Wikipedia talk:Username policy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Response to Cabayi

[edit]

@Cabayi: Regarding Special:Diff/1303135854, it is quite common for shared role account to go dormant but the login kept by the organization/company and to be brought back to life when the company wants to change contents on the page. Over time, I've seen this many times. What this prevents is send a clear message that company curating their own page isn't allowed. Graywalls (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been inactive for nearly eight years. Blocking them serves no preventative purpose. You are free to start a discussion on their user talk if you feel that strongly. Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional usernames where the user has not made promotional edits

[edit]

Currently, the text of WP:PROMONAME reads:

A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors.

I have long had the understanding that this section requires that there be promotional edits in addition to a promotional username in order to give a block. However, upon re-reading this section, it seems to allow for some leeway. I wondered where I got this impression from, so I looked through the page history, and I found that, previously, this section also included language at the end which was much more forceful:

Users who adopt promotional usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

This language was removed by Oshwah on 14 May 2024 with the edit summary "Redundant; already stated in the paragraph."

I have decided to revert this removal and reinsert the above language into the policy. I think it was removed for an incorrect reason: I think the prior text in the paragraph is not as forceful and may mislead administrators into thinking that it is occasionally helpful to block accounts under PROMONAME even when the accounts have zero edits. This language is extremely longstanding—it looks like it dates back to 2011, with this edit that added the language users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked if their edits are otherwise constructive; instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

I welcome others' thoughts, especially if there are any objections to this. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive373#Unblocks backlog for illustration of why such blocks may be counterproductive—a better approach is to warn and let the username fade to obscurity if it never edits. Also giving some courtesy pings to asilvering, Ponyo, Deepfriedokra, who participated in the AN discussion and may be interested in this. Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I go with that entirely. Promotional user name + constructive, non COI, non promo edits = warning; promotional user name + COI, non promotional edits = SOFTERBLOCK; promotional user name + promotional edits = SPAMUBLOCK. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hard and fast rule was and should be that we warn and not block those with promotional user names who have not edited. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "both ... and" in the first quote makes it clear, so I agree with Oshwah that it's redundant. But I don't really see any reason to remove the redundant text if it helps anyone else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, but I noticed that if you read a bit further, it says, ...are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors, which seems to open the possibility that you can also give blocks for just "one of the two behaviors". Mz7 (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always thought that it is totally unconstructive to block an editor just because they chose a username which was contrary to a policy they had no reason to know about. I have no idea why any administrator would even consider doing so, whether policy allows it or not. Why not give them a friendly message explaining to them that their username needs to be changed? What purpose, other that slapping a good faith new editor in the face, is served by blocking? Logically Oshwah is right, in that the same statement is implied by the "both ... and" statement elsewhere on the page, making the specific removed text redundant; however, people are able to miss information which, like this, is just one part of a longer statement, and I fully support Mz7 in restoring the removed text. (Not that it will make much difference: many administrators will go on blocking anyway.) JBW (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boatsbycenturion

[edit]

This username appears to go against WP:CORPNAME. I don't have the time today to interact with this user if I contact them on this, but if I were them, I would appreciate knowing sooner rather than later that they need to fix this, and how. I spotted them making this edit:[1]
ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known persons' user names

[edit]

Where a user's username warrants a soft-block under {{uw-ublock-wellknown}}, which category should we use?

I have reported them variously as one of disruptive, promotional or misleading, and in each case have received pushback. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template automatically places users into Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy, not sure if additional categories are necessary. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean category in that sense; I mean the categories by which infractions are listed on this page; such as the three I mentoned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it easiest to just point to WP:REALNAME. You could say they fall under potentially misleading. You may (or may not) be receiving pushback because we don't always need to block them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the ARV function in WP:Twinkle. For usernames, there are four options, "just point to WP:REALNAME" is not one of them.
I referred explicitly to cases "where a user's username warrants a soft-block under {{uw-ublock-wellknown}}". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: You can just leave all four boxes unchecked [2]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of me wants to suggest you just write something on the page (as Tamzin suggests, if you like). Maybe we can go through an example. I managed to find through a quick search one recent example of yours at UAA - this one. The policy discusses at great lengths that talking to the user is often the preferred approach. That aside, first question, is it a real name issue? Sometimes there's merely a question mark, or elevated risks, and we take the safe approach of blocking them, but I don't see much room for concern about who this account represents. You may get them blocked and identifying to VRT, for them to get unblocked and looking pretty much the same some time later. In any case this can be done without a block. Don't get me wrong, we do do edge cases, but I'm not seeing it with this one. So is it a promotional username? We take the approach that someone using their real name cannot cannot be a username violation unless it's impersonation. This is written in bold at the top of Special:Log/newusers - in fact I'd recommend reading that introduction as a good guide to policy. So is it disruptive? Again, not if it's a real name, but no anyway. What we have here is a SPA and behavioural issue (potentially) and not really a username issue. A username block is unlikely to be a good solution. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We take the approach that someone using their real name cannot cannot be a username violation unless it's impersonation."—We don't; we take that approach that "a username which represents an individual [is] a violation [if] it appears to be impersonating a notable living person". And that (with my emphasis) is what Special:Log/newusers, with which I am familiar, says.
At that point, erring on the side of caution, we block (or should do) until the identity is verified.
We do so "to protect [article subjects] from being impersonated"; which is why {{uw-ublock-wellknown}} is for when "the username matches the name of a well-known, living person" and not when "the account is proven to be impersonating a well-known, living person".
Once (and if) the identity is verified, there ceases to be a violation, and the account is unblocked.
Now tell me how, without this process, you can tell whether the person claiming to be Addison Wiggin (or any article subject) is really "using their real name", or is an impersonator? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't block people for well known if it's obvious that it's someone writing an autobiography. Getting them to email in ID is just a waste of time for everyone. The issue isn't impersonation in these cases it's spam. Secretlondon (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phone numbers in username

[edit]

Don't remember what we do with user names that look like phone numbers. The user page was promotional. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contact an OSer. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merging Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names with WP:AN

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merging Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names with WP:AN. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy will need to be updated when temporary accounts are activated

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), NKohli (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) have notified us that the foundation plans to "deploy temporary accounts to English Wikipedia in about a month, preferably October 7th." More details about this process are included in their message and I strongly recommend keeping general questions and discussion there. I am posting this message here because it seems that we'll want to update the "Misleading usernames" section of this policy once the change takes place so we're clear about explicitly disallowing the use usernames that resemble the names that will be used for temporary accounts. Ideally we could also support that restriction programmatically, too, but people more technically knowledgeable than me will have to work on that. ElKevbo (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Restrictions on usernames we already have that restriction in place. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does forbid usernames which resemble IP addresses, even though they're 'technically' impossible. I've seen many of them, and expect we'll also see some temp account spoofing. There's no harm adding two words to the existing policy, though there's no rush. You could say that policy already forbids such things. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]