This interface message or skin may be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net. The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators and interface editors. To request a change to the page, add ((edit fully-protected)) to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to bring more people to the discussion.

This edit request to MediaWiki:Signupstart has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

From WP:Username policy and other more highly-trafficked pages, it seems that username is a single word, not two words. I'd suggest changing this message accordingly. Courtesy pinging Izno since you just edited it. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, thinking a little more about this, I don't think this message should really be at the very top of the page, where it competes with the much friendlier "Wikipedia is made by people like you" message. I'd rather see it placed directly below the username field, just like the suggestion to use a unique password is placed directly beneath the password field. I'm guessing we'd need to make a phab task to do that, though.

For the wording, my suggestion would be this: "This will be public. We suggest you choose something anonymous; real name usernames cannot be made private later."

That gets across pretty much the same message but is a lot shorter. Thoughts, Izno or anyone else? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having notified WT:Usability and received no responses, I'm going to proceed assuming consensus per WP:SILENCE and open a phab task asking for the requisite field to be created. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: This message originally said Please consider using an anonymous username, and not your real name (emphasis added). You changed this to You should make your username an anonymous username, not your real name. Did I miss a change in username policy that supports us telling new users not to use their real name, rather than advising them of the consequences? WP:REALNAME still reads consider carefully. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, that specific change was supported by preamble + (B) in the first change's summary.

This is horrible for a new user. A) The link sends them off to paragraphs upon paragraphs of information they don't need. B) Make the instructions short and simple. C) That screaming red will cause people Not To Sign Up for being Too Scary. D) That second sentence just isn't necessary. ...

So far as I know, there has been no change in the user name policy, which you correctly identify. My original change was a direct "make it anon" rather than the softer "you should make it anon" which I softened after feedback on Discord (which inspired my changes to begin with). Note that the paragraph after retains the consequences in question.

NB the original modification of the MediaWiki message a year ago by the group there was inspired by another offwiki discussion (OSs on an email chain AIUI), which accordingly also lacks onwiki consensus (save by SILENCE)... (well, we clearly don't see this message often considering that multiple groups have come to changes much later...).

I'm not too picky about the particular phrasing if we really want to go back to "consider carefully" or similar, but I do think direct is better here for new users. If someone really wants to use their real name at a later date, they can either rename to be more public, or they can simply start signing their posts as such and/or update their user page to reference it.

I certainly do not know what the rationale for the specific wording was prior to my edit since it was not onwiki. You'd have to ask any of the group of editors that got here before me if they remember. I do understand it was particularly the OSs who showed up to this page then because they were generally tired of having to explain to users that their real names were essentially public forever, which was at least as much of the original intent; I do not know if they used 'consider' deliberately or in deference to the policy or what. Izno (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Joe Roe has a point here—interface messages need to align very closely with policy, as casual users generally interpret them to be espousing policy. I still think the bigger issue, though, is just how prominent the message is. That's something I speak to in the thread directly above. It unfortunately has a stalled phab ticket, but we don't need to wait on that to change the wording, which would also resolve the concern here by using "suggest" rather than "should". ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather give a new user the impression, always, that they should protect their privacy, regardless of what our policy (guideline?) says. That "real names" lives on that page doesn't seem to me to be a point of policy but instead convenience. They then have the luxury of later being more open about their identity.

(I see now where this got linked that got Joe's attention. Bad sad bad case :( ) Izno (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just found and read that as well; sad indeed. With the harassment factor in mind, I'd refine my suggestion to this: "Your username will be public. We strongly suggest you choose something anonymous; real name usernames cannot be made private later." Strongly suggest is both more forceful than the current language and doesn't imply that it's policy, and my suggestion communicates the same important information a lot more concisely. Would you be willing to implement? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put up an edit request. I'm not supportive of the change because it is a) longer and b) less direct, but if someone else is willing/supportive of that wording, they can run with it. Izno (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, as my proposal would significantly shorten the text, not lengthen it. I'll go ahead with the edit request and lay it out. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to MediaWiki:Signupstart has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that the content of this page be changed from the current wording:

To this:

There are two reasons for this. First, the top of the new user signup page is the most valuable possible place for us to guide newcomers. There's a lot of very important information that we want them to take in, and a limited amount they'll be willing to read, so it's important that we be concise, and use formatting to highlight the most important things rather than having every message shout for its entire length (which just makes newcomers overwhelmed and they end up ignoring the whole thing). This message is more concise, communicating basically the same points in a lot fewer words, and it emphasizes the most important thing (what we actually want users to do).

