![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The opposite of promotional usernames, those usernames that denigrate or serve to attack persons or companies, isn't explicitly covered under this policy, but would seem to be inappropriate per se. I noticed this after observing the edits of new User:FormerDeltaCustomer which have been solely attempts to add the external link www.deltareallysucks.com to the Delta Air Lines article. Shouldn't this type of username be covered explicitly in the policy? AUTiger » talk 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The examples page for usernames, suggested a while back, has been linked in. Hopefully not too prescriptive, just a simple explanation and main examples. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this. The buying and selling of usernames on Wikipedia seems to be supportive of violations of WP:Sockpuppetry. Imagine: A troll doesn't NEED to gain the trust of the Wikipedia community. He can just buy an admin account on eBay. Zenwhat ( talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As folks may have noticed, MangoJuice recently excised the statement "if your real name appears to be inappropriate, but you wish to use it, you should e-mail an administrator to work out a solution". On my user talk and the edit summary, Mango suggests that this is redundant to the section on real names. Of course, we both agree that the section on real names doesn't say the same stuff. Mango suggests that it is also unnecessary because the policy says that a real name is never inappropriate. I think that it doesn't quite ever say that, although there's an implication.
I think that something along the lines of that and the section Mango removed (and I reinserted) should be said in the real name section. The policy as it stands certainly implies that a real name may get blocked, although it should be unblocked once the person's identity is established. I think the excised section is meant to lay out a path in the situation where this can be anticipated, and dealt with in advance. It might not do it correctly, but I think something in the policy should do that. So, let's talk. SamBC( talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on this User talk:209.105.213.101 the template {{ Schoolblock}} whcih includes a link to Special:Listusers all of which is great. But when you open the list of user names the are almost exclusively deleted vandal only accounts or offensive ones like User:(2) Heil Hitler, motherfucker!. While I can see where directing school children to a list of user names that have been taken could be helpful could we find a way to provide the list of active accounts? {{ Schoolblock}} is used on school IP's that have been blocked for vandalism, directing to a list user names created mostly to vandalize Wikipedia may not be the best choice. Jeepday ( talk) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently found this username: User:و. I think it's awesome! Are such usernames allowed? If yes, I may want to change my username. Bless sins ( talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on a question by AzaToth on WT:UAA, I'd like to propose that we change the label "offensive usernames" to "disruptive usernames" while leaving the description the same -- that is, it would now say "Disruptive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."
This won't really change the policy, because it's intended to mean the same thing, but if the current policy is (finally) going to go into TWINKLE it will help to have clear labels for things. I think "disruptive" would be a better description because:
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. How about cases when users choose names of notable living people (actors, politicians ...) ? Is it permitted ? - Darwinek ( talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The block template reads: "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, ..." Where in the policy does it speak on length? Because I don't see it. And confusing just got removed from the policy, though I don't agree with the change. Lara ❤ Love 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a discussion we put off for later when revising the username policy. It's later now.
Why do we block usernames for being "confusing"? Why, for example, do we waste the time of the good faith User:Askdnapn39nfkjfen (who has even posted an explanation of what his name means) instead of welcoming him to Wikipedia?
The reason I generally hear is that someone could impersonate someone with a confusing username by creating a similar name. But that's ass-backwards. When someone is being impersonated, you block the impersonator, not the impersonatee! Any name can be impersonated, and there's no point in blocking people to protect them from that.
Furthermore, by meta-policy we have to allow non-English (and, indeed, non-Latin-alphabet) names such as User:المستهلك. English speakers, of course, can't really tell that name apart from User:المستهك, so I think this just helps to show the irrelevance of that argument.
This part of the policy has resulted in some of the more egregiously bad username blocks, like User:Ggggggggggggggg12, and it doesn't seem to have much benefit except that sometimes people use it to preemptively block vandals. (And I don't think that's even a good thing: what if Askdnapn39nfkjfen had been "preemptively blocked" for the vandalism he never did?) So what are the arguments for keeping this in the policy?
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
All these usernames are very different, they couldn't be considered similar to one another, but they are indeed confusing becuase you can not easily recognise one from another. Confusion is inevitable here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ryan, just wondering how is it any different to allowing usernames that are probably confusingly similar to many editors here such as:
(and longer ones)
-
Neparis (
talk)
19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another response to Ryan: Why would you ever encounter a set of names like that and have to distinguish them all? Would all those editors be editing in the same places? (I, for one, would suspect sock puppetry, but that's another issue.) If you encountered an improbable situation like that, you might start by telling them "Look, I have trouble following your discussion because your name looks a lot like these five other people in the discussion. I'm not sure why you did that, but could I encourage you to change your name to make this discussion easier?" Probably a few of them would, and the problem would be solved without having to block anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like consensus. Let's remove it from the policy and see if the Wiki comes crashing down in a mass of confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need random as a criterion anymore, primarily because from what I've seen editors who intend to edit productively in good faith will pick a username that means something, even if only to them. Thus a user with a completely random username is probably a vandal, a sockpuppet, someone who will never edit, or someone who is unlikely to get too involved in areas where ease of identification is important. So they'll get blocked due to actions warranting such, or it won't matter due to lack of activity, or they'll get frustrated when no one can remember their name and change it themselves. I can't imagine a large number of incidents resulting from the removal of this rule. Blocking them because users with random usernames are commonly vandals is not in keeping with the intent of this policy and is a blatant violation of WP:AGF.-- Dycedarg ж 07:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so we have some people joining the discussion who haven't participated in previous discussion of confusing usernames, and we'll have a lot more if we follow Ryan's suggestion to open this up to the Village Pump. (I'm concerned that this will just bury the issue with "too many cooks". We haven't needed the Village Pump to make the other changes that Ryan agreed with.)
