Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 16

This policy currently states that "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted ... Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked."

It is argued that a user may innocently select a name that turns out to match the name of a company somewhere on Earth, and that contrary to this policy, such users are not automatically blocked at

Should the username policy be reworded, to tolerate the innocent use of obscure company, group or product names? If so, how might it be worded?

Thparkth (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: the wording proposed could work at
  WP:ACC hat on) is that whilst we can base some decisions on geolocations and emails (a company called "Foocompany" exists in Foobar City, Foobar Country and the IP resolves there—though I am aware of the limitations geolocation by IP address—or if we get a request from [email protected]), we are not mind readers and do not enjoy the ability to judge a likely username violation based on editing. These are comments that require a bit of {{sofixit}} which I will try and do in the next couple of days, preferably after more people have opined. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk
  ) 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose permitting company names. I don't think there's any AGF about it; username violation blocks are not punitive, at least not soft blocks. It's a simple notice that says, "Hey, you've inadvertently selected a username that is against our policies. Please select another." Company names are conspicuous product placement, just like that Penzoil label on the racecar or that cup of Diet Coke set in front of each judge on American Idol. Even if the person who selected the name isn't promoting the company by intent, the effect is the same. Everywhere the name appears, on every talk page or in every edit history, it's a little plug for the company...even if it's plastering articles related to gardening and not to the specific company. If anything, I think that the policy as is should be better enforced, again, with a friendly "I'm so sorry, but you'll need a new name." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So, is User:SheffieldSteel a conspicuous product placement for a company of the same name, then? --Conti|✉ 11:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sheffield steel is a general term which has been adopted by a number of companies. The name does not in itself refer to a specific modern company. Likewise, Jersey is known for its wool and the name "Jersey Wool" would not apply to a single company, even if several companies took the name as part of their own identifiers. That said, in this case, article editing would matter; if User:Jersey Wool edits articles about The Jersey Wool Company of Ohio, we've got an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That said, in this case, article editing would matter - the current policy makes no exception for the case you describe. Would you be in favor of changing the wording to take account of the user's editing behavior? Thparkth (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It depends on the wording proposed. :) My concern would be that it not create a loophole through which people could claim that their promotional username is not a promotional username, say, if User:BritishCompany says, "Yes, there is an extremely well known British Company, Inc. But there is also this little known British Company, Co., so I'm not obviously promoting either one." Some names are truly genericized, like Sheffield steel or Jersey wool, and some are just the name of several companies. (And speaking of usernames, I like yours. It's fun to say out loud.:)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the policy make these kinds of (sane) distinctions, though? It still seems to me that most admins interpret that part of the policy in their own unique way, so in the end it's entirely arbitrary whether a user name like "BritishCompany" or "Enablers.asia" or "SheffieldSteel" gets blocked or not, since that entirely depends on which admin gets to see these user names. Which isn't an exactly ideal situation, to say the least. --Conti|✉ 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, if we can. Like I said, it depends on the wording proposed. Look at the consideration now, for instance: "to tolerate the innocent use of obscure company, group or product names". Who judges what is obscure? What happens if a start-up company uses their products and they become unobscure? The policy as written right now is quite egalitarian. It doesn't distinguish between large companies and small companies, prominent products and new ones. I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of complaints from small companies that some multinational corporation gets an article whereas the article on their company has been A7ed or AfDed. Having a clear guideline at
  WP:ORG helps, because we can say, "This is our standard." Our current username standard for companies & products is black and white (though not evenly enforced, a problem we discussed in April). If we make it gray, we need to be sure it is well defined, so we don't wind up saying, "Well, Admin JoeBob didn't think that company was big enough to merit a username block; I think yours is." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just want to be clear that "to tolerate the innocent use..." is not a proposed wording for the policy - nobody has proposed one yet - but just a concise statement for the RFC. Thparkth (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks, I realize that; I was just using it as an example of difficulties with wording. :) So far, there's no succinct hook to hang a hat on with regards to policy making "these kinds of (sane) distinctions", so I went for the closest clear hook I saw. I believe that there are fatal problems with the current consideration of obscure companies/products, etc. - as I suggested here, definitions of what constitutes obscure are going to be hard to nail down, and obscurity is not a fixed state. Suppose the owners of Y-Not Mart create an account now, while nobody has ever heard of their store. Two years from now, the chain is the hottest thing evah, and their username is well and truly established. Do we block them then? (And, if so, how do we establish when it crosses the line from obscurity?) If not, what do we tell the person who wants to use
  genericized. User:Champagne is not a problem (being more or less genericized and all), but if User:Champagne is editing Champage Products, Inc., the username becomes part of the problem. That might fit into what you meant by "innocent." User:Champagne can edit articles on 12th century priests all day, every day without problem. I don't support permitting company/product names, but I do support being sensible about applying the policy and, if possible, making the policy clear to new users and admins. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is this whole notion of a blanket policy. We have done this sort of thing before: decided that our principles merited some policy that could be summed up in a single sentence, when it was obvious that there would have to be nuances to it. So we sort of said it wouldn't be enforced strictly. That, to me, doesn't work. I don't see legislatures anywhere passing laws and then immediately saying "Well, it won't be so bad, because we won't enforce it tightly".

