Last modified on 3 July 2008, at 23:40

Wikiquote talk:Username policy

  • Discussion
Return to the project page "Username policy".

Username guidelineEdit

moved from WQ:VP

Is there a username guideline? I've been looking through our policies and I haven't found one. I ask because in the user creation log, someone has named themselves MarkyMark. I find it unlikely that Mark Wahlberg has decided to join Wikiquote, and on Wikipedia, they would be asked to change their name. I assume the same legal issues apply here, do we do the same? Dev920 06:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In this point I don't have any objection Wikipedia olicy is adopted to consider what should not be allowed, though I have not agreed on it in every point (i.e. non-latin-username policy, now obsolated). --Aphaia 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read the whole policy and noticed that some of it doesn't really apply to Wikiquote. Does anyone object if I put an adapted draft in my userpage and advertise it on the Community Portal? Dev920 10:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big deal in this instance because Mark Wahlberg doesn't go by MarkyMark anymore - assuming the user doesn't claim to be him anywhere. That said, a policy would be a good idea in case (or should I say, when) there is a problem in the future. Koweja 11:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can recall, we've had only one instance of a user pretending to be a famous person, and I don't believe they registered the ID here to do it. (They did do it on WP and were promptly blocked.) I'm inclined not to care about fans using famous names, since it's fairly well understood that virtually every such name is not the person themselves, and virtually every real celebrity does their best to avoid using their well-known name as a username (who would want the hassle from obsessive fans?). I also don't like the idea of having to police such name issues, especially since there's no way to draw a line on how famous a name should be before we prevent its use. But I can see trademark concerns and other problems arising, so I wouldn't oppose a WP-like policy. I just wouldn't expect to be one of those blocking unwise names, unless they made claims that they were the famous person (as happened on WP in the aforementioned case). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that that we don't have the "no names of recently living or deceased famous people" or the like. I guess now I can register that Madonna name that I always wanted... But really, even if it isn't on there, I know I would block on sight and so would a few other admins. Cbrown1023 talk 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've created a draft at User:Dev920/Username policy. I've severely cut it down and removed stuff I don't think really applies here. Take a look! Dev920 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocking section is redundant with the Wikiquote:Blocking policy. Cbrown1023 talk 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Dev902, generally I agree on your version.
Duplication of policy may cause inconsistency in the future. I prefer to have blocking-related policy only in WQ:BP. The Blocking policy on the coming WQ:USERNAME may replace with a brief note and reference to the WQ:BP for further informaition.
Related to in sight blocking, I propose the revision of username policy should be on consensus and for disallowing none to change it without discussion, since it relates to Blocking Policy. On English Wikipedia Non-latin discouragement clause was added without previous discussion, taken as prohibition and tens of non-latin editors with good reputations were blocked permanently and forced to change their usernames. I wouldn't like to repeat this disharmonious course.
In my preference non-Latin username policy is still obsessive. Instead "either instead or side-by-side" I prefer to urge them to put transliteration on their user page. --Aphaia 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, two very good points. Ok, I removed the blocking section, toned down the encouragment, and added an alternative suggestion to add their transliterated username to their user page where people can easily see it. That look better now? Dev920 09:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better me now :) --Aphaia 11:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... we have Wikiquote:Username already! Well it wasn't based on the precedent discussion but merely imported from Wikipedia, so it would be hard for us to remember it, while it is claimed to be an "official policy". Anyway, the currently being discussed version reflects one year experience of two projects, and more detailed, I prefer to replace the current "Wikiquote:Username" with the Dev920 version after a discussion in a reasonable time amount. --Aphaia 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I looked through all the policies and must have missed that. Oh well, like you said Aphaia, I think we should replace it, as no-one was aware of it, evidently, and it hasn't been edited since Essjay created. Dev920 13:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
but that does not mean that it is not accurate or worthy of our use(/trust). Cbrown1023 talk 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, its content still be useful but I have no good reason to think it as official policy. He posted it as official policy from the beginning, and I find no validity of such claim, since it is based only his decision, not of Wikiquote community. And as far as I know, he hasn't been in the position of authority appointed by the Foundation about the community matter, he had no right to impose a policy in such a way. --Aphaia 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree Cbrown, but I notice that the talkpage doesn't even exist. Was any discussion held on that policy before Essjay labelled it official? I liked Essjay, but he definitely took a top-down approach at times (which was, after all, what did for him). Dev920 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe there was, but there may have been at a different location. We should ask Jeff, he was a part of the Policy project when Essjay pulled many of the policies over from WP. Cbrown1023 talk 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay created Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision on 6 January 2006, then proceeded to tag most of our policies with status templates varying from proposals to drafts to official policy, and to work on many of the non-official ones. While doing this flurry of policy work, the like of which we've not seen before or since at en:Wikiquote, on 24 January 2006 he chose to copy and adapt the then-current Wikipedia:Username policy. Given his attention to the varying statuses of our policies, I'm pretty sure he accidentally made only WP->WQ changes, leaving the "official policy" banner in place. I am not aware of any discussion on this policy at the time. (Had I participated in it, it would show up in "What links here", as I always try to include links to pages I'm talking about. That's why I'm always telling people to do this. I've participated in far too many discussions reviewing actions that happened years ago, when no one can remember what was said or where they said it. WLH is usually a much easier approach to finding old discussions in odd places than sifting through thousands of editor contributions.)