To stop the same self-defeating arguments coming back, I want to propose The المستهلك Test, which in a nutshell is:
The fact that this name is in the Arabic character set isn't the key point, it's just a good example. We've had a name in native Nicaraguan in the Latin alphabet blocked for being "confusing" before, for example.
The important thing is that we cannot block users for what language their username is in -- even if it's a language the admins around don't know. To do so would not only be xenophobic, it would be against Meta's goal of having people use the same identity across all wikis.
Here's an application of the المستهلك test. Some argue that we should block names if we don't know how to type them into the "Go" box. Almost nobody on en:wp knows how to type المستهلك into the "Go" box. Therefore, it's not a good reason to block people.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What was the consensus regarding the specific breakdown criteria for the username policy? I noticed a change a few weeks ago regarding the use of Twinkle, where now the specifications are quite generic. Was there an overwhelming consensus that this caused too much confusion? I ask only because I felt they were a benefit and gave administrators and users more latitude with respect to interpretation of the policy - although it seems that the policy was rewritten. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since some here want to continue blocking confusing usernames, I want to know what exactly are the arguments for it. We've covered a few that I don't find very compelling:
Is it just the arguments above that are so important that we need to keep this bitey piece of policy around, or are there other arguments that should be added to the list? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
For those who want to keep this kind of block around as a "polite" way to ask people to change their names, I'll point out that you're in a small minority who thinks blocks can be "polite". But I'll propose an alternate method that can get you the result you want: asking them politely. If they are in fact reasonable users, they will change their names, or (like Askdna...) they will at least provide an explanation of what their name means, which might help you distinguish it from other names in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(edited to turn this section from random musings into a proposal -- rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
Okay. It seems like those who support "confusing username" blocks have two contradictory reasons to block them now:
I don't think anyone's advocating hard-blocking usernames just for being confusing, so if you take these two reasons together, what we're doing with "confusing username" blocks is gently blocking likely vandals so they can easily come back and vandalize under a less conspicuous username. That's not useful.
I understand both arguments, I just don't think they're good arguments for username blocks. Username blocks aren't the right tool for this job, because they conflate both of these situations into one incoherent one. However, we can split them into two cases that we handle reasonably. And my hope is this will handle the concerns of those who don't want to see "confusing usernames" removed from the policy -- they may be concerned about the effects of simply removing it, but we can replace it with something appropriate.
So the proposal is:
The bad-faith users still get blocked, and we do our part to discourage sucky usernames. Is this a satisfying proposal? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this might be a silly question, but where is the term "vandalism-only accounts" defined in policy? I've seen vandalism patrollers give out hardblocks for vandalism-only accounts, but I can't find anything in policy about them. In fact, I can't find anything in WP:VAND that lets you block without some kind of warning. (Which, as an aside, shows how out of proportion username blocks are. I've just given a user a routine warning because he's editing a hockey player's bio to say things like he "ate a bucket of shit". If the words "bucket of shit" appeared in his username, without even libeling any particular person, he'd probably be blocked already.)
I know that this term has to exist somewhere, and I'd like to be able to refer to it for the proposal I've outlined above, but the vandalism policy isn't exactly my area. Does anyone know? Should I go ask on WT:VAND? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, before I go forward with including something like this in the proposal, is this actually what we want to do? Do we really want to suggest blocking for vandalism without a warning in the username policy, when the vandalism policy doesn't do that? We could instead use the username as just a way to escalate the warnings, so that perhaps only one would be required.
So here's my question.
The entire reason I'm doing this is to convince people that removing "confusing username" blocks need not interfere with our ability to block vandals, so I'm especially interested in hearing from those who opposed the change, such as Until, Ryan Postlethwaite, and LaraLove.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think these are unhelpful as usernames. While such usernames can be dealt with under 'offensive usernames' (Nationalism 'A' is offensive to nationalism 'B') often thats a bad idea as it may be interpreted as an insult by the other party. Making exceptions are again problematic because they will lead to "nationalism 'A' is fine so why is nationalism 'B' banned?" arguments. So I think a broader restriction on this is needed. We should at the very least discourage such usernames. -- Cat chi? 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific policy on using ones IP address? I write anonymously by choice - and fully expect my edits to stand or fall on their own merits. Is my use of IP against the rules? I understand I forego the benefits of an account, but do I then get penalized as well? 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
Change to:
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name
,and youeitherare that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. Such blocked user must be notified in a courteous manner and instructed to create a new username.
