Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Username policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Request for help

...in the "Username policy" part of WP:Update/Conduct_policy_changes_during_July_2009. I probably am not, and wouldn't be perceived as, neutral enough to do a good job of summarizing major changes to this policy page. Anyone is welcome to give it a shot; my only request is that you don't describe what we were trying to do, but what the changes actually were; let the reader decide what we were aiming for and whether we succeeded. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-softerblock

An editor just made a change to this template, asking the user to read 4 links before making any more edits. (Tnxman then reduced it to 3 links.) Since I created the template and have reverted other changes twice, I better back away per WP:OWN, but I was aiming for something that doesn't ask a new user to read multiple policy pages before they made a second edit. When that's needed, we've got {{uw-ublock}}. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back to your revision, since I entirely agree with you. Not to mention that "Please read (...) how not to be a spammer." isn't exactly a nice thing to say to newbies. --Conti|✉ 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I support the revision. The entire purpose of the template is to reduce the amount of links that a user has to wade through. As I understand it, the template is supposed to encourage potentially constructive editors to get off on the right foot, and not lump them in with egregious spammers and show them the door. Shereth 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I included the link to make sure they don't just repeat what they did to get themselves blocked. It has been reduced to one link now. Triplestop x3 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Dank, there's a reason it's softer and compact. Unless there's evidence people who've been blocked have questions or issues and the links would resolve them there's no reason to mess with it. It's short and simple, ie you've violated a policy you're likely unaware of and create a new account. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. There were two more edits that I just reverted; I emailed the editor privately and haven't gotten a response. If the edits reappear (or if anyone asks), I'll discuss here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I got your email, its fine if you want it that way. Triplestop x3 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and also thanks for participating. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Non-Latin usernames" vs. "Non-English usernames"

Rspeer's major revision changed a section title from Non-Latin usernames to Non-English usernames. If this is to stay, then we should change the wikilink to that section from the top of Wikipedia:Signatures#Non-Latin, but before I do that I wanted to verify that this name change met consensus.

The name change appears to me to be an unnecessary dumbing down; that the section refers to usernames with spellings using other than the Latin alphabet was explained in the first sentence. Moreover, the name change required the addition of a new first sentence, "There is no requirement that usernames be in English." which was presumably added only to justify the new title and not address any issues with usernames such as El Mariachi. -- Thinking of England (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I really don't see what the significance is? The policy still says essentially the same thing; what one editor may consider "dumbing down", another may consider "more intuitive". Whichever is the case, I just don't see how changing Latin -> English alters the policy in any way other than purely cosmetic. Also: i don't see what issues there would be with a username like User:El Mariachi? Shereth 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should say non-English. There was an issue a while ago where someone blocked User:Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka for being "confusing" (discussed in this old AN/I thread full of the worst justifications for blocking you've ever seen). It's apparently a four-word phrase in the Miskito language. I presume they would not have blocked User:Arbitraryfourwordphrase, so the user got blocked for having a non-English name.

This isn't so much of a problem anymore, given that we do not block for "confusion" anymore, we only politely ask them to change their name or consider it as a facet of other disruption. But the point remains that you shouldn't do either of those just because someone's name comes from a language you don't recognize. rspεεr (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern was for conciseness of the section (in a way, "purely cosmetic") and not over the actual policy presented. I would not have uttered a peep were it not for the incoming wikilink in need of repair and my reluctance to edit in support of what I saw as a minor degradation of the section title and content without my checking first with other editors. I accede to your views and have fixed the incoming wikilink. Thanks. -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions

First, I got a question about how "shortublock" could be indefinite and short at the same time. If the name is causing confusion, then maybe {{uw-softerblock}} would work, i.e. a softer version of softblock. Suggestions?

Inserting a note ... based on comments below, softerblock sounds like the way to go. I've made the changes to the template, WP:WARN, WP:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Blocks, Animum's easyblock, and User:Dank/tempeasyblock.js. Have I missed any pages? - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the points where we don't have strong consensus might be cleared up if we talk about specific examples. I'll post some softerblocks I've done that seemed like judgment calls ... please tell me if you would have decided it differently.

User:Soap Chick: This was a tough one, because the userpage had so little information that I was forced to guess whether this was a promotional name. The userpage said:

Soap Chick

All Natural Goatmilk and Honey Soaps

It sounded like an ad to me, and a Google search on "All Natural Goatmilk and Honey Soaps" gives two hits, both ads: [1] (cached, an expired ad page) and [2].

User:VisionFromMarvel: Their only edit was a page that was deleted as a hoax about a comic book character. They obviously weren't speaking for Marvel Comics, but they were trying to give the appearance that they were, and my understanding is that that's blockable.
User:Brandonpnt: I think we decided in the RFC that if the account is just the initials of a company, and if there's no evidence that the company refers to itself using those initials, then we don't block it, on the theory that you "have to squint to see it". The name of this company is "Brandon Play N Trade" (from a Google search) in Brandon, Florida. I don't have to squint to see it.
User:Rackcases: This was a tough one. I wouldn't softerblock User:Baseballs if the company was Baseballs'R'Us, because it would be perfectly okay if we can get them to edit articles on baseballs in general. But rackcases are connected to a particular store, or so it seemed to me.
User:Carmenpetercom: The userpage began, "Carmen Peter is an executive coach and trainer ...", and the link to the website was carmenpeter.com. I would have allowed User:Carmenpeter of course, names and aliases are okay, but websites are not. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really glad you brought this up Dank, and the blocks were right on in those examples. As for the template name, I too didn't get the 'short' bit at first. I like how it's compact, but mainly I like it as it's a softer template, thus I think your suggestion for the name, or possibly uw-promoublock may be more descriptive. That way promoublock would be for promo accounts with little or few edits, likely done in ignorance of policy, whilst the harder spamublock is there for blatant promo names with spammy edits.

Also, I'm trying to get something sorted in Easyblock, as I was surprised to find it hard blocking people I've used the shortublock template on. Easyblock already does {{uw-ublock}} as a soft block, and {{uw-botublock}} & {{uw-shortublock}} should be as well, as all three templates encourage creating a new account. The other three name templates: ({{uw-spamublock}}, {{uw-hblock}} & {{uw-vaublock}}) do not encourage new account creation, and thus are inherently meant to be hard, so they're fine in Easyblock. Anyone have comments so that we can sort it out in Easyblock so that the other two soft templates are blocked correctly? I see the bit of code in Easyblock that makes uw-ublock a soft block, but I wouldn't dare add the other two as I don't want to **** it up! If someone is familiar with its code and could do it that'd be brilliant. I emailed Animum yesterday about it. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I copied Animum's easyblock to User:Dank/tempeasyblock.js a few weeks ago, then added uw-shortublock and moved the username stuff up to the top of the menu, and shared my additional code (it wasn't much) with Animum. My version is still working if you'd rather use it, I haven't kept up with Animum's current version. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the slightly modified version of the block template that I use, I refer to it as {{uw-promoublock}} to distinguish it from the rather bite-y {{uw-spamublock}}. As to the specific examples you list above, they all look like good blocks to me. Shereth 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the blocks listed above are really horrid. Why block before the editor has done any edits? Is not that the definition of assuming bad faith? AS SOON AS A PROMOTIONAL NAME MAKES A PROMOTIONAL EDIT they can be blocked, but why not welcome them to the project with a conflict of interest discussion first? ருந்தவனிட (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Our unblocking policy, Wikipedia:Appealing a block, says "Requests for unblocks should be reviewed by administrators other than the one who administered the block. Before changing the block, the reviewing administrator should first attempt to contact the blocking admin to discuss the situation." Blocking templates customarily include instructions to email the blocking admin, so I put that in the new template, but now that I see how it's working out in practice, it seems counterproductive, and I'd rather give the mail:unblock-en-l link instead (which is suggested at WP:BLOCK). The problem with having a big discussion among multiple people as to whether the block was appropriate is that it gives the impression that this is some kind of punishment, or "unsettled law", when it's just a simple technical request. Yes? No? - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we run into a few problems because a username block - particularly those that fall under the category of "promotional username" - are quite distinct from the rest of blocks. Most types of blocks are for behavioral issues, which creates room for interpretation and may thus warrant discussion when an appeal comes up. Username blocks are almost entirely a matter of a technical infraction and are not behavioral based; there is relatively little grey area involved, so there is little reason to encourage any kind of drawn-out appeal procedure. I would just as soon see their options limited to the use of {{unblock}} and not worry about opening the door up to spurious email complaints - but perhaps that is just me. Shereth 15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some times user name blocks are bad blocks. Sometimes user name blocks are good blocks but, applied in a bad way. We agree that someone makeing good edits to articles about widgets, with a username of "IMakeWidgets.com" is good for delaring their confilct of intrest but, bad for using a promotional name. I think we need to be more careful when we block these people. (Blocking some one called "Imakegadgets.com" who is only adding links to www.imakegadgets.example.com is fine). So, some user name blocks do need some discussion. Intrestingly some one with the name "killalljews" - clearly behavioural not promotional - is more instantly blockable. ருந்தவனிட (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:SIGNteam

Obviously a role account. I forget where we are this week, are we blocking this sort of thing now or not?--Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We do. I don't think there was ever any doubt over blocking accounts that are clearly used by multiple individuals. --Conti|✉ 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that if they're editing in good faith, just give them a talking-to or a warning to put one person in charge of the account. NOSHARE is an obscure section of an obscure policy, and we don't need to play "gotcha". And definitely do not jump to the conclusion that someone is a role account without evidence. rspεεr (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:U is an obscure policy? I'm not following. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The conditions for holding an account are made clear when you sign up. But I do agree we don't need to jump to conclusions about an account being a role account just because it speaks in the 1st person plural. This is a garden variety promotional account; if I were handling unblock requests, the sharing issue would be just one issue I'd be sure was covered before unblocking. Mango juice^talk 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the conditions are not made entirely clear. I'm bringing this up in another section below to avoid clogging up this discussion with something tangential. Shereth 17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in the 1st person plural is more solid evidence than most cases where people are reported as being role accounts. I was objecting to the practice of saying "the username sounds like it refers to more than one person, so we have to block them". And yes, the username policy is an obscure policy. It's not one of the five pillars or the three ground rules or whatever. We shouldn't be assuming that every new user is reading a book's worth of policy pages, and I can think of at least 12 policies that they should care about more than the username policy. rspεεr (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd rather we not bad-mouth any policy page ... if the question on the table is about usernames, then this is the page. - Dank (push to talk) 10:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How are new users made aware of this policy?

In response to a thread above where a claim was made that WP:U was an "obscure" policy, I decided to do a little investigation. When one is completely logged out and attempts to make a new account, the screen that users are presented with has a link to the username policy twice. Once is hidden inside the statement "Simply choose a username (not the same as your e-mail address) ..." where it is not readily apparent to the reader that a policy is being linked (or exists at all). The other is located within a section regarding inappropriate usernames well at the bottom of the page, not visible without scrolling, and shows up past sections that repeat earlier information about privacy. It is easy to see how this could be overlooked (at first I assumed the bottom section merely repeated the top due to the repeat of the privacy information).

