Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Suggestion for the blacklist?

I've just seen "[username of another editor] is sus" being used by a recently-blocked vandalism-only account - if this is already on the blacklist, then please accept my apologies! From what I gather, this is slang used on the mobile game Among Us, but is also a homophobic slur (short for "suspicious"). Patient Zero^talk 01:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Notifying AmandaNP of this thread. Patient Zero^talk 01:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem clear to me how or why the word "suspicious" would be homophobic, but I will second that a username containing "is sus" seems quite likely to be a shitpost, and at the very least should be flagged for some sort of review. jp×g 22:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Need to add what the definition of "commercial web page" is

After re-reading this page during a recent block due to what was deemed a promotional name for a "commercial" website, I discovered there is actually no definition as to what a "commercial web page" actually is. Either the Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names or the article Website (or even both) need to be expanded to define this term. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It would help to know the specific situation where the policy was ambiguous. Generally a commerical web page is that which generates money for someone(including at least some YouTube channels). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Although my old username was an exact match for my website domain name, I believed it was acceptable as was non-commercial:

• "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" - My site is neither a company, group, institution or product
• "Email addresses and URLs that promote a commercial web page and don't simply identify a person" - Not a commercial site, it is run by just me. It is also a descriptive name, I like trains that are in the state of Victoria, Australia

I pay out money to have my hobby site hosted, it does not make money or sell product. It is probably most accurately defined as an "information site" (according to the list on Website), yet it was deemed as a "commercial web page". I just feel there should be more clarification as to what a commercial site was. I was using my interpretation that a commercial site would make money (as opposed to non-commercial).

I am NOT trying to restart a debate as to my old name, just putting a suggestion that this is a grey area that may cause issues in the future. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are not generating income with the website in any way- be it through being paid for clicks or selling something or anything- it's not a commerical web page even if you expend money to operate it. I would note that citing your own website is both a conflict of interest and posting original research and these things may have made it seem to others that the website was commercial. We're reluctant to spell out too many things in the rules when we don't have to- I think unclear cases can be handled on a case by case basis. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with the COI issue. I was drawing attention to the fact the block wasn't justified under the current wording of the username policy regarding promotional names due to the lack of definition as to a commercial site. I was offering a suggestion to improve the ambiguous areas of this policy. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As for WP:CREEP, that is why I said either this page or the article Website needs to be updated. There is no definition as to commercial on either. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

To quote WP:POLICY - "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia" - This would be a case of clarifying principles. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Language at new user signup page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for any of these proposed options.

There seems to be a consensus for having some kind of message about real names on the page. Although having no message was not an option, some editors did comment in support of removing/keeping it. Most editors commented in support of one of the given options. The comments of some option A editors focused on the benefits of using a real name, but even if one assumes these editors would've supported removing the message altogether, numerically they would be in the minority compared to option B/C editors who supported a stronger message.

As for the given options, some editors were sceptical there was any real variation between the proposed options (see comments by XOR'easter, GorillaWarfare and Parnaval, for example). With that in mind, and on a closer re-read of option A/B/C votes, it seems to me that the distinction between option A/B/C votes was more related to the proliferation of real-world identities on Wikipedia and whether that should be further discouraged (concerns about harassment were frequent), rather than whether the specific option voted for actually achieves that goal.

There were a variety of alternate proposals, but of those Rhododendrites's suggestion seemed to gain the most traction: We suggest using a name other than your real name. Wikipedia usernames are public, cannot be made unpublic later, and will be stored in a historical record of all changes you make to Wikipedia forever. Not enough to be considered a consensus, but it's unclear whether all commenting editors saw the idea. It's worth noting two themes in the discussion that might be relevant to this proposal's acceptance: some editors mentioned they valued brevity in the signup message, and a lot of editors mentioned or hinted at the idea that the proposed options don't really explain why the advice exists. Tryptofish also proposed linking to a relevant page with further information. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

---

In this recent discussion, we considered various tweaks to the message that appears at the top of Special:CreateAccount. Most of those have now been implemented, but one point of disagreement is what we should communicate regarding real name usernames, discussed at this policy at WP:REALNAME. Which of the following should be used at MediaWiki:Signupstart?

• Option A: Consider using a username other than your real name... (status quo)
• Option B: We suggest you use a username other than your real name...
• Option C: We strongly suggest you use a username other than your real name...