This proposal is prompted by a new user LeonardoDiCaprio ( talk · contribs) who clearly identified that she is a fan, not Mr. DiCaprio. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal B
An administrator has explained her interpretation. This interpretation would read:
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that your real name is the same as the well-known person but that you are a different person
are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
With this new proposal, I favor Proposal B. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. In such cases, you must either show that you are that person or make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
Lara ❤ Love 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This needs examples, something like:
This makes clear that it's about people who share names with famous people, and does not permit a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio to use that name. -- FOo ( talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The ban on promotional usernames is doing more harm than good. Recently, Adznet was blocked and is now undergoing an RFCN because he has a personal website with a domain name that matches his username (something which is only discouraged by this policy). Some time ago, we remember that Bravogolfhotel was blocked, because someone found out that the letters "B G H" in the NATO phonetic alphabet matched the name of a hotel in the Philippines. The "promotional" category is by far the category causing the most reports to UAA these days, often on the flimsiest of grounds. For example, a report on the username "Whiztec" is on UAA right now with the rationale "User create article Whizecargo. Assuming username stands for "Whize Technician" or similar", and people are getting reported for having names that contain portions of a rock band's name, et cetera.
I believe this situation has gone completely overboard. Nowadays, many people have personal websites or blogs with their own domain name, and it comes as no surprise that they also choose their established Internet handle as their Wikipedia username. If these users don't spam Wikipedia with links to their site, the username is no problem at all IMO. In fact, most supporters of the promotional username ban seem to agree that a promotional username is only a problem if the user actually promotes their company by creating articles, adding links, etc. In that case, it's the actual promotion that's a problem, not the fact that their username matches or alludes to the company name. Therefore, we should focus on limiting promotional editing, instead of seeing this from a username perspective, which just causes Twinkle users to Google the user creation logs and reporting anything that seems to resemble a domain name.
I therefore suggest that "promotional" be taken out of WP:U. Instead, a policy prohibiting promotional editing should be added to WP:COI. This policy could of course contain some proviso saying that an editor's username is to be considered as part of a promotional pattern, but all blocks handed out for promotion should be recorded as user conduct blocks, not username blocks. This would also cause less confusion for the users getting blocked. If someone adds biased information about their school whose name is part of their username, it's much more helpful for them to hear that "you've been blocked for adding irrelevant links to Wildforest High School to many articles" instead of "your username Wildforestguy is offensive, disruptive, confusing, misleading or promotional". Is he back? ( talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've sort of reconsidered this. I think that users with promotional usernames who promote something should be indef blocked, but not username blocked. These users are just obvious spammers and need to be shown the door - it is not their usernames that are a problem. There might, in theory, be users who use a username that matches a company or group where it would be good to issue a username block, but in my actual experience I haven't seen it come up. I note that on CAT:RFU there are lots of examples of users who have been blocked with promotional usernames who use the {{ unblock-un}} template to try to be allowed to continue editing. Generally speaking, admins aren't willing to grant that request because the problem is the promotional edits, not just the username. So it would be good if people blocked for promotional usernames would not get the {{ usernameblock}} template on their talk pages. Mango juice talk 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose- I see no need for a user to create an account with a website for a user name. For instance, what it the user made constructive edits but had a pornography website for a user name, I propose that rather than blocking users such as this, we make it clear to them that they MUST change there user name. If they fail to comply, then block them. Mww113 ( talk) 01:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I can neither fly, nor am I an idiot. (at least I think I'm not) Does my username constitute misleading? Am I going be blocked? -- ( fi ) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Rspeer does bring up some extremely important concerns with the current policy, especially WP:BITE violations. Although I disagree with him that we should allow confusing usernames, I think we're all sensible enough to be able to come to a compromise that we're all happy with. I like the idea of discussing problems with usernames with the user first before blocking, I think the majority of cases can be dealt with without a block, and the user in question will happily change it, but if they don't agree to change clearly confusing usernames, or simply ignore the warning/concern then we can go ahead and block. To do this, it's important to keep check of what's happening with these users and make it clear what's happening with regards to their username. I therefore propose the holding pen (see the above link). After users have been told their username is against policy, their name could be entered at the holding pen so we know exactly who has been warned about their username. We could keep on checking the progress of users here and remove them when they have addressed the concern, or block them if they decide to ignore it. We could probably open this up to other usernames such as promotional or long usernames. I would suggest creating some templates that specifically address problems with different types of usernames and information about where a user should go to change their username. I'd appreciate some opinions on this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, can we get HBC_NameWatcherBot to report entirely confusion-related pattern matches to the holding pen instead? I believe it has the capability to have alternate locations specified per-pattern. SamBC( talk) 10:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no it wasn't. This is an impossible requirement to hold wrt SUL. All admins everywhere just got a login on en.wikipedia. Almost none of them have custom sigs here. They've likely never even READ the effing page here! :-P
I'd say that the devs just overrode any preferences en.wikipedia had. (Rightly so imho), and any remaining text here is now useless.
Also, due to ye olde descriptive not prescriptive rule of thumb, since in reality the vast majority of current users (including this bunch who just got invited over due to SUL ;-) ) frankly likely don't care, this text goes. :-P
Is there anything I'm missing? I think it would be great fun to invite over some ja.wiki people or ar.wiki people... ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone reverted a requirement/recommendation to create doppleganger accounts, and pointed here for discussion. This should never be a requirement. Explain? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut and paste is a wonderful thing. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick note @JLaTondre: Do not revert if you agree with an edit. If you agree, please reinstate and expand the text. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you don't seem to believe Sam, so I will repeat it. "If an edit happens that you are confident will be controversial and require discussion, it's both appropriate and responsible to revert and start the discussion even if you agree with it." I will also add this is not a democratic system, and we are not voting. "Your own preference" is not what you should be editing based on, you should be editing based on consensus, you argue based on you own preference not edit. Now I know you have different methods, but we work things out on the talk page when there is disagreement. The reason behind this is that Policy reflects the wide acceptance of the community, and if it does not have that yet then you need to get that.
