Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"Your username is not a forum to tweak other people's tails." - I quite like this bit and don't think it should be removed. Why? Because it anticipates and addresses a behavioural issue about what (I believe) people are doing when they choose "outrageous" user names. Maybe this sentence will cut down the amount of arguing about free expression and stuff, as I think it actually cuts rather neatly to the real underlying issue, which is "how much can I get away with?". Thanks to the user who produced this draft. 138.37.188.109 14:19 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

It might do to consider examples of what is or is not "too offensive". Here are some examples of potentially offensive usernames I have encountered elsewhere (some may be paraphrases):

JesusIsLord
Farrakhan
Satan
Czolgosz
WhiteMan
Fuck
ahitler
YouAllSuck
godhatesfags
Raper
HereticBoy
christ-on-a-stick
penis
Dr. Retard

Obviously, some of these are more offensive to certain sensibilities than others. I couldn't care less that someone wants to call himself "Fuck", but I would be a little concerned about participating in a collaborative project with someone called "YouAllSuck" or "Raper". (And "WhiteMan"? That was a guy named Whiteman who thought it was funny.) --FOo

I suppose I would be a little concerned about a user who wanted to call themself "Fuck", if only because of its potential effect in putting off other users. It makes the issue, again, be "what can I get away with" not "how can I easily identify myself". It's not like I'm actually that deeply shocked by it myself, it's just that it gives out the wrong message: if you are not hip enough to tolerate my cool user name, we don't want you here. 138.37.188.109 17:16 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this policy. I do wonder, however, what would happen if someone had a real name which was unfortunately similar to an English rude word. (eg Thomas Crapper....) -- Tarquin 16:56 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Raper is a real surname, although I doubt that's what the above user was alluding to -- taras 17:04 Jan 13 2003

I suggest the Crappers and the Rapers are just going to have to suck it up and use another name. They're probably used to the problem before they get here. Ortolan88

Heheh. Well presumably they could make a good case out for using it, though maybe if they got fed up with that they could just stick to Thomas. But in fairness, most of the problems you see with things like this are not the product of this sort of coincidence ... unless TMC really was called that in real life ... ?? :) 138.37.188.109 17:16 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I tend to agree -- if only because the Recent Changes list puts people's names out of context. -- Tarquin 17:16 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

As Ambrose Bierce said, "Satire that is understood by the authorities is rightly prohibited." Who knows what Tarquin means? If it is subtle enough to slip through, cool, if it offends everybody, no go. After all, there may be some provincial Frenchie offended by Ortolan88

I was thinking of the foreign products which cause endless mirth on late night UK tv chat shows, eg biscuits called "crapp" or toilet paper called "pooe". The same phenomenon is bound to happen with people's surnames. -- Tarquin 17:29 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC) (although, yes, since there's a famous Roman Tarquin who was responsible for a grizzly rape... my username is NOT meant to be ANY reference to that.)

not forgetting Pschitt! the famous French lemonade (no kidding). I think the Bierce quote above gets it right - if it's obscure/subtle enough to not offend the notional target grandmother whose contributions we don't want to lose, then maybe it's not a problem. The ones that have been a problem (TMC, CG) are not quite at that level of subtlety! :) 138.37.188.109 17:44 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

The Bierce view is probably right, names that don't have an 'in joke quality' are probably less useful to the genuine activist than those anyone can 'get'.

But, there is an article in the meta on 'freedom to choose usernames' and it is probably better for the whole issue to be discussed there, or discussed here.

Non-obvious metaphor that states what it is, baldly, ought to be allowed, though, even if it makes use of the offensive words as defined in the above. Here are some examples of names that make bona fide political comments:

TaxIsTheft
GolfIsRape
FuckWar
EatHumans
StealDontBuy
GrowMoreHemp
ItthNotAWarItthAFethtival
BushLies
SpankCondoleeza
GushBore

I think I have seen all of these used as usernames. Chances are, there are one or more of those that you, the reader, simply do not understand as political and simply find offensive in some way. But, I assure you, there are many who do prescribe legitimately to these ideological statements, and they should be allowed to advertise their points of view in their usernames, if only to make it easier for us to spot bias.

sorry but I don't buy that at all - the purpose of the username is just a tag to ID a user, not a place for a statement to be made. OK, if a statement can be made without causing offence then fine, who's going to worry, but if it is offensive then we are back to the question of who benefits and who loses, and defending notional and rather vague "freedoms" at the price of losing actual, real, users and causing a narrowing of the user base. If people want to use their username to make a point then maybe they are in the wrong place - their username exists to facilitate the process of collaboratively building an encyclopedia, not for them to play clever games with their identity. Why is the freedom to offend so important that it overrides the purpose of the wikipedia? 138.37.188.109 18:00 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I just added: "Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable usernames is drawn by the people who are offended, not by the creator of the name." Ortolan88

With exception, of course. I couldn't just say that "88" is a number which gives me the heebie-jeebies and you should change your name. But I guess that goes without saying. DanKeshet

Yeah, I explained why I chose it on my page, but I came across that "HH" bit later. I just hope it is obscure enough not to offend. If I find that it does offend people, I'll drop it, Tom Parmenter.

The lengthy justifications just added by 142.177.7.216 however well-intended, undercut the idea of a policy, which is "don't do it", by suggesting that there should be a lot of discussion and debate. I think a succinct policy with no philosophizing is preferable. My take, YMMV, Ortolan88

ditto, strongly. DanKeshet

I agree. The big addition is good and interesting stuff and should be kept, but not in the meta-article, which was in many ways better shorter. The last edit just tipped it over the edge into too-long-for-a-policy-summary, sorry. 138.37.188.109 18:49 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

you three should read consensus and consensus decision making and ethics and ask yourselves: how could such a policy be enforced without becoming a means of suppressing unpopular views? as it stands there are some things clearly wrong with the 'anything deemed offensive by anyone IS offensive' view, for instance, if someone named SchmuelLipschitz uses his own name as his userid and I find it offensive because it seems to make fun of Jews, am I entitled to force him to change his name? The problem with your absolutism is that you just don't see the many many ways it can be abused.

I really hate being accused of absolutism over something which started as a simple question and is now being a somewhat lengthy debate. It reminds me of student unions, not in a positive way (oh whoops now that's offensive. We are now off into massive debate about ethics and Jewish names and goodness knows what. This started with a user called Cumguzzler, did you know that? Do you really think there's a big problem with making that username non-OK?

nope, no problem at all, and the proposed process would make it non-OK in a jiffy - I truly doubt that name would find a lot of defenders even among militantly gay militia or pro-porn militia. But, it might, for instance someone might defend it on the grounds that it challenges homophobia or takes pride in fellatio skill or promotes safe sex even. That defense might find no one of reputation willing to defend it, but it should be heard and recorded. If you want a stricter process than I propose, propose your own.

Is that a freedom we want to really really put lots of effort an ddebate and typing time into defending when what we are supposed to be doing is building an encyclopedia. Now we're off into theory. I despair sometimes. 138.37.188.109 19:05 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

the metaphor of 'building' an encyclopedia is offensive to me, i prefer ot think of what we're doing as 'growing' it.

and there with that one simple statement we have a perfect illustration of why sane people should not get drawn into these debates - a nitpicking subedit about one offhand metaphor. A troll, perchance? So let me just say that I think the single quote marks around "building" are really upsetting and your spelling of "ot" is disrespectful and infringes my personal freedom to enjoy good spelling, oh and the four indents are, like, really inappropriate ... blah blah blah , wah wah wah ... drone <head explodes> 138.37.188.109 08:06 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

there's now a specific and objective definition of a policy that can be easily and quickly enforced, and the 'rationale', all of it, is after the fact, so those who accept the policy can just read it and understand and apply it.

The purpose of the user name is identification, not self-expression, and I don't see there's any debate it at all.

that's an ideological statement, and clearly contrary to fact, as there HAVE been debates, there WILL be debates, and the only way to avoid them is to give the power to change usernames to someone like you. is that what you want?

Sure, why not? I'm a mature, well-informed individual, flexible, easy-going, loves dirty jokes, intelligent, committed to the Wikipedia, easily accessed through my user page which gives both my real name and my real (since 1990) e-mail address. I don't want the power, of course, but if a valued contributor (just one, with a username and mail-me access) says "I quit if that name stays", then the name should go, not the valued contributor. Would you want to give the power to offend every person who looks at the Recent Changes to an unknown who got here yesterday under the name Cumguzzler? This isn't a hypothetical situation. It has already happened and we banned the name and regained the contributor. We lost the person with the offensive name, but that pretty much shows where they were coming from, doesn't it? Ortolan88

And I'm a first-amendment absolutist. I'd rather have a serial number for wikipedia than go through any discussion with anyone, even the hypothetical Mr. Lipschitz, about a user name. Tom Parmenter, Ortolan88 PS - Interesting that it is people without user names (see above, below, and on the page) doing all the proposing and approving of the verbose policy. Ortolan88

a choice to have NO user name and appear as an IP number is also a choice, and a legitimate one, that very many users currently take. but I'm not going into the anonymity debate here.

with regard to Ortolan88's comments on anon users, that's not actually correct - I know it is difficult to follow the edits, but 138.37.188.109 is NOT "doing all the proposing and approving of the verbose policy". See for example the one above which beings "I agree. The big addition ...". A minor point but it leads you to some kind of conclusion which in this one case at least is just not correct. And yes, there can be good reasons for anonymity, and as long as the facility remains available, I like being able to use it when I choose. 194.117.133.118 21:27 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say it was all one person. It was several, one above, one below, another on the main page. I would add that while I have no objection to anonymous users, who are welcome and who make many a fine contribution each and every day, I don't know that they have much standing in a discussion of offensive user names. No anonymous user can possibly offend in that way, for one thing. I still don't like the longer version of the rule, which has the flaw of opening the door to debate, since I believe that the person who has chosen an offensive name will also welcome the debate, being, probably, trolls for whom the whole idea is energy vampirism. Ortolan88

good edit imho 138.37.188.109 19:00 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

"The purpose of the user name is identification, not self-expression, and I don't see there's any debate it at all." -- indeed. especially as a user is free to write about their views on their user page. -- Tarquin 20:07 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

"There are few phrases that say anything at all that are not offensive to someone, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons for users to pick a particular name, e.g. someone who found the wikipedia to have a particular bias might pick a user name reflecting the opposite bias, to alert others to the problem and highlight their edits as the solution to it. Such use of usernames is not popular, but it is nonetheless one of the many ways identity is used in wikis."

This bit should go. I don't regard this as acceptable behaviour here. This might mean that, for instance, user:GayCommunist (to pick a real example) might one day be asked to change their username, but I think I'd be prepared to wear that to be able to change things like "AynRandShagsGoats" without somebody defending it as an attempt to make a political point. --Robert Merkel 23:07 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Resubmitted for your consideration, the succinct form, added at the end of the verbose form. No "militia", no "like all questions of ethics", no loopholes, just a reasonable policy, stated clearly. Ortolan88

I would prefer the policy not be changed to avoid offensive usernames because it sounds prescriptive but not absolute. e.g. I could say "avoid split infinitives" and you could say "But I like to frequently split infinitives" and ... then what? "Please don't?" No, it should IMHO be 1) absolute and 2) clear: do not use offensive usernames. Just my 2c, maybe less. KQ

Wikipeida policy currently works by having a few very broad "generally accepted policies", which are based around broad, commonsense principles (e.g. 'respect other contributors' and 'neutral point of view), and lots of other suggested policies, which are in no way official but are nonetheless useful to give users hints as to how best to cooperate with other Wikipedians.

I believe that this system of a few broad, principle based rules is correct. If we try to make a rule for every detail of how we use wikipedia (exactly what username you can pick, exactly what words you can use to criticise someone before it is deemed offensive, exactly how you should go about writing an article, etc.) we would end up with not five or ten policies, but hundreds. The idea of having a rule for everything works great for lawyers and tax accountants, but it couldn't work for Wikipedia without lots of unproductive argument over each and every detail.

