![]() | 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. |
Well. A while ago I brought up the idea of no longer blocking "confusing usernames", as it is hard to see how a username could be so confusing that the user behind it needs to be indefinitely blocked (instead of asked to change their name). Remember that users who vandalize or make personal attacks (bigger problems than mildly confusing someone) get polite talk messages and multiple chances. When I brought it up before, I got bogged down in a mass of different opinions about why we have that in the policy and withdrew from the discussion for a while. My previous discussion has, apparently, disappeared without even being archived. Shrug.
We have a bot (HBCNameWatcherBot) that goes around suggesting that you might want to block people for having repeated letters in their username or even just repeating a short sequence of letters three times. After bringing this up on WT:UAA, I removed these cases from the bot's blacklist, but The Anome restored them with this comment:
I've re-added the typing pattern regexps to the blacklist. Whilst there is nothing offensive about typing-pattern usernames, they fail to meet the username policy requirements in two ways:
I find this highly objectionable, of course. The biggie is that we are not Minority Report. We don't block people for disruption that they seem likely to do but they haven't done yet. (Well, unfortunately, sometimes we do, but we really shouldn't.) And I fail to see why a polite comment wouldn't be a better way to tell someone it's not a great idea to be named "eeeeeeeeeeeee".
A bit of an opinion poll, then:
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some questions:
I don't quite get the "We block them because we can't distinguish them from each other" logic. If so, why aren't we blocking "Shyam" and "Shyamal", too? Or "Morwen" and "Morven". Or "Sj" and "Sjc". Or "Tango" and "Tangotango"? All are actual admin accounts, by the way. Heck, I once confused Ryan Delaney with Ryan Postlethwaite. :) Why don't we do the sensible thing and wait until there actually is some kind of problem about distinguishing different users, and then nudge them to change their username. Or simply add a message on top of their userpage, stating that they shouldn't be confused with User:XYZ. -- Conti| ✉ 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's a real proposal. It addresses the issue of confusing usernames and confusing signatures, breaks out of the "we block them because we block them" cycle, and still allows for the actually disruptive users to be blocked.
We take "confusing names" out of the "Wikipedia does not allow" section (because that section, in actuality, is equated with the "reasons to request an insta-block with TWINKLE" list). Likewise, we take it out of the list of TWINKLE boilerplate reasons (because the de facto policy isn't on this page, it's inside TWINKLE.) Below "dealing with inappropriate usernames", we add this section:
The purpose of a username is to identify contributors. If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above [removed:] because confusion is subjective, and because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block.
An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other policy violations such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption. As with all other blocks, admins should use their discretion and common sense.
In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption. [added]
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
edited --
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support that on very strong terms. Blocking, even threatening to block, because we find a name confusing is just silly. We should be encourage a newbie to change his name - give him a few warnings (like we do for vandalism) even - before blocking, and in the case of confusing names, blocks should only be given if they absolutely refuse to rename and don't justify their current name (since confusion is subjective and it could make perfect sense when explained). dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the manifest lack of consensus for the April 4 rewording of the policy, as evidenced by significant opposition on this page (see above), and especially in WP:AN#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames, I have undone the April 4 change to the policy, and the reference to it in the header of WP:UAA. (I think I managed to re-integrate all the non-controversial housekeeping changes made since then; also, this should not be considered as expressing an opinion on the WP:SUL and non-Latin username issue mentioned in a section above - I just kept the latest version of the page as of today.) -- MCB ( talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To get to the point, we can see from your edit exactly what the specific change we're talking about is; I now invite people to speak in support or opposition to the change itself, not how it was made previously. Please review the discussions that already happened, to get an idea of what points have already been raised and addressed, on both sides. SamBC( talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, it baffles me that WP admins will instantly, permanently block an account for having the "wrong" username but will give temporary blocks to [ vandals who plan games off-wiki to disrupt the encyclopedia], especially when "wrong username" varies wildly from admin to admin. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To answer a few points before they get made: B0B is not confusing or disruptive. If BOB already exists then B0B can be blocked fro being confusingly similar. Most names with 'bot' or 'admin' or 'crat' etc are blockable as being "confusing". A user with a long complex name who starts making bad faith edits can be blocked very quickly, you don't need to assume bad faith and block them before they make any bad edits. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop being effing wikilawyers. Polling is not permitted at any rate. The current wording on the page accurately reflects the current Best Practice on the wiki, afaict. Where it does *not* accurately reflect that best practice, please describe here, and/or feel free to modify the page and list diffs. (I find diffs easier to read than complex paraphrasing). This is a wiki. Wikis are for editing. Let's stop bickering and get down to editing, shall we?
I've made the first edit. Who will join me? :-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
@SamBC: Did I miss fixing the links? Sorry about that ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone here should read the policy tag at the top of U. It says, "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." The problem is that the changes made are not a widely accepted standard. Nobody but the small group here is following them. Confusing usernames continue to be reported and blocked on sight. So the truth of the matter is, you can play with the policy page all you want, nobody is going to abide by it because there is/was no consensus for change. KnightLago ( talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok Kim, enough with the trolling. You don't need to throw around accusations of wikilawyering and patronizing comments about documenting things. Your comments are driving away the very people you want to discuss the issue with. We could always just return to AN and keep complaining there.
In response to Rspeer, who I thank for actually trying to address the issues: I think we should move beyond the argument of how it is being implemented at UAA. We obviously look at the situation differently and could both make arguments for either side.