Once someone begins to edit here, then it is not unreasonable to ask them for a transliteration if their name has no apparent pronunciation to English speaking people. It isn't a "rude" request, and if someone finds it rude then they have too much imagination. I don't think we should ever force the matter though. (1 == 2)Until 14:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if you think I am disruptive, but frankly I can't see how asking for consensus before editing a policy is disruptive. You link to "blocking consensus", but sorry I have to call that nonsense(another word came to mind), nothing I have done is blocking consensus.
The point I made remains, if someone begins to edit here with a name that cannot be understood by English speaking people then it is not rude to make a non-mandatory request for something an English speaking person can pronounce. Wanting to be able to distinguish one edit from another is not "insular", and if someone objects to the request they can refuse. Yes, this is an international project, but this is the English version of the International project. (1 == 2)Until 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, consensus is reached on talk pages every day. Pointing to a couple of essays you like does not change that. Right now you are blocking consensus by arguing about how we should do consensus instead of just discussing the matter. When people here agree on something then the change is made. It happens all the time.
You quoted me, but you did not point out in which way I was wrong? Are you arguing that it is not an international project, or that this is not the English version of the international project? If I made your point for you then that is a real trick because I don't see your point. Oh, and while SUL is a developer level change, how we handle usernames is not so that is not really relevant. (1 == 2)Until 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the above discussions and feel like I'm missing vital specifics for lack of practical examples. So, like all people without good sense, I'll say "let's take me as an example." (apologies to anyone who can't see the Chinese characters used below as part of the questions)
On both en and zh I'm User:Shenme. Over on zh I could have chosen to be zh:User:什么 without any confusion (other than why someone would use a question as a name). Anyone with an exposure to Pinyin would see both names as the same.
(A) I'm assuming that the references here and at
WP:SIG#Non-Latin are saying that using a user name here of
什么 would be objectionable. But is it
(B) When saying that the use of custom signatures can ameliorate some or all concerns, does that mean that adding enough surrounding 'context' to the signature's appearance would not then require the change of user name? That one could have a user name of
什么 as long as that was not the user name apparently used? That is, could I keep a user name of
User:什么 if the signature was:
(C) Or would it be a requirement (read as forced else user blocked) for the user to create
User:What and redirect from there (and talk page) to their original and chosen
User:什么, and then have a signature of
(D) And speaking of "both names ... the same", again, take me as an example. Should I create doppelganger accounts, in order to avoid non-Latin issues and/or potential confusion (un/intentional usurpation), any or all of these?
I could go on (hey, then there are the
complex characters, where '什麼' is different, but the same, as '什么'), but I think these are a good test set of user name problems. I've lettered and numbered to make it easier to comment (I hope).
Thing is, it's quite easy to talk in the abstract, but it also seems that the initial and uncertain concrete practice can be quite brutal for well-meaning new users. Shenme ( talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I changed my old username in anticipation of vanishing and I've decided to do it permanently. I'd like to change the old signatures for privacy concerns, and made a request for a bot to do it, but some people apparently object to that idea, so I was wonder if it is still acceptable for me to make the changes, or if there is some way to still get it done automatically? FrozenPurpleCube ( talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Some editors sign up with a role / promotional username. Many of those will make advertising contributions, and they then get blocked. I won't discuss those yet. But there's a few editors who sign up with a role account, and who seem to want to make useful contribs. Is there an easy way WP can warn them, and provide the {{welcome}}, so that they can make useful contribs without breaching COI or other WP policies? I'll admit the numbers of such editors are probably quite low (compared to blatant advertising). Here's an example of an editor that was blocked after making a single edit Special:Contributions/LSAC_editor to change the number "202" to "more than 200". The article was created in 2004. I dunno, maybe they were making a bunch of other unsuitable edits that I can't see? But it seems that it might have been better to tell them to register as individuals, declare COI, and make talk page edits for COI articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be useful if these accounts could be blocked for spamming rather than the username violation. If people have created an account in the name of their company to write about their company, blocking them for "having a promotional username" is missing the point. Even worse is saying they can be unblocked if they agree to change their name (which the template does). The purpose of their edits will not change just because they have a new name. Spammers are not welcome here and can be firmly shown the door. Their usernames are a secondary problem. WjB scribe 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How fine a line do we tread along the line of not offending people's religious sensibilities? Can something be done about something like this: User:America Needs Jesus? I fully support his religious choice, but perhaps he should do it a little less stridently in his username? Wikipedia is not about religion or converting or preaching, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 ( talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this discussion on the administrator's notice board. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, some opposition to this policy has finally showed up on AN. People who oppose the policy are welcome to comment here, just be sure to read and understand the current policy before demolishing a straw man.
The only change that was made on April 4, which some are now deeming controversial, was that usernames that are deemed "confusing" are no longer instantly blocked. Confusing usernames are still disallowed. You can even block people for confusing usernames, you just have to attempt to discuss it with the user first. It's a lot like the vandalism policy that way.