Perhaps this can be made more obvious to the new users? It should be made abundantly clear, right from the start, that there is a username policy and that users must abide by it. At the very least, I would like to see the section about inappropriate usernames moved up to (or near) the top, along with an explicit link to the policy as opposed to a piped link. That ought to be sufficient, although perhaps something like a checkbox with "I have read and agreed to the username policy" option that has to be selected in order for the account creation to go through? In any event, I was rather surprised (and dismayed) to see how something as important as a username policy, where a user can be blocked even before editing, is not made more prominent and obvious to new users when signing up. Thoughts? Shereth 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Here's the template that needs edited. Nothing fancy, but something specific should be said about creating an account that's within username policy. Also since we have such a problem with promo names, possibly something should be said about it specifically. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly "Simply choose a username that complies with username policy and a unique password, then click "create account". Note that your username should not be your e-mail address, nor should it be the name of a company, group, organisation or website." Nja²⁴⁷ 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "Please review the username policy prior to creating an account. Then, simply choose a username that complies with the poilcy, a unique password and click "create account". Do not select a username that contains your email address, or a username that contains existing company, organization, or group names (including non-profit organizations)." I really want to encourage new users to read the policy, so they don't get tripped up on other "forbidden" names either, if we can avoid it .. Shereth 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did alot of reshuffling just now because there was a lot of duplication of the information between the top bit here and the bottom bit here. I'm not saying wording is perfect now, but at least the information is covered only once, and what's prohibited is more visible. The best way to see the whole picture is to logout or open another browser and go here to try to create an account. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I really oppose having more prominent language to steer users away from company account names. Frankly, 99% of these are cases to police, not really cases of good faith users who have misunderstood the policy. All we would be accomplishing is helping such users evade our effective controls against that kind of abuse. Mentioning the username policy more explicitly is sufficient. Mango juice^talk 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is just me, but it seems somewhat disingenuous to downplay a blockable policy in the hopes that it trips someone up down the line. Shereth 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammers don't read policy. They don't read block messages. They don't read WP:COI, WP:BFAQ or any useful policy. And even if they do, they don't think it applies to them. Otherwise, I agree with Mangojuice. It's not disingenuous, just less time consuming. True colours to the front, I say. :) – B.hotep •talk• 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. If spammers don't read the rules (but good-faith editors do), then being more explicit about it up front should weed out the good-faith editors who might have picked a blockable name at first, while the spammers ignore the notice and jump right in - so wouldn't the net result be less time consuemd? Shereth 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If you want to play up the blockable policy, play up the right one: WP:SPAM or WP:COI, because that is what those accounts are doing improperly, the username is barely important next to the constant misuse of Wikipedia as a free ad service. Only, that doesn't belong in the account creation area, it probably belongs more appropriately in the message that comes up above the edit box when creating a new page. Anyway, it's not downplaying it, I just think we should not be bending over backwards to help spammers avoid being blocked especially at the expense of clarity and simplicity in a message that greets all new users. Mango juice^talk 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How will this help spammers to avoid being blocked? If they are spamming in violation of WP:SPAM, they recieve a block regardless of their username. In any event, prospective users should be made fully aware of the one and only offense that may earn them a block prior to editing before they make the mistake of actually running afoul of said policy. Shereth 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We want these users to go away, we don't want them to not inconvenience us with a username block. Telling them not to use a corporate username is sending the wrong message. I have a lot of experience reviewing unblock requests and I can say it would make no difference to any of their situations if they had been warned in advance, except that maybe we would have had a harder time catching them. These users do not feel as if they've been treated unfairly: they know they are using Wikipedia for selfish aims and are not surprised to meet resistance: to them they often think there's some kind of hoops they have to jump through and need to be corrected that no, in fact, this sort of thing is Just Not Allowed (tm). Warning these users is not worth the cost: that is a message that every new user to Wikipedia sees and we don't want to give the impression that Wikipedia is a massive bureaucracy. Put another way, if we can't get these people to not be WP:DICKs in the first place, we should go on letting them be WP:GIANTDICKs so we can ban them. I'm all for trying to stop them from coming here but this idea doesn't work in that direction at all. Mango juice^talk 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

←I've not yet met a spamusernameblock who says, "You know what, you're right. I did come here to spam my company, but now I've changed my mind. I'll change my username, and go and edit an article on butterflies and not even think about my company again." It doesn't happen, they just lose interest and go away. Spammers are here to spam, and if they are editing under an innocuous username, they are infinitely harder to track – ask any NP tagger (or even old page tagger, come to think of it). We can AGF, but when it comes to spam, it really is a waste of time. – B.hotep •talk• 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I guess I'm in the same school of thought as William Blackstone. If the warning up front saves one good-faith user the headache of being harangued (or blocked) for mistakenly using a "forbidden" name, it is worth the hassle of a dozen spammers sneaking in more covertly. As I've stated before, spam is always removeable, and its temporary existence never inflicts permanent damage. I still think a proper distinction between "spammers" and "people who have a spamname" is not being made; it may be true that genuine spammers never go on to become productive editors, but I have dealt with numerous instances of good-faith editors who have run afoul of spamnames. Treating them equally is not productive. Shereth 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to say: I never block a user before they have made an edit, unless it is a blatant (and I mean blatant by the proper usage of the word – profanities, obvious dot.com names, etc.). Call it a concession, or common sense. :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That much at least I greatly appreciate. Common sense is never in excess! Shereth 21:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too, FWIW. I don't support preemptive spam-username blocks. Mango juice^talk 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I too would oppose having the spammers know how to game the system. Look through the new userpage log, and you'll see many spammish pages of people promoting themselves. Except they are not actionable because their username doesn't match up and are under the threshold where G11 could apply, so their SEO spam remains. Spammers need to be shown the door, not how to game the system.

“

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

”

— {{spamusername}}

Triplestop x3 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That was one of my top concerns in suggesting {{uw-softerblock}} ... but I check all the G11 userspace pages many times a day, and I haven't seen a single case where the same material showed up that I deleted before and it looked like the reason they came back was because of the softer language in softerblock. User talk:Bingelton7 kept coming back, but that link farm started before softerblock, and given the "industrial" nature of that operation, I very much doubt they bothered to read anything we wrote. I understand the concern that the softer language might create a problem, I just haven't seen any evidence to back that up. We supposedly had a couple of bots coming several months ago that were going to help us keep track of CSD work ... I don't know why those projects died, that would be helpful when we want to verify stuff like this. - Dank (push to talk) 10:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the softerblock template doesn't tell them what they did wrong. That is fine for good faith editors, however when there is actual spamming, the username is not the only issue. Triplestop x3 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost always delete the page with WP:WHYNOT in the deletion summary when I do a softerblock, which tells them exactly what they did wrong and how to fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I had been relying on the deletion summary but I guess not everyone will see it. What are the pros and cons of adding an alternative to {{uw-softerblock}} that mentions WHYNOT in cases where their page was deleted for G11 at the same time as the block? (We can't add it to softerblock because not every softerblock involves a G11 deletion.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I take that back, we could legitimately refer anyone who has a softerblocked business or organization name to our business and organization FAQ, whether we had to delete one of their pages or not. How about adding this to softerblock? "Please see WP:WHYNOT in our FAQ for businesses and organizations." - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any block message given to a spammer of any degree should refer to the BFAQ. It is one of the best pages we have here. – B.hotep •talk• 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Animum to the rescue, again

I mentioned on User:Animum's talk page that we've had an uptick in promotional pages requiring blocking the user from editing their own talk page (because they're re-creating the deleted material on their talk page), and just like that, he's added a "notalk" option under "spam" blocks. For any admin who isn't using this tool already, see User:Animum/EasyBlock. If anyone wants a version that's identical except that the username blocks are at the top of the menu (so you don't wear your fingers out if you do a lot of username blocks), that's at User:Dank/tempeasyblock.js. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding an example of how not to deal with promotional usernames

Based on the discussion we've had here before, it's the consensus that we don't want the username policy to recommend insta-blocks on usernames that only reference a company or group name. We'd much prefer to handle that with the COI policy.

I'm running into username reporters who maintain that the policy does encourage instant blocks on names like User:Hufs that are acronyms for the company or group that has a conflict of interest. So clearly we haven't yet worded it right in the policy.

So I'd like to propose the following changes:

In "Choosing an appropriate username" / "Company/group names", just to be sure, we should change "accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked" to "accounts with an explicit company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked". This makes it match the first sentence.
In "Dealing with inappropriate usernames" / "Other policies", we should add this paragraph:
For instance, you should still use the conflict of interest process when a user has a username that hints at their conflict of interest, such as an abbreviation of or reference to the group they are promoting, because this policy only recommends a username block for an explicit use of a company or group name. Likewise, a vandal with a slightly unsavory username should still be hardblocked through the vandalism policy, not softblocked for the username.

Thoughts on this? rspεεr (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think they are blockable instantly. First of all, whether or not the username is really an issue, they fit the pattern of unapologetic misusers of Wikipedia, and it just doesn't strike me as a bad decision to characterize them as being here only to promote or edit inappropriately. Second, a lot of companies (e.g. Geico) aim to be more commonly known by their acronym or an abbreviation than their full name, and in some other cases, such abbreviations are used as the address of a company's website. It strikes me as just as much of an issue in terms of promotion, and truth of their implied official status, as true company names. It wouldn't, if the users weren't promoting these companies, but it wouldn't come up unless they make the link clear by their own activities. Mango juice^talk 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Those seem appropriate to me. I support your suggested changes. The only exception is where the editor is making edits which make it clear they are here to spam, in which case I think they should just be dealt with rather than removed for someone else to handle. Perhaps a brief note to the perpetual offenders (those who regularly report usernames at WP:UAA when they should be reported elsewhere)? I subscribe to the "just handle the issue" model of customer service, and prefer to not bounce people around from location to location when dealing with something which could just be handled, but then explaining where they need to go in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some Wikipedia equivalent to cross-training is called for here? I will admit that, while I am familiar with our policies regarding spam and conflicts of interest, I have little experience in dealing with those issues per se and am more focused on username policy enforcement. You are right in saying that it isn't terribly helpful to hand someone off to someone else to deal with if the problem is evident, but we need to be careful that we are issuing the correct type of blocks; nailing an egregious spammer with a softblock for a minor username policy violation probably isn't what we want to be doing. Shereth 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I always look through recent contributions before issuing a block so I know I'm issuing the correct one. This is whether I'm blocking someone who's on WP:UAA or elsewhere. If we can get people to do that before blocking, then it won't be an issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say, Nihonjoe. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree - with the exception of especially flagrant violations (typically of the vulgar nature) I always take a look at the recent contributions (as well as the deleted contributions). Is this mentioned in our "how to handle reports"? If not, it should be. Shereth 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm very much in the "just handle it" quarter that Nihonjoe mentions. In the cited example, had user:hufs made a series of edits (including creating a spam article) involving their company/organisation, they would be blocked for "spam/advertising only account". To do anything else would be delaying the inevitable. As it stands with the example, I personally wouldn't have done anything, but I would have left a note on their talk page about COI and why the edits were removed. I didn't realise until Shereth mentioned it that we are coming at this from different angles; some (me included) from the spam angle, and some purely from the black and white of the username issue. As for those reporting: well, it didn't hurt to have someone else look at the situation did it? :) – B.hotep •talk• 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with what people are saying, but I disagree with the suggested changes, because I don't think they follow consensus. Current consensus is that we don't block "Abcd" if the company name is "A Better Car Dealer", but we do instablock it if they've made at least one edit that nails down the connection to their group or organization, and their company or website goes by "Abcd", and if there's nothing positive counterbalancing that, such as evidence that they've read anything we've asked them to read or evidence of useful contributions. (If there's a sign something good is happening, then a conversation is a better first step.) We also block if "you don't have to squint to see it", such as "Abcdealer" - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and {{uw-softerblock}} has been used thousands of times now, so if there were some kind of unintended consequences or it didn't sufficiently discourage promotional accounts, we'd know it by now. It's already in easyblock, and I'd recommend we add it to the block menu and the options at UAA. Softerblock seems to be a very effective compromise; I've had no reports at all that indicate that newbies thought it was too harsh, and on the other hand, I also haven't seen a single case where someone repeated promotional edits that they shouldn't have made in the first place after the softerblock warning (except for hard-core sock farms and others who we know aren't reading the warnings anyway). - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I could be swayed. Maybe we should mention these cases where the username and COI policies blur together, and recommend softerblock or spamusername+hardblock based on the severity of the situation. However, I would be afraid of encouraging the really dubious reports this way, like "this person is promoting himself because he uses his own first initial and last name", "this person is promoting the username they use elsewhere on the Web", or "this username is somewhat related to the group that the user has written about". Basically, I'm afraid pinning down these border cases would make a new, uglier class of border cases show up. Would we be able to prevent this? rspεεr (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't username-block first initial and last name of a real person, ever (unless I've screwed up somewhere), even if that's the url for their promotional website. For the other two, it depends; if the evidence is strong that they're trying to push or sell something connected to that name, and there's nothing positive in their contribs, then Wikipedia is improved by blocking that username, and history shows that people who do things we consider promotional who aren't stopped don't make any positive contributions until we make it clear we won't accept what we consider to be negative contributions.

