Wikipedia talk:Username policy

GLAM Usernames

I've got a question regarding the username policy. At dewiki we encourage employees of GLAM institutions to register as "Name (Institution)", see de:Wikipedia:GLAM/Tipps für Institutionen. We have a case where a user is blocked here for violating the policy and we encouraged them to rename. Linking to our GLAM page would lead to a probably new problematic username. Would that really violate WP:ORGNAME? NDG (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If I might ask, who is the user in question? That sounds like it meets WP:ISU fairly well, and could be a back block. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course you may ask, it was User:Akademisches Kunstmuseum. In fact the account was never used by two different persons at the same time, but inherited per function. My question, however, is whether our dewiki recommendation contradicts the guidelines here. NDG (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in the dewiki "Name (Institution)" recommendation, that matches what enwiki recommends as well. From WP:ISU: However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as Mark at WidgetFactory, Jack Smith at the XYZ Foundation, FacebookFanatic87, etc. We also have Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#DESIGNATED that specifically allows a separate account for things like a GLAM position versus personal editing.

"Akademisches Kunstmuseum" does not match the recommendation, as there is no personal name, just the name of the museum. Anomie⚔ 11:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course, "Akademisches Kunstmuseum" does not match. I mailed them and recommended to rename to "Name (AKD)" or "Name (IAK)" (institute of the museum) as our handout for GLAM institutions advises. I wanted to double-check with you that we weren't giving out a wrong recommendation. NDG (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yes, your recommendation is good. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, we get in contact with them, if one of these institutions will have some issues here again. NDG (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the conversation​​​ but your description of the account being "inherited per function" sounds like WP:COMPROMISED in enwiki terms. It might be better for the user to create their own account, after all there's no charge :-) Cabayi (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the account is renamed for several weeks after my advice. And just because it was given by the old representative of this museum to their successor (inherited per function) I don't see any reason for creating a new account. NDG (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose technically, since the person who created the account has lost access to it, and it is now controlled by another person is not false, but it's really more WP:ROLE. Anomie⚔ 19:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I've always taken the purpose of the policy as a 100% guarantee that the person I talk to at User talk:Example today is the same person that I spoke to last month, whether on their talk page or pinged on some other page. Consequently we can assume they have perfect knowledge of the account's past conversations, interactions & warnings and we can treat them as if it were so whether true or not. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Several times I've asked someone about a past conversation and the reaction has been along the lines of "that was six years ago, I don't remember any details anymore". 😀 I'd probably react the same way in many cases. 😅 Anomie⚔ 16:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Role accounts in Twinkle

I went to go report a role account, and interestingly it was not one of the options I could select in WP:TWINKLE. The options I could select in Twinkle's ARV -> UAA module were "Misleading username", "Promotional username", "Offensive username", and "Disruptive username".

Should we try to add easy role account reporting to Twinkle somewhere? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Confused about when to user-report a blatant ISU policy vio

Hello. Recently, I reported Special:Contributions/Sanatani Kalyan Seva Trust with ISU concerns. Drm310 replied (diff), tagging it {{uaa|d}} with the comment, "the user has not edited about their organization", and added {{uw-username}} to the UTP. Three questions:

1. Did I make a mistake raising this at UAA? It seemed to clearly fit WP:ISU to me.
2. My understanding was that in the case of blatant policy vio one either starts a discussion on the user talk page to see if they will voluntarily change it, or one raises it at WP:UAA possibly leading to a {{ublock}}, but not both per WP:UAA#Report blatant violations. Why was raising the {{uw-username}} at the UTP the right thing to do here?
3. I was not aware that a user is ineligible for an ISU block until they edit about the org; did I miss seeing that in the policy?

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss it in policy, and no I don't think you made a particular mistake. Different administrators have different approaches on how to handle ISU accounts. I've seen some administrators block blatant cases on sight. That's less common though. When I encounter such a name, I always add {{uw-coi-username}} to their talk page and wait. Most often, they just never edit. I've been doing this for well over 10 years now . What shouldn't be done, as you rightly noted, is to warn an ISU account AND report to WP:UAA. What to do about such accounts is somewhat of a grey area. I give them the opportunity to do something about it before they are blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. I will take this on board and use {{uw-coi-username}} from now on. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hammersoft, Having thought about this some more, I think your advice is even more apt than I at first realized. To the point where I now believe that the question of whether to add a message to the user-reported section of UAA or to leave a template on a user's TP should not be a judgment call left up to personal style, but rather it should be added to the instructions with clear guidance pointing to the user TP as the recommended choice.

