Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 2 May 2017 (→{{anchor|%F0%9F%98%82 (😂) (formerly ^demon)}} 😂: closing as allow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
😂
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: allow. It seems fairly clear that for this user at this point in time, there is no major issue with the username. I note that there are a large number of "I LIKE/DON'T LIKE IT" votes on both sides, but the prevailing argument is that there is no technical reason to disallow, and that there are other similar (and older) usernames that have to be considered. In that light, I am recommending that anyone who wishes to disallow emoji usernames should start an RFC at the appropriate noticeboard (be that here or at a Village Pump) to formally allow/disallow such usernames to be used as the primary name of a user. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the username is intended to present as a single emoji "
😂
"; depending on your browser and how you interact with this symbol it may appear as a face that looks like it is crying, a question mark, a rectangle, or the encoded string "%F0%9F%98%82". — xaosflux Talk 17:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] - Note also that this user is formerly user ^demon Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the username is intended to present as a single emoji "
- Two reasons: (1) This is a "confusing" username, as these symbols do not properly display for many readers/editors. (2) This username is normally forbidden, however %F0%9F%98%82 had a global renamer change their name to it. As an administrator, it is expected that %F0 would lead by example. I feel that changing names to a blacklisted name does not reflect leaderhip, additionally this move makes %F0 less accessible as an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow - Let's don't let stuff like this get started, please, this is ridiculous. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow I've got three different devices (all second hand admittedly!) and it's only on one that the actual emojie-demon-face shows up- the others show a square and a triangle. Which could lead a new editor down a rabbit hole by getting the to repeatedly search for 'User:square' or 'User:triangle'- in other words to completely waste their time. In any case, I suggest that it's highly unprofessional for someone in a leadership role. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow, just no. while I agree in spirit, it must not be. while cute and whimsical, let's just go back to the old user name. Dlohcierekim 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to weak allow when rendered as an incomprehensible string, no. as an emoji? à chacun son gout. kinda. I guess. Dlohcierekim 22:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlohcierekim: The problem is that different browsers have different levels of emoji support. Some browsers will show an emoji. Others an incomprehensible string. We have no way to fix that. Note that even on two modern browsers that I have access to (Google Chrome on PC vs. Safari on mobile), I see two different emojis. ~ Rob13Talk 05:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious what "incomprehensible string" you're referring to. I could easily see a browser lacking the necessary fonts rendering it as a square or as a rectangle with the tiny digits 01F602 inside, but neither of those would I consider "a string" in informal discussion. It's also not inconceivable that some non-Unicode-supporting browser would display it as some sort of mojibake like "😂", but such a browser would screw up any non-ASCII text so I think we can ignore it. The "%F0%9F%98%82" string originally included in this report was BS copied from the way it's represented in a URL, and again that happens for any non-ASCII text. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlohcierekim: The problem is that different browsers have different levels of emoji support. Some browsers will show an emoji. Others an incomprehensible string. We have no way to fix that. Note that even on two modern browsers that I have access to (Google Chrome on PC vs. Safari on mobile), I see two different emojis. ~ Rob13Talk 05:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll just resign my adminship so I'm no longer expected to lead by example. Everybody wins. 😂 [omg plz] 16:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not "Everybody wins" my objection to this representation of a username has nothing to do with account status. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late 😂 [omg plz] 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC) 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it a bit childish to have your admin rights removed just because no one likes your username ?, Perhaps we're all better off if you're not an admin if this is how you handle criticism!. –Davey2010Talk 16:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Childish? Nah. Just a different set of priorities to me. My username is more important than enwiki's approval of it. I'm also willing to be banned if people really really don't want me around with my new (and improved) identity 😂 [omg plz] 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Shh, let him.--v/r - TP 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @User formerly known as ^demon: If you want to have your admin right removed on en.wiki, you need to request it at WP:BN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it a bit childish to have your admin rights removed just because no one likes your username ?, Perhaps we're all better off if you're not an admin if this is how you handle criticism!. –Davey2010Talk 16:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late 😂 [omg plz] 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC) 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not "Everybody wins" my objection to this representation of a username has nothing to do with account status. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow -
It currently shows up as "% F0 % 9F % 98 % 82 (😂)" (with no spaces) here ..... So not only is the username going to cause header (and various other) issues butany newbies wanting to find this admin are probably going to have a hard time trying!, If this admin wants to be known as "Smiley emoji" then they can rename themselves to just that!. –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] - Allow - if he wants to use 😂, I think that's fine. Doesn't seem overly disruptive to me, especially since I can copy/paste it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The real discussion should be about why Meta ignores local policies when renaming users.--v/r - TP 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm a global renamer and there's no way I can possibly learn all the different local policies for every Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The realer discussion is why we don't establish one criteria for usernames since usernames have been partially global since 2008 and fully global since 2014. Or why there is a small subset of the community that spends its time here policing names. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ding ding ding! We have a winner! 😂 [omg plz] 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- stuff like this is exactly why I decided to resign 'cratship instead of becoming a global renamer when SUL finalization hit. also: anyone having issues pinging strange usernames might get some mileage out of a script I wrote a long time ago: User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/autoping.js Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ajraddatz: That one is easy, feel free to open a RFC to change the policy. Until then, Meta should stop meddling.--v/r - TP 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ding ding ding! We have a winner! 😂 [omg plz] 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The real discussion should be about why Meta ignores local policies when renaming users.--v/r - TP 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow, as per all the other "disallow" comments above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]- On second thought, I'll keep out of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow: does not render properly (and cannot be typed) on many desktop browsers. ansh666 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- note user has requested desysop. Dlohcierekim 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow It appears that all the encoded indication above was created by the nominator, and not by the software (the emoji looks proper in the signature, though it's "FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY", not anything demon-related). That said, if some participants in this discussion see a replacement character when viewing it, undoubtedly there will be many more such users on Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be allowed. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I see a few opposers who were in favor of the listing below mine (which is also a non-ASCII character). I'm curious that the "some browsers can't render it" and "some people are confused by non-Latin characters" points were not raised there. Both my username and that one are valid unicode (for which there is precedent). 😂 [omg plz] 17:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC) 17:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Who exactly is "confused" by this? Jesus wept. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh. (a.k.a. allow)--I'm not a huge fan of usernames like this, but it's not against policy. I appreciate that it might be somewhat confusing for some people, but I'd guess it's still less confusing than people who have signatures that don't include their actual username, and we allow that (albeit grudgingly). The actual, current harm here seems minimal; I don't know that it's worth forcing someone out of a legal username that they want, or blocking them. Perhaps if there were more than a handful of editors who use a single, non-ASCII character running around I'd be more convinced, but as of this moment, the reasoning for disallowing seems more hypothetical and/or future-potential than real, and I'm not sure we should get into the habit of squashing things on hypothetical or speculative grounds. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is silly: The only relevant parts of the actual username policy seem to be WP:NONLATIN, which does not forbid the name, and WP:UNCONF, which is so hopelessly vague that the arguments being presented here apply equally well to usernames in Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, and other non-Latin scripts. The actual "disallow" !votes seem to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an attempt to make a de facto policy in this out-of-the-way noticeboard rather than actually changing the policy.
I also note that the initial report here seems to be claiming that the username is somehow "%F0%9F%98%82", which is completely bogus, but many of the commenters seem to have been mislead into thinking that actually is part of the name. It seems unlikely a sensible decision can be made here from such a deeply flawed start. Anomie⚔ 17:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, but we use non-ASCII characters in our sigs, so clearly we're biased Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this is different from any of the other 1 glyph usernames on that page. But those were also confusing to other users (which is why most are retired or alt accounts). It's also stupid that we don't have a global username policy, and that we ever allowed single glyph or picture glyph usernames to begin with, but that's not at issue here. But my primary point is that I don't want to waste my time on this, EVER! That includes having to explain to a newbie that 😂 is a person talking to him, and not just another emoji at the end of a sentence. My position is the same as on user signatures. A signature should not be a canvas for a profilepicture and neither should a username be. So yeah, I don't like it and it's my personal policy to complain on a user's talk page every time it will annoy me. That usually leads to people eventually throwing in the towel. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did offer to change my signature :) 😂 [omg plz] 17:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying it out FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow, this is no differnt than allowing non-latin characters as usernames. that is allowed and this should be allowed also. ~ GB fan 17:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow - no policy forbids unicode usernames and this is a poor choice of venue for inventing pseudopolicy. Anomie is correct, and I've corrected the subsection header which contained unnecessary extra information which would not be included with most reports here; the notes below suffice. In addition, 😂's signature clearly includes links to their user and user talk pages, thus nobody who has used the internet since 1991 should have any difficulty conversing with them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow The most common method of pinging I've seen mentioned is by copying and pasting from the editor's signature (in the edit pane). The most common method of finding a user's talk page is by clicking on the link in their signature. Since this username is pingable and their talk page is visitable, I see no need to worry about whether their name renders properly. Even if it doesn't, it'd still be identifiable, which is the primary purpose of a signature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Oh hey, I have one of these! 