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging participants at the other discussion: @Joe Roe, Izno, Xaosflux, TonyBallioni, L235, WhatamIdoing, and MSGJ: {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. "Consider" is the precise wording used in this policy. We have no policy or guideline that "suggests" or "strongly encourages" pseudonyms—many editors, myself included, edit under our real names—and the wording of interface messages should follow policy, not the other way around. – Joe (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose all three I am 100% in support of allowing editors to contribute in total anonymity if they want. Similarly, I am 100% in favor of allowing editors to disclose their real world identities if they want, as long as they are well informed about the matter. I have long disclosed my real world identity, consider myself a semi-public figure, and am an actual mature adult fully prepared to deal with the consequences. I would not want to be harangued this way if I was signing up in 2021 instead of 2009. My public identification as a Wikipedia editor has been overwhelmingly positive to me. Why try to discourage other editors from choosing the path that I selected? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Cullen328, you said it yourself - [I] am an actual mature adult fully prepared to deal with the consequences. Not everyone signing up is mature, adult, or prepared to deal with the consequences. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Further, most people wouldn't have a clue what the consequences might be. I have seen a couple of good editors using real names who were always civil and welcoming, yet they ended up getting harassed at work (phone calls to their manager saying the person was a disgrace and should be fired). That was the result of defending the encyclopedia against a crackpot. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose B and C, neutral on A versus none of the above, as we do not and should not actually discourage people from using their real names. Although most editors may well prefer to use a pseudonym (and I support them in that choice), in some cases there may be actual advantages to using a real name. As a case in point, I have long used my real name, and have occasionally encountered real-life harassment for doing so, but there are also advantages that I think outweigh that: it has made it easier for subjects of articles I've edited to contact me with constructive change requests as not everyone is comfortable using the on-wiki contact mechanisms, and I get a small amount of credit in my real-life job for public outreach. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• I appreciate that Cullen has had a positive experience in allowing their real identity to be known. However, I think it would be highly irresponsible of us as a project to not be forthcoming with knowledge that the use of a real name on this project has led to real world harassment. I don't know if any of the wordings above are the right way to go about this. But, we must have something that educates unknowing new users to the real threats that using your real name could entail. There's also the reality that everything on the net is permanent. We can't be babysitters to that, but we do have a responsibility to uphold if for no other reason than the self-serving reality that a real-name editor might be forced to leave. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Like Renamed user 7z42t3k8qj. Izno (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, editors using pseudonyms also experience harassment related to their Wikipedia editing, including outing. Although I realise people have been shocked by the recent resignation, I don't believe that there's any actual evidence that editing under you real name makes harassment more likely or more damaging. There is even an argument that harassment would be discouraged if more people had names that suggested they were "real people". In any case, the topic of this RfC is how we should word an interface message for new users, not whether we should change the substance of this policy (which, again, does not forbid real names as usernames). – Joe (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, what recent resignation are you referring to? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  The one Izno linked to just above my comment. – Joe (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, ah, I missed that, thank you - that is sad. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option A, but never B or C. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Not A and probably not B as well per my comments at the start up page. People should have the luxury of being more forthcoming later rather than make a potentially dangerous decision their first day on the wikijob. As for "the interface should match the policy", this RFC is on the policy page so I see no reason it can't change the text in question on the policy. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• B or C, but not A. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• None of the above, but definitely not B or C. No evidence that using your real name as your username in any way encourages harassment. The most blatant cases of harassment - GorillaWarfare, Phaedriel, SlimVirgin - are of editors not using their real name as their username, but being doxxed anyway. --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Striking opinion, per GorillaWarfare, below. --GRuban (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Until I see female editors !voting A using the "I edit under my real name and it's been fine" argument, I'm very much inclined to doubt it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• B > A > C I'm incredibly unconvinced by the arguments from ignorance made by my male colleagues above. In this article for the Electronic Frontier Foundation Jillian York lays out not only the importance of pseudonymity, but specific case studies in the harm real-name policies create for marginalized groups. She points to an essay compiled by our peers at Geek Feminism Wiki which compiles research that some of my male peers above are seemingly ignorant of. A 2006 report found that users with feminine names receive 25 times more malicious messages than masculine-named users. A 2010 study found that at least half of teenagers who are LGBT (of which our community has many) experience cyberbullying and harassment for their identity, and using or encouraging real names places them at increased risk of being found by their harassers. Children do not have the capacity to understand long-term consequences, and we have minimal protections for our younger editors; failure to adequately convey the potential harms of using a real name risks disproportionately affecting children who may not understand the risks, and would place an increased maintenance burden on us due to revision and log suppression. The benefits of using a real name are minimal for most editors—this isn't 1998 and we aren't hanging out with Ward Cunningham to discuss software patterns—so it make sense to generally caution new users against using a real name given what we know about the nature of online harassment. Will it stop all harassment? Obviously not, but just because pseudonymous editors get harassed too doesn't negate the fact that people who use their real names face distinct risks. Encouraging editors to use a pseudonym is an extremely simple way to reduce the risk of harassment, and while I'm glad that my male colleagues above have had such success using their real names, I'd ask them to consider what attributes they all share that might lead to survivorship bias. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  You are badly cherry-picking, Wugapodes. There is a mountain of literature suggesting the opposite: that anonymity accentuates the online disinhibition effect, making toxicity and harassment feel more socially acceptable.[1][2][3][4] Pseudonyms can also imbue a false sense of security, leading people to self-disclose more than they would otherwise and potentially putting themselves at risk because of it.[5][6][7] This is why many major platforms require or encourage real name usernames, notably Facebook and the late Google+, but also smaller sites like Quora, and publications like Popular Science. Before you jump on me, I know this is a topic of debate, and many of those systems are controversial – but it's not nearly as clear-cut as you make out above. In any case, I'll reiterate, the question posed by this RfC was not what our real name policy should be, but how best to summarise our existing policy to new users. Consider the possibility that the "male colleagues" you're castigating did not respond with a research essay because we were answering the question we were asked, not because we're ignorant androcentrists. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Consider who would be emboldened by anonymity to harass and who would be the victims of that harassment, and I think you will find that my argument is consistent with your evidence. I sincerely doubt women and LGBT teens are using anonymity on wikipedia to launch coordinated harassment campaigns against our straight male editors. It's ironic you claim I'm "badly cherry-picking" when you ignore a number of other factors mentioned in your references which contribute to an online disinhibition effect, namely asynchronicity and minimization of authority, both of which I would argue contribute far more to any such effect on our platform than the choice of user name. Even if anonymity alone emboldened harassers, the added difficulty in identifying targets limits the potential damage to victims as GW points out below. I'm under no illusion that this will be the magic solution to all problems, but the issue of imprudent disclosure you raised is already handled by our policies at WP:OVERSIGHT, WP:CLEANSTART, and WP:VANISH which functionaries can (and do) point to when needed. As you mention, a number of websites have real name policies, and as you also mention these are contentious. But again, consider what you are sweeping under the rug by just calling them "a topic of debate". Among whom are these policies controversial? You'll find at Facebook real-name policy controversy (linked from the real-name system article you referenced) that those most notably affected tended to be marginalized groups. In fact, as you'll find in the first article I linked, York specifically references these platforms and the impact they have on particular groups. She even lays out some of the upsides you articulate (again, ironic that you claim I'm "badly cherry-picking"), but I agree with her that "It is not incumbent upon strict real-name policy advocates to show that policies insisting on the use of real names have an upside. It is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that these benefits outweigh some very serious drawbacks." To your bolded point, while that may be how you interpret the question, I clearly read it differently. My apologies for assuming that you put more thought into your response than just quoting policy, but I do appreciate that you took more time to contribute a reason that goes beyond uncritically upholding the status quo. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Where was this nuance in your original post? I would be very happy to see a revision to our username policy that is based on this body of research, which gives new users accurate and succinct advice with which to make an informed decision. But, as GW points out below, this is a harder problem than the phrasing of one sentence. It is not something we're going to get to by trading gut instincts in a hastily put together RfC. The benefit of the status quo, in this instance, is that it does not make a commitment either way. Nobody is suggesting that we should have a real name policy like Facebook (obviously), just that we don't tell people not to use their real name. Your original one-sided argument, portraying your position as the only one with empirical support and those who disagree with you as ignorant mansplainers, says we should rush into a strong, positive recommendation that, according to the research, might improve our culture, but equally might not. You're a smart guy, Wugapodes, but that doesn't mean everybody else is an idiot. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well, speaking for myself, I'm definitely an idiot. jp×g 23:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: I find your blithe and gender-based dismissal of my opinion as an "argument from ignorance" to be, frankly, offensive, especially when my comment stated that I have experienced real-life harassment rather than being ignorant of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Ignorance" not in the context of experiencing harassment but rather who the risk of harassment is not acceptable or who are not secure enough in their positions to be able to weather harassment effectively. I thought this was clear in the context of my whole comment, and I'm sorry if it was not. To clarify, you said "I have long used my real name, and have occasionally encountered real-life harassment for doing so, but there are also advantages that I think outweigh that: it has made it easier for subjects of articles I've edited to contact me with constructive change requests as not everyone is comfortable using the on-wiki contact mechanisms, and I get a small amount of credit in my real-life job for public outreach." You seem to have not only endured the harassment but by your own admission have benefited in your job despite it, and from your own statement seem to see the benefits to outweigh the increased risk of harassment and actual harassment. Given that I think it is entirely reasonable to observe and ask: "while I'm glad that my male colleagues above have had such success using their real names, I'd ask them to consider what attributes they all share that might lead to survivorship bias." Like planes returning from a mission, I think we should think more critically about who is willing or able to endure long enough to make it to these discussions. I'm more interested in the people who have lost jobs or left wikipedia due to harassment than I am in those who succeeded in their jobs and continued to stick around despite occasional harassment. Quite literally, what do you all have in common that distinguishes you from those whose harassment is so severe that they leave? I think the answer is patently obvious. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think you are being sexist and gender-essentialist. My ability to endure harassment has much more to do with my line of work than my genitalia. Look, I am not denying that pseudonymity can be useful. I think many people benefit from it. You are denying that identity can be useful, and trying to push even those people who might benefit from it to forgo those benefits. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• B - When someone signs up, they might not realize what they're going to get up to on Wikipedia. They may not realize in what ways people see their username. They may not realize that everything they ever do on Wikipedia is documented in detail... and attached to your username... and visible to everyone... including: stalkers, agencies of oppressive governments, potential employers, etc. And then if you want to change it later? Either you abandon your account, or change the username... and it'll still be easily connected to your real name. So yes, we should be actively discouraging real names. I'd go so far as to suggest something like "We suggest using a name other than your real name. Wikipedia usernames are public, cannot be made unpublic later, and will be stored in a historical record of all changes you make to Wikipedia forever." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• B or C. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Heretical question Does it matter? That is, do the stronger phrasings in options B and C actually convey the concerns that motivate them? If we spell it out, as the second sentence in Rhododendrites' suggestion does (Wikipedia usernames are public, cannot be made unpublic later, and will be stored in a historical record of all changes you make to Wikipedia forever), then it seems to me that we could start with the less forceful Consider... like in option A and make the same point. On the other hand, if we don't provide an explanation like that, what message actually comes through? XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Some variants not proposed are in the history of the related page: first stable version, my minutes-living temporary direct version, and then this message until recently. These were all cut down by recent activity which made the current version.