Second, as Joe Roe observed above, the current wording could easily give a newcomer the impression that choosing an anonymous username is required, which runs counter to WP:REALNAME. My proposed language is more forceful (something important, as recent experience has sadly shown) but does not falsely imply that there is a requirement. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  On hold it seems OK, but would like a chance for feedback from some recent editors of this message that may have awareness of additional discussions: @TonyBallioni, Oshwah, L235, and Izno:. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection. Also note that I mentioned this message in phab:T290376 last night. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  L235, glad to see we're thinking similarly; I also proposed some layout reform at phab:T282494. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for following up on this Sdkb, but I'm afraid I still need to be picky about the wording. There is, as far as I'm aware, no consensus to "strongly suggest" anything one way or the other. The username policy merely highlights and describes the possible ramifications of editing under your real name. I think we should revert to the simple previous language that matches WP:REALNAME: "Consider using an anonymous username...". – Joe (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is that language is simple for you and other old hands. It is not simple for new users. Izno (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Separately, since you apparently agree the policy is not providing direction, there is no strong necessity to match the text of the policy. Izno (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that a joke? WP:NPOV provides "no direction" on what clothes we have to wear when we're editing, can I then create an edit notice telling new users that they should put on red trousers? Simple is good; simple and wrong is not. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So long as we're not implying that anything is policy that isn't, we have the ability to decide here what sort of advice we offer. I concur with Izno that it's a lot safer to err on the side of encouraging anonymity, since it's fairly easy to come out with your real name later but very hard to put the cat back in the bag if you start out using your real name. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, obviously, but the more important point is that we absolutely cannot make policy changes amongst a tiny group of users on an out-of-the-way talk page. And telling thousands of new users, in big bright letters, that they "should" do something, or that "we" strongly suggest they do, definitely implies it is policy (not that 99% of new users would have any idea of the subtleties of wikitheory invoked by that word). The original version of this message was crafted by functionaries with extensive experience dealing with username-related outing problems, and based closely on existing policy. I agree that Izno's changes for the most part improved the readability, but if you want to deviate from the substance of what WP:USERNAME says now, I'm afraid you're going to need to show a broad consensus for it. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe Roe, I notified WT:UPOL, a page with 1,464 watchers, above. If you'd like to add additional notices elsewhere or suggest places for me to do so, that'd be welcome. I certainly agree that this message is important and worth getting right. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes thank you for that. I do agree that this is a fair enough place to work out the text of the message. However, notification or not, this isn't how we make substantial changes to policy. And the suggestion that this text, which will be read by thousands of brand new users, can freely deviate from policy is just a non-starter. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the point of the comment was that you were leaning awfully heavily on those two words. Do you agree or not that those words "highlight and describe"? If you do, then just because they appear in a policy indeed does not mean a whole lot. Contrast your choice of policy, WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).... That's some actual imperative verbiage. Your choice of words indicates that you don't see them as a fundamental directive, which is why I asked why you used them. If you don't agree, why did you use those words?

  Consider also that the description there may be intended for you and me, old hands. A reminder that people can ultimately do what they want and so we shouldn't block them for it.

  I do not see this as fundamentally breaking from any policy, including that one. But even were it breaking from the one, I think it's in our best interest in respect to WP:HARASS and related policies like WP:BLP that we encourage users not to use their real name. I think in fact that those policies have a higher interest in such a case than some "highlight[ing] and [description]" in a page about user names. What do you think? Surely your experience as a functionary indicates that we should protect our users when they're to make a mostly-permanent decision about their name. A gentle nudge at the signup process that says "really, use this, not that", is not a big deal in comparison, especially since I pointed out that they are free at a later date to out themselves as person X or Y.

  As for The original version of this message was crafted by functionaries with extensive experience dealing with username-related outing problems, and based closely on existing policy, this is not indicated anywhere on wiki. Are you saying that discussion happened offwiki, or just assuming? Consensus requires onwiki agreement regardless, so I'm glad we're having this conversation here and now. Izno (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is indicated here. We have no policy that encourages users not to use their real name as their username. Many prominent editors have always done so. Jimbo Wales, for example. You might think it's good advice, but as far as I know your only experience of off-wiki harassment campaigns is participating in them, so that's worth approximately jack shit. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  When there is an edit dispute, you are more than well aware that it's not sufficient to point to an edit history.

