Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 3 April 2008

• ]

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9

IP Address as Name

Is there a specific policy on using ones IP address? I write anonymously by choice - and fully expect my edits to stand or fall on their own merits. Is my use of IP against the rules? I understand I forego the benefits of an account, but do I then get penalized as well? 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You will never be required to register an account. See meta:Foundation issues - this is one rule that will almost certainly never change. However, be aware of the following. (1) It's actually more anonymous to choose a username. Your IP address can be traced to a location by anyone, whereas if you log in you can only be traced like that by a checkuser if there's some reason to suspect abuse. (2) There are other IP contributors who contribute appropriately and are valued community members. But not many. You will do fine, probably, if you stick to a few articles and get involved in discussions with people there, but you'll do less well coming in as an outsider to a debate to offer a fresh opinion, especially if there's a heated debate. People are mistrustful of IPs. (3) Also keep in mind that some IP addresses are static whereas others are dynamic. If you have a dynamic IP address your IP will change every so often, which means your contributions will be scattered over many IP addresses, and it makes it very hard for users to look into your edit history. It's not forbidden, but in some ways it's much like sockpuppetry to use dynamic IPs without logging in. But like I said, you aren't required to register. Mangojuice 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy improvement

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

Change to:

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. Such blocked user must be notified in a courteous manner and instructed to create a new username.

This proposal is prompted by a new user LeonardoDiCaprio (talk · contribs) who clearly identified that she is a fan, not Mr. DiCaprio. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B

An administrator has explained her interpretation. This interpretation would read:

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that your real name is the same as the well-known person but that you are a different person are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

With this new proposal, I favor Proposal B. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this. I removed a comma, making it

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

The sentence specifically refers to those who share a name with a famous person. If that is unclear to some with that wording, perhaps:

You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. In such cases, you must either show that you are that person or make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

Lara❤Love 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs examples, something like:

If your name is Tom Jones or Jenna Bush, you may use that as your username. However, you must make clear on your talk page whether or not you are the famous person known by those names.

This makes clear that it's about people who share names with famous people, and does not permit a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio to use that name. --FOo (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A is too restrictive, and proposal B is confusingly worded, but LaraLove's wording sounds sensible. I support the change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ɹəədsɹ . The modified version of Proposal B is very unambiguous, and takes care of the veil that envelopes this aspect of the username policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current text to Lara's version. I think Lara's version gets it wrong in the case that the user actually is the famous person (we should stop here at saying it's okay if they really are that person, and take care of the rest sensitively and carefully in private: it's bad to suggest they "prove it" when it may be totally unclear how to do so), and it also stresses this rare case too much. Mangojuice 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see that. Yes, I could do without the "show that" part. I never particularly liked the part that blocks famous people, anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording as well. I don't see the point in changing it. My suggested possible change was just if some consensus had formed that the current wording was too ambiguous. As an aside, the next paragraph explains how to "show that you are the person". Lara❤Love 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Current wording works quite well as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove the ban on "promotional usernames"

The ban on promotional usernames is doing more harm than good. Recently, Adznet was blocked and is now undergoing an RFCN because he has a personal website with a domain name that matches his username (something which is only discouraged by this policy). Some time ago, we remember that Bravogolfhotel was blocked, because someone found out that the letters "B G H" in the NATO phonetic alphabet matched the name of a hotel in the Philippines. The "promotional" category is by far the category causing the most reports to UAA these days, often on the flimsiest of grounds. For example, a report on the username "Whiztec" is on UAA right now with the rationale "User create article Whizecargo. Assuming username stands for "Whize Technician" or similar", and people are getting reported for having names that contain portions of a rock band's name, et cetera.

I believe this situation has gone completely overboard. Nowadays, many people have personal websites or blogs with their own domain name, and it comes as no surprise that they also choose their established Internet handle as their Misplaced Pages username. If these users don't spam Misplaced Pages with links to their site, the username is no problem at all IMO. In fact, most supporters of the promotional username ban seem to agree that a promotional username is only a problem if the user actually promotes their company by creating articles, adding links, etc. In that case, it's the actual promotion that's a problem, not the fact that their username matches or alludes to the company name. Therefore, we should focus on limiting promotional editing, instead of seeing this from a username perspective, which just causes Twinkle users to Google the user creation logs and reporting anything that seems to resemble a domain name.

