Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 27

Using real names, revisited
Executive summary: I think our warning on Special:CreateAccount is woefully under-stressing the importance of not using your real name for your account unless you are very sure you know what you're doing, and we should change it.

Slightly longer version:MediaWiki:Createacct-username-help, which is located directly below the "Enter your username" box at Special:CreateAccount, currently reads Consider using a username other than your real name, as usernames are public and cannot be made private later.

A few months ago (Aug '22) there was an RFC to tighten up the language in the WP:REALNAME section of the Username policy (i.e. this page), which slightly increased the warning (diff). Last month (Dec '22), the WMF Diff blog made a post about why it is important to have a username that does not directly lead back to an individual. And speaking somewhat anecdotally, about once a week the OS team receives a request from someone looking to completely hide their Wikipedia editing history because they signed up with their real name and are facing potential real-world consequences for it. We do what we can, but it is not always possible to completely erase someone from Wikipedia.

Therefore, I think it is time we update what every single user who tries to create an account will see (i.e. the message on the Special page). MediaWiki talk:Createacct-username-help has had multiple discussions in the last two years about how to change the message about real names to be more "obvious" (for lack of a better term), to start as a jumping-off point for this discussion, especially now that our policy has been tightened as well. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like an Oct 2021 RFC on this closed as no-consensus for reference. — xaosflux  Talk 21:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for linking that. I debated adding that to my timeline, but since that RFC closed as no consensus because the policy language was still "soft", I figured that showing recent trends was more useful. I do suppose seeing that "trends can change" is also a good thing! Primefac (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The recent news about the imprisonment of two Saudi admins has made this issue all the more pressing in my mind. I think we need stronger language, and I think that most editors are simply not aware of the dangers of having their identity be public. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Users should not take false comfort that that happened "over there". These problems arise in democracies too. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Primefac, I am under the impression that whatever you write will have little or no effect on that. People will keep requesting rename as most don't really read those warnings, specially those ones that are reckless on making personal information public. But still, we have the obligation to advise. I believe we have to provide the facts and let everyone reach to their conclusions. I am in favor of stressing that this name is going to be publicly visible and controversial edits may have repercussion on real life.
 * However, let's look into the real issue here. When you request an "user name" it certainly suggests people to write their names. Perhaps, it is not about how much we are warning, but it is about what we are requesting. What if we requested an alias at first place? And then suggest that it is possible to use your real name, but that it may be dangerous, etc? —Teles « Talk to me ˱ M @ C S ˲» 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Banner

 * This comment refers to Usernames for administrator attention, the talk page of which redirects here.

