Requests for Comment/Username policy

There has been some uncertainty (at least for me) about which usernames are acceptable and which aren't, and we don't currently have a clear policy on this. We do of course have the Code of Conduct but that is, in my opinion, too vague for dictating usernames. Therefore I am proposing that we vote on a new username policy to make it clear which usernames are allowed and which aren't and which sanctions should be applied in case the policy is not respected. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Implement User:Reception123/Username policy as the global username policy. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Reception123  (talk) ( contribs  ) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  A good idea and a straightforward proposal for a policy that should clear up any confusion.  Borderman   talk 09:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)   A sensible policy, and sensible to have it written down if needed to back up an Admin's decision.  An analog is at Wikipedia:WP:UPOL.  Spike the Dog 13:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)   Robkelk has a draft (Proposal 3) with additional ideas that should at least be worked in.   17:24 18-Sep-2017
 * 4)  It is necessary to regulate this aspect when Miraheze increasingly wins more users. —Alvaro Molina  (✉  - ✔ ) 17:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  It's common sense, especially in the future when Miraheze grows.  13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  I really do like this policy except the rule that people can't create a username with the same name as the wiki. I think that this should be kept in as admins want to be able to create "admin accounts". I see really no problem with this policy other then this one rule. CnocBride 11:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 7)  Me parece adecuada y necesaria esta politica. Para evitar las razones expuestas en la página de la propuesta-  Wiki1776 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 8)  Having a username policy is a start. I think the "Usernames that contain the exact name of a wiki" part should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, rather than being the 'carved in stone' rule. There are reasons why someone might have the same name as a wiki. Otherwise, I support this. Dawnstar (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 9)  A very understandable policy. Cyborg (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 10)  Makes sense.Bertie (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm kind of opposed to making it easy to take away user accounts from other people simply by starting a wiki with the same name.  --Labster (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One should not create a username that seems to be a wiki name, regardless of whether the wiki exists at the time. I see the problem, that the policy as stated could enable an unrelated act to change a user name from legal to illegal.  I won't flip my vote, as this could be solved by amending the proposal rather than killing it; but I am too new to know whether RfC is an invitation for group editing (which we could have done before this stage) or is take-it-or-leave-it.  Spike the Dog (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think about this. I still don't like the fact that a user could be fine if they have the name of a wiki, and maybe they aren't even a bureaucrat there. It would just cause confusion for people dealing with feature requests, and give a false impression of their position on said wiki. I'm not sure what amendment we could make to solve this issue, since I don't think completely retracting this point is a good idea. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 05:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) While I have no objections to the policies of other Miraheze wiki's or Meta, I oppose these kinds of changes that would affect otherwise independent wikis. This kind of thing should be left to individual wiki administrators over their sections. If there are instances where users are trying to masquerade on other wikis then it is for those other wikis to take action. There's no good reason to take this kind of control away from us, it should be our decision as to what user names we allow and ban. Enfaru (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But it is not your decision, and usernames are an aspect where wikis are not independent, as usernames are global.  11:03 17-Sep-2017
 * If it's not my decision, don't clutter up my wiki with spam inviting my and my users opinions? For that matter I am still against such anti-libertarian proposals.Enfaru (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In favor of proposal 3.  --Looney Toons (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Two questions about implementation. First off, awareness. How are we going to make sure that all users who create accounts in the future are aware of this policy on creating an account? I would assume we would simply modify certain interface messages, and therefore this is not too important. Second, applying to current accounts. I know of the top of my head that there is a good faith account with over 700 edits on jawp2chwiki that uses the name "Administrator", whilst the account has no permissions itself. So, what therefore is the intended way to approach situations like this? More importantly, it may prove difficult to find all the accounts that currently exist that are in violation to the proposed policy. If we are going to make this policy apply to existing accounts, we should make sure that everyone knows that this is on the table, and that they might be affected. -- Void  Whispers 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the future, we would indeed just modify the system message and add this policy. For making the current users aware, we could (as we have done in the past for some RfCs create a sitenotice). I propose that if this policy is implemented, we allow reasonable time (1-2 months) for users to request renames to usernames in conformity with the new policy. Since we can't really track/triage accounts who would violate this new policy, it would have to be an "on sight rule" I guess. It would, of course, not be fair to penalize users who created their accounts prior to this policy, so I think that we they should be notified as soon as someone "spots" their account, and only if they do not comply to the policy after a certain amount of time after the notification, they should be sanctioned. These time periods should be discussed and defined. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 16:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Added amendment 1 to proposal 1 for this matter. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Issue: some people have real names that include elements that would be banned under this proposal. (For example, "Major" is a position, so past Prime Minister John Major would not be allowed to use his own name as a username under these rules.) Also, this proposal does not take into account the Scunthorpe Problem. If a name appears on a birth certificate, it should be allowed here. --Robkelk (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Issue: the inclusion of the "name of a job or position" would seem unnecessary, if it is not one that could be confused with being an admin, moderator, or other staff member of the wiki itself. And in my case, would ban the username that I also use as an author on a fanfiction website, and ten of my stories are referenced at ATT. (I've been using said username for over 15 years; it originated as a character name-and-rank in a Star Trek RPG). I would also object if the policy forces the use of realnames, as I happen to share my realname with a professionally-published author, which would lead to confusion.
