Wikipedia talk:Username policy

2014 Request for Comment on reforming and updating this policy

Restriction on usernames starting with asterisk or hash or colon?

Has there been a previous discussion on usernames starting with an asterisk, a hash/pound symbol, or a colon? It appears from this discussion that magic words like {{REVISIONUSER}} can, in some cases, get confused when user names of that sort are used, starting a bulleted list, for example, instead of returning a username. It is also possible that Template:AfC submission/declined is just badly coded, but it looks pretty reasonable to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Restrictions_on_usernames it looks like two of those options aren't even allowed. I'll be honest I'm a bit surprised that * is acceptable, but other than weird glitches with {{REVISIONUSER}} where does this pop up? Primefac (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There are about 1500 global users that start with "*". — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Other than Treker are there any that are active and/or not blocked? I ask mainly because the comment was made "we don't want to make everyone change their names", but if there's only a handful of users, it should be trivial to ask them to change their names and then softblock everyone else (assuming a technical fix isn't found). Primefac (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Re where else it's a problem: There is a discussion on *Treker's talk page about how they weren't receiving pings, but I don't have a way to verify whether the asterisk was causing a problem in that case. Maybe they will see this ping and respond here. (edited to add: It looks like the asterisk causes a problem in {{U}}, since this response is interrupted by a newline starting with a bullet.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed your {{u}} call since it's breaking things. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd also add the equals sign (=) to the list of discouraged characters. Some time ago I happened to fix a linking error (with the {{u}} or {{re}} template) to a user whose username contains this symbol, which causes a misinterpretation of the username as a template's named parameter. --CiaPan (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm personally quite attached to my username (as it is a pun of sorts) but if it is agreed that "*" should not be used I will agree to change it.★Trekker (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note the use of * in their signature to actually allow linking, similar to how to 7&6=thirteen needs to use & in their sig. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I can imagine a wrapper for {{REVISIONUSER}} (and for |1= in {{User link}}) that would cause the user name to be "literalized" (for lack of a better word) so that characters in the user name won't cause this trouble. Is there a string-processing template or magic word that will do that for us? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It would seem best to just restrict the usage (and move any username currently using these) instead of patching one template at a time. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

*Trekker: Every time you edit a draft, if the submission has been declined, the submission block gets messed up and it generates misnested <small> tags; if the submission has not been reviewed at all, it generates a Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 and a Stripped tag lint error for <span>. Right now, that's 14 unreviewed and 67 reviewed, in fact, other than Missing end tags, all 14+14+67 draft lint errors are in drafts you edited last. Why not change your user name to ★Trekker? —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I wouldn't mind. I don't know how to change it tho.★Trekker (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

*Trekker: Instructions for changing your username are found at Wikipedia:Changing username. Looking at WP:NOEMOJI, I am concerned that "★" might be considered a prohibited character. If that happens, I would strongly support an exception for you, because the purpose is to solve technical limitations of the Wikimedia software, and I could go to Wikipedia talk:Linter and urge users to share their views wherever it is that this case might be considered. Good luck and let us know how it goes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

*Trekker: There are now 153 drafts with misnested tags, all emanating from the "*" starting your user name. Would you please see about changing the "*" now? —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Treker" may be usurpable as well, has minimal edits on one project over 10 years ago. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris and Xaosflux: I have sent a request now.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it got declined, in general unicode symbols are not welcome in usernames. You can try the usurp process at meta:Steward_requests/Username_changes#Requests_involving_merges,_usurps_or_other_complications — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris and Xaosflux: I made one last effort using "¤" this time, if it fails I will simply change my username "StarTrekker".★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the one without symbols is much better - certainly easier for others to communicate with you using. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris and Xaosflux: My requests havn't shown up in Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive275 or Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Unfulfilled/2022/May.★Trekker (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of your rename requests were denied by the global renamers. (92023 and 91997) Both for the same reason, trying to change your name to disallowed characters. StarTrekker exists, but has 0 global edits from over 10 years ago. I'd endorse that usurpation, you can list it at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

great Chattha788 (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Username ending in semicolon