  There is evidence that my changes in April were noticed by the WMF in fact, though they didn't connect the dots themselves. See phab:T289799. Izno (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me that the three options presented above are roughly equivalent, and I'd be surprised if one or the other significantly impacted users' decisions when signing up. It would be difficult to succinctly explain precisely why new Wikipedians ought to strongly consider keeping their identities private, and to do so in a way that would not scare away potential editors, but I think that would be more productive than minor but ultimately inconsequential language tweaks.
  As to the general question of whether editors whose identities are known are face more or worse harassment, I have no doubt that they do. I suspect that even if I had managed to remain completely pseudonymous on Wikipedia, but everything else was the same (specifically my topic area interests and activities as an admin and arbitrator), I would still be harassed. But it is the knowledge of my real-life identity that has enabled the most severe harassers, who have published my address and threatened to come to my apartment, harassed my family, contacted my employers, etc.—all things that require knowing who I am. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC) (Noting I was invited to this discussion by GRuban)
• For anyone who was curious, this was originally implemented when a bunch of oversighters on a monthly call we had started doing early in the pandemic when someone noted that we get a ton of requests for suppression of real names that we don't suppress as a de facto matter of policy (see Wikipedia:Oversight#Privacy_of_account_renames, it is not part of the policy itself, but it is the standing interpretation of the Oversight team that we added to provide clarity to the community.)
  I don't really have a strong opinion on the wording, but it should be made clear to people that if they're at all concerned about their privacy, they shouldn't use a real name on Wikipedia, since the Oversight team will not suppress it, which means they really have no recourse once it's out there. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all three per Cullen's rationale and the following additional reasons: (a) personal security guidance should not be crowdsourced; the same consensus-building approach we use to determine how to present the history of jean jackets is not transferable to providing safety advice with real life implications, (b) at this point in time, most people who have the wherewithal to come to WP and create an account will also have an awareness of the ramifications of using real names, (c) those who lack the awareness described in 'B' may assume a false sense of security using a pseudonym which could amplify, rather than mitigate, their risk (e.g. all of these suggestions are worded in such a way that a person who otherwise lacked privacy comprehension might choose as a username some existing social media handle that, while not their real name, was easily fixable to their actual identity). That said, I would not object to a neutral statement that merely described the basic facts of username permanence rather than providing advice or recommending a course of action, such as the statement one described by Rhododendrites ("Wikipedia usernames are public, cannot be made unpublic later, and will be stored in a historical record of all changes you make to Wikipedia forever."). Chetsford (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC); edited 08:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC); edited 08:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support B first, then A. Oppose C - As a renamer, we get a lot of individuals who don't realise it's not needed. Stronger language may help here. It may also cut down on uwwellknown blocks. If we could confirm reader attention for longer, I'd support a more nuanced setting out of the issue in a couple of lines. But we don't have that, so I think this is best. We can always re-name people to having their real name if that's what they want. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose All Three per Cullen; but also this: The first piece of user research I ever went through about WP was about "why do people create accounts" and weirdly the most common was "in order to show support for Wikipedia" (very, very popular in Spain for some reason). These people do not truly understand what they are getting into by doing this (they do not not often grasp what "doxxing" is or why it would be undesirable), and I very strongly believe that we should err on the side of "most protection" for our users rather than "least protection", and encouraging an anonymous user name or a handle is the best thing we can do. The language should be very particular about why creating an account with an anonymous name protects anonymity over not creating an account.--Jorm (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good reminder—many users who create accounts aren't thinking at all about editing (if I'm remembering correctly, I originally created mine just since I like to be logged in on websites so they remember my settings, etc.). We still want these users to create accounts so that if they do ever start editing it'll be tied to them, but the way we may want to speak to them may not be what we'd expect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain I understand your comment; if you believe that pseudonymity is erring on the side of protection, then option C that clearly encourages a pseudonym would be best?
    I mean, the best possible thing would be to make certain that the user understands that using one's real name has serious consequences and have them make the best possible choice according to their situation, but no verbiage can do this. At best, it can encourage in the least harmful direction. — Coren ^(talk) 20:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• The statement should be that if you use a real name, or make any statement on Wikipedia that can be traced to your real world identity, you may suffer real world harassment and other consequences. We should not pretend that everybody who comes here is sane or rational, because we know perfectly well that they are not. If you venture an opinion that some extremist does not like then they will move heaven and earth to track you down if they can. We've seen it happen hundreds of times. The late SarahSV knew this from personal experience. One (now banned) editor placed poisonous and mendacious stories with a tech newspaper to try to win arguments here. Other user have written for extremist websites, inciting retaliation against individual Wikipedians who they believe they have identified. I have been targeted by aggrieved spammers, True Believers and charlatans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option C I know from bitter experience the dangers of using one's own name. No warning is strong enough to convey the horrible consequences that can ensue. If people want to spread their names all over, that's fine, but they should be warned of the dangers first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• How about keeping the warning, but framing it as matter of account security? Most people just signing up aren't thinking about potential harassment later, but everyone knows about data breaches. Something like "Your username is public. Consider not using your real name. For security, we recommend choosing a username and password you do not use on other websites." That would also give a nudge toward unique usernames, when we know that using a name you've used elsewhere that's linked to your real name is also a harassment vector. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That sounds sensible. It would be good advice even if we weren't thinking about harassment. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• C+. I would vote for C only if it went further and explained what kind of horrible things can happen to you if you use your real name. Nothing like that has happened to me: I was editing anonymously until I reached 100,000 edits. I felt that I should straighten out a false accusation from a loudmouth in my industry, so in July 2013 I changed my userpage to show my real biography. But I'm privileged as a mature white male who does not fear any ramifications against his person or career. I'm free to sound off and take the consequences. But I know plenty of others who would be vulnerable to personal or career threats. These threats should be listed so that the new user is adequately warned. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose B and C In my experience of being an event coordinator helping users create accounts, the main issue is that many account names have already been taken – there are over 42 million accounts and so it can take many attempts to find a free combination. This has long been a common issue on the Internet and that's why, when I started, I created accounts for both a pseudonym and for my real name. I had tried several shorter names first, such as Andrew, but found that they had already been taken. So, when I found a couple of account names that worked for me, I reserved them both. I then started by using the pseudonym and later switched to using my real name. I am comfortable with this and it seems to be the most respectable way to work on Wikipedia. We should not discourage users from doing this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You and I are privileged white dudes. Many others are not, and we need the protection for them. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We're not offering protection, we're offering advice. I can't speak for the corpus of "non white dudes" but I get the sense it is not as enthusiastic at getting advice from "white dudes" as the "white dudes" are at giving it. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• A, B or C, or what TBF or Chetsford said. Arguments about which editors in this conversation are white, and which of the dudes are dudes (male) aside, it should be specified in no uncertain terms that you can never change the original username. This is an important distinction between Wikipedia and, basically, every other website. You cannot decide you want to be pseudonymous later, and have it changed in a way that provides anything more than a minor inconvenience to someone trying to pwn you. We need to be clear about this. Arguing over whether it's better to be a faceposter are irrelevant -- you can always, if you want, request to have your username changed to something more identifying! The asymmetry is the problem. The fact that many websites online require you to provide your social security number and social credit registrant ID is sad, but not quite germane, in my opinion, as these websites have a number of stupid features it would unwise for us to replicate — Facebook, for example, has a policy where going to the website means you have to read a bunch of your high school acquaintances' stupid opinions about some goddamn politician, and Twitter has an even worse problem where you have to read posts from the politician themselves. jp×g 23:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To add to this a little, I initially registered this account using my real name, and have since changed it to one which frankly isn't trying very hard (these are still my actual initials). I am basically fucked -- there is no way to get rid of the couple thousand edits I made under my real name, or to eliminate them from the visible edit history of my account. Personally, I have decided to just deal with it, although I suppose I could make a long-shot request to revdel literally all of them. But I don't think this is something a rando should be told they have to just suck it up and accept. It's not intuitive -- no other website works this way! I'm not saying we should do something because every other website does it, but we should at least acknowledge that (for reasons which don't really make a lot of sense, especially to a newcomer) we do this one thing in an extremely different way than them, which can screw you over badly if you don't know from the very beginning. jp×g 23:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You can not only change an account name, as JPxG has done, you can also start again completely per WP:FRESHSTART. So we should not be using scary language to give the impression that the initial choice is dangerous and irrevocable. Making such suggestions seems contrary to WP:BEANS and WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