The reason I think so is based on retention data that shows that roughly 95% of accounts never reach ten edits (and my experience as a mentor having left hundreds of welcome-mentee messages backs this up). Furthermore, my experience with leaving users a username message (admittedly only a handful of cases) shows that most users do not respond, and of the rest, some request a username change as prompted and the situation resolves, leaving an even smaller percentage requiring admin action. We should not be drawing the attention of administrators to something that will self-resolve well over 95% of the time. The instructions should be altered to be clearer about this, and maybe even give more weight to § No action necessary as the first choice until they exceed ten (or some number of) edits. Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In general, I concur. Some data might be able to be obtained to support this by looking at my contributions (last 5000) on user talk pages and searching for new sections titled "Conflict of interest and your username" (241 over those 5000) and seeing what has subsequently happened to those 241. I don't think ten edits is a way to evaluate. I've editors violate our paid policy with just one edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Or, more directly (and not limited to the last 5000): these 1,564 placements. (Adapted from the link at {{Uw-coi-username#Notes}} bullet #2.) Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Show off :) Seriously, I'm pretty amazed at the things people know how to do around here when I've been around forever and forget where the "Publish changes" button is. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha beat: I forget where to look up where it says where the Publish changes button is^{(no, that ain't it)}. But seriously, if that looks show-offy, that previously annoyingly difficult search link is easy to create now via a template, but I slogged through a lot of pain to get to that point. It arose out of my frustration at my complete inability to write a Cirrus query that would do what I wanted, despite having a pretty good handle on standard web search and regular expressions. Cirrus is the most squirrely thing ever, and seemed like a kind of hellish destination where they send regex programmers who committed mortal sin to spend the rest of their lives in Sisyphean search of a working query.

One day about a year ago when I had a need to find out how often a warning template like {{uw-coi}} or {{uw-npa1}} were being substituted onto whose UTPs and by whom, I had to trudge painfully through numerous attempts at Cirrus queries with endless blind alleys and Hail Mary patterns that I had little hope or expectation of success, before finally working it out. After that, I determined that nobody else should have to suffer through that ever again, and came up with {{find substed templates notice}}, now linked from every warning and most welcome templates, plus some others. And now when I see the resulting Cirrus query, they look ridiculously complex, and I'm just glad—and kinda amazed—that they work. The show-offy query is simply the template-generated Cirrus search link from {{Uw-coi-username#Notes}} adjusted to add your username. And now you know the whole story. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Related discussion § below.

Odd request from a username practically identical to a notable Ghanaian

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.

---

Akyeame.kwame (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
Okyeame Kwame
Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Edit request: University of Ghana statue controversy

• In responding to a COI edit request, I came across the editor Akyeame.kwame requesting to place in the Gandhi article information critical of Gandhi (Mahatma). They claim to have personally taken a role in creation of what they call the worldwide effort #GandhiMustFall. They also claim to have written, reported on, and documented this protest movement, necessitating use of {{EditCOI}} The odd thing, is that their username is one letter removed from the notable Ghanaian Okyeame Kwame who, according to GoogleAI, has been supportive in their Facebook posts of Mahatma Gandhi's messages and teachings. According to AI, they mentioned Gandhi as being an inspiration for their dietary choice to be vegan.
• My question asks, is there a username issue here? Lets say, if I were to create the account Batte Midler and then used that account to offer criticisms on Talk:GLAAD (whom the real Bette Midler has mentioned as being supportive of) is that an issue? The editor in question and their requests aren't in danger of gaining any real mileage on the Gandhi talk page, so it seems at the present to be merely a mild nuisance. But if AI is correct, then the real Mr. Kwame—should they happen upon the talk page of this notable historical figure that they respected and admired—might feel consternation at seeing what appears to be themself criticizing that figure. Thank you in advance for any info on this. Regards,  Spintendo  20:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I have clarified this on my user page. “Akyeame.kwame” is my personal account name and is not intended to impersonate or represent the musician Okyeame Kwame. “Kwame” is my kradin, and kradin are ordinary Akan day-names; Akan men are given names such as Kwasi, Kwadwo, Kwabena, Kwaku, Yaw, Kofi, and Kwame. “Ɔkyeame/Akyeame” is also an Akan title with broader usage. In my case, the username reflects my own background: I became an Ɔkyeame/Akyeame for my mother in her role as Ɔkɔmfoɔ in 1999, and my kradin is Kwame.

I understand the concern about misleading usernames, but this account does not claim to be the musician, does not represent him, and is not being used in connection with him. I hope the user-page clarification resolves any ambiguity. Akyeame.kwame (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You stated that "I was one of the original #GandhiMustFall organizers discussed in the international news coverage, and I have also published academic work on the controversy. Could you provide some of those works here, and describe your role in organizing the movement? And were you familiar with the notable Ghanaian Okyeame Kwame before today, or is this the first that you're hearing of him? If you are familiar with him, have you seen or read any of their Facebook posts regarding Gandhi? I hope you'll forgive me for having all these questions, but perhaps you could understand how coincidental this all might sound to those of us uninitiated in the anti-Gandhi movement that you've organized.  Spintendo  23:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I am happy to clarify.

