![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This is meant mainly as an alternative to the "Proposal to set a limit on characters in a user name" proposal above, but it is not meant to be mutually exclusive with that proposal.
The current text reads:
Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action.
Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption.
I propose something like the following:
Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with usernames that contain long words, usernames visually almost-indistinguishable from existing usernames, usernames which look like a domain-name, and the like, as well as usernames that are "borderline cases" under any other criteria, particularly those which are "borderline cases" in more than one other criteria. Such usernames are highly discouraged and in some cases may be so inappropriate that action is required.
Confusing usernames can also be a red flag for other problems. An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption.
This change adds some specific criteria to what it means to be "confusing" while leaving it open-ended ("and the like"). It also makes a substantial change by saying that in some cases action is required. It also makes it very clear that "borderline cases" in other criteria - especially more than one other criteria - may also qualify as "confusing" and therefore require action. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The existing wording doesn't provide for exceptions when people create a :en-rule-breaking name on another WMF Wiki then start editing here under their unified login. On the other hand, a blanket exception is ripe for abuse.
The section currently reads:
Some usernames that appear to be in breach of this policy have been allowed to stand by consensus because they were created before a change in the policy that would now prohibit such names (see grandfather clause). If you find an apparently problematic username being used by a long-standing editor, it is likely that the matter has been discussed before. Please search that user's talk page (and archives if applicable), and the archives of the administrators' noticeboards and requests for comment on usernames, before deciding to take action as described below.
I propose adding the following paragraph:
Editors who first edited under the same username in another Wikimedia project should be given broad leeway with respect to their usernames. If the use of their name in their signature is the only thing causing problems, ask them to consider changing their signature. In severe cases, administrator action may be required. Only in very extreme cases or in cases of editors creating a username elsewhere "in bad faith" should such an account be sanctioned merely for violating the local English Wikipedia username policy.
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hansberry2015 ( talk) 01:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) {{db-user}} please delete this account
We have some editors who have an official username but often sign with another. This is obviously confusing, especially when they do it on the same talk page, and even worse when it's on ArbCom case pages. I can't see anything covering this in our policy. We can deal with it on ArbCom pages simply by asking the user to stick to one name, but I'm raising this as a more general issue. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Encountering User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, I'd thought initially it was some sort of bug or spam message. Nobody needs a user name that long and incoherent, it's really offputting for other editors. I propose that we set a formal limit on user name length and add it to the guidelines. I propose we add No single word in a user name should be over 20 characters in length to the guidelines here. That's 33, absurd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I see User:slakr has already shown concern about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
A username that's a string of nonsense characters defeats that purpose, and it really ought to stop. Ravenswing 11:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
My problem with the name is that it is not gibberish, it is a bitcoin payment address. It is essentially a donate link for every signature. Chillum 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think @ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: might have something to say about this, and I think he may be the person Dennis mentioned at the ANI thread. Long user names of like 20 characters or so aren't necessarily that problematic so far as I can determine, because, well, people can always do what I just did for Josh's name above and check the page history and copy of the name listed there. But, at the very least, if you're going to have a=some sort of name like his, or User:2601... above, maybe we could have this say something along the lines of such names can be permitted, but it would really be a good idea to have as a signature something more comprehensible. John Carter ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not just shorten it to User:1Wiki8 for convenience to fellow users? What is the point in Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on WP:AN about an editor, one aspect of which concerns their username. Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest that the discussion be kept centralized there, but those interested in username issues might like to participate. The discussion is here. BMK ( talk) 22:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any guidance on what to do when an account uses the name of a defunct company? I ran across this situation for the first time with User:Law Cypress. They created [3] the article Law Cypress Distributing Company, which was deleted as WP:A7. Since the company is no longer in business, it's not possible for the account to be used for WP:SOAPBOX purposes. Would the name be allowable in this case? -- Drm310 ( talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like for us to help me so i can go to google translate who do i do at— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.49.214 ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016
Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions, item 5, is not policy, so I can't really block on the basis of it (begs the question of why it's there...), but now I am looking at User:12345789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123w and User:12345789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123z, and I don't know what to do. I really see no reason why we shouldn't limit user names. You've got to, in a collaborative environment, be able to call someone something. These names are so long and my eyes so old, it's just gibberish to me. Drmies ( talk) 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
So there's no RTV? I just edited this to match WP:VANISH, but then I realized this is policy and that isn't. (Sorry!) Seeking input. Considering self-reverting and editing VANISH. -- Elvey( t• c) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
92.22.141.49 ( talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
prakash ms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakashmysore ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Dutch Wikipedia there is a rule saying that usernames cannot contain more than six consecutive digits, random sequences of letters, or other sets of "arbitrary" characters, as they "may be hard to remember". Since we do not have this rule here, and users like 1234567890lol123456789 whose names fit one of these criteria tend to be vandals, should we implement such an addition to our policy? Thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Amendment to our Username policy.