But the initial choice is in fact irrevocable, isn't it? If you make controversial edits under your real name and later start a new account, these controversial edits are still attached to your real name forever. The risk of a potential harasser finding the edit and, from there, you, will decrease over time as the edit gets buried under newer ones, but it'll never go away. – Rummskartoffel 20:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• C...but' without using "we". I'd prefer "It is strongly suggested." If this helps even one user from being harrassed by trolls until they quit the project out of fear it's a change worth making, there's no harm in it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, I see what you're going for but I'm really not a fan of deliberate passive voice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• B or C, oppose A. If editors wish to begin using their real name to edit after they understand the potential repercussions, then they can do so at a later time; we should advise against it until they gain some understanding of the nature of editing here. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Would something like "Please note that using your real name as your username may lead to a higher risk of harassment." scare potential editors away? Unlike the three options provided, my suggestion is not a "suggestion" with no reason provided, but rather an observation that allows the new user to decide on their username. feminist (+) 02:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with this rationale on top of other reasons for opposing all three variations. You are correct, we should merely recite the facts of username permanence to ensure new users are informed of the risks. We should not be peddling advice ("consider", "we suggest", etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Do not use [>C>B>A] your real name as a username, as usernames are public and cannot be made private later." People can still choose to ignore the advice. The text is for those who need it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Any of these options, or ToBeFree's proposal, but I oppose no message. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal To be honest, for a newcomer all 3 options are same as they have no idea about consequences. I propose that we give a short list of random usernames in at signup page like in reddit, So it will encourage people to use those usernames and not real name. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Any of these options is better than the status-quo (or in other words "what L235 said"). firefly ( t · c ) 10:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• A - It can't hurt to include such a cautionary statement, but it's not much more than a feel-good measure if we truly wish to ensure that a decision to use one's real name is only undertaken upon adequate forethought. At the same time, a username that resembles a "real name" (like mine) is no more or less real than Obo Boneson or Sancheese, unless we actually required "real named users" to identify (which, FWIW, I have). Therefore, in summary: use A and be glad that we've done a good thing, or don't even pretend to allow the use of a real name unless the procedures for identifying to the WMF are followed, and know that the decision was not taken lightly.--John Cline (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• As a Chinese Wikipedia user, I think Option C is better. in Maggie Dennis' explanation of the recent Offical Actions, one of the reasons is the privacy reason. I think a real name is a major detail if someone wants to harm you. The tone of options A and B aren't strong enough, so I prefer C, or even disallow real names as usernames.(BTW I am a newcomer of English Wikipedia, so please correct any mistakes due to the lack of understanding of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.)--Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 11:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  There's nothing to correct in your posting Emojiwiki. It is well written and clearly appropriate. I, for one, appreciate you for posting it, and welcome you to English Wikipedia. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• A ( > B > C). I was fully prepared, at first glance, to !vote B, but in reading Joe's and Cullen's comments above, I've come around. We should certainly be aiming to inform users of the potential pitfalls of sacrificing their anonymity—especially as we are dealing with a much less web-literate internet than when many of us signed up in the long-ago-time—but we don't know what is best for any given user, and I would hate to chase someone out of the (potential) benefits of using their real name with stronger language than is necessary. Whether users are mature, responsible adults or not, they should be informed as though they are. — HTGS (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unapologetically conflating aspects of two issues currently highlighted as current topics for discussion:

I don’t think any of these options communicate in real-life terms the specific harrowing life consequences that can happen if, e.g., some sophomore at Esmeralda County Normal University is fixated on, e.g., the one-season mid-1980s American ABC situation comedy ’’Best of the West’’, and isn’t mature enough to understand that it’s ‘’really not okay in the adult world’’ to go on an espionage spree and track down, e.g., this obvious c-word b-word Juliet fembot who reverted their unsourced non-WP:NPOV edits re: the potential homosocial attributes of the relationship between Parker Tillman and his henchman ”Frog”, because in an adolescent mind unseen miscellaneous villains are perceived as cartoon characters upon whom one can drop an anvil and the worst thing that’ll happen is that the anvil-ee will get a big weird hairy knot growing out of her head.

Analyzing who might be this Juliet-whatever is something my 50-year-old current self KNOWS that my 17-year-old Reagan-administration James Bond-fixated mildly Aspergery self could have ended up viewing as a magnificent chess game with zero comprehension of what horrors I could have wrought if the Internet had been a thing then.

I cannot fathom becoming an admin, because those kids are always going to be with us, and I can’t be worrying with every edit that I’m going to lose my real-world 50-year-old-professional-lady mortgage-paying job because a bunch of Valhermoso Springs State University ‘’Best of the West’’ stans decide one day over lunch that they’ve had enough of my schoolmarmish meddling and it would be fun and righteous to mess with me, and they track me down and call my employer and turn me into an insurance risk.

Alas, I’m not really sure how to solve this, given Wikipedia’s admirable goal of NOT excluding younger people by virtue of being “younger.” (I was 16 when I started college and 19 when I started law school; this is a BIG DEAL for me decades later.) It kills me that it seems like the apparent majority of “younger” editors are abject trolls.

And that brings up the WP:BEANS problem: If we put together a magnificent, universally agreed-upon set of recommendations about usernames, will it truly benefit the contributors/future admins we want to encourage? or just give the hobbyist-trolls something else to weaponize?

Thanks for letting me share, y’all. As always, if there are purely nonsubstantive markup issues that result from my use of the iOS app, any admin has my permission to fix them. Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• D: "Do not use your real name". Simple. (Of course, some will anyway). Absent that, then C then B then A. (Oh, after I wrote this, I saw that it used to say "You should make your username an anonymous username, not your real name" and apparently that's out now? Why? Was it broken? Has the public been complaining? Since people registering who do want to use their real name are free to ignore this and surely know that, what's the problem? If the sign says "Speed Limit 70KPH", we know that people are going to ignore that, sometimes for good reason (limit is too low, on way to hospital} and sometimes for bad, because people do. So, we don't need to worry about whether to write "Consider Not Driving Faster Than 70 KPH" and ""We Strongly Suggest That You Not Drive Faster Than 70 KPH". Just keep it simple and direct. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose having this sentence on Special:CreateAccount at all, when we still have nothing on that page explaining any part of the actual username policy. First, let's finally put "don't use the name of your business or organization" there, shall we? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. People should be free to choose whether they wanted to use their real names or not. It is common Internet sense that using your real name, no matter how benign the forum/game/app is, can lead to real world problems. Option B and C is too strong and too patronizing. SunDawntalk 16:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, after having followed the discussion here. The decisive factor for me is that A !voters are discussing the benefits of real name usage (in some cases in ways highly reflective of their positionality) whereas B/C !voters are talking about the benefits of anonymity, but these are not two sides of the same coin. The costs of initially choosing a pseudonym when you would've benefited from using your real name pale in comparison to the costs of using your real name when you would've benefited from a pseudonym. That's both because of how much easier it is to drop pseudonymity than to acquire it and because of how ugly harassment can get. Let's push people toward making the safe choice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding C, I'm not sure how much more persuasive it would be to add "strongly". It also might come off as scary and it just adds a bit of wordiness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option A, I feel it accurately reflects both community consensus about whether real names should be used (looking at this discussion, some editors seem to think they're a good thing and should not be discouraged at all), and the implicit dangers of doing so (that if a real name is used, it cannot be hidden). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option B is probably the clearest option, although Option A is fine with me, but I agree with other editors who have said that the wording will not make that much difference. I do think, however, that awareness of the issue is important before one signs up, regardless of the choice that one makes. Therefore, I strongly suggest blue-linking to one or both of Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion and Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option C The potential harms of using your real name are simply much greater than the potential benefits. Further, the argument that every potential editor (including children and people with mental disabilities) can adequately grasp these potential harms is simply not credible. If editors want to use their real name, then that is their right. However, they should be given the information needed to make an informed decision, specifically that using a real name is widely seen as a bad idea and that doing so can cause real world harm including harassment and doxing.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option C but with Beeblebrox's modification "It is strongly suggested ..." instead of "We strongly suggest ..." My decision was heavily influenced by JPxG's acknowledgement of the asymmetry of personal anonymity on Wikipedia and the unique policy of Wikipedia to not allow privacy-conserving username changes that are found on almost every forum and social media site. RFZYNSPY ^talk 20:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• None of the above. Some Wikipedians are vulnerable people or going to edit in controversial topic areas, and they should feel free to edit pseudonymously, but others of us prefer to edit under our real names, and I think that's a choice that should not be discouraged.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  And if they do, it's easy to list their name on their userpage or get a username change. But it's impossible to unmake that choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  There's nothing to stop us saying "Choose your username with care. Your username will be attached to all your edits and can't be hidden later." My answer relates to the question asked, so it's about options A, B and C above. I do not object to the principle of telling people that their username is permanent and unconcealable.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the wording of the question: I don't have a preference but I find the title of the section should include the word 'wording' rather than 'language' as it would be more precise. It is confusing because I had thought it was referring to the faculty of human communication, or to varieties thereof, and not which specific words to use. Munci (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• B, or even better Rhododendrites We suggest using a name other than your real name. Wikipedia usernames are public, cannot be made unpublic later, and will be stored in a historical record of all changes you make to Wikipedia forever.". I've often registered people at events; I always suggest to them not to use their real name, if they want to use it anyway, I explain why, and then they understand. For particularly young people, I have sometimes added "this is the internet, and there some strange people there" because I want to teach it as a general lesson. Myself, like some of the people commenting above, I'm not in a situation where it matters, but that's not the case with most beginners. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• B>C>A, also provide context Let me preface this by saying that any suggestion should also have a link to WP:REALNAME as a way to further explain why using a real name is usually a bad idea. As for A, simply saying "consider" does not imply that there are reasons to not use your own name. That phrasing makes it sound more like the implication of "you don't have to use your name as your username, you can be creative if you desire". It sounds more like an invitation to use any name rather than a suggestion. You could tell people to consider anything when making a username, but without giving reasoning or a clear indication of what is usually appropriate, the suggestion has no weight behind them to the user. C seems a little too heavy handed. Using one's own name is appropriate when demonstrating that they are knowledgeable in a certain field, fear they may be impersonated or want to make it clear any conflicts of interest that they may have. We do not want people to feel like they could get in trouble just for using their own name, which C implies. (Before you ask, yes I know usernames can get you in trouble via WP:UAA or WP:COIN, but those are usually not for actual names unless it is a clear impersonation or self-advertising violation.) Please call me Blue (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C - From the discussions above, it seems like the more we can discourage users from using their real names, the better. Nosferattus (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• I support wording similar to what Rhododendrites suggested: We suggest using a name other than your real name. Wikipedia usernames are public, cannot be made unpublic later, and will be stored in a historical record of all changes you make to Wikipedia forever." Huggums537 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option E: Rhododendrites I have developed a preference: I now suppport the option supported by several others: we state the facts of the matter, and leave the option to the users, with the knowledge of the consequences. We certainly could not simply say Option D 'do not use real names' as there are many undisruptive users who use their real names, such as Jimbo Wales. Munci (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option E>A Support both, howere I prefer E as it is makes a clear cut why not to use a real name. Most of users would generally prefer to use their real name at first as they don't know that the user name and signatures are saved forever. Letting them know the situation in advance can be helpful for them. Besides, it will reduce name change requests. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 16:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Out-of-place edit request