The " holding pen" is not a part of the policy. It's a process (just like UAA is a process) that was introduced at about the same time as the change. It's a tool that's there for people who want to watch certain users and see if they end up being disruptive. Nothing requires you to use the holding pen, but some people think it's useful. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The opposite of promotional usernames, those usernames that denigrate or serve to attack persons or companies, isn't explicitly covered under this policy, but would seem to be inappropriate per se. I noticed this after observing the edits of new User:FormerDeltaCustomer which have been solely attempts to add the external link www.deltareallysucks.com to the Delta Air Lines article. Shouldn't this type of username be covered explicitly in the policy? AUTiger » talk 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The examples page for usernames, suggested a while back, has been linked in. Hopefully not too prescriptive, just a simple explanation and main examples. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this. The buying and selling of usernames on Wikipedia seems to be supportive of violations of WP:Sockpuppetry. Imagine: A troll doesn't NEED to gain the trust of the Wikipedia community. He can just buy an admin account on eBay. Zenwhat ( talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As folks may have noticed, MangoJuice recently excised the statement "if your real name appears to be inappropriate, but you wish to use it, you should e-mail an administrator to work out a solution". On my user talk and the edit summary, Mango suggests that this is redundant to the section on real names. Of course, we both agree that the section on real names doesn't say the same stuff. Mango suggests that it is also unnecessary because the policy says that a real name is never inappropriate. I think that it doesn't quite ever say that, although there's an implication.
I think that something along the lines of that and the section Mango removed (and I reinserted) should be said in the real name section. The policy as it stands certainly implies that a real name may get blocked, although it should be unblocked once the person's identity is established. I think the excised section is meant to lay out a path in the situation where this can be anticipated, and dealt with in advance. It might not do it correctly, but I think something in the policy should do that. So, let's talk. SamBC( talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on this User talk:209.105.213.101 the template {{ Schoolblock}} whcih includes a link to Special:Listusers all of which is great. But when you open the list of user names the are almost exclusively deleted vandal only accounts or offensive ones like User:(2) Heil Hitler, motherfucker!. While I can see where directing school children to a list of user names that have been taken could be helpful could we find a way to provide the list of active accounts? {{ Schoolblock}} is used on school IP's that have been blocked for vandalism, directing to a list user names created mostly to vandalize Wikipedia may not be the best choice. Jeepday ( talk) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently found this username: User:و. I think it's awesome! Are such usernames allowed? If yes, I may want to change my username. Bless sins ( talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on a question by AzaToth on WT:UAA, I'd like to propose that we change the label "offensive usernames" to "disruptive usernames" while leaving the description the same -- that is, it would now say "Disruptive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."
This won't really change the policy, because it's intended to mean the same thing, but if the current policy is (finally) going to go into TWINKLE it will help to have clear labels for things. I think "disruptive" would be a better description because:
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. How about cases when users choose names of notable living people (actors, politicians ...) ? Is it permitted ? - Darwinek ( talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The block template reads: "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, ..." Where in the policy does it speak on length? Because I don't see it. And confusing just got removed from the policy, though I don't agree with the change. Lara ❤ Love 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a discussion we put off for later when revising the username policy. It's later now.
Why do we block usernames for being "confusing"? Why, for example, do we waste the time of the good faith User:Askdnapn39nfkjfen (who has even posted an explanation of what his name means) instead of welcoming him to Wikipedia?
The reason I generally hear is that someone could impersonate someone with a confusing username by creating a similar name. But that's ass-backwards. When someone is being impersonated, you block the impersonator, not the impersonatee! Any name can be impersonated, and there's no point in blocking people to protect them from that.
Furthermore, by meta-policy we have to allow non-English (and, indeed, non-Latin-alphabet) names such as User:المستهلك. English speakers, of course, can't really tell that name apart from User:المستهك, so I think this just helps to show the irrelevance of that argument.
This part of the policy has resulted in some of the more egregiously bad username blocks, like User:Ggggggggggggggg12, and it doesn't seem to have much benefit except that sometimes people use it to preemptively block vandals. (And I don't think that's even a good thing: what if Askdnapn39nfkjfen had been "preemptively blocked" for the vandalism he never did?) So what are the arguments for keeping this in the policy?
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
All these usernames are very different, they couldn't be considered similar to one another, but they are indeed confusing becuase you can not easily recognise one from another. Confusion is inevitable here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ryan, just wondering how is it any different to allowing usernames that are probably confusingly similar to many editors here such as:
(and longer ones)
-
Neparis (
talk)
19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another response to Ryan: Why would you ever encounter a set of names like that and have to distinguish them all? Would all those editors be editing in the same places? (I, for one, would suspect sock puppetry, but that's another issue.) If you encountered an improbable situation like that, you might start by telling them "Look, I have trouble following your discussion because your name looks a lot like these five other people in the discussion. I'm not sure why you did that, but could I encourage you to change your name to make this discussion easier?" Probably a few of them would, and the problem would be solved without having to block anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like consensus. Let's remove it from the policy and see if the Wiki comes crashing down in a mass of confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need random as a criterion anymore, primarily because from what I've seen editors who intend to edit productively in good faith will pick a username that means something, even if only to them. Thus a user with a completely random username is probably a vandal, a sockpuppet, someone who will never edit, or someone who is unlikely to get too involved in areas where ease of identification is important. So they'll get blocked due to actions warranting such, or it won't matter due to lack of activity, or they'll get frustrated when no one can remember their name and change it themselves. I can't imagine a large number of incidents resulting from the removal of this rule. Blocking them because users with random usernames are commonly vandals is not in keeping with the intent of this policy and is a blatant violation of WP:AGF.-- Dycedarg ж 07:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so we have some people joining the discussion who haven't participated in previous discussion of confusing usernames, and we'll have a lot more if we follow Ryan's suggestion to open this up to the Village Pump. (I'm concerned that this will just bury the issue with "too many cooks". We haven't needed the Village Pump to make the other changes that Ryan agreed with.)