Not having offensive usernames is already broadly covered by our 'respect other contributors/ettiquette' policy, which should already convey to people that Wikipedia is not the place to come and be offensive to people. Anyone who can't grasp the sentence 'treat other contributors with respect' probably won't have much time for a 500 word policy on what their username should be either.

In summary, what we need here isn't a new rule or set of rules on exacly what usernames are allowed and what are not. Some broad, commonsense, non-official guidelines, in just a few sentences, should be more than enough.

Enchanter 02:53 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, those are good points except that Jimbo has already stated that the policy is effectively absolute, so the options seem to be 1) appeal to Jimbo, 2) leave wikipedia, or 3) bang your head against the nearest wall. Then there's always 4) live with it and 5) change the policy's title to reflect what the policy actually is, i.e. absolute. --KQ 03:15 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I've got no real disagreement with you there KQ. I'm happy that it's an absolute policy, and I'm happy for the title to reflect that, as in (5). The policy pages can be updated to say 'don't choose offensive usernames' in a single sentence (perhaps in Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette), and this page can serve as some more informal guidance as to how that policy is interpreted.

What I would be against is having a big, long, detailed set of "official rules" on exactly what usernames are and are not allowed. The rule is better summarised just by saying "Don't use offensive usernames", and applying some common sense. In summary I suggest the rule itself is official and final; the rest of the page is informal guidelines on how the rule is applied.

Enchanter 03:37 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'd prefer not to have a long list of offensive usernames just because someone will find one we left off and then go about trolling smugly. But if we incorporate this policy into wikipetiquette, then part of wikipetiquette is absolute and the rest is not, which confuses the matter considerably and probably leads in the opposite direction you want. I think the result would be that people assume that since part wikipetiquette is absolute then all of it is absolute, and if violators of part of it can be banned, then violators of any other part of it can be banned. Then people will propose to ban people just for being rude, and if that ever happened then probably all of the top 100 contributors would be banned for some past violation. Maybe a separate policy is better? KQ

Thanks for your feedback KQ. I've cross referenced this policy page on Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette with an intro that is designed to make it clear that it is 'policy' rather than 'guidelines' (I also included the no personal attacks rule, which has Jimbo's specific backing rather like this one). Please take a look to check that the changes address your concerns. Enchanter 01:34 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC).

Looks fine, thanks. :-) KQ

I much prefer the succinct version. --Robert Merkel 03:09 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I VERY VERY much prefer the succinct version. The other stuff's interesting, put it somewhere else or on the Talk page or something. But when people look at the article for what the rules are, just tell them, briefly. No discussion, it just muddies the waters. 138.37.188.109 08:50 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I prefer the succinct version too. The long version could be moved to meta, right? Martin 14:30 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't care what name somebody uses. I urge you all to just not care about trite nonsense. Vera Cruz

Then, oh god, you are missing the point so badly that it beggars belief. I would try to explain it to you but (a) I can't be bothered and (b) I can't believe that you are actually that stupid, which means you must be trolling, which means I still can't be bothered. And since the policy has been clearly stated and restated, your "urgings" are irrelevant and may safely be ignored. Bye now. 138.37.188.109 09:12 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinons, they are highly valued. Vera Cruz

Children, children. Keep on-topic, please. Vera, I think what Mr 138 was trying to say was that it doesn't matter if you, personally, are not offended by particular usernames, or that people shouldn't get worked up about such things. What *does* matter is that people shouldn't be prevented from working on Wikipedia by being confronted with other people's usernames which they consider offensive. All a username is for is to provide a unique identifier. That's all. If it interferes with anything else, it should be changed. --Robert Merkel 09:29 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe names should be restricted in any sense. I have no sympathy for somebody who finds a name to be offensive. I do not think any actions should be taken in regards to usernames. Vera Cruz

This is a discussion of how to present the existing policy, which won't be changed, because it is the policy of the owner of the server. Ortolan88

well then let him worry about-why waste time arguing about it. Vera Cruz

Could we please have the older form of the policy, currently at the foot of the main page? What is on top of the page as it currently stands is dreadful. Not only is it badly written, I could swear I heard jackboots as I read it. This policy does NOT need lines of verbiage. All we really need is "please use common sense when choosing a username." -- Tarquin 17:15 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

In favour of the shorter version: Tarquin, Robert Merkel, 138.37.188.109, Martin,Ortolan88, DanKeshet, mav, Graft, KQ Sv
In favour of the longer version:

As a result of these votes, the long version has been moved here. Please berate me heavily if there's a problem with this. Martin

Policy

A user name is considered offensive if and only if a contributor (not user) has complained, and no member of the militia (not just any contributor, but someone known to and trusted by the community) will vouch for the name as having some legitimate purpose. Offensive names by this definition can be changed without notice. Militia members who defend all names will incur a significant reputation loss, and may find their own work under more scrutiny.

Rationale

The primary purpose of user names is to identify and distinguish contributors. This facilitates communication and record-keeping. Many software systems use neutral character strings to perform this function, such as XYZ123. No one has a right to any particular user name, or even to an expressive user name. That said, expressive names can help to alert others to an agenda or bias, and may even indicate the motivation for contribution.

Like all problems of ethics, it is a question of balancing two sets of rights: the right of those who wish to use the wikipedia's talk and change facilities without being constantly faced by an offending statement, and the right of those who wish to express their point of view as their fundamental identity to do so. The present consensus here in wikipedia is that the former is more important than the latter, but this could change. Here is a simple introduction to the arguments involved:

User names which offend other people are thought by most to needlessly distract us from our primary purpose - creating an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. The username is not a forum to twist other people's tails or make a statement. This includes legitimate names and long-established Internet pseudonyms that can be misconstrued.

If you find a username offensive, please inform the user and politely ask them to change it to something more suitable to a collaborative encyclopedia. If it is not immediately obvious, please explain to the user the reason for your offence. Be patient. There are few phrases that say anything at all that are not offensive to someone, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons for users to pick a particular name, e.g. someone who found the wikipedia to have a particular bias might pick a user name reflecting the opposite bias, to alert others to the problem and highlight their edits as the solution to it. Such use of usernames is not popular, but it is nonetheless one of the many ways identity is used in wikis.

In general, though, there is no such discipline involved in names that offend. If you have no clear and present reason for choosing the name you chose, please accept some limits on your freedom of expression:

If someone has told you that they find your username offensive, please change it as soon as possible to something less offensive. If you continue to use an offensive username then it may be changed by the administrators. Ideally some means of consensus would be applied to such decisions, and there would be a chance for someone to at least record reasons for their choice of name, so that this policy could in future be changed - it's critical to consensus decision making that dissent always be recorded.

Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable usernames is drawn by the people who are offended, not by the creator of the name. That said, finding fault with names because of people's bias or opinions can easily become an oppression of its own. If you find that you have been asked to change your name several times and are genuinely confused about what is considered offensive by your peers on wikipedia, it probably indicates some clash of values of some kind, and should be discussed more extensively in other forums here on wikipedia.

Deletion Log

Deleted old content (mostly about a user whose name has been changed now) Martin 11:13 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC) Archive

Wikipedia talk:NOU arch 2

I regret that there is a need for this policy. For nearly 2 years, people used their common sense when choosing a username. Maybe the existence of this policy will only encourage people to try and flout it. But it is because Wikipedia tries to be open to all that this policy has been stated. We could have just reported dubious usernames to Jimbo for banning; but in the spirit of wikipedia people decided to agree on a statement of the general consensus.-- Tarquin 17:51 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There is no need for a policy, much less a need for *this* policy. In fact, as you alluded to above, this policy has proven to be an attractive nuisance, creating all sorts of petty debates over what names are appropriate and what names aren't and a general atmosphere of intolerance where at least one prominent Wikipedian felt justified in threatening another prominent Wikipedian with a lawsuit for defamation. Indeed, you (Tarquin) suggested that I should exercise my right to fork rather than acknowledging my right to express my opinion that the current policy which prohibits "offensive" usernames is misguided.

Indeed, we could have just reported dubious usernames to Jimbo. Alternatively, we could have just ignored Throbbing Monster Cock's choice of username altogether and focused on whether he was making a worthwhile contribution to the content of Wikipedia. And when this matter was brought to Jimbo's attention, a temporary ban of Throbbing Monster Cock might have have been implemented while allowing debate to continue. However, when Jimbo set forth his summary judgment that this choice of a username was "vandalism," virtually everyone who had a different opinion snapped to attention and defended Jimbo's edict as if it were the word of God.

So where does this leave us? Well, first and foremost, this leaves us with a misguided policy that is no longer open to reasoned debate. It also leaves us with the certain knowledge that vandals will recognize the effectiveness of this particular technique of heckling Wikipedians. It also leaves us with a tainted community that one can no longer describe as free and open.-- NetEsq 20:47 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

How can you say that the policy is no longer open to reasoned debate. If you have a reasonable argument that a serious encyclopedia project ought to permit offensive usernames, then by all means, make it.

This is not my position, nor has it ever been my position. And with all due respect, the reasoned debate ended when you asserted that the name "Throbbing Monster Cock" was nothing more than vandalism and announced your decision to delete it from the hallowed halls of Wikipedia. Virtually everyone who had another opinion quickly snapped to attention and defended your assessment. -- NetEsq 00:13 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been, and never will be, a free-for-all site. We're united by a specific purpose, a purpose that differentiates us from free-for-all communities. It is no blow against our freedom or openness to acknowledge and enforce that purpose. Jimbo Wales 17:45 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Under _ceteris paribus_ conditions, you would be correct. However, you (Jimbo) have a following of Wikipedians which defends your opinions as though those opinions are the word of God. Why not simply impose a temporary ban on a potentially offensive username if and when one crops up, a ban which would be *identical* to one imposed on any other contributor who is suspected of committing vandalism? Is it really necessary to single people out for special treatment simply because they choose an offensive username? And is it really necessary to have a carefully worded policy of prior restraint in this regard? -- NetEsq 00:13 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. (Duh!)

Well said, whoever you were! Arno

I have to say I see no problem with requiring that people ovoid 'offensive' usernames. Most of us work in environments where far more severe restrictions are imposed. The bottom line for me is:

It is grossly disrepectful to other users to deliberately adopt a name intended to give the proverbial two fingers to other users & contributors. Would NetEsq find it acceptable to have a user parading themselves across our lists as [KillQueers]. I know as a gay man I'd find myself physically sickened to share a page with someone with that nickname. In fact it would make me think very seriously about cutting any association with Wikipedia if it tolerated any user calling themselves that. I noticed on one page someone compared the conduct of the Israelis towards the Palestinians as being like the nazis towards the jews; it is a debatable point which I would be opposed to censoring on talk pages. But no way would I find it acceptable for a contributor to swan around Wiki calling himself or herself 'JewAreNazis'. They are extreme cases but they highlight the fundamental principle that you cannot simply have a free for all over usernames. There have to be limits. Opinions should and can be expressed on Wiki in other ways. But not through provocative usernames that distract and offend rather than argue and deliberate.

Such usernames do damage Wiki. I had two personal experiences of that. In one case, I was talking to a person who had copyright of a set of photographs of famous twentieth century figures. He was enthusiastic about allowing their use on Wikipedia, and about wikipedia itself. But before he made the final agreement he spent some time logging into Wiki. He was impressed by some of the work he saw but shocked by being greeted with nicknames like ThrobbingMemberCock. He asked himself, and it was a perfectly fair question, how seriously does Wiki take itself if it takes contributors that are more interested in being provocatively offensive than in anything else. After coming across ThrobbingMemberCock and I think it was '"Cumguzzler or CrucifiedChrist, he backed off the arrangement. Because their childish antics reflected on the whole project.

