Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Email addresses as usernames

I went ahead and softerblocked User:Barry at Exclaimit dot com, even though there were no edits yet, on the theory that edits wouldn't make a difference ... thoughts? Is it better to wait for edits, as long as the name isn't offensive? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we don't allow email addresses as usernames anyway, and the policy doesn't explain it at all. I'd say it's a judgement call thing, you could add the discussion template, but if they then start editing without filing at WP:CHU, they'll end up blocked anyway, so it probably doesn't make much difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll buy that. If policy were changed to allow email addresses, I'd discuss rather than block. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Disallowed usernames

Could we get some example usernames of the types of disallowed usernames put into that section? Recently, nearly every username I put at UAA as a promotional username gets told it is not a violation and to take it to the COI noticeboard, and that leaves me a bit confused as to what is considered promotional. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, username enforcement always has a certain element of subjective judgement to it, and examples probably would not be all that helpful and perhaps not even appropriate. There are plenty of cases where one administrator might choose to decline a report while another would block it. If you are noticing a pattern of a certain type of username that you believe to be a violation but that are being routinely decline for blocking you might want to bring it up a little more specifically so that we can address your concern. Alternatively, if you notice just one or two editors consistantly marking them as COI, you might want to ask that particular editor for some insight on why they disagree with you. Shereth 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any specific examples that I can think of right now, but (although this one did get blocked) they are usernames similar to User:Trillenium3Dmall. I usually notice them in new page patrolling as having created a promotional article on a topic that their username has a COI with. So I guess it is moreover usernames indicating a COI, but that are being used in promotional ways? Maybe I just answered my own question...and now searching around the arv tab in twinkle I see there is an option under AIV of "promotion-only account". Ok that solves my problem...thanks anyway. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a better example on the page right now [1]. User:Lisajewel. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the core debate behind the promotional usernames issue, but the one you bring up is a good "gray area" example. Let's say that there is a company called John Doe Motorcycles. No one would argue that an account named "User:JohnDoeMotorcycles" is promotional, and few would argue that "User:JohnDoe" is a promotional name. The gray area would be on deciding whether names like "User:JohnCycles" or "User:JDM" are promotional in and of themselves (note that there is a distinction between promotional accounts and promotional usernames). As a result, you'll run in to some admins who will block these and some who will not. You should not consider the declining of a report to be reflective of your judgement. Shereth 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Promotional names certainly are not allowed by policy. It is unfortunate that they are often decline from this noticeboard. While no admin is required to make a block, they should not be rejecting promotional names from this noticeboard unless it is unclear if they are indeed promotional. Company names are a clear cut violation explicitly prohibited by our username policy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see lots of cases where it is unclear whether the username is promotional. This is a different question from whether the user has promoted something. Many of those cases can be dealt with perfectly adequately with speedy deletion and a warning. If, once the promotional content is gone, you couldn't figure out what they were selling if you tried, it's probably not a promotional username, nor is it a situation serious enough to justify any kind of block. rspεεr (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen an indef block applied to a username that was itself an attack on another user. Surely technical means could prevent users from embedding another's username in a new account username.LeadSongDog come howl 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That may lead to a lot of false positives - for example my alt User:Ukexpatmobile. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Even worse than that, User:LeadSongDog would be a false positive/blocked by the filter due to the embedding of User:A within his username. I think that's an issue better handled by humans at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:uw-softerblock

I just made a small edit to softerblock, adding "take a few moments to" to: "... please take a few moments to create a new account with a username that represents only you." I remember rejecting "take a few seconds" (it's more than a few seconds and would sound a little snarky) and "take a few minutes" (it doesn't take that long on the user's end, makes it sound like more of a deal than it is), and giving up ... "a few moments" just came to me when I was replying to an email. Btw, on that subject: something went wrong and the script didn't deposit the softerblock notice on this guy's talk page, which is why he had to email me. I never get complaints about the block when the script works (which is almost always). - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:U#Deleting an account

On balance, it would probably be better just to refer people to WP:RTV regarding deletion of user talk pages, because there's some judgment and some delay involved, and consensus is not that strong, although WP:RTV says and has said that we don't do it. I'm referring to this sentence: "Editors seeking privacy per their right to vanish can have their user and user talk pages deleted and their accounts renamed." The most recent discussion was Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#User talk. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor tweak: [2], but feel free to take it further. –xeno^talk 14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Sharing accounts" section

The section that talks about sharing accounts states the following:

"If you edit for a group or organization please still use a non-shared name for your editing. A name such as "Megawatt Inc., (John)" may be appropriate."

However, I've seen at WP:CHU that such a name is not appropriate because it's promotional in nature. I suggest that this entire line be removed because it contradicts the part of the policy at WP:ORGNAME and is giving inaccurate advice to editors. -- Atama頭 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Update

Okay, we've got a small problem. Ched got the WP:Update/3 page started, and that's where I thought this page would get updated monthly, along with the other conduct policies, but Ched's taking a break and no one else is doing the work. Is anyone interested in doing the monthly update for these 8 policies? If not, would anyone object to moving WP:U and WP:SOCK to the enforcement subcat so that they get updated at WP:Update/1? The other 6 conduct policies are different in some ways from other policies, and I'm not comfortable making calls on consensus on those pages, as I do with the policies at WP:Update/1. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No volunteers so far. No objections? - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you must. Can they just be in both cats? Gigs (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

The 6 conduct policies are reasonably stable because people are roughly agreed on what advice they want to give on the subjects of civility, consensus, ownership, etc. ... to other people. Few believe that they should be judged by what's on those pages; people generally feel that they know when to seek consensus, that they're as civil as they need to be (given the provocations they have to endure :), that they are protecting the integrity of an article rather than engaging in OWNership, etc. The current pages have support only because people are hoping that other people will read the advice and take it. This sometimes causes the arguments to go round and round, and sometimes makes it imposssible (for me, anyway) to make a call on consensus at the end of the month, as I do at WP:Update/1. I don't think WP:SOCK and WP:U belong in the conduct cat because I don't think they suffer from the same problems. This is just one guy's opinion, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know your distaste for trying to summarize consensus on those pages. It just doesn't seem to make intuitive sense to take these out of conduct. Why does update have to be driven by cats? Can't you just cover what you want to cover, and leave the ones that you don't want to touch open for someone else to pick up? Gigs (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the 6 conduct pages have lots of good stuff and lots of solid policy, but they are also full of advice that almost everyone treats as optional ... "it would be nice, time permitting" ... and if we keep WP:U and WP:SOCK in the same subcat, you run the risk that people will come to see WP:U and WP:SOCK the same way ... as optional, it-would-be-nice advice. You don't expect to get blocked at WP:ANI because you didn't explain one of your edits (CIVILITY), or because you merely stated a position rather than taking time to search for CONSENSUS, or because someone complained that you talk a lot and that made them feel "exhausted" (WAR), or because you passed over a problem without fixing it (WP:PRESERVE in WP:EDIT). People generally treat these as goals rather than as policy, which makes conduct policy seem different from other policy, to me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank#Gayguy69

I blocked this username, and there's some discussion about whether this was the right thing to do. I'm particularly interested in feedback from females, since we're always looking to bump female editor participation up from its current dismal 15%, and I think it's possible that more women than men would be offended by the name. (I'm posting this here and at WT:CHU, WT:RFCN, and WP:VPP; I'm trying to get a sense of whether women answer the question differently when they don't see themselves as a tiny minority in the discussion, so if you know female editors who you think might be interested in the question, please show them the link. Even if this particular name is okay, I'd like to get a sense of whether women find usernames offensive that can't be seen as anything other than a reference to a specific sex act.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the linked discussion above, please consider my additional comment here (which is particularly relevant to this, ie the username policy, board) as I'm off for the evening. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't WP:REALNAME apply to deceased celebrities?

I realize the L in BLP is for Living - but I am wondering if there is any reason to allow use of deceased celebrity usernames. Just noticed Jacquescosteau (talk · contribs) was created on EN.WP today apparently as an SUL of the DE.WP account which was created yesterday. The account has no edits that I can see on either wiki, but something about this just strikes me as inappropriate. Clearly everyone knows he is dead so there is not going to be any confusion, but I would have thought we would include deceased famous names in the policy as well, at least for recently deceased (last 20? years). Any thoughts?  7  01:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't the best example. Jacques Cousteau is a well known name, but Jacques Costeau is not. LeadSongDog come howl 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Fair point for this case... The question still stands though (let's pretend I can actually read, and let's discuss whether REALNAME should be limited to only living famous names).  7  04:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reporting inappropriate usernames

Where do I report an inappropriate username? I am not sure whether User:Babiesloverabies would be considered an inappropriate nickname... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) WP:UAA is for obvious breaches of WP:U; I'd suggest "babies love rabies" might not be (although it may be a band name or have other coi.) If you report to UAA and the reviewing admin doesn't feel it's blatant, they usually place a note. You may consider reporting it at WP:RFCN, but be sure to follow all the procedures prior to filing there. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not being sarcastic, but rather wondering if we need to be more clear somehow: when you came to the policy page, did you miss the section "Dealing with inappropriate names"? NJA (t/c) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NJA: Who are you referring to? If it is me, in regards to the "dealing with inappropriate usernames" well I didn't know exactly whether it would be considered an inappropriate username or not - It seemed like a cruel name, but it didn't have an obvious obscenity.