In relation to the policy, I find myself torn at this point. The first changes made were a confusing mess which led to the uproar at AN. At this point, I understand what you are trying to do, but I question some of the changes to the policy and whether they are really needed, and whether there is community support for it.
Under both policies the user is forced to change their username. Under block on sight the admin would simply block and tell them to create a new username. Under this new policy, the username is going to be blocked at the end, but it forces the admin to do additional work and pretend with the user that they actually have a choice in the matter. If someone refuses to change their name, they are blocked. Why go through the trouble of forcing an admin to post a note, monitor what could be a large number of users' talk pages for a while, and then block. Or, if the user responds, pretend with them that they have the option of not changing their name. This just seems to add work to a job that could be done as it is with a template. We also have to consider whose time we want to waste. Admins are usually very heavy contributors to the project, why force them to spend time going through this process when the ending is predetermined? The current way this is done, or was done, was to block and leave a template with instructions on how to create a new username. While admittedly good faith users are/were being caught, it is not hard to create another account. Account creation and the number of new and active users was not stunted under the old policy. Maybe the template should be rewritten in a nicer, more conciliatory manner, but I think the template should do the job.
As for the changes in the current form now, I think there has been improvement from their initial introduction, but I still question some of their form. KnightLago ( talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The main consideration here is that in my experience, a large number of Wikipedians find confusing user names (those made up of random letters, strings of digits, odd capitalization, excessively lengthy, etc.) to be annoying and distracting from project, and they're hard to use to address or refer to people, make discussions hard to read, and pretty much force you to copy/paste the user name in order use it, assuming you have it handy on a page. (Hence the large number of reports of them to WP:UAA, via TW or manually.) Since that seems to be pretty much agreed, it seems to me to be a pointless and somewhat demeaning (to the user) process to go through the motions of asking someone to change it, when you're going to enforce the rule anyway. Plus, it's additional work, there is a delay involved and the risk of losing track of them, and so forth.
The way to make that initial block non-BITEy is to come up with a template or boilerplate text is isn't bitey, and basically says, hey, come on back with another name that's a little easier to deal with. And while the user is blocked (because that's what the software and WP:BLOCK calls it, we could just say that their account is, say, "deactivated" until they pick a new name. And the point of doing it quickly is to avoid the situation of having them do a bunch of editing, get attached to their name, go through an edit-preserving name-change request, when a simple block with a here's-what-you-need-to-do template would solve the issue before it becomes a problem.
One thing that would help immensely, and that I proposed informally in a response to Rspeer on my user talk page, would be to have different templates for different types of username blocks. One {{ uw-ublock}} clearly does not fit all. Mangojuice took the lead on that with {{ uw-spamublock}}.
Lastly, while clearly WP:SUL needs consideration (thank you, Kim Bruning, for bringing it up) I'm not sure exactly what impact is has on this. If the individual wikis no longer have control over the acceptability of usernames on their wikis due to SUL, then it's a much larger issue than this particular policy dicussion. (Which was bound to come up anyway; a personal name or mild oath in one language may well be an offensive phrase or mortal insult in another.) -- MCB ( talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I really do welcome this new involvement in the username policy. A discussion is never hurt by people with new viewpoints arriving, as long as they are willing to have a reasonable discussion about those viewpoints.
There's a lot of discussion to read, and I understand that it's a daunting task to go back and read all of it back to July or March 2007 or whenever it makes sense to start reading. So I'm going to try to summarize the events here, to assist people who are making the effort to follow what has gone on here in the last year or so.
That's it for my not-so-brief yet not-so-complete history of the username policy. You may notice some patterns: for example, although we've had many significant disagreements and we have basically never had unanimous consent for any change, we have also never needed to have a poll. Is that amazing or what?
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I support what Rspeer has done and the way Rspeer has done it, and the clear and patient way Rspeer has explained what has happened. SilkTork * YES! 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Rspeer, thanks for the history lesson. I spent some time reading some of the old discussion and I think I have been won over. Though I think the wording could be changed in some ways and maybe the concept of the holding pen incorporated into policy somehow. But I now agree with change. So my questions/thoughts:
Why was confusing username removed from the inappropriate usernames section? Confusing usernames are still inappropriate correct?
As for the actual text of the policy:
I think the second sentence of the first paragraph is convoluted. It is much improved from the original change, but it still could be clearer. The second paragraph seems fine. The third I think could use some work. What is the process when dealing with a confusing username? As I understand it, you want an admin to talk to the person first. But where does the other editors agreement part come from? Essentially, if the user refuses to change the name, the admin is going to block them. There is no real agreement anywhere. And the part about being blocked for further disruption. We are not really blocking them for disruption, we are blocking them for having a confusing username right? And I think the part in parentheses can be removed now since it is commenting on the policy itself (though I understand Kim was just trying to acknowledge there is ongoing discussion about it).
So what are your thoughts behind the holding pen? Should it be incorporated into the policy or at least be mentioned. Looking at its history it doesn't seem to be getting much use.
Just a few thoughts for now. KnightLago ( talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea that the attempted policy change of April 4 was successful or widely adopted is simply not correct. Kim Bruning says in a section above, "I don't think we've ever had to enforce the confusing username policy by blocking since April 4." For better or worse, that's just not the case. Here is a list of blocks for confusing usernames since April 4, in roughly reverse chrono order:
These were all blocks where vandalism, disruption, offense, etc. were not mentioned in the block message. All but a couple were ABD, leaving the user free to choose another name. (There were many more with similarly confusing names, but where the block message mentioned vandalism or other disruption, or the names contained some offensive words or phrases as well. I removed all of those from the list.) In addition, Rspeer preemptively removed several names from WP:UAA; I suspect most or all would have been blocked if that not been the case.