  Skipping that, you can move along I guess since it is clear you are no longer here to discuss this particular page in any meaningful fashion. Izno (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The edit history shows that the message was written by functionaries because, if you look at the names of the users who edited it before you, they are all functionaries. We have nothing to discuss because your entire wall of text boils down to the nonsense reasoning, "I can make interface messages say whatever I want as long as there isn't a policy saying the precise opposite." Or, alternatively, that the username policy is somehow not relevant to what we advise new users to use as their username. For a self-touted "old hand", you seem to have an extremely loose grip on how consensus works on this project. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done as to the immediate edit request, clearly needs more work. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I do agree that the current message is redundant and repeats itself, not seeing much pushback there. As far as consider/must/should/strongly suggest. etc guidance: Since we (and the global SUL system) has no prohibition on real names - I think consider is enough. Notably, for the most part no such guidance is given on this page if you start a new account on any other WMF project. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try 2

This edit request to MediaWiki:Signupstart has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• @Xaosflux, since we seem to be agreed on the redundancy aspect, would it be possible to implement the request apart from the consider/must/should/strongly suggest part, leaving the status quo for that in place for now? I plan to open a discussion at WT:UPOL to get wider input on those words, and I think it'll go more smoothly if it isn't bundled with a bunch of other changes. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a specific mock-up for a new edit request? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, this:

((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an improvement. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to nitpick at the wording, I wonder if we could avoid the word anonymous. When you invent a name, you aren't exactly anonymous; you are pseudonymous. "Consider using a nickname"? "Consider using a fake name"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about using "pseudonymous" or "alias" instead, but that doesn't really meet the plain English criterion. Nickname isn't quite the same as a pseudonym, and fake name sounds we want a real name but just not their real name. So idk, but ultimately I think clear communication probably takes precedence over strict accuracy. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: hmm, maybe: Consider using a username other than your real name, as usernames are public and cannot be made private later.. WhatamIdoing makes a good point that chosing a username that =! your realname alone does not impart anonymity to an editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux, perfect! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented Further discussion and refinement welcome — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ, thanks! The only thing I'd tweak is to have the blue part cover all of Consider using a username other than your real name, or the other than your real name part as Xaosflux suggested above. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. I'm not sure the blue part is needed at all personally, but if there is a part to highlight then that's it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reuse of usernames

The next worst thing to realnames is the reuse of usernames. I'm currently looking at a user's home address which I found by way of a recycled username. In the context of their other use of the name the disclosure makes (some) sense. On-wiki it does not.

Ping the previous discussion, @TonyBallioni, Oshwah, L235, Izno, Joe Roe, Sdkb, Xaosflux, and MSGJ:. Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The more subclauses you add to something like this, the less likely the message is to get through. At a certain point surely we have assume that new users can apply common sense? Most people know that search engines are a thing. If you found someone's real address via their username, maybe they just don't care if you know their home address? (Probably you could find mine; it's not generally considered private information in Denmark). – Joe (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally thought that this was great until it was changed. Bold red text on the top line - "Your user name will be public" - Concise and with emphasis, as what was needed. It should give that "common sense" emphasis that Joe Roe correctly points out above, and it's short and sticks out. The rest? More details if you want to read on... "People are going to see your username, and even if you change your username for privacy reasons, you're still going to be linked to that original username per your edit history." The formatting perhaps could use some change if necessary (change the red text to a less "urgent" color, don't have the bottom text in bold, etc). I would not crowd the opening sentence with a lot of words or specific issues; let the follow-up paragraph below do that. That's where you specify, "Yeah, I wouldn't use your real name, or use a username that you've used elsewhere... Seriously, trust me on this...", Yadda yadda. The entire message should be short, but, more importantly, the opening text should grab some attention, be concise and informative, and lead into any details below. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My main concern here is that we don't start adding instructions that aren't backed by policy or any discussion again. But I do agree that your original version was better thought out, Oshwah, if a bit on the wordy side. If I was doing this from scratch, I'd borrow the marketers' "attention-grabber then call to action" pattern, and yeah trying to give information rather than tell people what's best for them, e.g.:

  Your username is public, and cannot be made private later.

