Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Underexplained rules fo username reporting

Section of Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention does not say where to add: to the top or to the bottom. Please clarify. --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're typically added at the bottom, are you thinking that the <!-- REPORTING A USERNAME comment should specify? If so, I agree, it wouldn't hurt.
Or maybe UAA could have a blue "new report" button, I think most noticeboards have some sort of friendly action button (RFPP, ANI, PERM, ...) Mlkj (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because in AfD and some other pages I frequent the new items are added on top, and I initially did the same here as well. Yes, to improve the comment would be the cheapest way. --Altenmann >talk 01:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please alter statement about user policy at Special:Log/newusers

The page at Special:Log/newusers makes the following claim (bold in the original):

Please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless it appears to be impersonating a notable living person.

This cannot be right. Imho the author fell into a logic trap by using a confusing negative conditional (cannot ... unless). I realize this statement is attempting to address shared use, but the way it is stated, is clearly false, as there are plenty of other usernames which do not represent a living individual that are very clearly a violation, such as a libelous username or any of the other cases listed under WP:U § Inappropriate usernames. Instead, if the log page needs something about shared use along with the other points, it should be stated simply, using some distillation of WP:ISU, such as perhaps:

indicative of shared use, such as Jack and Jill, Acme Corp, or that are the names of positions or titles within an organization

If someone could fix this, that would be appreciated. Interestingly, of the seven types listed on the policy page under § Inappropriate usernames, the log page chooses to list four of them (offensive, disruptive, misleading, promotional) and for whatever reason, does not list two others (non-script, confusing) but it completely flubs the shared use point.

One more thing: the clause introducing the bullet points on the log page says this:

Inappropriate usernames are those in which are:

That is pretty fractured English. Better, would be this:

Inappropriate usernames are those that are:

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... I don't think it's attempting to denote shared use. The purpose is that if someone sees User:Jason Statham, unless that person is claiming to be Jason Statham then they should not be automatically blocked. Note that I actually did deal with this a few years ago where someone with a somewhat-common eastern European name got COI-harassed because they had the same name as someone with an article. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe another purpose has been to stop people reporting Indian names containing 'shit', in particular, but really all those types of names, plus real names which some people see as 'promotional'. The rule being, if it's someone's name, it's not a violation. I've amended the 'are those in which are' part as requested. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar usernames

It says these should not be used but what if you are going through a WP:CLEANSTART and want a similar username? Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's not really much of a clean start. The point of a clean start is to make a complete break; theoretically no one should know you've vanished and continued editing. Choosing a similar username rather defeats that point. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy summary has a contradiction with policy body

I missed out on this discussion a few months ago about the verbiage "Users who adopt promotional usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked." If this is the view of the community then we should probably remove/modify the line "imply the intent to troll, vandalize, disrupt, advertise on, or spam Wikipedia" in the summary because that is a bit of a contradiction. The policy summary currently states that we are to block "immediately" (emphasis not mine) on sight of these accounts (given that their existence with a promo username is arguably an implication of the intent to advertise on or spam Wikipedia) while that body section explicitly highlights we shouldn't block them barring additional promotional edits. That will also need a rework of how CAT:UAA works, I imagine, and I guess mass dump old entries(? I can update my bot task if we go that route) But this is a contradiction that needs to be sorted. cc @Mz7, Oshwah, Asilvering, Deepfriedokra, Ponyo, and JBW: as they partook last time in discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those two statements are necessarily contradictory; User:gamestop might be interested in tabletop games and are thus not necessarily editing promotionally about GameStop, whereas an account like User:( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (Trollface) is more likely to be a vandal (though that's a non-ASCII violation and should probably be warned before immediately blocking, but honestly I can't think of anything that would merit immediate blocking...). Primefac (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor I am at a total loss to see why you think there's a contradiction. The word "immediately" occurs 7 times in the policy; I have checked every one of them, and I can't see any that could conceivably be interpreted as referring to "promotional usernames", as you say. (If one of them does say that, and I have missed it, then please give me a quote with the word in context, so that I can easily find it.) As far as I can see, they all refer to things other than promotion, such as personal attacks, racial slurs, and so on. Also, I don't see why "existence with a promo username is arguably an implication of the intent to advertise on or spam Wikipedia"; at least not if "arguably" is taken to mean "reasonably arguably". Many times I have seen an account with a username which is the name of, for example, a business or school, which has been created to do things such as updating the name of the CEO of the business or head of the school, or correct a spelling mistake in the name of one of the business's locations. Presuming that such a username implies "the intent to advertise on or spam Wikipedia" is a total failure to assume good faith, and I can't see any justification for it whatsoever. JBW (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Primefac and JBW. Nowhere in the current policy does the word "immediately" apply to blocking promotional usernames. Promotional usernames should only be blocked if there is promotional editing as well. Just because a username matches some company name or product name does not automatically imply that the user's intent is to spam or to advertise on Wikipedia. Some real-life examples that come to mind for me are AmericanAir88 (c.f. American Airlines) and CodeLyoko (c.f. Code Lyoko). Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that there are a few things lumped together in that one bullet got in the way of what I was getting at and I could’ve been clearer (my apologies). I am just hung up on the summary as it states that a username on its own (absent other factors) could imply the intent to advertise and thus need blocking. “Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be immediately blocked upon discovery if they:…imply the intent to…advertise on, or spam Wikipedia.” (It is quite explicit; there is no mention here of promotional edits also being required.)
What has been said here, in two prior discussions I read before posting here, and in the highlighted section of the policy, is that that couldn’t reasonably be the case as assuming such is, to paraphrase JBW, probably bad faith. I just wanted to flag that perhaps some clarification is warranted for the summary for that bullet to reduce any possible confusion—even if just a clarifying footnote.
I did some digging and the text in the summary re immediate blocking was added with this January 2019 edit by Oshwah. As such, if we are to clarify anything in the summary it looks like it would have to be done at Template:UsernamePolicy. (My pinging Oshwah is just in case he wants to comment/participate but by no means is intending to imply anything and he doesn’t have to partake by any means).
I’m not saying that what Mz7 wrote should be removed, just that the summary could be made more clearly in line with the highlighted section. I wanted to flag this to get some sort of rough consensus/other eyes on it/workshopping rather than just jumping in with a change myself given that this is a policy page. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could change the bullet point ... imply the intent to troll, vandalize, disrupt, advertise on, or spam Wikipedia to just ... imply the intent to troll, vandalize, or disrupt Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm late to the discussion! The solution works for me as well. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [1] Mz7 (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poop