On the general question, the two most important constraints given the labor pool IMO are: don't make it hard for people to pass RFA if they follow our policy (which pushes in the direction of fewer blocks and softer warnings), and don't push back too hard against the mindset of the people who are doing most of the work (which pushes in the other direction). For instance, for the first time in months, yesterday Calton listed most of his blockable G11 pages at UAA. He knows that I patrol the userspace G11's frequently and that I would probably have used softerblock, and sure enough, none of the admins who handled the requests at UAA used softerblock, they all used what easyblock calls "spamname". So, we've got a difference of opinion to deal with, here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that people have to use particular templates in particular cases (maybe this is your point, too). Maybe what would best improve the policy, though, is a brief list of templates to use in username enforcement. {{uw-softerblock}} is a good idea, but it doesn't appear on WP:U at all. rspεεr (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think which template gets used depends on what they did. If the user inserts one link containing their username then maybe a soft block. If they are carpet bombing many pages with the same spam link, then they should get a hard block even if their name is borderline. In the case of Hufs, all he did was add two links to official sites. However if he had spammed other pages or added promotional content to the page in question then a block may be warranted. Triplestop x3 15:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So long as it is clear what they are being blocked for - if their main offense is egregious spamming, their block message needs to say as much, not just a username block message. But I agree, someone on a spam-spree definitely gets the hardblock. Shereth 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I note that some usernames have a different degree of promotional-ness and this should be taken into account in deciding the block used. There are some usernames that blatantly promotional that mention the corp name in whole but some are only acronyms and such. Also, I notice that some are blocked on sight without them even making any edits, like User talk:Credit Repair Specialists Triplestop x3 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be personally hesitant to hardblock any username based on CORPNAME (I have no compunction about hardblocking certain other types of username violations) without any edits to go on. Perhaps User:SomeCompanyAdvertising really is that blatant, but even the use of a full company name should be given the benefit of the doubt and softblocked unless there are contributions to show they have no interest in contributing. Shereth 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made {{Uw-spamname}} which could be used as a warning. (However I still think users who are blatantly using spamming or using blatant promotional language should still be dealt with) Triplestop x3 16:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions

If a name is stale and is improper, do not block it. This was the 100% consensus on ANI in August 2009. I reported 3 names on UAA and it was removed by a different person citing the same reason. I reposted it and an administrator did the same thing, removing it citing stale. Therefore, there seems to be 100% consensus that this is the way it should be. I have merely summarized these actions in the WP:U policy. I don't agree with it but that's the consensus. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar instructions (basically "Don't bother reporting stale accounts") exists on the UAA instructions page itself. There's no harm in repeating that on the username policy, but please note that it isn't prohibited per se, just advised against since there is a high likelihood that it will simply be removed. Shereth 03:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The way you worded it was not really appropriate for a policy page either. I happen to agree there is little point to blocking an inactive account, but since it's already noted at WP:UAA it's not needed here, and would need a rewrite in any event. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't actually suggesting that such wording be used - "please note" was info directed at the OP, not as in "please put a note in the policy". Shereth 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, my reply was directed at Acme, not at your remark, Shereth. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Shereth 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no such consensus at ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just the fact that the accounts were inactive (and I've occasionally reported inactive accounts), the usernames reported were also not blatant violations of policy unless their edits suggested they were impersonation or attack accounts. WP:U only mentions that names such as these may be blocked as a precaution, not that they should be, so WP:RFCN is a more appropriate place to report them. snigbrook (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Something I've noticed: the message that appears when creating an account (possibly MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount) states that names such as this are prohibited by username policy, although this appears to be an oversimplification to make the message shorter (it even includes the meaningless word "celebrities", and suggests all names containing "bot" anywhere within them are disallowed). snigbrook (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam in userspace

Some admins are reluctant to delete spam user(talk) pages on the grounds that it doesn't show up in internet searches and that it is in the userspace (even though G11 applies to all pages). I was keeping an eye on this which had the speedy declined (because it appeared to be a sandbox – fair enough, no arguments there), but I've also been keeping an eye on this too, and today it showed up (fifth entry down). So, userpages do show up on internet searches (even subpages; admittedly, it took a few days), just in case you didn't know. ;) And I will carry on dealing with them. :) – B.hotep •talk• 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(I did post this at WP:SPAM as well, but it does have implications for username policy too where a decision is made not to block a spamusername because they have only edited their userspace. – B.hotep •talk• 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

I think it is important for administrators that don't want to enforce our username spam policies at least leave it for another admin to deal with. I have seen a few cases where clear violations have been removed from UAA because an admin does not agree with the policy, please don't do that. I am not going to mention names. Chillum 14:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam userpages are in google and are definitely indexed. If anyone refuses to delete them on that ground, please educate them. Gigs (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Disillusioned with {{uw-softerblock}}

After looking at the new {{uw-softerblock}} template and using it a few times, I've come to the conclusion that I don't like its wording. It implies that it's okay to block someone solely because their username sounds like a group, with no connection to whether they're actually using Wikipedia for self-promotion. That's not cool and not supported by the username policy. Can I change the wording so it at least says something like "you seem to represent a group using Wikipedia to promote itself"? rspεεr (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I always felt to be best, and you and I adjusted the wording to take into account over-zealous editors making UAA a one-stop block shop. However, as worded, policy seems to say clearly that the account must represent you only -- groups are a big no no, ie "not permitted" & "are indefinitely blocked". Nja²⁴⁷ 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." I agree their name "sounding" like a group should not be blocked(We don't block "Doogle" for sounding like "Google"). However if it is the name of a group then it is not permitted. Also if there is the appearance of the intent to promote that is enough too. They should of course be welcomed back under a more appropriate name. Chillum 14:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the main reason we ban group account is not because of promotion per se, but because our copyright license assignment doesn't legally work unless there's an individual making edits. This is a foundation policy issue. I can dig up the citation if anyone needs it. That this policy also happens to wind up blocking promotional accounts is really a side-effect. Gigs (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The supposed legal problem with role accounts is an exaggeration. It isn't real. If there were any legal problem with sharing an account, we would have seen it thousands of times over with IP editors, whose attributions are mixed up with anyone else sharing the IP. But in reality, we give attribution to people via the account they contributed from, and this situation is satisfactory enough to both the FSF and Creative Commons that they hold us up as an example of how to license a collaborative project. No, the problem with role accounts is purely a community issue, because our processes only make sense when each username corresponds to one person. rspεεr (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked and somehow this implication has gotten lost in the policy. I'm putting it back in. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I both can't find the citation that I supposedly have, and also don't know of a good way to work it in. I'm going to leave it for now, but I guess just keep in mind that that is also a concern. Gigs (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a huge misinterpretation going on here.

If there's evidence that an account is actually being shared by multiple people -- like trying to talk to the person, and getting a confused response, followed by "oh! I didn't write that, my co-worker did." -- then sure, that would be a case where you want to block.

However, it's a bad idea to block someone for the sole reason that you think that the account is being used by a group. If the only evidence is that they are named after a group -- for example, their name is the name of a band -- then you have nothing but speculation to support the idea that multiple people are actually logging into the account. (That's what I meant by "sounding like" a group.) In fact, it's quite likely that there is just a single person using the account, no matter what the username is, so that should be the default assumption.

In short, you cannot in any way tell if an account is shared by looking at the username (unless maybe the username is "MyPasswordIs12345"). That makes this not a username issue, so it doesn't belong in the username policy. Furthermore, we shouldn't use a template about group accounts in username blocks. rspεεr (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue of group/corporate accounts has never been a username issue per se, but it has always been dealt with here in the more obvious cases. During the blatant promotion RfC, I tried to formulate clearer guidelines, such as a new board for blatant promotion, or to clarify the guidelines one way or the other (to either allow all that don't specifically admit to being shared usernames, or to forbid all that even sound shared), but none of those proposals particularly attained consensus. The consensus was indeed to deal with the more obvious cases here, even if there is no explicit admission to being a group account. Considering that that was on wp:cent a full 30 days, and it was less than 6 months ago, it's going to be a pretty high bar to prove that something else is now the consensus. Gigs (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless we were talking at cross purposes the whole time, the big issue there was advertising, not shared accounts. If a username is an advertisement, it benefits Wikipedia to block that username, and we had a somewhat inconclusive debate about what constitutes an advertisement. But if the only thing wrong with the username is that it might, hypothetically, belong to a shared account, there's no basis to block anyone. Blocking someone based on the mere speculation that they are sharing their account would be a severe violation of WP:BLOCK, which is far more fundamental than the username policy. Especially when you're applying the username policy to something that has nothing to do with usernames. rspεεr (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We talked extensively about shared accounts as well. Gigs (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged administrative instructions back in?