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Header

 – Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Add the following text to the header:

<div style="text-align: center;">The username blacklist can be found [[:meta:Title blacklist|here]].</div>

Which renders as:

The username blacklist can be found here.

172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't seem particularly helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the username blacklist can either be put on the username policy page or UAA. Either way works. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, why? As it pertains to individual wikis, the title blacklist is more of a technical restriction than a policy, and the blacklist is mentioned (and linked) at WP:NCTR in its discussion of username restrictions. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I am procedurally setting the edit request as answered due to the existence of a consensus building discussion on it's inclusion. —Sirdog (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NOU" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:NOU. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#Wikipedia:NOU until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Usernames which imply authority or expertise

What are the community's thoughts about usernames which imply authority or expertise -- such as "Dr John Smith" or "Prof Joanna Smythe" -- without providing proof of that authority or expertise on the user's page? I'm not thinking about the many names which utilize "Doc" in one form or another, but those which seem deliberately made so as to provide the upper hand in discussions and disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume you don't mean "Dr John Smith" edits Black Sabbath? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's correct, "Dr John Smith" edits medical articles and "Prof Joanna Smythe" edits articles in their field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Johnny Fever, however, might well edit Black Sabbath. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is a UPOL, however there might be something on the "COI/personal knowledge" realm. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think these would be policy violations. If they try to use their alleged credentials to sway content, that wouldn't be ok regardless of user name. That was established a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recommend user name

I have removed User:Q28's addition of a link to a new page they created, Wikipedia:Recommend user name; I agree with Primefac's earlier revert in that it does not appear ready for use. Specific concerns:

• Some parts of the page are difficult to understand (what is "Your Yawn"?)
• I'm not sure we should be recommending three-letter gibberish usernames to new editors
• There does not appear to be an existing issue that this page is designed to solve

DanCherek (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is an ongoing deletion discussion that watchers of this policy page may be interested in. SN54129 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• I've deleted it per WP:G3: blatant and obvious misinformation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Well deleted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New user script for removing bot reports

Example screenshot

I've created User:DanCherek/UAABotRemover, a user script that makes it easier to remove false positive usernames at WP:UAA that are reported by DeltaQuadBot. Special:Diff/1071431601 is an example of an edit made using this script. Feel free to try it out and let me know if you run into any issues (I'm pretty new to user scripts and JavaScript in general), or have any suggestions for improvement. DanCherek (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I just tried it out, I like it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Corporate account

I chanced upon an established account that's been used for flurries of activity starting in 2008, then 2014, and February 2022, all loosely within the same academic topic area. The most-recent user has stated: "I work in the Marketing department at Nottingham Trent University.", and "I'm new to Wikipedia, so unsure of processes".

This account is therefore multiple user, and CoI. WP:UAA states (emboldened as per original): "Sharing issues are not for UAA". Template {{WelcomeCOI}} states "One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing." As there was already a CoI-related post from 2008, I used {{uw-coi}} without the welcome, which in turn does not display the latter quotation mentioning blocking, so I have expounded upon this in my messages.

I have posted to an admin's Talk page with no response after two days. I wanted guidance concerning the new user's future status (whom I've requested to desist from further editing until advised, and not to edit directly to the employer's business) and blocking the username, per policy. I am aware of soft block.

WP:UAA also states: "We do not want to drive promising editors away.". I have striven to be tactful and tentative - full Talk discussion can be seen at User talk:Ntucadbe#Conflict of interest editing.

To me, this seems that UAA trumps COIN. Neither is it AN/I. Please advise how to progress this. Note - the admin who's not responded is a Teahouser.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is a real name an affirmative defense?

While the usage of a real name may not be the recommended way to name yourself, are potential users whose real names would otherwise violate the rules about inappropriate usernames allowed to create accounts with their name?

A potential way to avoid this would be to use their name formatted or spelled in a way that suggests that they are real names rather than something else, although this might suggest evasion of these rules.

(see Scunthorpe problem) Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that anybody with the (extremely rare) Scunthorpe problem would be well-advised just to choose another username. If they insist on using the problematic name as a username, I would assume that they are attempting to make a point, and allow things to flow forward as they usually do in such situations. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We also do try to be aware of some problematic words that are genuinely part of real names, see User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist where some are annotated (from a cursory glance, "shit", "nazi", "porn", and "bich") as common strings/substrings in real names from certain regions. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd call it a tiebreaker, not carte blanche to ignore the policy. I see it along the lines of WP:BIODEL. If there's a clear consensus or policy call one way or the other, it should stand. If it's borderline then such reasoning can move the needle in the user's favor. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's a matter of interpretation to be sure, not a slam dunk in either direction. If you claim "AdolfHitler42069" is your real name, I won't be inclined to believe it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, unless you're from Namibia... ;-) Primefac (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of "merging accounts"

Currently this page only mentions the merging of accounts in a single line, with no clarification made to its definition. As such, what exactly a "merge" is remains vague:

• Does it refer to one registered account being merged into another, or two existing accounts being merged into a new, third account?
• Would "merging" simply be the transferring of wiki contributions and log actions from one account to another, or are there other notable changes which are made (one minor point being are the histories of user pages and talk pages merged, or left separate (with any such merging left up to the user in question), or would this be up to the user in question?)?
• Would transferring an unregistered user/IP's contributions to a registered account also fall under "merging"?