Part of what made me wonder was the fact that the account was being used for vandalism and I wondered if the username was deliberately chosen to offend. In any case the account is now indefinitely blocked.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(note: user already blocked as VOA  7  00:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Link to username policy from account creation page

Resolved

 – Already there  7  08:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been discussed already, but wouldn't it make sense for us to link the username policy from the create an account page? While I can appreciate that we don't want to overwhelm new users signing up, there should at least be some ability for people to see the policy from that page so that they are aware of some of the guidelines (e.g. famous names, offensive/distruptive, and corporate names).  7  23:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No thoughts? I still see dozens of new accounts created daily that clearly have a corporate name.  7  04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, although I doubt it'll have much of an effect. --Conti|✉ 07:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that if you log-out and go to the create a new account link, it has much more information from (here). The only time you only see the bottom bit (this) is if you're creating a new account whilst logged in with another account. Therefore for people not logged in and creating new accounts, there is extensive policy documentation already (ie both the Fancycaptcha-createaccount and Signupend) templates. However, I've added a quick reference to username policy again on the second bit for those people registering accounts whilst logged in. NJA (t/c) 08:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NJA - You are absolutely right, I couldn't see it because I was already logged in. Glad it is there already.  7  08:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot catch-22

Resolved

 – Per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Inactive_admin_email I was trying to create InactiveAdminEmailBot... Which I assumed was hitting the bot restriction that someone codified into a blacklist, in reality it was hitting the "admin" regex. Doh. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The bot approval process asks you to create a bot account linked to your account as a first step before seeking bot approval. However, you can't, because names ending in bot are blacklisted. Was this some unforeseen consequence? How are you supposed to create a bot these days? Gigs (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Create a bot account while logged in to your main account (at Special:UserLogin). Make a note on your bot account talk/user page (from your main account) that the bot application/approval is in process/pending, preferably with a link or dif. Even if the account is blocked, it can get unblocked. Not a big deal. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't create a bot, even while logged into your main account. That's the catch-22. (Edit: you have sysop so it may be different for you) Gigs (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a failed attempt to introduce some sanity into this aspect of username policy last year. It's a completely ridiculous situation if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good point. I guess then you have to go through Wikipedia:Request an account. I hope that helps; I've never done anything on that corner of the project. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See this from just a couple months ago. Doesn't specifically speak of the blacklist in relation to bots, but it does for Stewards, which was another restriction we had decided was redundant as there are none, however the blacklist is on meta. There's a local en-wiki whitelist, though I'm unsure of its usefulness. NJA (t/c) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a regex for bot on either the local or meta blacklists you linked. Can you tell me where the entry is? I see that the old discussion was whether it should even be restricted, so I guess we haven't directly talked about blacklisting one way or the other. Gigs (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it blacklisted? The meta list is the blacklist, thus if it's not there I'm doubting it's restricted. For instance I've just logged out and created successfully User:Testing Bot with no warnings or issues. NJA (t/c) 07:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I must have been hitting a different regex all along (doh). I'll look again later today. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Applicability of WP:ORGNAME to non-commercial products

WP:ORGNAME states that "explicit use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted". Does this prohibition also apply to products which are (usually) non-commercial, such as Free Software? I've recently encountered a username which is exactly the same as a popular Free Software package. In this case I'm not concerned so much about the promotional aspect, but rather that the editor's use of the name implies that he represents or is in some way connected with the author of the software. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We treat non-profit group entities the same as corps. Gigs (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Most non-profit groups are corporations. The main point is that somebody can be "selling" a non-profit, a govt. agency, a club/church/club; and in that case a spamusername is a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the conflict of interest issue we're blocking for, it's the fact that the name is used by a organisation and not someone personally, therefore they cannot release their edits under copyright. Thus whether free or not if tied to an organisation then there's an issue with username policy. The promotion and conflict of interests are separate concerns. NJA (t/c) 07:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've left a {{uw-username}} message on his talk page explaining the username policy and also linking to this discussion in case he wants clarification. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

CAT:UAA admin reminder

Heya, I was hoping to remind fellow admins who do a lot of UAA watching and/or username blocking to please try to remove the category [[Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over]] from userpages they've blocked. That way that category remains current with a listing of only names that have an active concern (ie they're not blocked). I just went through and removed about 70 names from the last ten days, thus on average we have ten a day. Over a month that'd become hundreds, so please do spend the extra few seconds to remove that category from their userpage when blocking. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted a bot request. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that category even useful anymore? Does it have thousands of stale unblocked usernames in it? Gigs (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's useful, and no there's not thousands (921 to be exact). The first step is to ensure blocked names are removed (already done, but manually right now), the second would be to determine how long until considered stale and then removing those names too so that it's even more useful than it already is. I'd imagine 30 days with no new activity after a notice is sufficient. NJA (t/c) 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought a bot already went through those and removed blocked accounts from the category. KittyBot or something. I see it in my watchlist fairly regularly. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, KittyBot. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's my old arse doing it generally manually. If someone could write real code to do it I'm all for it. :) NJA (t/c) 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a mighty fine bot, I must say. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye, you'll give jd a run for his money ;). BRFA filed WP:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 3 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks for cleaning it up. The last I had checked it had become inflated but that must have been before your cleanups. Good work. Gigs (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Stale?

Rejecting a report on a two-week old edit (here) doesn't seem consistent with our instructions at WP:NPP. We encourage people to work from the back of the queue, which has unpatrolled pages up to 1 month old. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for not waiting for discussion on this, but the spam both on their userpage and talk page was so blatant that I have removed it and blocked the account. Since they are inactive I used the "softer block" option. If the account is six months old, probably there is little point in blocking, but even then the spam needs to be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. There may have been little point in blocking this one either, but at the very least the spam needed to go, and blocking doesn't cost anything. I find that as time goes by my attitude towards spammers had hardened and I have very little patience for them. While I endeavor to assume good faith with all new users, if a person even knows what the word "encyclopedia" means then it stretches credibility to assume they honestly believe it's okay to promote a business inside of one. Finding and removing spam and spammers is at least as important a task as doing the same with vandals, possibly more so because so much vandalism is reverted in seconds by CluBot or stopped from being posted in the first place by the edit filters. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing spam is in accordance with policy, but any account that old with no fresh edits is unlikely to edit again. Blocking is redundant. If we are relieving a backlog in the queue, staleness will take care of itself in time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any evidence that people who haven't edited in two weeks almost never edit again? - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that most accounts I mark as stale often haven't edited beyond the initial burst, whether it was a week or year? Most of these accounts just put something up here and then move on to Facebook, LinkedIn and whatever else they're using. Since they get no contacts off our site, they never bother to check back. Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going by WP:UAA/I when I made that report, which suggests that usernames that haven’t edited in months don’t need to be reported implying that two weeks isn’t long enough to be considered stale. If the account was created solely to use their user page for advertising, they’ve got no reason to edit again after they’ve created the page unless it's deleted, in which case they might want to recreate it as happened here – at least blocking will probably prevent that, and the softblock template assumes good faith. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see such an account return, save to start spamming other articles (in which case they are subject to blocking for that). Quite frankly I, personally, consider any UAA report where the account didn't edit within the last couple of days to be stale and not worth the time and resources it would take to block them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to make two points, one of them at WT:ADMIN WT:POLICY and one here. Look at my protection log from last spring and summer when I was more active in deletion work, or the protection logs of anyone very active in CSD, and what you notice immediately is that people posting promotional material almost never come back if their username is blocked, but they often come back if they're not blocked but their page is deleted, and then the diligent admins will "salt" their pages against re-creation. The current advice at UAA/I, which is to block if they've edited within a "few months", is fantastically efficient, because it gets the new contributors to help us out by self-selecting ... if they were just posting stuff to see if anyone was going to stop them, then they leave when we stop them, but if they think they have a case, or if they value 2-way communication, then they say something, and I never block if they seem to be responding to anything we're saying. OTOH, I agree that UAA is only the first line of defense for these problems and it's perfectly okay to hand them off to someone else, as long as we're not ducking our responsibility; if Daniel and others feel strongly about this, I could live with changing the advice at UAA/I to one month. I can't agree to less than a month as long as the newpages queue is one month; I'm very skeptical that there would be consensus for that, and even if there is, I think that's going to confuse and alienate patrollers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I posted a general observation at WT:POLICY because a related question just came up there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I look at it this way: I already have to look into it to evaluate the report. I already deleted the spam they posted. Blocking only takes a few more seconds. Perhaps it is redundant, perhaps they won't even try to return, it really doesn't matter if you think about it, blocks are free and if these edits were fresh there would be no question. I don't think not blocking them is necessarily wrong either though as they will be blocked for spamming if they return. But if you actually evaluate a report and respond to it, I do think you should go ahead and remove the spam whether you feel inclined to block or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally consider an account which hasn't edited within the last 2-3 weeks to be stale. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When should 'Request an account' be used?

At the moment, the policy says If you want to seek approval for a username, you can do so by filing a request at Wikipedia:Request an account.

I don't really think that this is the purpose of the ACC tool. The main purpose is for those who (for whatever reason) can't create an account - for example, it is too similar to a current account, or the user can't read the CAPTCH image.

What do other people think? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the users who are evaluating the request are familiar with the username policy, it cold actually help prevent the user's first experience here being a username block. I don't know that this was what ACC was meant for, but it seems a fairly harmless suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox's assessment. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout doing the same to MediaWiki:Loginend (The text at Special:Userlogin) Note:I myself think that this additional change is unnecessary, but, as long as we're promoting ACC, we could go ahead. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea.  Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Teeny weeny mistake: You've put it underneath the header "Secure your account". Instead, put it outside of the list (At the top or the bottom). ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 06:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation of dead people?

I've read some threads in the archives about this, but can't see anything on the policy page about it, so I'm not sure if any consensus was actually reached. Is a username against policy if it is the real name of a person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article, but has been dead for 10 years? Since the person was dead before Wikipedia began, it can be argued that the user is not trying to mislead anyone into thinking that they are the subject in question. However, they are editing the article in question, may have a personal connection to the deceased subject, and a probable conflict of interest. While their editing may be considered problematic on other grounds, is their username specifically against policy? --BelovedFreak 15:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy only mentions living people (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) - it is not against policy to have the name of a dead person. If the edits are vandalism, then the user can be blocked. If the person is dead, their article is not a BLP - but anything unsourced could still be removed, if required. From that point of view, the editor's name is irrelevant - if they are adding useful stuff, it stays; if they are not, it is removed and warnings given if appropriate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your input. That's pretty much what I thought.--BelovedFreak 12:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to expand the category of disruptive usernames

I would like to suggest that we add to this list any name which includes the terms "marketing", "publicity", "SEO" and the like, since they are declaring themselves as having an intention of disruptively editing Wikipedia in a manner destructive of our purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest not including SEO as it is a Korean name (see Seo (Korean name)) - however, the other two terms are clear indication of the account's intentions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is spamming Wikipedia, we already have ways to deal with that quite effectively, regardless of whether said editor has the term "marketing" in his username or not. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Usernames that look like Wikipedia timestamps

Per the recent incident with User:21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reported at WP:ANI#Block review, it would seem that this area is not covered by the username policy.

This needs to be specifically addressed, and appropriate wording needs to be added to the username policy stating that usernames the look like a timestamp are banned, and explaining that the use of such usernames is likely to create confusion. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be definitively dealt with here. I would be quite happy for it to be included in the list of 'banned' types of names. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading usernames is already one of the "big 4". I don't think we need to wp:beans every example that people have thought up. Just softblock them. Gigs (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This has come up often enough (especially with usernames which resemble IP addresses, a similar related issue) that I have WP:BOLDly added a clarifying statement to the page. Feel free to reword, remove, or alter. Just a stab at it. --Jayron32 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I am the one who made a lot of noise about that block, part of the reason was that it I had never seen such a case before, and it's unlikely to happen very often in the future. I don't think we need to specifically mention timestamps. Other than that it seems that Jayron's addition does in fact reflect current consensus, as we found out yesterday. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Promotional username violations, policy/practice divide

Hi. I've been pitching in occasionally at the username noticeboard. Following a helpful conversation with User:Daniel Case, I've become increasingly aware that there is a divide between practice and policy. According to policy:

Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. 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.

This is a pretty simple "if then" relationship: "if company name, then block". But I know this is not universally advocated, and sometimes company names are rejected at the noticeboard.