More dramatically, I was in contact with an aide to a head of state about getting use of images of that countries past heads of state, presidential palace and various historical images that would have been very useful to Wiki. They too backed off specifically because of ThrobbingMemberCock. Their reasoning was simple; if any of the tabloid press in their state discovered that the head of state's office had authorised the use of pictures on a website with contributors like ThrobbingMemberCock, CumGuzzler or CrucifiedChrist they (the head of state) would be publicly ridiculed (as would Wiki). So there was no way they could possibly authorize the use of photographs to such a website, no matter how good the content. (If I was working in their press office, I would have said the same: don't touch such a website or else the tabloids would have a field day attacking you for associating with such assholes.)

Perhaps some people see Wiki as some sort of gimic to play at being a contributor using childish names. But I take it seriously. On the wiki list one guy wrote in say that his professor wouldn't allow him to refer to Wiki as a source, because it had not been published. That may change, particularly if a hardcopy version is produced. But there would be a snowball's chance in hell of colleges allowing students use such a source if the article they want to refer to was written by some asshole calling himself 'ThrobbingMonsterCock' of 'CrucifiedChrist.'

From the point of view of showing respect to other users, from Wikipedia's own interest in developing a reputation as a quality source of information, such childish immature pranks as using user nicknames to irritate, offend or give the two fingers to other users cannot be allowed to stand. There are plenty more websites where people can act the idiot that way. But not on something as serious as Wikipedia, which is trying to earn for itself the reputation it deserves, as a world class source book and encyclopedia. JTD 20:49 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

well put! The people banging on about civil rights an ting are sad timewasters who are barking up the wrong tree.

This seems to be a major problem with David Prenatt (aka netesq) Arno

The fact that you (Arno) and I are on opposite sides of this issue makes me very secure in my position: If you had your way, the Aria Giovanni article would no longer be a part of Wikipedia. -- NetEsq 06:27 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Trying to provoke me with an irrelevant matter, are you? Sorry If I won't oblige. However, I will make the observation that I did eventually abide with majority opinion on that matter. It's a pity that you cannot do likewise here. Arno

It is clearly you who is trying to provoke me, making reference to what "seems to be a major problem" with my zealous defense of freedom of speech. Any fool can see that.

As for your willingness to "abide with the majority opinion," you only did so after your repeated and misguided attempts at censorship provoked other Wikipedians to threaten to ban you, a fate that you tried to impose on me with anonymous and cowardly complaints to various Wikipedia sysops. Clearly, you see this as your opportunity for a rematch.

Simply put, there is no comparison between my zealous advocacy of free speech (which are principled and confined to a proper time, place and manner) and your previous attempts at censorship (which were totally unprincipled and actively imposed over the objections of other Wikipedians). -- NetEsq 16:54 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

(Netesq's response was the subject of a complaint to the owners of this site- Arno)

It's been over two months since Arno's attempt to provoke me into a rematch over his attempts to censor the Aria Giovanni article. Apparently, his complaints have fallen on deaf ears, so he is attempting to provoke me into another confrontation -- yet again -- by posting the parenthetical notice that my "response was the subject of a complaint to the owners of this site." Haven't we all got better things to do than play these petty games? -- NetEsq 15:04 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Yet another example of netesq's bullying.

Can I just respectfully point out that I am not Arno, but I think you're wrong too? Even if it's italicized to make it look nice, it's still wrong, but also manages to irritate by being written in a uniquely pompous, patronizing, holier-than-thou, junior lecturer way. Thank you. 62.30.150.99

With all due respect, I attach very little significance to the opinions of those who post anonymously. Moreover, I do not take lessons in courtesy and style from anonymous trolls. -- NetEsq 16:54 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Well, to an entreprenurial spirit the sale begins when the customer says "No." Get a little gumption and try,try again. The past, has past: the future has not. Two16.

I will, Two16, but I can understand as I am sure you can, how (particular in the case of the head of state's office) they were so nervous about any association. The last thing I would want to do is cause public embarrassment to that head of state; all it would take is for one tabloid journalist to spot that Wikipedia had access to official portraits, and that the website those portraits had been supplied to had contributors like CumGuzzler, and there would be a front page story, especially if they could find some politician looking for a headline to 'condemn' the president. I'm going to try another source for another picture I want to use. I just hope that, now that CumGuzzler, CrucifiedChrist, TrobbingMonsterCock etc are gone, I may have some luck. JTD 22:56 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Oh Yes this was Irish government. Too bad about the tabloid press, the voting mob and every thing that goes into a porkbarrel of proportional repesentation. Best of Luck in the future.

I am posting this to explain why I am changing my user name from Tokerboy to TUF-KAT. I was asked via e-mail if, as a completely voluntary request, I would consider changing my name. I had already decided to do so, of my own volition, if somebody asked.

I would be lying if I said I didn't choose this name partially out of a desire to ruffle certain feathers. However unjust it is, such a name will be perceived as unprofessional by academics and reporters and other people whom Wikipedia should want to impress with its professionalism. In my daily life, I do not hide the fact that I smoke weed on a daily basis because I regard it as my inalienable right that no law can supersede, and because without it I have no doubt that I would be either dead or homeless and alcoholic right now. I have experienced discrimination as a result; I find this deplorable, but I am willing to accept it in order to make those of my tastes gradually fit into mainstream society. I have the right to do this, to bring discrimination upon myself, but I do not have the right to force the same upon Ed Poor or Zoe or Ortolan or RK or Mav or the anonymous users that contribute to the Wikipedia, and by subjecting the project to unfair discrimination, I am doing just that. The best way to accomplish my goal is to write neutral, concise and informative articles at cannabis, medical marijuana and the War on Drugs, and, if Wikipedia is perceived as professional, the information therein will be trusted and the truth, that marijuana and all drugs should be legalized, will prevail, as the truth always does.

In conclusion, I am offering a prize of 3.5 points added to your Coolness Quotient if you can guess why I chose TUF-KAT and I hope that this decision will not raise a ruckus, a brouhaha nor shenanigans of any sort. I do this of my own volition, because it is the right thing to do.

Tokerboy

Just for the record I never once found your name to be offensive. Do make sure that a developer runs a script so that all your contribs are credited to your new user name. You also need a developer to transfer your sysop rights too. --mav 07:25 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I don't think anyone actually did, though DW implied it once (not that I care one whit about him). The names I chose above were random and not intended to imply anything about anybody. Tuf-Kat

I didn't find it offensive because I didn't know what it meant. However, I did wonder, when I was looking at my watchlist, who this person TUF-KAT was that had posted something on my talk page which I didn't remember - so that script must have been run. I think I prefer your new name - it makes me think of Top Cat, whereas the other one made me picture you as a "difficult" teenager. Deb 23:12 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

I guess "to toke" is an Americanism. Isn't it weird, though, how we all probably have strange ideas of what each other looks like? I always picture Ed Poor as this mad scientist type for some reason, with wild white hair sticking out at all angles. Tuf-Kat

maybe he should change his user name to Dr. Emmett Brown then.. :-)quercus robur

Maybe its time that this be changed to Wikipedia:No controversial usernames -戴&#30505sv 04:40, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to simply have wikipedia:username. That would include help for newbies, and advice, as well as "thou shalt not" policy stuff. Martin 14:31, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear concensus as to what the new title should be, leave it as is. Otherwise you'll get a fuss that is as wasteful as the annoying/offensive/copntroversial users page. Arno 12:30, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

be bold in moving pages to the most appropriate title. :) Martin

I think a general page on usernames is a good idea. As wiki grows and more people join, and as we contemplate perhaps producing a paper edition at some stage, it is important that we have a clear username policy. A page that tells people (i) how to create a username, (ii) what it is their and our interests that they avoid in selecting a name, should be easily accessible, if possible linked to the main page and the Recent Changes page. As it stands this page is hard to find, unless you already know where to look. This page should be the primary guidance on names, easily accessible and user-friendly. FearÉIREANN 19:50, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

ToDo. Martin

Updated NOU to NIU -- now to inform User:Jesus is Lord!-戴&#30505sv

How about a more reactive policy? Say, suppose there was a page were people could report if they felt offended by that name and if X number or people of (X% of the "voters") also thought that that username was offensive/bad (bad as in the Antheré/Anthere history), then that user would then be forced to change username. Like: "You may chose whatever username you want but if enough people feel it is offensive you must change it". After all, offensiveness is relative - see Soup Nazi. BL 06:29, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

title of this page

Maybe its time that this be changed to Wikipedia:No controversial usernames -戴&#30505sv 04:40, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to simply have wikipedia:username. That would include help for newbies, and advice, as well as "thou shalt not" policy stuff. Martin 14:31, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear concensus as to what the new title should be, leave it as is. Otherwise you'll get a fuss that is as wasteful as the annoying/offensive/copntroversial users page. Arno 12:30, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

be bold in moving pages to the most appropriate title. :) Martin

I think a general page on usernames is a good idea. As wiki grows and more people join, and as we contemplate perhaps producing a paper edition at some stage, it is important that we have a clear username policy. A page that tells people (i) how to create a username, (ii) what it is their and our interests that they avoid in selecting a name, should be easily accessible, if possible linked to the main page and the Recent Changes page. As it stands this page is hard to find, unless you already know where to look. This page should be the primary guidance on names, easily accessible and user-friendly. FearÉIREANN 19:50, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Updated NOU to NIU -- now to inform User:Jesus is Lord!-戴&#30505sv

Changed name. Martin

How about a more reactive policy? Say, suppose there was a page were people could report if they felt offended by that name and if X number or people of (X% of the "voters") also thought that that username was offensive/bad (bad as in the Antheré/Anthere history), then that user would then be forced to change username. Like: "You may chose whatever username you want but if enough people feel it is offensive you must change it". After all, offensiveness is relative - see Soup Nazi. And also, "Jesus" is as you all know, a common firstname in South America. BL 06:29, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This coming from a guy whos writing List of people who were accused of being gay -- HAR! Lets not be unrealistic-- its a subjective matter, true. This is why we provide that Pedians can vote on a name-- thumb up, thumb down. If you read the rewrite, it also provides that a sysop can take unilateral action to ban an extremely offensive name, like that "cock" guy. 戴&30505sv

Are you going to be altering Wikipedia:Bans and blocks to reflect this change in banning policy? -- Tim Starling 06:40, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

While I must admit that I find that topic very interesting, I actually haven't written it. And now that I've read the policy it seems good, except for the FidoNet allegroy. Because on FidoNet you were supposed to use your real name. BL 07:02, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The FidoNet thing was a relic from the earlier version (Thanks for the approving vote BTW.) I wanted to remove it, but thought someone might be attached. I'd say someone else ought to rewrite that-- I dont think this is a change as far as that goes. I guess I should probably add a clause in there. I already feel like Ive rewritten to much "policy" tonight. ;) -戴&30505sv

I've removed the ref to FidoNet. I've also removed the ref to voting (see below). --Camembert 02:21, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the discussion at User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange a suggest arose to disallow user names that are sentences. What do you all think about the idea? Kingturtle 23:46, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's a neat way of dealing with cases such as Jesus is Lord!, but I don't see any reason to disallow something like, for example, User:Cheese is smelly, or User:I am Ben. Such a rule would be rather arbitrary, I think. --Camembert

I've removed the mention of voting. I don't see the point in voting when it comes to user names - there doesn't need to be a majority who find a username offensive, there just needs to be a significant number, and there's no need to have a vote to determine whether there's a significant number (of course, you can argue about what constitues a "significant number", but voting doesn't solve that problem). --Camembert 02:21, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No deliberately confusing usernames

I added this (grudgingly). I'm tempted to just change the page to say "no inappropriate usernames" and indicate that the community decides what is and is not appropriate. Hmm. Martin 19:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Allowed characters

I cannot find anywhere a list of which special characters are allowed in usernames (or maybe not allowed). For example, are apostrophes allowed e.g. O'Reilly. I have found lots of special characters but not a single username containing an apostrophe. If someone knows the list could you please add a section on this article? Thanks, Nanobug 15:19, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Username or Real Name? Which should I use?