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk)
21:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Interested parties, please be advised that there is a discussion ongoing on meta to limit usernames globally to 50 characters: meta:Talk:Title blacklist#Excessively long usernames. – xeno talk 20:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The outcome of the RfC was this edit to the policy per the rationale here which noted that the edit is subject to revert per WP:BRD and a formal RfC.
As is well known, our rules are supposed to codify existing practice. The existing practice for WP:NOSHARE seems somewhat up in the air, and I'm wondering if the community wants codify this, or double down on the old practice, or what. Therefore I'm raising the a proposal for a change. This is an advisory RfC in that I don't have a strong opinion either way, I am just wanting to gauge the current state of community opinion on a rule that probably was written some time ago, and may have drifted from current practice. WP:NOSHARE currently reads:
Here is the proposed change, based on what may be new practice. I've bolded the changes just to highlight them for this RfC, I'm not proposing that they actually be bolded in the text of the rule.
Herostratus ( talk) 01:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
N.B. it was as this point that I changed "may" to "will" per suggestion.
I don't know as we need a "Support" vs "Oppose" type of discussion here, as there are various other wordings (probably better than mine) that could be proposed, and so we could talk about that. Anyway, the point is, the current wording imposes a straitjacket on the admin corps: "will result in the account being blocked" is a direct prescription for a single action, blocking the person, which is pretty harsh.
The admin corps, understandably, does not like being straitjacketed, so they are probably not going to be. So the new wording has two possible merits (as I see it):
The argument against of the proposed change is probably something along the lines of: multiple users using a single account and pretending to be one person is a nightmare on several levels, and needs to be dealt with extremely harshly in all circumstances -- most particularly because it completely screws up the copyright status of the contributed material and so pollutes downstream use; how bad this is depends on how seriously you take copyright issues that, to be honest, are mainly theoretical. It also makes it hard to communicate when you don't know which person you're talking too. And there are other reasons. I guess the question is, how big a deal is really, if there's no intent to cause problems? Can we not give an innocent offender a break, here? Herostratus ( talk) 01:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There's also the downside of discretion, of course, such that it might devolve such that fellow admins or wikifriends would be allowed to share their account and others not. (Sharing an admin account is another problematic thing, now that I think of it). Herostratus ( talk) 01:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
First, I can't resist saying what I've said elsewhere: there is really no copyright-related reason for prohibiting shared accounts, that's a red herring. There's not really any reason to share an account, either, and I suppose I can understand behavioral concerns (don't necessarily agree, but I understand). But seeing that even the completely common sense change proposed by Herostratus is being opposed (we immediately block shared accounts because... well, because we immediately block shared accounts), it seems this is just another example of Wikipedia's love of the idea of Enforcement. The good news is that what Herostratus proposes is what sensible admins will do anyway. But treating people, especially newbies, with a modicum of respect shouldn't be technically against policy. Herstratus, if you change "may result in..." to "will result in...", you might gain more support from those who think this practice must not be allowed at all costs. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the attribution issue: two years ago when this was discussed, the Wikimedia Foundation legal department gave their opinion that the prohibition on role accounts was not necessary to satisfy the attribution requirements of Wikipedia's licenses. isaacl ( talk) 04:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I (purposely, but perhaps mistakenly) didn't frame this as a formal RfC, so no one is going to come along to close it. And it's died out. So let's see where we stand. Here's how I'd close it if I were closing.