I know Rspeer claims there was "clear consensus" for his new version... (I'm not sure where that happened... there's only one comment on it in his userspace)... But I thought we already had a clear consensus to break the administrative instructions out to a separate page, as is done for most other administrative noticeboards. I see now that the policy has grown large again and absorbed irrelevant administrative instructions. Gigs (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you speaking of something similar to this, or something altogether different? Nja²⁴⁷ 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) here is where the consensus for the revision happened. As for the section on administrative instructions, I don't see them as being problematic here - perhaps not necessary, but I don't see what it hurts to have it stated explicitly within the policy. Shereth 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, at least that bit about consensus is sorted. Anyway back in May we decided that the policy was too confusing for new users and that there was no reason to put administrative instructions in it, and that's when I expanded the page that Nja just linked. Gigs (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A favorable compromise may be to simply link to the instructions page, that way they are readily accessible to readers (administrators or otherwise) who don't know where it is at. Shereth 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like most of the material in WP:U#Dealing with inappropriate usernames section is inappropriate for a policy. It's more of a process guideline for administrators. Some of it probably should be merged over to the other page if we are just going to replace it with a link. Gigs (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the instructions/guidance in policy are helpful for all users, as it tells them how to best handle possible violations without them needing to dig too far for the info. I think though the info on hard and soft blocks, and the sub-section 'blocking guidelines or admins', could go over. There's some overlap, as I pointed out when I was considering a New Admin School module on username policy. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what we used to have [3]. It's much like you said. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We need the "Dealing with inappropriate usernames" section. It's not really for administrators -- it's for the many non-administrators who patrol new usernames. As we have seen many times before, it is very important to explain in the policy how to appropriately deal with violations of the policy, because so many people have a default train of thought that for some reason goes straight from "policy violation!" to "BLOCK! NOW!!!" and people end up getting blocked for trivially small problems. That said, a New Admin School page about the username process would also be helpful. rspεεr (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about getting rid of it entirely. Go look at what I did. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

technical prevention and policy?

should policy descibe existing technical preventions in place, as well a general bad ideas for usernames, as well as good practice for usernames? Or should the technical stuff be left obscured?
For example, try creating a name that is just digits - you cannot. ருந்தவனிட (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/7. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Usernames blocked by MediaWiki's Antispoof extension (such as User:7) can still be created by users with the "override-antispoof" permission i.e. administrators, bureaucrats and account creators (other names are still prevented by the current version of the software, such as those containing # or / symbols). I can't find an explanation for why names consisting entirely of numbers and/or punctuation are blocked by Antispoof – maybe it was to prevent usernames that appear to be IP addresses. snigbrook (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy shouldn't mention "bad ideas for usernames" (see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep), although maybe a page could be created as an essay. snigbrook (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously policy should mention bad ideas for usernames - don't use an email address, don't edit articles about widgets with a "WidgeCoLtd" username, etc. You really really don't want to just block people because you didn't tell them what the policy is. ருந்தவனிட (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "bad ideas" (such as a string of numbers) and "prohibited names" (such as a name of a company). The former should not be listed, the latter should. Shereth 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Strings of numbers are prohibited - try creating a username that doesn't contain a letter. Policy needs to be clear about prohibited items (the bit we agree on), but policy also needs to be clear that there are some bad ideas, and that a username falling into this latter group may attract attention (and semi-correct blocking / templating / reporting / etc.). RFC sstyle MUST and SHOULD and MUST NOT and SHOULD NOT are pretty good. ருந்தவனிட (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Real Names and Personally Identifying Information

Today, while patrolling new accounts as I often do, I came across (username redacted). I initiated a discussion with the user by placing a {{usernameconcern}} template on his/her talk page, linking to WP:REALNAME. The user stated that they are aware of the risks, and would like to keep the username as is.

The username policy as currently written does not explicitly deal with all personally identifying information, only real names and IP addresses. I don't know what is at this particular address. It could be the user's house. It could be a company that the user may wish to promote (the user currently has no edits other than to respond to my usernameconcern template, so I'm not going to make any accusations).

Personally, I don't think it's wise to have a username containing personally identifying information, but in the spirit of WP:REALNAME I also don't think it should be explicitly banned. Perhaps we should expand WP:REALNAME to cover all such information, like postal addresses, phone numbers, SSNs (I hope I never see one of those as a username), et cetera. I'm writing this section as a request for comments on the matter. --Tckma (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding REALNAME to cover "personally identifying information" is perhaps a good idea. I'm not sure that we see addresses or phone numbers often enough to make it an issue, but surely there is no harm in expanding the guidance to cover all types of personal information. You are correct, howeer, in stating that they still cannot be blocked. In this particular case, it looks like the address is a residential area; even if it were not, I don't think an address (even to a business) counts as promotional. Shereth 19:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's an infrequent occurrence; in fact this is the first time I've seen it. The only thing that might be bannable is an SSN (or Canadian SIN or other country-issued number) as a username, strictly because it's such a sensitive piece of information. Then again, once you create a username, it's in the permanent record and I believe only a Bureaucrat can hide it from public view. I personally have never seen anyone exercising that much of a lapse of judgement on Wikipedia, so we may not have to do anything at this point with respect to SSN-as-username policy.

As far as promotional names, it depends what the editor is doing with it. If we get, for example, a User:123 Main Street, Anytown US 12345 who then creates Bob's Cheese stating "Bob's Cheese is a great cheese shop located at 123 Main Street in Anytown, US 12345", then that is more than likely a promotional name. --Tckma (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If this person wants to use this real-world address as a username, perhaps we should require some proof that they actually reside there. –xeno^talk 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If a person uses a real name as a username, we don't require proof. Per WP:REALNAME, we only provide this guidance: "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution." I'd recommend something similar for addresses. --Tckma (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to consider the spirit behind that requirement - in part - so as to mitigate any ill effects the account's behaviour may have on the person with whom it shares a name. –xeno^talk 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm still not sure that proof should be absolutely required. Ignoring the obvious answers ("Sockpuppetry policies", WP:POINT), what's to stop me (or anyone else) from creating an account like User:1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC? I don't live there. It's safe to say I probably never will. It would still apply that we'd need "to mitigate any ill effects the account's behavior may have on the person" who actually lives at that address. Proof that the user is, in fact, the POTUS or a member of his family, OR an explicit statement that the user doesn't actually live there, would mitigate it (although not nearly completely). --Tckma (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't really get "proof" anyway. Even an OTRS doesn't really mean much. Unless we send them over to a notary and have them mail it in, we can't really know anything. For that reason, my personal opinion on this is that we shouldn't allow any real, personal information in a username, period. It's just way too easy for someone to register the name/address/phone of someone/some company they don't like. This view isn't really a consensus as far as I can tell, but maybe it should be. :) Gigs (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, an important threshold for new username restrictions is frequency. I think this particular circumstance is pretty rare, and I'm not aware of any time that there has been an actual real world problem caused by an address being used as a username. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here is security. What if the user gets in a conflict with another user and that user mails them a letter bomb? I don't think we can really be responsible for this. Triplestop x3 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as has been said above, it's way too easy for someone to use the address of a person or company they don't like. I know I said above that we shouldn't ban them because of REALNAME, but given what's been said here I've changed my mind. --Tckma (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We do realise there is an awful lot of WP:BEANS to be found in this discussion? :) Shereth 13:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hoped that rational people wouldn't consider (or atleast for no longer than a second) to actually do what's been said. In terms of 'proof' I say that's completely impractical, as for personal information such as phone numbers or addresses as user names; I think it's a bad idea to allow it generally. A kindly worded soft block template to allow them to change their name to something suitable and that represents them would likely be the best course of action. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, this username was created in bad faith as an attack as seen here: [4]. Triplestop x3 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen edits get oversighted before, is that what just happened to that thread? The history is still there, but the actual edits are not accessible. Also, should we get the same information oversighted off of this page? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The username itself was oversighted as well as references to it. Triplestop x3 21:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Uptick in advertising-only user pages and user talk pages

This is mainly a WP:WPSPAM issue, but I want to get feedback on when not to use the new {{uw-softerblock}}. There's been an increase in WP:SPA accounts using search engine optimization techniques the past couple of weeks. If a page looks suspicious, there are 3 ways (that I know of ) to confirm this:

User talk:Hollikurdes: searching for the name on Google reveals that someone using this name claims to be a specialist in SEO
User talk:Bingelton7: the talk page content resembled a lot of other pages recently, and it turned out to be part of a sock farm
Any user talk page by a new editor that seems to be promotional and contains a lot of search terms separated by commas is usually part of an SEO campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, I was using {{uw-softerblock}} on some of these, but now that I see the trend, I'm going with {{uw-soablock}}, even if there's only the one edit. My theory is that if they declare themselves to be a spammer either by the nature of their content or by saying "I'm an SEO specialist" somewhere on the net, who am I to disagree? But some might object to this approach; thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to assume good faith in every case. Take User talk:Hollikurdes for example. They had a single edit to their name, which was undoubtedly spammy in nature. However, we cannot know their intent. Are they actually trying to use Wikipedia as a source of free advertising, or is it an ill-concieved attempt to write about an entity that they believe to be notable? Performing a Google search on someone to discover they are a SEO specialist and then deciding "SEO specialist + apparently spammy edit = spam only account" is a breach of AGF. I am aware of WP:DUCK, but to discard something as fundamental as AGF over a single edit is, to me, a bad decision. The spammy page is righfully deleted, but pulling out the big guns and accusing someone of being a spam-only account over a single edit seems overkill to me when the softer block template would suffice. Just my take on it, of course. Shereth 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say nuke them all. These people are usually spammers with nothing better to do than carpet bomb as many sites as they can with their shameless self promotion. Nothing of value will be lost at all. However in less clearcut cases NOINDEX could be added to their page. And I would say {{spamusername}} should be applied to all instances where there is blatant promotion as opposed to good faith editing. (eg, spam link attackers, people creating blatantly promotional pages) Triplestop x3 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the "nuke them all" mindset is the collateral damage. Spam pages can always be deleted, and spammers can always be blocked - spam does no permanent damage to the encyclopedia. Scare away a good-faith editor with an uneedfully harsh template, you can not "unscare" them later on, and you have done permanent damage. Shereth 14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, going balls out would not be a very constructive way to go about things. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But how far do we stretch it? How about User:SEO Google (a real new account, albeit one with no edits so far)? Seems to me that SEO editing is inherently hostile to our purpose here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between imagined intent and intent. A grain of common sense goes a long way; a quick analysis of their edit(s) should show whether or not they are editing in an abuse manner or not. Use of obvious SEO techniques (Hidden text, excessive external links, keyword stuffing) or egregious and repetitive spam is obviously deserving of the {{uw-soablock}} or {{uw-spamublock}} template. Someone who has SEO in their username (or may otherwise be connected to SEO) but is not actually engaging in obvious SEO editing is not a problem. Again, it boils down to someone with a single spammy edit and someone with an obvious agenda. Just to make things clear, I am not saying spammers should be given a free pass, or even that they should not be issued a block (they should). However, unless there is a clearly malicious and/or unproductive intent, there is no need to run them out on a rail via harsh templates. Shereth 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

←Btw, this is what happens when we don't disable talk page editing for a user who's clearly trying to sell something:

16:04, 13 August 2009 Dank (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User talk:IngeMada12" ‎ (G11: Please see WP:WHYNOT. (CSDH)) (view/restore)
03:18, 12 August 2009 Dank (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User talk:IngeMada12" ‎ (G11: Please see WP:WHYNOT. (CSDH)) (view/restore)
16:33, 7 August 2009 Pascal.Tesson (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User talk:IngeMada12" ‎ (Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11)) (view/restore)

There's been a lot of this recently. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that a softblocked user who re-posts spam to their talk page obviously has no interest in being a productive editor. In such a case I would not see a problem with modifying their block accordingly, so they never bother again. Shereth 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You must not block a username for anything that is not a username problem. An account that is spamming can be blocked under other existing policies. An account that exists that is not spamming is not a problem. An account called "JoeBloggsSEO" with no edits is not a problem, and does not need to be blocked, but someone might want to talk to the editor (using words, not templates) about why the username raises concerns (spammy nature of name, conflict of interest, etc). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-links-containing-username

The problem with messages like these is that it explicitly tells the user why the filter is triggered but not that what they are doing is spam. The user is then encouraged to change usernames to evade the detection heuristic and add the spam, which is never a sign of good faith. I think this needs to be reworded to not explicitly mention the fact that the filter is based on user adding text containing their username. Some examples: [5] [6] and [7] [8] Triplestop x3 01:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if you show a draft in your sandbox or wherever that looks good to most here then myself or another admin would likely be happy to make the changes. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a draft on the talk page, is it ok? Triplestop x3 18:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this argument very strange indeed. The name of the filter is "User adds link containing username". So, the purpose (and "heuristic") of this filter is pretty obvious from the filter name alone. And the filter is not private anyway. So, not telling editor why they were warned is pointless: it will not deter spammers, it will only confuse ordinary editors. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the above diffs seem to be proof for the argument that blocking "promotional" usernames does little to deter people who are actually here to spam ... Shereth 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no data one way or the other concerning spam links. OTOH, I found that both uw-ublock and uw-softerblock were completely effective at getting people who created promotional userpages to stop; until recently, I was going through all the userspace G11s several times a day, and I didn't see a single case where someone I blocked reproduced promotional material in userspace under a new account (going on the reasonable assumption that taggers would catch the second attempt at NPP, and that the promoters didn't manage to catch a different deleting admin every time.) If this is too anecdotal to serve as data, and people still want to make the claim that it doesn't do any good to block promotional usernames, then let's conduct a real experiment and get some real data. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

COI exception for Archives.

