Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 19

Time-delayed blocks of editors
What's the general attitude on seeing if a technical solution can be created that allows admins to create time-delayed blocks? In other words, if a username is generally in violation of ORGNAME, per current policy someone is supposed to recommend that they change their name, and if they don't, well, that's that I guess. We don't want to violate WP:BITE (AKA WP:CIVILITY), so we don't have a policy that just blocks immediately. The problem I see is that we still have a person out there with a name that isn't so hot per policy, but we sort of just drop it, or we make admins have to keep manually checking names later. It seems to me that a more civil approach might be to allow an admin to create a time-delayed block that essentially allows the editor to continue editing normally, but takes effect a month later. This would allow them time to ask questions, move things around, create a new account, etc, without having to feel immediately put out. It would also be nice if such accounts could be granted the ability to self-rename, but I'm just generally wondering about the idea of a delayed block first. -- Avanu (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I really feel that even a week is too much time in which to allow spamming edits to take place; and a month... words fail me. (Yes, I know, that's just mean ol' Orange Mike, meanest guy in the world [ask my daughter] talking.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spamming edits are not the same. This is about non-problematic edits. In other words, people who have no other problems about their editing behavior than they happened to be a Boy Named Sue, or really a Boy named AmalgamatedWidgetsInc. -- Avanu (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got the user User:Peggyzplace to change their name via a note on their talk page, after they were adding their business "Peggyz Place" by starting Pinky blue mall, which I then sent to AFD . I can see allowing them to change it before they make any more edits, but I don't see any technical means to track and enforce this, only users like myself that will sometimes try to convince them to change it and then request deletion of their articles.  And then I can lose track of them pretty easily if they don't edit for a few days.  In theory, I agree with what you are saying Avanu, that we should allow them a good faith effort to change the name, but it is a burden to leave a message, create a log, follow up, etc. I do this when I can.  Had this person made another spam edit before changing their name, I would have sent them to UAA instantly expecting action.  Had they waited several days, then went to mildly spam other articles, they would have escaped my notice.  Without better tools to facilitate and track the delay, I can see why sometimes people get blocked up front, albeit sometimes sooner than is optimal.  Oh, and Mike, I'm one of those evil guys who does marketing for a living, although I avoid all COI here.  Just because I'm a blight on society doesn't mean I'm a blight on Wikipedia ;)  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We've been encouraging people to just abandon these accounts (if they only have a few edits), because it's less work for us than actually changing the username. If they've abandoned the account, there is no value in blocking it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be even less work if you abandoned the rule. What's the point of it? In fact, why not encourage people to edit under the name of an organization they effectively represent? It would be an excellent way for them to "disclose" their COI in a way that will be visible throughout their activity. I agree that "[somebody] at [orgname]" is even better, but the difference is hardly big enough to bite people about it. Victor Yus (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because then we would need to lift our restriction on shared accounts, as well as allow any and all role accounts to edit. --MuZemike 17:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with "MyCompany" names is that the accounts tend to get passed around. Then we explain something, and the next month we explain it again, and get "Oh, that was the previous guy.  I just got assigned to this yesterday, so you gave to explain it all over again, and none of the warnings he earned should count against me."  At least with a new account, we know that it's a new account.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (I do support "Alice at Company" usernames, just not "Company" or "Department at Company" names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All the better. Yes, lift all these restrictions, because they are counterproductive rules. If a group of multiple humans plan to interact with Wikipedia as a single entity, then we want to know about that, and what better and more transparent way for them to tell us than by using a single account name. It can't be the cause of a situation where we have to keep explaining things and renewing warnings to new people, because we would have to do that anyway if they each opened a new account. Indeed if they are using the same account, then there is at least some probability that they will feel constrained to check up on the information that has been supplied to that account while under someone else's control. (And there seems to be no legal or other problem with different users making edits to Wikipedia with the same identifier when that identifier is an IP address.) Victor Yus (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if we want to talk to "Joe" instead of "Bobby" when we talk to "User:MyCompany", how will we know what we are dealing with Joe and not Bobby, or even their CEO or legal rep? The way I see it, we would be making things less transparent if we were to abolish WP:NOSHARE and WP:ROLE, because we would have no way – physically or technically – to distinguish who in such a company we are conversing or dealing with. --MuZemike 21:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If "Joe" and "Bobby" and anyone else at that business want to work together on the English Wikipedia, then they can each get their own accounts, and then work together.
 * If they work from the same account, and one of them makes a serious mistake, then we end up blocking all of them, when only one person caused a problem. And when we explain something, we have no way of guaranteeing that the person who needs the information actually got it.
 * We have had real problems with this. We have had people share accounts, and when we say things like, "You need to cite your sources", person #1 reads the message—and person #2 goes on making the same mistake, and when we finally sort it out, we get a bunch of excuses like "Well, you can't expect me to see the messages you leave on the user talk page.  The other people probably saw those, so don't get mad at me for not reading the messages you left for me."
 * In short: been there, tried that, it didn't work for us.  So we've prohibited it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So tell them at the outset (standard template message) that these problems might arise, that such excuses will not be accepted, and that one way they can avoid the problem (if their internal communication is not adequate) is by having individual accounts. Don't bite them by threatening to block them straight off for no reason except for the past misbehavior of completely different users. And generally speaking on Wikipedia we do have no way of knowing who we are conversing or dealing with, period. People can make themselves completely anonymous if they want, any many of them do. Or share an IP address. What we're talking about here is people who have gone the extra half-mile of transparency by using identifiable user names, but you want to bite and further inconvenience them for not having gone the whole mile. Waste of your time, waste of their time, and most importantly ą waste of their goodwill. Well, also a waste of my time discussing it here, so I've said my piece and leave it for your consideration. (Ah, and not all organization names are going to be shared accounts - think one-person companies - so it's not even true that my original suggestion of abandoning the orgname rule would necessitate abandoning the other rule - you could again just do a standard template message saying that if they're thinking of having people share the account then they should think again - otherwise an orgname user name is no problem.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Usernames that imply you are a returning user
The first section of this policy states that "usernames that imply you are a returning user" are misleading. I am having trouble pinning down what this exactly means. NTox · talk 01:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine it means that if there used to be a user called h7yyy, who left, and you call yourself something like "h7yyy mark 2", then it's misleading people into thinking that you're the same person who used to be h7yyy. Unless you actually are that person, of course, in which case it's not misleading at all. Or perhaps it means that a name like "h7yyy mark 2" is misleading anyway, regardless of whether there actually was an h7yyy. Victor Yus (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I went ahead and removed the text, seeing as the false implication that one is a returning user, for all intents and purposes, seems to be impersonation, which is already covered in the section. NTox · talk 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARE and shared IPs
The recent RfC on the username policy indicates that the en-wp community is strongly opposed to individuals sharing registered accounts. The opposition against them usually centers around a desire to track and anticipate users' opinions and behavior, and that shared accounts would complicate votes, discussions, user permissions, sanctions, etc. In the name of clarity and the notion that policies are 'accepted standard[s] that all editors should normally follow', to what extent are IP editors expected to follow WP:NOSHARE? NTox · talk 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not and it would be unfair to expect them to as ISPs routinely and regularly reassign IP addresses, sometimes every time a user reboots their computer.--ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could have multiple users at an Internet café, library, or school that have no idea that some other person was using the same computer to edit Wikipedia. Even if they knew that someone else used their IP address to edit Wikipedia (siblings, for example), it's often impossible for them to do anything about it.  This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless someone else already used your current IP address to do so".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. I should clarify - I'm not suggesting that IPs should be bound to NOSHARE. Rather, my question was sparked by a recent encounter: I found an IP account that self-proclaimed to have two active users behind it - and, given the sentiment of the recent RfC, I was surprised that no one had ever complained to them about it. NTox · talk 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because an IP is different from a registered account in that IPs are not really individual accounts per se but merely nodes of communication in which a user who wishes to be anonymous (to an extent) edits from. That is very different from a registered account. --MuZemike 23:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I suppose I just see it a bit more complex than that. IPs, after all, participate in talk page discussions, consensus building, etc. - and in those instances it is often key to have a mental idea of the individual. I recall one discussion I had with an IP user several months ago; he was working closely on a series of articles and asked for my assistance. Throughout, he would reference specific edits he had made in the past - but seeing as he edited from a large, dynamic IP range, I could not completely keep track of what he had done. That's why I wonder if there would be any value in encouraging users against using shared IPs if they can help it - certainly not as a mandate, but perhaps as a short note in a guideline or otherwise. NTox · talk 00:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The price is too high. Only a few users (nearly all developed world, by the way) have this choice in the first place, and even then we'd have to tell them not to edit unless they were at the one computer that they first started editing at.  We'd lose a lot of edits that way.
 * Your problem is easily solved though: just ask the user to please provide a diff of his old edit so you can see what he's talking about.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should clarify - such a note would not encourage people not to edit altogether; just a simple note along the lines of 'Users who expect to make multiple edits are encouraged to register an account, so others can keep track of their contributions.' AFAIK, this doesn't undermine any current consensus. Merely something simple to encourage others to create an account. NTox · talk 01:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This question just shows how mixed up is the orthodox way of thinking about shared accounts. Since we don't require people to have accounts, and those who choose not to are not subject to any restrictions as to their switching or sharing of IDs (IP addresses in this case), it makes zero sense to impose such restrictions on those who decide to use accounts. We are in effect punishing people for editing with account names, which is something that generally we encourage them to do. Victor Yus (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 addresses
We have a new guideline about IPv6 addresses that have already started to (slowly) show up. A new notice has been placed in user's Watchlists saying: "Editors are advised that users with names of the form 2001:718:1E03:5184:8CA3:8DDA:38D5:6D2B are actually anonymous editors editing from an IPv6 address". Shouldn't we add something to this effect here, maybe in the "Confusing usernames" or "Internet addresses" subsections? -- Alexf(talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, how to handle usernames intentionally duplicating IP addresses? - jc37 16:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's already prohibited to have usernames resembling IP addresses, therefore I think such usernames are already not allowed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To echo Jasper, the policy already prohibits 'usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps' under the misleading usernames subheading, but I would not be opposed to adding a short note about the up-and-coming IPv6 form. However, I'm also at a loss about where the most rational place to add that would be. NTox · talk 18:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I just had read the watchlist notice, and I immediately had that sense of WP:BEANS after reading it : ) - jc37 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not BEANS. See here; it's unfortunately necessary.  Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I meant BEANS in terms of my comments above: people actually creating account names designed to look like the new IPs. - jc37 07:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As Nyttend's link shows, we will have a mess in our hands and a flood of UAA reports from users unclear on the issue. I think we should preemptively make some kind of note in this page, as I suggested above, though I'm unsure how the text should read and what subsection. I see that UAA already has a visible note to alert potential patrollers/reporters. -- Alexf(talk) 13:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have filed a request on its talk page for the title blacklist to be updated to prevent such usernames being created.  It Is Me Here   t / c 20:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Article title policy
Is there a clear policy about usernames that are confusing, because they are similar to article titles? Or is it a case-by-case thing? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing specific I know of; I imagine something like that would follow under the existing 'misleading' criterion of problematic usernames. NTox · talk 07:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thread of interest
People who are familiar with the application of this policy might be able to comment usefully at Changing username/Simple. Victor Yus (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bold simplification
I've been bold as copyedited the IMPERSONATOR section with this edit. My rationale was that it is aimed at new users for whom referencing account creators and admins probably wasn't helpful; and in the other cases the excess verbiage clouded the issues whereas shorter assists clarity. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearer in policy
I'd like to work on the policy here to make it clear that we see a difference between 'good actors' and 'bad actors'. In other words, we don't block editors making good contributions for a technical mistake in their choice of username. (with the exception of usernames that are themselves offensive, like curse words or the like) Good actors should be given wide latitude and discretion and even ignored, I would suggest. Bad actors are another matter. They are actually damaging articles and as such, its obvious they need to be blocked. -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The grandfather clause
Some usernames that appear to be in breach of this policy have been allowed to stand by consensus because they were created before a change in the policy that would now prohibit such names... is this still worthy of mention? Are there a significant number? If not, it's probably best to get rid of the distraction from policy (and it suggests we are more lax on teh requirements, which we aren't). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is very important to stay there, since even my username falls under that and we get enough poorly executed Username blocks already. -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of the policy is your username supposed to be breaking? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the email feature to explain. -- Avanu (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is now against policy, but it was created before that policy change, hence the grandfather clause. --MuZemike 19:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: user names containing organization names