For fifteen years, I've shied away from UAA due to the big notice at the top: This page is intended for reports of usernames that are blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block. (emphasis in original). I recently summoned up the courage to make a report, and I thank you for dealing with it efficiently and politely. Would it be sensible to revise the wording of the banner, which many editors may currently read as "Don't even think about reporting anyone here"? Certes (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to mock up a new banner for consideration; I think the point of it is that unless "block" is going to be the outcome please don't use this page (similar to WP:AIV). — xaosflux  Talk 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about that. I understand the wording as written, but I'm not sure that I understand its practical application well enough to rewrite the banner. Certes (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What the banner is basically trying to say is that UAA isn't WP:RFCN or WP:COIN or WP:ANI, in other words it's not a place where the users you report are invited to engage in discussion, but a place to report usernames that are obvious enough violations to be blocked without any discussion.
 * UAA definitely gets better user reports these days than it did in 2007-8 after the noticeboard was created, so the bold text in that first sentence might not be necessary any more, but the fact that it's for blatant violations only needs to be stated somehow, as well as the fact that it's for violations of the username policy (occasionally we get reports that should be sent to AIV or ANI, because some new users misinterpret "username" to mean "account") – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like This page is for reporting accounts whose names blatantly violate the username policy. then? ("Accounts with names which..." might be more grammatical, but could be misread as "accounts (which, as an aside, have names rather than being IPs) which do some non-name-related violating".)  Such names do require blocking, but there's no urgency to drop everything and block them immediately unless they're misbehaving in some other way (for which we have AIV etc.).  Certes (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § UAA shared use option disappeared
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § UAA shared use option disappeared. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hillary
I'm wondering if enough time has now elapsed since the 2016 US presidential election for the bot to stop reporting every user named "Hillary" to UAA. What do others think? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, I still see her name in polls about potential Democratic presidential candidates. She's still a public figure. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Treatment of usernames relating to the change from Vector Legacy to Vector 2022
How should usernames like this be treated? I've seen some get blocked purely for their username while others are left alone, so I'm unsure. I don't see these as being disruptive as they're simply just emphasizing that they don't like the new design or that they just created it so they could go back to old Vector. So I'm curious what we should do with these usernames. SUre some them might contain some vulgar language, however I always think that we shouldn't worry about usernames making use of vulgar language unless it's a violation of the username policy otherwise (such as an attack towards a BLP subject or another user). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think only vulgar anti-Vector2022 usernames should be blocked and only if they make edits. Most of these have no interest in editing. I turned down an unblock request from because they didn't want to edit. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me asking, but what is your reasoning behind "only vulgar anti-Vector2022 usernames should be blocked and only if they make edits"? I'd say that if they make vandalistic edits then that's grounds for blocking with just 1 edit, although if they make a constructive edit then maybe only a warning about their username? I don't disagree with you, I'm just curious as to why you've come to this decision. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems I have communicated a harder position than I've intended; I'm not saying there shouldn't be wiggle room if they make constructive edits(though that might depend on how vulgar the name is). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah alright. And ya I would say it depends on how vulgar the name is. FOr example if it used slurs (whcih the only way I could think of would either for the username to jsut make 0 sense or be directed at the Vector2022 devs) then I would definitely say that's blockable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't mind you asking. :) 331dot (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment on requested name change due to UAA
I blocked as a promo name. They requested new name. I don't think that's an acceptable replacement name, given that the nbcc is a literature award. Am I wrong? has already renamed and unblocked (but reverted the unblock) before I caught this. No foul on Phil's part, just supplying full situation info. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem is with the new name. It seems to be describing what type of content they intend to work with, if their edits are promoting a particular award, that's a behavior problem, not a username problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Username
BULLDOGS1980 2001:8003:30F2:5A00:3D09:1424:32D1:6D9B (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to request an account. You may create an account yourself, or if unable to for some reason, you may request an account at WP:ACC. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A wording change to UAA instructions?
At the moment, the UAA instructions read: Except in the instance of an egregious name violation, please do not report accounts with no edits or those who have not edited in the preceding 2 weeks. However, we frequently block users whose edits were not published, but tripped an edit filter (usually 148 or 149). Should we change the instructions to reflect this? I was thinking something along the lines of: Except in the instance of an egregious name violation, please do not report accounts with no activity or those who have been inactive in the preceding 2 weeks. I would normally just be bold and change it myself, but in this case, wanted to get the opinions of other UAA regulars. ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I came here to create a new section, but I think my question/comment is sufficiently related to this one, that it's better off here. Similar issue about an editor with a username clearly contrary to policy, but haven't edited in two weeks, namely: (noping) . Could someone please add a statement to the bottom of the list describing where to go to report serious violations where the editor hasn't edited in two weeks, less urgent violations that are still editing, and so on. If those cases are not to be reported at all, please add a sentence stating that fact. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Usernames
The username policy should come with a few usernames that have not been used, as to show people what usernames aren't taken and to see which ones are available of use. Charliethehamster1 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what Special:CentralAuth is for. Potential choices may be checked there to see if they are available. This page would have to be updated almost constantly if it had suggestions of usernames here. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And like we've seen elsewhere, whenever a policy or guideline page uses an account name as an example, we end up having to create the account to avoid vandalism, so it wouldn't be available for long anyway. For example: User:Example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no reason we couldn't use a piece of javascript to randomly generate (and check for freeness) some usernames, is there? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a lot of work to do something for people that they should be doing themselves. Never mind that with randomly generated usernames there is a chance that it would randomly generate an inappropriate username(more likely resembling one). 331dot (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing using a "team tag"
I have been dissatisfied with my username for years now, and I came up with an idea in a dream recently, but I am unsure if it is in line with the username policy. I am a fan of video games, as well as esports teams. But what if we as editors had team tags? Take reigning Valorant champions Evil Geniuses for example, their players would be recognized as EG Boostio, EG demon1, and so on. I have a colleague I have worked with for years and befriended outside the realm of Wikipedia, and wondered if having matching names would be an issue so long as us being separate accounts could easily be verified (assuming good faith, we work in similar content but on opposite ends of the musical spectrum). For instance, I'd be "[XX] Dan", and if they're up for it, they'd match with the same tag with their name. I read WP:ISU, and the fourth bullet point appears to clear the bar? Am I right on that?  danny music editor  oops 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as you are clear about the fact that you are separate individuals, ostensibly with a user page notification for both of you, I do not see why that would not be allowed. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you ask an editor if they are a notable person?
Rule 2 says that real names of a notable person are permitted if they are not impersonating that person. How do we determine if this is the case, if they don't volunteer it? Is the presumption that they are or are not impersonating? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you came up with the number 2 for this (it's not second by any measure that I can tell) but I think you mean:
 * Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person.
 * If a username implies that the user is, or is related to, a notable, identifiable or well-known person, the account may be blocked as a precaution against impersonation until the user's proof of identity is provided.
 * I think that sums it up pretty well. Who's the user? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If the name matches the name of notable person, and in particualr if they have edited content related to that person we usually do soft-block the account, but I have the same questions as DIYeditor in this case, seeing as there is no user by that name. Are you sure this is a username question and not a WP:COI question? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Question re notification of block for offensive user name containing the name of probable BLP
Not sure where to ask this; I hardly ever perform blocks but recently blocked an account with an offensive user name who had also created an attack page. The offensive user name includes what looks like the name of a living person and some offensive words. Neither user page nor talk page had been created. Am I obliged to create the user's talk page in order to tell them why they have been blocked, despite the apparent BLP violation? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. It doesn't matter for such drive-by silliness, but you could also block with email and talk page access disabled. Getting generic admin opinions would normally happen at WP:AN but that of course would draw a lot more attention to the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the substance - if it's a clear-cut case of an attack username, just block with TPA revoked. Depending on how offensive, it might be worth contacting the stews to globally lock/hide the account. Primefac (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't create the talk page either in such a case, and my impression is most admins don't. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC).
 * It just looks juvenile to me. You don't need to leave a block template if the username is something we'd rather disappeared. Secretlondon (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2023 (UT
 * I agree with the other adminstrators. If an account was clearly created for nefarious purposes, I indefinitely block and move on without a block notice. This minimizes the chance of further disruptive behavior during unblock discussions. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Looks like the commonsense outcome is correct. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Username filters
Has something changed recently regarding username creation filters or am I mistaken in the belief that there were filters in the first place? I don't recall having to report a username with a straight up n-word, usually its obfuscated in some way. Qzd (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The bot had problems but it was fixed. Nobody  ( talk ) 09:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A few reminders
I'd like to encourage my fellow admins to re-read the username policy in order to dispel a few myths I've seen recently. In particular: Wa</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not have to wait for a user to edit in order to block them; if a username is promotional or implies shared use, it doesn't matter what their edits are like.
 * Implying shared use - without being overtly promotional - is still sufficient reason to block an account
 * A username doesn't have to match a real organisation or group in order to imply shared use
 * Your statements do not seem entirely consistent with the policy you link to.
 * Username policy specifically states A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors [...] can be blocked from editing Wikipedia [...] 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. So in this case it explicitly does matter what their edits are like.
 * Username policy does not say one way or the other whether the account should be blocked. But since Username policy states Remember that blocking a new user is not actually something we want to do, it is something we do when it is needed to protect Wikipedia from harm. Generally, editors whose usernames are a technical or borderline violation of the Username policy should be given an opportunity to discuss the username and how they may register a new username., that would probably be better than jumping right to a block.
 * HTH. Anomie⚔ 15:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late ping, but I do want to push back against this as well, since I think it is pretty important we get this right. "We do not have to wait for a user to edit in order to block them" is absolutely not correct for WP:PROMONAME blocks; as Anomie points out, the username policy clearly states that a promotional username and promotional editing is required for a PROMONAME block. There are some exceptions to waiting until the account makes an edit—if the account is clearly offensive, e.g. it contains a slur, then we don't have to wait, but for simple promotional usernames or usernames that imply shared use, we should wait until the account makes an edit so that we get a sense of their intentions. If it is not the intention of the account to promote the thing represented by their username, or to imply that their account is a shared one, then we should give them the opportunity to change their username before we block them; the potential consequence of doing the opposite is WP:BITE. Mz7 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for your input, I stand corrected. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 January 11 § Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 January 11 § Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

