Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
- Talk
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 5 October 2017 (→( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o): closed - disallow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: disallow. Katietalk 17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As it's essentially a trollface I'm not sure if this is really acceptable here ?, They've not vandalised any articles but regardless I thought maybe this should be discussed (I've not warned them or discussed this with them as I'm not sure myself if this username is fine), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Not sure why you've taken this straight to an rfc instead of taking it up with me. See the top section of this page: Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question: has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page. Anyway, I invite you to read ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) ? 17:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Had you bothered to read what I wrote I did state "I've not warned them or discussed this with them as I'm not sure myself if this username is fine" - Instead of going to your talkpage and potentially making an idiot of myself (as I have done with another user before) I figured I'd get outside opinions first, And FWIW I disagree this isn't "causing unnecessary drama" it's me simply finding out whether your username is fine - If that constitutes "causing unnecessary drama" then I'm guilty as charged. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why you've taken this straight to an rfc instead of taking it up with me. See the top section of this page: Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question: has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page. Anyway, I invite you to read
- Don't allow - Yeah, I'm not sure either, but (IMO) stuff like this including emoticons, do not belong in usernames, signatures or edit summaries, but I think Wikipedia has lost many "OG" users who would have shot stuff like this down. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow - Here, let me go through Wikipedia's entire username policy to show that this username does not violate it:
Collapsing this, since it takes a good chunk of this (long) thread's worth of vertical space, for little value. @
( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o): Feel free to re-expand it if you think it is needed. TigraanClick here to contact me 20:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply ] |
---|
|
- So, as you can see, my username has not violated Wikipedia's ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) ? 18:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow. See also WP:NONLATIN, which allows and almost encourages non-Latin names (which this is, broadly constructed). Further, wink-182 has followed the suggestion there by putting a note in their signature with some form of Latin-alphabet address for them. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow. Nice bit of selective editing, it's actually
Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling")
(my emph). It's actually a bit confusing as it can disappear into the page furniture, and I'd recommend some changes to the signature to make it clearer. But it's not so disruptive really, and there's plenty of precedent for such usernames. And I wouldn't recommend starting to even look like you're trolling. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] - Allow, harmless. This type of overly "clever" usernames mostly serves to make their owner look silly. Who am I to stop ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) from appearing silly if they really want to? What is most annoying about the username is that the parentheses make the pipe trick not work, but we have always allowed that. —Kusma (t·c) 18:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't allow I do believe this is one of the cases that the username policy means when it talks about usernames that "seem intended to provoke emotional reaction" (emphasis added). No matter the quality of contributions, it was clear that this name will not be helpful. Any name that is hard to type or uses characters that are not available easily for all users hinders productive discussion which is one of the cornerstones of the project. I also think the ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o): Let's ask this way: What is wrong with just using "wink-182" as your username? You already expressed you are fine with being called that, so why not make it official?. Regards SoWhy 19:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very broad reading of "Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction". I would be truly shocked if anyone looked at my username and felt offended or hurt in any way.
- As to your second point, while I'm ok with being referred to as wink-182 if someone finds typing/copying and pasting my username too challenging, I am not okay with changing my username all together. Providing a latin alternative to my username is simply me following the guidelines layed out in ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) ? 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Emotional reaction" does not mean "offend", it can also just mean annoy which is something even some people arguing to allow the name agree is the case here. As I said above, the WP:NONLATIN exception was added for people who spell actual names in different script and I am actually surprised that I am one who has to argue that the spirit, not the wording, of the policy is what maters. And the spirit of the policy was not to allow such names. On a side note, the characters render differently in my edit window (with the "eyebrows" next to the "eyes" which is extremely confusing and will likely be equally confusing for the very editors you interact the most at NPP - new editors unfamiliar with such things. On a side note, Ahecht is correct that the mouseover part is an accessibility nightmare that has to be rectified, no matter whether the name is allowed or not. Regards SoWhy 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Emotional reaction" does not mean "offend", it can also just mean annoy which is something even some people arguing to allow the name agree is the case here. As I said above, the
- Disallow - under the confusing criteria, I expect that the result of this will not be disallow based on some recent unicode based discussions - but that doesn't change my personal opinion. — xaosflux Talk 23:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow- If we don't want this sort of username, there should be a discussion to explicitly ban them in the username policy. As with Xaosflux, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't have this sort of username. But under the current policy I think this sort of name is allowed, and I really don't like it when people are dragged to these pages to resolve what is ultimately a policy issue. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]- I've thought about this more, and Xaosflux's argument makes quite a bit of sense. The user created this account on 19 Sept with obvious knowledge of how wikis work, and is now embroiled in a conflict over this name. To that extent, I think the behaviour has been a bit POINT-y, and thus would be inclined to disallow as a confusing name. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're acting as if I wanted this conflict over my username. I never asked for this rfc to be opened or for a bunch of established editors to pile-on to this non-issue. But I'm somehow the bad guy for wanting to have a fun username. So much for not biting newcomers right? Before accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia, maybe actually look at my contributions and see how I've only made positive contributions, and try to assume good faith. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 02:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt you're a newcomer, and I'm not biting you by expressing my opinion on your username. These sorts of names are confusing and unprofessional, even though I would prefer that this issue be resolved without the need for singling out individual names. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt you're a newcomer. Well think what you like, but realize that en Wikipedia is just one of thousands of wikis on the internet. Just because I know how they work and I'm technologically literate doesn't mean that I've edited here before. Also accusing someone of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is not assuming good faith.
- By the way, a username being unprofessional is not a criteria on Wikipedia's username policy, whether or not you want it to be. Usernames being confusing are, in the words of our username policy, not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 13:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your name is at best confusing, at worst outright trolling. Further, these discussions are meant to clarify policy in unclear cases - given the split opinion here, this is obviously an unclear case. I, and everyone else, is free to give their opinion of how policy should be interpreted in this case. I expect you'll be allowed to keep the name, but I'm put off enough by your behaviour here to think that it would be better to disallow the name in this case. That's all. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt you're a newcomer, and I'm not biting you by expressing my opinion on your username. These sorts of names are confusing and unprofessional, even though I would prefer that this issue be resolved without the need for singling out individual names. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're acting as if I wanted this conflict over my username. I never asked for this rfc to be opened or for a bunch of established editors to pile-on to this non-issue. But I'm somehow the bad guy for wanting to have a fun username. So much for not biting newcomers right? Before accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia, maybe actually look at my contributions and see how I've only made positive contributions, and try to assume good faith.
- I've thought about this more, and Xaosflux's argument makes quite a bit of sense. The user created this account on 19 Sept with obvious knowledge of how wikis work, and is now embroiled in a conflict over this name. To that extent, I think the behaviour has been a bit POINT-y, and thus would be inclined to disallow as a confusing name. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow What, me worry? Tell me all about it. 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, there's the added bonus of being able to refer to this editor as "Winky" whenever someone doesn't need to ping them which makes my inner 12-year-old happy. Tell me all about it. 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, there's the added bonus of being able to refer to this editor as "Winky" whenever someone doesn't need to ping them which makes my inner 12-year-old happy.
