Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 5 January 2016

• WP:RFC/NAME
• WP:RFCN

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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.

MenstrualCup

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: All edits made by this account for the few minutes it was active eight years ago have been deleted, no further action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

MenstrualCup (talk · contribs)

Gross and disgusting (yes I am old-fashioned) userpage name created many years ago. The editor in question has never made a single edit, and only left smiley face emotikons behind, which hold undue value for certain other editors, apparently. I tried to have the userpage and talkpage removed by speedy deletion but this was contested. It is an embarrassment for Misplaced Pages that this garbage remains (see ). Quis separabit? 16:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree the name's offensive but I declined the CSDs to their userpage and talkpage (and also removed my ufaa report) as they've not edited since 2008 so I find blocking them would be pointless now (It's unlikely they'll come back but if by a miracle they do then they'll probably be blocked), Their only 2 edits here were to add a smiley face to their userpage and to their talkpage and that's it.... But that's just my 2¢(Pinging Panyd who also removed the CSDs from both pages). –Davey2010 16:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. User hasn't edited since 2008, Whats to be done ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor correction to above comments re "User hasn't edited since 2008", from my search by contributions the user never edited except to add emotikons to the user and talk pages. Why is this garbage so sacred? Nuke it! Quis separabit? 16:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why even bring this up? This name is probably getting more attention now since it was created. I sure never saw it until this discussion. HighInBC 16:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the pages with the reason IAR - Any admin may undelete, if they see value in that. If an admin thinks that this page existing helps Misplaced Pages somehow they can restore it with my blessing, but I think it is better if we all work on something else. HighInBC 16:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the username because the CSD was simply a case of U5 and I didn't think a smiley face warranted that qualified under that criteria. It's an emoticon for pete's sake, not sure why you'd kick up such a stink. Panyd 16:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the name's offensive - it's a hygiene product - and they've not edited since 2008. "Why even bring this up?" indeed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have to ask this Rms125a@hotmail.com how on earth did you even find the name ? ... Was you looking for everything that had the name "Menstrual" 'cos if you were ... that's pretty weird!. Ah well may aswell be closed now. –Davey2010 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I am afraid I have had the misfortune of coming across such other doozies as Menstrual and Dear Diarrhœa, the former of which I took care of and the latter I reported at ANI. It was in checking the status of the former (knowing that history often repeats itself) that I came across this case, but I assure you I derive no pleasure from it. I am also a lot older (51) than all of you (possibly combined) and from a different generation so maybe that's why I am more intolerant of this stuff than you are. Quis separabit? 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

Walking Talking Stephen Hawking

Walking Talking Stephen Hawking (talk · contribs)

The user was requested on his talk page in October 2015 by the editor Jakob to consider an alternative username because it may imply affiliation with Stephen Hawking and/or offend Hawking. The user did not appear to respond to that request or make a comment regarding the username on the talk page. I did however notice on the revision history of the talk page that the user removed a block notice (no longer active) from his or her talk page. The user was given a temporary block in November 2015 for persistent vandalism. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem changing my username, but how do I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walking Talking Stephen Hawking (talk • contribs)

• @Walking Talking Stephen Hawking: See the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Csumbnews

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: blocked by Dianna. FYI, this is the sort of blatant violation tat can go through WP:UAA Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Csumbnews (talk · contribs)

This is to be a role account representing California State University, Monterey Bay as confirmed by this edit. ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

Liberalarmb

Liberalarmb (talk · contribs)

I issued a {{uw-username}} warning on September because I noticed this username seemed too similar to that of User:Liberalartist. The user has now recently edited, so I thought I would bring it here. --TL22 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Allow The two names are easily distinguishable. I believe that criteria is only for names that are so close that one appears to be imitating the other, or where it is reasonable that they would nearly always be mistaken for the other user. For example, if it was "Liberalart1st" I'd agree it was probably no good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - Usernames are not too similar, no issue. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - Sufficiently distinct. HighInBC 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow - I wrote this in October in response to User:ToonLucas22's {{uw-username}} warning from September: "I want to presume good faith, but I think User:ToonLucas22 was right to have some concern. Since your first edit to Misplaced Pages seems to have been the AfD proposal for 8x8, and I had objected to the PROD of 8x8 shortly before that, it seems like the similarity of our usernames might confuse people. Perhaps you could explain your thoughts?"
  User:Liberalarmb has not responded. I might be persuaded to change my view if Liberalarmb does explain any significance they attach to the name (e.g. my user name is partially a play on the liberal arts) and/or engage in discussion about ways to mitigate confusion, but in the absence of that, my concerns still stand.
  In particular, I would note that the recent editing ToonLucas22 refers to above seems to have been, according to User talk:Liberalarmb#About PRODs (again), "revert procedural PROD removal recently … restor the PROD added 2 months ago along with its timestamp." According to Special:Contributions/Liberalarmb, this was the only edit Liberalarmb has made, ever, other than on September 19, which (to repeat myself) was shortly after I had objected to the PROD in question on August 23.
  I want to be sure that Liberalarmb, especially as a new user, has every opportunity to explain their thoughts, but I think the circumstances may indicate a somewhat heightened level of review. LiberalArtist (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor For Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: name changed Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor For Misplaced Pages (talk · contribs)

This username could suggest that the user is employed by Misplaced Pages or otherwise has some sort of official capacity or role here, suggested by the "for Misplaced Pages" in the name. I will note that the name was listed at UAA but no action was taken. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

.

• I would say it's borderline at the worst. The relevant policy section says user should not have "Usernames including phrases such as "wikipedia", "wikimedia", "wiktionary", "(WMF)", or similar if they give the incorrect impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects." (emphasis added) I suppose it's possible that someone completely unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages and therefore unaware that it is written and maintained by volunteers could therefore be misled by the name of this user, if they happen to look at one or the other of the two edits they have made so far, but frankly it doesn't seem like it's worth the trouble of a formal proceeding here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is also common courtesy to inform a user that you have opened one of these discussions, which I have now done for you. You also ordered them to change it even though by your own admisssion you've already been turned down by the admins at UAA, that's not very honest. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to note that the user in question had requested a username change to "Editor Michael". --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 01:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Coonic17

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Allow Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Coonic17 (talk · contribs)

Contains the racial slur "coon". I have discussed this with the user, who responds that the username is an amalgamation of her last name and her husband's first name. However, I still see "coon" very prominently everytime I see this username. I believe many others will see it this way, causing a disharmonious editing environment. Belchior90 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow; there are dozens of innocuous words that contain the letters 'coon', and this pseudonym does not appear to use the letters in manner intended to be offensive. –xeno 22:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow - Good faith editor registered under a WikiEd University course. Just because a string in the username matches an offensive word or might be perceived as inappropriate to some users, we shouldn't forbid it. For eg., I see the string "belch" every time I come across your username, that does not mean the username is against policy. - 185.108.128.13 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also request you to be more lenient with leaving notes to new users based on their usernames being flagged by DeltaQuad's blacklist. For e.g.:

"Dalton spearman", may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because "spearman" is often used as a derogatory term towards African natives.