Looking at headcount, we have 9 Support against 5 Oppose (and one neutral). That is 64% in favor of the change. That's a reasonable quorum and just on the edge, or over the edge, of a supermajority. One more vote for or less against and we would have supermajority.
As to strength of argument, I'm not going to say and I can't say. But I will make the following observations:
Given all this, and since this (informal) "RfC" isn't going to be closed, and speaking as someone who sees both sides of the issue (although I did change from Neutral to Support, eventually), I see my way clear to adding the proposed change.
This is of course subject to revert per WP:BRD, and if someone reading the results differently wants to do that, that's fine, and we can then have a formal RfC. Herostratus ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Bizarre how much spam this page gets... It's almost as if they're trying to draw attention to themselves. Intelligent sium 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You claim that, "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked."
I disagree with that; I think my user account should be open to all. I am for a democratic Wikipedia, that is why I will share my password with anyone and every one. Wikipedia should be free, and so should my user account. My password is "password". 70.128.113.22 ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I just saw that a user with the name User:Can'tTrustHillary was blocked with reference to this policy. What was the rationale – "referencing controversies"/"imply personal attacks" because of the obvious allusion to HRC? Frankly, it appears a bit excessive to me to block a user immediately because of such a username. (And I'm rather pro-HRC and have never encountered the user before; I realise I might well be defending a person with rather nasty attitudes here.) It's a borderline case at best, IMHO. Now I don't find political opinions particularly appropriate for Wikipedia usernames, either, but still not worthy of an immediate block. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with the decision, myself. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AVIK NAGAR ( talk) 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC) please input one village name .that is BHANDORA POPULATION IS 3000
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This is meant mainly as an alternative to the "Proposal to set a limit on characters in a user name" proposal above, but it is not meant to be mutually exclusive with that proposal.
The current text reads:
Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action.
Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption.
I propose something like the following:
Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with usernames that contain long words, usernames visually almost-indistinguishable from existing usernames, usernames which look like a domain-name, and the like, as well as usernames that are "borderline cases" under any other criteria, particularly those which are "borderline cases" in more than one other criteria. Such usernames are highly discouraged and in some cases may be so inappropriate that action is required.
Confusing usernames can also be a red flag for other problems. An editor with a confusing username or signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing username contributes to the disruption.
This change adds some specific criteria to what it means to be "confusing" while leaving it open-ended ("and the like"). It also makes a substantial change by saying that in some cases action is required. It also makes it very clear that "borderline cases" in other criteria - especially more than one other criteria - may also qualify as "confusing" and therefore require action. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The existing wording doesn't provide for exceptions when people create a :en-rule-breaking name on another WMF Wiki then start editing here under their unified login. On the other hand, a blanket exception is ripe for abuse.
The section currently reads:
Some usernames that appear to be in breach of this policy have been allowed to stand by consensus because they were created before a change in the policy that would now prohibit such names (see grandfather clause). If you find an apparently problematic username being used by a long-standing editor, it is likely that the matter has been discussed before. Please search that user's talk page (and archives if applicable), and the archives of the administrators' noticeboards and requests for comment on usernames, before deciding to take action as described below.
I propose adding the following paragraph:
Editors who first edited under the same username in another Wikimedia project should be given broad leeway with respect to their usernames. If the use of their name in their signature is the only thing causing problems, ask them to consider changing their signature. In severe cases, administrator action may be required. Only in very extreme cases or in cases of editors creating a username elsewhere "in bad faith" should such an account be sanctioned merely for violating the local English Wikipedia username policy.