So again, I think that leaves us with the case that the policy change is neither descriptive of actual practice nor does it enjoy wide support, except possibly by a small but vocal faction here on WT:U. -- MCB ( talk) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Stay nice folks :-) I second KnightLago's request. That's entirely reasonable. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. These are sometimes hard to find, because it's rather difficult to search for a negative. The best successes are the cases where good-faith users are not blocked, and you can tell they're good faith because they proceed to not do bad things. In addition, the preferred outcome when we contact the user about a confusing username is that the user just creates a new account, at which point all we can see is the lack of further edits under the old name. But here are a few examples I've found:
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
KnightLago, I don't understand the need to change things to emphasize that "confusing equals blocked". The way the policy stands now is that if you have no other way of stopping someone editing with a username that is far too confusing (and you've tried discussion), then you can block them as a last resort. This has never been necessary, because what happens first is either that they vandalize and get hardblocked, or they agree and register a different name, or they point out that their name is more meaningful than you thought and the reporter agrees.
Sometimes the policy gets painted as saying we can't block someone with a name like "Po8PLVXYY7r9ESWgMY4bJqdS9faVWRI98FqUghidjGGYshsa88hsJHsgxah77saGYSjiaalOW". Now, if you said "hey, that name is annoying, could you change it?" and Po8longname responds "screw u, I like it", that would be the kind of case where you can block. But as far as I can tell, this doesn't happen.
The "shadow policy" that a couple of people such as MCB like to enforce has a failure case that is worse: under that policy, we can't block Po8longname for vandalism, because they end up username softblocked first. By being overly agressive about usernames, ironically, the "shadow policy" ends up giving a "get out of block free" pass to vandals as long as they have an ugly username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the length of the username when it otherwise doesn't fail any other issues on this page a possible problem? This user's name is very very long but seems perfectly in line; the length breaks the default undo (in that the edit summary cannot contain all of the wikicode for the standard undo revision) and it can make the watchlist page screen messy, but it otherwise seems to have no harm involved. -- MASEM 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
While the text there seems fair, I think it should be strengthened/expanded. For one thing, I've seen several editors find that they needed to (after-the-fact), not only change their username, but go back and edit every signature. Why? Well in at least one case, their Wikipedia work was generating more search engine "hits" than their RL work. Ouch.
And while we'd like to think we all are at least roughly aware of the dangers of personal info online, Wikipedia is a bit more than the average site/page/blog, simply due to traffic. What someone may consider "no-big-deal" in having on their homepage (which gets a couple hits from their family and friends, and the occasional lost soul), may be a big mistake being posted on Wikipedia.
Thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. - jc37 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But anyway, we're a bit off-topic. What I was requesting is some ideas for enhancing the text. Anyone have any suggestions? - jc37 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the policy on a real name that is not the user's real name. For example, what if someone wants to be User:David Archuleta but is actually Joe Doe Archer, and not David Archuleta. And what if someone wants to be User:Hannah Arendt, but obviously isn't because Hannah Arendt is dead? Kingturtle ( talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we write this into the policy page? Kingturtle ( talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sort of off-topic: As I'm sure many people do, I've Googled my own name from time to time. There was once semi-famous photographer named Ned Scott, and I've often pondered making an article for him (would have to dig deeper to see if he would actually pass the notability guidelines), and came to the conclusion that if I did I would likely make the article using a another account (an admitted secondary account) simply to avoid confusion. It could even be something like " User:Ned Scott but not that Ned Scott" (ok, bad example..). It really wouldn't be an issue, since the guy's been dead for a while, but you never know what some people might think. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a long time user and I think my aunt might enjoy WP as well. Can I create an account for her? What I'd like to do is create the account and populate its watchlist with stuff I think she would enjoy, maker a nice userpage, etc. I would know the password to start, so I would have her change it right away. If she didn't use it, I would ask to have it deleted. I know I could have her create it, then do a bunch of pasting into the raw watchlist/userpage or whatever but she isn't great with computers and I'd like to make it really simple for her. Is this the right place to ask? Is it OK? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we have a bright line test for confusing user names, specifically a maximum length for user names of 42 characters. Bearian ( talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the actual proposal yet, but in the interest of making sure everyone's on the same page as to the length: 42 is the length of the longest username of an established user ( User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The) and therefore it should not be any less and does not need to be any more. -- Random832 ( contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. User:lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll would be blocked? (or prevented from creating a username - that'd be okay) but User:ДЂєЉмШЪЮбгЃЗИіЙЌЛФЊПЋЖАБЦЏЯя is okay? You don't seem to be doing anything to stop confusing usernames. Asking for the software imposed length of names is probably a good idea though, and seems to be supported by most people. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A heads-up for anyone watching usernames: unified login has been enabled for all users. We're starting to see usernames from other projects automatically created on enwiki.
If you see a surge in the number of apparently "confusing" usernames created, this is why. It is more important than ever not to block a username solely for being "confusing".