I have been using Wikiquote:Username for a while now, and noted that we currently lack some of the changes since made to w:Wikipedia:Username policy, like "no famous names without proof". But the basic policy is sound and follows our existing practices, I think. I suppose we should back this off to "draft" status and discuss formalizing it properly, although I fear this may be challenging because we have so many of these policies in this state that are making little or no progress. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely we should decide what we want for our purposes. I expect that the Wikipedia policy would be OK for us, but it needs a bit of thought.--Poetlister 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would propose three things, two particular and one general:
  • For the username issue;
    1. Remove the official tag from the current one and put "guideline" or "policy draft" tag instead.
    2. Replace the current one with User:Dev920/Username policy; although the former looks sound, it is a bit outdated. The latter reflects latest situations, and has been somehow reviewed by community.
  • For "Wikipedia policy adoption", I propose we start labelling them as "interim policy" or just "guideline". It shouldn't be our policy instantly, but we expect they deserved attention more than mere policy drafts.
As for Wikipedia policy, I agree with Jeff they are too huge to adopt our project in some cases. On the other hand, we expect generally it is sane and reflect the consensus of English Wikipedia (note: some particular part could be problematic, not based on consensus but may be an addition without any discussion etc.). Thought? --Aphaia 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been no objection for ten days. I think the community has approved the proposed draft User:Dev920/Username policy by silence. If no other objection comes in three days, I will be so bold as to replace the current one with the proposed draft. --Aphaia 09:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I made four small changes that I believe are non-controversial:
  • I changed some leftover "Wikipedia" references to "Wikiquote".
  • I restored the "past misuse" explanation of why we frown on misleading character substitution (e.g., uppercase "I" where a lowercase "L" would be expected). Without it, the clause sounds unnecessarily restrictive to me, given the popularity of leetspeak.
  • I made the Meta link in meta:Right to vanish explicit.
  • I added non-printing whitespace to make it easier to edit the page, especially given all the span-tagging and markup in the list sections.
I haven't done a careful analysis between this draft and w:WP:USERNAME to see how much of a variance (and therefore a growing maintenance burden) we'll have. But Dev920's draft looks solid on its own. I concur with Aphaia's plan to switch shortly unless we have objections. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up, JeffQ. All points look me sensible and not contradict with its core thought. --Aphaia 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now on Wikiquote:Username policy. If appropriate, it could be replaced with Wikiquote:Username (now redirect to the former). --Aphaia 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple usernamesEdit

Our currently policy on multiple usernames is very simple:

Using multiple user accounts

It is recommended that users not edit under multiple usernames, unless they have a very good reason.

By contrast, w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry has an entire section on "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts" that gives several rationales for this practice there. Very briefly, they fall into several categories:

  • Test names for experienced users new to the project to "test the waters"
  • Security and privacy, splitting edits to prevent others from deducing identities by correlating edits
  • "Heated issues" usernames to avoid having dispute participants expand conflicts beyond the topic at hand
  • "Role" accounts for special purposes
  • Bots
  • "Doppelganger" names to preemptively prevent impersonators from using similar names

As far as I know, besides the standard recognition of the utility of bot usernames, we've had no significant use of any of these other practices here. (I must disclose that I've created a few unused doppelgangers for myself, a currently inactive bot username, and a role account for month/date-page experimentation that is no longer active, all of which are clearly identified as my sockpuppets on their user pages.)

It's been my observation that we don't have even a tiny fraction of the kinds of conflicts that typically justify the non-special-purpose sockpuppets on Wikipedia. Content disputes are typically handled locally on article talk pages or raised at WQ:VP or WQ:AN when necessary. Editors who refuse to follow WQ policies and practices of cooperative editing after repeated attempts at communication are temporarily blocked, and indefinite blocks from such recalcitrance are rare if they exist at all (given that uncooperative editors who earn indefinite blocks have usually violated more serious policies by this point).

Except for vandals and disrupters, I don't believe we've had many users who have created multiple distinct user accounts in order to avoid having their edits correlated to expose their identities. (Of course, they would hardly advertise themselves.) But this is a plausible justification. On the other hand, since the vast majority of our sockpuppeteers are vandals and disrupters, and many of these sockpuppets have been created as "sleepers" that show no activity until well after their creation, Wikiquote has a compelling reason to investigate any creation of sockpuppets that aren't clearly identified by their owners. But doing so exposes these privacy-minded individuals, defeating their efforts.

I'd like the community to consider how we might balance our need for preemptive protection against vandals and disrupters against the desire to allow good-faith editors to protect their privacy in this manner. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think ours and theirs do not say different things, but rather diffrently in ways of wording. I have no reason to deny their detailed description and take it substantially same with ours. If people do not have consensus on the realization of "multiple accounts with a very good reason", I think it is the time to employ the detailed developed version of our sibling project. --Aphaia 23:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)