If these points are relevant to the merging of accounts, I'd recommend listing them on this page rather than just having a throwaway sentence which is ultimately left up to interpretation; if they're not relevant to this page, then I'd recommend listing them on another, more fitting page if not already mentioned somewhere, and then linking to that page to alleviate any confusion.

(And yes, I'm looking to create an account at some point and have the associated contributions from my frequently-shifting IP address (I just noticed it changed again while previewing this edit) relocated to such an account, hence why I consulted this page, but ultimately couldn't find exactly what I was looking for, hence the clarification I'm requesting.) - 2.126.98.218 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Merging simply refers to combining two existing accounts. Accounts can be renamed, but this is not merging. Contributions cannot be transferred from one account to another existing account, or from an IP address to an account. An account is free to identify any contributions made under IP addresses as having been made by them(though one might not want to do that). 331dot (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit has some information about an old process in which a developer would manually associate past IP edits with a username, but they stopped doing that in 2005. DanCherek (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Noted. I'd recommend clarifying this on the page as to alleviate any further confusion. A quick draft is below (which replaces the existing single sentence regarding merging), although something better could probably be devised: - 2A02:C7E:178F:5900:58E0:8F6E:3FE4:C416 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I am not seeing the source of confusion here. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't either, "merge" is a common and widely understood word. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2022-02-20

Merging of accounts on the English Wikipedia is not currently possible: two registered accounts cannot be merged, nor can an unregistered account be merged with a registered account. In addition, as of 2005, contributions made under one account cannot be transferred to another account.

Clarification on usernames that are a brand

Hello! So recently I've seen people report users with usernames such as "Samsung Galaxy" or "Ford Explorer" (these are simply just random examples not actually one's i've seen) because they think they're considered promotional, and they're always declined because they aren't username vios. Is this clarified in the username policy at all, and if not should it? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME indicates that if a person has a "promotional" name such as those you have given, but does not edit anywhere around that topic area, they should be encouraged to change their name but it is not required. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf - Personally, I'd let those usernames that you gave an example of slide by fine, unless they start editing in those topic areas or edit blatantly promotional. It's unlikely that this is actually someone from Ford or Samsung. However, I keep my eyes out for usernames that are of companies that are pretty likely small or non-notable. Awesome House Painters, LLC, Tim's Grocery Store GMBH, I wash cats, Pvt Ltd. These are examples of usernames that I soft-block based off of my intuition and years of experience with advertising and promotion. Big companies with big products that are pretty well-known globally don't need to make a Wikipedia account to advertise how awesome their iPhone SX5050 Second Edition Mk II is. It happens... sometimes, and I've caught those potatoes over the years that I've been an editor here. It does exist, but not nearly to the level that the examples I gave here. These examples are nobody-knows-about-you-like-at-all-ever small businesses that are only here to promote their business because they feel that they need to. I'd say that a good 85-90% of those kinds of usernames, where they're small businesses with the owner's name in it, a name that sounds local to an area, or something like Oshwah Will Pick Up Your Groceries And Deliver Them To Your Grandmother Services, PLC (Yes, I will do that for you and for a reasonable price and I have a website! oshwahwillpickupyourgroceriesanddeliverthemtoyourgrandmotherservicesplc.co.uk! DOWNLOAD MY APP AND ORDER TODAY!) will engage in advertising and promotion on Wikipedia, which is why I soft-block those when I see them. With respect to your question, it is not clear per policy on how they should be delt, but we encourage users with usernames to change them. Except for when I don't. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There has to be tolerance in this area. My real life surname happens to be a well known brand. My full name is also that a of a well known person. (I had the name first!) Some here choose to register with their real names. I've often wondered what would have happened if I had done so. And I could not also help wondering if Ford Prefect would be an acceptable user name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You probably would have been temporarily blocked and asked to contact VRTS if that really was your real name. It happens surprisingly often (for both people-who-are-the-subject as well as just unfortunate coincidences) so we're pretty good about resolving the issue. Primefac (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

HiLo48 - Oh, absolutely! I agree. I usually look for full brand names and words that are obviously a brand. Take a look at edit filter #54, an edit filter that I wrote. I made it public so that you can see the code; I really think it can stay that way, but let me sleep on it. You'll see exactly what I look for. First, they have to create an account here; it doesn't flag a global account created on another project. It looks for legal entities, and obvious words that are 90% likely to be an account that is representing a business. Do some false positives appear? Sure, some... But that's why the filter does nothing but log events that are matches so that they can be reviewed. It takes no action against the user (in fact, none of my much bigger filters that hunt LTA activity do). I hope this gives you a good perspective of what I look for. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I reverted your edit here, which removed the following text from the policy:

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.

This is a longstanding text of the username policy that appears to stem from this 2011 edit by Xeno. In my view, it reflects expected practice on Wikipedia. We should not be blocking accounts unless they are actively disrupting Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For illustration, we have established editors with usernames that match a particular product or service, e.g. CodeLyoko (see Code Lyoko). Mz7 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Mz7 - That's completely fair. Thank you for doing this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is for sure an area where administrative judgement and discretion come into play. I don't think the rules need to be any more or less explicit than they already are. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

weird bug

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing this, I use the script that draws a like through the usernames of blocked users, and it has stopped working, but only at UAA/Bot, which I find very weird. I keep clicking on names on the bot list in particular, only to find that they've already been blocked, so it's kinda wasting my time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I just checked and popups, the other way to get that information without clicking through, aren't working there either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing "blocked" "has blocks" etc in navpopups. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. There's no blocked names on the list at the moment, but I tried opening an old revision and popups are working for me on everything except the usernames, and the script isn't striking the blocked ones out. If this is just me, I'll probably just have to live with it as I have no clue what is going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox is it working for you on other pages for example this one? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It worked for me when I manually put a user that is blocked on that page, look at the 3rd entry here, is it working for you? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Interestingly, it does work when I hover over your name at the top of the page, but not on any of the entries below. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: This appears to be caused by User:DanCherek/UAABotRemover.js. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh... sorry about that, I don't know why it's doing that. DanCherek (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh, that would explain it. I hadn't patrolled UAA in a bit and forgot I had that turned on. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that was it all right, turned it off and everything's back to normal. Thanks all for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Corporate usernames - when to report