 * This policy is applied at the discretion of stewards. I understand that the "job or position" is confusing, and if you do not agree with that, you are free to create an amendment for this proposal. Of course in the case you mentioned, the user should be allowed to continue with their username. Nowhere does the policy mention forcing people to use real names, and that would never be the case and is besides the point of this policy. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At no point did I say that people would be required to use their real names. What I said was this proposal would disallow some people from using their real names - which is completely different. --Robkelk (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We're going to have to define what offensive is in, as "offensive" is often a very subjective matter which can easily be abused if we just as is. LulzKiller (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be relatively simple, grab a dictionary and anything labelled "Vulgar" would be stripped out. Enfaru (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Which dictionary do we use if we go that route? Do you see where I am going with this? LulzKiller (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally Oxford English works, I don't object to say using the Dictionary with the most sales for that particular year for that particular language. In general the courts in the UK use Oxford English when ascertaining the common meaning of a word. Of course I can see where you are going but as this is a route employed by almost every legal system in the developed world, they must be doing something right. In general, stewards will know vulgarity when they see it. I just don't want to re-invent the wheel and have a Miraheze specific definition of Vulgarity which will serve only to confuse users. Enfaru (talk)


 * Offensive: a: making attack; b: of, relating to, or designed for attack; c: of or relating to an attempt to score in a game or contest. Vulgar: a: lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste; b: morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate; c: ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display. Definitions are from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, in each cast the first-listed (and thus most common) definition. --Robkelk (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Quoting from my hardcopy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (revised), published 2006:
 * offensive adj. 1. causing offence. 2. (of a military operation or weapon) involved or used in active attack. 3. chiefly N.Amer. relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a game.
 * offence (US offense) n. 1. an act of instance of offending. 2 resentment or hurt. 3. the action of making a military attack. 4. N.Amer. the attacking players in a team.
 * offending is not defined
 * vulgar adj. 1. lacking sophistication or good taste. > making explicit reference to sex or bodily functions. 2. dated characteristic of or belonging to ordinary people
 * It looks to me that both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries say "vulgar" has to do with sex, while "offensive" has to do with dislike. It's easy to support freedom of speech when one likes what is being said. --Robkelk (talk)

Issue: Do we even need this? What's business case for implementing this policy? Has anyone looked at whether there is currently any need for this policy? Has anyone looked at how many existing users it will affect? How many users would it affect per month? Do we have any complaints that support the need for this? Or is it just "Oh I think this would be cool to have"? Enfaru (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was considering the issue of the complicatedness of adding such a policy, when the thought occurred to me that a similar result could be achieved by instead modifying existing policy. We simply would need to state that the Code of Conduct and Content Policies both apply to usernames, and state in the Code of Conduct that impersonation is a form of harassment. The other thing is that I'm wary of having to sanction an account for the reason that they associate the user with a company/product. In my opinion, this is fine, as long as the user does not then proceed to promote their product outside of established boundaries, and only on wikis where it is locally acceptable to do so. Finally, I am also certain that username cases would still be handled in a case by case situation, which is not exactly in the spirit of having a policy such as either proposed. Moreover, it may be almost impractical to deal with all these situations in a timely and organized manner. The only situations where I would want to have to sanction an account for username alone is in a situation where the username itself expresses (in one manner or another) that the user has registered their account with the intention of causing disruption. Food for thought perhaps. -- Void  Whispers 20:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This would have my complete support. Enfaru (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2
'''Striked per comments, pointless. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 17:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)''' Keep the status quo and do not implement any new usernames policy. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  See above; we need to have a clear policy on usernames. Reception123  (talk) ( contribs  ) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Proposal 2 is not a proposal but simply the result of opposing Proposal 1. Having this here only encourages people to say everything twice.  Spike the Dog (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I find this proposal redundant, if someone does not agree, can oppose the previous proposal. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 17:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This was used before and I mainly used proposals to allow users to propose another policy, but this is useful indeed so striking. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 17:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Amendment 1 to Proposal 1
This proposal amends proposal 1 and adds the following:
 * User accounts created prior to the implementation of the username policy are to request a rename as soon as possible (once aware of this policy).