I think we need to do something to bring policy and practice in line to avoid confusing contributors, especially those who keep an eye out for policy name violations. If the blocking relationship is not so simple, they need to know that. I'm hoping that some kind of conversation can clarify the policy here to cut down on frustration for contributors and to ensure that all admins are on the same page about when and if they should block such accounts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you. I do a fair amount of UAA (not as much as Daniel Case mind you). I tend to block company names but I have spared them in the past when their edits where not spamming their companies. You are correct, as per policy they should be blocked. They will be from here, unless policy changes. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do people volunteer time to any non-profit organization? To get a sense that they're making a difference, they're doing it the right way, and they're appreciated for it. The fastest way to chase people off any non-profit project is to give them a sense that they're not there to do some well-defined project, they're there to serve the people in charge, to sweep up or make the coffee or do whatever the people in charge feel like doing that day. I agree with MRG. As has been pointed out many times by many people, it's not terribly important where we draw the line, because if someone's being promotional they will eventually be caught down the line. Blocking for "technical" reasons is simply an efficient, and often less confrontational, way to stop trouble before it starts, and sometimes keep a contributor that we would have lost if we had let them follow their instincts without stepping in. But wherever we draw the line, that's where the line is, and while I don't expect every contributor to understand all this, it's reasonable to expect it from admins. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance someone can enlighten me as to what actually should be reported at WP:UAA? I've come across a few but the instructions indicate that it does not need to be blocked unless there is "evidence that an account was created in bad faith" which seems to be at odds with the policy MRG quoted above. Until now (and following the instructions at WP:UAA) I've just been dropping a {{uw-coi-username}} on their pages and leaving them to their merry ways, since evidence of bad faith seems like a pretty high bar to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines are at the moment rather more clear. So far, there has been no consensus or even a suggestion here that policy should be changed, so the instructions have been updated to accord with policy. We don't require bad faith to block accounts of company name's, product names, ending in bot or that include the word Administrator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of the more active admins at UAA, I will immediately block (using {{softerblock}}) usernames that match the name of a company/organization when they are promoting that organization in some way (adding external links to the company website, creating an article for the organization that matches the username, having a promotional user page, etc). I believe this is fairly standard procedure. I think the recent change in the instructions at UAA are appropriate. Requiring evidence of bad faith account creation is vague and subjective, and is too conservative relative to stated policy and current practice. Asking the blocking admin to specify the reason for a block in that situation is more reasonable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both of you. I guess that's my cue to go ahead and report the dozen or so organization usernames I've come across. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to somewhat disagree with Dank. "Civil disobedience" in the form of refusing names that should be blocked per policy is not something I think we should tolerate. If someone was declining CSD tagged articles that clearly fell within the CSD, we'd make them stop. An admin disagreeing with the username policy does not give them the right to pretend it doesn't exist. Gigs (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't clear then, because I agree with you; I was just trying to explain what I see as the downside of "civil disobedience" in someone that volunteers look to for guidance. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see that now. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Misreading WP:U

WP:U already answers your question, Moonriddengirl, though not in the form you're looking for: you should report a name to UAA if it "needs to be immediately blocked".

If you think WP:U contains any instructions of the form "if something, then block", you've misread it. One very common way to misread it, as it appears multiple people in this discussion have done, is to read the section on "Appropriate usernames" as a list of instructions on when to block people. That section's not for you. It's for newbies. Here's the first notice on the page:

As with absolutely all cases of blocking, you should apply common sense and think about what course of action is best for Wikipedia and its users. Not blocking someone because you have a better idea of how to approach the situation isn't "civil disobedience", it's good adminship, and I think there are often better ways of dealing with good contributors who have a company name. rspεεr (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

#Dealing with inappropriate usernames, as you say, is not for new users. It says, that obvious cases are appropriate for reporting and blocking at WP:UAA. The language of the policy explains that:

Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted.... 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.

There's little ambiguity there; it seems that the use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is an "obvious case." So far, all who have responded here either because they watch this page or because they followed my request at VPP seem to agree. I realize that you feel differently, but I don't regard a username block as bitey. A softblock with an appropriate explanation gives them an opportunity to create a username that does accord with policy or, if they prefer, to request a rename. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is lots of room for different judgement on how to apply the policy, and different opinions on what its effects are. Just don't frame it as "civil disobedience" when admins apply one of the many options besides blocking.

The number of users we disagree about is small anyway. If someone uses a company name in a spammy way, of course they get blocked. That's obvious, as you point out. But when there is no conduct issue -- when you've got a cooperative user who would probably change their name if you asked them -- you have to take into account what purpose your block serves, because WP:BLOCK is more fundamental than WP:U and it says that every block must have a purpose.

I want to make sure that purpose is something more than to blindly apply an if-then rule, and that admins who don't blindly follow rules (or minor guidelines that get reinterpreted as rules) don't get accused of civil disobedience. rspεεr (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, per WP:BLOCK: "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption." At some point, the community determined that editing under a username related to a company or product is de facto disruptive. The block serves to prevent their continuing to use a username that the community has decided is disallowed. Again, I realize that you are concerned about biting, but I do not see a soft username block as bitey. It is a technical obstruction accompanied by a notice explaining the issue and providing the user with steps for addressing it.

There is lots of room for different judgment on how to apply the policy, and different opinions on what its effects are, which is why I sought clarification here. I have not framed the issue as "civil disobedience"; however, I am concerned at the confusion occasioned for the good faith contributors who list articles. When the policy tells them to list "obvious cases" and the verbiage related to company/product usernames is so definitive, they are likely to be confused and discouraged when they list them here to unexpected results. I raised this in response to a complaint by just such a user. We are here to use the tools with which we've been entrusted in service to them as much as to the new users, and when differences of judgment and opinions result in lack of clarity, we have a problem that needs addressing...either through adjusting practice or adjusting policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bordeline cases

There are many borderline cases that contain the word "rape" or "sex" which can be taken as taboos. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is more or less a cross-posting, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bordeline cases of Username violiotionBeeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Should usernames that are obscene in foreign languages be blocked?

I have seen such usernames be blocked before, such as DBChinkoChiisai, which is obscene in Japanese. But it doesnt seem to specifically say this anywhere on the username page, and in fact the page only devotes one sentence to talking about obscene usernames, and I have heard "everything's obscene in some language somewhere" used in contexts outside of Wikipedia, so I just want to know if it's safe to take it for granted that an obscene username in one language is covered by the policy against obscene usernames in general, or if they should be brought to the UAA page on a case by case basis. —Soap— 15:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be case-by-case, simply because of the difficulties in recognizing the name for what it is. I mean, suppose a user is making constructive edits and has a username that's obscene in a language unrelated to his edits, then a query about what the username is intended to mean is in order. Fifty-fifty the user says 'It means what in that language? Hrm, let me change my name, then.' I don't think a blanket policy about blocking all usernames is helpful.

That said, suppose a user is vandalizing pages related to Spain or Mexico and has a username that is obscene in Spanish. That just makes it more clear-cut what his intentions are and easier to block hiim indefinitely for vandalism plus an inappropriate username. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, case-by-case. We don't want the equivalent of the scunthorpe problem. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Corporate names

We of course discourage usernames that seem "official". However, it seems to me that there is an appropriate place for that. Take a look at User:SChilds ConAgraFoods and her contributions. She's identified herself as a rep for ConAgra, and put a request on the article talk page for modifications based on data she's presented. This strikes me as exactly what we'd like corporate reps to do, rather than (say) starting an account with an innocuous name and surreptitiously changing an article to reflect the views of her company. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the only reason this policy provides about why we should block corporate names is that they indicate a Role account. Since that's not the case here, I don't see a reason to block. Of course, it only takes one admin to disagree and the account would get blocked anyhow. --Conti|✉ 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems OK to me, but it's contextual. "SChilds ConAgraFoods" is one thing. If the name were "JGigs buycheapdomains.com" then that would be a different matter. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree strongly with Jpgordon. The account is clearly an individual account, and the chosen name makes her potential COI clear at the outset. Insisting on a new username will make it harder to clearly identify COI edits. I think this is what we should prefer official company reps to do when editing WP. She should be unblocked. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I unblocked her for the name change -- and it wouldn't work to leave the original name, since some other admin would come around and block it again. But I do think policy could make an explicit exception for this type of role editor: suggestions on talk pages only. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The policy should clearly state that accounts that are clearly marked as not being a role account (as in, used by a single person) should not be blocked. --Conti|✉ 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's a role account, "talk-page-only" would be OK, I'd think. Should I take this discussion over to WP:VP/P to get a wider audience? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it that way. Create a new section on this page and run the RfC here. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Names including BOT

I encourage anyone watching this page to review and comment on the username being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Niabot, as it may serve as precedent for future interpretations of the Bot clause.  7  00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Usernames that are not blatantly that of a company

Recently we had a bit of an issue over at WP:ACC concerning usernames that when searched for on Google have a company or 2 show up in the results but are not blatantly meant to promote that company. For example lets say someone made/requested a username such as "blahblahblah" and when someone ran a Google search on it they found there was a "BlahBlahBlah Enterprises Inc." somewhere in the results.

Should "blahblahblah" in such a case be immediately called a violation of WP:SPAMNAME and blocked/declined (depending on whether it shows up in UAA/similar processes or on ACC) regardless of other factors such as edits (when dealing with it onwiki) or Emails/IPs (ACC users can see these while a request is open but they are hidden from view once a request is closed)?

Recently some users at ACC were arguing in favor of the "immediately call it a violation" resolution (I am guessing because of how they interpret "accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked.") even in cases such as the IP geolocating to a different country from the relevant country and the Email being a Gmail rather than a "x@company.com".

It would be nice if someone could clarify this aspect of the username policy. FunPika 00:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to support FunPika's point here. The policy as currently written is quite unambiguous. Company names are not permitted as usernames, period. The problem is that we all know this doesn't reflect reality. For all I know there may well be a Thparkth Ltd somewhere in England doing who knows what. The policy as written would disallow my username on that basis, even though I have no connection to that company and indeed, have never heard of them. The reality is there are two separate problems. There are usernames which are blatantly and unquestionably promotional e.g User:ThparkthLtdBestValueInCheshire. Everyone agrees that those should not be permitted. Then there are usernames which happen to match the name of some company or group somewhere on Earth. Practice at WP:UAA is that such users are not automatically banned or required to change their names; their contribution history is used to judge whether they are on wikipedia to promote or represent that company or not. This is how it should be, but it is not what the policy says. In reality, the intent of the user matters; in the policy, intent is not currently mentioned.

This matters for WP:ACC. An ACC volunteer has access to sufficient information to conclude that User:PapaPete registering with a cogeco email address from a Montreal, Canada IP address is probably not registering to promote PapaPete Ofis Malzemeleri A.Ş. in Ankara, Turkey. At present they would be required to decline the account creation request, a known-bad decision because the account is obviously not promotional and would most likely not have a problem at WP:UAA even in the unlikely event that it came to their attention.