A policy that you make an unambiguously black-and-white bright-line rule is either enforced that way (and will be, by those charged with enforcement who weren't privy to the policy debate) or it makes a mockery of policy as a whole and is thus a bad policy (Imagine Wikipedia if admins enforced 3RR that subjectively and loosely! The exceptions to that policy are very necessary and very clearly defined). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think there's any AGF about it ...". I would agree with you had I not seen enough cases where apparently obvious corporate names went and edited something with no connection to the name. Even if it's Joe's PR editing something about a possible client, we can and have dealt with that at COI/N. I don't think you can presume from a corporate name that the edits will be about that ... which is what assuming good faith is about. It has been my experience.

" ... [U]sername violation blocks are not punitive, at least not soft blocks". Umm, no blocks are supposed to be punitive.

"It's a simple notice that says, "Hey, you've inadvertently selected a username that is against our policies" That is leaving way too much, IMO, to the administrator's judgement or lack thereof. It's not the same aspect of the policy, but under that ground if you were a new account today I could consider blocking you because your username might suggest

Coke Zero, I'm promoting it. I await my check.

"If anything, I think that the policy as is should be better enforced, again, with a friendly ''I'm so sorry, but you'll need a new name.'" Which may well draw a silent response of "I'm sorry, but I'll waste my time on another website". Daniel Case (talk

) 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, as you recognize that my username is not related to a company or a product, we should probably remain focused on the specifics here. Sarcasm, too, doesn't seem helpful, but in case you're serious: you can wait for your check, but you're not likely receive it. The Coca Cola company is happy that you're willing to broadcast your appreciation of their products for free; they will even sell you t-shirts so that you can effectively advertise for them when you are not drinking their products, if you like.

Back on topic, our current policy with regards to corporate and product usernames is written very clearly: "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted.... Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." I didn't invent the concept of embedded marketing. It's a real advertisement strategy.

The first line under the box on

username policy." That said, to some users, some blocks are punitive regardless of the wording of policy. (I trust you recognize that; I'm not sure why else you would speculate that some contributors may be driven away by a technical obstruction to their contribution that asks them to choose a new username...not such a very hard process, I would think, but I gather you posit that they are either overwhelmed by the process or offended by the need.) What matters is that we communicate clearly and politely the problem and make the resolution as simple as possible. I think it's a bit extreme to presume that a contributor who signed up with the user name User:CocaColaCo is so fragile that he will take an explanation of why his name doesn't work as an offense that bars his future contributions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Offended by the need" sums it up. We are the only website I know of with as extensive a policy on usernames as we have. I don't quarrel with that; I see the need. However we must take care to enforce it in a way that recognizes that, despite what you put in front of their faces, people won't read it (Perhaps we should make that more prominent, but I've read more than a few unblock requests where people basically said they thought their business username was OK because they didn't bother to read all the way down the page to a policy we made such a substantial change to only last year) and assume that what's OK elsewhere on the Internet is OK here (an assumption that usually runs them aground on a few of our other policies as well, to be fair). Why come right out and block someone when maybe {{uw-username}} might make the point to them just as well? Maybe a potential contributor might conclude from the attention paid to what seemed to him or her to be such an innocent name that there will be all sorts of busybodies looking over his or her shoulder here, more than do actual editing, and that it won't be worth their time.