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T238285

While we're here, the user name User:Assert(false); causes problems for me. When I manage to find their contributions, clicking on User:Assert(false); from that page leads to User:Assert(false), complete with an error message saying that the user is not registered on this wiki. The trailing semicolon is trimmed. Is this a MediaWiki bug, or the result of a security patch sometime between the editor's last activity in 2016 and today? Either way, some action probably needs to happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's messed up. It's nearly impossible to even get to their user page, the talk page appear to exist but I can't open it. If this account were active now I think we'd pretty much have to block it. I may do it anyway, this is clearly not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the policy, but can we simply rename the account for technical reasons? My guess is that this account used to work, and a MW change caused it to break. I suppose we could also file a phab bug report, but I haven't had good results in getting those addressed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

xkcd oblink. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Good old Bobby Tables! I forgot about him. The task has been marked as a duplicate of a November 2019 task, which has seen no updates from developers since October 2020. This means that we are on our own here and need to make local accommodations, whether that is an account rename or something else. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can get to their user pages by opening a history of any page and replacing the page title in the URL. Then you can jump to any chosen revision, including the current one:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Assert(false);&action=history → Special:PermaLink/691187016, Special:PermaLink/727826156
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Assert(false);&action=history → Special:PermaLink/675611790, Special:PermaLink/1072065308

CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from reading the phab ticket, the key thing in all of these is that the ";" isn't part of the base URL. Once you move it into the query string, that hides the ";" from the bit of software which barfs on it. So https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Assert(false); works too. Well, it does if you copy-paste that from the wikitext source into a browser's URL bar, but it looks like the link is not going to get rendered correctly :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Affected users

There seems to be an emerging consensus above to just restrict use of these names (specifically, * at the front and ; at the back). Other than *Treker, which users are/will be affected by any sort of username blacklist/changes? For the record I'm assuming these users to be a) unblocked, and b) active at some point in the last 1-3 years. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia can restrict a character set accepted from the registration form quite easily, but renaming existing accounts is completely another matter. There would have to be some way to inform affected users about a need of renaming their accounts OR about renaming done without their participation. The former way may not work in all cases, because users are not forced to register their e-mail contact, nor they are obliged to regularly check their inbox. And even if they do, they may simply refuse. The latter way would need keeping both accounts associated until the user logs in with their old account and then inform them about the rename done, consequently forcing all future log-ins to be redirected to a new account. Both methods look quite ...unkind to users. The latter, however, has already been tested during implementing central login, when conflicting accounts from Wikipedias in different languages were renamed to unique names. And it somehow worked. CiaPan (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Badly affected by this problem is Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of **sammy** Dawson., whose entire wikitext is {{sockpuppet category}}, and generates 6 stripped </span>, 3 missing end tags for <span>, and 3 HTML5-misnested <span> tags. There really is a User:**sammy** Dawson. page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed that page, but it would be great to avoid future instances of this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Globally locked

We've had an increasing number of accounts that are being globally locked before they've been actioned here. That's fine, if they are being blocked for actions of multiple wikipedias, but some of them have only had edits on en! Secretlondon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This is probably best discussed at WP:AN as it doesn't really pertain to the username policy. That said, a global lock can only be done by a steward, and they aren't casually handed out. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This is also the talk page for Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which is a bit confusing. Secretlondon (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: Yes.. it is a bit confusing, least of all because you're replying to yourself..? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 20:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it was intended for 331dot's message ... Sdrqaz (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ohhh I see now, Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention redirects here! That is a bit confusing! As to your query Secretlondon, some accounts (such as the one reported here) will be locked solely based on the username, or the fact the underlying LTA is evading a previous lock, irrespective of the number of projects they have edited ~TNT (talk • she/her) 20:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Would it help (if it is possible) to adjust the relevant bots – DeltaQuadBot and HBC AIV helperbot5 – to remove reports of locked accounts, in addition to blocked ones? DanCherek (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

While I'm sure it would be possible, I think it's fine if we block locally as well. When appealing a global lock, the appelant is expected to to have already appealed any local blocks, so this gives individual projects autonomy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Beeblebrox:. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"are related to"

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 name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided.

The "related to" part could be read as meaning that any Johnsons must give on their userpage an exhaustive list of notable Johnsons they are not related to. That's plain excessive and frankly comical. To my mind, any known relative of any specific, identifiable person is themselves identifiable and therefore already covered by the wording without the "or are related to" part. It's unclear what the special purpose of that extra clause would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:184:DA00:880F:4D44:C96F:BAC6 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything involves common sense. Secretlondon (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

However, common is not that common anymore. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is nonsense. For example, there's an editor on this page with the user name Tony Fox. Obviously they will not be required to prove that they are or are not Tony Fox. And proving that they are not related to any of the numerous other people called Fox such as James Fox or Liam Fox is just about impossible as everyone is related to everyone else. For example, Barack Obama is well known to be the 15th cousin of Queen Elizabeth II.

And it's worse than that. Demanding legal identification introduces data protection and privacy legislation which is a big deal in Europe. See Europe faces Facebook blackout, for example.