  • You can use a pseudonym instead of your real name
  • If you reuse your username on another website, others may make the link

  But I'm yet to be convinced the second point is really a pressing problem. – Joe (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username policy § RfC: Language at new user signup page. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, this was closed as no-consensus (Special:PermaLink/1052494916#RfC:_Language_at_new_user_signup_page; meaning the status-quo will remain. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from above, phab:T282494 has now been resolved and MediaWiki:Createacct-username-help is available. I propose that we transfer this message to there, so that it will show up in a more appropriate spot on the page.

Edit request

This edit request to MediaWiki:Signupstart has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per above, please move the message currently at MediaWiki:Signupstart to MediaWiki:Createacct-username-help, improving the design at Special:CreateAccount. It'd probably look best to strip the formatting when you do so, to match the password advice. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Sdkb: I moved the help text there to the new message, only retained an underline. Also defaulted the other message. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux, thanks! I think if we're going to keep some emphasis, it'd be better to use italics, as underlines typically connote a link. Use <em> rather than <i> for accessibility. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb  Done as to the em option, dumped most of the old formatting - feel free to discuss further with others if de-em'ing is a good idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only about a dozen folks watching this page, I started a discussion at WT:UPOL (link) about updating/changing/strengthening this message in the vein of most of the threads here. Please join in if you have not already done so. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add:

To log in to an existing account, please click here.

So long as the login button is hidden behind a menu, we should make sure that somewhere on the "create an account" page contains a direct, obvious, and clickable link to log in to an existing account. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done this is not "help" about creating a username. Consider this at step 3 of WP:BRD, you will need to establish a consensus for the change. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have made the request at Mediawiki:signupstart so that we could modify the (signupstart) field, but that page was deleted and its talk page redirects here, and I figured that this would be the right page to make the request. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That other message is no longer used. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Special:CreateAccount page has a defined field for this exact sort of thing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk ah ok, so I'd rather we put the link there then in the field help; looks like it supports links when I tried on testwiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like an example on a live wiki, you could see Uyghur Wikipedia's log in button atop the create account page; the inclusion of the text looks quite natural to me when viewing the Uyghur-language version of the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use this link to see this if your global lang is set. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My global lang is set to English, but the page I'm referring to is the Uyghur-language page. I tested the page in an incognito window in Chrome, where a large blue link (not button, sorry) at the top of that page links to the relevant Uyghur Wikipedia login page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: add a link to log into an existing account.

Vector-22 deliberately hides the button to "log in", but shows a button to create a new account prominently at the top of the screen. If people are not able to locate the login button, which is behind an ellipsis that lacks an obvious tooltip indicating that should go there to log in, they may go the page to create a new account as a way to try to find a button to log in. But, if you go to that page currently, the button to log in is still hidden.

If we add a big note at the top of the page that contains a direct, obvious, and clickable link to take users to log in to an existing account, this will allow users to more easily find the button to log in from the screen where they would otherwise attempt to create accounts. To do so, the following could be added to the (signupstart) field that was previously defined at MediaWiki:signupstart:

To log in to an existing account, please click here.

I think that this would improve the page and, while it would not solve the fundamental issue that the login button login button is obscured by the new skin, it would be an improvement over the current situation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) has been notified of this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for advertising. I don't think this is the best place for this. I don't like having the login button hidden, but would prefer we just get it unhidden instead. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also prefer that we just get it unhidden, but that seems like something that would either require consensus for a change to common.js or vector.css. I don't see a reason why a short-term band-aid is mutually exclusive with either of those; the band-aid could be easily removed once the login button is unhidden. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It could be done upstream in the skin config. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think splitting this discussion from the more general Vector 22 discussion is generally inappropriate at this time. Izno (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno Do you have any objection to adding a login link to MediaWiki:Signupstart? I don't think it will be a problem there (note, this section was originally asking for it to be put in a field help text, which I objected to. I don't think it would be intrusive on the CreateAccount page (it would appear above the first field on [[Special:CreateAccount]). Certainly the discussion about if "login" should be unhidden should be elsewhere though. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would probably be fine. The proposal is not accessible though; "click here" is a noted "don't do that". Izno (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, WP:CLICKHERE. I think we'd want just a Log in to an existing account line. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb can be a simple line like:

  (Log in)

  perhaps? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That works for me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Overall, I share @Xaosflux's concern that this seems to be working around the problem rather than addressing it directly. To that end...