The policy needs to change. Policy must reflect not only actual practice, but what is practically possible. It is not possible for a user to know whether they are registering the name of a company or not. Doing so unknowingly clearly does not "create the appearance of intent to promote that group", contrary to the text of the policy.

Thparkth (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly tell you that the on-the-ground reality at WP:UAA is that we do look for intent in all but the most obvious cases. What sometimes gets lost here is that policies are supposed to reflect what actually goes on, not dictate what should go on. As it happens it has come to my attention that there is a nightclub called Zaphod Beeblebrox in Canada, but since I've never spammed on their behalf it's never been an issue. Usually if we get a report like this an UAA t is referred elsewhere, such as WP:COIN or WP:SPAM, or declined outright if the user has not made any spam edits. We should be vigilant in weeding out spammers but also careful not to go overboard and chase off potential contributors over trivial issues that aren't actually causing a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And since your username is an obvious literary reference in the first place, there is no serious potential for confusion anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd think so, but I've seen some pretty bizarre reports at UAA that were even more of a stretch. (gonna block you for promoting your brother Orange Julius) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a policy RFC (below) to get some more eyes on this. It appears that everyone who has commented here is in general agreement, but there aren't enough of us for me to feel WP:BOLD enough to make a unilateral change to such an important policy ;) Thparkth (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How long is too long?

...For a user name?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you would ask... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok I'll try to actually answer your question. Your username does not actually violate policy, it's just kind of annoying. If you're ok with that you can keep it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like someone mentioned it to them. This would be the proper venue for a discussion, I guess. TNXMan 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd just finished reading a biography of Frances Hodgson Burnett when I needed to come up with a user name to edit a restricted area. I typed in "secret garden" or something and it was taken so on my second try I typed in--well, what I did, and it wasn't. Any suggestions?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) [Edited]: There is no user named "Secret Garden." So I guess that leaves me without an excuse. Get it? leaves ---- garden !--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for a prolonged discussion of a particular name there is WP:RFCN, if we really want to go there. If you want to change your name you can file a request by clicking here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I put in a request. Thanks.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the character limit for a custom signature is 255. If the same is true for using the default signature then the technical limit would be 114.5 characters for the maximum length of a use name as [[User:]]_([[User_talk:]]) is 26 characters. That being said somewhere in 30-40 characters you will find people asking you to consider being renamed to something shorter. I do not know of anything official or consensus-wise on an imposed limit of <insert random number here>. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

From a technical point of view, I don't think that the same is true for the default signature. The custom signature has to be stored in the database, so there is a size limit, which is probably the limit of the field in the database. On the other hand, the default signature probably isn't stored anywhere (it's just generated from the username when needed), so there probably isn't a limit in size for it. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Company names as usernames - RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to oppose allowing users to use company names. It was agreed to slightly change the wording, and that has been implemented. SilkTork 8 August 2010

---

This policy currently states that "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted ... 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."

It is argued that a user may innocently select a name that turns out to match the name of a company somewhere on Earth, and that contrary to this policy, such users are not automatically blocked at WP:UAA. On the other hand the use of deliberately promotional usernames would obviously be a problem. This is not an academic question, because WP:ACC account creation volunteers must follow this policy when deciding whether or not to create a requested username.

Should the username policy be reworded, to tolerate the innocent use of obscure company, group or product names? If so, how might it be worded?

Thparkth (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it was before last summer: "Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem.". I don't feel the discussion here on which the current wording was added properly takes AGF into account, to put it mildly. As it is it practically encourages people to go hunting for entities somewhere in the world that a username could be related to, in order to block them.

I'm not making this up. In my early days as an admin I blocked first, hard, and didn't answer questions much at UAA. That led to things like this, where I blocked someone who hadn't edited just because someone making the UAA report had found that there actually is a concern with the same name, so, obviously, the two had to be connected.

Even where the use of an existing concern's name seems pretty deliberate, I think we should lay off as long as the editing betrays no connection to the subject. Would you block a username like IBM Marketing Department if all they were doing was adding well-written, sourced content to articles about gardening? I wouldn't. It's certainly not trademark infringement, as someone seems to have recoded Huggle to say. Some people have a skewed sense of humor and like usernames that reflect that. Other than obscene or attack usernames, and obvious COI, I say we let them keep it unless it is actually an ad slogan (or, as even Rspeer concedes, the company's web address). Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: the wording proposed could work at WP:UAA in that those of us who frequent there do judge whether or not the user is promoting a company or group based on their editing. However, the wording as it stands is so unclear as to leave a newcomer to Wikipedia chosing a username in a total state of confusion as to whether or not it is acceptable ("depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem") and the user may or may not be blocked by a patrolling admin "depending on the circumstances": translation - we are not going to give you much guidance and you may be blocked anyway. The second problem as I see it (with my WP:ACC hat on) is that whilst we can base some decisions on geolocations and emails (a company called "Foocompany" exists in Foobar City, Foobar Country and the IP resolves there—though I am aware of the limitations geolocation by IP address—or if we get a request from info@foobar.co.xyz), we are not mind readers and do not enjoy the ability to judge a likely username violation based on editing. These are comments that require a bit of {{sofixit}} which I will try and do in the next couple of days, preferably after more people have opined. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose permitting company names. I don't think there's any AGF about it; username violation blocks are not punitive, at least not soft blocks. It's a simple notice that says, "Hey, you've inadvertently selected a username that is against our policies. Please select another." Company names are conspicuous product placement, just like that Penzoil label on the racecar or that cup of Diet Coke set in front of each judge on American Idol. Even if the person who selected the name isn't promoting the company by intent, the effect is the same. Everywhere the name appears, on every talk page or in every edit history, it's a little plug for the company...even if it's plastering articles related to gardening and not to the specific company. If anything, I think that the policy as is should be better enforced, again, with a friendly "I'm so sorry, but you'll need a new name." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So, is User:SheffieldSteel a conspicuous product placement for a company of the same name, then? --Conti|✉ 11:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sheffield steel is a general term which has been adopted by a number of companies. The name does not in itself refer to a specific modern company. Likewise, Jersey is known for its wool and the name "Jersey Wool" would not apply to a single company, even if several companies took the name as part of their own identifiers. That said, in this case, article editing would matter; if User:Jersey Wool edits articles about The Jersey Wool Company of Ohio, we've got an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That said, in this case, article editing would matter - the current policy makes no exception for the case you describe. Would you be in favor of changing the wording to take account of the user's editing behavior? Thparkth (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It depends on the wording proposed. :) My concern would be that it not create a loophole through which people could claim that their promotional username is not a promotional username, say, if User:BritishCompany says, "Yes, there is an extremely well known British Company, Inc. But there is also this little known British Company, Co., so I'm not obviously promoting either one." Some names are truly genericized, like Sheffield steel or Jersey wool, and some are just the name of several companies. (And speaking of usernames, I like yours. It's fun to say out loud.:)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the policy make these kinds of (sane) distinctions, though? It still seems to me that most admins interpret that part of the policy in their own unique way, so in the end it's entirely arbitrary whether a user name like "BritishCompany" or "Enablers.asia" or "SheffieldSteel" gets blocked or not, since that entirely depends on which admin gets to see these user names. Which isn't an exactly ideal situation, to say the least. --Conti|✉ 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, if we can. Like I said, it depends on the wording proposed. Look at the consideration now, for instance: "to tolerate the innocent use of obscure company, group or product names". Who judges what is obscure? What happens if a start-up company uses their products and they become unobscure? The policy as written right now is quite egalitarian. It doesn't distinguish between large companies and small companies, prominent products and new ones. I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of complaints from small companies that some multinational corporation gets an article whereas the article on their company has been A7ed or AfDed. Having a clear guideline at WP:ORG helps, because we can say, "This is our standard." Our current username standard for companies & products is black and white (though not evenly enforced, a problem we discussed in April). If we make it gray, we need to be sure it is well defined, so we don't wind up saying, "Well, Admin JoeBob didn't think that company was big enough to merit a username block; I think yours is." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just want to be clear that "to tolerate the innocent use..." is not a proposed wording for the policy - nobody has proposed one yet - but just a concise statement for the RFC. Thparkth (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks, I realize that; I was just using it as an example of difficulties with wording. :) So far, there's no succinct hook to hang a hat on with regards to policy making "these kinds of (sane) distinctions", so I went for the closest clear hook I saw. I believe that there are fatal problems with the current consideration of obscure companies/products, etc. - as I suggested here, definitions of what constitutes obscure are going to be hard to nail down, and obscurity is not a fixed state. Suppose the owners of Y-Not Mart create an account now, while nobody has ever heard of their store. Two years from now, the chain is the hottest thing evah, and their username is well and truly established. Do we block them then? (And, if so, how do we establish when it crosses the line from obscurity?) If not, what do we tell the person who wants to use K-Mart as an account name? I think a blanket policy is the fairest, the least personal, the least judgmental; it says, "It's not you; this is just the rule of the website." But I do agree that editing behavior counts in less obvious cases. In the examples above, we're talking about terms that are largely genericized. User:Champagne is not a problem (being more or less genericized and all), but if User:Champagne is editing Champage Products, Inc., the username becomes part of the problem. That might fit into what you meant by "innocent." User:Champagne can edit articles on 12th century priests all day, every day without problem. I don't support permitting company/product names, but I do support being sensible about applying the policy and, if possible, making the policy clear to new users and admins. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is this whole notion of a blanket policy. We have done this sort of thing before: decided that our principles merited some policy that could be summed up in a single sentence, when it was obvious that there would have to be nuances to it. So we sort of said it wouldn't be enforced strictly. That, to me, doesn't work. I don't see legislatures anywhere passing laws and then immediately saying "Well, it won't be so bad, because we won't enforce it tightly".

A policy that you make an unambiguously black-and-white bright-line rule is either enforced that way (and will be, by those charged with enforcement who weren't privy to the policy debate) or it makes a mockery of policy as a whole and is thus a bad policy (Imagine Wikipedia if admins enforced 3RR that subjectively and loosely! The exceptions to that policy are very necessary and very clearly defined). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think there's any AGF about it ...". I would agree with you had I not seen enough cases where apparently obvious corporate names went and edited something with no connection to the name. Even if it's Joe's PR editing something about a possible client, we can and have dealt with that at COI/N. I don't think you can presume from a corporate name that the edits will be about that ... which is what assuming good faith is about. It has been my experience.

" ... [U]sername violation blocks are not punitive, at least not soft blocks". Umm, no blocks are supposed to be punitive.

"It's a simple notice that says, "Hey, you've inadvertently selected a username that is against our policies" That is leaving way too much, IMO, to the administrator's judgement or lack thereof. It's not the same aspect of the policy, but under that ground if you were a new account today I could consider blocking you because your username might suggest this or even this, possibly offending other editors (Thanks to your userpage, of course, I know it doesn't).

"Everywhere the name appears, on every talk page or in every edit history, it's a little plug for the company" So everytime I walk around in public just drinking, say, Coke Zero, I'm promoting it. I await my check.