So, as this is not enforced and seems to be illegal, it should go.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

From a VRT standpoint (the mechanism usually used for proof of identity), we do not collect legal identification (such as passports or drivers licenses) and in fact specifically request that people do not send such documents, and we do not act upon them if they are sent. Rather, the proof of identity for a {{verified account}} is typically provided by messages from verifiable email addresses (the message coming from an official contact address or domain), confirmed social media accounts (sending a specific tweet or DM, making a specific profile change), and the like.

As to the rest, I concur with Secretlondon that common sense applies. When working at ACC, I've always interpreted the "related to" clause as referring to usernames specifically implying a relationship to a notable person. I've handled requested usernames for representatives and relatives both (e.g. "John Smith's Agent" or "John Smith's Nephew"). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:UNC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:UNC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#Wikipedia:UNC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q28 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way...?

Is there any way (or any script) to open the three key tabs all at once that we need to access when checking WP:UAA reports? Namely:

• contribs
• deleted
• filter log

Whilst NavPopups let me preview Contribs with a mouseover, that functionality doesn't exist for deleted contributions, nor for the log of filtered edits. So, for a proper check, I need to manually open and view three separate tabs every single time. If there were either an additional link that opens all three into separate tabs immediately, or a script to do the same, I would find the task of assessing reported usernames a whole lot easier and quicker. Any pointers would be most welcome. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I just hold down cntrl on my keyboard then click each one, cntrl-click on many browsers is "open in new tab". Does that help? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux Yes, thanks. I do already do that when monitoring Recent Changes (though I think a new tab should open by default there). But I would love an additional link at UAA which opened 3 new tabs with just one click. Maybe it’s just me being lazy, but I’d still love to have it (assuming it could be configured). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Signupstart § Moving username message to appropriate location

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Signupstart § Moving username message to appropriate location. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Stronger guidance against using real names

I suggest the following amendment to the real names section: You are strongly discouraged from using your real name, a nickname, or any other username which might be traced to you. Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase Using your real name increases the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas. Consider your personal safety too. In some countries, editing Wikipedia can be illegal, and using your real name can put you at risk of legal consequences. While it is possible to rename your account later (see Changing your username below), a record of your previous username remains permanently.

It is high time that our guidance on real usernames be stronger. While I understand that many users wish they had used their real name initially, you can always change your username to your real name later. But you can never scrub your real name from Wikipedia once you've used it. Further, using one's real name is I believe an example of western privilege that a good swath of our other editors do not have. But even our western editors are exposed to considerable harassment. Nor are such users immune from legal trouble. Take Rémi Mathis, who used his real name, and got in trouble with the French. Our contributors are in increasing real world danger from using their real names. Our lukewarm guidance is no longer sufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree, it's up to individuals to make their own decision about this. Some care is needed, but if a person is happy with using their real name then it is up to them. The existing wording is already clear on this and is an adequate warning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think the existing text is enough to make someone consider whether to do so. If they decide to accept the risk and still want to do it, that's on them. Also, we have no real way to even verify that someone who is using what looks like a real name actually is named that, nor should we care whether that's the case. I could go by the name "John Smith"—that's not my name, but no one would have any real way to know that. Also, I think the proposed new text gives too much weight to not using one's real name, and with it a false sense of security—pseudonymous editors have been doxxed and harassed too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Potential users need to be strongly advised that there are real life negative consequences to using their real name as a user name, or even a username that can be tied to their real identity, on Wikipedia. All kinds of entities now take Wikipedia very seriously, and may act against the reputation and safety of a user that they can identify, in retaliation for edits made by that user. - Donald Albury 23:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support the principle of stronger guidance, although I haven't yet thought about what wording would be best. It's not just disputes on noticeboards that cause trouble. I've seen at least one knowledgeable editor who had to retire due to being harassed (his opponent tracked down his employer and issued bullshit complaints). Something other than warm feelings is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is a sensible suggestion, well justified, and as the change is simply guidance, we don't need to worry about enforcement or compliance. The chain of events whereby someone joins with their real name, then real life events change around them increasing the safety risk are possible and justify the proposed change. CT55555 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support I agree it is up to individuals to make their own decision. But we have information they do not namely all the ways and times Wikipedians have run into issues after using their real names, which often turns out to be harassment but has been arrest. This change would not prevent a person from doing so - they are making the decision - but we would rightly be strongly discouraging them. This is an ongoing problem and the human rights concerns around Wikipedia are increasing in the current world political climate. Our policies need to change with them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support While we can't stop all efforts at doxxing even pseudonymous editors, we can help to educate people about the real consequences of using their real name, and strongly advising against it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support and I'd consider emphasizing the last line because I think that's the really, really important part new users may not appreciate: if they choose to use their real name and then change their mind later, it will be too late. Levivich 21:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I remember reading something in the Arabic Wikipedia where a number of editors staged a fake consensus when Rami Tarawneh was detained and forced to reveal the IP address of a contributor. Tarawneh was (intentionally) desysopped to protect that anonymous contributor, and since then protecting contributors' privacy became paramount there. Using your real name especially in places where Wikipedia is seen as a threat to the (authoritarian) status quo is like pulling off a robbery without wearing a balaclava. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose changing “Consider carefully” to “Strongly discouraged”. Support (or neutral) on all the other changes. Many people find benefit in using their real name, and consideration is all that we should encourage. As it is, most people already avoid real names wherever possible; there’s no reason Wikipedia should have a strong stance on this. — HTGS (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly discourage (or even prohibit) for minors; "Consider carefully" enough for adults; "personal safety" line is good. It's not the place of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to tell adults what level of online openness they should be comfortable with. Educating people about the potential consequences is enough. However, with minors, that's where we should be going further than asking careful consideration. So I would suggest something like

