit use of company or group, company or product names as user names is not permitted.... Because a username that is a company or group name creates the impression of an intention to promote that group, the account with the company or group name as the username will be blocked indefinitely.

There is little ambiguity there; it seems that the use of a company name or url, group, or product as a username is a "clear case." So far, all who have responded here either because they are watching this page or because they are following my request at VPP seems to agree. I realize that you feel different, but I do not consider the user name block as a bite. Softblocks with the right explanations give them the opportunity to create usernames that perform in accordance with the policy or, if they prefer, to request renaming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:47, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of room for different assessments on how to implement policies, and different opinions about what the effects are. Do not frame it as "civil disobedience" when the admin applies one of many options other than blocking.

The number of users we disagree is also small. If someone uses a company name by spam, of course they are blocked. It's clear , as you pointed out. But when there is no behavior problem - when you have a cooperative user who will probably change their name if you ask them - you should consider what purpose your block works, because WP: BLOCK is more basic than WP: U and says that each block must have aim.

I want to make sure that goals are something more than to blindly apply the if-then rule, and that unreasonable admins following rules (or minor guidelines reinterpreted as rules) are not accused of being civilians of defiance. rsp ?? r (talk) 01:15, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well, per WP: BLOCK: "Blocks are intended to reduce the possibility of future problems , by deleting, or encouraging changes, the source of interference." At some point, the community decides that editing under the usernames associated with the company or product is de facto annoying. This block serves to prevent them from continuing to use the usernames that the community has decided on. Again, I realize that you are worried about biting, but I do not see soft username blocks as bite. This is a technical obstruction accompanied by a notification that explains the problem and gives the user steps to resolve it.

There is much room for different judgments about how to implement policies, and different opinions about what the effects are, which is why I am looking for clarification here. I have not framed this issue as "civil disobedience"; However, I am very concerned about the confusion that occurred for the good faith contributors who created the list article. When the policy tells them to create a "clear case" list and the words associated with the company/product username are definitive so , they tend to be confused and discouraged when they include it here for results that are not expected. I raised this in response to complaints by such users. We are here to use the tools that have been entrusted to us for them and also for new users, and when differences in judgments and opinions generate uncertainty, we have issues that need to be addressed... either through customization of practices or adjust policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Boundary case

There are many boundary cases containing the word "rape" or "sex" which can be considered taboo. - Tyw7 Ã, (? Contact me! Ã, Contribution) Ã, Ã, Change the world of one edit in time! 22:48, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

This is more or less a cross post, see Wikipedia: Pump village (policy) #Bordeline case User name violiosiBeeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Should an indecent username in a foreign language be blocked?

I have seen such user names being blocked earlier, such as DBChinkoChiisai, which is indecent in Japanese. But it does not seem to specifically say this anywhere on the username page, and in fact the page only devotes a single sentence to talk about an obscene username, and I have heard "everything is indecent in some languages ​​somewhere" used in context in outside of Wikipedia, so I just want to know if it's safe to take for granted that obscene user names in one language are covered by policies against indecent usernames in general, or if they should be taken to UAA pages on a case-by-case basis. - Soap - 15:35, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

It should be case by case, simply because of the difficulty in recognizing the name for what it is. I mean, suppose the user makes constructive edits and has inappropriate usernames in a language unrelated to the edits, then the query about the intent of the username is consecutive. Fifty-fifty users say 'What does it mean in that language? Hrm, let me change my name, then. 'I do not think the blanket policy about blocking all usernames is helpful.

Therefore, suppose a user is damaging a page associated with Spain or Mexico and has an inappropriate username in Spanish. It just makes it clearer what its intentions are and it's easier to block unlimited hiim for vandalism plus inappropriate usernames. - C.Fred (talk) 16:23, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, letter by box. We do not want the equivalent of scunthorpe problem. Gigs (talk) 18:58, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Company name

We certainly do not recommend user names that look "official". However, in my opinion there is the right place for it. View User: SChilds ConAgraFoods and its contribution. He identifies himself as a representative for ConAgra, and submits a request on the article's talk page for modifications based on the data he presents. This seems to me exactly what we would expect a company representative to do, rather than (say) starting an account with a harmless name and silently changing the article to reflect his company's view. --jpgordon ^{:: == (o)} 15:38, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the only reason this policy provides a reason why we should block the company name is because they are showing the Role account. Because it does not happen here, I see no reason to block it. Of course, it only takes one admin to disagree and the account will be blocked. --Conti |? 16:02, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

It seems good to me, but it's contextual. "SChilds ConAgraFoods" is one thing. If its name is "JGigs buycheapdomains.com" then it will be a different matter. Gigs (talk) 16:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jpgordon. This account is clearly an individual account, and the name chosen makes its potential COI clear from the start. Insisting on a new username will make it harder to clearly identify COI editing. I think this is what we should prefer an official company representative to do when editing WP. He must be set free. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:42, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I let him go for a name change - and will not work to leave his real name, because some other admins will come and block it again. But I think the policy could make an explicit exception for this role editor type: suggestions on the talk page only. --jpgordon ^{:: == (o)} 17:00, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The policy must clearly state that accounts clearly marked as non-role accounts (as in, used by one person) may not be blocked. --Conti |? 17:05, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's a role account, "talk-page-only" will be fine, I think. Should I take this discussion to WP: VP/P to get a wider audience? --jpgordon ^{:: == (o)} 17:15, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I will not do it that way. Create a new section on this page and run RfC here. Gigs (talk) 17:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Name includes BOT

I encourage anyone who watches this page to review and comment on the username being discussed on Wikipedia: Requests_for_comment/User_names # Niabot, as it may serve as a precedent for future Bot clause interpretations. 7 Ã, 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unscrupulous user names of companies

Recently we had a bit of a problem in WP: ACC about a username which when searching on Google has a company or 2 appear in the results but is not explicitly intended to promote that company. For example, let's say someone makes/asks for a username like "blahblahblah" and when someone runs a Google search on it they find there is "BlahBlahBlah Enterprises Inc." somewhere in the results.

Should "blahblahblah" in such a case be immediately referred to a WP violation: SPAMNAME and blocked/denied (depending on whether it appears in UAA/similar process or in ACC) regardless of other factors such as editing (when dealing with it onwiki) or Email/IP (ACC users can see this when a request is open but is hidden from view after the request closes)?

Recently some ACC users have argued in favor of a resolution "immediately calling it an infringement" (I guess because the way they interpret "accounts with company or group names as usernames is blocked indefinitely.") Even in such cases IPs do geolocation to another country from country and Email to Gmail instead of "x@company.com".

It would be better if someone could clarify this aspect of this username policy. Fun Pika 00:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I want to support FunPika points here. The current policy is very unambiguous. Company names are not allowed as username, period. The problem is we all know this does not reflect reality. For all I know there might be Thaceth Ltd somewhere in the UK doing who knows what. The written policy would prohibit my username on that basis, even though I had no connection with the company and indeed, had never heard of it. in fact there are two separate problems. There is an open and unquestioned user name, such as User: ThparkthLtdBestValueInCheshire. Everyone agrees that it should not be allowed. Then there's a username that matches the name of some company or group somewhere on Earth. Practice in WP: UAA is that the user is not automatically banned or asked to change their name; the history of their contributions d

Source of the article : Wikipedia