"If anything, I think that the policy as is should be better enforced, again, with a friendly ''I'm so sorry, but you'll need a new name.'" Which may well draw a silent response of "I'm sorry, but I'll waste my time on another website". Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, as you recognize that my username is not related to a company or a product, we should probably remain focused on the specifics here. Sarcasm, too, doesn't seem helpful, but in case you're serious: you can wait for your check, but you're not likely receive it. The Coca Cola company is happy that you're willing to broadcast your appreciation of their products for free; they will even sell you t-shirts so that you can effectively advertise for them when you are not drinking their products, if you like.

Back on topic, our current policy with regards to corporate and product usernames is written very clearly: "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted.... 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 didn't invent the concept of embedded marketing. It's a real advertisement strategy.

The first line under the box on Log in / create account says, "Please ensure that your name choice is compliant with our username policy." That said, to some users, some blocks are punitive regardless of the wording of policy. (I trust you recognize that; I'm not sure why else you would speculate that some contributors may be driven away by a technical obstruction to their contribution that asks them to choose a new username...not such a very hard process, I would think, but I gather you posit that they are either overwhelmed by the process or offended by the need.) What matters is that we communicate clearly and politely the problem and make the resolution as simple as possible. I think it's a bit extreme to presume that a contributor who signed up with the user name User:CocaColaCo is so fragile that he will take an explanation of why his name doesn't work as an offense that bars his future contributions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Offended by the need" sums it up. We are the only website I know of with as extensive a policy on usernames as we have. I don't quarrel with that; I see the need. However we must take care to enforce it in a way that recognizes that, despite what you put in front of their faces, people won't read it (Perhaps we should make that more prominent, but I've read more than a few unblock requests where people basically said they thought their business username was OK because they didn't bother to read all the way down the page to a policy we made such a substantial change to only last year) and assume that what's OK elsewhere on the Internet is OK here (an assumption that usually runs them aground on a few of our other policies as well, to be fair). Why come right out and block someone when maybe {{uw-username}} might make the point to them just as well? Maybe a potential contributor might conclude from the attention paid to what seemed to him or her to be such an innocent name that there will be all sorts of busybodies looking over his or her shoulder here, more than do actual editing, and that it won't be worth their time.

I'd very much prefer that people didn't use corporate usernames. But obviously this message does not get through effectively enough with our current policy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I know very well that people don't read all the fine print; besides that fact that I'm one of them (sheepish grin), I run into this all the time with our copyright problems board. But it seems to me that this is an issue of process, more than a problem with the policy. If the end-result is that company usernames should be blocked, why not create a delayed-action noticeboard similar to WP:CP (with its built in 7-day delay) where contributors are listed following a {{uw-username}} to see if additional action needs to be taken? We separate out obvious copyright issues (WP:CSD#G12 from less clear cases, and that seems to work. For all I know, more sophisticated processes could also be possible that would trigger a listing if an editor continues participating if tagged with a {{uw-username}} (to save our dealing with the ones who edit once and never come back), but that goes beyond my grasp of our technology. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have the holding pen, which could probably be adapted to that purpose (I presume someone reviews those after a few weeks and sees if they've made any edits, and removes them from the page if they haven't). We might also have a bot that could alert us if anything in the category for "usernames over which concern has been expressed" suddenly edits after initial inactivity (assuming the edit filter doesn't pick up a COI issue). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That might be something to explore, if consensus of this RfC is not to change policy. If it is, it may not be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And, contributing in a useful way to Wikipedia is hard, and there's a lot to read. If they either won't read or react angrily to a very short (that's why I like softerblock, it's short) and very reasonable request, what are the odds they're going to comply with any of our other policies? - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much good faith assumed in that last clause. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• An interesting case that may be useful - there is currently a report at UAA for Enablers.asia (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). There is a website for the same name, but the user's sole edit has nothing to do with the company. Is this blockable (in line with policy) or should it be left alone (in line with usual practice)? TNXMan 11:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would soft block that, with the appropriate friendly notice. I use my own: User:Moonriddengirl/Name. It may not be intended as such, but its exactly the kind of embedded marketing we need to avoid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't block at all, just watch until and unless they actually do. I don't think everyone in the world would immediately recognize that as an organizational name (I certainly didn't). And I bet they never edit again. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed, per Moonriddengirl, and because I've never gotten an angry response to {{softerblock}} ... and I was the first to use it, and have used it a lot. Have any of you ever given up on a site because they asked you to choose a different username? Pulling out this or that case, such as BravoGolfHotel, doesn't settle the issue, because it's fine to allow usernames if a reasonable case can be made that they didn't know about and don't intend a connection to any company; "BravoGolfHotel" can of course be military-speak for BGH. If their name is "Spamalot Travel Co" or "Rupert Grinch and Associates" and there's a company by exactly that name, then I don't care if they claim ignorance of the company, I wouldn't believe them; so it would be better to block without asking. OTOH, I don't take a position on whether it's better to block before or after the first "questionable" promotional edit (not necessarily an edit that connects them to the company ... you don't always know, and asking our patrollers to watch all their edits for that one edit that nails the connection is not a good use of patrollers' time); there are solid arguments both ways. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

it's fine to allow usernames if a reasonable case can be made that they didn't know about and don't intend a connection to any company - that would imply a change to the policy, which you've said you're opposing. Care to clarify? Thparkth (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the current policy language, but no, my position doesn't imply a change to our policy, because "explicit" in "Explicit use of a name or url of a company" has been interpreted by everyone at UAA to require that the only reasonable interpretation of the name is that a company, group or website is meant. (Where we differ is that some admins require edits demonstrating a connection, some require promotional-sounding edits, and some don't require any edits if the only reasonable interpretation is that it's a company, group or website, and it "sounds promotional" to them ... I'm not one of these admins so I can't speak for their criteria.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Although I'm in favor of blocking an obvious company, group or website name if their first edits are solely promotional, I don't in fact personally do this if there's nothing definitely connecting them, I leave it alone and watch what happens, to get a sense of where we are on the issue. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you don't even follow the policy you wrote. 'Nuff said. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The diffs Daniel is referring to are actually here, and I also made an edit at the end of the month. Doesn't really support what you're saying, Daniel. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"... because I've never gotten an angry response to {{softerblock}}..." Because, I suppose, you can't measure the people who just give the hell up since they never write you back. Non-response does not necessarily mean acceptance ... no one would say legalized racial segregation was OK until December 1, 1955. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone wanna weigh in here? Daniel seems to be getting personal, and this isn't about me. I think he's missing the point. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While I've always admired your patience with these folks, Daniel, I do think your policy is a little too forgiving. There are so many billions of possible usernames that I see no reason to stretch our assumption of good faith beyond the bounds of reason. A username that has Company, Association, Corporation, Club, Marketing, Publicity and the like in it, is not likely to be the username of somebody with encyclopedic intentions here. If they are going to be driven away by something as gentle as the softerblock template, they are going to have trouble here anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any username that clearly implies role use as a subgroup of a larger one, for promotional purposes (such as, yes, "IBM Marketing Department") is blockable on those grounds. I agree that any username that consists of an actively used URL is blockable because it promotes the site.

What I do not agree with is the idea that usernames set editors intentions in stone. I am not primarily editing what I thought I was going to be editing when I started my account. Someone may come to promote their business or their company and sign up with that sort of username. They may make those edits right away, in which case they'll get blocked, properly, for doing so. I have made hundreds of those blocks. I have read the angry emails I get, and patiently explained a boatload of policies to those people, usually with them writing back that now they understand.

And sometimes, maybe, they do not edit. They might have read the username policy and realized they should have picked a different name. So they start a new account. Or they didn't, and come back to Wikipedia later, maybe thinking they want to edit something other than the article on their organization, like their hometown or their favorite food or sports team. Maybe after a few of those edits, they'll change their name to something reflecting their new decision to be a Wikipedian. If they don't, we can gently ask them about it. But the project is not going to collapse if Joe's Heating and Cooling makes a few edits to an unrelated article.

In five years as an editor and three as an admin I have come to the conclusion that it is generally in the project's interest to give editors every possible opportunity to edit within policy and guidelines, that that is what AGF means. To block usernames because they just happen to share org or corporate names without any evidence that they will be used for that purpose smacks of adminitis. {{Uw-coi-username}} exists for a reason. It is often more effective than blocking.

Support changing this policy. People should be blocked on behavior, not on anticipated behavior. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed, per User:Moonriddengirl. I try to wait for an edit before reporting to WP:UAA, but in most cases I do believe it is product placement, regardless of whether any edits were made and whether or not said edits were promotional. In a lot of cases I notice these people create accounts and never make any edits -- in that case, only people scouring the new user log will see it, but it can still be interpreted as product placement.

A corporate username is not the same as (for example) drinking a brand-name beverage in public. That's a choice to consume/use a product, not a choice to write its name all over the place and proclaim how wonderful said product is, or wear its t-shirt. There are, however, grey areas. If it's an obscure company like "BravoGolfHotel," I doubt most people would notice it as product placement, and likely many people would instead think it military speak for "BGH." It does depend on the individual circumstances. It's best to just block these, though, I think. A blocked user can choose to appeal their block, can choose to change their username, or can choose to go elsewhere.

I have also seen a lot of usernames to the effect of User:FoovilleRealEstate who then go on to create their userpage or an article to the effect of "Looking to buy a home in Fooville? Call Joe Schmoe Realty at 555-555-5555 or visit our website" (et cetera). I'd argue that this too is promotional and blockable even before they create the spam, but I can understand including this kind of potential violation under perhaps a different section of username policy. Tckma (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's eminently blockable as spam. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"A corporate username is not the same as (for example) drinking a brand-name beverage in public." Indeed. If I were Coke's marketing department I'd want the username to be sigged in company colors with the logo next to it, which it couldn't be as the latter is clearly banned by our other policies. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But Coke's marketing is probably capable of more subtlety than that. Marketers have one goal in mind: to put their product in your mind. They have an arsenal of tools to do this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First, you assume that anyone using a product name is or would be doing so at the behest of its maker. Maybe sometimes people just like a product or service? Maybe they like the sound of the words? Is it logical to assume that without even, say, looking at the user's page? For example, User:Bali ultimate is, as far as I know, a man. Is he promoting the lingerie line? Or this? To go further in this direction, if I change my username to Always Plus with wings, without changing any details of my userpage or my editing habits, is that username promoting that product effectively? I doubt it.