Should user names that contain organization names, but clearly refer to an individual, be allowed? Examples (from the policy as it stands): WidgetFan87, Mark at WidgetsUSA, LoveTrammelArt; (from the thread referenced just above here) Secretary of the IPA, JohnSmithIPA, JohnSmith at IPA? Are some, all or none of these acceptable? Why? Victor Yus (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're acceptable. Such names kill two birds with one stone; they make an editor's affiliation clear, but they also underline that it's a specific person rather than a shared account. bobrayner (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All but one - "Secretary of the IPA" is a title, which could be held by any of dozens of people. That one would not meet our standards; but the others would, under our current consensus, as BobRay explains. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orage Mike. The secretary of the IPA one doesn't identify a person.  The other ones are beneficial because they identify the COI. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The goal of the username policy is not to avoid names of organizations, the goal is to make sure that we can uniquely identify that this account belongs to a particular person -- that it is not being shared, even shared over time sequentially by a different officeholder. There are exceptions, but for the average accountholder, this is the goal. -- Avanu (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: the point about believing a conflict of interest is being revealed assumes the editor's name is accurately reflecting an association with the organization. In general, I'm wary of assuming this to be true, and don't think it can be relied upon. isaacl (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're acceptable, with the possible exception of the "Secretary of IPA" username. There are titles that could be acceptable because they're unique ("Founder of Wikipedia") or at least expected to be held by one person longer than the average account remains active ("Queen of England" or "Owner of Widgets, Inc.").  In such cases, a friendly note to point out that the account is not transferrable to any future holders of the office should suffice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with OrangeMike above. If they show that one specific person is editing, but still identify a COI, then that's fine. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the challenge is in identifying the problem we are trying to avoid in the first place. Some don't like organizational usernames because they look like they are shared; others think they are promotional. My own opinion is that these are both legitimate issues to avoid. What we should be looking for is that (1) the name sufficiently suggests that the account is held by one person, and (2) that it doesn't contain a blatant intent to advertise. On these counts, I believe 'WidgetFan87', 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', et al. are okay. They are held by 'Mark', and 'a' fan, and neither are these individuals instructing anyone to do business with the company. NTox · talk 09:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thought: Because of WP:SUL, we may need to make exceptions for usernames that are created to match a legitimate name at some other WMF website.  It's not okay for people at the English Wikipedia to tell someone that he has to change the username he's used for years without complaint at Commons or some other project because we don't like it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if a username on commons blatantly violates our policies but hasn't been noticed elsewhere, we shouldn't allow it. It would be easy enough to find an obscure wiki and create something like User:Order pizza from Bert's 867-5309 then use the unified login to say it is acceptable.  Even an account age and edit count requirement on the other website couldn't stop all instances. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But we could presumably fairly easily distinguish such bad-faith instances from any good-faith ones. (I don't even really see why people worry so much about these promotional names - have they ever been a real problem? After all, they are not normally visible to the general public, and the behind-the-scenes Wikipedians who do see them will presumably react by purposefully not ordering their pizza from Bert's.) Another conceivable situation is where someone's name is a coarse vulgarity in some other language - should they be allowed to use it on that language's wiki? But that's a quite different topic, which is perhaps not worth discussing until it actually comes up. Victor Yus (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think that is why there is an "Ignore All Rules" rule. I have yet to see such an account name, but I don't pay that close of attention either. My own username is technically a violation of the orgname policy, but its age and obscurity prevent it from being a problem, obviously the username you mention is blatant and so it wouldn't be quite the same. -- Avanu (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me give an example: Commons:Commons:Username policy permits company names with verification that the users are the "official representatives of that company or group, via e-mail to info-commons-at-wikimedia.org." They give   as an example of a username that is permitted at Commons (if you verify the identity through e-mail).  We don't normally accept such a username, with or without e-mail.  However—and perhaps you will disagree with me—if someone is an active contributor to Commons (which we will determine using our Best Judgment rather than possibly game-able rules) under a name that Commons explicitly permits in their username policy (e.g., not a username that simply hasn't been reported as a violation elsewhere), then I think we should accept that name here, as a courtesy to our sister project's users.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All okay but "Secretary of the IPA", per the obvious reasoning of BobRay and Orange Mike. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * “Secretary of IPA” is not okay. I agree with  Brendon is  here  07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Orangemike's reasoning; the others are identifying an individual, and the fact of their affiliation isn't promotional, and could help with identifying COI. Anaxial (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation
I've boldly reorganised the way we present the information directed at people making accounts. In my mind, simplicity is really important here because users are unlikely to be familiar with Wikipedia policy and terminology at this point. I wasn't aiming to change anything substantive. If anyone disagrees with my change, I'd be interested as to what has been missed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the changes you made and your changes remove some of the cautions and protections that users have against inappropriate blocking. It needs to be clear that "bad actors" (or offensive names) are the *only* people that get an immediate block. People who are here editing constructively shouldn't be given a block at all, but asked politely to change their name if someone has an issue. -- Avanu (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avanu and have restored one such sentence. We have a problem with improper blocks on that point, so we need to be perfectly clear.
 * Also, I see that you deleted all the examples, which were added last year because so many people were having trouble figuring out what the text meant in practice. Did you have anything in particular against giving examples?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a proposed wording toward the bottom on the usernames for admin intervention section outlining the specifics on the good/bad actor issue. (link here) I also found the examples interesting, and somewhat useful, but I'm not too broken up with them gone either. -- Avanu (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A few months ago I was blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia "because your username, Ottawahitech, does not meet our username policy." Fortunately I was unblocked within hours, however, it seemed like forever to me at the time. I did not understand, and still do not, why my pseudonym is a problem at Wikipedia. I believe it has something to do with being a name of a "group". I tried to clarify what a "group" is at Wikipedia (do a search on the term and see if you can figure it out), but failed. I have stopped participating in discussions such as this at Wikipedia, because every time I try, I feel others feel I have ulterior motives, but I really don't want to see anyone  else go through what I went through, and hope the word "group" is either better defined, or removed altogether from this page. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered. Twice, with resulting clarifications to the page.  If you still don't understand what a Social group is, then I'm not sure we can help you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ottawahitech, a better way to explain might be to say the reverse. Your username does not appear to clearly represent an individual. It *could* be Ottawa HighTech Company, Ottawa High School Technology Club, etc. Personally, I think its all a bit arbitrary and hard to see exactly when something might or might not work with the rule unless you see a clear conflict of interest. -- Avanu (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google reveals that there is in the outside world something called a "group" that has the name "Ottawa HiTech", so I guess that's why the account was blocked. But as I keep observing, this is all a bit silly and pointless, and risks discouraging new users for no purpose except the bureaucrat's satisfaction at having made life a little difficult for someone today. Wikipedia must have more serious problems than people using usernames that coincide with the name of a group somewhere (and there's no requirement to have a username that clearly represents you as an individual - a random sequence of characters, meaning nothing, would be OK). Victor Yus (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that exactly right. The name doesn't have to appear to be you in any way. But generally the idea seems to be that it represents a collection of 1, and only 1. You could take this to a logical extreme, like HermitsClubofMyHouseWhereOnlyOnePersonLives and it would be ruled a problem because it is a club and other people might join. But it would be silly. -- Avanu (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Username advice
I noticed a newish editor with name of the form "XFearsY" (where X and Y are the easily recognizable names of living persons, each with an article). X and Y are on opposite sides of a controversial issue and the username is obviously a negative assertion about X (in the controversy, X has publicly refused to debate Y). I cannot see anything in the policy about this, and I don't want to charge in and suggest to the user that they should change their name just on my opinion. I also can't see a noticeboard for this kind of issue, so I'm hoping someone will offer advice: does such a username breach policy, or am I overly sensitive? Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you have described it, the username is configured in such a way as to provoke one side of a controversial issue; for that reason, it seems to be a violation of this policy as a disruptive username. What also comes into play are the serious terms of WP:BLP, so I would say that a block of some sort on the account might not be out of the question for many administrators. Those are handled at UAA. NTox · talk 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably be more specific about what we mean by a "disruptive" username, or else try to define more specific categories. I suppose this one is a kind of personal attack, so may be considered to be covered by the existing wording. Victor Yus (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The user doesn't edit much so it may not be worth getting heavy about it, but if they become active again I will raise it. I find this policy a bit hard to follow (I've looked through it regarding other cases in the past). The disruptive names section is very much open to interpretation (is ObamaSux offensive?), although I understand that per WP:BURO policies outline principles without trying to specify the boundaries. Johnuniq (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading
Presumably it would also be considered excessively misleading to use a name that implies an affiliation with any company or group, if you don't have such an affiliation? Should that be added under "misleading usernames"? Victor Yus (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming there are no objections, I'm going to add this. Victor Yus (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I object – I don't think we need to lay this down in policy. It's going to be very rare that anyone does this; rarer still that it's a problem. In those small number of cases it's only likely to be a problem because of some impersonation issue and the spirit of that is already clear in policy as it is. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the spirit of many things is in the policy, but we still state them explicitly. I would have thought this was on a par with impersonating a well-known person. Allowing someone to make edits under the name "Bill Gates" and allowing them to make edits under the name "Microsoft PR Manager" (when they are not in fact Bill Gates or a Microsoft PR manager) seem almost equally likely and almost equally problematic, including from a legal standpoint. Maybe we can combine the two cases into one point, but I see no reason to have one but not the other. The policy needs to define fairly precisely what kind of "misleading usernames" it proscribes, since I don't believe it's the case that any username that is in some way misleading would be prohibited (a woman using a male name, for example, would be quite OK). Victor Yus (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We could also avoid instruction creep and keep things simple. Anyone dumb enough to block an account on the rationale that a woman using a male name is "misleading" can be taken to task if that happens. Danger! High voltage! 13:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't really the issue, since we are not saying at the moment "all misleading usernames are forbidden". That would be clearly wrong, so instead, we have to say which types of misleading misusernames are forbidden. Omitting this fairly clear situation from the list might be taken to imply that such a username (the Microsoft PR Manager type) is not forbidden and therefore allowed, and thus lead to unnecessary argument when it comes up. There is much instruction creep on this and other policy pages that ought to be cut out, and I can do that if you like, but I don't see how that can be an excuse to omit brief but pertinent information without which the remainder becomes, well, misleading. Victor Yus (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument for more policy always runs as "it'll save time when it comes up" – the fact is that some things don't need saying, create additional problems by making people focus on the wording and not the spirit of policy, some situations don't come up, and some when they come up are so special that they're going to be judged as a one-off anyway. I think the fourth sums this one up best. The fact is that when discussing issues of creep, everyone thinks that something is really important and other people think something else is really important. On that note, though, I agreed with your split of the sections earlier but think that the clarity the split has created should mean that fewer words are required to explain it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, but then we should at least add a couple of words to make clear that the lists of unnacceptable username types are not necessarily comprehensive. (And also perhaps work on cutting down on the quantity of instructions in other parts of the policy.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Both of which things I've attempted to do today.) Victor Yus (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous
Under WP:REALNAME it says If you share a name with such a person, you need to make it clear that you are not the person of that name. I presume it means that you are not the well-known person of that name? And what form is "making it clear" supposed to take? Does it mean a note on your user page, or does it mean you have to alter your username to something like User:David Cameron (not the PM), or what? Victor Yus (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For some time I had thought that section was attempting to proscribe the use of celebrity/well-known names exclusively, but I noticed later that it aims to prevent the use of any real name username generally, if the name is likely to imply that the editor is a specific living person. Thus, celebrity names would apply (it's very likely that many would think of the prime minister specifically when they see User:David Cameron), as well as really unusual names that are likely to be held by only one person on the planet (like User:Bobforkaba Ensentillianvesser), etc. The one thing that allows you to use a name like this is if it is actually your real name. Thus, if my real name actually was David Cameron or Bobforkaba Ensentillianvesser, I would be able use those usernames (and the specific people they signify would obviously be able to as well). Sometimes an administrator will choose to block accounts like this pending proof that it is the editor's real name. Such editors are usually instructed to offer the proof to OTRS. See also the uw-ublock-famous template that is used for celebrity names. On your second question about 'making it clear': I did some digging, and found this edit. It seems that initially the instruction was to place a note on your user page if you have verified your real name but are not the specific person normally implied. I'm not sure if that was intentionally made more vague or not. NTox · talk 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've tried to make that section more clear on the basis of what you've said. Victor Yus (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-Latin alphabet — an extreme example?
An extreme (in my opinion) example of a problematic non-Latin username:

This single character (Unicode U+0F06) is, as best I've been able to tell, some sort of Tibetan punctuation mark. If a random reader doesn't have a Tibetan alphabet font installed, it may look either like an empty box or a box with an illegibly tiny "0F 06" inside it. If the reader does have a Tibetan font installed (not necessarily meaning the reader knows Tibetan; it could have been part of a comprehensive package of Asian fonts), the character will look like a hard-to-see glyph that will surely be completely unrecognizable unless the reader happens to be familiar with Tibetan.

FWIW, this particular editor has been asked twice (once in March, and once last week by me) to set up a customized signature including Latin characters, but so far he has not done so. And even if he/she chooses to set up a customized signature including something identifiable in the Latin alphabet, the overwhelming bulk of admins and other editors are still going to have serious problems dealing with this username in article histories and such.

This particular case (a single obscure glyph from a particularly obscure writing system that's unlikely to even be identiable by most users) seems to me to be extreme; I'm not sure if others are likely to see it as any different than a username in Georgian, Farsi, or Sinhalese (to cite some other examples I can remember seeing recently).

Does this situation suggest a need for any sort of change to the username policy? Or should we simply live with it? What do others think? — Rich wales 19:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The existing consensus that covers this as far as I am aware is of course this section of the username policy, but also this RfC from 2010. To accommodate users of foreign languages (who may in fact be using a SUL account), the policy as written does allow for non-Latin characters - however, it is advised as a kind of guideline that usernames be in English, since this is the version of the encyclopedia written by English speakers. There is more detail in the RfC about symbols as usernames, which received a lot of comments and was ultimately closed by an administrator as 'use common sense' when deciding to allow them or not. As I think about it, more details about the conclusions of that RfC should probably be included in this policy. The specific user you mention is a borderline case - the use of 'common sense' in this instance is difficult - on one side, it is obscure to enwiki contributors, but it is on the other end only one symbol (10 symbols like this would be much worse). You do however bring up a good point in that this symbol may not actually be readable by many, and in fact that is the concern I had when I first saw this username about two months ago. For these reasons, I am in fact surprised that this username has been allowed for so long. If I were to advocate any action in this case I would say that in the name of accessibility this user should be asked to file a report at WP:CHU, as much as I dislike making thing difficult for people. This is however an interpretative issue. NTox · talk 21:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against adding in more guidance here. It's clearly an extreme case (particularly where dialogue with the user is unsuccessful) and might not need any changes. Certainly I don't further guidance would really help, there aren't any more criteria one could use I don't think. Sure, if we want to harden the policy from "should be avoided" to "must be avoided" that could happen, but that would be a change rather than an elaboration. Common sense and what policy there is looks to me to have provided the right considerations, it's just that applying them is hard.
 * If "should be" is to be kept (and we think there's a problem with this one), then there must be exceptions and if not a good-faith contributor, then who else? If "must be", is the problem sufficiently serious to block some SULs and potentially ward off contributors? Going onto my own personal opinion, given the unfavourability of either those rhetorical questions, I reckon the most consistent way forward is to allow the exception in this case. (I have the glyph on both my computers, so I don't think it's frightfully rare.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have to think about this more if I were to seriously suggest any big changes to policy on this issue. At the moment I am not. My impression now is that the encouragement to use Latin characters (the 'should be' formulation) is working okay. After all, the existence of non-Latin usernames is not really a systemic problem, as you implied. What I do however think should be added is a very short, general note about 'use common sense' in regards to symbolic usernames, since that was the conclusion of a large RfC. Further elaboration beyond the principle of the matter would I think be unnecessary. NTox · talk 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think common sense is a good approach, but actually writing that into the policy is another matter. For me, practically speaking, the result of the rfc being "apply common sense" (I haven't read it myself) would indicate that no more rules were necessary. I don't see that writing common sense into the policy would help resolve any problems; the right issues have been raised by the OP off the back of the current policy and common sense means different things to different people; it means prioritising the big things over the little things but people's opinions of what is and is not a big or little thing differ. Ultimately if you leave the policy as it is, common sense (or a case by case approach, if the two can be separated) must fill the gap and that probably works fine. As regards the case in hand my opinion would be continue to communicate/persuade but not to enforce. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not really understanding what you are saying, to be honest (It must just be my brain today; I'm sorry), but there a couple of things that do come to mind. The first thing that I would say is not to take the term 'common sense' too literally. What the term really means, as far as I've seen it, is 'use good judgement, according to other basic Wikipedia agreements and principles'. To do so is especially important when there are not specific rules on an issue, like this one, and that's why I think the closing administrator closed the RfC the way he did. Essentially he was saying, 'There has been no agreement for specific rules about symbolic usernames, so use good judgement according to other basic Wikipedia agreements and principles.' Yes, obviously to do so is subjective, but that's why we only allow administrators (whose subjective judgements are trusted) to close UAA reports and it's also why we have discussions at RFCN. The use of this kind of sense has widespread agreement, and I think it is useful to remind people of this as it is already done at the top of every policy page . In any case, to add what I suggest is really not all that important, but I can tell you that it would have actually solved a problem for me in particular two months ago. I was dealing with a request at WP:ACC for a symbolic username, and it would have been so much easier if there was a short note about the issue here; instead, I had to scour the archives of this talk page to identify the consensus. I really don't think adding this would cause problems, as long as the statement is general enough. It would have helped me in the past. NTox · talk 23:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I realize (per Grandiose's comments) that WP:SUL may be a factor here — though, at the same time, I wonder if that means we (enwiki) must accept any username that is accepted on any other Wikipedia edition. (I think we're already able to make exceptions in cases where, say, a perfectly appropriate username in one language happens to transliterate to something horribly vulgar in English, right?)


 * Also, in this particular case, the symbol in question appears to be some sort of punctuation mark in Tibetan writing (I don't know any details because I don't know Tibetan at all, but this is what one of the external sites I found said). If someone were to create an account here (enwiki) whose name consisted only of a single punctuation mark, would we let them?  (I note that there are accounts named ;. and !! — though these seem to have been created years ago and have been inactive for years.)  Would that have any bearing on whether a username consisting of Tibetan punctuation marks is OK?  And what would we say if someone wanted the username י (the Hebrew letter yod) — which may look like a punctuation mark to those not in the know, but is in fact a letter?


 * There are so many possible ramifications here that I'm discouragedly thinking there's nothing to be done if someone chooses a username that will be difficult for others and is simply not willing to accept or even acknowledge requests to change it. Perhaps the most we really could do would be to require (not just request, but require) someone who decides to use a non-Latin-alphabet username to explain the name on their user page and customize their signature to include a Latin-alphabet equivalent of their username.  I believe we should have the right to ask for explanations in any case, just to be sure that a non-English username is not something vulgar or offensive in another language.  Any thoughts on this?  —  Rich wales 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a related discussion archived at Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 March 31.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the username rules are indeed different on every WMF wiki. There have been (rare) situations in which a username allowed elsewhere has been blocked here. I've seen it happen for what we at enwiki recognize as promotional usernames. One was allowed and active on some other language Wikipedia but as soon as it edited here the account was blocked. The user was told to create a new account, despite SUL. Re your proposal: as much as I think you have legitimate concerns, I would probably be opposed to actually making userpage explanations and signature restrictions necessary - to be honest, I would think that non-English vulgar names are so rare that we would not need to make policy changes to deal with them. And even if they do exist hardly anyone would notice (not that that excuses the violation, but it wouldn't actually offend most people since they don't know the meaning). To work these requirements in would effectually make the lives more difficult for a whole lot of innocent people. But still the suggestion is admirable. NTox · talk 23:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just not managing to care much about this. It's a gorgeous symbol; why shouldn't it be used?  The idea that it might cause some hypothetical admin some minor bit of trouble in the future just isn't bothering me.  WMF wikis have (I'm told) advised people for years now who are accustomed to non-Latin scripts to choose distinctive symbols, precisely because they are easier to recognize than long strings of unfamiliar characters.  Why should we worry about this?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The most significant problem that seems to have been suggested is that it might not be readable in some browsers. It would however be nice to get some actual statistics on that, since at the moment it is a lot of guesswork. NTox · talk 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if it's not "readable", it might still be functional for most purposes. My ability to click a link doesn't (as far as my limited experience indicates) depend on whether I can see it.  So what we really need is the numbers on how many admins would be unable to block the account, should it ever be necessary.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see any potential problem (even for admins) since you can always just click the links to the user (from article history, for example), and if you want to refer to the user in discussion you can write "User:Squiggle" or something, or else cut and paste. I would treat such cases as being of the "Confusing usernames" type as described in the policy; if it's a good editor then OK, but if it's an otherwise disruptive editor, then the unhelpful username might have the effect of increasing the likelihood of their getting blocked. Victor Yus (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC - Handling promotional usernames
When should usernames in the form of a company, organization, group, website, product, or internet address be blocked from editing? Should they be blocked immediately? Should they be blocked only when they have edited in the topic area connected to the name (constructively or not)? Should they be blocked only if they have made promotional edits in the topic area connected to the name? Sometime else? Why? Issues to consider:
 * Alternatives to blocking include a username change and creating a new account.
 * Whether or not adding external links to avoid automatically constitutes promotional editing.
 * The appropriate times that a username block should be a soft block or a hard block.
 * NTox · talk 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is already covered by policy, and I think in a more than adaquate way. Blocking only should happen for editors who are making problematic edits. No one is supposed to be blocked for a non-offensive username alone. Just because I name myself "Nike" doesn't mean it is a company name or a danger to the encyclopedia. I could very well be a fan of ancient Greek mythology. People shouldn't have to change their username if they aren't being a problem, and *especially* shouldn't be blocked. -- Avanu (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The policy already specifically covers this. We only block if they are making overly promotional edits or vandalizing. If it's just a username problem, then we just direct them to WP:CHU to have them rename their account. Simple as that. Why would you block someone otherwise? That would be a severe WP:BITE violation. Silver  seren C 02:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What if they don't get it changed? Do we just let them go? --MuZemike 17:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have actually we had a significant problem with this? I don't recall a single report of a problem with someone persisting in a truly inappropriate username after being advised to change the username and/or start a new account, but perhaps I've just missed it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I've said in some of the threads above, I don't even think there's any problem with people using such names. They certainly shouldn't be blocked, but I would say they shouldn't even be told to change their user name. It might be good to advise them of our policy regarding sharing of accounts, but even that's an unnecessary and pointless rule (again, as explained somewhere above). Victor Yus (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, we shouldn't care that accounts are shared, correct? Then, if so, what is the purpose of having a username, then? --MuZemike 17:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Various possible purposes that I'm sure we could both list, most of which don't stand in any contradiction to the sharing of the account between more than one person. What is the purpose of caring whether other people's accounts are shared? The argument given previously was that one joint user may not be aware of messages that have been previously supplied to another joint user, but that's hardly a major issue - enough people here stick their fingers in their ears and pretend not to have heard something they've been told before, and we don't block them for that. Victor Yus (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If a username/account is shared by more than one person, then we cannot reliably assign copyright or other legal responsibility to it if there is a dispute. Under our current policy, the sole holder of an account is a single human being, fully responsible for all edits by that account (WP:LITTLEBROTHER claims to the contrary). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the existing policy: people with potentially promotional usernames are blocked only if they have made promotional edits in the topic area connected to the name.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is: What is considered promotional? I mean, a company who creates a Wikipedia account and then creates an article about their own company is likely not going creating that article just to share knowledge. --MuZemike 22:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually, people seem most concerned about peacocking and removal of negative information. Something that seems fairly plain, like a simple list of products produced (without saying that they're the best widgets ever produced, etc.) is fine.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of company officials who have been able to accomplish honorable, neutral writing about themselves that is consistent with our policies. After all, there are ways that both of us can win; a verifiable, comprehensive, neutral article makes both the encyclopedia and the company look good. You are certainly right, however, that many companies (probably most) show that they are not capable of this. My rule of thumb is this: if the edits from the company username are predominantly concerned with advancing subjective opinions connected to itself, the account should be given some kind of block. IMHO, so-called 'spam links' qualify under this rule if the content of the website does exactly that. If the edits and/or links from the company username, however, are predominantly concerned with what we recognize as objective facts, the user is much closer to behaving consistently with our goals and thus should not be blocked but told to discontinue their username. NTox · talk 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Existing policy is fine, per much of the reasoning above, and because the RfC is using confused/confusing language: There's no such thing as a that should be blocked for  actions like CoI editing.  Usernames, in the abstract, are subject to username policy, which has nothing to do with users and their actions, only with appropriateness of names, while users are about by user editing policies like WP:NPOV, which has nothing to do with usernames.   This RfC mixes apples and oranges. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken. The username policy, as it stands, specifically says that promotional usernames should be blocked only when promotional user actions, as you say, exist. See ORGNAME. Let me know if I've misunderstood. NTox · talk 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this before. The policy is clear. The project has a problem with administrators who clearly understand the community's wishes and the policy but choose to ignore both. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive235 and its sequel Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive_18. An RfC on user behaviour is required but, as far as I can recall, nobody (including me) can summon up the motivation or is willing to donate the time. So Orangemike will continue biting because no admin has the balls to block him, and no one else can be bothered with the hassle of an RfC/U. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just one instance of the systemic problem at this project. Of course we should address these CoI editors with respect and an assumption of good faith. Most of us think so and our policy says so. But there are admins here who choose not to, and we do nothing about that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to ignore the personal attacks and the blatant misrepresentations by people who don't read edit histories; and will point out that one reason my behavior is not challenged by more admins around here is that I get the work done! I am one of the few admins willing to abandon the work I really enjoy (creating new articles on Wisconsin history, in particular) in order to play whack-a-mole with the corporate spammers and vanity-article creators. I don't see you doing it, Anthony; I don't see NTox doing anything in that area. And I resent bitterly being assailed for trying to shut down the Magic Firehose of Sewage by people who prefer to sit on the sidelines and snipe because I am not sufficiently pampering the would-be publicists! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair answer. Getting the job done isn't the issue. There are lots of ways to get it done. We could block everyone at the first sign of any trouble, in any facet (COI or otherwise), and also get the job done -- and much more easily than we do currently, I'd surmise. I'll note that below I state that I agree with this method, but the policy is against it right now. This guilt trip about all you do for us isn't relevant either. If you're not doing it right, then while we appreciate the time, we still would rather you stop and alter your approach. Just because admins haven't been complaining enough to convince you to change doesn't mean you nevertheless shouldn't. If you think the policy should change (I sure do), then let's talk about doing that, but in the meantime recognize that you need to follow it even if you disagree with it.  Equazcion  ( talk )  18:38, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, my calculating colleague, if I sounded like a WikiDiva to you. It is my experience, though, that admins who do the work of blocking corporate spammers are sometimes attacked (not least on our own talk pages), when in fact we have made blocks which are fully and indisputably within existing policies, by people who don't have any experience at UAA and don't bother to check the full editing history of the accounts we block before slinging accusations. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mike. I do hope that you didn't see my recent note on your talk page as an attack. I simply noticed something that didn't quite look right, and I wanted to bring it up. As I said, I appreciate much of your work at UAA, an understaffed noticeboard. What I think is happening, however, based on your post just above this one, is that we are reading the username and relevant policies differently. I often have to remind myself that policies are interpretative, and they rarely signify meanings that are objective or positive. What I mean is that we all have our own opinions about what policies mean and there will always be disagreements. The way we find solutions to these varied interpretations is through discussion, and we eventually come to more nuanced understandings as consensus develops on talk pages about specific details. In this case, I would suggest that because your actions have been challenged many times it might suggest that your viewpoint may be slightly off the consensus of what the username and related policies actually mean. I would add that there are indeed regulars who work in these areas; not everyone is on the sidelines while you do the work. You mentioned me in particular, but you might consider that I have made hundreds of edits to UAA and related areas in the last month alone. I started this RfC, in particular, to clarify the ORGNAME issue so that more people might be more comfortable participating in username issues. I still hope this will happen, with your help. NTox · talk 21:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, in my experience, I'm more likely to be pestered for not blocking corporate usernames, usually by the person who added the warning to the alleged corporate user's talk page. So I'm not so sure that community consensus is actually against blocking, even if the local consensus of people who write policy is. Danger! High voltage! 03:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do they suggest hard blocks or soft? I would say that's a very important distinction - as it happens, even some of the more conservative minds on this issue support soft blocks. The username policy, as it stands, does not specify what specific block parameters should be imposed on orgnames (hence this RfC), but where arguments against hard blocking in particular emerge is when all of the relevant !rules are considered, like the blocking policy, WP:BITE, WP:EQ, WP:AGF, etc. NTox · talk 04:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking back through my archives, it's unclear what they're suggesting exactly. I think just block is what's desired. My s.o.p. is to use softer blocks on obviously representative accounts who have ignored a request to explain their name/change it/abandon the account, but have not been making blatantly promotional edits (construed narrowly). I do see at least 3 or 4 a week just while cleaning out Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, so while it's not a huge problem, it's definitely occurring. Danger! High voltage! 07:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to come comment. I've been tangentially aware of the COI username debacle, and here are my thoughts, if anyone is interested: Users who register accounts under the names of companies are not here for the right reasons, and are suffering from a misconception of what Wikipedia editing is about. This is partly our fault for not finding a way to make this point clear to the public. Nevertheless, I'm personally in favor of blocking these users until they change their names. These people are looking to create or maintain a corporate presence for themselves here, and I have little sympathy for their plight, nor am I concerned about biting them. While WP:BITE may technically apply to these people, the spirit of it is really about encouraging new editors who are here for the purpose of developing free information, and not to market something for personal gain. For these people, the point needs to be hammered home that their corporate presence is not welcome here, and a temporary block until the name is changed seems perfectly reasonable to me.