To stop the same self-defeating arguments coming back, I want to propose The المستهلك Test, which in a nutshell is:
The fact that this name is in the Arabic character set isn't the key point, it's just a good example. We've had a name in native Nicaraguan in the Latin alphabet blocked for being "confusing" before, for example.
The important thing is that we cannot block users for what language their username is in -- even if it's a language the admins around don't know. To do so would not only be xenophobic, it would be against Meta's goal of having people use the same identity across all wikis.
Here's an application of the المستهلك test. Some argue that we should block names if we don't know how to type them into the "Go" box. Almost nobody on en:wp knows how to type المستهلك into the "Go" box. Therefore, it's not a good reason to block people.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What was the consensus regarding the specific breakdown criteria for the username policy? I noticed a change a few weeks ago regarding the use of Twinkle, where now the specifications are quite generic. Was there an overwhelming consensus that this caused too much confusion? I ask only because I felt they were a benefit and gave administrators and users more latitude with respect to interpretation of the policy - although it seems that the policy was rewritten. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since some here want to continue blocking confusing usernames, I want to know what exactly are the arguments for it. We've covered a few that I don't find very compelling:
Is it just the arguments above that are so important that we need to keep this bitey piece of policy around, or are there other arguments that should be added to the list? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
For those who want to keep this kind of block around as a "polite" way to ask people to change their names, I'll point out that you're in a small minority who thinks blocks can be "polite". But I'll propose an alternate method that can get you the result you want: asking them politely. If they are in fact reasonable users, they will change their names, or (like Askdna...) they will at least provide an explanation of what their name means, which might help you distinguish it from other names in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(edited to turn this section from random musings into a proposal -- rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
Okay. It seems like those who support "confusing username" blocks have two contradictory reasons to block them now:
I don't think anyone's advocating hard-blocking usernames just for being confusing, so if you take these two reasons together, what we're doing with "confusing username" blocks is gently blocking likely vandals so they can easily come back and vandalize under a less conspicuous username. That's not useful.
I understand both arguments, I just don't think they're good arguments for username blocks. Username blocks aren't the right tool for this job, because they conflate both of these situations into one incoherent one. However, we can split them into two cases that we handle reasonably. And my hope is this will handle the concerns of those who don't want to see "confusing usernames" removed from the policy -- they may be concerned about the effects of simply removing it, but we can replace it with something appropriate.
So the proposal is:
The bad-faith users still get blocked, and we do our part to discourage sucky usernames. Is this a satisfying proposal? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this might be a silly question, but where is the term "vandalism-only accounts" defined in policy? I've seen vandalism patrollers give out hardblocks for vandalism-only accounts, but I can't find anything in policy about them. In fact, I can't find anything in WP:VAND that lets you block without some kind of warning. (Which, as an aside, shows how out of proportion username blocks are. I've just given a user a routine warning because he's editing a hockey player's bio to say things like he "ate a bucket of shit". If the words "bucket of shit" appeared in his username, without even libeling any particular person, he'd probably be blocked already.)
I know that this term has to exist somewhere, and I'd like to be able to refer to it for the proposal I've outlined above, but the vandalism policy isn't exactly my area. Does anyone know? Should I go ask on WT:VAND? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, before I go forward with including something like this in the proposal, is this actually what we want to do? Do we really want to suggest blocking for vandalism without a warning in the username policy, when the vandalism policy doesn't do that? We could instead use the username as just a way to escalate the warnings, so that perhaps only one would be required.
So here's my question.
The entire reason I'm doing this is to convince people that removing "confusing username" blocks need not interfere with our ability to block vandals, so I'm especially interested in hearing from those who opposed the change, such as Until, Ryan Postlethwaite, and LaraLove.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think these are unhelpful as usernames. While such usernames can be dealt with under 'offensive usernames' (Nationalism 'A' is offensive to nationalism 'B') often thats a bad idea as it may be interpreted as an insult by the other party. Making exceptions are again problematic because they will lead to "nationalism 'A' is fine so why is nationalism 'B' banned?" arguments. So I think a broader restriction on this is needed. We should at the very least discourage such usernames. -- Cat chi? 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific policy on using ones IP address? I write anonymously by choice - and fully expect my edits to stand or fall on their own merits. Is my use of IP against the rules? I understand I forego the benefits of an account, but do I then get penalized as well? 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
Change to:
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name
,and youeitherare that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. Such blocked user must be notified in a courteous manner and instructed to create a new username.