(Cross-posted to WT:UAA)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How the heck does a doppelganger account prevent impersonation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unknown Hitchhiker ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) O—— The Unknown Hi tc hh ik er 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be seeing a lot of "XXXadmin" and "XXXbot" accounts at UAA. Wouldn't it be simpler to just block automatic creation of them in the registration process and direct people to WP:ACC when they try to register them, the same as with usernames too similar to others (or if the user can't use CAPTCHA)? The only real burden would be that real bot accounts would have to be approved via WP:ACC but that's a relatively rare occurrence compared with all the XXXadmin and XXXbot stuff we see here. Who should we approach with that as a proposal for the developers? -- MCB ( talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know I've seen this issue addressed somewhere, but are there ever cases where the full word "Wikipedia" is allowed in a username/sig? Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion currently underway on meta with a view to requesting that the developers allow the hiding of usernames from Special:Listusers - see Metapub discussion. As many will be aware, the user list contains a large number of obscene names some of which are particularly aimed at attacking contributors. At the moment there is little we can do about them, as renaming them simply moves the problematic content from the list of users to the rename log. Hiding them on the user list would be a good way to stop the use of abusive names to bully and harass users and is a change I am very much in favour of. If this issue is of interest to you, please take the time to visit that discussion and express an opinion. WjB scribe 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add into the policy that admins are expect to specify to a user, when blocking for a username violation, exactly which violation they have been blocked for. We can't expect new users to be mind readers, or expect to help them to understand the username policy. Educating these users will help them to create a more appropriate username in the future. {{ UsernameBlocked}} isn't the most helpful in giving a user an exact reason for being blocked and exact reasons would certainly help blocked users. This would obviously only apply to usernames created in good faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
User Gary WebTrain ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently began editing Wikipedia with the primary intention of gaining exposure for his company on Wikipedia.
His articles have so far been deleted three times (see WebTrain Communications and WebTrain deletion logs) as per the blatant advertising WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criterion and the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy.
He has been sporadically re-writing his article on his main user page, a problematic issue which has been questioned on User talk:Athaenara#Deletion discussions and, today, on Wikipedia talk:User page#WebTrain company article in userspace and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Gary WebTrain.
According to Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names the username is not specifically prohibited but is "not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." Should it be proposed that this user with a strong conflict of interest change the username? — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is it acceptable to create a doppelganger account as a preemptive measure, or must there be signs or a history of vandalism against a user first? -- .: Alex :. 12:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a somewhat disruptive editor, Go-here.nl ( talk · contribs), who has named their account to be the url of a web site that they are apparently involved with. When it was suggested that it wasn't appropriate, the response was a wikilawyering style of behaviour, as can be noted on their talk page. They pointed out that the username policy doesn't explicitly specify that a website name is not permitted, although I would have interpreted it as being covered by "Company/group". Should we perhaps look at explicitly including "website" in the policy? -- Athol Mullen ( talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That is what the page says? no? Go-here.nl ( talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked for the specific rules. You are here to ask for those rules now. That was the idea. If those rules are in place we can prevent it happening again.
I have to say it was a rather clumsy process. After baning the undesirable user name there was a seemingly permanent IP ban.
So the policy should not instruct to block the user the same moment. That makes changing the name a weird and clumsy ritual I had figured out. Just post a link to the name change page and give the user reasonable time to change his name.
A lot of this work should really be done by the registration form. One can still request user names right? So exceptions are still possible. Registering .xx or .xxx should not be possible. Names with "Wikipedia" in them should not allow registration. The registration page should also have a clear description of what is and what is not allowed. Perhaps do it the other way around and stick the form into the article. Then when you click on "register" you end up on the user name policy page.
The current page weasels around about how great wikipeidia thinks it is in a self published self referencing kind of way. lol This is of course because it's greatness is not at all obvious looking at the page. It is inherently un-encyclopedic.
It shouldn't use up time months later if we can prevent that. If I would have made Go-here when I first registered you wouldn't have complaint about it. There already is a GoRight and there are various other bizarre names.
If you now suggest I'm here to advertise, then perhaps the policy should not encourage people to create anonymous user names? I really prefer to use my real name in stead of having discussions about what is and what isn't a name.
Real names are always correct. Perhaps the policy should say the user should grow a beard and stands for what he writes. Signing things in your own name is not something to be embarrassed about. Quite the opposite is true.
Currently this Wikipedia dating agency just doesn't work. I mean, how am I suppose to have any kind of intense Internet relationships with cartoon figures? The more I think about it the more I feel captured in an episode of the power rangers....
I don't want to play the bad guy again. please no? I say we blame it all on the registration robot and on User:Name policy.
There are lots of real names and brand names that are not allowed. Like all persons with a biography page. Non of those names should be available but the registration form should also explain why that is and how to obtain the name.
No more user: "satan" no more user: "jesus" no more user: "slut" no more user: "webcam"
Make it say something funny, the new user is typing word verifications that are practically unreadable. You get "passwords do not match", "captcha error" and then it will say "user names with "Satan" are not allowed" and you go back to thinking up a new name and mistyping the captcha again.
What if we would cut the registration in more steps like a wizard?
Like in different steps. That would make registration far less cumbersome. I don't know about the resources or the technical capabilities but it seems like a far more modern method then it currently is.
Currently if you get 1/3 wrong you never quite seem to get to the end stage. I see myself typing the same information over and over and over again.
That isn't a good idea. Of course wikipedia users never look at the page. But shouldn't it have it's own talk page etc?
Where does wp:register link to wp:Username policy? It seems so disconnected? It's like with law books that get so fat no one knows what is written there defeating their own purpose. How much text does a new user need to know what names he can and what he cant use? They first have to find the pages?