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hansberry2015 ( talk) 01:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) {{db-user}} please delete this account
We have some editors who have an official username but often sign with another. This is obviously confusing, especially when they do it on the same talk page, and even worse when it's on ArbCom case pages. I can't see anything covering this in our policy. We can deal with it on ArbCom pages simply by asking the user to stick to one name, but I'm raising this as a more general issue. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Encountering User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, I'd thought initially it was some sort of bug or spam message. Nobody needs a user name that long and incoherent, it's really offputting for other editors. I propose that we set a formal limit on user name length and add it to the guidelines. I propose we add No single word in a user name should be over 20 characters in length to the guidelines here. That's 33, absurd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I see User:slakr has already shown concern about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
A username that's a string of nonsense characters defeats that purpose, and it really ought to stop. Ravenswing 11:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
My problem with the name is that it is not gibberish, it is a bitcoin payment address. It is essentially a donate link for every signature. Chillum 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think @ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: might have something to say about this, and I think he may be the person Dennis mentioned at the ANI thread. Long user names of like 20 characters or so aren't necessarily that problematic so far as I can determine, because, well, people can always do what I just did for Josh's name above and check the page history and copy of the name listed there. But, at the very least, if you're going to have a=some sort of name like his, or User:2601... above, maybe we could have this say something along the lines of such names can be permitted, but it would really be a good idea to have as a signature something more comprehensible. John Carter ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not just shorten it to User:1Wiki8 for convenience to fellow users? What is the point in Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on WP:AN about an editor, one aspect of which concerns their username. Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest that the discussion be kept centralized there, but those interested in username issues might like to participate. The discussion is here. BMK ( talk) 22:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any guidance on what to do when an account uses the name of a defunct company? I ran across this situation for the first time with User:Law Cypress. They created [3] the article Law Cypress Distributing Company, which was deleted as WP:A7. Since the company is no longer in business, it's not possible for the account to be used for WP:SOAPBOX purposes. Would the name be allowable in this case? -- Drm310 ( talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like for us to help me so i can go to google translate who do i do at— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.49.214 ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016
Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions, item 5, is not policy, so I can't really block on the basis of it (begs the question of why it's there...), but now I am looking at User:12345789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123w and User:12345789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123z, and I don't know what to do. I really see no reason why we shouldn't limit user names. You've got to, in a collaborative environment, be able to call someone something. These names are so long and my eyes so old, it's just gibberish to me. Drmies ( talk) 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
So there's no RTV? I just edited this to match WP:VANISH, but then I realized this is policy and that isn't. (Sorry!) Seeking input. Considering self-reverting and editing VANISH. -- Elvey( t• c) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
92.22.141.49 ( talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
prakash ms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakashmysore ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Dutch Wikipedia there is a rule saying that usernames cannot contain more than six consecutive digits, random sequences of letters, or other sets of "arbitrary" characters, as they "may be hard to remember". Since we do not have this rule here, and users like 1234567890lol123456789 whose names fit one of these criteria tend to be vandals, should we implement such an addition to our policy? Thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Amendment to our Username policy.
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk)
21:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Interested parties, please be advised that there is a discussion ongoing on meta to limit usernames globally to 50 characters: meta:Talk:Title blacklist#Excessively long usernames. – xeno talk 20:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The outcome of the RfC was this edit to the policy per the rationale here which noted that the edit is subject to revert per WP:BRD and a formal RfC.
As is well known, our rules are supposed to codify existing practice. The existing practice for WP:NOSHARE seems somewhat up in the air, and I'm wondering if the community wants codify this, or double down on the old practice, or what. Therefore I'm raising the a proposal for a change. This is an advisory RfC in that I don't have a strong opinion either way, I am just wanting to gauge the current state of community opinion on a rule that probably was written some time ago, and may have drifted from current practice. WP:NOSHARE currently reads:
Here is the proposed change, based on what may be new practice. I've bolded the changes just to highlight them for this RfC, I'm not proposing that they actually be bolded in the text of the rule.
Herostratus ( talk) 01:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
N.B. it was as this point that I changed "may" to "will" per suggestion.