This proposal is prompted by a new user LeonardoDiCaprio ( talk · contribs) who clearly identified that she is a fan, not Mr. DiCaprio. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal B
An administrator has explained her interpretation. This interpretation would read:
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that your real name is the same as the well-known person but that you are a different person
are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
With this new proposal, I favor Proposal B. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. In such cases, you must either show that you are that person or make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
Lara ❤ Love 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This needs examples, something like:
This makes clear that it's about people who share names with famous people, and does not permit a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio to use that name. -- FOo ( talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The ban on promotional usernames is doing more harm than good. Recently, Adznet was blocked and is now undergoing an RFCN because he has a personal website with a domain name that matches his username (something which is only discouraged by this policy). Some time ago, we remember that Bravogolfhotel was blocked, because someone found out that the letters "B G H" in the NATO phonetic alphabet matched the name of a hotel in the Philippines. The "promotional" category is by far the category causing the most reports to UAA these days, often on the flimsiest of grounds. For example, a report on the username "Whiztec" is on UAA right now with the rationale "User create article Whizecargo. Assuming username stands for "Whize Technician" or similar", and people are getting reported for having names that contain portions of a rock band's name, et cetera.
I believe this situation has gone completely overboard. Nowadays, many people have personal websites or blogs with their own domain name, and it comes as no surprise that they also choose their established Internet handle as their Wikipedia username. If these users don't spam Wikipedia with links to their site, the username is no problem at all IMO. In fact, most supporters of the promotional username ban seem to agree that a promotional username is only a problem if the user actually promotes their company by creating articles, adding links, etc. In that case, it's the actual promotion that's a problem, not the fact that their username matches or alludes to the company name. Therefore, we should focus on limiting promotional editing, instead of seeing this from a username perspective, which just causes Twinkle users to Google the user creation logs and reporting anything that seems to resemble a domain name.
I therefore suggest that "promotional" be taken out of WP:U. Instead, a policy prohibiting promotional editing should be added to WP:COI. This policy could of course contain some proviso saying that an editor's username is to be considered as part of a promotional pattern, but all blocks handed out for promotion should be recorded as user conduct blocks, not username blocks. This would also cause less confusion for the users getting blocked. If someone adds biased information about their school whose name is part of their username, it's much more helpful for them to hear that "you've been blocked for adding irrelevant links to Wildforest High School to many articles" instead of "your username Wildforestguy is offensive, disruptive, confusing, misleading or promotional". Is he back? ( talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've sort of reconsidered this. I think that users with promotional usernames who promote something should be indef blocked, but not username blocked. These users are just obvious spammers and need to be shown the door - it is not their usernames that are a problem. There might, in theory, be users who use a username that matches a company or group where it would be good to issue a username block, but in my actual experience I haven't seen it come up. I note that on CAT:RFU there are lots of examples of users who have been blocked with promotional usernames who use the {{ unblock-un}} template to try to be allowed to continue editing. Generally speaking, admins aren't willing to grant that request because the problem is the promotional edits, not just the username. So it would be good if people blocked for promotional usernames would not get the {{ usernameblock}} template on their talk pages. Mango juice talk 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose- I see no need for a user to create an account with a website for a user name. For instance, what it the user made constructive edits but had a pornography website for a user name, I propose that rather than blocking users such as this, we make it clear to them that they MUST change there user name. If they fail to comply, then block them. Mww113 ( talk) 01:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I can neither fly, nor am I an idiot. (at least I think I'm not) Does my username constitute misleading? Am I going be blocked? -- ( fi ) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Rspeer does bring up some extremely important concerns with the current policy, especially WP:BITE violations. Although I disagree with him that we should allow confusing usernames, I think we're all sensible enough to be able to come to a compromise that we're all happy with. I like the idea of discussing problems with usernames with the user first before blocking, I think the majority of cases can be dealt with without a block, and the user in question will happily change it, but if they don't agree to change clearly confusing usernames, or simply ignore the warning/concern then we can go ahead and block. To do this, it's important to keep check of what's happening with these users and make it clear what's happening with regards to their username. I therefore propose the holding pen (see the above link). After users have been told their username is against policy, their name could be entered at the holding pen so we know exactly who has been warned about their username. We could keep on checking the progress of users here and remove them when they have addressed the concern, or block them if they decide to ignore it. We could probably open this up to other usernames such as promotional or long usernames. I would suggest creating some templates that specifically address problems with different types of usernames and information about where a user should go to change their username. I'd appreciate some opinions on this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, can we get HBC_NameWatcherBot to report entirely confusion-related pattern matches to the holding pen instead? I believe it has the capability to have alternate locations specified per-pattern. SamBC( talk) 10:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no it wasn't. This is an impossible requirement to hold wrt SUL. All admins everywhere just got a login on en.wikipedia. Almost none of them have custom sigs here. They've likely never even READ the effing page here! :-P
I'd say that the devs just overrode any preferences en.wikipedia had. (Rightly so imho), and any remaining text here is now useless.
Also, due to ye olde descriptive not prescriptive rule of thumb, since in reality the vast majority of current users (including this bunch who just got invited over due to SUL ;-) ) frankly likely don't care, this text goes. :-P
Is there anything I'm missing? I think it would be great fun to invite over some ja.wiki people or ar.wiki people... ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone reverted a requirement/recommendation to create doppleganger accounts, and pointed here for discussion. This should never be a requirement. Explain? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut and paste is a wonderful thing. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick note @JLaTondre: Do not revert if you agree with an edit. If you agree, please reinstate and expand the text. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you don't seem to believe Sam, so I will repeat it. "If an edit happens that you are confident will be controversial and require discussion, it's both appropriate and responsible to revert and start the discussion even if you agree with it." I will also add this is not a democratic system, and we are not voting. "Your own preference" is not what you should be editing based on, you should be editing based on consensus, you argue based on you own preference not edit. Now I know you have different methods, but we work things out on the talk page when there is disagreement. The reason behind this is that Policy reflects the wide acceptance of the community, and if it does not have that yet then you need to get that.