There is currently discussion here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Archives to exempt people working at archives from COI if it is part of their job to add pointers to original materials holdings. In sorting through the other policies and how they could avoid violating them WP:ORGNAME came up.

The Company/group names section states (in part)

"Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you."

Because it is going to be obvious what archive they are working for, usernames such as mike2-at-newberry-library or zot3atSscua might be used, especially if people who were already editors on Wikipedia wanted to keep personal contribution from being associated with where they work.

From the policy using "as", and as long as these are not shared accounts, I don't think this is a violation, but it seemed like a good idea to ask. Keith Henson (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy would have to be amended, as common practice at UAA is currently to softblock usernames that contain company/group information even when they are not the whole username. Shereth 15:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you very much for this information. Do you think it is worth amending the policy or just to tell the archive editors adding pointers not to use the organization name in their username? Keith Henson (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is probably simpler to provide guidance to the archiving editors to avoid the use of their organization in their name. Something generic would be acceptable, too; "mike2-at-the-library" would be fine, as would "mike2-the-libarian", "mike2-the-archivist" or anything that does not make explicit mention of "Newberry Library". Shereth 16:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They can declare their affiliation on their user page, like everyone else. One less often mentioned reason that we don't allow role accounts is that they can seem to be more important or less subject to the normal requirements. Even the subject of this section kind of indicates that archivists should somehow be exempt from our COI guidelines... that isn't the case. They still need to edit carefully, as any other editor who is editing with a potential COI must do. They should be careful not to add links in a promotional fashion. Gigs (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturally they should be careful with editing. The concern is more one of whether or not they'll be blocked for a WP:ORGNAME violation rather than being hit for a shared account violation. Enforcement of ORGNAME has been pretty stringent of late. Shereth 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally I just IAR and ignore these users when I see them, since they are not spamming but adding helpful links. Example: Spcoll (talk · contribs) Triplestop x3 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To Gigs: I agree that they need to edit carefully. All the ones I have seen are formulistic, just saying where and how much. The external links to finding aids (as opposed to just a note of who has what) tend have a lot more detail, but I have yet to see promotional material in them. The proposed COI exception is only to keep working for an archive from being a reason to boot the account or delete the material when they add non promotional notes about where archival material is located. Keith Henson (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The user page sounds like the way to go. Note to Triplestop: Please don't just ignore these ELs. In many cases, ELs aren't the proper place for this information. We have consensus on this much at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Libraries, although we're still working out a few details. Any issues should be posted to the new external links noticeboard. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with usernames like mike2-at-newberry-library or zot3atSscua? I thought we block company names because they might imply that they are editing Wikipedia for their company. The two examples clearly don't do that. --Conti|✉ 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Shereth, the common practice is the way you describe because some people consider it a good way of stopping spam. Regardless of your opinion on that issue, I don't see why you would go out of your way to apply it to people who are clearly not spammers. rspεεr (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. That said, I still think we should recommend to such editors to not include the company name in their username. It's not necessary to do so, and could lead to entanglements with admins who are willing to apply these rules without thinking. Such admins should correct their approach, but while they still exist, I'd rather protect the innocent users. Mango juice^talk 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of another person's real name as a "tribute" ?

Wanted to start a quick discussion here about something that a few of us have wondered about over at the account creation toolserver site.

We had an actual account request where the requester provided the (optional) comment:

Requester Comment: name of my beloved son.

Note: the name is not a celebrity / famous name.

Do others feel that this violates WP:U? Specifically: 'Misleading usernames' imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people. (emphasis mine)

Or should there be an exception for tribute / in-honorarium types of names like this? 7 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: (I'll be the first to provide my own opinion but wanted to leave it separate from the section above)

My personal opinion is that this is a violation and should not be allowed. While the request may be genuine and noble, we have no idea if the son is aware of this or has permitted it. Boiling down the two sections of WP:U on real names / impersonation it seems to me that if you use a real name it should be your real name - and if your real name happens to match that of a celebrity you should disclose whether or not your are the celebrity on your talk page. But I'm always happy to hear other opinions. 7 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not a 'misleading username', as 'misleading' implies deception, and that's not the case here. If I edit under the name Jimbo_Wales or Michael_Jackson, and that's not my real name, then I'd be giving the impression to other users that I'm someone in a position of power or status which they have preconceptions about, and this would be deceiving. However, if I were to edit under the name of say, Tony_Patrick, simply because I like the sound of that name or it was the name of someone special to me, then that doesn't imply anything more to someone than ShakingSpirit does.

As long as there's no issue of this particular user attempting to deliberately impersonate his son, and from the comment it would appear he has no intention to, then the username is not misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, and should be allowed.

Also, strictly from a policy point of view, the phrasing of Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name would seem to imply that editing with a username of non-wellknown living person is acceptable in some circumstances, even if it's not your real name.

I would accept the user, but possibly request they add an explanatory note on their user page to ensure there's no confusion either now or in the future? ShakingSpirit ^talk 09:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Could I register your RL name as long as I had a disclaimer on my page? Would you be OK with that? Gigs (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Names are shared by (in many cases tens of thousands of) people all over the world - if you took the username 'Tony_Patrick', and that happened to be my real name, then as long as you're not deliberately impersonating me (which IS against policy) there wouldn't be anything wrong there. Names of famous people are 'unique' in the sense that, to most people, there's only one 'Barack Obama'. Creating a user called Barack_Obama would violate WP:U, under imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people. The username 'Barack_Obama' implies something. It's deceptive. It's misleading. 'Tony_Patrick' does not, and it doesn't matter if that is my real life name or not. There are thousands of Tony Patricks. As a name it no more impersonates or implicates than 'ShakingSpirit' does. Impersonation is against policy, and if that happens we will do something about it, but I can't see how this breaches WP:U. It's my opinion we should allow this username, with a side order of AGF. ShakingSpirit ^talk 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely okay to use someone else's real name as your username, as long as you aren't doing it to try to deceive anyone. With a note on your userpage saying that it isn't your real name, everything is fine. Particualrly, everything is fine when the person's name isn't the name of anyone famous. It's a little weird, but I can't see how it would get in the way of the project, but I *can* see how persecuting someone over it could detract from the project. Mango juice^talk 12:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotional usernames with no edits

Where are we on these? KalibaOne Productions has been reported at UAA, and a Google search shows promotional edits on MySpace and YouTube under this username. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The name is promoting a company, if they do edit then they succeed in promotion. I would say prevent them before they edit and use a soft block. A promotional username does not require promotional editing to be promotional, so their is not point in waiting for an edit. Chillum 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If we could make it easier to track, if this username popped up on some watchlist as soon as they edited, I wouldn't object to waiting to block them, because they haven't done anything that any reader is going to see, yet. OTOH, I'm not aware that we have a way to do that, and there's an argument that uw-softerblock (currently: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please create a new account with a username that represents only you.") is much less likely to annoy them than reverting their first edits or deleting their first page would, and taking some action (such as a softblock) sends a clear message that they might want to read that ORGNAME link before they edit, so reduces the chances of an unhappy editing experience. If we could get some kind of automatic notification system of their first edit, then I could happily go either way. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with current system of just putting Template:uw-username on their talkpage without a block? UncleDouggie (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, and it's far less of a headache for unblock reviewers like me, who will ultimately have to review baseless blocks like that. Also it's actively damaging to issue a softblock: all we're doing is WP:BEANS -- we're telling them to conceal their identity and return under another username, without addressing the real issue which is that they are here, probably, for inapprorpriate self-promotion. Mango juice^talk 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And there's no need to worry about these usernames falling through the cracks. First of all, most such usernames, if they edit, make their first edit relatively soon after account creation, so the namewatcher bot will report them. Second, in almost all other cases, the user will create a new page, that will often be tagged as a potential conflict of interest, and their contributions will be checked. Mango juice^talk 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with Mangojuice, but that's not the whole story, there are other options to consider, such as taking no action at all. I've got some problems with uw-username. It links to the entire page at WP:U, and the odds that User:BuyMyProduct is going to care enough about Wikipedian policy to read that entire page are close to zero. It's also something of a trap; it sends the message that we're totally warm and fuzzy and solicitous towards someone named User:BuyMyProduct, which is close to the opposite of the experience they're likely to have as soon as they edit. Let's either say nothing or be honest; honesty will help them get started, and save us some time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking the above into account, my recommendation at UAA was "Still no contribs, and the conversation at WT:U suggests we should wait. It's complicated, but I think on balance, waiting for the (95%-likely-to-be-promotional) first edit before we take action will produce the best end result. We have filters that will catch it if they edit not long after name creation, also if anything in their edit matches their username, and also of course it will show up at NPP if they create a new page, and then the "bad" username will be a helpful clue to the NPP patrollers. And who knows, maybe they'll surprise us if we don't start out with a block." Anyone is welcome to edit that; we should have some kind of relatively short and easy-to-understand reply in these cases. Also see OrangeMike's gentle (no, really :) reply. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss with the user and wait for a response does not really work. In most cases this discussion is in the form of a template being left on a users' page and nothing more coming of it till they are blocked for disruption later. We must get 50 promotional names every day and while the goal of having a heart-to-heart with each one is noble I don't think it is realistic. See Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over, it is a graveyard of these started and not completed discussions(my bot has removed the blocked users from this cat so these are all names that slipped through the cracks). With over 1100 abandoned cases in the category it is no longer useful as an actionable backlog. Chillum 14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, does "make no warning and take no action until they make an edit that shows which way they're heading" work for you, Chillum? - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If the name is not clearly promotional then I don't think it needs to be blocked, promotional editing is a whole different issue. If the name is clearly promotional then you should be able to tell without any contributions. We should just stop spamming in its tracks, there is nowhere else we allow it. Chillum 16:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since they haven't done any harm yet if they haven't edited, I take it your concern is the harm done between their first objectionable edit and the time it's reverted or deleted. Since we've got 3 different filters working for us here ... edits soon after account creation, edits that partially match the username, and NPP ... others are taking the position that the risk is minimal. Would it lower the risk acceptably for you if we had some kind of tag, perhaps invisible to the user, that expressed a tagger's concern about potential COI, that would attract someone's attention as soon as the first edit is made? - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. Blocks should be preventative, why should we wait until these users put their promotional names in the edit histories? We want them to pick an appropriate name before they edit. I don't see the purpose in burdening all of these other defences against vandalism and spamming when we already know the username is against policy. If you need to look at the edits to determine if a username is appropriate or not then it is likely more of a behaviour issue than a username issue. Chillum 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One reason is that, as a community, we're pretty far apart on interpreting the meaning of usernames without any edits to go by, and so pulling the trigger without more evidence is going to continue to lead to conflict; once they make a promotional edit, we're nearly unanimous on how to handle it. Note OrangeMike's comment at UAA today that "... Productions" is sometimes just a nickname. Another reason is that warning someone to get a different username will make it harder for NPP patrollers to spot promotional pages. Another is that the warning that's apparently the current first choice, uw-username, has some problems with it that I mention above, especially if it's followed by a block without any edits, and I don't know if we can get consensus to change it. Others have mentioned other problems. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I favor taking no action until they edit, which sometimes they never do. If they start editing promotionally, then softblock. If they edit in a way that doesn't suggest a connection to the username, let them be but suggest they change it if it implies a role account. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this should not be allowed: "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted." It's that straight forward. The user doesn't have to edit to prove that it is a company, group, or product name - especially when it is this blatant. If we don't enforce the policy as written then we could see more companies thinking that they should register (but never edit with) their username to prevent someone else from potentially doing it. If the name is ambiguous, only then should we wait till the user edits. 7 04:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If they never edit, it's the same as if they block. I've seen more than a few of these usernames that you would block on sight go on and make productive edits that have nothing to do with the name. If you want to make them rethink it before editing, as suggested, let's rewrite uw-username to create a version specific to that issue (as well as a bot-specific version). "Not permitted" does not necessarily mean you have to block them, any more than you block a vandal who's stopped or reformed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 7. For cases that aren't so clear, let's fix uw-username to address the concerns raised above. I'm not in love with the template as it stands by any means. I might be biased on the issue of not waiting until they edit because I only see the cases in which they have already edited. Whatever we do, a clear cut policy is needed. I reported one user, which resulted in an immediate soft-block. So I then reported another user who was more blatant and got a response of going the uw-username route. The user responded, but 2 weeks later their name still hasn't been changed. I just ran into yet another even more blatant case, so I went the uw-username route on my own yesterday with no response even though the user has been active since. In a related matter, should a username be permitted that is the same as the name of an article even if that article doesn't represent a specific product? I don't like it because it falsely gives such a user extra legitimacy when editing the article in question. The example is Cloud computing and you'll see what I mean in the history for August. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 7 on this matter too. I think we just had an RFC on this which arrived at the current policy wording. No admin is ever required to make a block, so if you don't want to block just leave it on the list. Chillum 11:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And what if you don't think it should be blocked at that point? If I feel policy is being enforced in a manner potentially detrimental to Wikipedia, I don't think anybody would say I should just stand by and let things happen that way. If you saw an image about to be deleted as replaceable fair-use that you didn't think should be so categorized, much less deleted, you'd say something. Wouldn't you? Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I absolutely hate uw-username. I think it's wishy-washy, verbose, and doesn't particularly work for what it seems to be intended to do, engaging the user. It talks about possibly taking the case to dispute resolution... come on... no username patrolling editor is going to take a case that personally. A to-the-point template that told them what might happen instead would be much better. I suggest we head over to Template_talk:Uw-username and discuss what could be done with that template to make it suck less. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer using {{uw-spamname}} instead of {{uw-username}}, except that the former doesn't put the username in Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over. I agree with 7, though, that blatantly obvious cases should be blocked before they edit. Tckma (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that, save for the fact that my experience has shown that's a shortsighted policy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenixfire960