Lots of things to improve. I'm not in a hurry tho. :-) Gdewilde ( talk) 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be all dead and done with, but it seems very stupid to object to his "go-here" name without the .nl. It's not uncommon for people to use their common internet handles as domain names. Hell, I've got nedscott.com, but I doubt any of you would block me for it, even if I started selling stuff on it. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 10 July 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. |
Well. A while ago I brought up the idea of no longer blocking "confusing usernames", as it is hard to see how a username could be so confusing that the user behind it needs to be indefinitely blocked (instead of asked to change their name). Remember that users who vandalize or make personal attacks (bigger problems than mildly confusing someone) get polite talk messages and multiple chances. When I brought it up before, I got bogged down in a mass of different opinions about why we have that in the policy and withdrew from the discussion for a while. My previous discussion has, apparently, disappeared without even being archived. Shrug.
We have a bot (HBCNameWatcherBot) that goes around suggesting that you might want to block people for having repeated letters in their username or even just repeating a short sequence of letters three times. After bringing this up on WT:UAA, I removed these cases from the bot's blacklist, but The Anome restored them with this comment:
I've re-added the typing pattern regexps to the blacklist. Whilst there is nothing offensive about typing-pattern usernames, they fail to meet the username policy requirements in two ways:
I find this highly objectionable, of course. The biggie is that we are not Minority Report. We don't block people for disruption that they seem likely to do but they haven't done yet. (Well, unfortunately, sometimes we do, but we really shouldn't.) And I fail to see why a polite comment wouldn't be a better way to tell someone it's not a great idea to be named "eeeeeeeeeeeee".
A bit of an opinion poll, then:
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some questions:
I don't quite get the "We block them because we can't distinguish them from each other" logic. If so, why aren't we blocking "Shyam" and "Shyamal", too? Or "Morwen" and "Morven". Or "Sj" and "Sjc". Or "Tango" and "Tangotango"? All are actual admin accounts, by the way. Heck, I once confused Ryan Delaney with Ryan Postlethwaite. :) Why don't we do the sensible thing and wait until there actually is some kind of problem about distinguishing different users, and then nudge them to change their username. Or simply add a message on top of their userpage, stating that they shouldn't be confused with User:XYZ. -- Conti| ✉ 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's a real proposal. It addresses the issue of confusing usernames and confusing signatures, breaks out of the "we block them because we block them" cycle, and still allows for the actually disruptive users to be blocked.
We take "confusing names" out of the "Wikipedia does not allow" section (because that section, in actuality, is equated with the "reasons to request an insta-block with TWINKLE" list). Likewise, we take it out of the list of TWINKLE boilerplate reasons (because the de facto policy isn't on this page, it's inside TWINKLE.) Below "dealing with inappropriate usernames", we add this section:
The purpose of a username is to identify contributors. If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above [removed:] because confusion is subjective, and because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block.
An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other policy violations such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption. As with all other blocks, admins should use their discretion and common sense.
In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption. [added]
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
edited --
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support that on very strong terms. Blocking, even threatening to block, because we find a name confusing is just silly. We should be encourage a newbie to change his name - give him a few warnings (like we do for vandalism) even - before blocking, and in the case of confusing names, blocks should only be given if they absolutely refuse to rename and don't justify their current name (since confusion is subjective and it could make perfect sense when explained). dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the manifest lack of consensus for the April 4 rewording of the policy, as evidenced by significant opposition on this page (see above), and especially in WP:AN#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames, I have undone the April 4 change to the policy, and the reference to it in the header of WP:UAA. (I think I managed to re-integrate all the non-controversial housekeeping changes made since then; also, this should not be considered as expressing an opinion on the WP:SUL and non-Latin username issue mentioned in a section above - I just kept the latest version of the page as of today.) -- MCB ( talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To get to the point, we can see from your edit exactly what the specific change we're talking about is; I now invite people to speak in support or opposition to the change itself, not how it was made previously. Please review the discussions that already happened, to get an idea of what points have already been raised and addressed, on both sides. SamBC( talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, it baffles me that WP admins will instantly, permanently block an account for having the "wrong" username but will give temporary blocks to [ vandals who plan games off-wiki to disrupt the encyclopedia], especially when "wrong username" varies wildly from admin to admin. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To answer a few points before they get made: B0B is not confusing or disruptive. If BOB already exists then B0B can be blocked fro being confusingly similar. Most names with 'bot' or 'admin' or 'crat' etc are blockable as being "confusing". A user with a long complex name who starts making bad faith edits can be blocked very quickly, you don't need to assume bad faith and block them before they make any bad edits. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop being effing wikilawyers. Polling is not permitted at any rate. The current wording on the page accurately reflects the current Best Practice on the wiki, afaict. Where it does *not* accurately reflect that best practice, please describe here, and/or feel free to modify the page and list diffs. (I find diffs easier to read than complex paraphrasing). This is a wiki. Wikis are for editing. Let's stop bickering and get down to editing, shall we?
I've made the first edit. Who will join me? :-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
@SamBC: Did I miss fixing the links? Sorry about that ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone here should read the policy tag at the top of U. It says, "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." The problem is that the changes made are not a widely accepted standard. Nobody but the small group here is following them. Confusing usernames continue to be reported and blocked on sight. So the truth of the matter is, you can play with the policy page all you want, nobody is going to abide by it because there is/was no consensus for change. KnightLago ( talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok Kim, enough with the trolling. You don't need to throw around accusations of wikilawyering and patronizing comments about documenting things. Your comments are driving away the very people you want to discuss the issue with. We could always just return to AN and keep complaining there.
In response to Rspeer, who I thank for actually trying to address the issues: I think we should move beyond the argument of how it is being implemented at UAA. We obviously look at the situation differently and could both make arguments for either side.
