:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: user has requested a rename, no strong consensus formed here but they have agreed to change their name in light of some of the opposition camp's arguments. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

----

{{user|Tales of Arcadia}}

Their username is that of an animated television show franchise, Tales of Arcadia, which they freely admit on their user page. This user mainly edits the German Wikipedia, which has a different username policy that is more accepting of what we would call promotional names. For that reason I attempted to discuss it with them instead of blocking them for what seems a clear violation to me, but they do not wish to voluntarily change their username(likely because it is a valid username on the German Wikipedia). They declined my offer of alternatives(creating a new account for their use here, adding "fan" to their username). I dislike bringing this up, but I feel it's a clear violation. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, I would like to make a clear statement at the beginning: I'm willing to any discussion about my username, because I really like to contribute to the Wikipedia project and don't want to leave it (and especially not in this way). But I don't agree with the position of 331dot, so I have proposed that we can start a discussion here if needed.

:As I have understand the policy usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event are not allowed. And 331dot has the opinion that Tales of Arcadia which is also the name of a TV franchise is considered as product.

:But the word Arcadia itself has a very long history and refers to a "vision of pastoralism and harmony with nature" as well as to different places, movies, games and a lot of more as you can see here. The phrase Tales of on the other hand is used for movies and books very commonly. So in my opinion the term Tales of Arcadia is just a sequence of a commonly title suffix (Tales of) and a mystical place (Arcadia). DreamWorks (the creator of the franchise) wouldn't be able to protect this name as brand or product because it could refer to any of the stories who are telled about the place of Arcadia. They have just chosen this title to awake a mystical tension.

:And because of that I don't see where the user policy would forbid this name. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::Note that you were editing articles related to the franchise, and you say on your userpage that your name is based on the franchise, so it's not a coincidence or related to a broader concept. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I have never declined that I have edited articles in the past who are related to the franchise. But as everyone can see all contributions were minor changes and none of them were promotional. And I also have edited articles who are not related to the franchise. But my main focus is the German Wikipedia. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::To {{User link|331dot}}, {{User link|Bishonen}}, {{User link|Drmies}}, {{User link|1AmNobody24}}, {{User link|Salvidrim!}} and all other readers. I would like to add some further explanation to my first statement:

::When I created my account in the end of 2023 I have choosen my username with a explicit reference to the TV franchise. I've always communicated this clearly as all of you can see on my user page. The justification that my user name consists of the terms Tales of and the place Arcadia shouldn't mean that I'm denying my reference to the franchise rather I only wanted to explain that in my own opinion the name Tales of Arcadia wouldn't be protectable as a product name or brand by DreamWorks or any other company because it consists of a common phrase and a mystical place. Again: I'm not denying that my user name was choosen with reference to the franchise. But I also never have promoted the franchise here or on any other project.

::So I think the question we now need to clarify is, how names with reference to fictional content should be handled. Are names who are equal to the title of franchises, movies, series or books allowed or not? What about other fictional content like characters or places? If such names are generally not allowed here, then I fully agree with you and my name needs to be changed? But aren't there also a lot of other users who would needed to be renamed then?

::To be honest, what was really shocking for me, is the fact that I have contributed to the Wikipedia a lots of time before now (more than 1 year later) this username warning has reached me. I've become very comfortable with the name and thus I don't wanted to give up my name without a discussion in the community. And this is exactly what we are here for. I don't want to waste the time of anyone here, but please also keep in mind, how frustrating this whole process is for me.

::So please let us come back to the root question how we should handle names with a fictional reference. Maybe one of the already voted users may change their mind and hopefully some other users will contribute to this discussion as well.