  @OVasileva (WMF) and @SGrabarczuk (WMF), could you explain the reasoning that went behind only having the "Create account" option directly available in the upper right without having to click on the menu, rather than also a "log in" option?

  To expand a bit on the editor perspective, when someone has an account, we really want them to log into it rather than creating a new one. This makes it easier to communicate to them (since they'll receive pings to the original account), easier to help them (since we can search through their contributions, so if they ask "why did my draft get declined?" we can find the draft), and easier to identify COI/SPA/etc. editors (since their contribution history generally reveals their motivation). Therefore, an interface that reduces the friction of logging in vs. creating a new account seems like a good thing.

  I'm also interested in any broader thoughts you may have on the signup page here. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb see also phab:T289212 requesting the button, seems to be stalled out by designers along the lines of it isn't there because that's how we designed it .... — xaosflux ^Talk 22:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the WMF doesn't do it, couldn't we just do it with javascript? It would cause content flashes, but that might also make the WMF speed up fixing it... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk not well, logged out users get cached pages - and this is something you'd want on every single page since you don't know where they may ingress from. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb, sorry for not answering earlier. phab:T289212 mentioned by xaosflux will be out next week. This week, we'll post a brief announcement about this change, probably as part of the RfC discussion. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Edit: it's here: WP:V22RFC2#Login button now to appear outside of menu for logged-out users. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, once the button is showing on all pages we should be able to blank back out MediaWiki:Signupstart. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone and added the plain (Log in) on the top of the create page, it seems like it will be unobtrusive for anyone that is there to create an account. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk please note, as phab:T289212 resolved and the log in link is now at the top of all logged out pages, I'm removing this workaround on the create account page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me :) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, it looks like your recent edit was a bold change. Aligning the advice with policy is good, but the wording here is out of context and is likely to cause some misinterpretation. When we omit entirely the direct advice to probably choose a pseudonym, it may sound to some like we're saying "use your real name, but just be aware it'll have consequences".

I don't think the prior text was fully what we want, particularly as some editors, e.g. public figures or COI folks, should probably use their name. What would you think of this?

Consider choosing a username that is not your real name, as it will be public and cannot be made private later.

The addition of "consider" there helps create room for the various exceptions to the advice. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: That wording is what we had until Primefac changed it this January, and also my preference. However, he objected to me reverting to the status quo, hence this attempt at a compromise. My position is basically that this is not the place to debate whether people should or should not use their real name (or some shade of meaning in between). That's part of the username policy, and whatever text we use in interfaces should stick closely to what's written there. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, Joe Roe, neither "Consider" nor "Carefully consider" give any hint of the IRL consequences of using your real name. A significant proportion (maybe a majority) of the username change requests are variants of "I did not realise my username would be publicly visible. I need to remove my personal information". What are you asking the user to consider? It's a meaningless warning if the user is not pointed to the consequences they need to consider. If Primefac's "You should choose" text hasn't stopped the flow of panicked users, the milder "consider" text is just luring users into an ill-considered decision.

This isn't a matter of enforcing the username policy. It's a matter of preventing the loss of editors who have unintentionally doxxed themselves.

If anything, the text needs to be stronger, not watered down. Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not a majority, ≈25% on a quick count of the reasons I could understand in the most recent 25 requests. Cabayi (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions say that the username is public and cannot be made private later. I don't understand why so much energy is being spent on this, but would Carefully consider the consequences of choosing your real name rather than a pseudonym. Your username is public and cannot be made private later. be the best of all three worlds? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that. I'd also be in favour of simply removing the first sentence on the principle that's it's better to give people the information they need to make an informed decision, rather than tell them what to do. The important thing is that we don't include positive instructions (should/should not) that aren't supported by policy. – Joe (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, I think we all understand that there are strong arguments for not using your real name (although ironically I'm the only person here who is both a functionary and uses their real name, yet people seem to keep assuming I need a lecture about it). However, Primefac's edit, telling all prospective new users "you should choose a username that is different from your real name" is effectively a ban on real names as usernames and should not be made based on discussions amongst a handful of functionaries on an out-of-the-way interface page. If you feel that the danger of doxxing is not sufficiently reflected in our guidance to new users on what username to choose, then you should find a consensus to change that policy, not this fragment of text. – Joe (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the nine username requests I've handled so far this morning have been new users needing to conceal their real names and one more needing to conceal a traceable pseudonym they had reused from other sites.