  Minors are strongly discouraged from creating accounts in their real names or nickname which might be traced to them, and all editors should carefully consider the consequences. Usernames like these increase the potential for harassment, especially if they edit in controversial subject areas. In some countries, editing Wikipedia can be illegal, and using your real name can put you at risk of legal consequences. While it is possible to rename your account later (see Changing your username below), a record of your previous username remains permanently.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin While I agree that minors are at particular risk, the impetus for this was the culmination of various private reports regarding adult editors. As my response to Rhodedendrites below points out, I aim for the change in policy here to be reflected in part in the wording at the sign-up page, since I doubt many people read this far down on the page. Thus instead of any confusing qualifiers, I sought a simple and generally applicable warning. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that. But I would oppose adding "discouraged" to MediaWiki:Createacct-username-help regarding adults. Adding a line about personal safety there too would be fine, as would adding "discouraged" for minors. But I do think that to some extent we have to accept people just don't read the boilerplate. Consider how many ignore It is recommended to use a unique password that you are not using on any other website. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Anonymous accounts are the problem, not the solution. They are widely considered responsible for much online abuse, creating a toxic culture of bullying and trolling – see research. There's an Online Safety Bill coming in the UK which is expected to require services such as Wikipedia to protect its users from such anonymous, unverified activity. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a computer game, its culture should be responsible and respectable, scholarly and sedate, like going to the library. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal but I support Tamzin's position. We should strongly warn minors against using their real names, but adults are, well, adults. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, support Tamzin's revised version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Tamsin's proposal. Anonymity doesn't facilitate abuse, it protects people. Secretlondon (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It's pleasing to see the apparent consensus above. I've been thinking about this. Not all minors make the best decisions. Not all children know they might grow up to be the ones who do the things that oppressive regimes dislike. Not everyone can foresee the human rights abuse, the crimes. Part of the issue here is our need to keep old user names. If anyone has ways to allow people who find themselves close to danger to revert to anonymity, that would be good. Oppressive regimes online surveillance is increasing, editor life safety should be a priority. CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The only way for a user who is not completely anonymous to become so is to completely abandon their old account and start over with a new account. Of course, in order to not leave breadcrumbs that could be used to connect the new account to the old account, they would have to avoid pages they formerly edited, change their editing style, and take other steps to avoid leaving clues as to their identity. And it is not a question of adults having the right to choose, it is the question of adults not understanding how much danger they could be in if their real-life identity can be connected to their user account. The greatest danger is to users editing from within countries that are actively hostile to Wikipedia, or within the reach of organizations capable of violence that are hostile to Wikipedia, but users in countries such as the US and various western European countries have been subject to harassment that had a chilling effect on their editing. That needs to be made clear to every new user when they are choosing a name for their account. Once you anonymity is breached, you can't get it back. - Donald Albury 18:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Generally support stronger wording on this issue, but a question: who's reading this policy before creating a username? The only place that really matters is on the page where you type in the name you're going to use. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites I agree. However, there have been multiple discussions to change the message you see at sign-up, and the last change was denied on the basis that this policy did not provide strong guidance. So, one step at a time :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense, thanks. Boldtextifying. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  To avoid that sounding sneaky, you might consider notifying those who participated at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 26#RfC: Language at new user signup page. — HTGS (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed text sounds a bit preachy and repetitive (i.e. "You are" "your real" "traced to you" "your real" "you edit" "your personal" "your real" "put you" "your account" "your previous"). I would support Tamzin's proposed wording. I wonder how many people will read the Wikipedia:Username policy (and scroll down to the 'Real names' section) before creating an account (my guess is that very few do). Some1 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support both Eek's and Tamzin's proposals, with a slight preference for Tamzin. Discouraging the practice is not the same as forbidding it (which I would not be in favor of), but the original proposal still seems a touch heavy to me. While I've been fortunate to have not run into situations of serious doxxing in my wiki-career, I've worked with a couple of people at VRT who want to expunge their name from the records and have real trouble coming to grips with that being basically impossible. The wording about minors is important, and to some degree is already being enforced. While working at ACC I've been advised by oversighters on multiple occasions that I should not create an account when the username is readily identifiable as a minor's real name. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose use of ...strongly discouraged from... But I would Support "...strongly advised not to..." Rationale: 'strongly discouraged' suggests there might be some proactive involvement by admins to resolve your use of your real names, whereas 'strongly advised' is firm, supportive, but still advisory. You have been warned! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I see no downsides to this change; editors who are discouraged from using their real name by this policy are free to change it later when they have a better understanding of the possible negative consequences of doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is 'WidgetsUSAMark' still promotional?