For that kind of stealth marketing to work, you'd want only your product's name without a chance of the competitor showing up, and you'd probably not want it in that same boring Helvetica/Arial as the competitor's name if it did. And then there's the user behavior to worry about. I don't think Coke would be happy, if they cared, about how User:Diet Coke Drinker's editing career turned out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. As I said above, "Even if the person who selected the name isn't promoting the company by intent, the effect is the same." Bali Ultimate is, as far as I'm concerned, similar to Jersey Wool. But User:Always Plus with wings would be a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the effect is as great as you think it would be. Most such usernames are often somewhat ironic in nature (as it would be clear to people if I made such a username change), and people can see that, especially when they avoid editing the articles on the products in question. User:Pepsidrinka has been around for a while ... I don't think anyone has started drinking Pepsi because of him, nor will they. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Moonriddengirl and Orangemike. There should be no discretion based on "I didn't know", "I am not here to promote" or the like. That's the top of a slippery slope. The policy needs to be and is clear, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That line about everything looking like an exposed nail to someone with a hammer comes to mind. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support good judgment over mindless rules. First, I always expect admins to use their best judgment; second, there are a few legitimate 'group name' uses. Are we really going to tell a teacher involved in WP:WikiProject Classroom coordination that "Chemistry at Smithville High" is an unacceptable username? If a small business actually has only one owner-employee, are we actually being harmed by a username of "Joe's Bait Shop" rather than "Joe, who owns a bait shop"? Third, there are people who are being paid, as part of their regular jobs, to do things with/on/to Wikipedia. To name only one example, a couple of months ago, the Google Foundation hired a couple of professional science-editing firms to review some medicine-related articles (See the Google Project; they're apparently in the process of hiring translators for the articles.) We want to be able to identify these people, and the fact is that a username of "Joe" is not nearly as informative as "Joe with the Google Project" or "Joe at Science Editing Corp".
  As I see it, Wikipedia has three legitimate concerns here:
  1. Appearing to encourage (or at least permit) businesses to promote themselves,
  2. The use of one account by multiple individual humans,
  3. Identifying people with conflicts of interest.
• IMO, point one is minor (because the promotion is a problem, even if it's done by an editor with an innocuous/anonymous name) and is adequately addressed by admins using good judgment to compare actual editing patterns with names ("Gee, 'User:Joe's Bait Shop' keeps removing negative information from Joe's Bait Shop..."). Point two is adequately addressed by admins using good judgment to evaluate actual evidence (e.g., comments like "I didn't get that message; it must have been someone else in my office") even if the username itself indicates a single human. Point three, IMO, is a bigger issue -- and a wholesale ban on corporate-sounding names makes this task much harder, especially for less-experienced editors.
  My bottomline summary is that we need more judgment, and less mindlessness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  You're arguing for a complete change of policy (that ignores copyright issues), WAID, and I find your reasoning unconvincing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  What copyright issues? Do you believe that a sentence added to Wikipedia by "User:MyCompanyName" somehow has different copyright status than the same sentence, added in the same fashion, by the same individual human, except under the username "User:RandomUserName"? (Or did you perhaps mean to express a concern with trademarks?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  [T]here are people who are being paid, as part of their regular jobs, to do things with/on/to Wikipedia -- There are the people you describe, and then there are the people who are told to write an article on the company. (Several years ago, before I was terribly familiar with Wikipedia, I worked for a small company where a co-worker was given an assignment to write an article on Wikipedia about the company and its history. It ended up sounding quite a bit like marketing/spam. Now that I'm thinking about it, I should see if said article still exists, and mark it for speedy deletion if it does.) How do you distinguish these two types of editors? Tckma (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed with WAID that you can't escape from the need for judgment and sensitivity, but to expand on what Mike and others are saying, it could get very complicated trying to figure out who at "Chemistry at Smithville High" wrote what they wrote, and as Google will tell you, "orphan" text (text where the copyright holder is unclear) is an enormous legal headache. My understanding is that that's a sufficient reason that we can't allow role accounts, and there are other reasons. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  Why do we even care which human is "Chemistry at Smithville High", so long as there is only one human using the account? The fact that we don't know whether it's Ms Smith or Mr Jones doesn't change the copyright status at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  MRG, didn't Mike Godwin weigh in at one point on copyright issues on accounts that seem to invite editing by a group? - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I don't know. I have heard it said several times that there are copyright issues related to attribution with role accounts, but prior to Wikipedia I had never worked with copyleft licenses and the role account thing was settled well before I was aware there was such a thing (or had even registered). :) I don't know if this comes from Mike. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what the proposal exactly is here... but reading the views given, I agree with Moonriddengirl and Dank. I also find WAID's argument about "Joe at Google Project" or "joe at bait shop" unconvincing - we don't need to know these things about people from their usernames. That's what userpages are for. That said, sensitivity should be applied as appropriate - but that generally just means AGF about the user's intentions and/or that they just didn't understand the rules. Rd232 ^talk 21:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find this user's name interesting, then ... and the discussion via which it was approved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This one's not a big deal for me. There's a risk that if we tell everyone "User:Alcoa doesn't work, but User:Mark_at_Alcoa is fine", then all the promotional editors will just change their names to for instance "Mark_at_BuyMyStuff". OTOH, we don't have the copyright argument against Mark_at_Alcoa. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose permitting company names, per MRG. Bad idea. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose allowing company names, much per Moonriddengirl, with no prejudice against occasional exercise of IAR/AGF in truly ambiguous cases. Blocks are certainly not punitive, but a means to shield the project from unwelcome influences, including promotion. We need to be clear that even subtle promotion (such as the above-mentioned product placement) is unacceptable. Intelligentsock 02:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - A few specific questions for those commenting. How much work did you put in to making sure your intended username was not the name of a company, group or product anywhere on Earth? How would you have reacted if you had been blocked because your name matched that of a company in a different country, that you had never heard of? What do you think should happen to your account now if a new company is created that matches your username? Thparkth (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't intend that as a straw man, because the policy can be read literally to mean that no one should have a name that accidentally matches a company name; but in fact, it's a straw man, because pretty much everyone agrees and always has that names that aren't intended to match a company name are okay. That's where the "judgment" comes in that everyone is talking about. My name is Dan K., so what are the odds that my username is intended to promote dank.org, or will be seen by anyone as promotional? If you'd be more comfortable if we write this explicitly into policy, I have no objection, but I think we're already all on the same page on this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If names that "aren't intended to match a company name are OK" then the policy should say that. This is no straw man; it's a real streatch to read your interpretation into the current wording of the policy. (Bear in mind I'm saying this as someone who agrees with your interpretation). In fact the policy says the exact opposite of what we all seem to wish it said - it says 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 - in effect, if you have a name that matches a company, we will assume you're doing it deliberately to promote that company.

In my opinion, there should be no major gap between the policy as written and the actual practice that "everyone knows" is how things are done. If, as in this case, there isn't even clear agreement on what the actual practice is, it's a sign that the policy isn't just badly written, but badly developed and possibly badly thought out. In this case it is practically impossible for anyone - user, administrator, or ACC volunteer - to know for sure that a specific username doesn't violate WP:ORGNAME, and that makes it functionally pretty useless.

The questions I'm asking are designed to probe at the edges of the policy, because that's where definitions are found. I hope they don't seem overly-hypothetical. Thparkth (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your approach and your work. Sure, even if we can't define what an "acceptable username that happens to match a company" is with any precision, we can at least add to the policy that these kinds of usernames are fine if that will help you guys. Whatever works. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your second question is excellent ... this really gets to the heart of the matter. My preferred username has been rejected by any number of sites for various reasons ... it never even occurred to me to boycott the site because I didn't get the username I wanted. I can't see myself, or any of us, really, being offended by softerblock. And yet ... when I was watching the promotional (WP:G11) queue religiously last summer, editors who posted offensively promotional material and were blocked using one username never ... not once ... created a new username and re-posted the material. Clearly, the people posting almost all of this material are here for different reasons than you and I. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this rule to produce that outcome? That is, what if we just blocked these promotion-only accounts because of their undesirable behaviors, rather than their usernames? Surely spam from "RandomUserName" is exactly as undesirable as identical spam from "MyCompanyName". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if policy said that the name wasn't important, it would still sometimes be important ... it has to be, because there are so many borderline cases, and the use of a promotional username is one more piece of evidence that can tip the scales. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Moonriddengirl, but we should feel free to ignore this provision in good-faith circumstances when it is obvious that there is no promotional intent behind a name. ThemFromSpace 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• comment. The discussion seems to steer away from the original question ("to tolerate the innocent use of obscure company, group or product names?") into blatant advertizing and product placement issues (PP mechanism usually rules out obscurity, it is for more or less public and widely available products). The prospects of removing wikipedians by registering $19.99 corporate shells are startling. Volume discounts on packages of six or more. East of Borschov 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose any change in the current wording that might allow the use of company/organization names as user names. We should not have to figure out which one is obscure/innocent/whatever and which one is not.Moreover, it is often for the obscure ones that the repeated appearance of their name in Wikipedia pages that serves as de facto advertising of their existence. Wikipedia should not be used as a billboard. Nsk92 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• On this basis, would you block User:Jimbo, given that Jimbo Inc. exists? You've said "We should not have to figure out which one is obscure/innocent/whatever and which one is not". Thparkth (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe it would be helpful to see some proposed language or at least some more specific details on what you have in mind. There are issues that need to be taken into account. As I mentioned above, today's obscure company can be tomorrow's megacorporation. Do we grandfather in the ones that are smart enough or lucky enough to register before obtaining prominence? If not, how do we know when to block? Do we block people who use the names of organizations that meet WP:ORG? How does one judge "innocent" intent? If User:Joe Dane's Quality Ice Creams (having overcome length issues somehow in registering) never edits the article on his company, is that innocent intent? What if he edits articles on ice creams? On American companies? On catering children's parties? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• This RFC was primarily intended to see if there is agreement that the current wording doesn't reflect actual practice, and that it would be undesirable to strictly enforce the current wording. Despite the number of people who "oppose" changing the policy, many of their comments suggest that they agree that it shouldn't be enforced as written :) This leaves me rather at a loss for how to proceed. I'll take your suggestion. Thparkth (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, as policy is written, User:Jimbo is safe; User:Jimbo Inc. would not be, as policy says, "Explicit use" (emphasis added). The fact is that policy is sometimes more strictly interpreted. User:Ferrara Pan Candy is probably going to be blocked, even though the actual name of the company is Ferrara Pan Candy Company. That seems sensible to me, since "Jimbo" can refer to lots of things, while "Ferrara Pan Candy" really can't. :) User:Amazon is safe; User:Amazon.com, not so much. I think "obscurity" is a bit in the wrong direction here, because obscurity is variable and highly subjective. I think what may need clarification is the intention and interpretation of "explicit" and that behavioral evidence may play in where user names are less explicit. I believe for reasons I've explained above that User:Ferrara Pan Candy would be a problem no matter what articles s/he is editing; User:Jimbo is not until he starts working in areas related to Jimbo Inc.. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you. I think the word "explicit" in this case carries no real meaning. All usernames are explicit. I suspect that what was intended was "unambiguous". Maybe editors would support a minor change like that? However that would still leave the problem of the assume-bad-faith "usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group" language. Thparkth (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would be comfortable with "unambiguous". I worry about the wikilawyers of the world, but we get those anyway. :) But I don't think the statement that you refer to is assuming bad faith; they do create that appearance. It doesn't say that's what is intended, but that this is how they appear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Is there any evidence of users being erroneously blocked for having a username that inadvertently matches a company name? I think this proposal is attempting to fix a loophole which is already taken care of by WP:COMMONSENSE. It's extraordinarily unlikely that there is an admin out there checking new users' usernames against the list of all businesses in the world, and blocking people on that criteria alone. Most blocks of these types happen when a user with a "company" username actually edits or creates an article on that company. Apart from that, I don't see evidence of any problem that needs to be fixed here. SnottyWong ^express 22:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Is there any evidence of users being erroneously blocked for having a username that inadvertently matches a company name?" Uh, yes. See the links in my comment at the very top of the page — i.e., this user, who I blocked three years ago because someone found this real-life concern. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. While there are a couple of block-happy admins out there, I pretty much see people blocked for using a company name only when they create/edit a blatantly promotional article for that company. Otherwise I usually see a warning (or a softblock allowing them to choose another name). In fact, a block simply for having a company name would seem to be at odds with the blocking policy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a live issue at WP:ACC where, based on this policy, the volunteer's guide requires them to "Always do a Google search to see if it is the name of a company or organization — which violates WP:U as it is promotional." And yes, real-live-users have had their requests declined because of this. Thparkth (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#SheffieldSteel for an example of how such problems are resolved using common sense. SnottyWong ^confess 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment notwithstanding the current policy, I think it would be reasonable to consider whether maybe we should start allowing shared accounts. However, if a username matches the name of a company, the question of possible trademark infringement comes to mind? 69.251.180.224 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Allowing shared accounts would be a discussion far outside the scope of the username policy. Trademark infringement only applies when you are making a similar product and offering it for sale. Since no one buys edits to Wikipedia that's not relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The guideline as written is stupid because there are numerous companies which are named after their founders and we should not discourage the use of real names such as Smith which is the name of numerous companies. And then there are all the companies named after common words such as Apple, Sky, Virgin, etc. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not reinvent trademark law. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am currently apparently breaking username policy. Should I be blocked? Ucucha 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• [3]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know, and should be punished for it. More seriously, does my username break the current sentence in policy that states "Explicit use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted."? It is, after all, the name of that Peruvian mining company, even though I had never heard of the company when I created the account, and given that I registered "Ucucha" in 2005 and the website was registered in 2007 [4], I may even precede them. If my username really is against the current policy, current policy is misguided, and should be changed. Ucucha 20:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe it does, as it is not explicitly a company name (though we're discussing below whether "explicitly" would be better rephrased as "unambiguously", in which case it would be even clearer that it is not a problem). Companies can't commandeer words with other meanings for their purpose, I don't think. :) That said, they can certainly combine them in unique ways—I mentioned somewhere in this discussion (or at least I think I did) the difference between User:Amazon and User:Amazon.com. I'm very glad that was a bot that tagged you. I've seen some crazy accusations of COI, but that one.... :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Deal with by a case-by-case basis. As a member of ACC, I can say we try to AGF on borderline cases where a name might be related to a company, but perhaps the IP geolocates somewhere else, or the name is pretty common, or someone has used it as a personal nickname on a lot of other sites. Overall, if there's no intent to promote a group or organization, and the name isn't blatant (for example, User:Chevymontecarlo isn't writing about the car, he just chose the name; I would block, however, if he was User:Buy2010ChevyMonteCarloNow or something similar). In the end, I don't think a broad policy to cover every single case is a good idea; IAR, common sense, and AGF are what I prefer. —fetch·comms 01:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Subsectioning proposals