::Finally, a friendly request to all administrators who still think my name is against the policy: Please do not just block my account, without giving my the chance to react once the discussion here is completed. I always was patient with all of you and was respecting every opinion. Sincerely Tales of Arcadia (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Since it seems that sadly no further comments are posted here I'm willing to change my username because of most of you have voted to disallow the name. Please give me time till tomorrow evening (German time) to think of a new name. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Currently I have a few names in my mind. I'll need to think of a bit which one to choose and probably request a rename tomorrow. Keep you updated here. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Allow Technically it is the name of a product, but it's a creative work. People regularly name themselves after their favourite characters, books, songs, and so on, and I can't see how that causes disruption. They aren't selling something, and it's not promotional in the typical sense we think of on Wikipedia. And it would be a shame to block an active deWiki contributor from resources such as TWL for an issue as trivial as this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I suggested that they simply add the word "fan" to their current username to resolve this. That's a policy compliant way for them to still indicate their personal interest in this franchise. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I can't see how "fan of named creative work" (a username which explicitly promotes a product) is in anyway less problematic than a username which is "named create work". {{pb}} And @Bishonen, you haven't seen this because it's on their deWiki page, but the argument they've adopted directly a result of a member of the deWiki Arbcom telling them this would work. If you think they should be blocked for it, you may do so, I suppose, but it has no bearing on their username. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Because it indicates an individual. Their current name suggests to those that see it an association with the topic or that they represent the topic. If my name was New England Patriots or Boston Red Sox, the same would apply. It's not disallowed to indicate an interest in a topic. "RedSoxFan" would be completely acceptable. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Both the examples you've highlighted would be WP:ORGNAME violations, not because they take their names from products, because they take the names of a coorporations, and in a way that could easily imply shared use. I understand what you're trying to illustrate with them, however, I really do, but I'd like to get back to the user at hand. In this particular case, while the user has taken their name from a product, they have taken their name from a particular subset of products: the subset of creative works. I so understand where you're coming from on this issue - and the name does, fairly obviously, make a reference to a product, I cannot disagree with you there. But there's a reason I'm focusing on the fact that it's a creative work. These are strange, because unlike other products, people may often name themselves after movies, tv shows, poems, songs, characters, without any intent to advertise the product in question. (Yes, characters are products.) Could these be blocked instantly? By the letter of the policy, yes, you could have likely blocked instantly without any need for the RFCUN. Admins do, semi-regularly. You chose not to, so you already accept that there is some difference between this username and other product usernames. (I've been assuming that it's because it's a creative work: is there some other reason?) However, given that they are an active contributor on deWiki, given that they have not engaged in promotional or disruptive editing on any Wiki, and given that there has been no real argument that their username has caused disruption, mislead other editors as to their identity, and given that their editor clearly discloses where their username came from, their lack of personal connection to the movies, and given that this past week of discussion with a goal of trying to force them to make their disclosure in their name has prevented both of you from improving the encyclopedia, would it not be better to WP:IAR and say "it's against the letter of the law, but not the spirit?". And I'm saying this as a stickler for making people follow the exact terms of the Creative Commons licenses and plagiarism policies. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I chose not to block only due to the differing username policies between here and the German Wikipedia. When I've done this with other editors in this situation, they're usually willing to either rename or create an account just to use here. This is the first one I've had decline. And their response here was to claim that this was a coincidence, wiklawyering it. ("I'm from Boston and I wear red socks, so "Boston Red Sox" is okay as my name") 331dot (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Ah, I think there's been a bit of a translation issue here. I don't believe Arcadia is claiming their username is a coincidence, they're more arguing that it is more likely to be perceived as a coincidence than it is to be perceived as promotion. This is most likely due to the fact that our policy places such a focus on "unambiguous". They believe that if they can show their username is not unambiguously that of a product, they can keep it. They like their username, so they're doing that. They've also taken this argument from their mentor at :de:Benutzer Diskussion:Tales of Arcadia#Antwort auf deine Anfrage. I still understand that this has produced a somewhat wiki-lawyer-like approach, and I get why that's frustrating to deal with. However, I'd urge you to look past that, if for no other reason that it has no effect on their username. {{pb}}And apologies if I'm coming across as dismissive of your concerns or arguments. I understand where you're coming from - it's just that I was blocked on svWiki last year for a username violation. I was unblocked rather quickly, thankfully, once another administrator pointed out that I wasn't a creep, just a lesbian and productive enWiki editor. But if I hadn't been unblocked, then it would have actively hampered my ability to edit enWiki articles. Everytime somebody looked at my global contributions they would have seen I was blocked on other Wikis, I would have lost access to the Wiki library, and it would have prevented me from making my occasional minor edits on svWiki. Username blocks are needed, to prevent obviously disruptive usernames that make other editor uncomfortable, to enforce local policies surrounding the use of shared accounts, or as a quick way of getting rid of spammers/accounts which are obviously not here in good faith. This editor is here in good faith, and nobody has made any claim otherwise. Yes, you're right on a technicality. But what good does forcing them to make their name explicitly promotional actually do? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Don't allow. {{u|Tales of Arcadia}}, are you aware of the concept of wikilawyering? That's what your argument about "just a sequence of a commonly title suffix (Tales of) and a mystical place (Arcadia) is. {{u|331dot}} has been extremely patient with you on your own page. Unless you promptly take their good advice (which contains several alternatives for you) without any more messing around, I would recommend them to block you for egregious timewasting. Bishonen | tålk 23:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC).