Joe, this is clearly not about enforcing a policy, it's about helping users keep themselves safe. We don't have a policy forbidding users from editing Wikipedia on a mobile device while crossing a busy road, but if it became a thing we'd surely advise against it as visibly and forcibly as we could.

Altering the text in the guidance for new users would be great if our objective were to claim the moral high ground of "we told you so". But users clearly do not read further than the text on Special:CreateAccount before creating an account. There is also the factor that the link to WP:USERNAME is linked as "(help me choose)". For newcomers, unaware of the consequences, and who have known their real name their entire life, why would they feel the need for help in choosing their real name?

Like it or not, the text in MediaWiki:Createacct-username-help is our only viable opportunity to steer new users from making an irrevocable & ill-advised choice. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at this from the perspective of a functionary that sees what happens when a username choice goes wrong. That's fine, but it's not the only relevant perspective here. Four out of nine username rename requests is still a vanishingly small proportion of the number of new accounts created, or the number of editors who edit with their real name. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much as a functionary Joe, more as a VRTS agent and as a renamer. I also hope you're bringing all your experience to the discussion so that we reach the best outcome based on a consideration of the widest set of circumstances. The four out of nine figure is for one day. Over the three+ years I've been renaming I've done over 5500 renames. Even if the proportion is only hand-wavingly in the ballpark, that's still something like "real name" 2400 users, say 700 a year. It may be a small proportion* but it's not a small number, even just the ones I've handled personally. For that number the consequences can be catastrophic, and they then go on to be a drain on resources, demanding their right to be forgotten, demanding their account be deleted, requesting their GDPR rights, insisting they have other legal rights - all of which could be avoided if we steer them away from using their real names in the first place.

Those who come to create an account, see the field "Enter the username", and decide that's where to put the name of the topic they came to write about - they're beyond help. But those users misguided enough to use their real names in the misguided belief that it will bolster the credibility of their contributions, or that it will improve their numbers on Google Scholar, or that Wikipedia is part of their social media "brand", those users we CAN help, and should help.

 • I'll avoid the word vanishingly in the context of usernames.

-- Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 10 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per above/BRD, please undo the recent change to the message to restore the status quo version (Special:Permalink/1174890667) while we discuss potential changes. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: I don't believe that's the status quo. This is the status quo. The history is admittedly a little hard to track: the location of this message was recently changed. Previously, it was at MediaWiki:Signupstart (now deleted, but admins can see the history). If you looked at the combined history of these two pages, we had the "Consider..." wording for nearly three years (from July 2020 to January 2023). A well-attended discussion in September 2021 failed to find consensus to strengthen it. Primefac tried again, this time on another talk page in January 2023 and although only one person out of the four that participated explicitly agreed with him, made it anyway. I reverted this change in September 2023, was re-reverted, and then tried to come up with a compromise. This isn't exactly a highly-watched page, and it's interface-protected, so I don't believe the delay in someone noticing Primefac's bold change means much. – Joe (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high-profile interface message, so a version adopted in January is clearly status quo to me.

In any case, it'll all be moot once we work out what we ultimately want it to say. I'll be able to share more thoughts on that when I have more time after this weekend. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How many experienced users look at Special:CreateAccount? How many of those that do would have found the source of the message there as being MediaWiki:Createacct-username-help? (It took me some time due the above-mentioned change, and I'd already edited the previous version). How many of those have the technical ability to edit it, or are willing to go through the rigmarole of doing an edit request to do so? I hope we can find a consensus version too, but in the meantime we need to be careful to avoid making a major policy change by WP:FAITACCOMPLI. – Joe (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to use my admin tools to edit this page directly, but I find Joe's articulation of the status quo to be more convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the relevant deleted history at MediaWiki:Signupstart and merged it with this page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above solution to just remove the "carefully consider" bit to be the most compelling - tell people flat-out that a username is public and cannot be made private later. That, to me, is the most important part of the message, and the one that both the WMF and those in agreement with me seem to be making the strongest argument for. I am quickly finding the wordsmithing to just be pedantry and misses the entire point. Primefac (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I'm afraid this is going to have to stay at The Wrong Version until you can find a consensus on what the wording should be. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]