My role in the #GandhiMustFall campaign is described in several independent sources. The Associated Press identified me as “one of the petition’s organizers.” Al Jazeera quoted me in its September 2016 coverage of the campaign. Teen Vogue, citing BBC coverage, described me as “one of the creators of the petition.” The Indian Express later reported that I was “among the first to protest against the Gandhi statue” and that I sent an email to university staff with 52 Gandhi quotations, after which discussion and protests intensified. Contested Histories describes me as a co-author of the petition.

Some relevant sources are:

• Associated Press, “Ghana professors campaign for removal of new Gandhi statue,” 23 September 2016.

https://apnews.com/general-news-85b0c3cb476345c586f2660fba1e1c7c

• Al Jazeera, “Ghana: Call to remove Gandhi statue over ‘racist views’,” 21 September 2016.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/9/21/ghana-call-to-remove-gandhi-statue-over-racist-views

• Teen Vogue, “University of Ghana Protesters Call for Removal of Gandhi Statue,” 23 September 2016.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/gandhi-statue-protests-university-of-ghana

• The Indian Express, “Debate rages on about Mahatma’s legacy in Africa,” 5 March 2019.

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/debate-rages-on-about-gandhis-legacy-in-africa-gandhi-statue-in-ghana-to-be-relocated-3-months-after-it-was-pulled-down-5611009/

• The Guardian, “Statue of ‘racist’ Gandhi removed from University of Ghana,” 14 December 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/14/racist-gandhi-statue-removed-from-university-of-ghana

• Al Jazeera, “#GandhiMustFall: Was Mahatma Gandhi racist?,” 18 December 2018.

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/the-stream/2018/12/18/gandhimustfall-was-mahatma-gandhi-racist

• Contested Histories, “Gandhi Statue in Accra, Ghana.”

https://contestedhistories.org/wp-content/uploads/Ghana_-University-of-Ghana-Gandhi-Statue-in-Accra.pdf

My own published academic work and commentary on Gandhi, the controversy, and related arguments includes:

• Ọbádélé Kambon and Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, “The Pro-Indo-Aryan Anti-Black M.K. Gandhi and Ghana’s #GandhiMustFall Movement,” in Rhodes Must Fall: Nibbling at Resilient Colonialism in South Africa, Zed Books, 2018.
• Ọbádélé Kambon, “Ramachandra Guha is wrong. Gandhi went from a racist young man to a racist middle-aged man,” ThePrint, 24 December 2018.

https://theprint.in/opinion/ramachandra-guha-is-wrong-a-middle-aged-gandhi-was-racist-and-no-mahatma/168222/

• Ọbádélé Kambon, “#GandhiMustFall, #AugustusMustFall, Temporal Reality, Ma’at and srwḏ tꜢ n Kmt ‘Restoring the Land of Black People’,” in The Routledge Handbook of Language and Race, Routledge, 2025, pp. 82–106.

https://pure.ug.edu.gh/en/publications/gandhimustfall-augustusmustfall-temporal-reality-maat-maat-and-sr/

On the username question: yes, I was familiar with the Ghanaian musician Okyeame Kwame before today. However, this account name is not based on him and is not intended to impersonate or represent him. As I clarified on my user page, “Akyeame.kwame” reflects my own Akan background: Ɔkyeame/Akyeame is an Akan title, and Kwame is my kradin. I became an Ɔkyeame/Akyeame for my mother in her role as Ɔkɔmfoɔ in 1999. I have also used versions of this username across online accounts since the late 1990s/early internet era, so it is not a new username created for this discussion.

The account does not claim to be the musician and does not represent him.

As to Facebook posts, I have not seen the posts being referenced and am not relying on Facebook posts by Okyeame Kwame or anyone else for the edit request. The request is based on published news coverage and reliable secondary sources. I hope this clarifies the username concern and the sourcing basis for my earlier request. Akyeame.kwame (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you said that the piece you wrote appears in Francis B. Nyamnjoh's work discussing the RMF movement—Rhodes Must Fall (referring to Cecil Rhodes, not GMF, or Gandhi Must Fall)—found at doi:10.2307/j.ctvmd84n8; that is the correct publication in which your work (The Pro-Indo-Aryan Anti-Black M.K. Gandhi and Ghana’s #GandhiMustFall Movement) appears?  Spintendo  01:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not the correct DOI for my chapter.

