![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I blocked 2023nbcc as a promo name. They requested new name litawardupdate. I don't think that's an acceptable replacement name, given that the nbcc is a literature award. Am I wrong? PhilKnight 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)
BULLDOGS1980 2001:8003:30F2:5A00:3D09:1424:32D1:6D9B ( talk) 15:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? dannymusiceditor oops 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Thanks, folks. Looks like the commonsense outcome is correct. Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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:
Waggers TALK 12:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)