In relation to the policy, I find myself torn at this point. The first changes made were a confusing mess which led to the uproar at AN. At this point, I understand what you are trying to do, but I question some of the changes to the policy and whether they are really needed, and whether there is community support for it.
Under both policies the user is forced to change their username. Under block on sight the admin would simply block and tell them to create a new username. Under this new policy, the username is going to be blocked at the end, but it forces the admin to do additional work and pretend with the user that they actually have a choice in the matter. If someone refuses to change their name, they are blocked. Why go through the trouble of forcing an admin to post a note, monitor what could be a large number of users' talk pages for a while, and then block. Or, if the user responds, pretend with them that they have the option of not changing their name. This just seems to add work to a job that could be done as it is with a template. We also have to consider whose time we want to waste. Admins are usually very heavy contributors to the project, why force them to spend time going through this process when the ending is predetermined? The current way this is done, or was done, was to block and leave a template with instructions on how to create a new username. While admittedly good faith users are/were being caught, it is not hard to create another account. Account creation and the number of new and active users was not stunted under the old policy. Maybe the template should be rewritten in a nicer, more conciliatory manner, but I think the template should do the job.
As for the changes in the current form now, I think there has been improvement from their initial introduction, but I still question some of their form. KnightLago ( talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The main consideration here is that in my experience, a large number of Wikipedians find confusing user names (those made up of random letters, strings of digits, odd capitalization, excessively lengthy, etc.) to be annoying and distracting from project, and they're hard to use to address or refer to people, make discussions hard to read, and pretty much force you to copy/paste the user name in order use it, assuming you have it handy on a page. (Hence the large number of reports of them to WP:UAA, via TW or manually.) Since that seems to be pretty much agreed, it seems to me to be a pointless and somewhat demeaning (to the user) process to go through the motions of asking someone to change it, when you're going to enforce the rule anyway. Plus, it's additional work, there is a delay involved and the risk of losing track of them, and so forth.
The way to make that initial block non-BITEy is to come up with a template or boilerplate text is isn't bitey, and basically says, hey, come on back with another name that's a little easier to deal with. And while the user is blocked (because that's what the software and WP:BLOCK calls it, we could just say that their account is, say, "deactivated" until they pick a new name. And the point of doing it quickly is to avoid the situation of having them do a bunch of editing, get attached to their name, go through an edit-preserving name-change request, when a simple block with a here's-what-you-need-to-do template would solve the issue before it becomes a problem.
One thing that would help immensely, and that I proposed informally in a response to Rspeer on my user talk page, would be to have different templates for different types of username blocks. One {{ uw-ublock}} clearly does not fit all. Mangojuice took the lead on that with {{ uw-spamublock}}.
Lastly, while clearly WP:SUL needs consideration (thank you, Kim Bruning, for bringing it up) I'm not sure exactly what impact is has on this. If the individual wikis no longer have control over the acceptability of usernames on their wikis due to SUL, then it's a much larger issue than this particular policy dicussion. (Which was bound to come up anyway; a personal name or mild oath in one language may well be an offensive phrase or mortal insult in another.) -- MCB ( talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I really do welcome this new involvement in the username policy. A discussion is never hurt by people with new viewpoints arriving, as long as they are willing to have a reasonable discussion about those viewpoints.
There's a lot of discussion to read, and I understand that it's a daunting task to go back and read all of it back to July or March 2007 or whenever it makes sense to start reading. So I'm going to try to summarize the events here, to assist people who are making the effort to follow what has gone on here in the last year or so.
That's it for my not-so-brief yet not-so-complete history of the username policy. You may notice some patterns: for example, although we've had many significant disagreements and we have basically never had unanimous consent for any change, we have also never needed to have a poll. Is that amazing or what?
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I support what Rspeer has done and the way Rspeer has done it, and the clear and patient way Rspeer has explained what has happened. SilkTork * YES! 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Rspeer, thanks for the history lesson. I spent some time reading some of the old discussion and I think I have been won over. Though I think the wording could be changed in some ways and maybe the concept of the holding pen incorporated into policy somehow. But I now agree with change. So my questions/thoughts:
Why was confusing username removed from the inappropriate usernames section? Confusing usernames are still inappropriate correct?
As for the actual text of the policy:
I think the second sentence of the first paragraph is convoluted. It is much improved from the original change, but it still could be clearer. The second paragraph seems fine. The third I think could use some work. What is the process when dealing with a confusing username? As I understand it, you want an admin to talk to the person first. But where does the other editors agreement part come from? Essentially, if the user refuses to change the name, the admin is going to block them. There is no real agreement anywhere. And the part about being blocked for further disruption. We are not really blocking them for disruption, we are blocking them for having a confusing username right? And I think the part in parentheses can be removed now since it is commenting on the policy itself (though I understand Kim was just trying to acknowledge there is ongoing discussion about it).
So what are your thoughts behind the holding pen? Should it be incorporated into the policy or at least be mentioned. Looking at its history it doesn't seem to be getting much use.
Just a few thoughts for now. KnightLago ( talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea that the attempted policy change of April 4 was successful or widely adopted is simply not correct. Kim Bruning says in a section above, "I don't think we've ever had to enforce the confusing username policy by blocking since April 4." For better or worse, that's just not the case. Here is a list of blocks for confusing usernames since April 4, in roughly reverse chrono order:
These were all blocks where vandalism, disruption, offense, etc. were not mentioned in the block message. All but a couple were ABD, leaving the user free to choose another name. (There were many more with similarly confusing names, but where the block message mentioned vandalism or other disruption, or the names contained some offensive words or phrases as well. I removed all of those from the list.) In addition, Rspeer preemptively removed several names from WP:UAA; I suspect most or all would have been blocked if that not been the case.