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I was wondering what the pros and cons of signing posts using a real name versus a username are. I was unable to find any discussion of this on Wikipedia:Changing username or Wikipedia:Username. All that they say is that your username should not be irritating or controversial. The question came up while pondering whether I should list myself under my real name or my username on Wikipedia:Instant Messaging Wikipedians, but then that got me onto the broader issue, and now I can't decide whether to sign with my real name or my username, it's a terrible decision! Please help :-) --Skyfaller 02:33, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Also, if I use my real name, should I use my full name Nelson Pavlosky or just Nelson? I've been signing as Nelson, but then I realized it was kind of egotistical to think that I'm the only Nelson on Wikipedia. Although it may be true at the moment, I don't want to cause confusion in the future if another person with the first name "Nelson" becomes an important contributor. On the other hand, my full name seems a bit long and unwieldy for a sig. --Skyfaller 02:44, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Basically it's your choice. People do all sorts of things. I sign with my username. Other people, like Cimon Avaro, sign with some variant on their user names. MyRedDice usually signs with his first name. Ed Poor has his real name (or so I assume) as his user name, but signs as "Uncle Ed". Some people completely avoid using their real name because they prefer to remain anonymous.

My personal opinion is that it makes everyone's life easier if people use their usernames or a close variant as their talk page signature. That makes it easier to link your comments on talk with your actions as an editor. If your user name and your talk sig are unrelated, you look like two people to me until I know you. Isomorphic 02:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like excellent reasoning to me, would you or somebody else like to point the issue of confusion resulting from a sig that is different from your username on Wikipedia:Username? I realize that some people may want to sign their real name when they've already joined with their customary username, etc., so it's not a useless feature, but I think that avoiding this kind of confusion is very important and something that people should take into consideration. -- Skyfaller 03:28, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

<< Other people, like Cimon Avaro, sign with some variant on their user names. >>

"Actually, Mister President, that is not entirely accurate." I regularly use two variant signatures, which serve as a semi-private barometer/(string around my finger) about my general mood/(life situation). I use my given name (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen) when I am going through a concentration requiring or stressful patch in my life, so that I am reminded that letting that spill over to wikipedia, will be ascribed explicitly to me and my reputation. "Cimon Avaro on a pogostick" (like now) I use when I am either not stressed or pressured, or so stressed and or pressured, that I am deliberately choosing not to even make a serious effort at engaging more comprehensively at wikipedia. A sort of relaxed/(deliberately goofing off (in a constructive way) to relieve stress) signature. The signatures which are just the bare Cimon Avaro, are either very old, or hand-typed. (I hope this confuses matters :) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 07:40, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

There's an old wiki convention to strongly encourage the use of real names. Anonymous posting is considered by some to be preferable to a pseudonym. See WikiWikiWeb:RealNamesPlease and MeatBall:UseRealNamesRefactored. The basic rationale is that people who use real names are more serious about what they write, and are less likely to play games. Wikipedia's acceptance of pseudonyms was something of a break from this tradition. Initially many of Wikipedia's contributors had a background in Wiki culture and hence used real names, but over time Wikipedia has drifted towards the predominance of pseudonyms seen elsewhere on the Internet. -- Tim Starling 12:08, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

It would be great if this page included a link to a list of existing usernames, or a sample of them weighted by activity. I want to pick something that will fit in, and it would be nice to see what I'm fitting in with. -- Not Yet Signed Up, 16:08 Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Most people use just a nickname, you can find the list here: Special:Listusers. Dori | Talk 16:16, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Acceptable usernames

I have seen a couple of users choose a website as their username. I don't think this should be acceptable as it promotes those sites on Wikipedia. However, this is not part of policy. So my question is should it be? Dori | Talk 05:51, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. A username is not an official wikipedia statement (unlike an article). If we apply article rules to usernames, then RickK would be banned for self-promotion. Meelar 05:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I mean things like example.com I am fine with just example Dori | Talk 05:54, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I still think it's not worth having a policy on. Let people name themselves "The User brought to You by Nike, Coca-Cola and Microsoft", if they want. It's not an official wikipedia statement, so we have no real right to intrude, unless it seriously offends other users. And users like that will get judged on their own merits. Meelar 05:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Examples? Martin 16:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's one that I remember since I left the person a note: User:www.Baileysbooks.co.uk Dori | Talk 18:10, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Reserved Keywords

Many computer languages have a (short!) list of reserved keywords, which you are not allowed to use to make your own identifiers. Perhaps wikipedia could have a similar list, and reject names and article titles that are in that list. This would help prevent bugs and perhaps prevent certain classes of exploits (be they software or wetware). Specifically this would help prevent people using confusing interface or wikipedia terms. Words that *do* appear in the list can then safely be assigned special properties. (though not all words on that list need have such properties) Kim Bruning 12:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC

Policy may be too weak

"Edgy" user names give the project a bad name and waste resources and debate. I think the policy should state more clearly that user names that communicate any sort of POV, agenda, power, sponsorship, special status, corporate backing, etc etc are inappropriate. Same should be true for sigs but that is, IMO, less important. If a user name causes controversy or annoyance to even a small fraction of the community, if the objections are reasonable, the name should not stand. It simply isn't a part of the project where we need a lot of indulgence. Like edit summaries, user names are widely visible, and are likely to be part of any alternate distribution of the Wikipedia content (for GFDL compliance). They also transcend any category boundaries that we might have in place, so if we develop (for example) an elementary-school edition that is a subset of the content, most user names will still be visible. UninvitedCompany 03:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think I support that. Martin 13:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That said, if we are serious about getting rid of inappropriate usernames, we really should start removing them from the history via an enforced rename. I hope the devs sort out a way to allow sysops to rename users. Martin 13:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Limitations

Can the "Choosing a username" section be updated to include an explanation of what the limitations on usernames are? By that, I mean:

Is there a minimum or maximum length?
Are usernames case-sensitive?
What special characters (spaces, punctuation marks, etc.) are allowed?

Stuff like that. Pat Berry 18:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember my Username

I know I've edited at least one article in the past, a long time ago, but I unfortunately didn't keep a record of my Username. I don't want to just create a new one because I'd like to keep continuity with the old username, in case this site keeps a record of which articles I've edited (I'd like to remember all the articles I've edited, if it's possible). Could someone please let me know how to find this out? Or if there are any Admin-type people reading this, could you please email me and let me know what my old Username was? My email address is [email protected]. I'll be able to remember my password if I'm reminded of the Username.

On a related note, the dang login page doesn't have an option to get this information from the server. I think it's really important to add this. If I wasn't the resourceful person that I am (and modest too!), I wouldn't have been able to figure this all out and might just have given up on Wikipedia altogether.

Thanks. -Carol

Hi Carol. If you remember which article you edited in the past then you can find out your username quite easily. Go to the article, click "page history" (on the left hand menu, or at the bottom of the page) and you will find a record of all edits made to that article, and who made them. You may need to click through to older pages if it's a frequently edited article (click "next 50"). I hope that helps. fabiform | talk 15:15, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is Carol, replying: unfortunately I can?t remember which articles I edited (that is in fact the reason I want to use my old Username ? so I can find them). Thanks anyway for your message fabiform ? it?s nice to know someone read my message at least. I?m still hoping to hear from anyone who manages this site, so they can email me my original Username. -Carol

Hi Carol, is the e-mail address you posted above the same as the one that you used for the account? If it is, then maybe a developer could find your username. Otherwise, it might be lost. The best way would be to remember the articles, or the general area of the articles so that we could look at them.

I don't understand what you mean by the server giving you the information. Do you mean giving the e-mail address and having the server respond with the usernames registered with that address? If not, then the server has no other information to associate with a username, so it couldn't give you any more info. I'll ask a developper about the e-mail address though. Dori | Talk 03:27, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, I just asked a developer, and there is no account associated with [email protected]. You would need to give us the exact e-mail address that you used, and if you didn't give an e-mail address, then I'm afraid there is no way to find out what the username is (there is no other information kept besides username/password/e-mail). Dori | Talk 03:33, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sysop blocks of inappropriate usernames

Proposed policy

In extreme cases (for instance, a username consisting of a highly offensive statement or a string of profanities), sysops make on-the-spot judgements that a username is against our username policy. They base this decision in part on discussions on the user's talk page, and the requests for comments page. They also base it on any relevant precedents.

Support

Qualified support, only for "extreme cases" as stated on the policy page. I don't think we need discussion to figure out that a username should be blocked if it consists of a highly offensive statement or a string of profanities. Contrary to what is on the policy page right now, I think the user's behavior is not relevant to whether an inappropriate username qualifies as an "extreme case"; the content of the name itself is what matters. --Michael Snow 17:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What Michael Snow said, but sometimes I think it makes sense to pay attention to the user's actions when deciding whether to make an on-the-spot decision, or use the RfC method. Martin 17:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. I'm not particularly afraid that sysops will start banning users willy-nilly with a policy like this -- and even if they did it would likely be undone rapidly if it were controversial. BCorr|Брайен 18:38, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Please make clear on the user's page what the problem was and how to fix it. No need to warn User:Fuckyouverymuch that such a name is inappropriate before a ban, but the User page should link to the place for requesting a name-change. +sj + 18:41, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
Support. — Timwi 19:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. fabiform | talk 20:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. Angela . 19:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
support. Perl 13:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. -- user:zanimum
Support. Denni 03:31, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)
Support. Shoot first, ask questions later, it saves work for the admins. - Peter Perlsø 12:47, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)
Support strongly. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Exploding Boy 14:59, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Support - transgressions should be dealt quickly. Admin action should be logged it public location for review. Public scrutiny of admin's actions and awareness that he/she could be demoted from office should be enough to prevent admins from overusing the power. Besides, other admins could be contacted and undone the action. -- Forseti 07:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support greatly. Do signed in users have some advantage over IPs? Sysops are no higher than signed in users, so why should signed in users be any higher than anons? It just means they spent the extra 10 seconds to create a username, possibly to circumvent quick blocks... ugen64 18:59, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Support. We don't need to go through a major bureaucratic procedure for everything. If an admin makes a bad call, it's easily undone. If it is a very bad call, the admin should be told. Cecropia 20:51, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes. →Raul654 04:20, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support for clear-cut cases Stewart Adcock 05:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Support (William M. Connolley 11:25, 2004 May 7 (UTC))
Support. KIZU 00:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Support. Teria 04:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Support with extreme prejudice. This online encyclopedia shouldn't be a troll's paradise. Neutrality 00:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose banning of inappropriate usernames without prior discussion. The user in question should be asked nicely to choose another name and given ample time to do so. Immediate, unexplained banning could scare off new users acting in good faith, who might otherwise have become valuable contributors. Mkweise 16:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I oppose banning of inappropriate usernames without discussion. Start a page for offensive usernames so that the community can discuss the appropriateness and suggest action. Users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names. A guideline for username choice should be plainly visible at sign up. --Pharotic 21:10, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Too much power. Oppose. Philwelch 15:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. It is my understanding that the current policy allows admins to immediately ban users with profane, blasphemous or other clearly offensive names. My objection is to admins being given authority to ban users whose names are not offensive, but the admins nevertheless think might be 'disruptive' from their point of view. JRR Trollkien 17:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The benefit of such a policy seems insignificant compared to the danger from over-zealous admins. Lupin 15:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The username issue is typically not urgent enough to require immediate sysop action, except in the case of profanity. Actions speak louder than usernames anyway (e.g. mydogategodshat and the somewhat unfortunately named Titto Assini). -- Cyan 16:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. A user with a troubling username is often either 1) a troll, in which case their actions will soon lead to their banning for other causes, or 2) misguided as to what Wikipedia community standards are, in which case we should gently approach them to change their username. Immediate banning is not required. -- Seth Ilys 22:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Unless the username poses a clear and present danger (someone's credit card number, for example), the decision of the inappropriateness of a username should be determined by consensus. anthony (see warning) 22:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Seth above. Let us not take the notion of administrative privelege too seriously — one dictatorship is every bit as bad as another. Jeeves 05:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - for all the points above. LUDRAMAN | T 21:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, it'll be harder for a username to be blocked (and it'll probably take longer for it to happen too), but it's not worth risking censorship. Besides, I don't the problem has or will escalate to a level that the wikipedia would need to have such fast blocking of usernames. Personally, I have never seen a username on any website that seems to pose a risk warranting such swift action (the worst i've seen is swear words). -Frazzydee 20:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - If I understand the current policy, any username which is offensive to at least some Wikipedia users may be blocked if after a courteous request to change the name they do not do so. This give ample opportunity for a serious contributor to simply choose a name which is not offensive and move on. This can happen very quickly without a lot of analysis of their particular contributions. Fred Bauder 13:22, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, on the grounds that I personally don't find too many user names offensive. Other people might, and thus they have the right to criticize the choice of usernames. The choice of user name isn't really the most important issue related to encyclopedia-building. Rickyrab 22:17, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - this only increases Admin witchhunts. Let the community decide, and administrators administer their decisions. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 22:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC) Pandoras Box: Imagine this. User A, claims that User Bs name is offensive to them (that's enough, under the current proposal, to cause user A to have to change it). User B is forced to change it, but engages in a retaliatory name change campaign against user A. We don't want this. Genuinely offensive (profane, abusive, deceptive) names can be banned, but not normal names that someone finds anoying. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 22:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - I may disagree with your username, but... An offensive username doesn't have an impact over encyclopedia content. If a user has done nothing bad (vandalism, insults), he doesn't deserve his username changed/banned, especially without prior discussion.Paranoid 22:31, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Mark Richards 00:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 04:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