I've been doing occasional runs through the user creation log, and on occasion will find a new account that bears an obvious corporate name but that has not edited anywhere as of that time. I am hesitant to do anything with these, because I'm not sure whether this is a straight-up violation of the username policy that should be blocked from the get-go or whether I should drop a warning on their talk page and wait to see what happens. Case in point: I've just spotted User:Pictureperfectcommunications which matches several communications outfits when Google searched; it has yet to edit as I type, so I'm not sure whether to warn or report at this point. (Another I was going to use as an example just posted an ad on its user page.) So: where should I consider the line to be for accounts like this? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tony Fox, my thinking is that an account like this should not be reported to WP:UAA or warned or blocked until they edit. If their first edits are to declare their COI and ask for help in dealing with their COI, then a friendly request to select a policy compliant username is the appropriate response, followed by other advice about our policies and guidelines. If, on the other hand, their first edits are to try to insert overtly promotional or spam content, then an immediate indefinite block is justified. The first few edits usually reveal a lot about intentions and inform the decision to warn, soft block or hard block. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If they haven't edited yet, drop a {{uw-coi-username}} on their talk page; there are a surprisingly large number of new editors who don't know you're not allowed to have usernames like that. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I'll take them on a case by case basis and use warnings as a first step for the marginal cases. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion initiated by me eight years ago on this subject that you might find relevant [8]. I concur with Primefac; warning with a uw-coi-username is appropriate and warranted for such cases. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point in warning editors with no edits. An awful lot of them never make a single edit. I have a brief guide to how I make username-related decisions if that's of any interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Often a corporate name might be created simply to prevent someone else from doing so, without any intention of editing. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 5 May 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)

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 &#42; in their signature to actually allow linking, similar to how to 7&6=thirteen needs to use &amp; 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

RfC: Stronger guidance against using real names

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that the message needs to be changed (in general), with stong support for Tamzin's alternate option over the original proposed wording. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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)
• Support. I think it is right to warn clearly and emphatically of the negative consequences of using your own name. Many new users do not know how this works and can make mistakes that can have consequences. It is always necessary to think about the safety of others. AteneaZ3 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perhaps a slight change...

...to give each report it's own sub-heading so that it can be subscribed to and followed? (Just a thought) - wolf 06:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sammy bray jr

Why can't I start a account 75.31.41.84 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have moved your question to Wikipedia:Help desk. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Follow on from the realnames discussion above

A Diff blogpost to raise some awareness on the problems associated with using real names was posted yesterday - https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/12/01/how-can-a-username-keep-you-safe/ - Cabayi (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Reporting users via any script adds an extra "comment"

Hello! I noticed that the majority of users here are reported via a script, but for some reason doing so will add an extra comment below the report for seemingly no reason. What exactly is the purpose of this extra comment? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Welp, I just noticed this with my report via Twinkle, so I went down the rabbit hole 'cause I was pretty sure Twinkle didn't use to do this. Turns out the change was made way back in January 2021, due to accessibility reasons and because the user-listing probably wasn't in compliance to WP:LISTGAP.

Relevant GitHub commit: Commit

Relevant Discussion thread: #Spacing — DVRTed (Talk) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't think that actually makes a difference. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm assuming by "here" you are referring to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? Can you provide a diff? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I am. See Special:Diff/1125894746 ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Eww, those are ugly. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  AGreed. I don't even know how they help since I Don't think they're even visible and from what it looks like those just make WP:LISTGAP worse since the screen reader will most likely read that as "Bullet: blank". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  They're useful when you have to edit the list manually to decline a report. Pinging the contributors to the previous discussion, User:Alexf, User:Beeblebrox, User:Deepfriedokra, User:Graham87, User:Isaacl, User:Izno, User:Redrose64, User:RexxS - Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The idea was to provide a space between entries so those of us with poor vision can see where one entry ends and the next begins. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  A double line break would do? They don't all need to be part of the same "list" right? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like busy work. Cabayi (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  That was the original issue: screen readers announce the start and end of lists, so it's desirable to use one list when the items are indeed logically part of one list. Otherwise, you get a lot of extraneous list end/start announcements. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, I would assume you're referring to when looking at it via the source editor? Cause when not in the source editor the software automatically adds a space between 2 entries. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The MediaWiki software recognizes a blank list item and adds a class to the corresponding HTML element so the item isn't displayed, thus screen readers will ignore it. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ah I didn't know that. I don't really understand how screen readers work as I don't need one so I just assumed that they read the "source code" that isn't wikitext ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Screen readers render the web page like a browser, and go through the generated document object model to decide what to announce. So hidden content is not announced, while content that was just moved out of the visible viewport will be announced. (I only realized that MediaWiki treats empty items specially when I read a thread where Graham87 confirmed that empty list items aren't announced.) isaacl (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, I was going to say words to the effect or your first sentence but you beat me to it. Also, a link to the archive containing the previous discussion of this topic is at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 25#Spacing. Graham87 17:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I already read that. See DVRTed's comment above ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• So, basically, the page is a pain to edit without some kind of spacing, several long-term patrolling admins here were looking for some sort of solution, but it turns out just inserting a blank line creates accessibility issues for those using screen readers. So the extra comment is intended to solve the first problem without creating the second one. I'm not super active at UAA right at the moment but from an admin persepctive this was for sure a positive change and I'd strongly prefer it be kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not saying it shouldn't be kept. In fact this was originally because I had no clue that was what they were used for. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Where would be the suitable venue to mention that an account that is being shared but that this is not clear by the username itself?

I recently stumbled across an account where the username itself doesn't imply shared use but their userpage makes it really clear that they're a shared use group account with advocacy goals. The advocacy isn't nessecarily promotional in nature but more along the lines of right great wrongs. There's just enough about that particular situation that I'm not sure UAA is the best place. Is ANI the most suitable venue? Conflict of interest noticeboard? Somewhere else? Or should I just go with UAA? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I posted here because this is where WT:UAA redirects to. I'm not sure if this request itself could have been at a better venue but hopefully my train of thought is more clear with that context. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say COIN or ANI would be suitable places to report something like this, sharing accounts is a bright-line violation, but, as you've guessed, not one UAA is equipped to handle. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

UAA bot reporting a lot of FP cyrillic usernames

I've brought this up on the bot operator's talk page but got no response. The UAA bot seems to love reporting any username that is just cyrillic letters. The problem is the vast majority of these are simply real names when translated. Is there a reasonable way we could reduce the amount of false positives from cyrillic usernames? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I've no idea why the UAA bot does this, it's pretty annoying. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It does it exactly so that a human will check it out. I have found a few really nasty violations via those reports, so I do think they have some utility. I agree that the vast majority of them are no problem, but I have no idea how to explain that to a bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add, in defense of the bot op, she has explained to me in the past that if there is a clear consensus that a certain type of report is not useful, anyone is free to remove the code that is causing the bot to generate those reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that any username that contains any non-Western characters will be reported for "multiple similar characters." Example. 129.240.113.189 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)