I have a minor disagreement with a judgment call by User:Rspeer's at WP:UAA. I see the point; until Ikip's offer to help today, User:Phoenixfire960 wasn't treated appropriately, IMO. Clearly, there are likely to be reliable sources supporting the notability of the Phoenix Fire Dept, and even if there weren't, I'm not getting the sense from those edits that this guy is someone we want to chase away. Adding a block to the deletions might have a negative impact.

OTOH, I think on balance it would be best to explain to this guy that we don't allow usernames that seem to represent a group, and ask him if he can pick a username that just applies to him rather than to the whole fire department. The request shouldn't by itself chase him away if it's handled right. I would think any new user would be much more upset by having his work deleted than by a request that they don't use a username that applies to a group. (On the technical point, I don't see how "Phoenixfire" could be interpreted any other way, in light of the edits. If a user picked "Phoenixgovernment" and started editing about City Hall, that would be okay with me, because lots of citizens are concerned about government so it doesn't necessarily connote ownership; but I suspect there's not a large contingent of people involved with either setting or putting out fires in Phoenix outside of the firefighters.)

As I understand it, Rspeer's main concern is that username blocks make a bad situation worse and chase people off (and that's my concern too, of course). Would it help if we ask people reporting names to UAA to check to make sure this isn't happening before they report, and if it is, they should make an offer like Ikip did to help the user get started and wait for a response? If there's no response to a friendly offer, then I think that a username block in line with our policy would be appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure his username is derivative of the Phoenix Fire Department. But "Phoenixfire" is not the same thing, and phoenix and fire go together, it's a perfectly reasonable username. Not to mention the 960. This is a personal username. Unless the user goes around referring to themselves as "we," there's no cause for concern with this username at all. Mango juice^talk 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And I believe the instructions on WP:UAA already mandate discussion for non-blatant cases, followed by WP:RFCN. Mango juice^talk 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "no cause for concern", but I'm working on two other big projects at the moment. I'll come back to this as soon as I can clear out some time. I do agree that, given this guy's particular editing history, a block is not called for; best would be a conversation with him about how his name is likely to lead to WP:OWNership issues if he keeps editing articles on the Phoenix Fire Dept, and I think he can see how it's already gotten him into (largely undeserved) trouble by adding to the impression of promotionalism, so he's probably going to have a happier long-term experience with a name change. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So I'll remove the listing then, and you can give a warning message if/when you think it's necessary. Mango juice^talk 13:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not surprising that I agree with Mangojuice here, and do not believe this username to be problematic. I agree that it is obviously derived from the Phoenix FD, but in my estimation it is sufficiently distinct that it does not appear to either promote or represent. It seems to have the same flavor as the "fan" variety of username. (As to Dank's indirect questioning the existence of non-firefighters being interested in the Phoenix FD, I can attest to this fact - last year I deleted Phoenix Fire Department for copyright violation and got a rather angry and passionate email complaint from someone describing themselves as "a friend and proud supporter of the Phoenix Fire Department".) In any event, this is an example of the behavior that I find depressing at UAA; a user who seems to have an interest in providing information, without any blatantly promotional-type edits, who clearly needs guidance but instead gets a slew of warnings, notices and reports to various noticeboards. I would honestly be surprised to see this user return at all; not that I would feel inclined to try again after that warm welcome. Shereth 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Every large organization has departments, and people within the department often react with complete incomprehension to the modes of thinking in other departments, and may express astonishment that they should even care. Happily, we have no firm walls here at Wikipedia, but we certainly have compartmentalization. I agree with every word on User:Rspeer (although there are a few points where I would have added "OTOH"), and I agree with both of you that User:Phoenixfire960 is an excellent example of what goes wrong and what we need to stop. But we're not innocent victims of crazy editors; some taggers and some admins aren't listening to us because we're ignoring their concerns, concerns based on quality control.

For instance, lots of people have given up on newspapers and get their news from blogs and Wikipedia instead. Many of these people noticed by looking at bylines (the reporter's name) over the years that some reporters are likely to regurgitate press releases and others do better. But formerly stellar reporters do more and more light-on-fact opinion pieces, because that's what their bosses are asking for and what makes some newspaper readers happy ... and this is a vicious cycle; as objectivity and useful information become scarcer in newspapers, more and more people give up on them and look for crowdsourced alternatives, and the more readers and viewers newspapers lose, the more they devalue good reporters and hype the fluff. Wikipedia was the right platform at the right time, and we got the benefit of all this disaffection. So many of our readers will be looking to see who wrote the article out of the habit of checking bylines, and when they see that User:PhoenixFire960 wrote the article on the Phoenix Fire Department, some of them will think, "Hold on, I came to Wikipedia because I was looking for something objective; if the Phoenix Fire Department is writing the article on the Phoenix Fire Department, without any editorial oversight, then I'm better off going back to the newspapers and blogs that at least have editorial oversight." I can't tell you whether you should personally care about this issue, but I have gotten the sense that we have all lost some ability to influence taggers and admins by appearing to them to be overly concerned with AGF and not concerned enough about quality control, as they see it. Some sensitivity would probably be a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is an issue to be resolved then by all means, we ought to resolve it. I certainly don't want to come across as stubborn (I am willing to cooperate and compromise) but to be honest I don't see a lot of communications coming from the other direction. Precisely what kind of sensitivity are you advocating? As for my part, I am not trying to say that "taggers" have gone "crazy" with the way things are reported; I view it as more a sort of dependence on formulaic rules and tools rather than anything more sinister. Take the example at hand. The user was simultaneously welcomed to Wikipedia, notified that their article was marked for deletion, and warned about potential COI and spam issues, thanks to the joy that is TW. I'm not going to fault the editor who left the messages per se, as they may not even be aware that somewhat conflicting messages are being left. Rather I am faulting the way the process has evolved into an assembly line approach : see suspicious name, push button. I'd like to think that the process has some more intelligence downstream from that (that the UAA regulars would be more deliberative about how to handle reports), but from the get-go it comes across as highly mechanical and ignorant of circumstance. Until User:Ikip left his message, there is no indication (at least from the user's standpoint) that anything other than automated notices and templates were applied, no idication that his/her situation was more than merely glanced at. I understand that in a good 99% of the cases the problem itself is so formulaic (User:SomeCompany writes a fluffy promo piece for SomeCompany and has no intention of doing otherwise) that a mechanical response is appropriate. I just question how hard it is for someone to take the few extra seconds to peek at the contribs and say "Wait a minute - this one just looks misguided" and try a different approach? Again, I really don't want to come across as hypercritical of those making these reports, as their efforts are invaulable in keeping mindless spamming and promotion to a minimum. It would really help if someone from "the other side" would provide some input on how the situation can be improved. Apologies if I am coming across as stubborn or ignorant, but to date all I've really noticed is a response along the lines of "Hey, we're right 99% of the time and it's important work, so get off our back about the other 1%". I don't want to be on anyone's back about the 1% - I just want to see that 1% go away. Shereth 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with all that, you don't come across as stubborn, and I have the same problem of getting some of the more active taggers to speak up about what's important to them. I think it's important; I'll see what I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've talked with one of the frequent taggers publicly and one privately, and I haven't gotten any response, and I don't know why. Maybe I forgot my deodorant. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Real names

We don't often see reports for people who are (potentially) impersonating another well-known person per WP:REALNAME so I've never given it a lot of thought. A report today has got me thinking and realizing that there is an uncomfortable ambiguity in the policy as far as these types of names are concerned. Our current policy states : Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person ... such usernames may be blocked as a precaution. The problem is in the definition of well-known. The question came up with a report on User:julietaymor, as there is a Julie Taymor. Thing is, until now I had never heard of her. This isn't to say I don't believe she is well-known. Most likely she is well-known within certain circles, and this does indeed bring up the problem of potential impersonation (whether intentional or not). Since I have never heard of her, though, it is not beyond reason to suppose that User:julietaymor has never heard of her, either (I'm not saying that's the case, here, just speaking in general). The same can be said for virtually any well-known person. Gordon Brown is obviously very well known overall, but I'd wager there are quite a few people who cannot tell you who he is. Given that ambiguity, I would like to see some change, perhaps to the listing instructions/admin instructions, stipulating that these users be notified of the potential conflict prior to being blocked. I know that I, for one, would hate to see people being blocked without warning for sharing a name with someone they've not heard of. Shereth 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be required that a connection be established between the username and the purported person being impersonated? Triplestop x3 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember User talk:George Carlin. Fooled a few people, turned out to just be someone trying to be someone else. Chillum 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well when someone says "Why yes, I am Famous Person", that is a whole new ballgame, but I am referring to cases where the user hasn't said one way or another. I'm just asking that they be given a chance to clear it up before a block is issued. Shereth 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There are going to be alot of people that bear any given name and people shouldn't be proscribed from using it just because someone "known" uses it. However in the case above a connection between the username and the purported famous person being impersonated was established. Triplestop x3 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though there will always be blatantly obvious cases like someone trying to claim they are Dweezil or Moon Unit Zappa or something similar. Those kinds of names, I think, are going to be the exception, though. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say it really depends on how well known the celebrity is and how common the name is. We can use discretion. Chillum 11:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Each username should be taken on a case-by-case basis. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, every username report should be taken on a case-by-case basis. But "well-known" is completely subjective; someone who is very well-known in the United States might be unheard of in Malaysia, and vice-versa. Systemic bias should be avoided here in username policy enforcement as much as anywhere else on the 'pedia. I would think that the number of "famous" people that are nearly universally known is small enough to warrant a pre-emptive "Please discuss with the user" rather than having to remind people to do it after the fact. Shereth 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Drop shadows in signatures.