I therefore suggest that "promotional" be taken out of WP:U. Instead, a policy prohibiting promotional editing should be added to WP:COI. This policy could of course contain some proviso saying that an editor's username is to be considered as part of a promotional pattern, but all blocks handed out for promotion should be recorded as user conduct blocks, not username blocks. This would also cause less confusion for the users getting blocked. If someone adds biased information about their school whose name is part of their username, it's much more helpful for them to hear that "you've been blocked for adding irrelevant links to Wildforest High School to many articles" instead of "your username Wildforestguy is offensive, disruptive, confusing, misleading or promotional". Is he back? (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it should be simply taken out. However, the wording now has drifted away, without any substantive discussion, from what was discussed last year (see /Archive 9#A more moderate proposal). Basically, consensus was formed for a revision of the policy that included a caveat about promotional usernames -- namely, that such usernames should only be considered inappropriate when the user actually promotes the company or group (with edits, not just the username). This is much too subtle now -- "are used" to promote could mean anything, including having the username. This was done so that we don't conflate actual spammers with good-faith editors whose names are a bit companyish. I think we should go back to that. Mangojuice 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the user actually has to promote a company or group for a username to be considered promotional, why is it a username issue at all then? In that case, it's the promotional editing that's the problem, not the username. Is he back? (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that promotion is a problem, and that a username is seldom promotional. I'm happy for a ban of URLS as usernames; even that wouldn't have caught adznet because their username doesn't include the tld. Usernames seem to be used as something to block potential problems before they happen. It's seems odd that I could call someone a fucking cunt and get a short block, apologize, and come back, but having a username that I like and use across several websites, including my own domain, means I get blocked. ALSO usernames declaring a COI are a good thing, no? Otherwise COIs get hidden. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sort of reconsidered this. I think that users with promotional usernames who promote something should be indef blocked, but not username blocked. These users are just obvious spammers and need to be shown the door - it is not their usernames that are a problem. There might, in theory, be users who use a username that matches a company or group where it would be good to issue a username block, but in my actual experience I haven't seen it come up. I note that on CAT:RFU there are lots of examples of users who have been blocked with promotional usernames who use the {{unblock-un}} template to try to be allowed to continue editing. Generally speaking, admins aren't willing to grant that request because the problem is the promotional edits, not just the username. So it would be good if people blocked for promotional usernames would not get the {{usernameblock}} template on their talk pages. Mangojuice 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be cleared up, as the blocking of promotional usernames seems to be inconsistent with the general username policy and WP:COI. The username policy explicitly permits using another name that is appropriate. In the Blocks section of the COI guideline it states that user should be warned about COI editing and if they continue to edit in violation of the guideline they should be blocked. It is also inconsistent with WP:Suspected sock puppets. New accounts created by users who previous username was blocked as promotional are not considered sockpuppets at WP:Suspected sock puppets. So refusing unblocking the user to request a name change doesn't stop user from editing, as the user can simply create a new account. BlueAzure (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to have some standards, we can't very well let User:BuyAfilliateGoods.com be running around littering the edit histories with advertising. Misplaced Pages as a whole disallows promotion, and the username policy cannot be an exception to that. _(1 == 2) 01:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The username policy isn't the reason to block them, for the reason that Mangojuice says. You want to block them for spamming. Username blocks say "Oh, if you have the patience to do so, you can try again under another name and we'll welcome you back", and that's not the policy we want for spammers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing old signature

Hi, I changed my old username in anticipation of vanishing and I've decided to do it permanently. I'd like to change the old signatures for privacy concerns, and made a request for a bot to do it, but some people apparently object to that idea, so I was wonder if it is still acceptable for me to make the changes, or if there is some way to still get it done automatically? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it by hand if it matters that much. You could also consider an automated tool like WP:AWB. Mangojuice 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does "FrozenPurpleCode" pose a privacy concern? —Centrx→talk • 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I took it that FrozenPurpleCode is the changed username. Mangojuice 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His old username isn't his real name either. —Centrx→talk • 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as long as I can do it, I guess I'll start working on using AWB then. As for my privacy concerns, I decline to give specifics in this public forum, as that would defeat the purpose of trying to secure my privacy. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FrozenPurpleCube has changed his username from another obviously not real name and is now mass changing it throughout Misplaced Pages causing mass disruption to many pages. Most of the pages he/she is altering are archived pages, deletion reviews and the like but there is also a mass changing of other users comments where they reference his/her old name. All to no avail as a single look at any one of their edits will show the former username quite clearly and actually cause people to look more carefully than otherwise. Canterbury Tail talk 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I'm afraid I don't see the problem, or why it's necessary to bring it up here. Are you suggesting some other solution? If so, what? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have not bothered to change the old instances. I wasn't even interested in your old username, but I found out because a bunch of old AfDs I had on my watchlist got changed. There's no good way to remove all trace anyway. Mangojuice 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A question

I can neither fly, nor am I an idiot. (at least I think I'm not) Does my username constitute misleading? Am I going be blocked? --( fi ) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to reduce the size of your signature, it should not make the line taller. _(1 == 2) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we still have "confusing usernames"? Is it just a pre-block for disruption?

Well. A while ago I brought up the idea of no longer blocking "confusing usernames", as it is hard to see how a username could be so confusing that the user behind it needs to be indefinitely blocked (instead of asked to change their name). Remember that users who vandalize or make personal attacks (bigger problems than mildly confusing someone) get polite talk messages and multiple chances. When I brought it up before, I got bogged down in a mass of different opinions about why we have that in the policy and withdrew from the discussion for a while. My previous discussion has, apparently, disappeared without even being archived. Shrug.

We have a bot (HBCNameWatcherBot) that goes around suggesting that you might want to block people for having repeated letters in their username or even just repeating a short sequence of letters three times. After bringing this up on WT:UAA, I removed these cases from the bot's blacklist, but The Anome restored them with this comment:

I've re-added the typing pattern regexps to the blacklist. Whilst there is nothing offensive about typing-pattern usernames, they fail to meet the username policy requirements in two ways:

• confusion: typing-pattern names like sdsdfjs, sdlfjssdj, sdfjsdlj (just for example) are difficult to remember or distinguish from one another; similarly with (for example) lololololololol and lololololol or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee vs. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
• disruption: long experience has shown that users with typing-pattern usernames generally do not intend to use their accounts for constructive purposes

I find this highly objectionable, of course. The biggie is that we are not Minority Report. We don't block people for disruption that they seem likely to do but they haven't done yet. And I fail to see why a polite comment wouldn't be a better way to tell someone it's not a great idea to be named "eeeeeeeeeeeee".

A bit of an opinion poll, then:

• Are there people here who actually support The Anome's suggestions (that you should block people if their usernames are "difficult to remember" or imply that they might be disruptive in the future)?
• Should HBCNameWatcherBot be implicitly endorsing The Anome's version of the username policy by posting such names to WP:UAA?
• Are these the only reasons we keep "confusing usernames" around in the policy, or are there better ones?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)