Proposed Alternate Wording for WP:ORGNAME

Usernames which are unambiguously intended to represent or promote a company, group or product are not permitted. Your username should represent you as an individual.

Note that regardless of username, accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. Avoid editing articles with which you may have a conflict of interest. You will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's guide to editing with a conflict of interest.

Thparkth (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you do a version that says what you want to say, but uses more of the words that we've got already? People complain when policy changes from one version to another that seems to say approximately the same thing, because then they're not sure what the changes mean. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with "unambiguously intended", as it may be rather an assumption of bad faith, precluding as it does the accidental choice of a name that happens to coincide with a major group or product. That personalizes the policy, I think. Maybe something like this?

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. 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.

Does that lead to more wikilawyering than "explicit"? Will User:Ferrara Pan Candy be more likely to argue that his name is ambiguous, since it doesn't include "Company"? Maybe there's a better placement for "unambiguous." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone is "unambiguously intending" to use their username to represent or promote a company, we don't have to AGF any more. A username which accidentally matches a corporate name would not be unambiguously intended to promote it, and so would have no trouble from this version of the policy. For example, a user called "Apple" would be fine, because that's ambiguous as crap. A user called "AppleInc" would clearly be in violation.

I couldn't support your proposed wording, mainly because you didn't do anything with the restatement "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" which wipes out any qualifiers like "explicit" or "ambiguous" in the first sentence. Thparkth (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's my point; how do you know what they're unambiguously intending unless you assume? As written, the policy does not suggest that contributors who choose explicit company names are intending anything. It simply forbids such names and explains why they are blocked: to avoid the appearance of promotion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is that if you have to assume or infer at all, it's clearly ambiguous. Thparkth (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like making it personal by reading into their thoughts. We are in agreement, I believe, in not wanting to discourage good faith contributors who inadvertently fall afoul of this policy, but I think that we are focusing on it in different ways. I like the sentence that bothers you as it stands, because it doesn't suggest anything about the intentions of the contributor. (I don't think we need to carry forth the "explicit" or "unambiguous" from the first sentence, as its an explanation of the policy, but don't have any problem with adding a word like "accounts with an unambiguous company or group name" to the second half.) I don't like "unambiguously intending" because it seems to me to in effect say, "We know what you're trying to do." :) I do not regard a soft username block as personal, and I think the current language (even if the parameters need to be clarified) keeps it out of that realm. It's more of an "Oops! Here's a problem" situation, not a "You've been bad" thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

First sentence is a start, but I'd go farther: "Usernames that suggest the account's purpose is to promote the company/group or otherwise advance its interests via Wikipedia, and/or that will be used by a group within the company are not permitted and will be blocked regardless of editing behavior". (This targets all the "Consolidated Amalagamated Widgets Marketing Department"-type usernames that I have no problem blocking on sight as both username violations and role accounts). We should also make clear that two other clearly defined types of corporate usernames will be blocked on sight:

• usernames which consist of URLs used by an active corporate/organizational website, since they are inherently promotional by driving traffic to those sites, and

• usernames which consist of a product or entity name and any promotional text relating to it, excluding an ad slogan out of use for some sufficient amount of time to be determined later, and/or on a case-by-case basis at the time the account was created (I would consider "CokeIsIt" acceptable because Coke doesn't use that one anymore, but not "McDonald's, I'm Lovin' It" since it is still used worldwide (Although I think the last three words might be OK). Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have been seeing the problem as being not just promotion, but ownership, the idea that someone who is openly representing an organization expects to have control over what is said about it. I'm not sure this is valid, for it's just as much the case if her uses an individual name and declares his affiliation--as he is supposed to. In any case, in the current editing environment here, the claim to such ownership is almost certain to backfire, and people will lose no time in telling the user that the more he is affiliated, the less he will be permitted to control. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I also believe this is a problem where an individual with the username contributes to an article on the subject. And I agree with you about the outcome of that with regards to regular editors. In fact, sometimes they catch flack for making changes that they're allowed to make. :) But I'm not sure that it wouldn't have a dampening effect - intended or otherwise - on newer contributors. I know when I was new and poking about to see where I could help, I wouldn't have been very likely to argue with somebody who had the company name, not knowing anything about WP:OWN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is "Edison" ok, since there is a McGraw-Edison, Detroit Edison, Edison International, Edison Mission Energy, Consolidated Edison, Commonwealth Edison and Southern California Edison? What if I just chose the name because I admire Edison, New Jersey? Should I refrain from editing articles about these companies? Edison (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, does "Edison" seem explicitly a company name to you? To me, it does not...it's even more generic than "Sheffield Steel" or "Jersey Wool", since Edison is a surname and a first name. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew a man whose first name was Edison, but I have no plans to create an article about him. It is not an uncommon surname. such as jazz musician Sweets Edison. People have complained that I should not edit articles about competitors of inventor Thomas Edison such as Nicola Tesla, so I considered moving to some generic name, but none came to mind. Maybe "TeslaEdisonMorseFaradayHenrySwannBellHertzMarconiWestinghouse," but that does not roll smoothly off the tongue.Edison (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, that's fairly ridiculous, but I think more a problem with people's understanding of WP:COI than username policy. I've seen articles that are clearly in no way promotional and that are too short and basic to be accused of bias tagged {{COI}} on the basis of an evident connection between a contributor and the subject, nevermind that it is not forbidden for those connected to a subject to edit it; they just have to do so within that guideline and relevant policies. That said, is your question tying into this conversation, or are you just wondering? If you object to the policy as worded, you might want to be specific about how you think it should be changed. :)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think - if nobody notices a problem then it's probably not a problem. Wondering if perhaps, somewhere, a business with that name might exist, is taking word over spirit and process over product. We don't need to legislate everything. It can help to codify things sometimes but -- incredibly and unusually -- this is one case I don't think a more exact rule is needed - if no problem's perceived there probably isn't a problem :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reducing drastically the number of contributors

I've just discovered this policy. It's reported that Wikipedia is losing contributors. Wikipedia used to be a community of amateurs sharing their knowledge. When something was controversial, reference was asked for. Now, you ask for experts to contribute. When a reference is lacking, instead of adding it or asking for it, you just revert the contribution. You refuse organisations to contribute as such! you refuse company names, although they only appear in the "Discussion" and "history" pages, and you even ask people not to contribute in case of conflict of interest! So, to write about, say, website creation, you require experts in website creation, but those experts shouldn't be themselves website creators, because of conflict of interest. As a consequence, only independent experts are allowed. Of course, independent experts ready to do professional work for free for the sake of Wikipedia are not so many. And who on earth will be allowed to write the article about "independent expertise"? In practise, people with a certain level of expertise and with enough time to work in such conditions are civil servants. But they are not independent (they depend on their government, and typically have a duty to preserve secrecy), and above all having an encyclopaedia written by a community where civil servants are overrepresented is not neutral at all. Civil servants acquire a very administrative view of the world. And this has probably something to do with the conclusion: "A 2008 study found that Wikipedia users were less agreeable and open, though more conscientious, than non-Wikipedia users."... In the first modern encyclopaedia, Diderot's French "Encyclopédie", articles used to be signed, not in a hidden page, but with the article, and the editors' titles and organisations names appeared in the front page of the book. I would just suggest this English Wikipedia's policy be reverted, and companies allowed to contribute as such. --Fiable.biz (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems an amazing coincidence that a new contributor with a username that is the "Explicit use of a...URL of a company" would stumble upon this discussion five edits in, immediately after promoting his website. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm Fiable.biz' owner. Firstly, when I was a civil servant (I'm still one, but freed from duty temporarily to create a company.), I contributed during several years a bit to Wikipedias, a bit to Wikibooks and more to Wiktionaries. I never read this guideline. Secondly, the reason I've just discovered this is precisely that I've just added my company's name in the name of Mongolian companies, a list which, obviously, makes advertisement for Mongolian companies. And I received a warning leading me here.--Henri de Solages (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