I don't know as we need a "Support" vs "Oppose" type of discussion here, as there are various other wordings (probably better than mine) that could be proposed, and so we could talk about that. Anyway, the point is, the current wording imposes a straitjacket on the admin corps: "will result in the account being blocked" is a direct prescription for a single action, blocking the person, which is pretty harsh.
The admin corps, understandably, does not like being straitjacketed, so they are probably not going to be. So the new wording has two possible merits (as I see it):
The argument against of the proposed change is probably something along the lines of: multiple users using a single account and pretending to be one person is a nightmare on several levels, and needs to be dealt with extremely harshly in all circumstances -- most particularly because it completely screws up the copyright status of the contributed material and so pollutes downstream use; how bad this is depends on how seriously you take copyright issues that, to be honest, are mainly theoretical. It also makes it hard to communicate when you don't know which person you're talking too. And there are other reasons. I guess the question is, how big a deal is really, if there's no intent to cause problems? Can we not give an innocent offender a break, here? Herostratus ( talk) 01:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There's also the downside of discretion, of course, such that it might devolve such that fellow admins or wikifriends would be allowed to share their account and others not. (Sharing an admin account is another problematic thing, now that I think of it). Herostratus ( talk) 01:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
First, I can't resist saying what I've said elsewhere: there is really no copyright-related reason for prohibiting shared accounts, that's a red herring. There's not really any reason to share an account, either, and I suppose I can understand behavioral concerns (don't necessarily agree, but I understand). But seeing that even the completely common sense change proposed by Herostratus is being opposed (we immediately block shared accounts because... well, because we immediately block shared accounts), it seems this is just another example of Wikipedia's love of the idea of Enforcement. The good news is that what Herostratus proposes is what sensible admins will do anyway. But treating people, especially newbies, with a modicum of respect shouldn't be technically against policy. Herstratus, if you change "may result in..." to "will result in...", you might gain more support from those who think this practice must not be allowed at all costs. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the attribution issue: two years ago when this was discussed, the Wikimedia Foundation legal department gave their opinion that the prohibition on role accounts was not necessary to satisfy the attribution requirements of Wikipedia's licenses. isaacl ( talk) 04:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I (purposely, but perhaps mistakenly) didn't frame this as a formal RfC, so no one is going to come along to close it. And it's died out. So let's see where we stand. Here's how I'd close it if I were closing.
Looking at headcount, we have 9 Support against 5 Oppose (and one neutral). That is 64% in favor of the change. That's a reasonable quorum and just on the edge, or over the edge, of a supermajority. One more vote for or less against and we would have supermajority.
As to strength of argument, I'm not going to say and I can't say. But I will make the following observations:
Given all this, and since this (informal) "RfC" isn't going to be closed, and speaking as someone who sees both sides of the issue (although I did change from Neutral to Support, eventually), I see my way clear to adding the proposed change.
This is of course subject to revert per WP:BRD, and if someone reading the results differently wants to do that, that's fine, and we can then have a formal RfC. Herostratus ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Bizarre how much spam this page gets... It's almost as if they're trying to draw attention to themselves. Intelligent sium 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You claim that, "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked."
I disagree with that; I think my user account should be open to all. I am for a democratic Wikipedia, that is why I will share my password with anyone and every one. Wikipedia should be free, and so should my user account. My password is "password". 70.128.113.22 ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I just saw that a user with the name User:Can'tTrustHillary was blocked with reference to this policy. What was the rationale – "referencing controversies"/"imply personal attacks" because of the obvious allusion to HRC? Frankly, it appears a bit excessive to me to block a user immediately because of such a username. (And I'm rather pro-HRC and have never encountered the user before; I realise I might well be defending a person with rather nasty attitudes here.) It's a borderline case at best, IMHO. Now I don't find political opinions particularly appropriate for Wikipedia usernames, either, but still not worthy of an immediate block. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with the decision, myself. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AVIK NAGAR ( talk) 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC) please input one village name .that is BHANDORA POPULATION IS 3000