I'd very much prefer that people didn't use corporate usernames. But obviously this message does not get through effectively enough with our current policy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I know very well that people don't read all the fine print; besides that fact that I'm one of them (sheepish grin), I run into this all the time with our copyright problems board. But it seems to me that this is an issue of process, more than a problem with the policy. If the end-result is that company usernames should be blocked, why not create a delayed-action noticeboard similar to

WP:CSD#G12 from less clear cases, and that seems to work. For all I know, more sophisticated processes could also be possible that would trigger a listing if an editor continues participating if tagged with a {{uw-username}} (to save our dealing with the ones who edit once and never come back), but that goes beyond my grasp of our technology. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have

the holding pen, which could probably be adapted to that purpose (I presume someone reviews those after a few weeks and sees if they've made any edits, and removes them from the page if they haven't). We might also have a bot that could alert us if anything in the category for "usernames over which concern has been expressed" suddenly edits after initial inactivity (assuming the edit filter doesn't pick up a COI issue). Daniel Case (talk

) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That might be something to explore, if consensus of this RfC is not to change policy. If it is, it may not be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And, contributing in a useful way to Wikipedia is hard, and there's a lot to read. If they either won't read or react angrily to a very short (that's why I like softerblock, it's short) and very reasonable request, what are the odds they're going to comply with any of our other policies? - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much good faith assumed in that last clause. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• An interesting case that may be useful - there is currently a report at UAA for Enablers.asia (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). There is a website for the same name, but the user's sole edit has nothing to do with the company. Is this blockable (in line with policy) or should it be left alone (in line with usual practice)? TNXMan 11:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would soft block that, with the appropriate friendly notice. I use my own: User:Moonriddengirl/Name. It may not be intended as such, but its exactly the kind of embedded marketing we need to avoid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't block at all, just watch until and unless they actually do. I don't think everyone in the world would immediately recognize that as an organizational name (I certainly didn't). And I bet they never edit again. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed, per Moonriddengirl, and because I've never gotten an angry response to {{
  softerblock}} ... and I was the first to use it, and have used it a lot. Have any of you ever given up on a site because they asked you to choose a different username? Pulling out this or that case, such as BravoGolfHotel, doesn't settle the issue, because it's fine to allow usernames if a reasonable case can be made that they didn't know about and don't intend a connection to any company; "BravoGolfHotel" can of course be military-speak for BGH. If their name is "Spamalot Travel Co" or "Rupert Grinch and Associates" and there's a company by exactly that name, then I don't care if they claim ignorance of the company, I wouldn't believe them; so it would be better to block without asking. OTOH, I don't take a position on whether it's better to block before or after the first "questionable" promotional edit (not necessarily an edit that connects them to the company ... you don't always know, and asking our patrollers to watch all their edits for that one edit that nails the connection is not a good use of patrollers' time); there are solid arguments both ways. - Dank (push to talk
  ) 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

it's fine to allow usernames if a reasonable case can be made that they didn't know about and don't intend a connection to any company - that would imply a change to the policy, which you've said you're opposing. Care to clarify? Thparkth (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the current policy language, but no, my position doesn't imply a change to our policy, because "explicit" in "Explicit use of a name or url of a company" has been interpreted by everyone at UAA to require that the only reasonable interpretation of the name is that a company, group or website is meant. (Where we differ is that some admins require edits demonstrating a connection, some require promotional-sounding edits, and some don't require any edits if the only reasonable interpretation is that it's a company, group or website, and it "sounds promotional" to them ... I'm not one of these admins so I can't speak for their criteria.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Although I'm in favor of blocking an obvious company, group or website name if their first edits are solely promotional, I don't in fact personally do this if there's nothing definitely connecting them, I leave it alone and watch what happens, to get a sense of where we are on the issue. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you don't even follow the policy you wrote. 'Nuff said. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The diffs Daniel is referring to are actually here, and I also made an edit at the end of the month. Doesn't really support what you're saying, Daniel. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"... because I've never gotten an angry response to {{

softerblock}}..." Because, I suppose, you can't measure the people who just give the hell up since they never write you back. Non-response does not necessarily mean acceptance ... no one would say legalized racial segregation was OK until December 1, 1955. Daniel Case (talk

) 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone wanna weigh in here? Daniel seems to be getting personal, and this isn't about me. I think he's missing the point. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While I've always admired your patience with these folks, Daniel, I do think your policy is a little too forgiving. There are so many billions of possible usernames that I see no reason to stretch

our assumption of good faith beyond the bounds of reason. A username that has Company, Association, Corporation, Club, Marketing, Publicity and the like in it, is not likely to be the username of somebody with encyclopedic intentions here. If they are going to be driven away by something as gentle as the softerblock template, they are going to have trouble here anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk

17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any username that clearly implies role use as a subgroup of a larger one, for promotional purposes (such as, yes, "IBM Marketing Department") is blockable

adminitis. {{Uw-coi-username

}} exists for a reason. It is often more effective than blocking.