"Marcgriefer", may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because in gaming slang a "griefer" is an aggressive player that gets their kicks from disrupting others.

These are evidently names of people and posting these messages to their talk page in the absence of any bad faith edits might turn these new editors away from the project. - 185.108.128.13 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow; I'm assuming good faith on the part of the editor. What reason does anyone have to disbelieve her explanation? clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Provisionally allow but if the editor starts to regularly edit in topic areas that touch on racism in the United States or the history of race in the United States then caution her that her username may be considered offensive enough in that context that she may be asked or required to change her signature or even her username. Also, if there is good reason to stop "assuming good faith" (and I don't see any), then disallow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My concern is that "coon" is at the very start of the username, making this slur very prominent. It will be the first syllable people see when reading this username. Also, I see that many argue that the user is in good faith. However, this discussion is about their username, not their edits. We would not allow a user called "Cuntic17", no matter how good-faith their edits were, and "coon" is equally offensive to blacks. The user could easily change name to e.g. "Cnic17", or even "Raccoonic17", which would keep the meaning, but avoid incorporating a racist slur. Belchior90 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow Obviously. Lack of good faith to drag this here after the user has already explained the name. Widr (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow. If it was "coon" alone, there would probably be an issue, but we would be stretching to disallow the name on this basis in its current form. NTox · talk 04:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow This way lies the abyss of the Scunthorpe problem. HighInBC 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: no consensus, defaulting to allow. User is encouraged to continue finding ways to make his choice of username less confusing for his fellow editors.Aervanath (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk · contribs)

There has been discussions about my username (for example on Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Cryptocurrency_wallets and Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Proposal_to_set_a_limit_on_characters_in_a_user_name). However I see no clear consensus. I thus self-submit this request for wider community input to gain consensus. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow Not the most memorable name, but other than that, I don't think it's a violation. Widr (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• I would usually just ignore such a username. While I think it violates WP:UNCONF and I do not find linking to a crypto wallet (if it is one) to be in good taste, I support giving productive editors a large bit of leeway in the interpretation of the rules. However, I do not wish to help setting a precedent that a name like this is a good idea (if you really force me to say yea or nay, I will reluctantly vote disallow). Please consider changing your username to something shorter or more easily memorisable. —Kusma (t·c) 15:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However I have chosen that this will be my last username, and I will not be changing it. The ability to securely sign messages via ones username is the main reason. Of course, I will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. If that means I am indefinately blocked, then my Misplaced Pages editing career will be at a close. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Special case If this username had been around for months or years I would say "at least grandfather". But it's only been around less than a month, so I'm going to echo Kusma's advice to change your name, if for no other reason that doing otherwise would seem to be disruptive/WP:POINTY, which isn't good for collaboration. Given the newness of the account, if forced to choose, I would choose "disallow" as well. Be a gentleman and realize that 1) your recent decision to use this username is causing problems, 2) even if you turn out to be technically correct, going out of your way to shut down/short-circuit disruption is a very good thing, and 3) you will be able to collaborate much easier if people aren't distracted by such usernames. By the way, I've "been there" - at one time I had a signature (not a username) which was considered disruptive to the point that administrators got involved and basically forced me to change it. Upon reflection, they were in the right and I was in the wrong. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Update: at the very least, change your signature to something much shorter. "1Wiki8" will do. If you use a shorter signature but don't change your username, I highly recommend registering the shorter-signature as a "non-editing/non-emailing" declared-alternative-account just so nobody else starts using the name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting idea in the update, I may be amenable to that. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is an example of a username which is easily confused with related usernames and could be used to (not accusing - just devil's-advocating) obscure human discrimination of sockpuppets or damaging similar accounts. My concern is that "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" could not be readily distinguished from "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8hHdNYwDVstR" by inspection, though it would be readily apparent to be distinct by any reasonable comparison script. If that example was too easy, consider "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" vs. "lWiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR"; or "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" vs. "1Wiki8O5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a relevant factor. Yes, it is possible that somebody might make a username which was visually similar, on inspection. Even without a registered account, it is easy to mis-use the wiki-syntax permitted by talkpage-technology, to "impersonate" another person, simply by cutting and pasting:

This very sentence was not written by 1Wiki8, and this 'signature' is a forgery that in fact links to 75.108's userspace, not to 1Wiki8's userpage. (not)1Wiki8...........................

More importantly, it is just as possible to mis-use the unicode support wikipedia provides, so that it can have multiple-language-wikis, to perform visual-impersonation of normal useranmes. Compare this bluelink:

User_talk:Ceyockey ... the real one

with this redlink:

User_talk:Ceyοckey ... hypothetical impersonator

The difference is that one of the usernames is ASCII and one of the usernames contains the greek glyph for the greek letter omicron. Anybody can create the latter account, and visually-impersonate you, just as anybody could create a similar username to 1Wiki8, and impersonate them with a similar-sig-styling. If such occurs, the impersonating human will be blocked, not the victim of the impersonation. As for the potential confusion, actual in-the-wild experience with machine-generated IP6 'usernames' in political articles has proven that similar-but-not-that-similar machine-generated but not-mathematically-randomized 'usernames' are not ACTUALLY confusing. Sure, I can see that the potential for confusion exists, but the exact same potential for confusion and impersonation also applies to existing username and anon conventions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow It is certainly confusing as it is just a stream of nonsense. While confusing names aren't prohibited they are discouraged, and this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen. It also seems it is advertising this user's identity so that you can give them money, which is another borderline policy violation. That's enough for me to believe that it should be changed. It would be nice if you could voluntarily do that and not threaten to take your ball and go home if the name is disallowed, but if that's how you feel about it, so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your expanded commentary, below in the McGeddon section. It is not nonsense, nor in practice is it confusing. True, it is 'linked' (not hyperlinked) to an off-wiki psuedonym but that is perfectly within policy and plenty of usernames do exactly that: by including the company-name-as-a-suffix, or by using their facebook-username here on-wiki, or simply by choosing User:ThisIsMyFullLegalNameInRealLife for their wiki-uid. I have good reasons to think that what 1Wiki8 is attempting here, could be extremely valuable for wikipedia in the long-term, if the bugs and kinks can be worked out; don't block it as WP:BADIDEA, unless you really do understand the idea, please. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow as WP:UNCONF. (I'd actually raised this issue unrelatedly on the user's talk page earlier today after encountering their username somewhere, and chanced across this thread while brushing up on username policy.) The user explained that having the public key in their username (rather than their user page or signature) made their edits more secure and authenticable and allowed "verifiable messaging", but seemed unwilling or unable to explain what any of that actually meant. I can't see that it's achieving anything beyond being a cute Bitcoin address with the word "wiki" in it, and slightly inconveniencing any editors who encounter it in edit histories, or who want to make a direct reference to the username. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: actually I was very explicit that it was only in context of secure signing of messages, nothing about "edits more secure". -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You were actually very vague and evasive and I still don't understand what "messages" you're talking about. If this username somehow makes it easier for you to communicate with other Bitcoin users (if that's what you mean), then that should be balanced against how much more difficult it makes it for other Misplaced Pages users to communicate with you. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I still think the best suggestion is to add a section about message signing to Draft:Bitcoin address, so everyone can understand and there is no misinformation being bandied about. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How will that make your username and signature more comprehensible to the community at large? Will everyone be expected to read that page before responding to any message from you? Can you honestly not see how changing your username to something that isn't a string of random gibberish might be a better solution? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That was for McGeddon, so he/she can learn about message signing and then we can have a more level and understandable conversation. As for 'random gibberish', I absolutely refute that statement from you. It's already well established my username is a public key and not random, and not gibberish. Thanks and happy editing! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that 13-word placeholder article section doesn't help me understand anything. Could you try to write a simple comment here saying why you want this particular 33-character username, and how you feel its benefits outweigh the WP:UNCONF inconvenience to other editors? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to come down off the ledge. It may be already established that you claim your username is a public key, but it is still a string of random gibberish in that it was randomly generated and has absolutely no coherent meaning to a human being. I don't see how it's even possible to "absolutely refute" that. Your name is terrible. It is impossible for normal human to remember, it is excessively long, and it is arguably spam for your activities on other websites. It's not the end of the world, and actually it would reflect very well on you if you agreed to change it to something that at least vaguely resembles words of some sort instead of a string of nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox, part of the trouble is linguistic; you are using 'random' in the everyday sense, but 1Wiki8 is interpreting that terminology you are using in the mathematically-random sense. It is not mathematically-random, it is excruciatingly-non-random. Agree that it appears everyday-random, at least, to people that are not familiar with computerized crypto. Personally, being familiar with such things, I immediately recognized the username for what it was: a crypto-hash. I even suspected it was bitcoin, due to the context, but that was just a guess, it could have been any 'random' MD5-like hash. Consider this string which appears to be everyday-random gibberish, to the non-initiated:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names&action=submit

Sure, there are words in there, but it is mostly gibberish, until you understand (or are at least somewhat familiar with) the idea of the world wide web and the address-bar. If you have a detailed understanding of querystrings and the HTTP(S) protocol and DNS-based domain names and PHP programming, then the gibberish is 100% recognizable as a URL intended to invoke some server-side processing, and as a programmer, I can guess with reasonable exactness the specifics of that server-side code, just from the parameterized URL. Point being, just because some people recognize only gibberish, does not imply that actual gibberish is all there is.

  As for your blunt assertions, that the username is 'terrible' and probably intended as spam, which if true *would* be serious policy-violation of WP:NOTSTUPID and WP:NOTPROMOTION respectively, I'll be equally blunt: you don't know what you are talking about. If you did know, you would not say such things, because the things you are saying are not even wrong. The relevant snippet of the policy-page is this:

In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

As it happens, what 1Wiki8 is attempting, turns out not to be a terrible idea. The 'reasons' being presented, for why it is a terrible idea, mostly stem from Not Understanding The Idea At All.

  Sure sure, we have a policy that usernames cannot be simply the name of a company, partly because those tend to be promotional SPA's, but primarily because those tend to be edited by multiple people, which is a (theoretical) violation of the copyright legalese in the clickwrap. (By their nature bitcoin addresses tend to be unique-per-human; if there is evidence this specific bitcoin address is one of the rare multiple-person-ones, then it ought to be changed, but those are so rare I've never seen one, merely heard they are theoretically possible.) In any case, it is perfectly within policy, for a person named John Smith who owns the Smith Plumbing & GutterCleaning Service with the facebook homepage of SmithPlumbing123 and the website www.SPGC.com to have the username User:jsmith_spgc or even User:jsmith_SmithPlumbing123. These may indirectly "link" the motivated reader to an external URL, the domain name and/or their facebook-page respectively, of the human John Smith... but it is a very weak linkage, and does not count as WP:SPAM, nor as WP:SPIP. There are plenty of people with User:alyssaHacker_(WMF) usernames, right? Those are not spammer-usernames, either, but perfectly legit ones.

  I've personally dealt with two BLP-articles in the past month, where the COI-encumbered human that was the topic of the article, created a wikipedia-username that was their full legal name... both of whom were indef-blocked by admins on 'procedural' grounds! They've since managed to get themselves unblocked, but with a sour taste in their mouths, that wikipedia lies when it says WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I'm getting that same taste in my mouth, here at this 'discussion' of usernames, as I got at the other you-must-be-a-spammer-because-you-are-using-a-name-that-is-also-used-outside-wikipedia blocking incidents. If you're gonna block 1wiki8 for climbing the reichstag, please go ahead, but that would be far better than forcing them to change their apparently-quite-potentially-useful-for-wikipedia-to-those-who-understand-the-ramifications-of-strong-crypto username, because you personally think it is 'terrible'. Not to put too fina a point on it, but I must say, it would reflect very well on you, ahem, dear Beeblebrox, if you were to accept my absolutely conclusive refutation of your incorrect assertions, and decide not block 1Wiki8 aka User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. Also please don't block me either.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:McGeddon, if you'd like a more verbose explanation, that expands on the correct-but-terse explanation that 1Wiki8 already gave you, I am happy to expound upon my usertalk with you, about the intricacies and benefits, in terms of "security" of the various parties involved. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A one-paragraph layman's overview in this talk thread would be fine. I just don't understand how a username of 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR is any more "secure" (in whatever non-Misplaced Pages messaging sense 1Wiki8 keeps talking about) than a less WP:UNCONF username of 1Wiki8 editing "hello my bitcoin address is 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" onto their own userpage. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I note you originally asked for a one-sentence attempt.  :-)     That is beyond my capabilities as a prose-author. I will try to be brief, but this is a complicated subject. Two-sentence summary: only the edit-history on-wiki is technologically difficult to edit, thus the crypto-hash must be in the username, so that when 1Wiki8 types ~~~~ the said crypto-hash will be automagically stored in a secure-from-most-other-wikipedians-including-anons location. Normal plaintext-on-a-userpage is NOT secure, because WP:ANYONE can edit that, but WP:EDITHISTORY isn't so easy to fiddle with. Few-paragraph 'brief' explanation:

So far as I know, the *only* way to implement high-tech features like that one, of provably-secure account-compromise-recovery (and others like it), is exactly the way 1Wiki8 is doing it, with the crypto-hash right in the username. Mayhap there are some further small tweaks that can be accomplished, but having the crypto-hash embedded direct in the username, is a "security" feature in quite a few ways. The above explanation is just a sampling, but convincing to me. Wish I'd thought of it, actually, but in any case glad somebody thought of it.  :-)     p.s. And sure, some of my suggestions are 'theoretical' and will not be useful in a practical way during 2015; some of the specific uses that 1Wiki8 envisions are already useful to them, o'course, and my suggestions can all be retroactively applied. Well, iff the mathematically-strong-username idea is not disallowed, that is. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So okay: it's like a regular {{user committed identity}} template that editors are already encouraged to put on their user pages, except by putting it in full in the username it guards against an attacker manipulating that user page's history (eg. a rogue administrator deleting that revision). But such a malicious deletion could be easily verified by other admins, and reversed.

If your account is compromised and you know that you once posted a {{user committed identity}} to your userpage, this is enough to re-secure the account: you tell an administrator that you once posted an identity hash, they look at the user page history (even if an attacker has changed and/or revdel'd your original hash in the mean time), they find it, they check that it matches your private key and they restore your account to you. Having the hash in the username merely saves them a couple of clicks at this point.

I suppose you're protected against a hypothetically obscure attack where someone is able to gain undetected access to the Misplaced Pages servers and completely invisibly edit your {{user committed identity}}, yet is somehow unable to edit usernames directly. (If they could edit usernames you could rely on Misplaced Pages mirrors and backups to support your claim, but you could do the same if the hash were in your signature smallprint instead of your username.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mhmmm... if the adversary can manipulate the page-history in arbitrary fashion (any modification not merely overlining), then only someone with access to unaltered backup-tapes at the WMF could detect the fraud, in the short term (next month or two). But in the long term, as long as 1Wiki8 does not get attacked by an adversary that is either a WMF dev or indistinguishable therefrom (i.e. major governmental espionage agency), within a few months there will be off-wiki archives that confirm the original 1Wiki8 pubkey, spread all across the internet (archive.org as well as specialist wiki-backup-sites). So in mid-2016, if there is a stolen laptop in 1Wiki8's future, say, the adversary will have their email and their wikipedia-password and all their datafiles... but will not have 1Wiki8's private-key (stored in a safe deposit box on a usbkey or stuffed in a mattress engraved in the edge of a gold doubloon or whatever ;-)     and the human behind 1Wiki8 will be able to mathematically prove that *they* and not the adversary are the true 1Wiki8. But the key is that, most wikipedians can edit sigs, and userpages, but 99.4% of wikipedians cannot manipulate the edit-history... that is where the "security" of having the crypto-hash right in your username comes in, very very few highly-trusted people can manipulate that username once you've clicked save.

  The main flaw in the scare-quoted "security" is that strong-arm mafia tactics not only work just fine, they are also much cheaper than inventing a quantum computer. Anyways, most of the "security" is hypothetical, even without the five-dollar-wrench-breach... simply because in 2015, the average wikipedia admin would not know that the true 1Wiki8 could be trusted, because the mathematics of pubkey proof-of-identity is too obscure. The real advantage is, in the short run, exactly what 1Wiki8 wants: ability to type four tildes, and get every edit they make associated with a well-known pubkey (no PKI needed! wikipedia and to a lesser extent bitcoin provide all the tools and all the automation), which can optionally be digitally signed, as authentication that The One True 1Wiki8 was responsible.

  But I emphasize, there are many potential ramifications here, beyond the convenient-digisig-capability, and the hypothetical-proof-of-who-the-true-1Wiki8-is-post-laptop-theft. I would like to see 1Wiki8 be allowed to blaze a trail into the cryptographically-strong-username territory, because I think wikipedia may see some long-term benefits by doing so. In other words, please bangvote allow, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:THETRUTH.  :-)     In the worst case, this innovation will turn out to be a flop, and future requests to have 'gibberish' usernames can be disallowed, whilst 1Wiki8something and the i9Q79something person (see comments at the "Usernames should henceforth be 20 bytes max" thread) and the other relatively-rare extant usernames of that sort can be grandfathered in, iff and when.

  p.s. And no, it is not just about saving a couple of clicks... it is about having fewer types' of private-keys one must keep track of. 1Wiki8 *already* has to have a well-tuned security system for their bitcoin private-keys using existing cryptocurrency wallet apps and such. By having their wikipedia-username be Yet Another Bitcoin Address, 1Wiki8 can use the exact same advanced infrastructure they are already using for securing 'money' with the exact same software-tools and such, to also secure their wikipedia-digisig-persona "for free". Plus, there are some (mostly theoretical) security holes in the way wikipedia does user-committed-identity, as well; I see those as minor issues, but 1Wiki8 thinks they are not so minor, and it is certainly the case that bitcoin's security-proofs were designed with much 'bigger goalposts' in mind than the WMF's committed-identity-thing. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your concern about attackers being able to edit talk signatures and userpages assumes that an admin recovering an account would blithely take the latest version of a userpage at face value when checking a hash, and just toss the case out when it didn't match. They would obviously check the page's history.