WP:CORPNAME makes it clear that company names are promotional, and that WidgetsUSA is not acceptable. I get that.

And in WP:ISU it's clear that MarkatWidgetsUSA is acceptable as it identifies one person. I get that, too - he might simply work there.

However, what CORPNAME fails to clarify is whether WidgetsUSAMark is still promotional (and thus unacceptable), OR if it's perfectly OK to have because it is not promotional and only identifies one person. Whatever the consensus might be (and despite a quick trawl of the archives here, I can't tell what the groupthink is) I would like to propose that we make our examples on what is and isn't acceptable much clearer.

Personally, I feel that any company name appearing as the first element of a username is still unacceptably promotional for that business (so WidgetsUSAMark should be blocked or renamed). Whereas MarkAtWidgetsUSA could simply be seen as identifying where an editor works - especially if they never edit on that topic. It certainly doesn't push the company name anything like as heavily as when the business name appears first in every edit history.

So, either our examples of an acceptable username should include one with a person's name at the end -if that's what we all accept- OR it should state that usernames beginning with a company name are not acceptable. Which should it be? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CORPNAME says Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company.... If you can read a username and see someone's real name there (e.g."Mark") then it does not violate CORPNAME. In other words, it fits the clearly intended to denote an individual person section of WP:ISU. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I propose we should change at least one example given on that page so as to make it clear that WidgetsUSAMark is not promotional and is perfectly acceptable. (My own view is that having any company name first is still unambiguously promotional, though that's not the point.) If yours is the consensus view, I propose we should change the following example text:

...such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.

to:

...such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "XY Foundation Jack Smith", "WidgetFan87", etc. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Primefac's interpretation of CORPNAME and ISU. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Important Message: E

"Offensive" usernames

Blatant trolling and block evasion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC) ed. 14:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is time to end this stupid ban on "offensive" usernames, particuarly in the light of the attack on Salman Rushdie. Expressing tourself through the choice of username, including those that others will find offensive, such as TheProphetMohamedThePeadophine, is an expression of freedom and unacceptable to prevent such usernames. As Rushdie says there is no right not to be offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.7.89 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Not going to happen; it's not a question of "freedom" but what the community finds acceptable, and the community has found that such usernames should be prohibited. If you don't like it, there are plenty of websites out there that will let you be as crass and offensive as you want. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC) IP, you can use whatever username you want on your own website, and have whatever rules for usernames on it that you wish, just as you can decide what happens within the four walls of your residence. That's freedom. When you want to play in someone else's website, you must follow its rules. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia is common property and not the property of a woke and snowflake clique. Freedom of expression is core to the purpose otherwise wikipedia will wane and die. I am sure this will happen, but, for now do you have any substantive arguements against changing it other than "some people will be offended" which is not an arguenment for anything? 90.225.7.89 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC) 331dot. Wikipedia is not your playground as you so put it. It is everyone's playground. Wikipedia is not a woke's plaground, and this form of opression and censorship is not acceptable and must, no will, change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.7.89 (talk)

Usernames matching local blacklist

⼵;7 was an account I came across and reported to UAA due to containing the problematic character ⼵, which matches an entry in the local blacklist. This is similar to the discussion above but instead of clashing with wikitext markup or causing other technical issues, the blacklist prevents editors, including themselves, from creating pages in the account's userspace, including the user talk page (unless able to bypass the blacklist). Note that the only reason why the account's name is able to exist is because it does not match an entry in the global blacklist. I do not see anything in the username policy specifically against this, but is this something that should be added? Also, should I continue to report such usernames to UAA or go the user talk into WP:RFC/N route? Mori Calliope fan talk 22:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)