Support changing this policy. People should be blocked on behavior, not on anticipated behavior. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed, per
  WP:UAA
  , but in most cases I do believe it is product placement, regardless of whether any edits were made and whether or not said edits were promotional. In a lot of cases I notice these people create accounts and never make any edits -- in that case, only people scouring the new user log will see it, but it can still be interpreted as product placement.

A corporate username is not the same as (for example) drinking a brand-name beverage in public. That's a choice to consume/use a product, not a choice to write its name all over the place and proclaim how wonderful said product is, or wear its t-shirt. There are, however, grey areas. If it's an obscure company like "BravoGolfHotel," I doubt most people would notice it as product placement, and likely many people would instead think it military speak for "BGH." It does depend on the individual circumstances. It's best to just block these, though, I think. A blocked user can choose to appeal their block, can choose to change their username, or can choose to go elsewhere.

I have also seen a lot of usernames to the effect of User:FoovilleRealEstate who then go on to create their userpage or an article to the effect of "Looking to buy a home in Fooville? Call Joe Schmoe Realty at 555-555-5555 or visit our website" (et cetera). I'd argue that this too is promotional and blockable even before they create the spam, but I can understand including this kind of potential violation under perhaps a different section of username policy. Tckma (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's eminently blockable as spam. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"A corporate username is not the same as (for example) drinking a brand-name beverage in public." Indeed. If I were Coke's marketing department I'd want the username to be sigged in company colors with the logo next to it, which it couldn't be as the latter is clearly banned by our other policies. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But

Coke's marketing is probably capable of more subtlety than that. Marketers have one goal in mind: to put their product in your mind. They have an arsenal of tools to do this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First, you assume that anyone using a product name is or would be doing so at the behest of its maker. Maybe sometimes people just like a product or service? Maybe they like the sound of the words? Is it logical to assume that without even, say, looking at the user's page? For example,

User:Bali ultimate is, as far as I know, a man. Is he promoting the lingerie line? Or this? To go further in this direction, if I change my username to Always Plus with wings, without changing any details of my userpage or my editing habits, is that username promoting that product effectively? I doubt it.

For that kind of stealth marketing to work, you'd want only your product's name without a chance of the competitor showing up, and you'd probably not want it in that same boring Helvetica/Arial as the competitor's name if it did. And then there's the user behavior to worry about. I don't think Coke would be happy, if they cared, about how User:Diet Coke Drinker's editing career turned out. Daniel Case (talk