 * Once a user who created their account prior to the policy being implemented is warned about being in violation of the new policy, they have 2 months to request a rename. If they do not request a rename in that time period, sanctions mentioned on the policy page should be applied.

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  with wordsmithing.  The gist of the proposal is that pre-existing names should be changed with the participation of the user, rather than just permabanned (with an invitation to try again with a good username).  Instead of making the reader research when the policy was "implemented," the policy should just state the effective date.  In the first bullet, no one knows when the user was "aware" but the second bullet says the user "is warned."  State by whom (Any steward?  Any user?) and how.  Spike the Dog (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I didn't want to define a group who can warn users, since it is essentially just informing them about this policy. Normally, it should be up to stewards, but we currently only have 3, and it is better if anyone can warn the users about the policy. The first bullet point is there so that a user won't think, "Oh I'll just wait until someone will warn me", it is more of a "guideline" rather than a term. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  Seems reasonable to allow enough time for users to request a new username. Let's be honest, if a user has been notified that their username is not suitable / in violation of the policy then two months should be more than enough time to request a rename of their account. On a user's own wiki after 60 days they would be locked because of inactivity. If a user is inactive for that amount of time or longer it usually means they no longer want to participate or have interest (certain exemptions do apply though). So, as a time frame two months should be ample.  makes a valid point, how are pre-existing users made aware of the new policy if implemented?  I think Stewards should be the ones to inform users, they are after all staff and an authoritative voice. But as there are a lot of registered users on Meta it would be a tedious task to go through them all just to check if usernames are acceptable or not. Therefore, anyone should be able to look out for unsuitable usernames (providing they fully understand the username policy) and let a Steward know who those users are, effectively removing a lot of pressure from Stewards to get on with other tasks. A record/table of who has been informed should avoid confusion.  I certainly agree that pre-existing users should not be penalised before the two month period but at the same time, if the policy is implemented, new users should be made aware of the policy upon account creation.  08:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  Honestly, if you don't support this amendment there's probably something wrong.Enfaru (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Forcing somebody to change an established userID violates the spirit of CC-BY-SA, IMHO. --Robkelk (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * If someone were to start a wiki called "Robkelk", I would be happy to submit a request to change the name of the wiki. I've been using this username since before AOL was founded, you have no right to take it away from me. (And, honestly, the only reason somebody would start a wiki with the same name as my username would be to harass me under this policy if this policy was to take effect.) --Robkelk (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is rather a person creating a username after the wiki is created. There can be exceptions, I guess, and if the bureacurats of the wiki have no issues with the username it could be kept. The reason I introduced this is because, if there would be a user called "Meta" that could falsely give the impression that they either are a staff account, an administrator account, or ect. Users should have their own usernames, and unless their wiki is their private wiki or something similar I don't think creating a username to match a wiki name should be possible. It could also confuse people dealing with feature requests, if a user called "Xwiki" requests changes for "Xwiki" any user or sysadmin can be confused and believe that the user is "in charge" of said wiki, when that might not be the case. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 17:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, the policy proposal needs a re-write, because that isn't what it says. --Robkelk (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Robkelk except for the "you have no right" business. You have no property right to anything you create on a wiki under CC-SA unless it's a trademark.  I agree that creations, such as a new wiki, in your name from someone else, are obvious misbehavior that Stewards should be happy to counter, with or without this policy.  (Are we trying to codify every possible form of misbehavior?  The usual result is the invention of new forms, followed by tedious flames that "I didn't technically violate any rule.")   11:15 17-Sep-2017
 * This wiki is not CC-SA, it's CC-BY-SA - and that means the contributors need to be able to be identified. Being forced to change my username changes my identification, which can be argued to be a violation of CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-SA, or CC-BY-NC-SA. --Robkelk (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that an actual issue that's come up, or is this a hypothetical thing? --Robkelk (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This (sorta). The account got locked later anyway. -- Void  Whispers 00:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Implement User:Robkelk/Username policy as the global username policy. --Robkelk (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. I believe this counter-proposal addresses major issues with the proposal made by Reception123, and has enough changes that it cannot be considered to be simply an amendment to that proposal. --Robkelk (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) . This spells it out quite clearly and definitively, and leaves a lot less vague grey area. LulzKiller (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) .  I would rather err on the side of too much guidance than not enough, and this seems to cover everything as comprehensively as we can hope for.  --Looney Toons (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Have proposed edits at User talk:Robkelk/Username policy.  17:24 18-Sep-2017
 * Have replied on the same page, with explanations of why I phrased things the way that I did. --Robkelk (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)