The correct chapter DOI is:

https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350222380.ch-020

The correct book DOI is:

https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350222380 Akyeame.kwame (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Fine. Since this is not a UAA issue, we ought to resume our discussion on the Gandhi talk page.  Spintendo  04:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Subst {{UsernamePolicy}}

I'm tempted to subst {{UsernamePolicy}}, since it's basically only used on this page. It's becoming longer and longer and it doesn't really make sense to keep it in a template, as this hides edits to editors who are watching this policy. FaviFake (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's used on more than only this page. Anomie⚔ 23:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it's also used on one similar page. We can just transclude it and still get all the benefits. FaviFake (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's already being transcluded, and in a less confusing way than the "random section transclusion" you're probably referring to. Anomie⚔ 12:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Do you at least agree I'd be nice if edits made to it would show up in the watchlists of watchlisters of this page? FaviFake (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If they care, they could watchlist the template too. Anomie⚔ 22:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but you haven't answered the question. FaviFake (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

"Nice"? 🤷 "Worth the confusion of having pages transclude arbitrary sections of other pages?" No, there are better workarounds, such as interested people watching the template. "Am I going to continue debating this with you?" Probably not. Others coming to this discussion can form an opinion for themselves. Anomie⚔ 12:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

What should Template:Uw-username say about when to use it, and when not to

This topic is related to the discussion above about reporting blatant ISU policy violations.

My understanding from the discussion above about when to report a username violation is that there is a certain amount of choice involved regarding whether to report it here, and that there may be good reasons to just question the user directly rather than report here, even when violations are blatant.

Although it had minimal participation, if that represents consensus then the user warning template {{Uw-username}} doc page was out of step. Formerly, it said this at the top:

{{Uw-username}} should not be used for blatant username policy violations. Blatant violations should be reported directly to WP:UAA. {{Uw-username}} should only be used in edge cases in order to engage in discussion with the user.

My personal impression as a Mentor, is that many users receiving the template, even in blatant cases, never edit again (much less reply to the template question). That may argue for not burdening an admin board needlessly with cases where effort will never be required.

I've removed this instruction from the template for now (diff) to bring it more in line with the previous discussion, but it may be that there are opinions we haven't heard from yet about this, so this is your invite to chime in. Courtesy pinging @Ahect and Hammersoft:. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Listed at: WT:Template index/User talk namespace. (Reping Ahecht; typo.) Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Mathglot Was there a specific reason you were pinging me? --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ahecht: Yes; your edit of 17:14, 31 January 2025 at Template:Uw-username/doc. It's been a while; I probably wouldn't have remembered either. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Policy is a reflection of common practice. At WP:UAA, I very frequently see administrators responding to reports with 'wait until the user edits'. There's an aspect of that which I think is important. As the administrator pool to declines, decreasing the workload of existing administrators is important. If a warning will suffice, go with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Food for thought:

• Usernames that are company names are both "promotional" and ISU.
• When an editor with a promotional name makes any edit, whether or not it is about their organization, if one considers edit history, it is promotional in nature, like product placement.

— ERcheck (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely; no question about it. And if an editor continues editing after I have reverted and queried them on their Talk page about it, that tips the balance for me and I have no hesitation posting at UAA. However, my experience is that continuing to edit after a Uw-username warning occurs in only a small minority of cases, and that's why I'm thinking about what the template instructions should say about when to place or not place it. Any thoughts on that? Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

If a new editor is here to build an encyclopedia (contribute in a positive manner), then I expect that they would respond to warnings on their user page. If they had no intention of ever editing, or were NOTHERE, then issuing a talk page warning will not deter them from making positive contributions. Generally, I think that placing a "warning", informing an editor of policies and asking them to make the appropriate changes, should be done. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why one would not issue a warning. — ERcheck (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

One other point: If a new user account is the name of a company, typically the account is not created to contribute to Wikipedia, but to make a name for themselves on Wikipedia (a comment I've read multiple times on such users' talk pages). — ERcheck (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've always used {{uw-username}} as a first-level warning, an early intervention against a potentially problematic editor whose motives haven't yet been clearly established. For example, a CORPNAME or ISU username with no edit history, or an innocuous edit to a topic unrelated to what their username represents. I concede that the latter could be the beginning of a WP:PGAME strategy to reach autoconfirmed status, but AGF says we need to give them the benefit of the doubt first. For anyone thinking about editing promotionally, uw-username is a good way to nip that in the bud. It also gives a good faith editor the chance to submit a username change and avoid being blocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC on the signup warning

There is an RfC being held at MediaWiki_talk:Createacct-username-help#REALNAME_addendum that folks here may be interested in. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

What happened? Why is the page no longer active? — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 23:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

DQBot edited it what, three hours ago? Seems fairly active to me with 11 edits made today. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Although, before today it hadn't edited that page since the 18th, when it had been making multiple edits per day before then. Possibly the outage was related to Special:GoToComment/c-AmandaNP-20260724212500-Drm310-20260723142400. Anomie⚔ 01:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Misread the timestamp of the post. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:UAA

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:UAA § Adding pseudonyms to {{uaa|sn}}. Thank you. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)