So, let's see how much support there is for this. Martin 15:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Troll names

I think part of his problem is that I have given notice to him that I will block him because of his name. See User talk:Troll Silent, Troll Deep. Fred Bauder 14:03, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

While I don't support the banning of people with the word "troll" in their usernames, I am more or less neutral about denying the use of the username on grounds that it is offensive, should some person feel strongly about it. Frankly, though, I don't mind if trolls use the word "troll" in their username; I like the unambiguous signal that I don't have to take what they say seriously, as it is likely written primarily to annoy others (that's what trolling is, after all). -- Cyan 15:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It is only the username which would be banned not the user. We might consider requiring some of these folks to have troll in their name. But the problem with that and with "not taking what they say seriously" is that we have a subclass of user, who have a right to respectful treatment but are sending a signal that their imput is to be deprecated. Fred Bauder 15:33, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying that others should deprecate the comments of self-labelled trolls, only that that's what I do. And I do try to treat self-labelled trolls respectfully in one-on-one interactions; I just take a realistic view of their desire to actually contribute to the facilitation of collaboration in the Wikipedia community. (In case there's any misunderstanding, my comment above should be construed as saying that I understand and am neutral towards your approach with respect to TSTD.) -- Cyan 15:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

When a troll labels themselves as such, people have a tendency to interpret what they do as trolling. This doesn't make trolling particularly more difficult for the troll. In fact it might even make it easier: it gives the opportunity for the troll to attack users who are biased against the name. The attack may seem justified by some other users, especially those who haven't been on the receiving end of the troll's previous edit wars and personal attacks. No doubt it also gives them a sense of superiority to see the community confused over their intentions, despite their explicit declaration. -- Tim Starling 02:54, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ban the username. Allow the user to create a new account under a legitimate, non-agressive name. The problem with allowing trolls to keep such agressive names is that owning such a name sparks them to their deeds. A troll wants a grand villain name to announce his deeds. Once he has it he tries to live up to it and give it a history. Remove the villainous name and put a damper on his enthusiasm for mischief. - Tεx τ urε 04:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Whoever heard of a super-villain called "Dr. Fairly Normal"? Good reasoning. Martin 20:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Y'all's obsession with trolls is unbelievable. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 04:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC

Policy changes to forcing

ok, I'm making two changes to the current policy. I'm accepting the failure of the proposal to allow sysops to block extreme cases on sight to win over consensus. At the same time, this policy needs to reflect reality, and the current RfC page, and at the moment it doesn't. So:

RfC subpage can also be user's talk page, where this is more convenient (simply provide a link to user's talk from RfC).
Time delay isn't fixed at one week, but varies between one day and one month
"general consensus" changed to "rough consensus", mirroring deletion policy.
Where inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames are coupled with vandalism, the username may be blocked indefinately on sight.

Any objections, let me know. Martin 21:24, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I object to the policy to dicourage religious names

Real names and religious names overlap. E.g. Krisna in India and Jesus in Spain. What about Mohammed? I think the policy should be abolished. Andries 14:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Images in by-lines (copied from WP:VP 13:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Lately, I have noticed some people putting images in their signatures (~~~~). I don't mind people putting ornamental Unicode characters in their sigs (but changing colours using <font> is borderline IMHO). However, using scaled-down images is just a waste of server resources. For some examples, scroll through WP:VFD. Right now, I see three different images: The EU flag, The Italian flag and a bulldog. Apart from using bandwidth, database and other server resources, the images attract unnecessary attention to the signatures that use them. — David Remahl 11:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And it's slightly annoying. I think font color and unicode is okay as long as it's text only (or I'd put an American flag, A russian flag, a Latvian flag, and my pic :D) [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep Old sig...back wen I used templates...now gone]] 13:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One can do tricolours without images. zoney | talk 14:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another bonus is that the text can be kept the same size as page text, and will scale (should one scale the browser text, Ctrl -/= with Mozilla Firefox) zoney ███ talk 14:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would you happen to know an easy way to show a cross design (as in the Scandinavian flags) like you do the Irish flag? (I know, I know, probably a dumb question, but I'm curious, and my HTML is rusty.) Cheers Io 15:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, image sigs are beyond the pale. And actually I'm not too keen on colours and flags either. Anything that makes one editor stand out more than another breaks the general egalitarianism of Wikipedia. Sysops aren't supposed to have more authority than a newbie, but a new editors might not realise that the opinion of a hyper-sigged editor carries no more weight than anyone else. -- Solipsist 22:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Font coloring is OK with me. Fancy font usage is borderline, but not so bad. Images, if they are very tiny and tasteful, will not cause me to lose any sleep. These animated images are getting out of hand, though. They are distracting and annoying, almost as much so as blinking text. The Village Pump already takes a fair amount of time to load up; if half the conversation is signed by personalized animated GIFs, it makes the problem far worse. I hesitate to make anything like a policy against this (even though to me it's verging on being akin to inappropriate usernames), but in the interests of maintaining a non-hostile community we should encourage people to avoid doing stuff like this. Please, if you are using an animated image in your sig, take it out. -- Wapcaplet 18:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another problem with image as signatures, is when they're used in place of the name. That reduces searchability. For example, I tried to find all Theresa Knott's comments on this page, but had to browse through it manually since the signature was an image. — David Remahl 21:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd welcome a good policy based on recommendations, for example to avoid sigs with only pictures, blinking things etc. I was inspired when I saw the first user putting in an image in his sig (User:Cow) and has since tried different things, to inspire other wikipedians to follow and test the usefulness. David raises a good point; a point against having all images in your signature. Eventually I hope there will be a simple command like the one I use ({{subst:User:Sverdrup/sig}} to include your sig. This would have to be included endlessly, but I think it is better than pasting three lines of font color=blue tags into the wikitext, making it unreadable. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 21:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The solution (for the future) that you suggest could also facilitate a user preference to standardise or allow signature customisation. It would be a bit heavier on the servers (more database queries to get the sig template to include, etc, but perhaps it would be negligible.) — David Remahl 21:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did post a SourceForge Feature request on it, I will get the tracker URL to anyone who wants it. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I tried using a template as my sig for a while (User:Ilyanep/sig) but since after 5 times on one page the template stops working, I gave up. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I only created my animated sig as a bit of fun, and am happy to remove it if it irritates people. Also i didn't think about searchability. We should have a policy though. It seems to me that a sensible policy might be no images whatsoever. This has the advantage of being easy to enforce unlike e.g. "tiny and tasteful" in which we would then have to get into just how tiny, or what is tasteful. The fact is, no one has to have an image as part of their sig. Theresa knott

Your animated sig didn't irritate me personally, but on pages such as VfD and VP it takes an hour to load on DSL. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm not abandoning it completely, I'm going to keep it for ocassional use on my user page and user talk page.Theresa Knott 17:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have drafted a section discussing signatures on Wikipedia:Username#Signatures. Please edit it if you do not agree with it. Further discussion will take place on Wikipedia talk:Username. This discussion has been copied there. — David Remahl 13:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added the text:

Please try to keep signatures short, because long signatures usually tend to cloud up the page source, making it harder for other editors to find where your comment stopped and could cause other problems as well.

I'm sure there's something wrong with it, so all you grammar experts go at it :D. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pseudonyms and copyrights

Copied from the project page:

Also if you use a pseudonym rather than a user name that identifies you with your real name U.S. copyright law grants you only a fixed period of copyright rather than one based upon when you die.

Is this a relevant issue on Wikipedia, given that we work under the GFDL? Or are there situations where this distinction would matter. Just wondering. Sewing 15:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Signatures

A couple (actually a triplet) of questions regarding signatures:

Q: Is the use of images allowed?
- A: Generally discouraged.
Q: Can one use a Wikipedia:Template for the username? Wikipedia:Template namespace seems to suggest this is OK.
- A: I think that templates only work for 5 instances on any one page. So it's probably not a good idea Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Testing would prove you right… [[User:Anárion|Åℕάℛℹℴη]] 20:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A: No, you should not use the template namespace for your own signature. You have the user namespace for personal stuff like that. -- User:Angela
  - Let me clarify: I was thinking of adding {{subst:User:Anárion/sig}} to my signature. [[User:Anárion|Åℕάℛℹℴη]] 20:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Q: Is the use of block-level markup allowed? For example putting one's signature in a <p> or <div> block.
- Q: ?
  - A: . ,; ().
- A: Yes.

Anárion 22:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GNAA usernames

I propose that all usernames referencing the "GNAA" ("Gay Nigger Association of America") are offensive and against policy. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. ugen64 05:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Famous figure / celebrity usernames

Recently someone created User:Hilary Duff and claimed to be the real Hilary Duff. Snowspinner asked for verification. I think he suggested that, for example, she or someone else could send an email from any address at hilaryduff.com. The person who created the account declined. Much of what went on is unavailable now because the user account and its talk page were deleted at the creator's request, although you can see some discussion at User talk:Snowspinner and at the re-created User talk:Hilary Duff.

There's apparently no express policy about a username that echoes that of a living celebrity. (An obvious tribute name like User:Diderot is different.) As FirstPrinciples mentioned in the course of the Hilary Duff discussion, there's an active User:Jerryseinfeld, but he has no user page; I don't think he's ever claimed to be Jerry Seinfeld.

My opinion is that celebrity usernames needn't be a concern. Few readers would take at face value an assertion like that on someone's user page. I would be lax on the point only in the User and User_talk namespaces, though. (I edited the Hilary Duff article to remove a link to the user page, because the link asserted that it was in fact the celebrity's user page. I think the claim was very probably bogus.) FirstPrinciples disagreed, stating, "I do feel that impersonating a famous person is on par with impersonating a user."

Should the article on usernames address this point? And what about someone named Mel Gibson, who runs a gas station in North Dakota, and wants to establish an account under his real name? JamesMLane 20:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My concern is not with celebrity usernames, but rahter with impersonations. I do not think that impersonating another person on Wikipedia can be allowed, due to both legal concerns and the general rule of thumb guiding all interactions on Wikipedia of "don't be a dick," and I think this falls under the realm of common sense. I have cited previously, Fred Bauder has banned for impersonating real people in the past. But, simply put, I think impersonating someone else constitutes non-good faith additions to Wikipedia. Snowspinner 22:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

My feelings basically echo Snowspinner's. In my opinion, celebrity usernames are fine, but actively setting up a user page claiming to be a famous celebrity isn't, unless you can show you are really that person. Maybe I'm out of line here, but let's face it: in a free-membership community like Wikipedia, the odds are pretty high that someone claiming to be a famous person is in fact an anonymous troll.