) 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. As I said above, "Even if the person who selected the name isn't promoting the company by intent, the effect is the same." Bali Ultimate is, as far as I'm concerned, similar to Jersey Wool. But User:Always Plus with wings would be a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Moonriddengirl and Orangemike. There should be no discretion based on "I didn't know", "I am not here to promote" or the like. That's the top of a slippery slope. The policy needs to be and is clear, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That line about everything looking like an exposed nail to someone with a hammer comes to mind. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support good judgment over mindless rules. First, I always expect admins to use their best judgment; second, there are a few legitimate 'group name' uses. Are we really going to tell a teacher involved in WP:WikiProject Classroom coordination that "Chemistry at Smithville High" is an unacceptable username? If a small business actually has only one owner-employee, are we actually being harmed by a username of "Joe's Bait Shop" rather than "Joe, who owns a bait shop"? Third, there are people who are being paid, as part of their regular jobs, to do things with/on/to Wikipedia. To name only one example, a couple of months ago, the Google Foundation hired a couple of professional science-editing firms to review some medicine-related articles (See the Google Project; they're apparently in the process of hiring translators for the articles.) We want to be able to identify these people, and the fact is that a username of "Joe" is not nearly as informative as "Joe with the Google Project" or "Joe at Science Editing Corp".
  As I see it, Wikipedia has three legitimate concerns here:
  1. Appearing to encourage (or at least permit) businesses to promote themselves,
  2. The use of one account by multiple individual humans,
  3. Identifying people with conflicts of interest.
• IMO, point one is minor (because the promotion is a problem, even if it's done by an editor with an innocuous/anonymous name) and is adequately addressed by admins using good judgment to compare actual editing patterns with names ("Gee, 'User:Joe's Bait Shop' keeps removing negative information from Joe's Bait Shop..."). Point two is adequately addressed by admins using good judgment to evaluate actual evidence (e.g., comments like "I didn't get that message; it must have been someone else in my office") even if the username itself indicates a single human. Point three, IMO, is a bigger issue -- and a wholesale ban on corporate-sounding names makes this task much harder, especially for less-experienced editors.
  My bottomline summary is that we need more judgment, and less mindlessness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  You're arguing for a complete change of policy (that ignores copyright issues), WAID, and I find your reasoning unconvincing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  What copyright issues? Do you believe that a sentence added to Wikipedia by "User:MyCompanyName" somehow has different copyright status than the same sentence, added in the same fashion, by the same individual human, except under the username "User:RandomUserName"? (Or did you perhaps mean to express a concern with trademarks?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  [T]here are people who are being paid, as part of their regular jobs, to do things with/on/to Wikipedia -- There are the people you describe, and then there are the people who are told to write an article on the company. (Several years ago, before I was terribly familiar with Wikipedia, I worked for a small company where a co-worker was given an assignment to write an article on Wikipedia about the company and its history. It ended up sounding quite a bit like marketing/spam. Now that I'm thinking about it, I should see if said article still exists, and mark it for speedy deletion if it does.) How do you distinguish these two types of editors? Tckma (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed with WAID that you can't escape from the need for judgment and sensitivity, but to expand on what Mike and others are saying, it could get very complicated trying to figure out who at "Chemistry at Smithville High" wrote what they wrote, and as Google will tell you, "orphan" text (text where the copyright holder is unclear) is an enormous legal headache. My understanding is that that's a sufficient reason that we can't allow role accounts, and there are other reasons. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  Why do we even care which human is "Chemistry at Smithville High", so long as there is only one human using the account? The fact that we don't know whether it's Ms Smith or Mr Jones doesn't change the copyright status at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  MRG, didn't Mike Godwin weigh in at one point on copyright issues on accounts that seem to invite editing by a group? - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I don't know. I have heard it said several times that there are copyright issues related to attribution with role accounts, but prior to Wikipedia I had never worked with copyleft licenses and the role account thing was settled well before I was aware there was such a thing (or had even registered). :) I don't know if this comes from Mike. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what the proposal exactly is here... but reading the views given, I agree with Moonriddengirl and Dank. I also find WAID's argument about "Joe at Google Project" or "joe at bait shop" unconvincing - we don't need to know these things about people from their usernames. That's what userpages are for. That said, sensitivity should be applied as appropriate - but that generally just means AGF about the user's intentions and/or that they just didn't understand the rules. Rd232 ^talk 21:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find this user's name interesting, then ... and the discussion via which it was approved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This one's not a big deal for me. There's a risk that if we tell everyone "User:Alcoa doesn't work, but User:Mark_at_Alcoa is fine", then all the promotional editors will just change their names to for instance "Mark_at_BuyMyStuff". OTOH, we don't have the copyright argument against Mark_at_Alcoa. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose permitting company names, per MRG. Bad idea. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose allowing company names, much per Moonriddengirl, with no prejudice against occasional exercise of IAR/AGF in truly ambiguous cases. Blocks are certainly not punitive, but a means to shield the project from unwelcome influences, including promotion. We need to be clear that even subtle promotion (such as the above-mentioned product placement) is unacceptable.
  sock
  02:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - A few specific questions for those commenting. How much work did you put in to making sure your intended username was not the name of a company, group or product anywhere on Earth? How would you have reacted if you had been blocked because your name matched that of a company in a different country, that you had never heard of? What do you think should happen to your account now if a new company is created that matches your username? Thparkth (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't intend that as a straw man, because the policy can be read literally to mean that no one should have a name that accidentally matches a company name; but in fact, it's a straw man, because pretty much everyone agrees and always has that names that aren't intended to match a company name are okay. That's where the "judgment" comes in that everyone is talking about. My name is Dan K., so what are the odds that my username is intended to promote dank.org, or will be seen by anyone as promotional? If you'd be more comfortable if we write this explicitly into policy, I have no objection, but I think we're already all on the same page on this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If names that "aren't intended to match a company name are OK" then the policy should say that. This is no straw man; it's a real streatch to read your interpretation into the current wording of the policy. (Bear in mind I'm saying this as someone who agrees with your interpretation). In fact the policy says the exact opposite of what we all seem to wish it said - it says since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked - in effect, if you have a name that matches a company, we will assume you're doing it deliberately to promote that company.