Since I upgraded to firefox 3.5, I've noticed an obnoxious trend toward using drop shadows in signatures. I think it's distracting, but then I don't really like the idea of fancy signatures at all. What do you all think? Gigs (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like them (probably obvious)... and per SoWhy's comment that my previous sig was too much of a code hog I like the fact that they are very light on bandwidth. I can certainly see how my sig may be considered obnoxious by some, but the downside of having a short username is that without some sort of formatting it gets completely lost. 7 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is up to the user really, so long as it doesn't actually cause people real physical discomfort. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to discourage them -- sometimes I read Wikipedia discussions from my smartphone, and drop shadows make the phone's processor sad -- but they're at most a very minor annoyance. I certainly won't say we need a policy against them. rspεεr (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on uw-username

Canvassarama: Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Why_uw-username_fills_me_with_the_burning_hate_of_10.2C000_suns. Gigs (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Promote"

I just had a little revelation. I think we are being unclear when we block accounts for "promotional" activities. It's clear why promotional activities would be objectionable to us, but so many of these users come right back with the claim that they didn't intend to promote anything. Sometimes, people post true advertisements. But mostly, people are inappropriately pushing for an article on their company. The tone of the article may not be right but at heart of it, these aren't exactly advertisements. Now, indirectly that is a form of promotion anyway but I realized that this terminology is confusing and endlessly frustrates these situations both for reviewing admins and for the blocked users. And I realized there's a better word we could be using: instead of saying these usernames and/or their edits are designed to "promote" we should say they are designed to "publicize." What do people think? I bet if we change from "promote" to "publicize" in all the standard templates it'll make things go more smoothly. Mango juice^talk 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You and I must be using different dialects of English; "promoting" is one of the many synonymns for "publicizing" in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see if it helps. I agree with you, and these users do come to understand the problem after it's explained to them enough, it's just frustrating that we always get this response. Mango juice^talk 06:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. When a person is blocked for using their company name for a username, we tell them it is a no-no because because it create[s] the appearance of intent to promote that group, taken directly from WP:ORGNAME. Specifically, we block them because explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted, not because they are actually promoting, and therefore the claim that they did not intend to promote is irrelevant. Whether these types of usernames are actually promotional or not is another issue (one I do not wholly agree with), but as the violation is specifically "Use of a company name" and not "Use of a company name to promote", intent is not a factor. Perhaps block notices should make it abundantly clear that they are being blocked due to a prohibited username and not because they are actually promoting. Shereth 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that the username is not the hard part of the problem to solve. Maybe this isn't the right place to be discussing it, but these users quickly understand that they need to pick a new username. What they don't understand is that their publicity editing is inappropriate, which they mainly argue against by saying they aren't trying to promote anything. I think they'd have a much harder time saying they aren't trying to publicize anything, with a straight face. Mango juice^talk 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see how the overlap between WP:ORGNAME enforcement and WP:SPAM enforcement can cause some headaches. It is part of the reason I am not a fan of the block-on-site mentality when it comes to the username policy - it isn't really getting at the root of the problem. Personally I would prefer that ORGNAME violations were placed in some kind of holding pattern until they edit to determine their intent. If they proceed to spam, they can be blocked as a spammer rather than merely a username infraction; if they edit constructively, we can educate them on COI issues and require a namechange. However I have come to grips with the fact that I am in the minority with this type of thinking. Shereth 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've reworded {{spamusername}} to more prominently mention publicizing as an alternative to promotion that may explain the block. Also, I've shortened the text (so hopefully more people will read it) and changed the instructions to make use of a new unblock template, {{unblock-spamun}} that forces users to provide a new username and also give a reason. Mango juice^talk 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the word "publicize" (applied to the username only, not the content) is less likely in general to provoke a bad reaction than "promote". I don't mind calling promotionalism for what it is, but on the other hand, AFAICT, it doesn't matter a bit to the hard-core spammers which words we use, while it might matter to someone who has a chance of turning into a good contributor. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting side-note here: Apparently some companies register their names here with no intention of ever editing. Registering the name is done to prevent future impersonations, and in once case I ran across, the company registered the name as part of their Internet Branding... again with no intention of ever using the account to edit anything. As a result of these, I no longer report promo names to UAA if the account has not edited, unless the name itself is blatantly promotional (e.g. User:BuyThisProductHere)... Just some random thoughts. Arakunem^Talk 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This sounds plausible, a link or two would be great ... I think the scales are tipping slightly towards "don't block until they edit", this is one thing that would help shift the balance. (Another thing that might shift the balance is a bot or filter that would put the name up at UAA as soon as they edit, then we wouldn't have to worry about failing to catch these when they edit.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a while ago... I'll see if I can dig up the diffs. Arakunem^Talk 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxy names

The last time we talked about a related subject was Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_13#User_talk:Fixreturn. (And btw, I've changed my mind on that one ... the name was hoaxy in the context of the page that was created, but I agree it's not hoaxy by itself.) I just blocked User:Ipromisenowounds and deleted User_talk:Ipromisenowounds, a page guaranteeing that their magical treatment would heal all non-healing wounds. I didn't feel comfortable with a spam or spam + username block because it was just the one page ... my understanding we don't want to use those blocks even on quackery on a first offense, but tell me if I'm wrong. My thinking is: User:WoundHealing would be fine ... I'd delete the self-promotional quackery, of course, but theoretically, that user might reform and participate at WP:MED some day ... not that everyone would be happy about that :) But my position is that User:Ipromisenowounds is unavoidably self-promotional, even if I don't know (and don't care) what the name of their particular company is. Who else could they be promoting? But we don't specifically say this in WP:U, and I might get disagreement. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ipromisenowounds is a bit more straightforward than it seems, since they had been linking to a website of the same name on their user talk page - it seems to be a fairly clear-cut case of promotionalism. Looking at it from a more hypothetical standpoint, I'm not sure. It's no secret that I'm of a somewhat liberal mindset when it comes to usernames, so I'm somewhat disinclined to see anything blatantly promotional in "Ipromisenowounds" (were it not for the website). It is somewhat vague to be honest; to me there is an increasing "spamminess" to a progression such as Healer -> WoundHealer -> IHealYourWounds -> WoundHealingService -> QuikHealBandages, but it is hard to arbitrarily draw a line between which one is and which one is not a violation of username policy. It is these sorts of cases where it is safer to block for the behavior rather than the username, ie. block "IHealYourWounds" for spamming, not having a spammy name. Shereth 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed the website, sorry. But one of these times, there won't be a linked website, and I don't like the options we have available for dealing with this. There is no advantage to dropping the ball on this obvious problem, to dumping it back to NPP and RCP to figure it out all over again the next time they edit. Yes, not discouraging a potentially helpful editor is very important, but the odds of that are slim here, and quality control is also very important. Many readers, especially when they're skeptical, do check to see who was writing a page, and if it's User:YouTooCanHaveABiggerDick, Wikipedia takes a big credibility hit. If we're not going to block usernames that promise miracle cures right in their name, we need to at least delete and revert all their objectionable edits, and put them on a list similar to the spam list that will cause a bot-generated report to UAA and/or COIN, with a description of the potential problem, the next time they edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing though - if we are to block usernames for being promotional then it needs to be clear what they are promoting. Clearly User:YouTooCanHaveABiggerDick is not the type of name that is very mature, but unless there are edits to show promotional behavior, what can you point at and say they are promoting? If our concern is credibility, however, then we need to be honest and say that we want to block usernames for that reason. It is not a notion that I agree with (and in fact runs contrary to some basic principles of Wikipedia in my opinion). WP:ORGNAME is pretty specific about banning usernames that promote a company, product, organization or a group; self-promotion is not explicitly banned. Usernames that allude to a hoax or a fringe theory are not baned by policy, nor should they be. Shereth 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ipromisenowounds and YouTooCanHaveABiggerDick were regular contributors to a medical blog, would you be likely to trust that blog as a medical news source? - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I get that some admins have acted too quickly at UAA in the past (I don't know if that's still going on). In the general case, it might not be such a black-and-white call, and if you'd like to make the recommendation "report to RFCN" rather than "block on sight", I'm fine with that, as long as WP:U gives good advice on what the result should be. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RFCN is a good option for "gray area" reports, and it seems to have become a little underutilized of late. As to your question : No, not really, but then I take everything I read online with a grain of salt. If your primary concern is usernames that may undermine our credibility, then the concern should spread beyond "hoax" usernames, no? User:Pastor Theo was (until his outing as a banned user) a fairly respected editor and administrator here and there were no username concerns, but to be honest if I saw a "Pastor Theo" hosting an astrophysics blog, I'd be inclined to pass on that as well. There are a myriad of usernames that could be viewed as detrimental to our "credibility" as a scholarly source. I won't bring up other spedific examples, but there are on my watchlist recent edits by names that fit the following categories : Imply a connection to a "fringe" religion, derived from video games, derived from Pokemon, and imply the user is a minor. Each and every one of these usernames could, depending on the context, be viewed as detrimental to our credibility as a reliable, scholarly resource. I hate to say it, but down that road lies Citizendium - Wikipedia isn't concerned with having editors who are (or appear to be) reliable, but rather with information that is reliable. For all that yammering from me, though, it boils down to the simple fact that WP:ORGNAME is about promotion and not about trustworthy names. Shereth 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have a position on this? - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