Impersonating a celebrity isn't quite the same thing as impersonating a user, but it is on par - it's in the same ballpark. And it opens up many legal and ethical issues. Indeed, past instances of impersonation have been treated very seriously by the arbitrators (for instance,here).

On the other hand, setting up a celebrity policy and "policing" it could be fraught with difficulties, including: A) What constitutes "celebrity"? B) How would one "confirm" celebrity status to everyone's satisfaction? and C) As the Hilary Duff incident has shown, any questioning of a user's identity can cause serious animosity and disrupt the smooth functioning of the community. -- FirstPrinciples 00:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

You're right about the potential for animosity. That might be reduced if there were a pre-existing written policy that could be cited. ("We're not singling you out as a possible liar -- this is how we handle all such names.") If we take the view that using the name is OK but the impersonation isn't, then the username policy could say something like this:

Celebrity names. Use of the name of a well-known real person as a username is permitted, provided that the user does not claim to be the celebrity. Any such claim, on the user page or elsewhere, can be removed unless verified.

We wouldn't need to set up a specialized celebrity police. Disagreements about the verification would presumably be handled just like those about any other challenged assertion on Wikipedia. JamesMLane 00:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes,having a username same as a celebrity is not bad (damn you Michael Bolton), saying you are that celebrity and not proving it, potentially bad. Dori | Talk 01:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea in general to have an identity verification procedure, or a page about how one can verify identities. I can think of non-celebrity cases in which this could be relevent - if someone claimed to be a history professor at a given school and attempted to use that as the basis for an argument from authority, an identitity verification could be in order. I'll draw up one or two ways in which identity verification would be possible at Wikipedia:Identity verification so that we can have that in place and point to it in cases where it's going to be important. Snowspinner 02:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Snowspinner and Dori. Andre (talk) 19:43, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

The real issue here is, I think, already covered in Wikipedia policy. Unverified / unverifiable information should not be included in an article. As far as the issue of people making false claims, everyone on the internet has some degree of anonymity, and "assume good faith" does not mean "believe everything you are told". I feel that lying about one's identity is wrong (as opposed to merely not revealing it), but it is not Wikipedia's job to be the identity poliece. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at re-wording the "famous figures" notation here. I think recent discussions, and the history of this Talk page shows that using names of famous figures is not inherently bad, but that it may become inappropriate based on the user's actions. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

It would be useful if there were some suggestions about alternative usernames that could be chosen if someone's desired username is already chosen. eg: I'm sure there will be more than one John Smith out there in cyberspace. If we are to encourage use of real names, then we must consider that two people may share that name famous or not. What happens once John A. Smith and John B. Smith are all used up? Do we then suggest John A. Smith of California? Some guidance for newbies please.

POV usernames

A recent edit says that people shouldn't select usernames "endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure". I don't see any justification for including that in the username policy. The usernames don't appear in the articles. For those readers who do look at the page histories or the talk pages, it can't hurt to know that a particular edit was made by a user named BushIsMyHero or whatever. Beyond that, such a guideline would generate disputes aobut what it did or did not permit. Why should there be a ban relating specifically to "a public figure" but not to a religion, a country, a political party, etc.? Does that mean that User:BushIsMyHero would be unacceptable but User:Capitalistroadster and User:Radicalsubversiv can keep their names? (I mention two "opinionated" usernames that happen to occur to me offhand. I'm sure there are plenty of others.) Splitting hairs about usernames is generally an unproductive use of time. It should be reserved for names that pose serious problems for the project by being confusing ("Administrator") or offensive (insert sexual vulgarity of your choice). JamesMLane 12:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Banned words

Is there a concrete list of banned words? I saw a user User:IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch, and I don't know if that constitutes an invalid username. Certainly the name could be interpreted as mysogynistic, but it is a reference to a well-known Chappelle show joke. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Group accounts

I know there is a prohibition on "public accounts", but I don't see anything specific on more limited "group accounts." I assume that accounts are supposed to be used by only one editor. Has this been settled in any way? Thanks, -Willmcw 17:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting comments on talk pages by people with blocked usernames?

I was about to revert this edit, which removed a comment by User:GeorgeWBush, who was blocked for having an innapropriate username.

Is it official policy to remove such comments? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 01:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would I need the backing of official policy to remove that comment? It's just a stupid joke from a vandal. Talk:George W. Bush is full of enough silliness anyway. android 79 15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

On Unicode and other odd characters in usernames

۞ (talk · contribs) and ░ (talk · contribs) recently came to my attention, and I brought them up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. These are problematic for several reasons:

These characters won't render correctly (if at all) in many browsers.
They are generally confusing, even if they do render.
It is impossible to type such a name without doing a bit of copy-pasting.
Searching for a username would prove difficult.
How would one refer to ░ in a talk page discussion? Mr. Shady Character?

Since this is the English Wikipedia, usernames ought to be constructed using English characters, with allowances for scripts from other languages (é, û, ß, ñ, Đ, etc.) I propose that usernames not typable from a standard English keyboard (or, alternately, from a standard English keyboard plus the little box below the edit box that has all the special characters in it) be disallowed unless there is a good reason for using the special characters, such as:

The special character is part of a foreign-language word or name (e.g. Peña)
Special characters are kept to a minimum in an otherwise-normal username (e.g. Ûbereditor)

Of course, this policy would not apply to signatures. Put as many funky characters in those as you want (and indeed, I have in the past). Comments? android 79 16:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's another one: ¹ (talk · contribs). This odd-character-username idea seems to be popular with vandals. android 79 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you thought about restricting logins to alphanumeric characters & certain length. There's a relative simple way of calculating how many combinations one can achieve a subset of ASCII character set. My 2c. --Vlad 19:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

One possibility might be to require that for each username there is a language that uses all the characters in the username other than numbers and punctuation. So Πρτ would be accepted but not Μαçôn. This would forbid the use of bizarre Unicode characters and would also make it a bit harder to make new usernames that look like existing ones.Dfeuer 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

After I wrote this I realized it would be too restrictive. Dfeuer 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What about websites used as usernames?

Hello!

I might have missed, but in the list of unappropriate names I do not see websites as usernames. Should this considered spam, when for instance, the site is one of "free online announcements"? Then this username should be changed, right?

Thanks! --Vlad 17:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Overzealous blocking of Willy-like usernames

Please take a look at WP:AN#User:Kswheels. I'm not sure the "resembling infamous usernames" section should be here at all, as it implicitly gives license to admins to randomly ban any account containing "Willy", "wheels", or "WOW", which some are doing. ~~ N (t/c) 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Names of the famous

User:Schneier has chosen as their username the name of the well-known cryptographer Bruce Schneier, and gone on to edit articles about cryptography. To me this is highly misleading and may lend their edits a false authority. I asked about it on their talk page but received no response. Is this against policy? If not, should it be? — ciphergoth 16:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

blocking usernames used for impersonation

I think that the policy should be changed so that people whose usernames resemble that of someone else should not be blocked, unless the user actually claims to be the other user. Suppose that we have a user named "Fred". Another person tries to register as "Fred", but the name is already taken, so he chooses "The Real Fred" instead. An administrator blocks "The Real Fred" before he has the chance to make any edits. This is why I propose this change.

However, people with offensive usernames should still be blocked. After all, people with offensive usernames are usually up to no good anyways. --Ixfd64 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Be very careful on this issue

Wiki already has enough rules. Constantly making more, perhaps just to satisfy a small group of members, will rapidly take the fun out of the site. We don't need potential new editors passing the site by because they are afraid of something as simple as choosing the wrong username.

Obvious offensive ones, that is usernames that would offend almost everyone, should be taboo...that's just common sense, But when you start banning names simply because they fit some characteristic that someone has invented is getting VERY close to "over the line". I'm sure that someone here can find something offensive in every single name here.

Some say "GeorgeWBush" shouldn't be used. What are you gonna do when a REAL GeorgeWBush shows up?? Tell him he can't use his own name?? What's so different between his & yours?? Somebody out there shares your name also.

When "Jesus" decides to be an editor, are you going to tell him his name isn't allowed?? What about "Mary", "Joseph", "Mark", "Gabriel", & "Muhammed"? When you get done with the "names" catagory and get all those banned, which catagory will you start on then??

My username implies that I will fight a war for the highest bidder. I will not, but I'm sure that's offensive to SOMEONE out there. Guess what it is...an 11 letter username, that is all. Seems to me like it's getting just a little carried away. Just my 2 cents. MercForHire 06:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. Recently, I've been patrolling the block list for accounts that have been unfairly blocked. You may have seen me unblocking a bunch of users lately. --Ixfd64 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

yah! just because of my alias... doesn't mean I really am. --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 02:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wording Issue

Also, beware that the letter capital i and lowercase L look exactly the same (I/l) on certain fonts, as do numeric "1" (1/I/l) and numeric zero ("0/O/o"). This should be taken into account, and creative use of one in place of the other (I where L whould be normal and vice version) is discouraged, given its past misuse.

This seems a little ill-worded to me, although I'm not sure how it would best be fixed, save to say that it should explain that it's number one (1), capital i (I) and lowercase L (l) that are confused, as are numberic zero (0) and capital o (O). ConMan 13:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, usernames that use odd characters in potentially confusing ways are blocked by bots run by certain admins. I think it would be far better to come up with a coherent, detailed policy open to public comment than to allow admins to set their own personal policies for their bots that may or may not meet everyone's needs. I would suggest that at a minimum, usernames should only be allowed to use characters from a single language. Dfeuer 17:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

newbie username question

when i fell in love with wikipedia, i made a few minor edits w/o an account. then i created one, but my legal name and common username alyosha was unavailable, so i went to ALYOSHA and made a few edits under that. then that started to feel like shouting, so im looking at settling on "alyosha". is that ok? are either of these too similar to alyosha? -- im not trying to impersonate. but alyosha will show up Alyosha, right? and are "s ok? thx for any help. "alyosha" 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Allowing administrators to hide blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public

As usernames cannot be deleted, may I propose allowing administrators to hide blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public? I am proposing this while I have seen too many offensive and insulting usernames at Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wiktionary where I am an administrator. Many of them make personal attacks, especially to Zhou Ji, the education minister of the People's Republic of China. In Chinese language, calling someone a pig like these usernames is very offensive and this kind of publicly insulting someone may even constitute a criminal offence in certain countries and areas.

As administrators may delete copyright violations from the public view, I would like to propose allowing administrators to hide indefinitely blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public.--Jusjih 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the wisdom of this remedy, let me mention a similar problem. We've had some people attempt to harass other users by using their phone numbers as usernames. All we could do in these instances was block the account, then tediously remove that username's edits from the history. Some solution would be beneficial, recognizing that these problsms occur only rarely. -Will Beback 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked accounts remain visible at Special:Listusers, right? My point is whether we should eventually allow administrators to hide blocked and banned offensive usernames from the public view, which is currently not possible.--Jusjih 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is username changing broken or not?

There was a line about username changing being disabled, hence the policy on it being moot, so I've made that more clear. But WP:CHU doesn't seem to say that at all? Is it possible to rename users with problematic names? Stevage 11:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, username changing is not broken. It can be done by bureaucrats, and that has been the case for a few months now. It is definitely possible to rename any user with less than 20000 edits. However, I suspect that section was written a long time ago, because it had a link to wikipedia:Wikipedia-L, which became a redirect on 20 November 2002! I've removed references to username changing being broken, and have bypassed the very old redirect. Graham talk 07:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete this policy?