In my opinion, there should be no major gap between the policy as written and the actual practice that "everyone knows" is how things are done. If, as in this case, there isn't even clear agreement on what the actual practice is, it's a sign that the policy isn't just badly written, but badly developed and possibly badly thought out. In this case it is practically impossible for anyone - user, administrator, or ACC volunteer - to know for sure that a specific username doesn't violate WP:ORGNAME, and that makes it functionally pretty useless.

The questions I'm asking are designed to probe at the edges of the policy, because that's where definitions are found. I hope they don't seem overly-hypothetical. Thparkth (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your approach and your work. Sure, even if we can't define what an "acceptable username that happens to match a company" is with any precision, we can at least add to the policy that these kinds of usernames are fine if that will help you guys. Whatever works. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your second question is excellent ... this really gets to the heart of the matter. My preferred username has been rejected by any number of sites for various reasons ... it never even occurred to me to boycott the site because I didn't get the username I wanted. I can't see myself, or any of us, really, being offended by softerblock. And yet ... when I was watching the promotional (

WP:G11) queue religiously last summer, editors who posted offensively promotional material and were blocked using one username never ... not once ... created a new username and re-posted the material. Clearly, the people posting almost all of this material are here for different reasons than you and I. - Dank (push to talk

) 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this rule to produce that outcome? That is, what if we just blocked these promotion-only accounts because of their undesirable behaviors, rather than their usernames? Surely spam from "RandomUserName" is exactly as undesirable as identical spam from "MyCompanyName". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if policy said that the name wasn't important, it would still sometimes be important ... it has to be, because there are so many borderline cases, and the use of a promotional username is one more piece of evidence that can tip the scales. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Moonriddengirl, but we should feel free to ignore this provision in good-faith circumstances when it is obvious that there is no promotional intent behind a name. ThemFromSpace 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• comment. The discussion seems to steer away from the original question ("to tolerate the innocent use of obscure company, group or product names?") into blatant advertizing and product placement issues (PP mechanism usually rules out obscurity, it is for more or less public and widely available products). The prospects of removing wikipedians by registering $19.99 corporate shells are startling. Volume discounts on packages of six or more. East of Borschov 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose any change in the current wording that might allow the use of company/organization names as user names. We should not have to figure out which one is obscure/innocent/whatever and which one is not.Moreover, it is often for the obscure ones that the repeated appearance of their name in Wikipedia pages that serves as de facto advertising of their existence. Wikipedia should not be used as a billboard. Nsk92 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• On this basis, would you block
  User:Jimbo, given that Jimbo Inc. exists? You've said "We should not have to figure out which one is obscure/innocent/whatever and which one is not". Thparkth (talk
  ) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe it would be helpful to see some proposed language or at least some more specific details on what you have in mind. There are issues that need to be taken into account. As I mentioned above, today's obscure company can be tomorrow's megacorporation. Do we grandfather in the ones that are smart enough or lucky enough to register before obtaining prominence? If not, how do we know when to block? Do we block people who use the names of organizations that meet
  WP:ORG? How does one judge "innocent" intent? If User:Joe Dane's Quality Ice Creams (having overcome length issues somehow in registering) never edits the article on his company, is that innocent intent? What if he edits articles on ice creams? On American companies? On catering children's parties? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• This RFC was primarily intended to see if there is agreement that the current wording doesn't reflect actual practice, and that it would be undesirable to strictly enforce the current wording. Despite the number of people who "oppose" changing the policy, many of their comments suggest that they agree that it shouldn't be enforced as written :) This leaves me rather at a loss for how to proceed. I'll take your suggestion. Thparkth (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, as policy is written,
  User:Jimbo is not until he starts working in areas related to Jimbo Inc.. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you. I think the word "explicit" in this case carries no real meaning. All usernames are explicit. I suspect that what was intended was "unambiguous". Maybe editors would support a minor change like that? However that would still leave the problem of the assume-bad-faith "usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group" language. Thparkth (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would be comfortable with "unambiguous". I worry about the wikilawyers of the world, but we get those anyway. :) But I don't think the statement that you refer to is assuming bad faith; they do create that appearance. It doesn't say that's what is intended, but that this is how they appear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)