Once someone begins to edit here, then it is not unreasonable to ask them for a transliteration if their name has no apparent pronunciation to English speaking people. It isn't a "rude" request, and if someone finds it rude then they have too much imagination. I don't think we should ever force the matter though. (1 == 2)Until 14:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if you think I am disruptive, but frankly I can't see how asking for consensus before editing a policy is disruptive. You link to "blocking consensus", but sorry I have to call that nonsense(another word came to mind), nothing I have done is blocking consensus.
The point I made remains, if someone begins to edit here with a name that cannot be understood by English speaking people then it is not rude to make a non-mandatory request for something an English speaking person can pronounce. Wanting to be able to distinguish one edit from another is not "insular", and if someone objects to the request they can refuse. Yes, this is an international project, but this is the English version of the International project. (1 == 2)Until 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, consensus is reached on talk pages every day. Pointing to a couple of essays you like does not change that. Right now you are blocking consensus by arguing about how we should do consensus instead of just discussing the matter. When people here agree on something then the change is made. It happens all the time.
You quoted me, but you did not point out in which way I was wrong? Are you arguing that it is not an international project, or that this is not the English version of the international project? If I made your point for you then that is a real trick because I don't see your point. Oh, and while SUL is a developer level change, how we handle usernames is not so that is not really relevant. (1 == 2)Until 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the above discussions and feel like I'm missing vital specifics for lack of practical examples. So, like all people without good sense, I'll say "let's take me as an example." (apologies to anyone who can't see the Chinese characters used below as part of the questions)
On both en and zh I'm User:Shenme. Over on zh I could have chosen to be zh:User:什么 without any confusion (other than why someone would use a question as a name). Anyone with an exposure to Pinyin would see both names as the same.
(A) I'm assuming that the references here and at
WP:SIG#Non-Latin are saying that using a user name here of
什么 would be objectionable. But is it
(B) When saying that the use of custom signatures can ameliorate some or all concerns, does that mean that adding enough surrounding 'context' to the signature's appearance would not then require the change of user name? That one could have a user name of
什么 as long as that was not the user name apparently used? That is, could I keep a user name of
User:什么 if the signature was:
(C) Or would it be a requirement (read as forced else user blocked) for the user to create
User:What and redirect from there (and talk page) to their original and chosen
User:什么, and then have a signature of
(D) And speaking of "both names ... the same", again, take me as an example. Should I create doppelganger accounts, in order to avoid non-Latin issues and/or potential confusion (un/intentional usurpation), any or all of these?
I could go on (hey, then there are the
complex characters, where '什麼' is different, but the same, as '什么'), but I think these are a good test set of user name problems. I've lettered and numbered to make it easier to comment (I hope).
Thing is, it's quite easy to talk in the abstract, but it also seems that the initial and uncertain concrete practice can be quite brutal for well-meaning new users. Shenme ( talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I changed my old username in anticipation of vanishing and I've decided to do it permanently. I'd like to change the old signatures for privacy concerns, and made a request for a bot to do it, but some people apparently object to that idea, so I was wonder if it is still acceptable for me to make the changes, or if there is some way to still get it done automatically? FrozenPurpleCube ( talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Some editors sign up with a role / promotional username. Many of those will make advertising contributions, and they then get blocked. I won't discuss those yet. But there's a few editors who sign up with a role account, and who seem to want to make useful contribs. Is there an easy way WP can warn them, and provide the {{welcome}}, so that they can make useful contribs without breaching COI or other WP policies? I'll admit the numbers of such editors are probably quite low (compared to blatant advertising). Here's an example of an editor that was blocked after making a single edit Special:Contributions/LSAC_editor to change the number "202" to "more than 200". The article was created in 2004. I dunno, maybe they were making a bunch of other unsuitable edits that I can't see? But it seems that it might have been better to tell them to register as individuals, declare COI, and make talk page edits for COI articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be useful if these accounts could be blocked for spamming rather than the username violation. If people have created an account in the name of their company to write about their company, blocking them for "having a promotional username" is missing the point. Even worse is saying they can be unblocked if they agree to change their name (which the template does). The purpose of their edits will not change just because they have a new name. Spammers are not welcome here and can be firmly shown the door. Their usernames are a secondary problem. WjB scribe 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How fine a line do we tread along the line of not offending people's religious sensibilities? Can something be done about something like this: User:America Needs Jesus? I fully support his religious choice, but perhaps he should do it a little less stridently in his username? Wikipedia is not about religion or converting or preaching, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 ( talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this discussion on the administrator's notice board. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, some opposition to this policy has finally showed up on AN. People who oppose the policy are welcome to comment here, just be sure to read and understand the current policy before demolishing a straw man.
The only change that was made on April 4, which some are now deeming controversial, was that usernames that are deemed "confusing" are no longer instantly blocked. Confusing usernames are still disallowed. You can even block people for confusing usernames, you just have to attempt to discuss it with the user first. It's a lot like the vandalism policy that way.
The " holding pen" is not a part of the policy. It's a process (just like UAA is a process) that was introduced at about the same time as the change. It's a tool that's there for people who want to watch certain users and see if they end up being disruptive. Nothing requires you to use the holding pen, but some people think it's useful. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)