- Disallow This is cute but a stunning example of a confusing and disruptive username. Using a mishmash of lines and things that appear like punctuation in such a way throws the eye off - it doesn't even necessarily render as intended on every browser/display. User indicates that they are fundamentally not okay with changing their username which is counter to the harmonious building of an encyclopedia. If some people find a name disruptive is the right answer to be absolutely unwilling to consider accommodating them? User claims not to have been warned/advised about this previously but that is not the case, User talk:( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o). Knowingly doing something that is both, by their own admission, "highly discouraged" and "confusing" equals disruption, and if done knowing it would provoke a reaction that's trolling. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Disallow I personally feel the username is disruptive. I mentioned this on the user's talk page, but as there is no policy based reason to disallow it, I dropped the stick and respected their decision. Accessibility issues aside, it renders unusual whitespace behind the name everytime for some reason. In addition to that certain entries cause random weirdness on my Watchlist. It totally disrupts the page. See the screenshots for example.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, that is weird. I looked at that page on two different browsers and no whitespace happens (Firefox 55 / Ubuntu 16 and Chrome / Windows 7). What is even weirder is that in your screenshot, such whitespace is not related to the signature (see Kusma's "who am I to stop..."). TigraanClick here to contact me 20:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you !vote disallow but in the same breath say that there is no policy-based reasoning behind it? I ask this of ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) ? 20:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen, I am on your side, but you need to read WP:BADGER. The post above makes intelligible points - that it is disruptive, that it causes accessibility issues, and that it makes weird whitespace. Possibly "no policy based reason to disallow it" referred to the username policyin particular. And Xaoflux's rationale is a sound argument even if I disagree with it. TigraanClick here to contact me 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how this response is badgering... Just pointing out that these discussions should be policy based, not based on personal opinion and anecdote. If we were to ban every username that some user's browser displays improperly, we would have no non-latin usernames at all. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 20:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict × 2)Did I say I was disallowing your username because I don't link it? No. I said that I find your username disruptive, but that there is no strong argument in policy to block you over it. I find your username amusing, but from my perspective, the random whitespace it generates for random browsers is not. I find that aspect of your name disruptive and using a common sense interpretation of the policy, it weakly violates it. That is why I am for disallowing it. If the whitespace wasn't there, I wouldn't really care then. Names not rendering correctly is one thing. Names generating odd excessive whitespace is another.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how this response is badgering... Just pointing out that these discussions should be policy based, not based on personal opinion and anecdote. If we were to ban every username that some user's browser displays improperly, we would have no non-latin usernames at all.
- Reply to userid #31966049: I didn't say there isn't a policy based reason, "confusing" is a policy based reason, albeit one that is subjective - and I find this name confusing. — xaosflux Talk 22:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying, user 502540 😉, but as I said earlier, a username being confusing isn't enough to justify action. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 23:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems
- in this case, I'm smelling a mild case ofWP:POINT. I'm really not going to follow this thread anymore unless someone has a specific question for me though. Like I said above, I don't envision this will end in a disallow - but hoepfully you will take the feedback given under advisement. — xaosflux Talk 01:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying, user 502540 😉, but as I said earlier, a username being confusing isn't enough to justify action.
- Listen, I am on your side, but you need to read
- Every now and then, here pops a username whose sole problem is to be partly or wholly composed of Unicode characters. Each time, a few people (usually a minority, but a significant one) argue something along the lines that Unicode characters are inherently confusing or/and hinder cooperation with other editors (notably because of WP:ACCESSIBLE, which, although technically in the MoS, should IMO be policy in the backstage areas as well whenever possible). For the sake of consistency, we should decide on a guideline for this case, either way. In the meanwhile, allow (less "confusing" to me than any username written in non-Latin script, and for obvious reasons those are (1) numerous and (2) never going to be banned). TigraanClick here to contact me 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak disallow. I'm a bit torn here. Given Wink's editing history, it is clear that they were very experienced with Wikipedia before they created this account (whether they are a ]
- Allow per WP:NONLATIN and per User:😂. As I said in that older discussion: no policy forbids unicode usernames and this is a poor choice of venue for inventing pseudopolicy. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o)'s signature clearly includes links to their user and user talk pages, thus nobody who has used the internet since 1991 should have any difficulty conversing with them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cyberpower678: I don't get the strange whitespace, I'm seeing a question mark with a tooltip. It looks like you're using an admin highlighting script, maybe that or some other script is interfering with tooltips?
- @WP:ACCESSIBILITY recommends not to use tooltips. Would you consider removing that from your signature? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, this better? Also pinging ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 20:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivanvector: I already explored that, but with all JS disabled, I still get that and only for this particular user.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, this better? Also pinging
- The signature contains a link to the user talk page, but not the user page (although linking to both isn't required by ]
- Disallow per WP:IAR in the age of the ping, this will be disruptive to the ability to communicate. The previous emoji RfC/U was different because it was one unicode character and I can easily type it on my phone or computer. This one I'm all but forced to use copy/paste, which on mobile is difficult. Before this is called out as IDONTLIKEIT, I want to point out that this is a very practical concern on when to apply IAR: increasing the difficulty of communication on a collaborative project is disruptive. This is different than emojis, which do not for most people increase the difficulty.I also think SoWhy's argument about the difference between this and most non-Latin scripts is significant: this is not a name in a language. This is essentially an illustration, which in my mind means that if NONLATIN applies to it, NONLATIN should be updated and we should ignore it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Emojis are allowed as usernames even though on desktop, where I imagine most users do their editing, no emojis are available on the keyboard at all, and copying and pasting is required.