I'm not saying that 1Wiki8 should use a different SHA-1 hash in a {{user committed identity}} template, they could put the Bitcoin address on their userpage instead (or in their signature if they wanted it to appear every time they typed "four tildes".) --McGeddon (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow It is effectively gibberish. While it is a public key, it is a public key for a bitcoin account and essentially a donation link. We generally don't allow people to put up links where you can send them money, and that is what your name is. While bitcoin public keys can be used for signature, this one is receiving at least a little money. HighInBC 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is completely incorrect. WP:TOS literally requires people that are editing wikipedia articles for money, to disclose their employer. It is disclosed on their userpage, and on the talkpage-templates of every article they edit for pay. Furthermore, even for editors that ARE NOT editing articles as wiki-consultants, it is perfectly allowed to have a link to your external homepage, from your wikipedia page. See also my comment above to beeblebrox, about using an on-wiki username that could conceivably be 'linked' to an off-wiki identity like your full legal name, or an off-wiki homepage like your facebook-uid. The use of a bitcoin-address, in a username, is not "generally disallowed" because theoretically somebody could find 1Wiki8 and figure out how to send them money. Sheesh. If there is evidence, or even suspicion, that 1Wiki8 is getting paid money for editing some article, then just add their username to the {{connected_contributor_(paid)}} template on the article-talkpage. If there is evidence, or even suspicion, that 1Wiki8 has a close connection, then instead use {{connected_contributor}}. This reminds me of AfD discussions where deleting the article because one of the contributors to the article is suspected of COI; blocking the human because theoretically somebody could figure out their real-life identity and contact them off-wiki and MAYBE EVEN give them money... and who knows whether some of that hypothetical moolah MIGHT JUST BE SUBVERTING all that is pure and good here on the 'pedia... well, such a block would be, sub-optimal, to put it mildly. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am hesitant to argue that we should go so far as to block this name (per WP:UNCONF, we try to reserve admin actions for 'more serious' violations, if you will), but I definitely think the editor should pursue a rename. This username is very confusing and impossible to remember without study. I think any name that takes substantial effort to remember should be discouraged. NTox · talk 04:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Allow, maybe even strong allow, as identical-level-of-apparently-but-not-actually-"gibberish" to editing as anon via IPv6. See WP:IP and WP:ANYONE. My own present 'username' of 75.108.94.227 is not easy to remember... but nobody has trouble conversing with me via talkpages. Note that my IP4 dotted-quad 'username' is actually relatively simple and easy to remember, compared to the increasingly-common IP6 usernames that many internet providers are giving there customers.

That said, I believe creating the doppleganger would satisfy many of the commenters here, such as User:davidwr who suggested something along those lines already. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Meh, Allow we don't need to turn every subtle rise in the topography into a hill to die on --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note: Interesting suggestions in this thread. I created User:1Wiki8 as an in-active alternative account, with User talk:1Wiki8 redirecting to my 'real' talk page . -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not and do not intend to read the long walls-of-text above, but personally I think this solution is close enough to assuage my concerns and I think we can all just back away and let it go now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me.  :-)     You need not read them o'course. If you see hundreds and hundreds of usernames like this in five years, then my hunch was right about the value of this idea long-term, and if not, well, no harm no foul, 1Wiki8 at least, is now easy-to-type. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@1Wiki8:, gracias for that fix, which makes your username (one of them ;-)   easy to type.