• :I think you have misunderstand me. (Maybe because I‘m not a native English speaker.) I have never declined the reference to the TV series. Everyone can read this on my user page. I only wanted to say that the name (in my opinion) is not really a protected product namr which can be considered as product. And again: I was and I‘am always open to a discussion. And I‘ve never posted anything which was promotional. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Don't allow. If {{U|331dot}} is technically, right, then they're right, no? 331dot made what seems like a perfectly good suggestion, and they were nice enough not to block for what three administrators now think is a violation of our user name policy. The word "Arcadia" is used frequently, but "tales of Arcadia" as a phrase, independent of that show/franchise/whatever, is not, as a Google Books search confirms, delivering nothing but hits for the show. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Allow. There are many users with the suffix "Tales of..." in their usernames here, indicating that it is commonly used. Some of the names may refer to culture or to places. As an editor of articles on classical antiquity I did not know about the animated series. I thought of the various tales of Arcadia, narrated during the centuries and of the famous paintings, depicting the stories. It may be my fault, but I cannot see an unique name and the promotion of a single product in this name. --Regiomontanus (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Just noting (from a pedantic/administrative point of view) that there are five users with names starting with "Tales of" (which, again pedantically, is a prefix, not a suffix). Primefac (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disallow Not sure if this is a bit far-fetched, but if they're editing Tales of Arcadia, I'd count the name as a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME #3: {{tq|Usernames that imply that the account has explicit ownership of certain articles, content, or topic areas}}. Nobody (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@1AmNobody24 That's an interesting idea; I'd like to hear more. How would you generalise that to usernames in general that make reference to a particular article subject? For example, we have a lot of accounts whose usernames are directly taken from superhero movies/franchises. (Just search User:Superman and see how many you get). Do you believe those are misleading and at risk of scaring off other editors? Thinking more broadly, how about usernames that just, in general, overlap with the article title? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::The honest answer is 'It depends'. Would I find {{noping|Superman}} editing Superman a misleadname? No. Would I find {{noping|USA Gov}} editing Federal government of the United States a misleadname? Yes. There are others were I'm also unsure how I'd handle them, for example: If {{noping|Swoop}} edited Philadelphia Eagles would you see the connection with Swoop (Philadelphia Eagles) a misleadname? Nobody (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::'It depends' is a perfectly acceptable answer. Interestingly, I'd probably be okay with Swoop (but as an Eagles fan, that could be pure bias =P ), USA Gov directly implies both a real-world, legal, authority over the article content and, as the name of an organization, fails on several fronts. I'm with you on Superman though. Just to take this a bit further, what implications would you get from a user who took their name from a specific movie? Or maybe a specific song? For the sake of argument on the song one, say the editor explicitly named themselves after the song, then edited the article extensively. Would that be misleading to you? If not, then why? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Given that my own user name is partially inspired by a movie, I'd say it depends on the movie title and how they edited the article. This applies for any creative work. Nobody (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I hadn't put that together. Bob Odenkirk was great in that. The argument this user has used, that their name is not immediately obvious as the name of a creative work, actually does apply in your case. To answer GLL query about a song, a song is also arguably a product, but it isn't a franchise. There is no implied authority in naming one self after a single song.
• :::::I have to say I don't think I've seen this specific situation before. If someone was named User:LordoftheRings and started editing about Gandalf I'm not so sure we would block them. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I agree that just editing a article that seems related wouldn't probably lead to a block, they'd be asked if theres a COI and move on. I'm more interested in what you'd think if they're edits were clearly promotional. Would you simply think it's a fan or would it cross your mind that it could be a paid editor trying to improve the presentation of their product? Nobody (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :But doesn‘t it count how these edits were made? All are minor changes, like fixing links or other small things. I‘ve never promoted anything. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Questioning - Would we allow User:IncredibleHulk to edit Marvel articles? Would we allow User:BladeRunner to edit articles about the franchise? I don't find absolute clarity in the rules about whether usernames that are titles or fictional elements of creative works are allowed or disallowed, and I don't find that this is unambiguously covered under the "product" category. I raise this question with disregard to the pseudoarguments put forward that this is just common "Tales of" prefix with some general "Arcadia" concept, I'm assuming the username is directly named after the series, and still questioning applicable policy. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, I have chosen my name after the franchise. Everyone can read this on my user page. But because it‘s fictional, I haven‘t considered it as product. And no one of my edits were promotional. Tales of Arcadia (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Speaking as someone who is themselves named after a fictional character, I can edit Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy articles all day long if I want to. So yes, we would allow the Incredible Hulk name to edit Marvel articles. I think Blade Runner is arguable as well, as that is the name of the franchise, but also a role,as Deckard was a "blade runner" before he retired. The difference here is that they are clearly not named after a character, they are named after the franchise. The body of work is a product not a character. I don't think there is any ill intent here, but technically the name seems to run afoul of ORGNAME which explicitly mentions product names as usernames. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::That being said, I'm not sure a block would really serve to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. If it was "Tales of Arcadia Official" that would imply special authority. I'm not entirely convinced that this does. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Allow per Beeblebrox's explanation that this username isn't disruptive enough to the project and revise WP:ORGNAME to accommodate good-faith usernames named after pop culture works/characters/etc. Indeed, we should not enforce policies to our letter, but rather revise them to their spirit. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :My main concern here is that the name of the franchise doesn't denote an individual- I already told the user that adding "fan" to their username would be completely satisfactory. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.