- If your argument is that having to copy/paste username + username not being an actual name in some language = disruptive, then 😂's username should have been disallowed. But it wasn't because there was not, and still isn't, any standing in policy to disallow unicode usernames for convenience.
- Even a poweruser like Σ has a username that most everyone has to copy and paste, and would have been disallowed by that bit of pseudopolicy you came up with. Yet I see nobody coming forward to disallow their username as disruptive.
- Policy supports the countless unicode usernames already on Wikipedia, and it seems an awful lot like my name is being singled out while others get a free pass. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 02:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points: 1) Mobile editing is on the rise and will continue to be on the rise. Your username make collaboration with those users more difficult. 2) I have no idea how many characters are in your username, but I know even on desktop, I would have difficulty pinging. One character is a lot easier to deal with than multiple characters. This isn't IDONTLIKEIT, this is WP:5P4: we're a collaborative project, and your username makes collaboration more difficult. If this isn't disallowed by UPOL currently, which it very well could be, requiring a change is certainly in the spirit of what IAR is meant to accomplish: helping the encyclopedia grow and making collaboration easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One character is a lot easier to deal with than multiple characters. Lol how though? You select text and copy it. It's the same action whether it's 1 character or 20. Not sure that holds water. Sorry, but sometimes having to copy and paste unicode usernames been the reality on Wikipedia for a long time. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) / wink-182 02:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One character is a lot easier to deal with than multiple characters. Lol how though? You select text and copy it. It's the same action whether it's 1 character or 20. Not sure that holds water. Sorry, but sometimes having to copy and paste unicode usernames been the reality on Wikipedia for a long time.
- Two points: 1) Mobile editing is on the rise and will continue to be on the rise. Your username make collaboration with those users more difficult. 2) I have no idea how many characters are in your username, but I know even on desktop, I would have difficulty pinging. One character is a lot easier to deal with than multiple characters. This isn't IDONTLIKEIT, this is
- Unfortunately, it isn't in your case, the characters in the edit window display differently from how they do on the saved page (see image on the right), thus making it harder for people to type or copy them. I just tried in both my mobile browser and the app and it's almost impossible to select exactly the name on mobile because the characters are rendered all askewed. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unusual - I normally don't post these sorts of things, because, aside from being unverifiable they also assume something of a lack of good faith. That said, this editor has been here two weeks and in that time have worked out how to use Twinkle, how to make large changes to templates, start up an SPI, quote various policies/guidelines and essays at admins and bureacrats, and a whole lot more. Take a look at their first 20 edits on the encyclopaedia. The user does state that they have experience with wikis, not necessarily Wikipedia, but, this user managed to find things with exceptional ease and had to have significant familiarity with Wikipedia itself to do so. Importing scripts, that they had to find somewhere since they didn't write it themselves, by edit 4? not from a brand new user who has never been here before. I don't buy it. On the one hand, the user has dedicated themself to anti-vandalism patrolling and isn't actively trying to cause harm. On the other, who is this? a long term IP editor that's decided to create an account? an alt-account of some regular user? or something else. That said, it could just be the winky face giving me the feeling of something more nefarious going on. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow Oh-so-clever usernames do not promote collaboration and they irritate a significant number of editors. If you are here for the encyclopedia, please do not use a decorative name. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DisallowWanting to stand out form the crowd perhaps? Per Johnuniq, purely disruptive material. Not sure I'm that keen on the badgering of almost every !vote either. WP:BATTLEGROUND is suggested. I do hope not.But we shall see. Cheers! — velut luna 00:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow. The username to me seems disruptive to communication and discussion with other users. I would concur with Johnuniq above. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disallow as confusing. There are endless nonconfusing options out there besides this one. Pick one of those and move one. Nihlus 13:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note just as a note to whomever closes this, there is currently an ongoing policy RfC that is partially inspired by this RfC username that is currently going towards moving the disallow !votes into policy. I again think this strengthens the IAR arguments since it appears to be snowing over there and having a grandfathered username because it was slightly before the proposal it inspired makes little sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.