 * This is my rudimentary take. I haven't been privy to all of the discussion that's developed about this.


 * That said, the policy does not agree with me right now, and administrators like Orangemike need to follow the policy. Administrative tools are not there to serve the admin's own whims regarding what's best for the encyclopedia. They're there to enact the consensus of the community. Until that consensus changes, and thereby the policy, these usernames should not be blocked unless/until they perform problematic edits.  Equazcion  ( talk )  13:33, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * But even assuming someone's "corporate presence" is "not welcome", how does changing the username help? The corporation will still be present, its presence will simply be less apparent to other editors (and thus more likely to do harm). Victor Yus (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I answered this somewhat in a discussion on my talk page so some of this is coming from there.


 * The primary issue here, in my mind, is that creating a corporate username shows a misconception and a misplaced motivation for editing. You can go through a spiel about COI with these people, and they may get it, but their reason for being here is still all wrong, even though they may learn how to avoid rule-breaking. I think the block + name change sends an important message: We don't want people coming here to help their businesses; if you decide to stay, it's because you want to do other things. It's also the simplest, if not the only, large-scale and long-term solution I can think of. I think we need to be thinking along those lines, since the incidence of this is ramping up.


 * Regarding the possible benefit of allowing them to keep the names, I don't think it's necessary to keep these people labeled so we can keep a close eye on them, and I don't think we should be be looking to foster that kind of environment. We've always been able to deal with COI issues without that benefit, and we've done it reasonably well.  Equazcion  ( talk )  16:26, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the more I hear of this kind of argument, the more I'm becoming convinced it's wrong. The "message" sent by the "block + name change" will not in fact be the one you want to send; it will be something like: "if you're coming here to help your business, then we want you to be as covert about it as you can". Pointless, and exactly the opposite of the message the COI guideline is trying to convey. Victor Yus (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Then let's block them permanently with no option to change their names (that's not an attempt at humor). If we're faced with either making them covert or keeping them labeled so we can scrutinize them, I choose option C. Alternatively, the block notice can be tweaked to remove any ambiguity, and the unblock process for these incidents could include stating to an admin's satisfaction that the user understands the purpose of a Wikipedia account, as well as what its purpose is not.  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:04, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * So in effect you would be punishing them for being open about their identity to start with, rather than acting covertly. Again, ultimately counterproductive and counter to the spirit of the COI guideline. Victor Yus (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Equazcion, are you aware that blocked users can't request name changes? Requests are made through Changing username/Simple, and you have to be able to edit the page to make the request.  "Block until changed" isn't technically feasible.
 * Also, I wonder how much you believe what you're saying. Would you block, whose username translates fairly specifically to "I'm here to add links to my favorite website"?  Do you believe that our 19th most active editor of all times is here for the wrong purpose? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone point me to a few examples of corporate CoI advocates behaving badly, please? I'm worried I don't have a good grasp of the scale of the problem they embody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To get some grasp of the scale, these would be a good place to start: . NTox · talk 06:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the existing policy. Apart from anything else, it can often be difficult to infer that a particular name is promotional, because many such names can have alternative meanings. For example, one assumes that User:Orangemike isn't here to advertise Orange, but, if all we had to go on was the name, an over-zealous admin might have decided otherwise when the name was first requested. I don't think we can be sure that a name is (or isn't) intended to be promotional until it is (or isn't) used promotionally. Anaxial (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of a organization-related name in a discussion on a COI article has a chilling effect on other edits, and encourages ownership. We are continually dealing here at at OTRS with editors from organizations who assume they have the right to control the content of their articles. We have a right and a responsibility from preventing editos from being intimidated. But it is rarely necessary to block in order to prevent this. A request and a explanation is sufficient 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, the problem has been demonstrated & I see no need of further warnings--a block is appropriate to prevent further damage. Not punitively because the usually are in good faith, but still don;t understand, but it still hass to be dealt with to permit NPOV editing. Now, OM ias trying himself in goof faith to prevent trouble, but he tends to make the unfortunate assumption that the editors will not change unless he forces them to. But experience shows he is not correct: if treated carefully, there are only a small number who need blocking.  DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors are sometimes upset to find out that the username policy on promotion is so weak. Having been involved in revising and simplifying the policy a while ago, I'll tell you that it's intentionally weak. It does everything it can to encourage you to use a different process so you can go prevent actual spamming, instead of looking at usernames and saying "hey, uh, it looks like you're about to spam, could you please do so under a less obvious name so we don't have to notice it?" So, much like DGG said, the point of the current policy is that when such people show up on UAA, the goal is to sort them out into the majority of confused people, who you can probably address with a gently-worded pointer to our policy on promotion, and the unapologetic spammers, who you can block not just under the username policy but under several more relevant policies. rspεεr (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be simpler to ban problematic edits? (As we already do) Banning promotional usernames seems a bit pointless. What is the loss in seeing that some user named SlimFast edited the article on SlimFast? Or if a user named BeansRGreat did it? If either of them started making problematic promotional edits, they would get in trouble. Just seems like a pointless policy. -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Not only is there no loss, but there is actually a gain in being able to see the declared identity of the party making any given edit. It should be encouraged if anything. Victor Yus (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hard blocks v. soft blocks
There is a key element of this RfC that I would really like to direct attention to — when should soft blocks be applied to promotional usernames, and when should hard blocks be applied to promotional usernames? We need to make this more specific in the username policy. We have some administrators who do not hard block these names unless there is persistent promotional editing, and we have others who hard block after single edits (sometimes, single sentences) of promotion, without warning. Current practice is inconsistent enough so that 'common sense' does not seem to be sufficient. To me, it seems natural that we should follow the accepted guidelines at Spam, and give these individuals level 1-4 warnings as appropriate, then hard block. Soft blocks, on the other hand, can be applied with any number of promotional edits. But hard blocks after single edits and sentences seem far too abrasive. Can we make this more specific? NTox · talk 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by hard and soft blocks? The definition at WP:BLOCK seems only to consider IP address blocks, which are presumably not relevant here. Victor Yus (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. For the purpose of this discussion (definitions vary), a hard block is any block in which the 'autoblock' and 'prevent account creation' functions are enabled, which are designed to block all editing and account creation on the underlying IP address of the user account that is being blocked. A soft block leaves the IP address unaffected. NTox · talk 17:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I always softerblock for promo names, unless they are hardcore spammers as well. Secretlondon (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Secretlondon: thanks for chiming in. Do you have any thoughts about rough standards that could be implemented into this policy about when hard blocks on promo. username accounts should and should not be placed? Obviously, we would want to leave room for some discretion, but as a general instruction would you be in favor of having it written here that such accounts should only be hard blocked if they have continued to edit promotionally after multiple warnings? NTox · talk 18:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that all blocks under this policy (except extreme cases of offensive usernames that show bad faith beyond reasonable doubt) would be soft. If someone deserves a hard block for hardcore promotional editing behaviour, then it would be primarily for some other reason than their username, and so would not be primarily under this policy. (Unless someone kept coming back to create different but still unacceptable usernames, I suppose, though I don't think that situation is mentioned here at the moment.) Victor Yus (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Victor: I agree with you, and that's how I believe things should be. Instead, the thinking of many administrators goes like this: promotional username + promotional edit = hard block. Now, my intention is not to suggest that such thinking is some blatant disregard for the wording of this policy (instructions remain rather vague), but I am of the mind that it certainly disregards the spirit of enwiki's idea of blocks, and the spirit that underlies WP:IU. This spirit indeed is to say that blocks should be final recourse solutions: that multiple attempts should be made to educate and warn those who are disruptive, to apply blocks only when it is necessary to prevent ongoing problems, and never to use blocks as a means of punishment. To hard block without any attempt to educate the wrongdoer first is to suffer from the assumption that the individual is incapable of competence, which does not seem to be appropriate. NTox · talk 21:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur with soft block logic, your not blocking the person (assuming good faith) you are preventing usage of an ID that does not meet standards that a new user is not expected to be aware of. Jeepday (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact it would probably be better to make them aware of the standards first, not block them (again, unless it's a particularly gross example). Only block them if they've been informed of the problem and still keep using the bad username. Then hard block them if they still keep coming back with equally bad usernames. (But as I've said a number of times already, I think we could easily drop our objections to several types of username.) Victor Yus (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeepday: you touch on a good point. As long as we agree that the consequence of a promotional username violation should be a new account (whether forced or not) or a rename, a hard block is consequently illogical, because the editor is not given the ability to create that account or do the rename. Any hard block that is placed on the account, then, must be for some other reason, in which blocks function as normal and apply to individuals, rather than accounts. Such blocks would thus fall under the purview of other policies and guidelines, like Spam. NTox · talk 18:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed with soft blocks. I usually soft block when the main problem is just the username, because this gives them a chance to change it. If the main problem is something over than the username- such as extreme promotional or disruptive behavior- a hard block may be more appropriate.--Slon02 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change
For the above reasons in favor of allowing an editor with a promotional username to create a new, appropriate account, I'd like to formally suggest the following change to ORGNAME. Don't worry too much about the exact wording, which can be tweaked, but I'd be happy to hear some thoughts. The proposed wording is in green:

"Users who both adopt such a username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be "soft" blocked. In such cases, these users should be given the opportunity to create a new account. Therefore, administrators should not enable the "autoblock" or "prevent account creation" features on the block unless the user is eligible for those sanctions under some other policy or guideline."
 * (Attempting a rewrite below, to make this more clear)
 * NTox · talk 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this isn't getting a bit illogical now. By definition, the blocked user has been engaged in inappropriately promotinoal behaviors, so is in fact being blocked under "some other policy or guideline". The problem would not be solved by the creation of a new username; it would be solved by the stopping of the promotional behavior. I think the policy probably ought to say something like "if someone resolutely refuses to change their promotional username then they can ultimately be blocked even if they are not engaging in inappropriate promotional behavior, and in that case the block should be soft rather than hard." Otherwise the ban on promotional usernames has no practical effect whatever. (As you will know by now, I'd be quite happy to drop that ban, but since people seem to want to keep it, it needs to be formulated in some kind of logical way.) Victor Yus (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * However, the user is not in fact being blocked for violating some other policy or guideline. He/she is being blocked because of the very specific combination of both behavioral and username problems as it is prescribed in this policy. To emphasize that, is essentially the purpose of this proposal: that a block on an account with just one promotional edit would be highly inappropriate in any other case. There just happens to be this one exception, when the edit is combined with a promotional username, and as such it should be imposed lightly (not hard). As you mentioned, it is indeed worth asking if the idea of blocking for this behavior + username combination is ideal (and I have thought for some time that what you suggest would probably be better), but for the moment I have gone ahead with the existing consensus and instead focused on trying to fix what I believe to be the bigger monster: the hard block issue. NTox · talk 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, ah, maybe this isn't what it's supposed to say at all. Looking at the previous version, it might be that the sentences in question were supposed to refer to usernames of the Mike-at-Widgets type, not to all promotional names. So now we know (from the above RfC), and say, that the Mike-at-Widgets type names are perfectly OK (and don't even require a gentle suggestion to change), we can probably simply delete the paragraphs in question. Handling of problematic usernames is dealt with comprehensively in another section. Victor Yus (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentences about blocks on promotional usernames were added before the bit about the 'Mike-at-Widgets' type was added. In their original formulation, the intent was to describe all promotional usernames - the 'Mike-at-Widgets' stuff was added later. (As you no doubt know, the wiki process often creates these little inconsistencies). NTox · talk 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So is it in fact the case that if someone has what we call a "promotional" username (e.g. the name of a company, a URL, an e-mail address - not sure why that one's classed as promotional, but never mind) but doesn't edit in a promotional way, then they will not at any stage be forced (by means of a block) to change the username? Victor Yus (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Victor. Just happened to log in right after you posted this. The answer to your question is ultimately no; they will be forced to stop using it eventually - as a matter of fact, in the manner you mentioned a few posts above. (They will be warned to change the name and be blocked if they don't listen). However, such cases are rare - the reason, I imagine, because if the user is editing constructively, he/she is usually smart enough to know they should change the name after they are told. NTox · talk 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we should try to collect up all the rather scattered information about when to Block, and put it all together logically into one section (the one I've just renamed "Blocking of inappropriate usernames"). Victor Yus (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I see Avanu has just reverted that change; I hope he will explain, since I don't see anything in there that's likely to encourage admins to block, and this is certainly an important issue that needs to be addressed clearly to avoid misunderstandings all round. Perhaps, though, we could instead first draft the wording of the section, and then put it in place. Victor Yus (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I think that there needs to be an understanding on the difference between soft blocks and hard blocks. The purpose of a soft block is to prevent a username from being used further, and to give a user the change to change it. The purpose of a hard block is to prevent further disruptive actions to Wikipedia. That's why, when deciding which block to use, an administrator has to use discretion to determine why he is making the block. If the primary reason for the block is the username, then a soft block is appropriate. If, however, the primary reason for the block is continuously promotional behavior- which is disruptive to Wikipedia- then a hard block would be more appropriate. This is fitting with our prevention-focused blocking policy.--Slon02 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Slon: Thank you for offering your thoughts. As a matter of fact, I agree with everything you have written. I had to re-read this section twice to understand why you indicated that you disagree, and then it hit me that the proposed text is not as clear as it should be. The bottom line, as you implied, is that administrators should not be hard blocking unless promotional behavior warrants it. Promotional usernames by themselves are not disruptive enough to require autoblocks and the prevention of account creation. As you know, such sanctions cannot be applied to spammers under the relevant spamming guidelines unless the behavior is persistent, and the spammer has been warned multiple times. The point is that this practice does not currently happen when the spammer has a promotional username. Instead, the guidelines are often cast aside and it's: one edit, immediate hard block. It's the effort to make this stop, and have administrators follow the behavioral blocking guidelines that this proposal aims to achieve. I'd like to work out a better wording of the text. How does this work?

Proposed change - revised

 * (The following aims to encourage administrators to consider behavioral evidence before applying promotional username blocks, to ensure that hard blocks do not continue to be applied after single wikipedia sandbox edits, etc. Please see the fuller reasons and examples below.)
 * Original

""Only users who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.""


 * Proposed

""A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. However, administrators should not enable the "autoblock" or "prevent account creation" features unless the user has been warned for persistently promotional behavior, as it is advised in the guidelines for warning spammers.""


 * NTox · talk 03:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines for warning spammers are mentioned in this proposal, to remind us that there is a distinction between promotional behavior and a promotional username. This is something that needs to be kept in mind. Promotional behavior is what causes the real disruption, and it is accordingly what requires the hard blocks. Please remember that this does not require a strict level one, level two, level three, level four warning approach. By all means, if you find a promotional username that has engaged in hard-core spam, warn them once, then hard block. It's all about the behavior, as the linked guidelines suggest. NTox · talk 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For those who like concrete examples: here are cases in which it has been deemed necessary to block IP disruption by way of a hard block, despite insufficient behavioral evidence:     . This proposal aims to convert these hard blocks into soft blocks, because these editors have not yet demonstrated that they are categorically disruptive and need their IPs blocked. Consider taking a look at the block actions of Daniel Case  for examples that better distinguish between those who have demonstrated a need to be blocked from their IP and those who haven't. NTox · talk 00:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @NTox: Maybe I'm stupid, but I do handle relative many UPol cases through AFC and ACC and thus now the relevant policies. What is the difference in your proposal now to the actual policies? mabdul 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, mabdul. Good to see you in here. There's been a lot of text in this RfC, so I can summarize. Essentially, the existing policy says that promotional usernames should be blocked when they are combined with promotional edits. I am not currently seeking to change that. What I am proposing is simply to specify that promotional usernames should not be hard blocked unless the editor has been persistent with promotional edits, despite multiple warnings. This would ensure that things shift back to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spam, which requires persistence and warnings as I have described it. Also see the requirements for blocking spammers at AIV. This proposal would not affect how you currently handle these names at ACC, AFC, etc., since I am not suggesting any change to how they are reported. They would still be okay to (soft) block if they have not been persistent/warned. Administrators would simply be encouraged to differentiate more closely between hard and soft, with the spam guidelines in mind. NTox · talk 17:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although it might have been better to have presented examples of unnecessary hard blocks from more than one admin, I'm fine with the wording of this proposal. And it's a good point that would be good for people to remember- a person doesn't need 4 warnings to be blocked. We're here to minimize disruption, not entangle ourselves in bureaucracy.--Slon02 (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Almost, but not quite" is my feeling on this rewording. That is to say, I agree with the sentiment - hardblocks are often being used where softblocks should do, especially in cases of username-violations-but-not-really-promotional-edits. However, it's not at all uncommon to find someone editing with an orgname, making promotional edits, and to (hard)block them without further warning as a spammer/username if they persist in doing so. I disagree with the implication that we should be unable to do this unless the user has a full slate of warnings first. I would support a wording that said "However, administrators should not enable the 'autoblock' or 'prevent account creation' features unless the user is engaging in persistently promotional behavior", but I can't support the current wording. The word "persistently" is all that's needed here - if they're being persistently promotional, they're promoting in defiance of some sort of negative feedback, be it a revert with edit summary, a templated warning, or a personalized note on their talk. We don't need to legislate exactly how much warning must be given before we can hardblock someone who's clearly just here to advertise. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think you have a good point in that a full chunk of warnings should not always be necessary for promo-name hard blocks. Something along the lines of your suggested text was something I initially considered. My concern however is that it is a very likely reality that if we add "unless the user is engaging in persistently promotional behavior" there are individuals who will game the intent the principle. I am almost certain that "persistently" will quickly become 'two edits' for some sysops, and 'promotional' will become any edit that has any remote relation to the company or what-have-you. In effect, two neutral factual corrections from a promo-username is going to get a hard block, which wouldn't really solve this problem. As mentioned, I think linking to the WP:SPAM guideline is very important, not only to remind us what is and is not spam but also to emphasize the behavioral aspect of the problem, which is often ignored. My hope is that this still might be included - but perhaps we can better emphasize that WP:SPAM is a rough guideline and a good deal of discretion can be taken with when the username is promotional? NTox · talk 22:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually tried to address this issue several months ago, see Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention. I guess I was in the wrong place, it hardly attracted any comment. We shouldn't have any kind of bright line rule, Fluffernutter expresssed that nicely, but we should encourage admins to consider softblocking in cases where the spamming has not been a recurring problem. I actually had a discussion at Wikimania with Danile Case, one of the most active long term admins at UAA, on this exact subject. Both of us starting using this approach and found that it seemed to solve the problem in the vast majority of cases. Again I don't think we need  go very far with codifying it, just have the policy advise admons to consider it the preferred option for non-persistent spammers. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

""A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. However, administrators should not enable the "autoblock" or "prevent account creation" features unless it is clear that the user would not be able to edit constructively from another account.""
 * Another option, if there is a consensus that the proposed wording is too stringent, is the following. I would however be interested in hearing other versions that might still be better, which would work towards solving the problem in question without being too legalistic.

That's probably a bit wordy and awkward, but what I think we want to capture here is the idea that hardblocks are for when the username is only a symptom, not the meat of the problem (and therefore fixing the username won't fix the problem), while softblocks are for when the username pretty much is the problem. Now, obviously, this won't really catch the people who feel strongly that even a user from Company X updating a URL in Company X is a massive COI problem deserving of a hardblock, but perhaps it will provide some judgment nuance to people who are trying to figure out exactly where that line is? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) PS: I've really got to try to get the hang of this deal - so helpful to see, and yet so confusing to use!
 * NTox · talk 19:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is just another point on the same continuum of where we disagreed on the last wording, but I would support your new wording if it said "...unless it is clear that the user would not edit constructively from another account". Even the world's biggest vandal can edit constructively. The disruption comes from the fact that they choose not to. So it's not a matter of whether an orgname editor "can" edit constructively with a new account; it's a matter of "if we let them go off and create a new account, is the mere switching of accounts going to address the problems this editor has had?" If it will address them - if it's mostly the username, and the edits otherwise would be within acceptable range - then leave off the hardblock. If it won't address them - if user:MyCompanyRocks will start using user:JoeSchmoe, but continue to use the JoeSchmoe account to add "MyCompany kicks ass!" to articles - then there's no use softblocking and letting them continue that mess with a new account. And again, this calls for some judgment on the part of the admin about whether their editing issues will resolve with a name change, but I think as much as you may want to, you can't get away from the fact that yeah, admins are chosen at least in part because it's felt that we can judge things like this. If some admins are off making crazypants blocks of orgname editors where the name is the only issue, the way to deal with that is to RfC/U the admins or something, not to make a guideline that's intended to remove the capacity for judgment by admins. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Should have been more clear on the wording: your argument about 'can' and 'cannot' is a semantic misunderstanding, which is my fault. The 'would not be able' bit was not meant to be a significant point here - just a misguided choice of supporting words. I agree with you there and support your suggested change. Moreover, your point about 'will the switching of accounts address the problem, in which the edits would be within acceptable range' (paraphrased) is also something I agree with, which I would have hoped was clear. Another thing I should mention: I do not believe I am close to suggesting any type of bright line rule; in fact I believe that the text I am proposing is really quite general and principled when you take a look at. This edit from many days ago verifies that it is my intention to allow a whole lot of administrator discretion with any change of wording: . I don't want to make this legalistic. Here's the thing, really: administrators, yes, are trusted to make judgement calls like and are accorded that right in an RfA discussion. I don't think I am even close to trying to 'remove the capacity for judgement by admins'. In fact, I believe that almost all administrators make appropriate actions at UAA. What I am trying to do is bring general clarity to an issue that is currently vague. The opinions that the both of us and others share on this issue (that hard blocks should only be applied if it addresses an editing issue) is in fact not something that appears to be common sense to good deal of people. I think you are assuming that this is indeed a common sense understanding that has a kind of broad understanding. I think you will in fact find however that username issues are widely fuzzy to the majority of this community; I can guarantee you if I were to open an RFC/U to complain about an administrator who was applying hard blocks to promo-names inappropriately, there would be no consensus to admonish the administrator because it would be deemed unclear that doing so is inappropriate. When it comes down to it, what I am really trying to do here is introduce the community to the general idea that it is indeed inappropriate to apply hard blocks to promo-names if the 'hard' features are not seeking to address an editing problem. There are (inappropriate) blocks like this that have actually been brought up at AN/I, and in every case that I have seen, the thread has been closed with the conclusion that 'it is not clear that the administrator did anything wrong'. So, again: I'm not trying to restrict judgement. I'm trying to say that this is something that should be considered when you make a judgement. I hope this is more clear, as I feel I have been misunderstood. Thank you so much for commenting so far. It's really appreciated. NTox · talk 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, ok, I think we're actually on the same page here other than the haggling over wording. The issue (which I definitely agree with you is an issue) is the use of hardblocks against editors who, absent an indicative username, would have had few or no complaints about their edits. So we do want policy to say something about this issue, somehow. I think in real-world practice, it's a pipe dream to think that would stop everyone from making that sort of poor judgment call every time, but it certainly can't hurt to try to be clearer about it to try to catch most of the people most of the time. So let's try for a sentence that actually describes what behavior the "admin judgment" we're making should be based on. We could combine part of your wording and part of my wording and come up with something like: ""A user who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. However, administrators should not enable the "autoblock" or "prevent account creation" features unless there is evidence that the changing of an account's name will not resolve the problem with their edits.""
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I think we are on the same page, which is good news. Too bad that the wording is tough to come up with. I am okay with the gist of this new suggestion. As you mentioned, the only thing that might be fixed is some potential awkwardness, but I think the spirit is there. I'll try to come up with another draft or two a bit later tonight that might make it even stronger. NTox · talk 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In light of the whole of this discussion, I've made some changes that I hope address the concerns expressed. It's certainly some pesky text, in which we all seem to be of the same mind but cannot write it down just right. I'm crossing my fingers that we can achieve some consensus for this one. It's a bit different than your latest suggestion, Fluffernutter (which was hard to tweak in a way that 'sticked'), but I wonder what your thoughts are: ""A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account.""


 * NTox · talk 02:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How is an admin supposed to know what future actions an editor will take? This sort of rule is a bad idea. The idea that Conflict of Interest problems are resolved just because we don't see the COI upfront is silly. Edits are either good or they are bad. A company rep is not obligated to leave information out of a Wikipedia article just because it is positive, nor are they required to avoid fixing a bad bit of an article. We don't need to know whether the person is a part of a company to see if the edits are good or bad. We require Verifiability and Neutral Tone (NPOV) edits. If the edits are not in line with this standard, we remove them. If the editor doesn't edit well, we penalize them. This proposal is really focusing on the wrong aspect. Focus the same standard as any other editor and we will do fine. -- Avanu (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu: are you saying that you do not like the proposal because you think the very idea of blocks on promotional usernames is inappropriate? If so, that is of course a welcome opinion but I would think that it is beyond the scope of this discussion. You are talking about a very different issue that would involve a different set of issues and analysis. You could indeed suggest such a change (and I invite you to if you want to), but the issue here is: how can we strengthen an issue that currently enjoys a strong consensus? The prohibition of promo-names (whether that is good or bad) does indeed have a lot of support, and for reasons beyond simply identifying a COI. Despite this, I think you would be happy to learn that this very proposal is primarily motivated by the effort to avoid biting good editors. So there is some common ground there. NTox · talk 04:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing what is inadaquate about the current wording, especially when you take it in full:


 * ""Only users who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.""


 * It seems to address everything you've been discussing. (Don't bite the newbies, don't punish more than is necessary, etc.) The only unclear point is the level of the block, and you could address that by saying "are usually at least soft blocked, although some cases may require more than this ." -- Avanu (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The level of the block is exactly the issue that is being discussed here. As I have said in many posts above, the community does not currently understand when soft blocks should be applied on promo-names, and when hard blocks should be applied on them. While there is an understanding that hard and soft are different - and it seems that you agree with that - it is what that difference depends on, which is the fuzziness that needs to be addressed. What Fluffernutter nicely stated above is that hard blocks depend on the editing being the meat of the problem, while soft blocks depend on the username being the meat of the problem. Thus, what is inadequate about the current wording is that because of the lack of clarity about the level of blocks, there are editors who are being bitten with IP (hard) blocks when the meat of their problem is only their username. NTox · talk 04:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the user has a username that is somehow offensive in its own right, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they should be left alone, not blocked at all. If I have WidgetCoMarketing as my username, and I make edits to the article 'Widget Company Werks', if the edits are well-sourced and in line with policy and guidelines, I should be left alone. The idea that we push this under the proverbial rug does nothing to solve anything. I personally would change the policy to say "are first warned, and for subsequent problems are soft blocked, unless it is shown that more aggressive discipline is needed." I would say that most every situation would be properly covered by such wording, and if we truly want to not bite our newbies, that would include companies, artists, inventors, etc who simply want Wikipedia to represent them fairly. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What if what they represent is nowhere near notable or, alternatively, determined not to be notable? It's common knowledge in every PR rep's guide that Wikipedia exposure will give them instant Internet regognition. Not to mention, we would also need to allow every and all shared accounts, as WP:ROLE and WP:NOSHARE would be utterly worthless (as would most of the sock puppetry policy in my opinion). --MuZemike 05:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Without upsetting the apple cart too much here, as long as accounts are editing in a positive fashion, in a pragmatic sense, why would we waste time debating their existence? (By positive, I mean they must follow NPOV, Verifiability, and must not canvas or otherwise skew votes via socking or meatpuppetry.) But that's the heart of all of this, isn't it? Good deeds shouldn't get bad treatment. I'm not trying to say that most PR guys will follow best Wiki-practices. Heck, I would say 90% of them will run afoul of this their first time out because they spend most of their day writing biased press releases and promotional materials. But however we engage them, we should try very hard not to shun earnest efforts at improving the encyclopedia. By all means, these PR people will have information and resources that perhaps the average joe simply won't. So, I'm not trying to debate whether these types of accounts need special attention. It is beyond obvious that they will need it. But what isn't so obvious is how we train, educate, and develop these new editors to contribute positively, not only to the articles that directly interest them, but also the entire rest of the encyclopedia. I'd say blocking them on sight for a minor, unintentional infraction is misguided, and only serves to hide the problem. -- Avanu (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu: while I do see your point and I appreciate it, I still am not sure it can (respectfully) carry much weight here. To me, it is a bit like someone saying that a change should not be made to WP:UNDUE because the entire notion of a neutral point of view is misguided. Whether it is liked or not, there is an existing, widespread consensus for the blocking of promotional usernames, and I think you would have to open a separate RfC to challenge that. Many such folks do believe (again, whether good or bad) that the creation and use of promo-names is bad/disruptive, and requires preventive action. This proposal for ORGNAME has been presented through the lens of this separate, existing agreement. NTox · talk 05:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ntox, there is no consensus to block promotional usernames. The current policy does not say "Block promotional usernames on sight". The policy requires *bad* edits to accompany any punitive or 'preventative' action. To say anything else is to entirely misrepresent the consensus that we currently have. I am only giving my personal opinion on the level of the punitive/preventative action, which in my book shouldn't be a block, hard or soft, but something less, unless there is proof that a block is needed. After all, our policy states that a block is not supposed to be punative (although they often are), but are in fact supposed to *prevent* damage to the encyclopedia. If we're suggesting that we should block people who have done no actual damage, we're going against the very black and white consensus of why we issue blocks in the first place. -- Avanu (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't stop feeling that all this confusion and discussion is being generated because what we are doing here is fundamentally illogical. Promotional behaviors are harmful; promotional usernames are harmless (and are even helpful, because they disclose the user's affiliation and bias). It makes no sense at all to compel someone to change a promotional username in order that they can continue to edit in a promotional fashion. Nor does it make much sense to compel someone to change a username implying shared use, so that the account can continue to be used (for all we know) in a shared fashion under a different name. Also we need to recognize that promotion and sharing are two separate issues (assuming they are felt to be issues), and that someone using a company name as username is committing both of these sins (so any leniency we apply with respect to promotional names also needs to be applied with respect to apparently shared ones). The whole thing is just a product of muddled thinking on a large scale. (And what does it matter if people want to share their accounts anyway?) Victor Yus (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The creation of a username is a behaviour. So is signing your posts. User:Buy a Ford Today is problematic whether they have made an edit or not: every time they sign a post, it's promoting an entity.  So is User:Vote for Bob Smith.  dangerous  panda  11:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If that would be the case, then why on earth does this page make a distinction between creation of a username and inappropriate behavior? "Only users who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked." According to you, that's obviously false. That, or admins are blatantly ignoring policy. Which one is it? --Conti|✉ 11:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to show is that instruction creep can be dangerous. Trying to make something black-and-white can be problematic.  Guidance can be provided to admins, but common sense still needs to prevail  dangerous  panda  11:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, of course, but in this case the policy directly contradicts your "common sense". Just think of a newbie, reading this policy. He'll see that his name might be borderline inappropriate, but thinks that he'll be on the safe side as long as he makes perfectly acceptable edits. Because that's exactly what the policy says. And then an admin comes along, blocks him and (if asked) tells him that the creation of his account already was "inappropriate behavoir", Nyah Nyah! I'm sorry, but this is simply unacceptable to me. We cannot explicitly allow something per policy and then block people for it anyhow. Either people need to stop blocking for this, or the policy needs to be changed. This is a prime example of WP:BITE and why we're having such a hard time getting new editors. (And I'm not trying to blame you personally for all this, I'm just frustrated by the obvious discrepancy between the policy and what some admins do in practice). --Conti|✉ 12:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this actually happening? This seems rather worrying and a matter that needs to be addressed with the admins that are doing it - one thing I thought was made fairly clear in the policy and all the other instructions was that a promotional username is not in itself a reason for an immediate block. Surely no real admin is twisting the meaning of "behavior" to include creating an account under a given name, which the context makes clear to any reasonable person is exactly what it's not supposed to include? Victor Yus (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get this distinction. If my user name is User:Microsoft Windows 7, aren't I promoting Windows 7 every time I edit, even if I never edit a Microsoft or Windows 7 page? What is the need to allow promotional names to begin with? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer one of your questions: if it's User:Microsoft Windows 7, that would be clear violation of this policy (forget for now about whether or not it's blockable), because it is unambiguously representative of a product (at least beyond a reasonable doubt). Now, if the name was only User:Windows 7, that would be ambiguously inappropriate (it could be referring to windows) and therefore could not be labeled as a violation until evidence comes in (usually via edits) that the name is representative of Microsoft's product. NTox · talk 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once the violation is identified in this manner, the extent to which it is promotional is not really defined by consensus. i.e., it has not really been discussed as far as I know whether or not the name becomes more promotional if it edits in articles about Microsoft, and if it is less promotional when it edits about bunnies. All that's really said is that 'it is promotional' and that's about it. I interpret that as meaning it is promotional everywhere, even though I have my own opinion it becomes more promotional in the right contexts. Administrators have different thoughts about this as well . . some have a broad perspective like this, but I know of one in particular who would probably say that using a promotional username outside of the topic area is just fine. Personally, I would say that is not correct, from a consensus and personal point of view. NTox · talk 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Back on track
I've decided to be bold and create a new sub-section of this discussion to get things back on track. No prejudice to continuing these other conversations about promotional usernames elsewhere (and I would invite people to do so), but it seems that this discussion has become too broad. As it stands, we're looking for a short statement in WP:U that will help administrators decide whether to hard or soft block a promotional username. Given certain circumstances, there is currently consensus for administrators to do so. The point is in offering some general guidance for administrators in making the hard/soft decision, while avoiding instruction creep. Here is the current suggested version; comments are welcome. NTox · talk 17:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC) ""A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account.""


 * What kind of evidence would we be looking for? My knowledge of human nature may be deficient, but personally I would never expect a forced change of username to change someone's behavior (except in as much as it's a warning shot, to let them know we're serious about stopping their disruption - but for that purpose a strongly worded "this is your final warning" would probably be more to the point and less bureaucratically onerous). Victor Yus (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This text says nothing about using a forced change of username to change someone's behavior. It is about looking at an editor's username, then looking at the editor's behavior, and deciding whether a soft block or hard block is more appropriate. If the user has done such things as edited promotionally, been persistent about it, and ignored warnings about it, it is usually indicative of a pattern that can be used as evidence that the problem will continue. In such cases, a hard block may be best at that time for Wikipedia. If there is no such evidence, a soft block may be best for Wikipedia. NTox · talk 02:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The policy consensus is clear that we block "bad actors". This is evident from both the Username policy as it stands now, and the Blocking policy itself. I'm not sure why admins need additional guidance on when to hard or soft block when there is a good bit of advice available at BLOCK and BLOCK. If an admin isn't sure about which block is appropriate, they either shouldn't issue the block, or they should ask for advice directly from another admin, or take it to WP:UAA like anyone else. -- Avanu (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, what you have failed to realize is that username blocks are not the same as other types of blocks. You are taking your knowledge of blocks as they are applied at places like AIV and AN/I and trying to apply them here. At those places, yes, people are not blocked unless they have edited disruptively. Here, that is not always the case, and for good reason. What if somebody worked for World Monuments Fund, and they somehow created a username called 'Daniel (WMF)'. All they wanted to do was create a good faith account so that they could add facts to the World Monuments Fund page! Daniel is not a bad actor, but his account, yes, must be politely blocked because it makes him look like he works for the Wikimedia Foundation. Whether you like it or not, there is a such thing as bad names from people who are good editors. Maybe it will help you to think of username blocks as the IAR of blocks, in which not all of the regular blocking !rules apply. It is just not possible. That is the reason why we need additional guidance. Because username blocks are not like any other kind of block. They are a special case, so the blocking policy, while widely helpful, is not sufficient to offer complete advice. NTox · talk 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While you are entitled to your opinion, as the cliché goes, I remain perplexed as to why you do not want to make a (general, remember) distinction between soft and hard. The lack of clarity is currently giving administrators free reign to make hard blocks like this: , which, because it is a username block, does not make it a clear violation of the blocking policy. And even if you think it is clearly a violation of the blocking policy, clearly many administrators and users do not. Blocks like these are happening (literally) by the dozens every week, and the reason is because this policy is too vague in its guidance. Blocks like these will continue to happen every day unless we make a change. What I would suggest is: even if you don't like promo-name blocks at all, they are not going away any time soon, so wouldn't it be better to make the problem at least (temporarily, if anything) better by supporting a proposal that encourages soft blocks when it is more appropriate? NTox · talk 04:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the debate is over the level of protection needed, why is a lack of a block off the table for discussion here? It seems that no one should be summarily blocked without at first trying to warn, etc. You're making the assumption that this isn't going to change, but if it isn't even considered, why would it change? Orangemike is one of the few administrators who seem to have a vigilant watch on such usernames, and he has shown a willingness to adapt to new standards. I think it is worth discussing a reasonable change if we can show that it will serve the best interests of the encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess if inappropriate blocks are being placed, then it's less bad if they happen to be soft blocks than hard blocks, but if admins are ignoring the policy anyway, then we're not going to solve the problem by rewording the policy somehow. The situation is so illogical that it's hard to think rationally about it. If people are being blocked for gross or incorrigible editing behaviour of a certain sort, then we shouldn't be giving the impression that the problem is wholly or partly to do with their poor choice of username - this policy should not be concerning itself with such cases at all. This policy should deal only with cases where blocks are placed primarily on the grounds of the username itself (essentially when it's misleading or offensive), and in those cases I would distinguish four levels of action: (1) slight but tolerable violation of the rules - can mention it to the user but don't block; (2) more specific violation - block only after unsuccessful attempts to persuade user to change name; (3) intolerable violation - soft block; (4) name indicating obviously bad-faith attitude like User:DeathtoN****rsandJ*ws - hard block. Victor Yus (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The response I would offer to both of you is: if you don't like the concept of restricting promotional usernames, please start a separate RfC about that. I am not trying to throw away that idea. By all means, start a thread, advertise it, and try to persuade people that promo-names are just fine. That's okay by me. But don't try to make that argument in this discussion. Right now, your opinions put you in the minority. If we are going to come to an agreement here, we need opinions to be offered through the lens of existing Wikipedia policy. See Determining Consensus for more on that. Since the idea of promotional usernames as a category of inappropriate usernames is not the topic of discussion here, you either have to respect the existing consensus or try to change that in a different place. Otherwise we can make no progress here. Thanks for reading. NTox · talk 07:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure there is clear consensus about restricting promotional usernames. Admins may do largely what they like, of course, but what this policy has always said is that we don't block people just for using promotional usernames. And in the situation you want us to consider, where the promotional username is an exacerbating factor in a case of excessively promotional editing behavior, I'd still like you to explain what "evidence" you might expect to show that making the user change his name will (or will not) lead to a change in the inappropriate behaviour. Victor Yus (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NTox, you can read it in the policy right now that promotional usernames are listed in a section called "inappropriate usernames", however, there is no consensus in this policy on what action *must* be taken in response to such a username. It is highly discretionary. In addition, many of these are highly subjective. You're wanting to firm up a policy point that is already in a very muddled territory. My point in previous posts about simply making a differentiation between "good actors" and "bad actors" seems like a very workable and easy to understand approach. The current setup is always going to be something that is subject to massive administrator subjectivity. People that are following the core policies of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View and are behaving in a civil manner have no real cause under any policy to get a block. You can argue this all day, but its sort of like someone trying to argue that a law overrides the US Constitution. There may be a very compelling argument made, but it simply doesn't hold up. The reason we block someone for having an inappropriate username is completely related back to these core policy pillars. If their username is "FuckThePedia", we would block them for an uncivil/disruptive username. If it is "FresnoWidgetCo" and they fill articles with puffery about how "innovative and awesome" Frensno Widget Company is, then we warn or block them for NPOV violations. We make things overcomplicated if we forget what the core policies are and start micromanaging things. How about we step back and look at *why* this username policy exists and creating wording that simply lines up with our core pillars? Civility, Neutrality, Verifiability. -- Avanu (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Change to Confusing usernames section
Re this, my reasoning is that in nearly all the cases covered by the "above categories", an immediate block is not the appropriate response anyway. So saying that these "confusing" names don't warrant an immediate block is not to distinguish them from the prohibited names that have gone before. I believe what must be meant is that, unlike the foregoing types, these confusing names (on their own, without accompanying disruption) don't warrant any action at all. Unless you think that they do warrant some action, in which case we should say what. Victor Yus (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I redid the change, since noone's disputing this explanation as yet. Victor Yus (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, well I dispute your change. There's a very large change in meaning when you change "doesn't require an immediate block" to "doesn't require any action". By using the latter, you're saying that not only we should not block for these usernames, but that "actions" such as talking to the user, asking them to change their name, asking them to explain their name, etc also aren't called for. As far as I know, that's not the case - we may not immediately block these usernames, but they do usually call for "action", whether that be blocking, questioning, or keeping an eye on them. Which is why the policy specifies "block", rather than try to prohibit us from taking any action at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point, but isn't that true of all the other kinds of usernames that are listed as inappropriate? Only the extreme cases are immediately blockable. I guess my point is that by saying that these confusing usernames "may not be immediately blockable", we are rather implying that we think that all the foregoing types of username are immediately blockable. And according to apocryphral evidence presented in some of the above threads, it seems that this kind of misunderstanding (found even among admins) is indeed a real problem. Victor Yus (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Hard/soft blocks of promotional usernames
The username policy does not allow promotional usernames. Administrators are currently advised to let these names be abandoned or block them if the user has begun to edit promotionally. For blocks, should WP:ORGNAME offer general guidance about whether to hard or soft block these names, with the following text?


 * Old: ""Only users who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.""


 * New: ""A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account.""

NTox · talk 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What I like about the new text is that it distinguishes between a name and a user's behavior. What we should be looking for is the real core of the problem - if the user has a promo-name but is also pushing a hardcore POV in an article, yeah, it's probably best that we hard block that account to prevent further disruption. But sometimes it's really just a mistaken username that is the real core of the problem - despite a mistake or two, the user may otherwise be a great editor. We don't want to take away their ability to edit completely - instead, have them create a new username. All in all, there's a lot of administrator discretion here, as this is merely a little guidance that gives admins a general sense of what to do with a promo-name if they are unsure. And it might avoid some unnecessary hard blocks, which will take a load off the admins who deal with unblock requests, and be a bit less bitey to newbies who really want to help. NTox · talk 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained what form such "evidence" might take. Nor can I really see how a mistaken username can be the core of any problem. If someone's editing promotionally, then that has to be the core of the problem; it really makes no difference to Wikipedia what username it's done under (unless the username is misleading or offensive to other editors, which is a different issue). Victor Yus (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Victor. You probably missed my explanation by accident; see this edit: . If the user has been blatantly promotional, persistent about it, and ignored warnings about it, that's usually regarded as evidence that the issue will continue. That's how blocks work - you apply a block if you think a disruptive pattern will continue. And, as I've said previously, remember that despite your disagreement, a promotional username is a problem simply because there is a current consensus that it is a problem. NTox · talk 20:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, this text doesn't really solve anything. In fact, it really just overcomplicates it. Just change "usually" to "may" and you'll get the same result without all the fuss. You keep monkeying around with the severity of the block and claim it isn't related to the severity of the 'punishment'. If you think policy can be tweaked with regard to the type of punishment for this behavior, then why do you summarily consider lesser punishment to be off the table? -- Avanu (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For anyone who might be curious: there was some preliminary discussion we had about this issue above this thread. Victor and Avanu have opposed the idea because they believe the restriction of promotional usernames should be abolished completely. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this point). I have responded by saying that whether that opinion is valid or not, it cannot carry much weight here because this proposal has been submitted through the lens of the consensus as it stands, which is to say that promotional usernames are inappropriate and can, under certain circumstances, be blocked. I enthusiastically invite Victor and Avanu to start a separate discussion about their opinion so that the idea can stay on the table. And I want to clarify Avanu's statement: I have said absolutely nothing about the concept of 'punishment' as he describes, except to say that it is irrelevant . Thanks for reading. NTox · talk 22:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've read what I've been saying this entire time, Ntox. I never ever once said "the restriction of promotional usernames should be abolished completely". Never. Ever. Ever. If anything I am simply saying we should deal *appropriately* with such things, not in a way that makes things worse. You continue to miss what we are saying because you see it as a black and white issue. Let me also add, I completely agree with your statement of "To hard block without any attempt to educate the wrongdoer first is to suffer from the assumption that the individual is incapable of competence, which does not seem to be appropriate." -- Avanu (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to your talk page. NTox · talk 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support new wording. We have run into problems with people being unable to distinguish when to use hard and softblocks on username-related issues; it will be helpful to have this extra detail. No downside to making people consider whether the behavior would continue under a new name, before they block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But can you give an example of a situation where you think we would have reason to suppose that the behavior would not continue under a new name (but would continue under the old name)? It's not that I have any great opposition to this proposal, I just can't for the life of me see why anyone would think that making someone change their username would in itself change they way they edit ("ah, I see I'm now called PrettyFlowers instead of AcmeFlowersInc, so I no longer feel the urge to write crypto-ads for my company into Wikipedia" - doesn't seem a likely train of thought). Victor Yus (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, though I have not collected data (I suppose I could), genuine advertisers are lazy, while potential contributors are willing to jump through reasonable hoops (if you can't be bothered to create a non-promotional username, which takes all of two minutes, you almost certainly can't be bothered to learn about Wikipedia enough to constructively contribute). Putting up a barrier, like asking them to create a new username, doesn't change their behavior as much as discourage it entirely. It also sends the message that we are serious about not having their advertisements here. Anyone capable of causing sustained, fly-under-the-radar damage as opposed to the merely obnoxious and overt crap dealt with here wouldn't usually be dumb enough to give themselves a promotional name anyway. Danger! High voltage! 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the first reasonable attempt I've heard to explain the thinking behind this policy. I still don't quite find myself convinced, though - I tend to think that Wikipedia should, as a matter of principle, try to be honest with people. We shouldn't tell them "your username is a problem; change it" if what we really mean is "your behavior is a problem, so we're setting you the task of changing your usename as a diagnostic test to help find out if you're the type of person who might be willing to reform their behavior". I would rather say straightforwardly "your behavior is a problem, stop it now or we'll have to block you". Victor Yus (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just responding to your question about why forcing a change of username changes (generally) promotional behavior. The fact that people who are in fact spammers aren't likely to follow the instructions is not the reason for a soft block on a promotional name, just a handy side effect. Also, the templates used to warn users against promotional usernames and the softer block template simultaneously cover inappropriate COI-type behavior, so I don't think that soft blocking is dishonest; as I've said above somewhere, my personal protocol is not to soft block unless the user continues editing after being warned that their name is against policy. Danger! High voltage! 11:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's not their name that's the problem. We should be telling them that it's their behavior that's against policy, and making it clear when blocking them or threatening to block them that what needs to change in order for them to be allowed to continue editing is their behavior. Anything that implies that they're being blocked - even partially - because of their name is either dishonest (towards them or towards ourselves, if we've convinced each other through a process of groupthink that it's true), or just simply illogical. Victor Yus (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what you believe, perhaps you should be working to have promotional usernames removed from this policy entirely, because, as it's stands, it's fairly unambiguous that the promotional username itself is a violation of policy. Danger! High voltage! 12:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's called "inappropriate", but it's specifically not a reason to block someone (except in combination with something else that might well be a reason to block anyway). But I agree, it would be better to remove promotional usernames from this policy altogether (except perhaps for extreme attempts to advertise in Wikipedia edit space, which I assume to be rare), as the muddle-headed attempt to address them is clearly casuing a lot of unnecessary work, confusion and conflict. The same goes for the usernames that imply shared use (and the prohibition on shared use, for that matter). Victor Yus (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me try this set of examples, to answer your original request for "what the evidence is", etc:
 * user:CompanyNameX creates an account. They edit Company X with some small changes - "changing address; company has moved offices", "typo fix", "adding name of new CEO", etc. After their first edit, someone leaves them a notice that their username is improper (because it represents a company), but they carry on making their small, otherwise ok changes. Q: While the username here is a problem because it appears to promote and represent Company X, are the edits a problem if divorced from the username? A: No, the edits are not a problem; the problem is them being done on Company X by someone with a username of user:CompanyNameX. Therefore there is no evidence that, absent their current username, the user's edits will be problematic. We softblock this user, because their name is the problem and they haven't shown willingness to change it just because someone asked.
 * user:CompanyNameX creates an account. They edit Company X to add "As a market leader in $foo, we are the go-to company for anyone needing widgets! Call 555-555-5555 today to order!". They go to List of foo companies and add external links to Company X's website. They're given a username warning and a spam warning at this point, and their next edit is to Company Y, a known competitor of Company X, to add, "They lag far behind Company X in their field. Customers say Company X is way better." Q: While the username here is a problem because it appears to promote and represent Company X, are the edits a problem if divorced from the username? A: Yes. Their edits are spam and POV pushing (generally, promotion of their business). Even if this user had the most innocuous username ever, their edits would still be a problem! We hardblock this user, because while their name is a problem, their edits are the problem, and renaming them to user:FooBar won't fix that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, in neither case is the name a problem. Why do you say it is? I would even say it's a very desirable username, as it draws other editors' attention to the possible conflict of interest in the edits. Victor Yus (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you are arguing a completely different issue than the rest of us are discussing. "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product" are not permitted. If you want to change that, go ahead and start an RfC or something, but wandering into a place where people are discussing how to describe a rule and trying to stonewall the discussion because you think the rule shouldn't exist at all neither benefits the people trying to describe the rule, nor cause of the person who thinks it shouldn't exist. "You can't get there from here", to use an idiom - this route won't take you to getting ORGNAME removed from our username policy, so would you please let us get on with what we are trying to discuss? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fluffernutter, So from your example, doesn't it all come back to behavior really? Are we focusing on the wrong thing in the policy if it comes back to an editor's behavior? And if it isn't simply about behavior, what are we trying to prevent? -- Avanu (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The decision of when to hardblock and when to softblock absolutely does come back to behavior, and that's what NTox is trying to explain more clearly than current policy in his proposed wording. What we're trying to prevent here are two types of things: first, usernames of organizations promoting their organization by existing as username (user:CompanyX, every time their name appears in a history, is promoting CompanyX) and representing themselves as accounts that edit as a company (in an account named user:CompanyX, we have no way of knowing if its run by one person, or CompanyX's entire PR department); second, editors promoting their organizations deliberately. The first issue, the promotional/role account, the only problematic "behavior" is the creation and use of the username. The username is the problem, and if we remove that then everything is fixed - there is no other problematic behavior, and because this promotion is almost never deliberate, we have no reason to think that once their username is changed, the user's edits will be disruptive. So we softblock them, so they can create a new username (or request CHU) and then carry on with their useful edits. The second issue, the deliberate promotion, the behavior has two aspects - the username AND the deliberate behavior. If we remove the username, the behavior remains a problem. We could rename them to user:Blahblahblah and they would still do edits promoting their company. Therefore we don't want them coming back under a new username to do the same stuff, therefore we hardblock. I'm really having trouble understanding what part of this distinction isn't coming through clearly, so I'm sorry if my explanation falls short. Perhaps you could expand a bit more on how you see these situations as identical or not in need of being handled differently? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have just been talking past each other. One thing I wish our programmers would do is work on the code that creates usernames in the first place. I think there needs to be a flag that an admin can set, and even some choices an admin could preselect, if they feel a username needs to be changed (or even just do the rename for the person). Its really silly to have a process that simply requires a user to make a brand new separate name, and potentially requires this whole process to start over. Honestly, there is a lot here that would be solved by programming. However, I think the block process for people who are willing to work toward productive edits is a bit silly. Is it any less promotional to say "GregPRatWidgetCo", versus simply "WidgetCo"? Not by much. The username policy prefers that people demonstrate that they are a unique individual, but on the internet, no one knows you're a dog, so really in the end... why do we care? I guess a lot of this just seems like policy for its own sake, because someone a long time ago thought this would solve 'the problem'. -- Avanu (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You do have a point, Avanu, that "JoeFromWidgetCo" could also be considered problematic. However, the difference (according to our current policy) is that "JoeFromWidgetCo" makes clear that the editor is Joe, who works at WidgetCo, and not WidgetCo, the company (i.e. the account is being operated by one person, not by whoever happens to be doing WidgetCo PR that day. Remember that we forbid accounts that are shared or appear to be shared). That's not to say that there aren't a whole lot of admins who would also block JoeFromWidgetCo for the same promotional concerns as WidgetCo. There are, and they're probably enforcing the policy more evenly by doing so. This issue could stand to be discussed, but I'm going to come back again to the point I've been trying to make to Victor Yus: right now, this thread is about "how do we best define the cases where softblock is called for, vs the cases where hardblock is called for". There are certainly other username-related issues that need clarification, and it would be great to get them all clarified. But could those clarifications happen elsewhere, so that we can focus this thread on discussion the particular change that's being proposed? I'd love to join in a discussion about whether WidgetCo really is promotional, and whether JoeFromWidgetCo is any more or less promotional, but right now (and until consensus changes it), what we have is policy that says WidgetCo is promotional and JoeFromWidgetCo is acceptable, and we're trying to clear up a different aspect of policy here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems to be the case. If the only response people can give, when asked why something is a problem, is to attack the person that asked the question, then it looks increasingly likely that there the thing really is not a problem at all. And if we can establish that promotional usernames are not in fact a problem, then that absolutely does have a bearing on the proposal being made here, because it then becomes meaningless to talk about situations where the username is the crux of the problem. Victor Yus (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with your strategy, Victor, is that you haven't "establish[ed] that promotional usernames are not in fact a problem". You've established (to the satisfaction of everyone reading this, believe me) that you believe they're not a problem, and that you feel that policy is wrong. You have not established that anyone else (except perhaps Avanu?) feels the same way. The way to get a part of policy you object to removed is to start a discussion about removing it. Until you have consensus saying that people other than you feel the promotional username policy needs to be deprecated, you cannot set about changing that aspect of policy you disagree with. Until you have that consensus, you need to let other people get on with the business of reaching consensus on other issues. I'm not even sure I disagree with you that the promotional username policy could use a complete revamping; the difference is that since the appropriateness of that policy isn't what's being debated here, I'm trying to work within our guidelines to reach consensus about making a definite change to policy. So it's clearer. So it does a better job of explaining who should do what, when, and why. So that if someday someone does launch an RfC on the issue of whether orgnames should be permitted, the community will have a clearer understanding of what underlaid this policy and why it exists. So that until then, we've perhaps made an incremental improvement in how policy is applied, by helping people understand it better. And it's really very frustrating to be trying to do those things, and have you trying to block that progress because you dislike something else that you don't seem to want to attack head-on with its own RfC. I cannot express strongly enough how much I encourage you to start an RfC on the existence of the orgname policy to resolve your issues with it, rather than trying to force this RfC to address something it's not about. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Victor, I apologize if my response to you came off as an attack. I merely figured that, since you've already been given the arguments against promotional/role usernames in the discussions above that rehashing them would be a waste of both of our time. Danger! High voltage! 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, apologies reciprocated, I didn't mean you, and I probably shouldn't have said "attack", I just meant that the question of why promotional usernames might be a problem has been continually sidestepped, which implies to me that they are not a problem after all; and to me that implies that the proposed change is at best vacuous, since the situation it is intended to address (one where someone's use of a promotional username is the crux of a problem) can't possibly occur. Victor Yus (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fluffernutter, doesn't the current wording cover all of this? -- Avanu (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support new wording. I find it clearer even though more verbose. I also agree with ItsZippy (comments below) on the relation between promotional username blocks and spam blocks. -- Alexf(talk) 12:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose new wording, because it does not solve anything. The problem is inconsistent application of blocks of varying severity, as described in the sub-sections below, and this new wording does not help solve that problem. I don't oppose the attempt to make the policy clearer, but I don't see how the current proposed words are an improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Promotional names

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:
 * Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under below.
 * Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com"). Plain domain names (without .com, .co.kr, etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person, but they are inappropriate if they promote a commercial Web page.

Only users who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.
 * I believe it does, Avanu. What we're trying to do here (or at least, what I'm trying to do) is to say "ok, here's what policy covers. But the policy is written in a general way, and we've had some people who've been applying it in a manner that says they're interpreting it differently than others. How about we add a bit more to the policy, to make sure it covers how to judge [blah], as well as that you should judge [blah]. So yes, policy covers this, but the wording of the policy could do with some shining up, which is what we're trying for here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it not occur to anybody of the "promotional names are okay" contingent not recognize that accounts bearing the name of any collective entity are by definition in violation of our rule (rooted among other things in copyright considerations) that an account must represent exactly one individual human being and nobody else? -- Orange Mike |  Talk  04:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said many times, that's an unnecessary rule as well (and I don't see any connection with copyright). But it must be a separate issue from that of promotion. In fact, when we get our collective thought processes straight, I don't think we really reject company names on the ground that they are "promotional", we reject them on the (IMHO equally invalid, but still) ground that they "look to be shared". Because we allow "Mike at WidgetsInc", which is hardly any less promotional than "WidgetsInc" - so the reason we (well, you lot) reject "WidgetsInc" can hardly be anything to do with promotion, it must be the non-individuality. (If someone called themselves "WidgetsInc has the best widgets!!!", that might be regarded as promotional, though the policy doesn't give any examples like that.) All in all, people's thinking has got totally mixed up over these issues. Victor Yus (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that group names and promotional names are unrelated. "Microsoft Rulz" includes the name of a collective entity and is a promotional name.  However, there is nothing about it that makes me think that there is anything other than one misguided teenager using that account.
 * There is no copyright concern with the name itself, but there could be a trademark issue. However, we wouldn't need to do anything about that until the trademark holder complains.  The copyright concerns about having multiple users (no matter what the name of the account is) apply only if there are actually multiple users, and it's not clear that these are real issues.  The last re-hash of that point did not strike me as being very convincing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyright argument has been hazy indeed . . I have been meaning to ask someone who sufficiently knows about such things to inform to what extent (if any) that this is a real, legal issue. . Will be in touch if I get an answer. NTox · talk 02:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's a red herring - people edit under whatever identifier they want their work to be attributed to. If there were a problem with those identifiers being shared (which there isn't), then we would have to disallow non-logged-on editing, since IP addresses are often shared by nature. As WhatamIdoing notes, the actual potential problems here (excluding the various imaginary problems that people seem so keen to see) concern impersonation and copyright infringement, and not promotion (in usernames) or sharing. Victor Yus (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

the immediate problem at hand

 * While we are debating whether to allow promotional user names, or group user names, we still need to deal with the problem of using hard blocks inappropriately. A hard block, prevents the person from creating a new user name. A person who has merely violated the username policy, but not persisted in editing improperly, should be permitted to continue editing, but under a proper name. They cannot do this through the obvious means of getting a new account if they have received a hard block, because they cannot make a new account from their former ip address, or even log on from it to make a request. This is absurd & self-contradictory. We tell them: you must take another name, but we won't let you do it.  Even if a user in ordinary circumstances has   made a promotional edit, we don't block people for having made a promotional edit--we warn them (I see no need to be over-gentle--if obvious, I often go immediately to a level 4 warning) If they continue, we block them.  The idea is to get people to edit properly, if we can manage it; sometimes we can't and I am not reluctant to block in such cases. It's a little different if they start with a promotional user =name--we want to make sure they do actually change it, and a username block is the easiest way to accomplish this without additional checking. But this is only possible if it is a soft block, permitting them to make a new account from their old ip. Certainly there are some cases of gross misbehavior where the situation is obviously hopeless from the start, but they are not that common. Someone who wants to get an article or an edit accepted usually wants to do that, not be disruptive for the hell of it, & will consequently usually try properly if they are guided to do so, and we can then decide whether to do as they want, on the merits.
 * So the first step is to say clearly that username blocks in the absence of persistent disruptive behavior should be soft blocks (and to modify twinkle to use that as the defaults in such cases).
 * After that we can discuss the general issue. The problem is not as much the username policy as our general confused approach to COI, which we would eliminate if we could but know that we can't, and in frustration do not always handle rationally.  DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that you share my thoughts exactly on these issues. NTox · talk 08:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of the above - if you want to write into the policy that blocks based solely on username (except in extreme offensive cases) should be soft blocks, then I won't object; I suppose it won't make the policy any more irrational than it is already. (But please define "soft block", either here or (more completely than is done at present) in the blocking policy.) (Actually having read DGG's piece again, I do disagree with at least one thing - I believe the policy is intended currently to tell admins not to block people, even softly, purely for using a promotional username and nothing else, so I would object if that provision were weakened without explicit consensus.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Soft block": You cannot use this account, but you can make a new account if you want.
 * "Hard block": You cannot use this account, and you cannot make a new account.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. I'm inclined to agree with the proposed change in wording, as I believe the differences between hard and soft blocks (and when they should be used) could be much better defined. Where an editor is not obviously editing in bad faith, I will always try to communicate with them and encourage them to change their username without needing to block them; if it comes to having to block, a soft block seems the most appropriate. If we were willing to let them continue editing under a new username when we encouraged them to use CHU, then we should be equally willing to let them create a new username to continue editing. However, if it obvious that a user is editing solely to promote something, we don't want to let them back under another username. There is, I believe, a blurred line here between username blocks and spam blocks. I often find that a spam username block could also be blocked for spam/promotional editing; obviously, we don't want to allow these people back under a different name. I accept the point that a username block for these users misses the great problem (the promotional editing), and perhaps there is a case to merge hard username blocks with normal promotional blocks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both DGG and ItsZippy, and therefore support the proposed change in wording. David 1217  What I've done 16:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)