How despicable! I never knew something this toxic existed on WP until I accidentally ran into the controversy surrounding JebusChrist. This is contrary to freedom of speech. Just like content should not be removed from articles just because they may offend certain people, usernames should not be deleted because they offend certain people. Stop this unhealthy policy that's scaring away potentially valued contributors. I appeal to the best judgments of the people! Loom91 15:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't whole-heartedly support this policy, I don't really see why we would want users who pick names like User:SuckMyDick and User:ImATrollingVandalAndFlamerReadyToStartInnumerableEditWars? Do you really think they have much to contribute to this site? B.Mearns ^*, KSC 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Let me rush off and register Joe_is_a_motherfucking_cunt right away. All for free speech, of course. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make a fool of yourself, I see no reason for others to complain. And that's the whole point of freedom of expression. Everyone can stick to high ideals in favorable conditions, the true test is sticking to it in adverse conditions. Everyone can practice non-violence among friends, but only the great people can practice it among enemies. If we promoe freedom of expression when people are saying things favored by me, and then start banning them when they are speaking against me, I'm just being a hypocrite. This policy should be declared invalid because it violates the more fundamental WP policy of WP:NPOV. Censorship is POV. I'm filing an apeal with Jimbo about this. Loom91 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy of freedom of expression on Wikipedia. Any such freedom is de facto only. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly true. In fact, WP only has policies against freedom of expression, as demonstrated by this page. That is what I proposed to change in the original post. Loom91 11:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither an experiment in democracy nor a vast parody of MySpace. The single driving goal of every Wikipedian should be the development of an encyclopedia; freedom of expression is completely irrelevant to that goal. In many cases, it becomes harmful to that goal by sidelining the encyclopedia. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hear, Hear, Loom, excatly what I feel. Just look down in my post, 'Wikimedia in general'. I feel excactly how u feel. Interesting view, on the freedom of expression. Definately, the policy of the usernames has scared me from joining; if I'm allowed to delete my account, I'd love to join. Well put Loom! Your a writer of intelect, one I look up to! Excatly [bout the hypocracy].24.70.95.203 14:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While I see quite a great deal of discussion about usernames, and their banning, I feel that it is simply solved... Read the rules - if your (prospective) username meets the rules, then use it, if not, then think of a different one. There is always going to be "differences of opinions" between people, users and admin. Its part of the human psyche. It is such a difficult "line" to place and control, especially to keep it fair. I fail to see the need for a controversial username on wikipedia, when it serves no useful purpose. As pathoschild mentioned, the main aim of all users here should be the development of an encyclopedia. Having read through the rules and conditions, it is explained very clealy that Wikipedia is not a place for personal expression. --Ericdog 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Impersonating Churchill"?

This page seems to suggest that having "Winston Churchill" as a username would somehow be impersonation. Sadly, Mr Churchill is dead, and is therefore not in a position to be editing Wikipedia (or is he...editing from beyoind the grave!!!) --David.Mestel 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not most users will believe that the user is their namesake isn't particularly relevant. It is impersonation in that they are intentionally taking that person's name and will be associated with that person on Wikipedia. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we don't have to worry about a User:Napoleon Bonaparte being active I guess, though we did have a User:Bonaparte and a User:NapoleonBonaparte. Alexander 007 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia in general

Deleting accounts

Looks like you guys have a problem with vandals. Well delete thier accounts. Yea, you don't have to delete thier M.O. pages because we could use them for future reference. [I might feel different about this later in my life, but this will suffice for now.]

Wikimedia is an elitist community. I'd like to vote, but I want the security of being able to delete my account. Is this fair representation?? Also, deleting accounts saves server resources. 24.70.95.203 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See the community discussion page for feature requests. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Usernames

Wikimedia is also hypocritical. Wikimedia is for all languages, so then why are usernames only allowed in the Latin alphabet. Yes, you say its so it'd be easier for wikipedians to refer to the username, but obviously not all wikipedians know the Latin alphabet. What offends me the most is how Wikimedia is so inculsive in its projects, but its government isn't that at all.

Sorry I had a shitload more to say, but can't remeber now.. Also, I hit the back button...24.70.95.203 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia; it follows that usernames should be at least legible, if not understandable, to English users. I've reverted your removal of content from the page. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this complaint was handled so casually. This is indeed a multilingual project -- and even English Wikipedia is part of that whole. This is why the interlanguage links on each page are displayed in the local language, even though most of those use non-Latin characters. It seems clear to me that we should allow the use of any unicode name on the project. Where was the addition of this requirement to the page discussed? As far as I can tell it just appeared this spring without discussion.

At any rate, Unicode names which should be legible, if not understandable, to all users with unicode-enabled browsers. Whether we should provide support for deciphering unicode for those with other browsers is another question; this problem occurs far more often in interlanguage links than in the rare non-latin username. +sj + 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Slim Shady

Is User:Slim Shady an inappropriate user name, since Slim Shady is synonymous with Eminem? The User:Slim Shady account is not blocked. Alexander 007 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of countries, or of large or disputed regions

I think we should consider not allowing users to have user names such as User:Bulgaria, User:Romania, User:Serbia, User:Macedonia, User:Mexico, etc.---here is my reasoning: imagine if a User:Bulgaria logs in, and turns out to be a horrible troll, but like many trolls in Wikipedia, he goes on editing for years; or a User:Serbia logs in and happens to be an eccentric homosexual who often engages in personal attacks and blasphemy against all Orthodox Christianity, etc. This is like a User:Winston Churchill logging in and being a troll, which would not be tolerated, and I don't think we should tolerate a User:Serbia of that nature either.

You'll notice that there is already a User:Macedonia, who, while not a troll, is a nationalist editor (though not always engaging in nationalistic editing) who is almost always in an edit dispute with someone. Alexander 007 07:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

More examples to illustrate the problem: it would be quite a catastrophe if User:Bonaparte had instead logged in as User:Romania and went on an edit rampage and sockpuppetting spree as he did under User:Bonaparte; or imagine how numerous editors would feel if User:Miskin had chosen the user name User:Greece---I know numerous editors who would groan over that :-) These kind of user names don't seem appropriate. Alexander 007 07:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just today, obviously in response to this post above, User:Romania was created. His first edit was to Romania. I have subsequently blocked this editor. I feel that using the English name of a country is inappropriate, and politically devisive. From User talk:Romania:

"I'm sorry, your username could be politically divisive. It could be interpreted as you claiming to be editing on behalf of the country of Romania, and that would cause issues. From the policy, "Wikipedia is a world-wide source book, so take care to avoid anything that might cause offence to someone from a different culture, religion, or ethnic group." This name falls under that category. Please choose a new one, multumesc. psch e mp | talk 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)"

If for some reason, an editor with the name of an Islamic country started making edits to Jewish articles, I'm sure that that would be seen as offensive, and even if the edits were not offensive, the username would be inflamatory and make it difficult to AGF. Since the policy already states: "No inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to: (etc...)", I don't think we need to rewrite policy, but I beleive that country usernames, certainly in English should be blocked as inappropriate. psch e mp | talk 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I encourage giving fair warning first; letting them voluntarily choose to make a change, rather than just being outright blocked, as that may cause them to leave, and we don't want to lose good editors over something we could have done without a block. I'd suggest a templated message that says something on the line of "Please request a change within 48/72 hours/a week/etc. or we will be forced to block your account." Also, a dedicated editor who was willing could solve a lot of these problems by taking the time to go down a list of countries (I'm sure we have one somewhere) and create all the usernames; just be sure to tag them with {{Doppelganger}} first. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of User:Macedonia, he should be warned/notified. His username is not appropriate, and it is sparking tension constantly. It seems so un-Wiki-like. These kind of usernames create the atmosphere of an ethnic and nationalistic battleground. We are writing an encyclopedia, this is not a nationalist Usenet :-) Alexander 007 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus that the username is inappropriate, I will warn User:Macedonia myself. But I would like affirmation that I have consensus behind me, rather than making an empty threat. How should we proceed? Alexander 007 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, as a neutral party I'll do that, you don't need to.psch e mp | talk 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I found my way here from a polite note pschemp left on my talk page. Let me start by saying that I'm not Slovak, I have no political agenda, I have not (as far as I can remember) edited any article relating to Slovakia, and I'm not particularly attached to this username and will happily change it if a consensus considers it inflammatory. However, having noticed that you've also blocked the username Jordan, owned by a Bulgarian editor whose first name is actually Jordan (if there's a back-story I'm not aware of here, please correct me), I'm somewhat disinclined to pander to what seems like a bad case of trigger-happy admin.

I understand that a username can be an aggravating factor in disputes and trolling, even if the name is not offensive in itself - but there's no need to take issue with usernames just because there's a possible hypothetical scenario where they could be misused or misunderstood. Devote your efforts to resolving actual disputes please, not imagined potential ones. Slovakia 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a case of trigger happiness, but fair application of the rules to everyone. Recently there have been dispruptions caused by editors with these types of usernames, thus it has moved from hypothetical to reality. Even so, potential abuse is often used as a reason for blocking usernames with vulgar words in them and the policy clearly states (using the word "potentially") that this kind of heading off at the pass is acceptable. Aditionally, I am not the only admin who has blocked countries as usernames, just the one that is doing the front line communication. Thank you for your calm commentary on the matter.psch e mp | talk 19:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at User:Jordan and agree that that was most likely collateral damage. The block has been removed. psch e mp | talk 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make mention of this in the policy. It seems clear to me that there is a consensus that these sort of usernames are divisive. And while I agree with Essjay, that we should ask current users nicely to change their usernames over outright blocking them. I think it would be best to add this to the policy in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening again in the future. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in way late after running across this page, I would like to register disagreement. pschemp in the initial post states "imagine if" and that's precisely where I have a problem. If a user is agenda pushing, then I hope an admin can use a username as a possible aggravating solution, but are we seriously saying that Chad, Chihuahua, Annapurna and Georgia all are block on sight usernames? If user Boston spends all his time ragging on the NY Yankees baseball team, then I have no problem with a block. I do take issue with the assumption that users Tasmania or Sahel would have some nefarious reason for selecting their username. I may be alone is prefering that admins use their judgement in determining if a username is meant to offend. - Banyan Tree 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely about this. Within reason, we should request that users change their pages from "disputed" or "irredentist" or otherwise "inflammatory" usernames. - FrancisTyers · 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

JESUS! Does that include ME? Are you serious? NO! I refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse refuse and REFUSE!

₪Hellenic Republic₪ ^(T) 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with my sockpuppet! (I think it is forbidden to agree, anyway, right?) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate real names?

I don't think we should continue to include the section which discourage people from using their real names in certain cases (viz. Willy, Jonny, Cunio, etc.) without qualifications. Real names are a good thing. I'd like to add some wording to indicate that names like this might be problematic, but, if this really your real name, you should contact and admin and we'll figure out a work-around. Comments? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Real names are a bad thing when mad vandal stalkers start sending you death threats. Just a thought. psch e mp | talk 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite true. However, I tend to file that in the category of "shit happens." That is, there are various situations in life in which you open yourself up to stalking and/or various other dangers and nuisances. There are, in turn, a variety of steps you can take to avoid that, some of which you will deem worthwhile and some of which you won't. Personally, I never use my real name elsewhere on the internet, but I make an exception for Wikipedia. I can understand where some people might not want to do that. However, if there are people who do want to use their real names, I think, on principle, we should not discourage them. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at WP:CHU right now. Bout 50% of the requests are to changae away from people's real names for privacy reasons. That should be a good enough reason to leave the policy as it is.psch e mp | talk 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation about the policy...does anyone know of any person with a real name that includes "On Wheels"? Just curious. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

New addition:No email addresses

Looking through Special:Logs/newusers, you will notice at least a few email addresses. These are, in my opinion, not appropriate usernames. Should we put in a line saying that these are out, and create, say {{blockedemailaddress}} to say, basically, "You have been blocked for good because we don't allow email addresses for usernames, please hang up and try again?" I have never seen a good account with an email address; they just want people to email them (I won't go into posisble reasons why).--Here T oHelp 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

email addresses as usernames

I thnk that email addresses should not be used as user names. I propose to add some wording to this effect. These are my reasons:

We do not know if that user email address is such, It can be easly abused using someone else email address as a username, vandalize or push a POV in WP and get smeared as a consequence
It the email address is abonafide email address of the user, it will attract spam to the email address as it will get farmed by spammers

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first reason (not the second, that's their problem if they put their email address on the internet, though it might be worth a friendly reminder). It seems like a logical extension to the impersonation clause. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was recently asked by another user, User:Bigtop to block two users because of their use of e-mail addresses in their usernames. The users don't seem to be causing trouble, one has no edits at all. I read WP:U which doesn't encourage addresses in usernames, but I am not sure if it prohibits them and warrants a block like Bigtop has requested of me. Any opinions or references to help me with this quandary? DVD+ R/W 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Franklin?