These people seem to be using Wikipedia for fraudulent purposes, an even bigger problem than spam. Furthermore, this kind of nonsense epitomizes the unwanted spam we are trying to get rid of. This is even below the level of the Viagra emails you often get. And the username seems to be some kind of sales pitch, so it is indeed a promotional username. Triplestop x3 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with blocking a name like YouTooCanHaveABiggerDick for promotion. That's the kind of name we should focus on, because the name itself promotes something: the idea that penis enlargement works. (For a more legitimate example, think of the Got Milk campaign of TV ads -- they weren't selling any particular brand of milk, they were selling the idea that adults like to drink milk.) So yes, block that kind of name even if they're not spamming and you can't tell what particular sleazy product they're selling yet. rspεεr (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If there is going to be a consensus to do so then I have no problems with it, but I must ask the question : Are we then going to expand the notion of promotion to encompass the promotion of more general ideas/concepts? Shereth 14:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I realize that some clarification is needed here. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to make the case that the hypothetical User:YouTooCanHaveABiggerDick is the sort of thing we want to see. What I am trying to get at is that our username policy has been refined to specifically prohibit usernames that are promotional of a group and/or a product. If we want to effectively ban these types of usernames, then we will either have to expand the policy to include generic concepts, or perhaps just genericize the policy to prohibit promotional usernames, regardless of what it is promoting. I am just leery of a problem I see in expanding the promotion prohibition to cover "generic" promotion because that can be applied to a wide spectrum of usernames, including those that we have specifically allowed, those of the "fan" variety which are, by some defintions, promotional of some entity or another. I'm kind of losing my train of thought here, but I am recalling a conversation not long ago that suggested tweaking how we define "promote". Perhaps that is an idea that needs to be revisited - what exactly are we getting at when we are prohibiting "promotional" usernames? Prevent the use of Wikipedia as a free advertising medium? Avoid the appearance that Wikipedia is granting legitimacy to something? Both? More? I believe answering that question is key to how we proceed. Triplestop above says they "seem to be using Wikipedia for fraudulent purposes, an even bigger problem than spam", and Dank worries about our credibility being undermined. If banning promotional usernames is really more about appearances and less about spam, I'm afraid it becomes a more difficult monster to rein in ... Shereth 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, feel free to ignore the above drivel and proceed with the discussion. Shereth 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you make some good points. The name YouTooCanHaveABiggerDick is so obviously promoting some class of sham product that I would strongly encourage blocking it. But if we extended this idea too far, we might see a return of the religion-based username blocks, such as a self-described Christian being blocked for promoting the idea of Christianity. Or, as you point out, the practice of blocking people who are fans of things. Those would be really bad ideas. So let's not go there. rspεεr (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we're not talking about names that suggest enthusiasm for a viewpoint, I think we're talking about names that try to cram an informercial into a username. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just been making a mountain out a molehill; a little application of common sense (and I trust everyone who patrols UAA to do so) means it ought not be a problem. Apologies. Shereth 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is currently no forum for reviewing username blocks

Right now there's a thread at WP:AN#Username blocks about an administrator who's been placing unjustified username blocks.

One problem that this highlights is that there is currently no forum for reviewing username blocks, like Deletion Review is for deleted articles. Now, I am of the opinion that -- because it's primarily a newbie-welcoming issue -- you can't un-username-block someone any more than you can un-punch them in the face. But when we let bad username blocks stand, it lets them perpetuate themselves; soon enough, someone will be holding them up as precedent, saying "The written policy must be wrong. We routinely block people like that, and we always have."

So I think it would be beneficial to have a standardized place to review dubious username blocks, besides objecting on the Administrators' Noticeboard. What if WP:RFC/N had a second section for "Block review", where a consensus could overturn a username block, for whatever that's worth? rspεεr (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems a little CREEPY to me. What's wrong with the regular way of going about a block review, which is having the user place an unblock template on his talk page? Don't the current block templates instruct this if the user feels he was subjected to a bad block? If the templates for username blocks don't mention this than they probably should. Them From Space 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You want the newbie to do it? Do you know many people who are in the habit of challenging complex policies of websites they've just registered on? In most cases, they're not going to make a stand. They've written off Wikipedia as full of out-of-control admins and moved on to another website. And the few cases where I've seen newbies respond to a username block with an {{unblock}} template, someone declines it and testily asks them why they don't just create a new account.

For your suggestion to count as any sort of review, you would need a newbie to argue against an admin and win. That never happens. No, we need a process where people who are familiar with Wikipedia can challenge inappropriate username blocks. rspεεr (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no dedicated forum for challenging blocks for vandalism, edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry, or any other type, or for challenging other admin actions like protections. All these can be (and are) challenged on the administrators' noticeboards. What's special about username blocks? Deletion review is a special case in that the volume of requests is quite high, with several deletions being contested per day, so a dedicated forum is a good idea. I can't see the point in establishing somewhere just to discuss username blocks. Hut 8.5 19:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll second the question Hut 8.5 asked, and rephrase it a bit. Why does a username block need to be handled any differently than any other block? I'm not seeing a difference between a bad username block and a bad vandalism / incivility / sockpuppet / whatever else block. If we need a higher court than requesting an unblock on the user's talk page, and ANI isn't doing it, then any such venue really should handle all these blocks. Of course, I could be missing some fundamental difference -- if so, please explain it so I can understand the problem.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. It sounds like the vague consensus is that, if a bad block needs to escalate beyond the blocking admin's talk page, it should go to the administrators' noticeboard. I am a bit uncomfortable with this situation -- admins who place unjustified username blocks are often taken aback that I would even bring it up on their talk page -- but if it works for other processes, I suppose admins can get used to it. rspεεr (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been disappointed by the linked AN discussion and the July RFC on noindex-ing userspace, and I usually enjoy discussing policy, but I have to be realistic, I've been doing a lot of the relevant blocking and speedy work so I've got COI, and even if I didn't, people wouldn't trust me to be objective. I'll stop doing related work and stay out of the discussion until there are signs we've reached some new consensus. One request: read the username policy, it's been fairly stable on the points being discussed, although of course consensus can change. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN is as good a place as any to discuss an administrative action if talking to the admin is not fruitful. I don't think we need any special place for it. Chillum 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

People who are blocked can only edit their own userpages, thus are unable to participate in any unblock discussion apart from through an unblock template. People who are blocked for a username may have trouble understanding why. We have very many images of David Shankbone's penis, because wikipedia is not censored, but try chosing a username that matches a product you like, or the company you work for, or is a string of digits, or contains any vulgar word, etc etc etc. ருந்தவனிட (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone who's blocked for a bad username will normally be able to create a new username and escape the block. It's called a softblock, as opposed to a hardblock, which blocks the underlying IP address. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're bringing up the "softblocks don't hurt" theory again. I assume everyone on this page is aware that people have the technical ability to return from a softblock under a new name. This does not mean that good contributors actually do return from a softblock, or that softblocking is a nice thing to do. rspεεr (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Soap appears to think that all administrators will correctly issue a soft vs hard block. This is not correct, sometimes they'll push the wrong button (or whatever the hell it is they push). Expecting a new user to know that they've been blocked correctly, but with a hard not soft block, is unrealistic. There's also the problem of lack of consensus - this very page shows many instances of disagreement over hard and soft blocks. (This isn't such a problem, normally the disagreement is that people are given soft blocks when they should e given hard blocks, but still, it exists.) ருந்தவனிட (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think not having involuntary block reviews on WP:RFCN is important. If the blocking admin consents to an RFCN, I see no reason not to have one. But if the blocking admin feels the block was valid, we should use the ordinary unblock process. I remember, back when there were MFDs on WP:RFCN, making the point that blocks and unblocks are not done by consensus. I remember a username block that was questioned at RFCN and "overturned" for not making sense, when in fact it was a username that perfectly fit the pattern of a long-term abuser. Mango juice^talk 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of Rspeer, that there should be a forum related to the placing and removal of blocks. We're not talking about the blatant cases here. Blocks to newcomers are bitey, and when justified, they can happen to do little more than teach the person how to avoid detection for what they are doing (eg how to better hide their COI). A record of reviews and discussion of blocks would be useful. The current situation, where only the blockee can appeal, is unsatisfactory. I agree that WP:AN is a poor forum for non-urgent matters like this. With so much traffic, and fast archiving, it is not good for serous consideration of complex issues, and it has a strong bias against occasional editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

non-existent org names head scratcher

Maybe I'm just being overly cautious because I just got the mop, but I'm not sure how to proceed here. The bot reported User:American poets & writers association. Sure looks like an organization name, and the one edit so far was the creation of a page of pure unadulterated spam. However, I can't find any evidence that a group by this specific name actually exists. Do we block anyway because it appears to represent a group, even if that group is not real? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is to their editing, so why get the username policy involved? Would everything be okay if the pure unadulterated spam were created by User:InnocuousName23? Clearly not. So leave them a COI warning and block them for spamming if they keep doing it. rspεεr (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I renew a call for a new admin school module on handling potential username policy violations. It wouldn't just help new admins, but current admins as well. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But my actual question concerns the name watcher bot's objection and reporting of the name. Does a username which implies representation of a group as opposed to an individual have to actually represent a real group? That is, does it matter if the group exists or not or is the implication that it does enough for a block regardless? Forget I brought up the editing, as you are correct that it is actually immaterial to the question of the username itself. (note: the account has in fact now been blocked for violating the username policy) I've personally never run across such a thing before and I don't think there is anything specifically dealing with such a situation in the policy as it is. (and there probably doesn't need to be because it's a somewhat rare situation, I just wanted to see what other users might think) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME doesn't precisely address this and hasn't for as long as I've been watching. Our policy says we can't allow names that promote a group; what if they're only pretending to promote a group? What if there's no such group? - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be a subtle effort to publicize a new group, or a letterhead/astroturf organization. Many folks feel that Wikipedia is a venue to make themselves known. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be pretty straightforward - if there is no actual company or group, there is nothing to promote and therefore no promotion going on. Would we block a User:Justice League? I don't think so. Shereth 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The way I look at it is this: a group name is a group name. {{uw-softerblock}} sums it up, as it says "Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group…". Giving the impression that an account represents a group isn't currently allowed. Just my 2 cents. TN X Man 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a different question. I guess you're saying that User:Justice League can't be an organization because the fictional Justice League is so well-known, but if it's well-known by the user and by us, then it will be well-known by the readers too, and they won't confuse this with an actual organization. How will the reader know that User:American poets & writers association is not an actual organization without looking it up? And, if they see that username as an active editor, and they read WP:ORGNAME, what conclusion is the typical reader likely to come to about whether it's okay to ignore WP:Username when selecting a username? - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We should never block a username as promotional OR for representing a group if it is not promoting anything. That just doesn't make any sense. And I have come across one or two cases where someone chose a truly innocuous name and got in trouble for it over this. For instance, if someone chose User:Syndicated, Inc. as their username, they might appear to be representing an organization... if you don't know that Syndicated Inc. is actually a song, and it's much more likely they're paying tribute to it. Having to wait for a couple promotional edits causes us almost no difficulty, but blocking editors with totally appropriate usernames making totally appropriate edits is unacceptable, even if very rare. Mango juice^talk 16:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should we differentiate between well-known fictional organizations and purely nonexistant ones? More to the point, why does it matter if the reader knows User:American poets & writers association is fictional or not? WP:ORGNAME has nothing to do with what a reader thinks when they see a username, and everything to do with attempts to use Wikipedia as a free advertising/promotional tool. And let's be totally honest here : How many casual readers are going to see User:American poets & writers association and jump to the conclusion that WP:U is now safe to ignore? Shereth 16:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the block of the user was ok since they actually spammed. Triplestop x3 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nja that a workshop on username policy and implementation would be helpful; and with Shereth that ORGNAME was intended to limit spam/advertising/promotion. However people certainly do use that policy as a way to block users who have not spammed. Some of them think it is appropriate to set up a role account, or think that's the best way to be clear about a potential COI (in every edit). I'd like to see ORGNAME changed so that a block is explicitly not appropriate unless also tied to explicit spam. For me, indicating an org affiliation in a username where appropriate is better than being less transparent. +sj + 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(If this policy really aims to make classes of normal, well-meaning usernames no-warning blockable offenses, then someone should really change the special:userlogin messages to give suitable guidance. +sj +)