So again, I think that leaves us with the case that the policy change is neither descriptive of actual practice nor does it enjoy wide support, except possibly by a small but vocal faction here on WT:U. -- MCB ( talk) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Stay nice folks :-) I second KnightLago's request. That's entirely reasonable. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. These are sometimes hard to find, because it's rather difficult to search for a negative. The best successes are the cases where good-faith users are not blocked, and you can tell they're good faith because they proceed to not do bad things. In addition, the preferred outcome when we contact the user about a confusing username is that the user just creates a new account, at which point all we can see is the lack of further edits under the old name. But here are a few examples I've found:
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
KnightLago, I don't understand the need to change things to emphasize that "confusing equals blocked". The way the policy stands now is that if you have no other way of stopping someone editing with a username that is far too confusing (and you've tried discussion), then you can block them as a last resort. This has never been necessary, because what happens first is either that they vandalize and get hardblocked, or they agree and register a different name, or they point out that their name is more meaningful than you thought and the reporter agrees.
Sometimes the policy gets painted as saying we can't block someone with a name like "Po8PLVXYY7r9ESWgMY4bJqdS9faVWRI98FqUghidjGGYshsa88hsJHsgxah77saGYSjiaalOW". Now, if you said "hey, that name is annoying, could you change it?" and Po8longname responds "screw u, I like it", that would be the kind of case where you can block. But as far as I can tell, this doesn't happen.
The "shadow policy" that a couple of people such as MCB like to enforce has a failure case that is worse: under that policy, we can't block Po8longname for vandalism, because they end up username softblocked first. By being overly agressive about usernames, ironically, the "shadow policy" ends up giving a "get out of block free" pass to vandals as long as they have an ugly username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the length of the username when it otherwise doesn't fail any other issues on this page a possible problem? This user's name is very very long but seems perfectly in line; the length breaks the default undo (in that the edit summary cannot contain all of the wikicode for the standard undo revision) and it can make the watchlist page screen messy, but it otherwise seems to have no harm involved. -- MASEM 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
While the text there seems fair, I think it should be strengthened/expanded. For one thing, I've seen several editors find that they needed to (after-the-fact), not only change their username, but go back and edit every signature. Why? Well in at least one case, their Wikipedia work was generating more search engine "hits" than their RL work. Ouch.
And while we'd like to think we all are at least roughly aware of the dangers of personal info online, Wikipedia is a bit more than the average site/page/blog, simply due to traffic. What someone may consider "no-big-deal" in having on their homepage (which gets a couple hits from their family and friends, and the occasional lost soul), may be a big mistake being posted on Wikipedia.
Thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. - jc37 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But anyway, we're a bit off-topic. What I was requesting is some ideas for enhancing the text. Anyone have any suggestions? - jc37 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the policy on a real name that is not the user's real name. For example, what if someone wants to be User:David Archuleta but is actually Joe Doe Archer, and not David Archuleta. And what if someone wants to be User:Hannah Arendt, but obviously isn't because Hannah Arendt is dead? Kingturtle ( talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we write this into the policy page? Kingturtle ( talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sort of off-topic: As I'm sure many people do, I've Googled my own name from time to time. There was once semi-famous photographer named Ned Scott, and I've often pondered making an article for him (would have to dig deeper to see if he would actually pass the notability guidelines), and came to the conclusion that if I did I would likely make the article using a another account (an admitted secondary account) simply to avoid confusion. It could even be something like " User:Ned Scott but not that Ned Scott" (ok, bad example..). It really wouldn't be an issue, since the guy's been dead for a while, but you never know what some people might think. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a long time user and I think my aunt might enjoy WP as well. Can I create an account for her? What I'd like to do is create the account and populate its watchlist with stuff I think she would enjoy, maker a nice userpage, etc. I would know the password to start, so I would have her change it right away. If she didn't use it, I would ask to have it deleted. I know I could have her create it, then do a bunch of pasting into the raw watchlist/userpage or whatever but she isn't great with computers and I'd like to make it really simple for her. Is this the right place to ask? Is it OK? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we have a bright line test for confusing user names, specifically a maximum length for user names of 42 characters. Bearian ( talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the actual proposal yet, but in the interest of making sure everyone's on the same page as to the length: 42 is the length of the longest username of an established user ( User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The) and therefore it should not be any less and does not need to be any more. -- Random832 ( contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. User:lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll would be blocked? (or prevented from creating a username - that'd be okay) but User:ДЂєЉмШЪЮбгЃЗИіЙЌЛФЊПЋЖАБЦЏЯя is okay? You don't seem to be doing anything to stop confusing usernames. Asking for the software imposed length of names is probably a good idea though, and seems to be supported by most people. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A heads-up for anyone watching usernames: unified login has been enabled for all users. We're starting to see usernames from other projects automatically created on enwiki.
If you see a surge in the number of apparently "confusing" usernames created, this is why. It is more important than ever not to block a username solely for being "confusing".