I just reported a user whose name begins "poopeater". Should the string "poop" in a name not trigger a filter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't control the username blacklist; Meta does. Yes we can block account creations with the edit filter, but that includes auto-attaches for global accounts, and that fails silently (i.e. the user visits enwiki and is just mysteriously not logged in), so it's best reserved for things that will only ever be bad-faith. The string "poop" can appear in a number of innocent contexts ("nincompoop", word ending "-po" and word starting "op-", part of names like Chompoopruk and occasionally even a surname on its own), and even when used to mean "feces", I'm not sure it's categorically blockable; "Gastroenterologist with expertise in poop", while not a good username, probably doesn't violate WP:UPOL. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Tamzin on this one. I think that the list of unintended consequences could be too long to warrant an actual blacklist entry, though you could always raise the discussion at m:Talk:Title blacklist but I don't think it would succeed. I think it is just best that we handle on enwiki within our scope. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a Scunthorpe problem to me. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of a blacklist, just a notification here, as done for other problematic strings, in order to prompt review by a human. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Oh! You mean User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist. Oh... Does WT:UAA redirect here? It does. That's really weird. Okay now I see the confusion; you're commenting on "Wikipedia talk:Username policy", probably without realizing it since this is where the talkpage linked you, and up till now it's sounded like you meant a title blacklisting or an edit filter... Anyways, the blacklist does include p[o0][o0]+p. I've poked around in the bot's code and can't see an obvious reason that wasn't flagged. @AmandaNP?
More generally, I'd suggest that Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attentionWikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention be un-redirected here. Courtesy ping Beeblebrox, who redirected it in 2017. Noticeboard talkpages and policy talkpages are for different things, and it leads to confusion like in this thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because time the bot ran < when the user edited by approximately 14 seconds. The bot does not hold on to usernames and recheck as it used to, because of the length of the list it becomes at User:AmandaNP/UAA/Wait (I'm purposefully not linking it because it makes my browser lock up on load). Hasn't done that since 2023. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP: Have you considered hooking the bot into EventStreams? That would let you check on-edit, which would both fix this issue and avoid cases slipping through the cracks where someone registers with a problematic username but then doesn't edit for a long period of time. Could still ignore anyone past their first edit, or below some small threshold like ten edits. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That still presents the same gap the waitlist did in that it gets indefinitely lengthy with people who never edit. Even pruned at 7 days in, the list was at the point it is now. So it wouldnt provide much more of a buffer. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP. I mean a system with no waitlist at all. The logic I'm thinking is: Listen to EventStream. On edit, check user editcount. If > 1, ignore. Else run all the username-blacklist checks and post to UAA/BOT if appropriate.
For performance reasons, you might want to cache users to an ignorelist once they've been processed once, but that could be Python-side (thus with a length bound only by allocated RAM) rather than on-wiki. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely an idea. The other thought I had when I read this last night was that, should the system be waitlisted, it seems like a rather logical/rational use case for a database rather than one unwieldy wiki page that crashes browsers. (These two ideas could also be merged in a fashion, with an ignorelist being in a database or text file.) TheSandDoctor Talk 05:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin and TheSandDoctor: Apologies, it's been a busy week. Even an ignorelist or a database will hit an eventual too much memory issue. There are 265k "active editors" within 30 days alone. We would have to include some sort of pruning of the list. Even if we do a mitigation of dropping people from the ignorelist after 30 days of no edits, there are still a boat load of queries to run each time someone edits. It would also require some significant modification to the code for 1 username report that didn't get through. Are we scoping the solution appropriate to the problem? -- Amanda (she/her) 17:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even "poop" as a word doesn't always refer to feces - see, for example, Poop deck. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in dispute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate sections need moving to another policy page

These sections are inappropriate to a page named Username policy  :

Shared accounts
Using multiple accounts

They should be moved. Where to? Ideas?

RememberOrwell (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC) formatting modified and links added with no change in content, mainly for readability. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're strictly inappropriate to have here; I just read through WP:ISU and it talks generally about the same topics, but these two sections give some good expansion. I think if anything we should add in a few links to these sections in the ISU section (mainly to avoid overburdening what is essentially a bullet-point list of things not to do). Primefac (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. They both do relate in some aspect with username policy in ways that, presumably, led them to be here. Usernames are often an indication of shared accounts, and those using multiple accounts appropriately often name them to show the link. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names