How are changes from a blatantly inappropriate username to a double entendre handeled?
The IRL example that comes to mind is SSMB player Dr. PeePee changing his name to "PPMD" upon sponsorhsip. Certianly, there are examples of names with subtle references like "PPMD" among active editors, but would someone who was username blocked be allowed that courtesy? Mach61 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, how long does it typically take to get username change approved?
I requested a username change around 4 days ago and I didn't get any updates regarding the username update. Wikieditor738 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your rename request, #116335, was rejected. You should have received some notice, or been able to check the request. The reject reason was "The chosen username is similar to an existing username". As that was the only reason, you may submit a new request with a different new username. — xaosflux  Talk 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Long, meaningless, random string of characters
It doesn't appear to be addressed anywhere in the policy, but what about usernames that look like the cat walked across the keyboard, such as, say, User:Jfdsalkqrewiqvhrbhqoihewqvfhbkdvajewqvbiuqobvfobqena ? That one is fake—I just made it up. However, this post is inspired by a real user I recently interacted with, and their username is exactly the same length and exactly as meaningless. They let me know in two replies that they don't feel there's any problem with it, and to my question about whether they were worried they could be pranked by some other user simply transposing a couple of characters, they remained unconcerned (discussion).

I'm not here to encourage further intervention with this user, as they've made it clear they are happy with the username, and I don't see it as violating anything in policy currently. What I'd like to know in this discussion, is whether it is consensus here that such names are consistent with the intent of the policy and if not, do we need to modify the policy to say so? I'm not bothered by names that long as long as they are meaningful, and an attempted pranking would be more obvious. For example, I wouldn't oppose User:I am the best editor at Wikipedia in the whole world (identical in length to the fake one above). But it seems to me a long, meaningless string seems to heightens the risk of mischief, which means making it more likely that admins or other users monitoring the situation may need to spend more time with such users. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before but never really gained any traction. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure on this
The username Iamnotblocked123 seems to be a challenge to the administrative oversight of Wikipedia. If that is the case, an ordinary user raising the matter on the user's talkpage does not really seem appropriate – and I am not 100% sure that we have an issue here in the first place. Hence flagging here for someone with more experience in the matter to take a look at. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)