(Cross-posted to WT:UAA)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How the heck does a doppelganger account prevent impersonation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unknown Hitchhiker ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) O—— The Unknown Hi tc hh ik er 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be seeing a lot of "XXXadmin" and "XXXbot" accounts at UAA. Wouldn't it be simpler to just block automatic creation of them in the registration process and direct people to WP:ACC when they try to register them, the same as with usernames too similar to others (or if the user can't use CAPTCHA)? The only real burden would be that real bot accounts would have to be approved via WP:ACC but that's a relatively rare occurrence compared with all the XXXadmin and XXXbot stuff we see here. Who should we approach with that as a proposal for the developers? -- MCB ( talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know I've seen this issue addressed somewhere, but are there ever cases where the full word "Wikipedia" is allowed in a username/sig? Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion currently underway on meta with a view to requesting that the developers allow the hiding of usernames from Special:Listusers - see Metapub discussion. As many will be aware, the user list contains a large number of obscene names some of which are particularly aimed at attacking contributors. At the moment there is little we can do about them, as renaming them simply moves the problematic content from the list of users to the rename log. Hiding them on the user list would be a good way to stop the use of abusive names to bully and harass users and is a change I am very much in favour of. If this issue is of interest to you, please take the time to visit that discussion and express an opinion. WjB scribe 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add into the policy that admins are expect to specify to a user, when blocking for a username violation, exactly which violation they have been blocked for. We can't expect new users to be mind readers, or expect to help them to understand the username policy. Educating these users will help them to create a more appropriate username in the future. {{ UsernameBlocked}} isn't the most helpful in giving a user an exact reason for being blocked and exact reasons would certainly help blocked users. This would obviously only apply to usernames created in good faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
User Gary WebTrain ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently began editing Wikipedia with the primary intention of gaining exposure for his company on Wikipedia.
His articles have so far been deleted three times (see WebTrain Communications and WebTrain deletion logs) as per the blatant advertising WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criterion and the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy.
He has been sporadically re-writing his article on his main user page, a problematic issue which has been questioned on User talk:Athaenara#Deletion discussions and, today, on Wikipedia talk:User page#WebTrain company article in userspace and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Gary WebTrain.
According to Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names the username is not specifically prohibited but is "not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." Should it be proposed that this user with a strong conflict of interest change the username? — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is it acceptable to create a doppelganger account as a preemptive measure, or must there be signs or a history of vandalism against a user first? -- .: Alex :. 12:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a somewhat disruptive editor, Go-here.nl ( talk · contribs), who has named their account to be the url of a web site that they are apparently involved with. When it was suggested that it wasn't appropriate, the response was a wikilawyering style of behaviour, as can be noted on their talk page. They pointed out that the username policy doesn't explicitly specify that a website name is not permitted, although I would have interpreted it as being covered by "Company/group". Should we perhaps look at explicitly including "website" in the policy? -- Athol Mullen ( talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That is what the page says? no? Go-here.nl ( talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked for the specific rules. You are here to ask for those rules now. That was the idea. If those rules are in place we can prevent it happening again.
I have to say it was a rather clumsy process. After baning the undesirable user name there was a seemingly permanent IP ban.
So the policy should not instruct to block the user the same moment. That makes changing the name a weird and clumsy ritual I had figured out. Just post a link to the name change page and give the user reasonable time to change his name.
A lot of this work should really be done by the registration form. One can still request user names right? So exceptions are still possible. Registering .xx or .xxx should not be possible. Names with "Wikipedia" in them should not allow registration. The registration page should also have a clear description of what is and what is not allowed. Perhaps do it the other way around and stick the form into the article. Then when you click on "register" you end up on the user name policy page.
The current page weasels around about how great wikipeidia thinks it is in a self published self referencing kind of way. lol This is of course because it's greatness is not at all obvious looking at the page. It is inherently un-encyclopedic.
It shouldn't use up time months later if we can prevent that. If I would have made Go-here when I first registered you wouldn't have complaint about it. There already is a GoRight and there are various other bizarre names.
If you now suggest I'm here to advertise, then perhaps the policy should not encourage people to create anonymous user names? I really prefer to use my real name in stead of having discussions about what is and what isn't a name.
Real names are always correct. Perhaps the policy should say the user should grow a beard and stands for what he writes. Signing things in your own name is not something to be embarrassed about. Quite the opposite is true.
Currently this Wikipedia dating agency just doesn't work. I mean, how am I suppose to have any kind of intense Internet relationships with cartoon figures? The more I think about it the more I feel captured in an episode of the power rangers....
I don't want to play the bad guy again. please no? I say we blame it all on the registration robot and on User:Name policy.
There are lots of real names and brand names that are not allowed. Like all persons with a biography page. Non of those names should be available but the registration form should also explain why that is and how to obtain the name.
No more user: "satan" no more user: "jesus" no more user: "slut" no more user: "webcam"
Make it say something funny, the new user is typing word verifications that are practically unreadable. You get "passwords do not match", "captcha error" and then it will say "user names with "Satan" are not allowed" and you go back to thinking up a new name and mistyping the captcha again.
What if we would cut the registration in more steps like a wizard?
Like in different steps. That would make registration far less cumbersome. I don't know about the resources or the technical capabilities but it seems like a far more modern method then it currently is.
Currently if you get 1/3 wrong you never quite seem to get to the end stage. I see myself typing the same information over and over and over again.
That isn't a good idea. Of course wikipedia users never look at the page. But shouldn't it have it's own talk page etc?
Where does wp:register link to wp:Username policy? It seems so disconnected? It's like with law books that get so fat no one knows what is written there defeating their own purpose. How much text does a new user need to know what names he can and what he cant use? They first have to find the pages?
Lots of things to improve. I'm not in a hurry tho. :-) Gdewilde ( talk) 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be all dead and done with, but it seems very stupid to object to his "go-here" name without the .nl. It's not uncommon for people to use their common internet handles as domain names. Hell, I've got nedscott.com, but I doubt any of you would block me for it, even if I started selling stuff on it. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)