Less than a week ago some changes were made to this page that implied usernames cannot be that of real people, even if they are dead (e.g. Ben Franklin). Let's remember the mischief rule, people. This policy exists to prevent confusion between people on Wikipedia and celebrities; that's it. There's no risk of confusing User:General Eisenhower for the real Ike. If nobody objects, I'll remove the Ben Franklin example in a few days. (The Chuck Norris example is valid because Norris is still alive.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I've seen usernames that were the names of famous dead people (e.g. Benjamin Franklin) blocked before so I thought this was policy.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are all Latin characters permitted?

The page specifies that Latin characters are permitted in a username; but do uncommon Latin symbols not directly available on a standard QWERTY keyboards, such as "ø", "Æ", "ş" and "ƒ", be permitted, even if the username consists of just one such character? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC) ╫

These extended Latin characters are often difficult for other users to type, and so it seems to me tha they should be avoided out of respect for others. Although many desktop computers have a compose key, many others do not; please have some respect for the poor shlubs on American English Windows keyboards who don't.

That said, the percentage of users with such limited text entry is probably decreasing. All current Macintosh (OS X) and desktop Unix (KDE, GNOME) systems support composition of extended-Latin characters, even on an American English keyboard, although you have to change a couple of simple options. (On the Mac, the "U.S. Extended" input mode gets you access to Option-key combinations for extended-Latin characters on top of the ones that the default mode gets you. On KDE, you can set Right Alt or the Windows or Menu key to Compose.)

So, someday, when U.S. versions of other well-known OSes catch up and include friendlier composition support, this won't be such a big deal. --FOo 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Windows has always included US International as a keyboard layout, long before KDE and Gnome even existed. SchmuckyTheCat 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that rather than mandating one character set over another, there should be a guideline recommending that users use names that are not confusing and easy to type. It should be possible to have a username with unusual characters or even character-sets, under special circumstances (if this is a standard elsewhere; if you are well known under that precise name; &c). +sj + 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice about users trying to cause an autoblock

Someone recently added a notice to this page stating that administrators should not block users on sight that have usernames similar to "block me" because they might be trying to cause an autoblock. I have decided to remove it because technically any username created intentionally inappropriate could could be intended to cause an autoblock.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Business names

I don't see anything suggesting that company names are inappropriate if the editor is not affiliated with the company. I just noticed User:Studio Ghibli, who doesn't seem to have any connection with Studio Ghibli; it seems a little questionable. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

proposed change to the text that users see when choosing a username

I'm proposing a change to MediaWiki:Signupend that, I hope, will help new users avoid blockable usernames. Please see MediaWiki_talk:Signupend#Usernames_that_will_be_blocked. FreplySpang 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Team names

'Copyrighted sports team names: Team names such as the Miami Heat, the Carolina Hurricanes, and the New York Yankees (whether it's whole or just the team) should not be used in a username. Team names are copyrighted by the owner of the team. Anyone being caught by an administrator will be blocked.

This is a minor point, but wouldn't team names be trademarked rather than copyrighted? -Will Beback 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

meh?

blocking over use of an email in a username?? seems like a stupid policy, probably a rouge admin involved somewhere--[email protected] 02:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not only not policy, it's not even mentioned on this page--205.188.117.5 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Checkout the project page. Specifically mentions email addresses in a username --Peripitus (Talk) 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition of using email addresses to match current practice

The current wording suggests that having an email address for a username is just discouraged. I suggest that the username policy be modified so that usernames containing or consisting of an email address are prohibited. Many admins block such accounts on sight, without discussion. Many, perhaps most, are blocked before they even make their first edits. If someone chooses such a name, it is just a matter of time before he or she is blocked. Therefore, the current wording is misleading. -- Kjkolb 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the most graceful solution here would be for the software to prohibit use of the character @ "Commercial At" in usernames. — Jul. 18, '06 [19:57] <freak|talk>

I think that the current wording is how it should stay, though. We should discourage e-mail addresses for obvious reasons, but if someone really wants to accept those risks, how is that hurting the project?

I wouldn't object to a software solution, but in this case I don't see the point in blocking an otherwise acceptable username. JYolkowski // talk 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rules that I don't get

===>Help

What's the rationale behind this: "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers?"
If your actual name was something like "John Diarrhea" (let's say you're Welsh or something), would you be allowed to use that as your username (also assuming that you're using the English Wikipedia)?
When the rule states that you cannot have a username that includes "Names of religious figures such as 'God,' 'Jehovah,' 'Buddha,' or 'Allah,' which may offend other people's beliefs" does that include essentially dead religious movements (i.e. can I be named Anubis)?
"Names with non-Latin characters" I know this has been broken. When is it allowed?

Thanks to anyone who takes the time. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be another reason, but in my view, they're annoying. Random sequences of letters and numbers are very difficult to remember accurately - if I want to send a message to Jimbo Wales, I can easily remember to type User talk:Jimbo Wales into the search bar, but if his name was DSFFGDV423C, I'd find it almost impossible to remember it accurately. I'd probably have to find a page that I remembered him editing, go into the history tab and follow the link there. Like I said, annoying.
No-one is called John Diarrhoea, not even the Welsh. I would block that username, and if they said "my name really is John Diarrhoea, unblock me" they'd almost certainly be trolling.
I would say yes, as it's difficult to offend other people's beliefs when no-one holds those beliefs anymore.
It's never allowed - I'm unaware of anyone who uses non-Latin characters. I know some who use non-Latin characters in their signature, though, which is perfectly fine.

Hope that helps. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Thanks, Samuel Anyone else want to join in?

Granted, but that doesn't seem like a justification for not letting someone have a name, or at least a very petty justification. I don't like the word "wicker" so you can't be named User:Wicker.
Sure, but, for instance, Charlton Heston's films are released under the name "Charlton Easton" in Greece because the word "Heston" means to poop one's pants in Greek. What about a similar case here in English? Could Charlton Heston use his real name at gr.wikipedia.org?
Makes sense.
As you can see, there are several thousand on the user list. I'd imagine that many of these were created and never used, or created and then immediately blocked based on this rule (a random sampling supports this theory), but at least one user has made several edits with his name: User:っ. And I don't say this to tattle or try to get the name blocked (I quite like it, in fact), but I want to know why the rule is not enforced. See also User:Ω, for instance. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: Remember that a person is not required to register a name at all, and can simply be a sequence of four fairly unmemorable numbers. I fail to see how another unmemorable sequence could be worse. I move to strike this rule. 192.75.48.150 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Way late response: Each langauge WP has wildly differing policies. What applies to eN is not guaranteed to apply to GR or any other. Finally, User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић is DEFINATELY not Latin (Cyrillic). 68.39.174.238 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Email addresses for usernames, again

I notice that the policy has been changed, perhaps as a result of my comments above. Unfortunately, I think that the change may make it worse than before. It is less discouraging of people choosing email addresses for usernames. However, if you edit in high profile places, like commenting on the administrator's noticeboard a couple of times in an active discussion, or if you make lots of edits so that you show up on recent changes a lot, you are virtually certain to get blocked for having an email address as a username. Many of the usernames are blocked immediately after they are created by admins who watch the new user log.

It does not matter much if you do not think that such usernames need to be blocked. The fact is that a lot of admins block such usernames and they will continue to do so, even with the current wording of the policy, and probably even if it is changed so that such usernames are allowed. This is because the majority of admins would be unaware of the change. There would have to be notices of some kind to get the word out and admins who miss the notices (many edit infrequently or irregularly) would have to be informed by those who saw them. People are unlikely to put much effort into this because it is not something that people care much about. I have experienced this problem with the A8 speedy delete criterion. Admins continue to delete articles that are more than 48 hours old and/or not from commercial content providers despite extensive attempts by me and a couple of other editors to get them to stop. Even worse, in the case of A8, the requirements were part of the policy from the begininng, not modifications like this one would be. As for me, I do not care that much one way or the other. I think that we should be consistent about it and not alienate new users, although I do find the use of email addresses for usernames awkward.

The username policy should be modified so that it states that usernames consisting of email addresses are prohibited. First, it would save work for admins, since not as many usernames that consist of email addresses would be created. Second, fewer editors would be blocked for using an email address for their usernames. New users may be hurt that they were blocked and simply leave the project rather than getting a new username, or start to vandalize in extreme cases. Third, if the editors who are blocked have read the username policy and saw that usernames consisting of email addresses are not prohibited, they may feel lied to when they are blocked. Fourth, editors would get less spam because some would read the policy and decide not to use their email addresses. Users that are blocked are not saved from spam because if they do not have a user page and/or user talk page already, one will be created to tell them that they have been blocked. Also, if they were not caught right away, their email addresses may be on other pages, like other user talk pages, article talk pages and Wikipedia namespace pages. Fifth, even disregarding the spam issue, alienating new users and saving time, having an email address for a username is awkward. Usernames consisting of random letters and/or numbers are blocked for a similar reason.

I made a feature request for users to be prohibited from using @ in their username, but it might be a long time before it is done. I hope the Wikipedia bugzilla system is better than the Firefox one. I do not think that we should wait for the feaure to be implemented to change the policy. Actually, it might not be implemented until the policy says that usernames consisting of email addresses are prohibited. -- Kjkolb 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

IKEA

If you create your username as User:IKEA, would that be an inappropriate username because it is the name of an existing company (IKEA)? Please contact me as soon as possible. Thanks! --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy supports disruption

As part of this edit on March 15, 2006, Freakofnurture added the following:

However, feel free to use other alphabets as alternate link text in your signature.

I'm not sure why this is explicitly permitted on this policy page (especially when this policy has nothing to do with signatures). We do not have a signature policy but the WP:SIG guideline page states,

Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive.

Some users disguise their username in scripts that are gibberish to most readers on English Wikipedia. Sigs are meant to identify the user first and act as a vehicle of creative expression second. This disruptive behavior should not be sanctioned by policy, and I'd like to remove that line from the policy. (I would be bold but I don't think that's the correct procedure for policy pages). — GT 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Be bold it is then. — GT 06:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Company/institution

Is it appropriate for a company (or institution) to create an account with it's own name and maintain it's own page?

Generally, the answer would most likely be no and the same applies for living people and their own pages. This is because of a conflict of interests. As an organisation, you would want to paint yourself in the best possible light, and state things that you have decreed or decided. However as an editor, you will want to maintain a neutral point of view and only record things that qualified and respected others have said about you (so as to be sure that they have been verified). LinaMishima 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and self-interest can coincide. Why should a company not be able to act in an official fashion to bring light to instances of harmful misinformation or outright libel? Would you really consider a company trying to clean policy-violating statements out of its article to be engaging in POV-driven and abusive edits? WhoMe? 14:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography of Pawan Kumar

March 22-2021 Name - Pawan Kumar Full Name - Pawan Kumar Kushwaha DOB - 25 Dec 2003. Age - 18 y/o Birth place -vill. Tahshipur, post Baraoli, dict. kannauj, (up). Occupation - still student. Hobbies- Wab designing, Programming, Coding, listening classical music,gyming too etc. Favourite color- white,black,brown,blue. Skin colour- fair Eye colour- black. Height-5feets 9inches. Weight-54kg.