the List of Mongolian companies litst businesses that are notable enough for an actual article in Wikipedia (even if many still don't have one) and don't need this kind of advertizing. Your own small business doesn't seem to fit in there at all. And even if you haven't stumbled over that guideline while you did your ~50 edits since 2005, it should just be common sense that promoting your own business here is not a good idea. --Latebird (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The user names are now unified inside Wikimedia's projects, and not all projects have a policy excluding companies. Moonriddengirl has just blocked our account, so we'll not contribute any more to English Wikipedia as long as this user name policy is in force, and I'll not contribute personally any more, because I have other things to do than redacting for free articles reverted due to lack of references, I'm fed up with copyright violations, and I'll of course be accused of conflict of interest if I write in my field of competence. On the other hand, Moonriddengirl hides his/her real identity under a pseudonym, and doesn't say what organisation he/she works for, so that we cannot check if there is any conflict of interest or not. Diderot's Encyclopédie rules was more open and, to my mind, saner: anyone could check who were the authors, and what organisations they were members of, so that authors were more responsible than many Wikipedia contributors.
In fact, since many people's names became company names or brand, use of pseudonyms are compulsory for such people in English Wikipedia... --Henri de Solages (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy is sound. Usernames are for real individuals, usually human, sometimes bots. WP:COI constrains but does not prevent such individuals contributing in their employers' area of interest. Of course such individuals should disclose that relationship. Failing to do so looks very bad on the employer and the employee when it inevitably comes out, and detracts from the integrity of the article. Conversely, a principled disclosure makes it clear that an enlightened employer is encouraging employees to collaborate with other editors in the full light of day. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are advantages to being upfront about your identity, but currently we are encouraged to do this by noting our connection on the talk pages of any articles we edit rather than by taking our business's URL as our username. As I said at your talk page, if the policy changes, you will no doubt be welcome to continue your edits under the URL of your company, although you would still need to be careful that your edits are within WP:COI. There are ways to check conflict without advertising them in usernames. Those who want to see if I have a conflict of interest can look at my work. I keep a fairly complete list of articles I have created at User:Moonriddengirl/Contributions. Not everybody does, of course, but we have other evidence: if I come across an article that seems slanted, I check the person's talk page and contrib history for a pattern. (If you are "fed up with copyright violations", you would be very welcome to join us in cleaning them. WP:COPYCLEAN needs all the help it can get.) As to the question of people's names becoming company names or brands, I'm unsure if you read the conversation above before weighing in, but this has been addressed. We have talked about adding the word "unambiguous" to policy to help ensure that "John Smith" of Dover is not blocked due to relationship to "John Smith Plumbing" of New Jersey...although I'm not sure if this is currently much of a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When Henri de Solages talks about "copyright violations", he is most likely referring to this deletion request on Commons, where he tried to withdraw a CC-By-Sa licence several months after publication. Just another example where he failed in the attempt to promote his business at the expense of the Wikimedia community. --Latebird (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wasn't quite sure how we made that leap. But I, too, am fed up with copyright violations. :) In fact, I get a steady diet of them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's refocus: summary of consensus so far

This has been a very wide-ranging discussion, raising some issues which are probably beyond the scope of what we can accomplish here. I would like to try to summarize the consensus so far as it relates to the RFC question and see if we can come to a general agreement on what, if anything, should be done.

• There is some discussion about whether group accounts should be permitted or not, and about whether, since they exist anyway, it would not be better for them to have a username which explicitly discloses their conflict of interest. This is an interesting and important question, but I am going to ignore it completely because it is outside the scope of this RFC.
• There is general agreement that usernames which are definitely intended to give the impression of representing a company, should not be permitted. So User:Comcast™Cares would probably not be welcome.

• There is general agreement that usernames which are the domain name or URL of an organization should not be permitted.
  • Borrowing your wording from just above, I'd say it's more like "definitely intended to give the impression of representing a domain name or url", of anyone, not just an organization. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is general agreement that the policy is not intended to impact good-faith users who innocently choose the name of a company (or a name similar to a company) but don't have any connection to the company and don't edit to promote that company.
• There is agreement from experienced administrators that this intention does reflect actual practice at WP:UAA and WP:ACC - several common-sense exceptions are read into the current policy, even though they are not clearly stated there.
• There is significant disagreement about whether there is any actual problem with the current policy wording. Some believe that the intention stated above is already expressed unambiguously in the current wording. Others believe that it is not. Some users and experienced administrators have given examples of times when it has been enforced without the common-sense exceptions, and where this has caused problems.
• There is disagreement about whether the word "explicit" in the policy is sufficient to allow for common-sense exceptions. There is some support for changing this word, but there is no clear outcome on what it might be changed to.

If anyone disagrees with my assessment of the consensus so far I invite them to simply edit my text above. What follows is my own opinion.

Given that there is quite strong agreement about the general principle behind the policy, but also that there are common-sense exceptions which should be applied to it, I do think there is a strong argument for rewording it. I think that those who believe the word "explicit" is enough of a loophole to fit all kinds of exceptions in are generally missing the impact of the second sentence of the policy: "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." This essentially restates the policy without exceptions: if your username is the name of a company, you will be indefinitely blocked. No loopholes. It flatly contradicts the practice at WP:UAA and the exceptions most people have supported here.

The possibility of reverting to the previous wording of the policy has been raised: "Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." I do not support this because I believe the consensus here is more strongly against the use of company usernames than this wording conveys.

I would therefore like to suggest this alternate wording, based on User:Moonriddengirl's wording above, but with the second sentence softened.

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. 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 will be indefinitely blocked if their editing behavior is promotional. Please note - now superseded by Moonriddengirl's wording below.

Your opinions on this wording please? Please note that this is not a vote to decide policy wording; that's not how policy is made. If you agree with the general intention of my rewording but dislike the actual words I have chosen, please suggest an alternate wording rather than simply saying "oppose" ;) Thparkth (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Overall, I like this. I think it more accurately reflects everyday practice. I might suggest the addition of the word "normally" somewhere (e.g., "is not normally permitted" or "are normally blocked indefinitely"), to provide just a bit more room for admins to use common sense. Also, I'd change the last sentence to say "appears to be promotional", rather than "is promotional". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• I like it, too, it makes a nice distinction between unambiguous spam-names (not permitted at all) and possible spam-names (not permitted if editing behaviour is spammy as well). --Conti|✉ 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think there may be a bit of a divide between the first sentence ("Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted.") and the last sentence ("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 will be indefinitely blocked if their editing behavior is promotional.") The first forbids the use of the name; the last suggest that they will be blocked if. This would seem to suggest that, say, User:Amazon.com would not be blocked as long as their editing is not promotional, notwithstanding that their username is not permitted. Is that what you intend? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say that User:Amazon.com would be blocked, because the username is unambiguously a name of a company. User:Amazon would not be blocked, unless said user would run around to promote amazon.com. At least that's how I read it. --Conti|✉ 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think what's intended is something like this?

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. 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 may be indefinitely blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional, even if the name is ambiguous.

(I've incorporated WhatamIdoing's suggested change.) Is this what you mean, Thparkth? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great improvement on my wording. I'd prefer this version. Thparkth (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with it. The first half should help protect the User:Amazons of the world, while the latter half makes it clear that the User:Amazon's may still have issues if they are in fact promotionally editing Amazon.com. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take the first sentence by the hand and introduce it to the last one. The former lays out a very clear rule, then, after the paragraph has detoured all over the place, comes back and implies, well, maybe not. Either unambiguous company/group names (and what, exactly, would constitute a company/group name? I have seen little willingness to discuss that) are prohibited, or they're not. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted" addresses names that are "unambiguous", while the last sentence--"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 may be indefinitely blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional, even if the name is ambiguous"—clarifies that usernames may sometimes be blocked even if they are ambiguous if editing behavior appears promotional. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be clearer on the point that it doesn't have to be identical to the URL or company name, only close enough to be "unambiguous" in its intent (and I guess we don't have to define unambiguous, we define it in practice every day). "JoesFD" who's been spamming "Joe's Fine Dining" is close enough. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get why cases like "User:JoesFD" would be a username issue instead of a spam issue. The username, taken out of any context, is not a problem at all. The actions of the user are. So he should be blocked accordingly for what he does, and not for his username. In such cases, the username is another indicator for the intent of the spammer, but nothing more. Maybe we could add a sentence to that effect to the policy. --Conti|✉ 08:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion a little earlier, I believe we're agreed (and always have been, to my knowledge) that role or group accounts aren't allowed for a variety of reasons, including lack of clarity on who owns the copyright and the inevitable perception of ownership. If they've given us enough of the name to make it blatantly obvious, I don't see how it could be considered anything else. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I get you, although I'm not sure what needs to be clarified in that case. The user could be blocked for being a role account per the current and per the suggested wording. --Conti|✉ 13:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once more, with feeling?

Okay this is what we have:

Explicit use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. 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.

Avoid editing articles with which you may have a conflict of interest. You will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's guide to editing with a conflict of interest.

How is this as an alternative?

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. A username that is the name of a company or group implies the intent to promote this group. Accordingly, such usernames may be indefinitely blocked. Even if the name is ambiguous, accounts with a company or group name as a username may be indefinitely blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional.

Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name; see Sharing accounts below. Please note that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of user name, and avoid editing articles with which you may have a conflict of interest. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's guide to editing with a conflict of interest.

Purpose of the changes:

• Unambiguous is meant to help avoid RfC/U cases like "Sheffield Steel", I believe.
• Rambling middle sections addressed further down, per Daniel's note above.
• Editing behavior does matter (so seems to be consensus above) and that borderline names are more likely to be blocked if editing behavior seems to confirm connection.
• Added a link to WP:NOTADVERTISING to help new users understand our policy on promotion.
• Softened the final sentence. If they do avoid editing articles with which they have a WP:COI, they don't need to carefully follow guide to editing with a conflict of interest.

It doesn't address what constitutes unambiguous, but I'm afraid that even trying to do so may be tossing beans around. We don't want to create a guide for "How to use your company's name without being unambiguous about it." :)

Is this better or worse than the last proposed above? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this too. It's longer, but in a good way ;) Thparkth (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, although I substituted "creates the appearance of" with "implies" for brevity. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that works. :) Does this have consensus, then? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's starting to look a lot like consensus. If anyone objects to the policy being changed to the wording above, now would be an excellent time to speak up. Thparkth (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't want company names because the user's bad behavior could smear the company. Disclaimers are the most important thing. If a name is discovered, the user should be required to have a disclaimer or the username blocked. So it's the user's choice to decide. RIPGC (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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