p.s. May want to make sure that echo-notifications an such for your doppleganger are properly being received, and if you have linked your email via Special:Email make sure it also works from the WP:DOPPLEGANGER, and so on. Also a good idea to watchlist the userpage / usertalk / contribs of the secondary account, to make sure nothing happens to it (or from it) without your 'main' username being notified. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow - Per Beeblebrox Mlpearc (open channel) 13:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Errr... User:Mlpearc, following the creation of User:1Wiki8 as a linked-account WP:DOPPLEGANGER, I believe User:Beeblebrox has changed their position to "sheesh" and/or "we can all back away now" , please see diff at 00:44, 30 September 2015. Of course, you are free to bangvote disallow per Beeblebrox's original reasoning, if you wish, but in case you hadn't seen their latest comment, I figured I would mention it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have read the collapsed boxes above and while I'm seeing that there is a small amount of increased security with using this username, I fail to see how such extreme lengths to go to are necessary. Firstly, to even RevDel something requires that a user be granted the sysop right, which is not easy to come by and shows that the community trusts this person; secondly, RevDel can easily be reversed. To do anything more extreme than this (e.g. actually changing someone's username in an edit history), one would need to be—in the words of IP 75.108...—"a WMF dev with direct access to the servers at the mediawiki level". Surely these people can be trusted, and even if they can't, they have the power to edit usernames which would render 1Wiki8's long username pointless anyway. Additionally, I do not see that 1Wiki8 has any reason for needing any more security: their account does not have sysop, 'crat, oversight etc. rights or even rollback. While I would not wish to block anyone, I would *really* think this problem would be solved if 1Wiki8 just made User:1Wiki8 their primary account; the minor theoretical benefits to this username are outweighed by the far more likely problems of (a) a lot of fuss being made over the username, (b) a lot of people having to waste time copying and pasting the username and (c) the fact that any page history with such a long stream of pseudo-random characters is difficult to read and far from aesthetically pleasing. — Bilorv_(talk) 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  User:Bilorv, thanks for plowing through. Agree that issue#A is intractable, at least until crypto-hash-usernames become 'normal' or at least non-unusual; 1Wiki8 suffers from more flak because they are the first such username. Also agree issue#C is intractable, though as mentioned already, 33-byte crypto-hash-username isn't any worse than 39-byte IPv6 anon-usernames. Would my suggested sig-tweaks dubbed (opt_C) or maybe (opt_B), solve the cut-n-paste problem you mention as issue#B perhaps? Your proposal, that 1Wiki8 just utilize the doppleganger as their 'primary' account, is less than satisfactory, because it requires the human behind 1Wiki8 to maintain passwords for both, and logout/login/logout to digisig a particular edit. 1Wiki8 seems to be mostly interested in the ease-of-digisig feature, and to a lesser extent, to the consolidation-of-password-toolchains. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  Issue (b) is still a problem whether the signature is hidden in the edit window or available from clicking on the signature or even displayed fully in the signature itself. People have to copy and paste the long username when trying to address or ping 1Wiki8. It's not usually too much bother, but for instance right now I don't have a mouse, and I wouldn't think mobile users have a chance. You also say that the username isn't "any worse than 39-byte IPv6". No, it isn't, but IPv6 users are also annoying and undesirable and one of the great advantages of creating an account is that you no longer have to have a long un-aesthetic IP handle. — Bilorv_(talk) 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  User:Bilorv, please note that you can just @1Wiki8: now, which is their WP:DOPPLEGANGER, right? No cut-n-paste needed there. Typing User:1Wiki8 also works to alert them, methinks. Virtual keyboards suck for punctuation, sure, but that's true no matter what one's username might be. We'll have to agree to disagree about the desirability of IPv6 anons as editors. p.s. For what I've just said to work, does require that the human behind User:1Wiki8 doppleganger configure the send-my-echo-notifications-to-me-via-email feature, since they won't usually be logged in as User:1Wiki8, but rather as User_talk:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. p.p.s. I did have to cut-n-paste that crypto-hash-username, just now, but cut-n-paste is *only* going to be necessary in meta-discussions like this one, not in regular editing-and-article-talkpage-scenarios. My suggested opt_C merely makes the doppleganger more discoverable, in 1Wiki8's talkpage sig. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment regarding who can change the name in an edit history: Anyone who can rename a global account can cause the name in an edit history to change, as doing the first does the second automatically. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  So, about 70 users? — Bilorv_(talk) 19:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Off-wiki evidence at archive.org and other wikipedia-backup-sites would likely thwart any attempted global-rename-attack by those ~70 people, as would judicious use of edit-histories that showed the rename; ditto for revdel which is available to ~700 people. More worrisome... though like homoglyphs applicable to all usernames not just crypto-hash-usernames... are the roughly ~~7 people who can perform a password-reset at the mediawiki level (or a single-edit-username-modification), and then hide the traces that such low-level dev-actions were ever performed, leaving only the maliciously-attributed-edits visible. As Bilorv notes, though, *those* people can-slash-must be trusted. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  But archive evidence could protect user pages from deletion just as easily – have 1Wiki8 write their username on their userpage and they have the same level of security. Sure, the page can be deleted, but it could be mirrored all over the web. You can even force Wayback Machine or other archive sites to archive the page manually, just to make sure it gets mirrored. — Bilorv_(talk) 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  True... for their on-wiki security. The advantage of crypto-hash-in-the-username is a small but non-zero bump in one's on-wiki security (i.e. every message can be digisig'd), coupled with a significant software-toolchain-consolidation for one's off-wiki infrastructure -- since 1Wiki8 already *has* pubkey management stuff in place (public-key software toolchain and private-key paper wallet and digisig procedures/tools and disaster-recovery plans and such), it makes their life much easier to treat the security of their wikipedia-persona in similar fashion. It is just a bonus, that this probably makes their on-wiki security nearly as strong as their bitcoin-oriented 'money' security-system, via the piggybacking. Now, that said, in the long run, if several years from now there are hundreds of people with such usernames and/or dopplegangers, on-wiki security *will* plausibly be significantly higher, e.g. provably secure RfA bangvotes will be not merely feasible but actually no-brainer-easy-to-implement. In the short run, on-wiki security is marginally boosted, on-wiki convenience is marginally lowered (edit-history aesthetics and such)... but off-wiki security and convenience are both significantly higher. That's why 1Wiki8 feels strongly about this, methinks: they are mostly concerned about off-wiki breaches, and thus, malicious-false-flag-edit-attacks that could hurt their off-wiki real-legal-name persona (theoretically at least). As for myself, I'm mostly interested in the long-term on-wiki possibilities that may bloom, down the road a few years. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow I don't think that we should disallow gibberish usernames because what constitutes gibberish is subjective. A username in a foreign language may look like gibberish to someone who doesn't speak the language (in particular if the language is written in a different script), but with SUL we will have to accept that users need to use the same account on all projects, so foreign language usernames will have to be allowed. This username is not in a foreign language but gibberish for another reason, but the reason to why it is gibberish should not determine whether the account is allowed or not. However, I think that the problem is that the username essentially is a bank account number. If you insert your bank account number on a lot of pages (page history, talk page comments, ...), then you are essentially spamming the project with requests for donations. We should not encourage such spamming. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow per Stefan2, and because large number of such usernames would effectively render the username namespace useless for human admin use, as it would no longer be possible to distinguish or remember usernames. I also find the security argument unconvincing: if this sort of cryptographic functionality is desired, it can better be implemented within the MediaWiki software, with an "upload public key" function, and then the rest could be done automatically within the software with things like hash-trees and external digital timestamp notaries. -- The Anome (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  Re: If this sort of cryptographic functionality is desired, it can better be implemented within the MediaWiki software, - actually, you can upload it already: Just create a user-sub-page to store the key, ask that the page be fully-protected, put a link to it on your user page, and ask that your user page be fully protected. A more subtle way would be for the user to put it in the Editnotice for the his talk page, ]. That way he would not need to create a new page and there would be no need for administrators to protect anything. In the future, I can envision allowing the creation of WikiData objects associated with a particular user which will be at least partially read-only to everyone but the "owner" and those with certain advanced user-rights on WikiData or globally who have a need to be able to change them because of their assigned tasks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  Absolutely, you can do that right now: there's no need to put it in the username. Or you could even just make an edit with your name commitment in, and the note for future reference the permanent URL to the revision the edit just created, which will be something that will then survive anything except oversighter intervention. Either a public key or a sufficiently strong hash of one-time random data could be used. Note also that if that revision is copied into one of the monthly dumps, copies of it will then be held elsewhere by multiple third parties, making for even stronger protection for your name commitment. There really is no need to put it in the username, something which is both over-engineered and achieves nothing more than the above: after all, if the site were to be manipulated by third parties with super-high levels of access, your username in every revision made by your account could be renamed, all references to it in revisions changed, and all record of the renaming hidden, and you would have no more protection than before. If you want full all-singing all-dancing unrepudiability for edits, even stronger forms of commitment (in particular, ones using hashes of revisions and diffs, hashes of groups of hashes, etc. and digital notaries) could also be implemented if desired, within the Misplaced Pages software itself. -- The Anome (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Terrorist96

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Consensus is to allow the username in this case, as an established user. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96 (talk · contribs)