🐱 is an indoor kitty, though; I don't let him out in mainspace. I created that account to test this and while I thought it was a pain in the ass to use (non-admin emoji usernames can't create pages in their own userspace...), the only reason I can think of to suggest they shouldn't exist is the fact that non-admins can't create emoji accounts. That does provide a little bit of an unanticipated backdoor benefit to adminship (or to having a friendly admin or renamer willing to create/rename the account, deal with your userpage and talk page archives, etc). That said, I'm still not really sure why emoji are on the title blacklist in the first place. All of the "but won't someone think of the
childrennewbies??" stuff seems like FUD to me. Everyone convinced that having a weird username is somehow incompatible with being an admin needs to go chill out and have a 🍺. (I was going to put a rant here about how adminship is a janitorial job and if you expect "leadership" then that expectation is something you just made up, but again, 🍺🍺🍺 ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]- i'll 🍻 to that Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Essentially for GB fan's reasons - Wikimedia is a multiscripture system and as members of this system we need to give allowances for other scriptures. That emojis aren't a common language is not relevant, in my mind. @Opabinia regalis:, I suspect that over half of the stuff on the titleblacklist could easily be removed with no danger whatsoever to anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow I think if they still want to continue to provide a community service by being an admin then we should allow them to do so. If this ends up being the case, I would recommend and encourage them have a more clear link to their user talk page (more clearly identified than "omg plz"). It's important that newcomers be able to communicate and interact with them with ease. The username does complicate that but it can be offset by having a more user-friendly signature. Mkdw talk 19:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure I have a vote right here, but Allow as per Ajraddatz in case I do. Usernames are completely global now, global renamers are not required to know English Wikipedia policies or even speak any English at all. This page might as well discuss all the users having usernames not in Latin script and it is ridiculous. As to Emoji rendering, you do not need it to be rendered correctly to interract with it. For me "Xaosflux" makes as little sense as "😂" so potential argument about meaningless looks invalid. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 20:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow -A name which cannot be said, and cannot easily be written on a computer keyboard, inhibits communication with the editor of that name. Admins must be available for communication with other users, so this name is counter-productive for an admin -- and probably also for any editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow. Harms collaborative spirit of the encyclopedia by making it harder to communicate. ~ Rob13Talk 20:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow. User:BU Rob13 sums it up perfectly. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow - while we may tolerate names which don't use the Latin alphabet for users who are barely present on this wiki (per SUL), I think that any user who is clearly a major part of our community (and an admin with almost 14000 edits clearly is) needs to have a user name which can be typed on the standard English-language keyboard. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you want to force User:Tóraí, User:Vejvančický, and User:Yamaguchi先生 to change their names too? None of their usernames can be typed on a standard English-language keyboard either. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any user ... needs to have a user name which can be typed on the standard English-language keyboard.
AltGr + i does the job for me. --Tóraí (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you want to force User:Tóraí, User:Vejvančický, and User:Yamaguchi先生 to change their names too? None of their usernames can be typed on a standard English-language keyboard either. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow - non-pingable.--Moxy (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moxy. I don't understand your comment here. Are you saying that Echo/notifications/pings do not work with the user name 😂? If so, is this issue tracked in Phabricator Maniphest somewhere? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. ...can't ping a name you can't see or that echo does not see. What should I type User:small outlined square? Best this kids stuff be used on fan blogs.... not an academic Endeavor like this. How embarrassing that an admin would use this. A little bit of Integrity goes a long way. Can some one link to what we are suppose to see. What an accessibility problem.Moxy (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not correct. Babou gets pings just fine. Moxy, Emojipedia has images of how various emoji look on different platforms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you see Bobou name? I can't ping a square. Is there a link that wI'll tell me a square is etc...--Moxy (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What browser/OS are you using? Unless it's really old, you can probably fix your empty-box issue; This site and this one are useful for figuring out what you need. If you copy and paste them, they should still show up correctly for people whose computers support them, even if they don't work for you. The underlying piece of information is the Unicode codepoint - the full set is here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Vista - Chrome .....added screenshot--Moxy (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Moxy: for the record, you should still be able to ping them, even if the username shows up as a box: just copy and paste the box, and it should still work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you see Bobou name? I can't ping a square. Is there a link that wI'll tell me a square is etc...--Moxy (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not correct. Babou gets pings just fine. Moxy, Emojipedia has images of how various emoji look on different platforms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. ...can't ping a name you can't see or that echo does not see. What should I type User:small outlined square? Best this kids stuff be used on fan blogs.... not an academic Endeavor like this. How embarrassing that an admin would use this. A little bit of Integrity goes a long way. Can some one link to what we are suppose to see. What an accessibility problem.Moxy (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow per "the arguments being presented here apply equally well to usernames in Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, and other non-Latin scripts" and "who exactly is confused here". Mutante (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow i do not understand whats the big deal with having an emoticon as a username. It's a free world. If he is not allow an emoticon as a username why are other users allow arabic or chinese as there username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladox (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paladox: To answer that question, it's because usernames are global and those possessing such usernames are normally of a different wiki. However we do not have an Emoji Wikipedia. That's where these arguments are coming from. I'm a neutral observer here.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Unicode usernames existed for a long time before notifications did. Notifications is a communication tool on top of the wiki, it's not an essential tool that without it renders communication impossible. If the rationale is "it's hard/impossible to type for me", then we need to disallow all non-Latin usernames. I don't buy the "prominent community members must be even more accessible" argument. We've got a ton of prominent users whose names I can't remember because they're complicated Latin-script usernames, and just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it. Keegan (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow: the arguments against are waffling between dubious and spurious claims. I'm particularly tickled by the comment by עוד מישהו, in which he makes up a policy that established editors here "have a user name which can be typed on the standard English-language keyboard" and then proceeds to sign in Hebrew. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But the actual user name, Od Mishehu, can be typed on an English keyboard. clpo13(talk) 22:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If my user name were עוד מישהו, your claim would make sense; however, since it's Od Mishehu, and this name shows up explicitly in the viewable text of my sig, your claim doesn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But the actual user name, Od Mishehu, can be typed on an English keyboard. clpo13(talk) 22:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow. I don't mind emoji usernames in general, but in this case, I think it should be disallowed due to the user in question's motives and conduct during and after the change. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow I don't like it either, and I think this user is acting the fool with their behavior, but that doesn't change the fact that we already allow all sorts of usernames that can't be typed on a standard English speaker's keyboard. There is simply no basis in policy for disallowing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow User name policy says "it should be a name which other users will be comfortable with and which does not interfere with the project". Per the arguments above to disallow, it appears that this username fails the "comfortable" prong and the "interfere" prong for a not insignificant number of users. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I will add from personal experience, I have on occasion tried to find a user I don't remember where I last saw their name, with the search function, only remembering the first few letters of their name -- so, I type in to search "User:" and then the letters hoping that the search function gives me choices one of which is it, and that has seldom failed but 'User:Face' or whatever it is, does not get me there, in this case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Workflow ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, under 'User:Op' I easily find you at third ('User:Od', above, has you beat, however, coming in first in his autocompletion list) :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually easier to find him on Wikipedia:Unicode usernames than a “normal username” in the full list starting with a few letters. Platonides (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What? You are pointing me to a totally obscure page called 'unicode' and somehow that's suppose to be for finding 'user: whatever that is', and has something to do with replacing the search box auto-completion that is found on every page? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Workflow ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow – is anyone actually confused by the emomi 😂? Has anyone found themselves unable to locate 😂's userpage? One of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability, and I can't find any proof that names like this actually cause problems—just a lot of unsubstantiated doomsday predictions. There have been some fairly baffling criteria for username acceptability shared here, including that the name should be pronounceable, which rules out a huge swath of enwiki admins—after ten years or so, I still have no idea how to say "Dlohcierekim", for instance. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it is, by nature, confusing to navigate Wikipedia and communicate with other editors. I have a fully pronounceable username written in standard Latin characters, and new users still have plenty of trouble raising my attention. They copy and paste bits and pieces of my signature, or post their messages in hidden corners of my userspace. This is why it takes so long for just about everyone to learn the ropes, and why competence is required to edit Wikipedia. On the whole of it, I have to conclude that any inconvenience caused by this sort of name would be highly trivial and/or indistinguishable from the routine bewilderment faced by novices, and the resulting harm to the "collaborative spirit of the encyclopedia" pales in comparison with the damage caused by the animosity and polarization pervading this discussion, as well as the lost time that we could have spent writing articles. This is a really tacky exercise, to be sure—which is probably the reason behind most of the "disallow" responses—but there's no basis in policy to forbid it, and no compelling reason to do so by way of IAR. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Juliancolton:- just sound it out as one syllable for each vowel, with vowels having the same values as in latinate languages, or German. LOL. Dlohcierekim 01:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, almost forgot. The emoji, per se is not confusing. The issue as originally raised was the string of alphanumeric code which represents the emoji and that sais string is what some users see instead of said emoji. The issue in question has since been reframed. Dlohcierekim 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow, let's not return to ridiculous ridiculousness we had when people from other wikis got blocked on sight for usernames containing anything but English Latin characters. Max Semenik (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it alarming that some are arguing in favor of disallowing for this specifc user. That is absolutely not how we should apply policies. I'll admit they "picked a strange hill to die on," but that isn't the point here, the point is to determine if policy allows for this sort of thing or not. This isn't ANI, behavior is only an issue if it reflects a problematic element of the username, which is not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow by technicality, but by not taking a firmer stand on the small things like this, Wikipedia loses more legitimacy as a website written by editors who know what they are doing. Our credibility is already out the window with having to deal with vandalism not being reverted and critics of Wikipedia's reliability on its articles among a host of things. The media already has a field day with the silly arguments this site generates. I predict somewhere in the future there will be a news headline about our credibility and we're going to try and explain how 👾, 🥊 and ⚽ are some of our most valuable and knowledgeable users. It's a road we don't want to head down. We should be heading in a direction of accountability for who is doing what, not cool new emoji names. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea of knee-jerk prohibiting harmless things like this because of completely imaginary future media reports makes me think good old 😂 had the right idea after all in digging in their heels on this. Besides, I'm pretty sure Colbert did just fine making fun of arb usernames way before emoji were involved ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Per Juliancolton, the username is fine, we already have a standing precedent). Now unless we want to make all of those users change their usernames too, this isn't really fair nor in the spirit of a collaborative project. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow, I don't believe emoticons are appropriate as usernames primarily for accessibility reasons. For example, a screen reader will not read this out as anything remotely useful that the reader can reply to or use to identify the person in question. I ran it through my screen reader (orca) as a test and got nothing. To me, this username clearly seems to fall under the UPOL criteria "...or other names which would be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format." I think the fact that we're even having this discussion proves that point, people are confused, moreso for a new editor. People say "just copy/paste it", but what are we supposed to copy/paste if it's not rendered correctly? Regarding the precedent, there isn't much precedent there, given the vast numbers of registered Wikipedia users, and most are using written language characters. We often tell new folks to not add to an existing problem. I believe that this is the case here, also. Waggie (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Waggie: I'm a screen reader user who has no strong opinions about this request. I wasn't going to bring up the screen reader issue because I don't se it as relevant. Screen readers for English generally have trouble with almost every non-Latin character, so if we were going to use them as the baseline for what to allow here, we'd disallow almost all non-Latin characters, which absolutely isn't going to happen. For what it's worth, emojis are supported by VoiceOver for the Mac, recent versions (released in the last two years or so) of JAWS for Windows, and NVDA, a free Windows screen reader, with an addon. Orca isn't a good test sample simply because very few blind people use it; using the Linux GUI as a blind person, especially full-time, comes with a number of challenges that few blind people are willing to put up with. Graham87 10:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow per Keegan and Beeblebrox, and because peccadillos such as emoji usernames don't warrant officious responses. Is it just me, or did this place used to be just a little less uptight? RivertorchFIREWATER 05:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed. This is Y we can't have nice things. Dlohcierekim 11:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow per Opabinia, Juliancolton, and precedent. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow per anyone up there (and below if applicable) who accepted the usage of emoji usernames. 😂 has already set a good example (through his contributions to Wikipedia) so he deserves the adminship that was bestowed to him earlier on. Usernames should not interfere with our perception on whether the user is a good role model or not. The fact that 😂 was given admin means that other users have accepted his emoji username, and are thus willing to give him admin. JaventheAldericky (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, yes, I can see the 😂 emoji on my browser. JaventheAldericky (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @JaventheAlderick: please note, this user was named User:^demon when they became a sysop, this name change was only a few days ago. — xaosflux Talk 11:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say "allow username, but force a browser-independent link in the signature". The administrator status matters little to the matter at hand. However, that behavior falls obviously under WP:POINT and I would say the whole thing (the username change in itself was fine, but not resigning the sysop bit out of the blue) warrants a "cloud" desysop. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow per above allow votes. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow, I've looked at the "disallow" above and to be honest, apart from User:Waggie, I'm not seeing anything that isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Waggie's objection is pretty neatly addressed by User:Graham87's response. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Allow We were totally ok with Betacommand using the greek Delta symbol, we have editors that use greek text for their names, hindi text for their names. This is ridiculous and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (Caveat here, I actually prefer names be readable text, but the name shows up on my browser, and it's not like she's a vandal or anything, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn;'t a valid reason to oppose that use name ) Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 12:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow all Emoji usernames. Difficult to ping on computers and laptops with no Emoji keyboard and brings a user's maturity into question when they do use such characters within their names. Patient Zerotalk 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow Sorry. It could be confused with an icon or emoticon. It's just too far from where user names normally are. --Tóraí (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
☈
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: allow. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC) ☈ (talk · contribs)[reply]
- I'd like to revisit the discussion that was closed here regarding the username of my alternate account, ☈. I would like the issue re-examined and usage allowed based on the long-running precedent I have just found at Wikipedia:Unicode usernames for allowing such usernames. I feel that either all unicode usernames should be disallowed or I should be allowed to use ☈; I do not believe it is fair to disallow use of ☈ while allowing the use of other unicode usernames to which the arguments against ☈ also apply. Had I known that precedent for allowing such usernames existed I would not have filed the original username request for comment, but since I did I feel like it is only fair for me to come back here to request a new consensus in favor of allowing use of ☈. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my minority position at the former thread, which is to allow, since I was not convinced by any opposing argument. I tried to open an RfC on the more general question of whether non-Latin etc. usernames should be allowed on en-wp as a matter of username policy, but it was hijacked into a meta thread about whether such usernames should be technically forbidden on a global level, which predictably failed, and consequently did not produce anything actionable.
- However, I am not convinced the discovery of that list constitutes significant new information, and I do not see it as a "long-running precedent for allowing such usernames". Maybe the usernames were created stealthily against policy. Maybe they were created before there was a de facto forbidding of Unicode usernames, and they should be grandfathered. Maybe they are obvious violations of policy and should be renamed. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I say we allow this as well. But then, I could be biased (though mine is just a signature, not the actual name). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After giving this some thought I say allow as we do for all sorts of other non-latin characters. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- allow There's already a precedent in favor. Reviewed disallow arguments in previous discussion, and still favor allowing. Dlohcierekim 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow - I'll probably never understand why anyone would want a Latin name over an English one .... it makes no sense ...., That being said if examples of Latin names in use here can be shown I'd probably change to support (I don't and never will fully support latin names however It would be stupid to oppose something that's already a "thing" here if that makes sense). –Davey2010Talk 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read this three times now and can make no sense of it. "Latin" in this case refers to the Latin alphabet, the one used in the English language. So, what your point is is a bit obscure, but we most certainly do allow non-Latin characters, such as Arabic or Mandarin. This has been long established and would create massive WP:SUL issues if we didn't allow it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should've said English letters/words, Probably should've also done my research before commenting, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow - Don't support it, Don't agree with it however it makes no sense to !vote disallow on something we already allow, If we allow Latin usernames then it makes sense to allow this one too.... –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you mean "if we allow non-Latin usernames"? (ie usernames made of non-Latin characters, rather than usernames in the Latin language). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should've also done my research before commenting
If only we had more editors willing to admit to something like that... (Not putting you on blast; I'm completely serious.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should've said English letters/words, Probably should've also done my research before commenting, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read this three times now and can make no sense of it. "Latin" in this case refers to the Latin alphabet, the one used in the English language. So, what your point is is a bit obscure, but we most certainly do allow non-Latin characters, such as Arabic or Mandarin. This has been long established and would create massive WP:SUL issues if we didn't allow it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ICYMI Wikipedia:Unicode usernames is where lies the precedent for allowing Unicode usernames, the matter at hand. Dlohcierekim 00:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow - Per Dlohcierekim's point. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow for the same reasons as 😂 above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 👍. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 👌 FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 18:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Like I said in the last discussion, it is kind of a pain in the ass to use these accounts, but if you're willing to do it then knock yourself out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow for the same reasons above. Ks0stm has already made the signature extremely accessible. Mkdw talk 19:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow - as much as I oppose such user names, this account is a publicly declared alternate account of a user name which can be typed on a standard English-language keyboard; as such, anyone can refer to this user by the name of the other account, Ks0stm. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.