Is Terrorist allowed in usernames? Discussed at UAA and discussion removed with pointer to post here. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• This user is harassing me about a username I created 8 years ago that I haven't had a problem with once in those 8 years. I have done nothing wrong and have only helped to improve Misplaced Pages as a whole. I would appreciate it if 1Wiki8 would stop harassing me and for him to mind his own business. On the other hand, I question 1Wiki8's username as promotional for his bitcoin address in order to solicit donations. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• I think this is a non-issue. Without behavior to match, the username is just that: a username. clpo13_(talk) 20:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you clpo13 for your objectivism and support for freedom of speech. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow I should think that if this was a blatant violation, someone would have noticed before now. It's not a name I would use, but I wouldn't use the string of gibberish the filing party has in their sig either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow because the name hasn't raised any eyebrows until now, and because the user is here to improve the project. Widr (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow. Inherently confrontational. Belchior90 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

* Administrator noteBelchior90 has been blocked as an unacknowledged alternate account that has been editing in project space in violation of the socking policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Hi, please explain how it's "inherently confrontational". Who am I confronting and what am I confronting them with? Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Being a terrorist inherently involves behaving confrontationally towards other people. Belchior90 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not a terrorist though. It's just a name. A combination of letters and numbers. Nothing more. Terrorist96 (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Re: "It's just a name. A combination of letters and numbers. Nothing more." - Any combination of numbers and letters that has meaning, intended or not, is more than a combination of letters and numbers. To most people who read English, the combination of letters and numbers that looks like "Terrorist" is filled with meaning. While it may not be your intent cause people to think of destructive acts, I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive that you are not aware of the meaning your nickname causes. If I'm wrong, and you really are that naive, hopefully this discussion will enlighten you. Still, doesn't change my opinion of whether you should be allowed to keep using the name or not (see elsewhere). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Grandfather or Allow - I am not going to make a judgment on whether a new editor should be allowed to have a username which is, at the least, somewhat provocative and non-neutral, especially if that editor edits in some of the subject areas that this editor edits in. However given that it hasn't been a problem until now, AND he has been editing in those topic areas for years, it would be WP:POINTY and disruptive to require him to change his username now, and that disruption would be greater than the minor disruption/distraction of allowing him to continue to edit in those same topic areas with his present username. Having said that, now that Terrorist96 has been told by multiple editors, including at least one experienced editor, that his username is at least mildly distracting in a way that could interfere with collaboration, he should at least consider changing it. On the other hand, if he has developed a collaborative relationship with other editors under his present name, then changing it may harm the collaborations more than keeping it. He'll have to make that call himself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your well thought out comment. Not only have I used this name for 8 years here, I also use it on many other sites, so I see it as an identity, not just a random name. I have sentimental attachment to it. Because of this, I am disinclined to change it. Thank you for your understanding. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • That is not something I had considered. It is something that should be considered on a case-by-cases basis when the issues is raised by the editor with the name in question. Such past use outside Misplaced Pages wouldn't trump all objections but it should be given serious consideration. I see a similar potential issue with editors who have real names which run up against our username policy and who prefer to edit using their real names. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow. I am an advocate of free speech. But Misplaced Pages is neither a democracy nor a venue for free expression. This username, taken in context, says "I am here to distort and destroy what you have spent years working on. Muahahahah." I am looking at this from a Wikimedia context and not a geopolitical one. Please disallow on that basis. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You are entitled to your view, but over the 8+ years of using this name, especially during an era that 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind, I have rarely run into issues with it. Heck, a national cable station didn't see a problem with broadcasting this username on several separate occasions. And they have legal teams and S&P to worry about. (I'm referring to ) http://www.bumpworthy.com/bumps/all?keywords=Terrorist96

  Terrorist96 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Allow. I don't think most people are/would be offended enough by the use of the word "terrorist" in this editor's username for us to take formal action. NTox · talk 05:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. Actions speak louder than words, and since this editor has worked harmoniously for eight-ish years, I think that this username should be allowed to remain. I might rule differently on a new user who was being disharmonious and disruptive, but for this user and this username, I'm okay with it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Allow The username policy when this account was created has a relevant section: Old username policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames. The standard then was does the name make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, intended to provoke an emotional reaction, or show a clear intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Given this user has been here 8 years and has never been blocked here I don't think any of these have been an issue. HighInBC 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. I'm convinced by User:HighInBC's reasoning. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Allow as perfectly within policy. Though I do doubt that this person was editing wikipedia in 1996. Furthermore, I doubt they are a terrorist, isn't there some wiki-policy about truth in usernames? I shall ask one of the various user-gandalfs about this question of mine, and return here later if my worries about falsehood prove to be the case; no doubt the ancient magic of Gandalf, shall reveal whether User:Terrorist96 wears a mask of faux-ness! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages was founded in 2001, for your interest. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I know. Hence my disbelief they were editing here then.  ;-)     p.s. Also I realize there is no Gandalf outside of fiction, and fictional userhandles. p.p.s. Did you mean co-founded? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Allow: this is not an offensive or provocative enough username to warrant a ban, especially that of an established user. — Bilorv_(talk) 19:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Allow as grandfathered, given the user's long history of good behavior and good faith. However, we should not allow any more similar names to be created. -- The Anome (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Shared Accounts

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.

There's one question that hasn't been answered, the use of a "shared" account where two people know the account's credentials because one of them has to use the other to enter material. While software for the blind is very good it can be expensive, but getting a friend or relative or caregiver to enter edits for them could probably be free. And there are people who can't read but might want to post information or changes, and are simply having the other person read the article then post changes they propose on their behalf. Or where their computer is broken and are passing information by phone or in writing to the other person. To me, I think that should count as an exception to the no sharing rule. In fact, it's arguable that if someone was doing this due to a handicap and their account was revoked because it was found out, denying them the ability to have access would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. And someone wanting to make this clear and open to explain that they have to technically violate the no sharing policy to contribute at all would not be able to do so, there apparently being no means for someone to offer this in good faith. Is there any ruling on this sort of situation where for technical reasons person "A" has to enter person "B"'s edits on person B's account? (I'm presuming "A" has their own account for their own edits if they do.) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Allow. I'm closing this despite the fact that I particpated for two reasons: one is that the reason being cited by the filer is eplicitly not a username violation and literally nobody agrees with them that the user should be forced to change their name. The other is that, all too predictably, they simply stopped editing when this procedure opened, so it's more or less moot anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk · contribs)

WP:UNCONF. This username seems to consist entirely of random gibberish, which essentially requires that users always copy and paste rather than retyping it, and seems to be confusing for no real reason. Note that contrary to statements that suggest otherwise on the user's talk page, the username does not appear to mean anything in any other language. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• My official position is meh. Per WP:UNCONF, somewhat confusing usernames are highly discouraged but (...) are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. Since the user seems serious in defending their choice of username, I'd say leave it be. If it turns out to be a troll or anything of the sort, the behaviour can be dealt with regardless of username. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow The policy subsection being cited explicitly says that such usernames are not in and of themselves a problem and I fully agree with that premise. It doesn't matter if their comments about it are consistent, or honest. Nobody is obligated to explain the meaning of their username. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow Not disruptive in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow Harmless username, constructive edits. Widr (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

NotAnOmbudsman

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: NotAnOmbudsman CU-blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NotAnOmbudsman (talk · contribs)

The username contains "Ombudsman" which could imply a relationship to the Ombudsman commission. The issue has been discussed with the user, and xeno renamed from Wikiombudsman (talk · contribs). — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Allow - I don't think this is a problem. "Wikiombudsman" likely was, but I don't think every use of the term "ombudsman" is, especially when it's "NotAnOmbudsman". Plus, the username change was approved by a Bureaucrat, after all. NTox · talk 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• My processing the request should not be seen as an explicit approval of the destination name; merely a recognition that "NotAnOmbudsman" is better than "Wikiombudsman" and the other requested names. –xeno 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Allow I raised the issue with the original username and I'm glad it was changed, even if to something debatable, because doing things like cleanup and speedy tagging with the original name really is a problem. I don't understand why 'ombudsman' was a seemingly non-negotiable part of this user's username but I don't think it's a policy violation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - I think it is pretty unambiguous and not likely to cause confusion. Into The Fray /C 05:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Allow Bizarre maybe but hey, nothing strange there. It's unambiguous about status, which imo is what matters.TheLongTone (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I had initially declined the rename request to "UnofficialWikiOmbudsman" because the term "ombudsman" concerned me, and the "Unofficial" part seemed more like "something added on to sway with the policy." The username "UnauthorizedWikiOmbudsman" was worse, imo, since it gave the impression that the user was doing something illegal (or otherwise not permitted by policy with the term "unauthorized"). "NotAnOmbudsman" was only approved because it was better than the previous requested names, but I still have some concerns with the continuous use of the term "ombudsman", appearing in every request the user made. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow After thinking over this for a time, I believe that the new username is clear enough. Altamel (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow Whille it is almost certain that any self-appointed guardian with a name like this is going to end up causing trouble and getting blocked, the name itself is not a vilation as it makes it clear they are not really an ombudsman. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow Previous name was inappropriate, this is fine. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Cloudteninfo

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cloudteninfo (talk · contribs)

The name seems rather similar to that of Cloud Ten Pictures, the name of a film company. The user had made edits to that company's article as well as to Paul LaLonde, founder of the company. I've written a polite message on the user's talk page, but I'm hoping an admin can take over from here. Themightyquill (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

. Disallow - Combined with the two edits made by the account, it seems pretty promotional in nature. Into The Fray /C 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked WP:ISU softblock (given edits) and pointed to COI guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? I was just about to close this as "no action taken" because they have made no edits since the reporting user dropped them a note ten days ago and they were never informed of this disucssion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The combination of name + edits is enough for a soft block, the COI is fairly obvious (or is implied by the username, the "CompanyName" + "info" pattern is common in social media marketing), they can simply create another account and follow the COI guidelines if they wish. I didn't realize that they had not been informed, but if I had ran into the account on my own and saw them editing "Cloud Ten Pictures" I would have done the same thing: soft block, point to COI. §FreeRangeFrog 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

LoLROFLWTFOMFG

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Procedural close User has not edited in 60 days. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LoLROFLWTFOMFG (talk · contribs)

This user was originally blocked by Diannaa because some of the words in the acronyms in the username are profanities. I handled the user's unblock request and disagreed that it's offensive enough to warrant an immediate block, so we agreed to take the matter here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

LoLROFLWTFOMFG stands for "laugh our loud rolling on the floor laughing what the fuck oh my fucking god", which many people might find objectionable. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow The username itself is typically trollish. Since their contributions seem constructive, renaming should resolve the problem, and I see that it's already in progress. Widr (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Allow I think we are being a bit prudish if block for names that imply "naughty words" without even using them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow - I agree, trollish and disruptive. I think the users tenure would be more pleasant with a re-name. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow Disruptive and pointless. §FreeRangeFrog 21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See, I agree that it is the sort of name a troll might pick. I agree it is "pointless" as well and may cause somse users not to take this person seriously. However, our usernames are not required to have a point. As a matter of fact it is better if they don't. And their editing has not been trolling that I can see. (although I note that is often the case with these proceedings it seems to have had a chilling effect as they have not edited since this was filed, having already been blocked without warning and then unblocked just before it started) I don't see how the mere existence of a name that conatains initialisms that (if you know what they are) contains some "naughty words" is inherently disruptive to the point where the user faces either being blocked or being forced to choose a new name. It seems like an overreaction, and rahter WP:BITEy to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow. This is potentially disruptive. SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Undecided on the merits of the name, but blocking a good-faith editor without warning doesn't seem right even if the username is bad -- shouldn't someone have left them a {{uw-username}}? ekips39 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. While some of the words that the acronym stands for are bad words, they are not fully spelled out in the username, and acronyms like WTF and OMFG are widely used on the Internet without being seen as offensive. I find the username silly, but not offensive or disruptive to the point that it should be disallowed. Belchior90 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Disalow Sounds trollish to me, and slang for profanities should not be in a username. Rider ranger47 23:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• DisallowAgree with rr47, syss, mlpearc, widr and freerange. ―Pikachu2568 09:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• It saddens me to see so many users willing to block somebody for what everyone agrees is a username that implies four letter words but doesn't actually use them. Are we really this thin-skinned around here now?

Also, this user has not edited since this proceeding was opened eighteen days ago. For such a marginal case with an editor that was apparently scared off permananetly by this (and the premature block that preceeded it) I can't see how a block can possibly be justified at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow. Prudishness is not the issue. Implied profanities like this are still deliberate implied profanities, and this, from long experience, suggests with high confidence that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. Changing their username would be a good start for them to change that impression. -- The Anome (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with every word you said, except the first one. Users with names like this are almost always disruptive. This one hasn't been though. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• It has now been 30 days since this user made an edit. I think this can just be closed as moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Beeblebrox -- I don't think this person is coming back, so this is probably best closed. On the off-chance, however, I say we allow the name -- it's childish, but I don't think the profanity implied is really all that sufficiently conscious to people to be a practical problem. NTox · talk 00:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment