Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New RFCN gone live

Just to let everyone know, I've gone ahead with the new RFCN procedure, there may be a few teething problems at first, but stick with me on it and we'll sort them easily enough. Just for clarification, here are the new templates;

• {{Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}} - this template is to be used to put the specific RFCN page onto the main page, replace USERNAME with the username that is being discussed. This should be removed by the closer on archiving thediscussion.
• {{RFCNtop}} - this is the archive template which is put on the top of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be {{subst:RFCNtop}} '''result''' (optional statement on reasons for closing) ~~~~. Please note, that only admins who have not commented on the username should close the discussion.
• {{RFCNbottom}} - this is the archive template which is put on the bottom of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be {{subst:RFCNbottom}}.
• I've also changed the main template for the page to instruct on thenew system; {{RFCUsername}}. Please check the diffs to see whats changed.
• {{RFCNblocked}} - This template can be used on the blocked users talk page to explain the block and it gives a direct link to the discussion. All that needs to be done is add {{subst:RFCNblocked}} ~~~~ to the talk page and this will show the user the reasons why their username was blocked
• {{UsernameDiscussion}} and {{UsernameAllowed}} now link directly to the specific discussion page, don't forget to substitute them however

Apart from that, if there's anything else you wish to know, then by all means contact me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 07:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_system_for_WP:RFCN. --Ali'i 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will write a script that detects the removal of {{Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}} type templates from WP:RFCN and add a link to the existing archives. It may be a few days though, as I have more pressing matters. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question - would it not be easier to not create a subpage for each instance, the way DRV and CFD and TFD and RFD work? >Radiant< 14:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because a bot will automate everything, one would only need to clear away closed items. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, when a discussion is closed, should it be removed from the main RFCN page right away, or left for a while? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I say remove on closing, people who have commented should have it on their watchlist, and when the bot starts archiving them, there will be a firm record Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Difficulties

It appears that some users are having difficulty reporting under the new system, especially since it is impossible for anons to report easily. Perhaps the process is too complicated. I have also noticed that there is no link from the RFCN page to each subpage, but overall the system is better organised. G Donato (talk to me...) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IP's don't report usernamees here, until today (strange). In what way do you mean link to each subpage? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, at AfD there is a link in brackets to the subpage which contains the discussion. I feel that a similar link here would be useful. The fact that you said IPs don't usually report here has reassured me in that aspect. To calrify my final comment- the better organisation refers to the archiving and closing adins comments. Thanks. G Donato (talk to me...) 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll play about with the template then and see if we can provide a direct link, bare with me though Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's kapu to bare with you. ;-) --Ali'i 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also found it a bit strange that an anonymous user suddenly started posting usernames after the discussion concerning anons' ability to post them. Leebo ^T/C 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Someones doing it make a point, but I've now included in the template a link to the RFCN discussion similar to Afd Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The two I've seen (and welcomed) are from an AOL IP (so it's probably one meat-person). --Ali'i 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! G Donato (talk to me...) 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

None of those users had a 'UsernameConcern' put on their talk page, the noms should probably be removed because of that. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I say let them run, I don't think any are going to be disallowed, so there's no need for a username concern Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing a UsernameConcern template should be enforced

I think the best way to reduce frivolous reports here would be to require that users have a {{UsernameConcern}} presented to them before being listed here or being told that their username is going to be discussed by the community. This is in line with the idea that we shouldn't be biting, and we should be assuming good faith. There should also be a waiting period after the concern has been issued to allow the user to respond. I get the feeling that a lot of these names come from users browsing the new user log and immediately taking borderline ones here

If the steps described above are not followed, the name should be un-transcluded from RFCN if it was already added, and any link to that discussion on the user's talk page should be replaced with the concern template. Here are my thoughts:

1. This page is only for borderline cases; if the name gives the impression that waiting for their response is inappropriate, it should probably go to WP:AIV.
2. Waiting gives us a chance to see the user's intent on Wikipedia.
   • If they're going to vandalize, they'll get blocked for that.
   • If they're going to contribute constructively, they are more likely to be open to changing their name, and we will have avoided scaring them off with a trigger-finger discussion.
3. Many username concerns could easily be resolved with private discussion on the user talk page. Offering the suggestion of disambiguation would be good for usernames that looks like disallowable real world names.

To sum it up, the biggest problem here is that usernames are too often reported with no warning to the user and no prior discussion. These steps should be enforced, just as lower level methods of dispute resolution are required before higher ones. It would save everyone wasted effort, and it would save many new users from an unpleasant first experience. Leebo ^T/C 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest also adding a recommendation to leave it up for 24-48 hours... no one is going to die in that amount of time frame if a username isn't taken to RFCN. A user should be able to watchlist the username or link to it from their "TO DO" section of their userpage. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think simply notifying the user that the discussion is taking place is plenty. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the goal is to keep people from reporting usernames without thinking about it or discussing it personally first. Slapping a discussion link on a borderline user's page 10 minutes after they register without expressing a concern (it happens) is biting in my opinion. Leebo ^T/C 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply starting a discussion about a name is not biting. If a user does it in a biting fashion then it is, but that is not a given. The blocking policy does not require any action before performing a username block, so why one earth should action need to be taken before a username discussion? This is policy creep. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Expressing a concern to the user is already part of the steps that the page lists as required, indicating that if the concerned is not expressed the discussion can be removed -- but I don't think I've ever seen this enforced. Using the {{UsernameDiscussion}} template comes after that step of listing here, which comes after expressing a concern. I'm asking that if we have these protocols on the RFCN page that they be enforced. Leebo ^T/C 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be a judgement call. I think it just depends on how much potential for offense or disruptions a username has. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If it says that it should not say that. The fact is that no action is needed prior to a username block, so why should we need to take action before simply discussing the block? This does not make sense. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it does not say you have to, it says it "may be helpful", this is correct. It is not required, nor should it be. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The "may be helpful" refers to using the template as opposed to composing it yourself. It still indicates that skipping it could result in removal of the report. Leebo ^T/C 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if it does indeed say that, not my reading, then it is contrary to regular practice both here at RFCN, and in general. Like I said, there is no policy that says a user must be told before a discussion about their name starts. This step simply bogs down the whole procedure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My intent is not to bog down process for the sake of bogging it down. It's my personal opinion that users should be talked to before getting the community involved, as is the purpose of the {{UsernameConcern}} template. I noticed that this opinion of mine fell in line with the idea that listings can be removed if the step is skipped -- but if there is consensus that the wording in question needs to be changed, I don't mind keeping it as my opinion and just that. Leebo ^T/C 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Leebo. A user that intends on being an active contributor to the project should respond favorably to a concern notice and ask what they can do to change their username, having to never have brought it here in the first place, bogging RFCN down with names that could have been changed with dialog. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The majority of names mentioned are names of brand new users who often never come back. So you end up delaying every username discussion for a day or so while the message sits on their talk page. Maybe 1 in 8 people actually participate in their own RFCN's after being notified it has started. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also my opinion that names like that probably don't need to be brought here if the user isn't even contributing. Like I said in my first post of the thread, it seems like people browse the new user log until they find something questionable and then report it. RFCN would see a lot fewer frivolous reports if there was some measure of discretion. And again, that's my opinion. Leebo ^T/C 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy is that usernames need to obey the policy if they are registered, not if they have made edits. Perhaps a change can be made at WP:U, but I see the point if this idea as being to prevent these names from ending up in the edit histories. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point too. I can continue to ask users before reporting them here (I've actually had a good success rate with that). Leebo ^T/C 20:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am all for talking to people before discussing their names with others. I just don't think it should be mandatory for every case. But I do think that the person should be notified of the discussion every time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Requiring the template itself would not be sound. Simply requiring notification would serve the same purpose without requiring a mechanical process or a sycophantic template.
• Some usernames are blatantly inappropriate and, while they could be more appropriately listed at WP:AIV, they can and should still be blocked here. There is no reason for someone who finds this page looking to report a blatantly inappropriate username should not list it. —Centrx→talk • 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• If someone reported a blatantly inappropriate name here without asking the user about it, I'm sure the response wouldn't be to reject it on the basis of not notifying the user. It would either be sent to AIV or blocked by an admin on the spot. Leebo ^T/C 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(In every discussion here I feel like I have to qualify by saying that "obviously bad names" are not being discussed here (sigh))

I think talking to the user is always the best first step. As pointed out, many users register and never come back. No work to do here - no need for any action. As pointed out, good editors will see the UsernameConcern and want to do something about it, like add disclaimers to user page, change the name, or say why it wasn't 'really' a concern to begin. No work to do here - no 'immediacy' needed. If the original worried editor sees no response to an ongoing concern (continued editing with the worrisome name) then as part of bringing it here they should change the tag to UsernameDiscussion to notify the user.

We aren't bogging down process if there is no need for process here to begin with, or if process can be pre-emptively redirected into positive resolution (e.g. user changes name). Shenme 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy says once a username is registered it must follow the username policy, so you can't just say that if the user never edits then there is no need of discussion. I disagree that talking always needs to be the first step. Some level of judging is required. A user must always be told the discussion has started, this is enough. Why should simply talking about a username need prior action, when acting on a username does not? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, one perennial bone of contention is over blocks in situations that are not clearly preventative, one situation being a block when a user has clearly ceased to vandalize, for instance because they haven't edited in the last hour or so. Many people react to the issue strongly, and in both directions.

'Acting' without need seems wasteful of our time, hence my repetition of "no work to do here." I'm sorry that I don't understand the need for immediacy. It seems the only positive explanation I can think of for omitting UsernameConcern is that it lessens the work on the original reporter. No, I guess I can see that the concerned party might think it needful enough that others be consulted. I worry, however, that 'concern' will always translate to "right now"! That is something I'd like to explicitly inhibit, not prevent (see parenthesized sentence above)

And I worry about the ultimate extension of your first sentence - the workload of "cleaning house" would be extraordinary. So we can't say 'always' there either? Shenme 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not going to be a way to prevent frivolous reports, in all likelihood. If someone reports a name immediately after the user registers, and it's unanimously kept, or it could have been easily resolved, there's no way to take that back. People would probably still do it even if there was some way help it. Situations like that tend to breed resentment. I've seen it happen quite a few times and it probably could have been prevented with politely asking users to change names, but that's the reporting user's judgment. Leebo ^T/C 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of RFCN

A lot of these entries are a waste of time. A username block does not delete a username. Since most usernames are used once and never reused, there is no benefit in this process: by the time it reaches a conclusion, the user is gone anyway. It is actually counterproductive in some cases: for instance, if the username is spam, then we are actually calling way more attention to it.

I say use your judgement more. If it's obviously offensive, block on sight. If not, let it go. Come here with borderline usernames that are continuing contributors. Don't waste 20 edits to block someone who only made 1.

Just a thought, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is obvious spam, i will instantly block, and if it made it to RFCN, close the rfcn early. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary of some RFCNs

Here is a summary of recent RFCNs, taken from the subpages of this page:

Name	Age pre-RFCN	Edits pre-RFCN	Result	Edits post-RFCN
CliosCalamityOfClits	2 days	1	block	n/a
Fenian Swine	over a year	over 500	allow	about 10
Jezusfreak	5 min	0	block	n/a
Mmaarrcchhwwoooodd	30 min	2	allow	0
Nhl hockey [email protected]	over a year	about 100	allow	0
Renegade [email protected]	9 months	2	block	n/a
Fact verification	a week	1	allow	0
John A. Robinson	instablock	n/a	disallow	n/a
Mohamad ali	2 min	0	allow	0
Fattyfatfatfatty	2 hours	0	blocked	n/a
Metsfanatic0007	20 min	0	allow	0
Mrsdesenssucks	instablock	n/a	none	n/a
Pothead12345	30 min	0	allow	0

The "edits post-RFCN" column may be unfair due to them being so recent. So, here are 10 older RFCNs, taken from the start of the archive page of a week ago (Mar 31):

Name	Age pre-RFCN	Edits pre-RFCN	Result	Edits post-RFCN
Bobandsteve	5 mins	0	allow	0
Canister of Death	15 min	10	allow	1
Suhass.badre	3 mins	0	allow	0
JohnnyHasHUGEBalls	5 min	1	blocked	n/a
Wikiministrator	45 mins	2	blocked	n/a
Hackauthor	5 mins	0	allow	0
Amigoooooooooo	3 mins	0	blocked	n/a
Master editour	3 mins	0	allow	0
Mmmmmooonnnnnn	5 mins	1	blocked	n/a
Z3r0n1n3	3 mins	1	allow	0

Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

New RFCN questions...

Cards face up: I don't like this new process. That said, I have some honest, good faith questions:

1. What is the reasoning behind this new process? I've seen people mention that the archives currently are unintelligible, and that this new process gives closing admins more room to explain their closure & dedicated talk pages for each name. Is this it? Are there other reasons why this was changed?
2. If asking for opinions on a username now requires creation of a new page, won't this disallow "anons" from seeking opinions?
3. User:Radiant! recently massively (overly?) simplified the page to a blank page with the note that the page was for requesting comments on a borderline case. Why is this method so much worse than the current plan? It eliminates a lot of process (and process for the sake of process is just plain wrong) and is much simpler. (Shouldn't keeping things simple be the goal?) Is there some sort of middle ground between that and the current format?
4. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction to the Fenian Swine & TortureIsWrong discussions? Shouldn't process evolve slowly?

I appreciate any answers to these questions, as I've read through the talk page here, and still can't figure out why this is a good change. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• For reference, this is how the page used to work. List nasty names, they get blocked. List silly names, they get ignored. We don't need a long discussion over, say, User:Pothead12345 because no sane admin is going to block him anyway. >Radiant< 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen the earliest versions of the page and liked the quote, "Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by visiting admins. If a matter turns out to be controversial, a subpage may be created here to discuss it." A subpage may be created. Why the need to jump through hoops for a relatively uncontroversial name? --Ali'i 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Answers

1. It allows us to keep clear records on all discussions here, just as is done in every other discussion on wikipedia. The closing admin can clarify themselves in the archival box, which stops arguments post closing on the exact reasons for closing. Also, each entry has a discussion page, so motions for closing, large ammounts of info, definitions can be placed their to stop it getting cluttered up.
2. Why would an anon wish to start a discussion on a username?
3. It is more inline with other RfC's, keeps the page size limited as only templates are transcluded, and may even stop people questioning a name which they think only has a mild chance of being blocked (i.e. WP:BITE noms)
4. No its not a knee jerk reaction, it's something which I've been thinking about for a long time
5. In response to radiant, the username policy clearly isn't obvious in the way it is written, there are many very ambiguous names which need discussion, one person can't decide if it merits a block or not Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with the new process and these answers are correct. Thanks Ryan! Wooyi 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... why would an anon want to seek comments? For the same reason you (or anybody) would. That seems obvious. This stops them from doing so. --Ali'i 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because not all names need the new system, it does not mean that the new system is not needed. Many names do need much discussion, and their own talk page, and the closing need to be done with remarks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The new system's discussion on pothead username appears to be a calm consensus, Congratulations everyone who reformed this process. Wooyi 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than the fact that it was a total waste of time, yes, it worked great. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time? No matter what we do there will be users who report names that are not in violation, how do you suggest we deal with those? We decided it was not in violation and closed it, how is that a waste of time? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can do that by only archiving allowed usernames, without archiving the many blatantly bad usernames that are quickly blocked. Requiring a subpage to be created for every request is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I like it, radiant made a comment about it being an example of RFCN being overly bureaucratic[1], I don't understand how that can be. A name was reported, it would have been reported no matter how we format the page, it was quickly found not to be in violation and closed. How is the new system in any way effecting the actual decision making process? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the system is bureaucratic, it's not because of the page's format. The reporting and consensus procedures are largely unchanged. Coemgenus 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucracy requiring that subpages be created and then closed with closing templates where before it was as simple as making a normal edit to the page. It is bureaucracy because of the lengthy unnecessary instructions at the beginning of the page. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Radiant's comment I guess it's more humorous than serious, and I think he is referring to the whole RFCN process instead of specifically the new process. Actually I personally think Radiant is pretty witty in that comment. Wooyi 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is not denying the wit of Radiant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if some gets blocked for a username violation, the discussion could be stated on the talk page and transcluded or moved to a discussion. Should consensus allow, the name is automatically unblocked. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like how the new system makes people read the instructions before making posts like this[2]. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. I guess it was the process' fault, and not Heliac's misunderstanding of WP:U and RFCN. </sarcasm> I guess we'll just spend our time (well, not my time) creating subpages for these ridiculous reports... which we will then archive (or possibly take to MfD in some cases, I'm sure). Seems like a good plan. --Ali'i 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Heliac did not read the instructions when he reported those names, chance are he would not have made the sub pages. Frankly there are too many people coming here without reading the instructions. I am not about to help a user create sub pages for ridiculous reports. While your sarcasm is clear, I am not sure what you would suggest as an alternative. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• My point is that this new system encourages users to nominate names that they don't like based on some novel interpretation of the username policy. See, admins generally think twice before blocking anyone; whereas any random user does not necessarily think once before putting something in The Process. It is better, imho, to tell a new user "welcome but this name is not allowed", than to tell them "welcome, but we're not sure if your name is allowed or not so we're going to argue about it for five days, but you're welcome to join the argument too if you read up on policy first." >Radiant< 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Instructions

I have read the brief discussion above and see no justification whatsoever for having page-long instructions. Reporting a username here is really very simple, and those instructions are more liable to simply turn a person away, to no benefit. Even if subpages are used, the enormity of the instructions for a very simple thing is quite ridiculous. Also, a new idea proposed 1 day ago does not suddently have consensus, nor does a discussion about it within one day have much significance. —Centrx→talk • 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In that spirit, why didn't you revert to the version that existed immediately prior to the discussion of the past few days? RJASE1 ^Talk 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That would have eliminated the current listings. They could be copied over though. Also, the bloat of the instructions and whether to use subpages and for what purpose are two separate issues. —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work centrx, consensus was reached on this page before implementing by people who regularly use this page - not by against consensus editing like you've just gone, I'm reverting back, if you disagree, get a bigger discussion going on the talk page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? You made a post about it less than a day before implementing it. The substantial objections to it have not been addressed. Wikipedia:Consensus has the general idea about this, your flippant attitude and disingenuous statements do not. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have neglected to respond to the argument in the original post here. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: most of the instructions are not recent. What was recent was using subpages for all entries (not just the lengthy ones), and the matching instructions in the messagebox surrounding the subpage-creation inputbox. Somewhat less recent was a cleanup-restructuring of the instructions to make them easier to read; and a strengthening of the injunction to contact the user first (which is required by WP:U). You deleted everything, including instructions that had been there without objection for months. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

I have nominated the above page for deletion which can be found at the above link. Concerns were raised at WP:AN and the only way that many of these can be sorted is by starting a deletion discussion. Please address any concerns there. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ever notice that these things are often decided by people who never participate in the process under discussion? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think they'll step up to take up the slack at WP:ANI is RFCN is deleted? RJASE1 ^Talk 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep the area open because more people should participate in the discussion. That said, there's an obvious problem there because it IS an area where not enough people take part, leading to a certain amount of "we're the veterans, what the hell do you know" attitude among long-term participants. Or at least that's been my observation as a newcomer. I'm not pointing fingers here. It's a natural phenomenon of organizational behavior. TortureIsWrong 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was actually starting to get the feeling that the fireworks were mostly over and the different factions were working together in a respectful way (or at disagreeing civilly). RJASE1 ^Talk 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Things do work quickly here, it seems. And no one in this section is arguing for the deletion yet. TortureIsWrong 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, where will you edit each day(good natured teasing)? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tralfamadoria, I suppose. TortureIsWrong 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at recent exchange at User_talk:Wooyi#Johnny_the_Vandal and User_talk:Mangojuice#Robinson_case, there is simultaneously, a justification for the experienced admins to judge some names, and an unfortunate resemblance to "so there, we do know better and you shouldn't judge us at all." I... just wish the communication were better in both directions. At least then the gulf between the knowing and unknowing wouldn't look so formidable, to the unknowing. Shenme 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the one kind of situation (obscure vandal names) where that comes up. Actually, vandal usernames used to be better documented, but then, all of a sudden, WP:DENY came up. Still, I am not sure there is a strong need for ordinary users to understand blocks that don't involve them without having to enquire. Almost always there's a very good reason for it: just ask the admin who blocked and wait for an answer. But the Robinson case was bad for another reason: it's one thing to debate applying a block, it's quite another to debate overturning a block. Per WP:BP, overturning blocks must be done very cautiously, and almost always in full consultation with the blocking admin: a community input like this doesn't really have relevance. Mangojuice^talk 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in most cases an unblock should happen only after consultation of the blocking admin. But things happen differently if there is a wheel war going on. Probably I guess a consensus in WP:ANI, which is a consensus among admins, should do the unblock. Also WP:DENY is only an essay, not a policy, admins shouldn't be directed by an essay in detriment of obeying policy. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues with new method.

I had the page watchlisted originally. Now I don't get to see each vote because they don't show up on my watchlist. We need to go back to the old method. G.O. 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think (just between the new method and most recent old method) the benefits outweigh the advantage of seeing a recent comment on your watchlist. When RFCNs get transcluded, you see that in your watchlist. It's just like a lot of other areas. Of course, we may end up changing the format very soon, but it won't be so people can see the comments on their watchlists. Leebo ^T/C 13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you can have individual names that interest you on your watchlist. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When individual comments were placed on the main page, and that page was watchlisted, it was rather hectic and difficult to monitor what was going on. Now, by watchlisting the main page, you see when usernames are listed for the RFCN process and if one interests you, as HighInBC noted, you can watch that individual discussion. It's much more organized this way. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There should be fewer edit conflicts, too. Coemgenus 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible restructure

It looks like the MfD will be a no consensus. Now while that does mean that the page will most likely be kept, it also means that the community is not very impressed with how this place is being ran. So I propose a drastic restructuring of the process, not a technical restructuring like we just had, but a restructuring of how we discuss.

I propose, that we all propose a few different models that may work, and we can all brainstorm to see how we can improve this. I will get us started with an idea, I hope others will follow with their ideas. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments only, fixed duration

Suggestion by ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)}:

The idea here is that RFCN will be a place where people can get comments, about usernames. Instead of Allow, Disallow, people can simply make arguments and comments about the names merit in relation to policy. Instead of deciding if the name is to be allowed or not, it will simply be a place where comments are gathered. More of an information resource than a decision making committee.

An RFCN would run for 24 hours(or another length that we can agree on), or until an admin blocks the username, or an indef block for another reason. Any username block by the admin will be done by their own choice, not "per consensus". This means that admin decisions that are disagreed with would follow regular steps(Contact admin, get third opinion, ANI, talk page discussion etc...). If no admin has chosen to block the name after 24 hours the debate is closed, and the RFCN remains in the archives. If a RFCN needs to run longer(or shorter) than 24 hours for any reason, a consensus to do so on its talk page can be made.

When the RFCN is closed, the closing comments will consist of either "RFCN expired" or "User blocked by <name> with reason: <deletion summary>". This can be done by a bot.

The philosophy of this layout is de-bureaucratisize it, make it more in line with its name "request for comment", and make it less like an AfD. This process should be considerably less bitey.

Comments

I think this is one of the better ideas to come out of this discussion. While I have read the concerns in the discussion below, I still think there needs to be discussion before deciding if a username is appropriate or not. Removing the AfD-like Disallow, Allow votes should take some of the sting of this page away. Allowing comments from the community that a sysop would read prior to deciding whether or not they want to block a username would be a fair way to proceed. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No comments period

This page doesn't need comments, it only needs to be a place for listing suspect usernames. If a name is a clear-cut policy violation, as judged by the blocking admin, case is closed. If the name is not, assume good WP:FAITH and only block the user if xe misbehaves. Simplicity is best, procedure isn't needed, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it's not an RfC then Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, no. I don't think it needs to be. Note how article RFCs do not resemble user RFCs, and that listing username violations on the RFC page is a matter of coincidence, not deliberate design. >Radiant< 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be a much, much better way to go. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the community would benefit from less communication. I don't know of a single place on Wikipedia where decisions are made, but commenting not allowed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly commenting is allowed, for instance on the user's talk page or on the admin noticeboard or on the village pump. It's simply not necessary, if someone reports User:SomeInsultingName, that five or six people go "endorse block" or "do not block, it's funny" before anything happens. It's far better to tell new users "welcome but please make a new account because of that policy", than to tell them "welcome but we're not sure if your account name violates policy so we'll discuss that for five days or so and please join in the discussion after reading up on the actual policy". >Radiant< 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How is being blocked on sight better than being invited to a discussion? You seem to think a name is either in clear violation or it is not, but there is a gray area. My suggestion above allows for violations to be blocked on sight, but it also allows for a place that admins can post a name they want comments about. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The people being "invited to a discussion" are not those who will be blocked on sight. If nobody can be brought to block on sight, then let this "grey area" go, let them edit in peace (if that's what they were going to do) and spare them the "discussion". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Being blocked at sight is better, as long as account creation is kept enabled and the IP is not blocked. This tells the user they made a simple mistake and get to fix it right now. The user isn't blocked, only the account is; the user will likely respond "oh, I didn't know that, how's this name instead?". Dragging a novice into a bureaucratic process generates tension for them. >Radiant< 09:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be basing your opinion on the belief that one person can tell if a name is in violation of policy. The policy is full of things like "offensive" and "inflammatory" that really need group discussion to decide. I cannot tell if a reference to Buddha is made in an insulting way, but an RFCN will provide much information about the subject. I think RFCN should lose it's teeth, become an advisory area instead of a decision making area, but I don't think we need to stop talking about complex username issues before making a decision. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The complex username issues are fairly bogus. If you can't tell if a reference to Buddha is made in an insulting way, then leave it. If nobody else sees why it is immediately offensive and blocks it, then nothing happens. This is almost always the correct outcome, especially considering the username is usually only going to be used once. If not, it can be re-opened later, if and when it becomes an issue. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then maybe you shouldn't decide. I can decide: I think it's usually pretty clear, and in cases where it isn't, I see no reason not to just default to allowing the name. Surely, if the name is actually going to cause a problem, it will cause one and it can be revisited, probably in the light of the name combined with questionable behavior. Frankly, WP:U should be explicit on this: when in doubt, assume good faith, don't bite the newbies, and don't block. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you don't decide to block them, a Betacommandbot will. Haven't we, quite recently, had altogether too much of unilateral no-discussion username blocks by admins? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST

Admins are supposed to be trusted members of the community to make such decisions. Sometimes individual admins get it wrong. If you really believe no admin can be trusted to take reasonable decision then we all know where WP:RFA is (either that or you should be running as fast as you can from the project). If individual admins are getting it wrong, then it's the same process as we use for other disputes dispute resolution. Ranging from the informal to get them to see their thinking is out of line with the general community, to formal arbitration. The policy as it stands (or did last I looked) has a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" type clause for the borderline cases and specifically states that people shouldn't try to find "the line". For borderline instances, immediate review is potentially just inviting trolling by doing just that, keep trying to find the line, keep trying to "attack" and admin by stretching that. I'll encourage what I always encourage, if you aren't certain it is an immediate block, ignore it. There are enough people who look at these, that if no one believe it is an immediate block, chances are it isn't a problem. --pgk 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Admins are supposed to be trusted members of the community to make such decisions." And here I was thinking that admins were ordinary editors with some extra buttons, given "mops" not "crowns"; that they had only the same amount of voice-not-vote in decisions as anyone else, rather than being authorized "to make such decisions" for everyone else; that they were to use their buttons to enforce consensus, not ignore it. Perhaps I was thinking of some other Wikipedia. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were. Anyone can flag up an inappropriate name for blocking, same way anyone can flag up a new article for speedy deletion or add a vandal to WP:AIV, admins are trusted to make a decision, block don't block, delete don't delete again block/don't block and for how long - we don't sit back and take a vote on it. The WP:AIV example is not actually a bad one, we define vandalism and there are sometimes disputes as to if certain editing constitutes vandalism or not, we don't have a RFC/V to lawyer over those cases, we take a common sense approach, and ultimately on WP:AIV and admin does make a call, this works has worked for a long time, as indeed had username blocking worked and worked for a long time, expanding the process doesn't actually seem to achieve anything. As to if they use the buttons to "enforce" consensus, yes it is consensus which forms the username policy in the first place, if an admin is consistently going against consensus then see dispute resolution. WP:NOT wikipedia is also not a democracy nor an anarchy nor a bureacracy. We don't put voting processes in place for the sake of it. You'll also note in terms of disputes lawyered around precise reading of a policy, we again go through dispute resolution within that process the "power" to give out arbitary blocks is with ARBCOM (who represent Jimbo), not a vote on RFC --pgk 08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, an automated bot following a regular expression is not the same as a person making a decision. —Centrx→talk • 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Was it really that "obvious", when Betacommand's name (not a -bot's) was on all those username blocks? And he was denying that any -bot was involved? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My sympathies to the victims of unnecessary username blocks, I do understand where you're coming from with this. But surely there is a way to overturn a username block that doesn't involve having to discuss a whole bunch of other usernames that were never blocked in the first place! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. Just because Betacommand appears to have made some mistakes does not mean we need to instantiate a bureaucracy. First, that doesn't actually solve the problem (because it doesn't stop him or somebody else from donig it again) and second it has undesirable side effects (BITEing). It fails the WP:CREEP-test. >Radiant< 09:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RFCN and all username issues going through WP:AIV/U

I have created a proposal of a new alert board soley for usernames which would work in the same way as AIV, users could report username, admins take a look, block if required or remove if there is no infringement. AIV helperbot could remove blocked usernames and discussion on usernames could take place at WP:AN, the link to my proposal is User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/U Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only for user-disputed cases

In my view, the ordinary gruntwork of blocking bad new usernames can be handled via WP:AIV (or a new WP:AIV/U board), with WP:ANI as a backup in case more explanation is needed. Normally, usernames do not require a "request for comments." However, in rare circumstances, open comments from the community may be helpful. I would prefer to see the board shut down entirely, and a full user conduct RFC used for cases needing wide input. However, short of that, what I suggest is a much higher standard before a case is listed, specifically:

A1. The user in question has been contacted about the concern,

A2. The user has explicitly declined to change their name, or has implicitly done so by continuing to editing with it while ignoring the concern,

A3. The username has not been blocked after a report to WP:ANI, and

A4. The only issue with the user's behavior is their username, or

B. The user in question has been contacted about the concern and wants community input on their name before deciding whether or not to change it.

If a user is already blocked, RFCN should not be used. If a user is blocked, they can request unblocking via the {{unblock}} template; if someone else questions the block, they should discuss it with the blocking admin or on the admin boards. In extreme cases, disagreements over a username block may require further community input, but then this becomes a question of the misuse of admin powers, and should be presented in a full WP:RFC/User. The one exception: if an admin wants feedback on their own block, they may request it at RFCN, but the understanding should be that it is up to them to decide to reverse the decision.

Most important, in my view, is my condition A2: this would eliminate almost all cases from RFCN as it stands now because it would eliminate all cases in which the user isn't making edits. It's also highly logical: if I were a new user and someone mentioned a username concern to me, I'd probably just make a new account instead of trying to discuss it. It's pretty lame to embark on a discussion about a user's name when they've already moved on to an appropriate one, and we can't always expect them to explicitly tell us that they've done so. Condition A3 is needed to establish that there is some significant dispute on the issue, and A4 is there to avoid moot debates about vandal-only accounts with bad names. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This here is about what I'm thinking. This goes along the line of what messedRocker stated at the end of the MFD. (note it does not match exactly but its fairly close). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNP (Username Problems)

The title would need to be changed or re-redirected as this links to the username policy just now.

Proposal in a nutshell: Reduce the number of posts which need to get commented on and restore common sense for decisions for usernames which are covered by a part of the policy.

My proposal is that WP:RFCN is basically moved to the above with a slightly new structure which does not strictly follow an RFC:

• Blatant username violations should still go to WP:AIV
• If the reporting user feels that the username violation is not blatant or is rejected by AIV it should be listed on this page.
• On UNP a couple/few admins (with some experience of the username policy) should watch the page. If they feel a listing is a violation, even if not blatant, they should block it and archive the listing. If they feel a username is not a violation, again even if not a blatant non-violation, they should archive/remove the listing. In a case where an admin is unsure then a note is left on UNP saying so and that comments would be appreciated (if a report gets to this stage the user (with the problematic name) should be informed). The report would then be closed per consensus based on the comments. This would help to reduce "snowball" discussions and not waste time arguing over usernames which really do not need to be argued over.

Any suggested improvements or criticisms would be appreciated. Donato (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on this

• I have now included how this may look at User:GDonato/UNP — Donato (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in present form, handle better

• Keep WP:RFCN in present form, but: deter trolls; ensure consensus is determined by fact-and-policy-backed arguments, not simple vote-counting where specious votes weigh the same as reasoned votes. Keep WP:RFCN, but as it's supposed to run, supposed to have run all this time, without all the lapses that have occurred recently. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. If you want to encourage "fact-and-policy-backed arguments" without vote-counting, you should start by doing it yourself. —Centrx→talk • 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The above was indeed not a vote. The section was titled "Your idea here". I complied with that request. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A bold "keep" has nothing whatsoever to do with an idea, but is exactly a vote. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • My idea is to keep WP:RFCN in its present form, with the provisos I gave above. Your deleting the verb from a sentence in another person's comment, so that it says nothing at all, was rather rude. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It's apparent that Ben was only bolding the basis of his idea. If he says he wasn't voting, then he probably wasn't voting. Isn't the whole point of this discussion to put a few more good-faith assumptions back into the process? To be honest, this isn't really helping matters. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Nick. Since the other ideas presented were not merely "bolded" but "bigged" (being section headers), I thought a merely "bolded" keyword under "Your idea here" was not excessive. Besides, since this isn't an XfD, if I were going to !vote, the starting word would have been "Endorse:" or "Oppose:" followed by one or more reasons, not a verb that was actually part of the sentence. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Even if it wasn't part of the sentence, it seems perfectly appropriate to bold and place at the beginning the position argued in the reasoning. The Behnam 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Returning to this issue, I think this is the best way to go about it, and it kind of ties into HighInBC's idea above. I think RFCN is a necessary process, but could use some reform. Simply providing AFD-like votes of "disallow" and "allow" seems to be the stem of the WP:BITE concerns. If we could turn this page into a place where usernames are actually discussed, not just voted upon, we might be able to resolve the concerns that have been raised. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think changing the format of the comment will help: with or without the leading "Allow" or "Disallow", the reasoning given can be sound or unsound, based on policy or whim, asserting fact or fantasy. Reducing the effect of unsound/whim/fantasy arguments requires active attention, both during discussion (to remind commenters) and afterwards (when determining the result). Having an admin who merely "counts votes" would be just as bad, even if he had to hand-tally each comment as "Allow" or "Disallow" in order to count them, due to the absence of that summary from the comments themselves. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Present form doesn't work. Like last week's pothead, today we have another spurious request that amounts to BITEing. >Radiant< 09:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) You can get a spurious request anywhere, including WP:AIV and WP:ANI, no matter the "form" of the page, the entry, or the ensuing discussion. (2) Do you have an objection to the outcome ("allow") of this particular case ("Ghostbusters")? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Spurious requests at WP:AIV are removed summarily, not subject to a dozen me-too votes and then archived in a subpage. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The current format does not work, and folks are unsatisfied with it. See the recent DRV. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep same format, but request evidence that RFCN is required

This is a follow up proposal from the earlier Only for user-disputed cases one. I would suggest keeping the same format as now, with seperate pages for each request, with a simple tranclusion of the template onto the main page - this keeps it similar to User conduct RfC's. I have created the following preloaded template which occurs when a user starts a request; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/ Docs/ CaseForm2. The user must provide diffs to show that the user in question has requested comments on their username, so in effect, the username concern is disputed. I fully support Mangojuice's earlier proposal and this is simply an addition to it. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan and Mangojuice, your combined proposals make up what I consider a very level-headed reform process. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal too. It is fair and does not waste editor's time on non-significant discussions where the user in question has not made any edits. Although, I am not sure about A3 on Mangojuice's, would this not waste ANI's time. Donato (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Requesting "evidence" is a bad idea, because (1) people can just link to the username policy and give their interpretation of that, (2) it will lead to meta-debate about whether or not the evidence is valid, and (3) it allows trolls to wikilawyer their way out of here because "there's no evidence of offense". >Radiant< 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be adding bureacracy to me. The process a year ago I'm sure was a lot simpler, what problems in that are trying to be fixed? --pgk 10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, that anyone can bring an RFCN request on any username anytime they want for any reason. An RFC against a user's name is sort of like being taken to court: we shouldn't allow it for just any time comments might be useful. Mangojuice^talk 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And that was the case a year ago? And the proposed system is less "court" like? --pgk 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically speaking, a year ago, people weren't overusing this process the way they have been recently. The proposed system is just as court-like, but at least expects there is some real reason to bother having a trial. To me, the overuse exposed the flaw in the process -- unlike a user conduct RFC (which these are really very similar to), no barrier at all is provided to the listing of a dispute. Mangojuice^talk

12:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the same page right? Looking back to 1 Jan 2006 here and it is quite apparent the page hasn't been touched for a few weeks and indeed before that use is pretty sporadic. From 1 Apr 2006 here and the picture is pretty much the same. Go back to 1 Mar 2007 (i.e. a month ago) here and we get more edits a day than we were a month a year ago. Sorry but the change to me seem to have just encouraged over use of the process, they haven't solved anything. --pgk 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The format of the page isn't the issue here, people will still abuse the page whichever we decide to take. However, by making sure users provide evidence that an RfC is required, it means that it has less chance of being abused. If the user hasn't made any edits, it gets delisted, if they haven't been contacted before regarding their name, it gets delisted - the page will only be used when it has to be used (solving all the issues with newbie biting and stupid names coming here). AIV or AIV/U could handle just about all username issues, the very very small number of others which require comments can come here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, a page which actively encourages people to say "allow", "disallow" etc. actively encourages such participation as if it is a vote. You can look through the page history and see many of the same names come here again and again. The poster below complaining that subpages doesn't allow them to monitor every single !vote placed here should give you an idea of the level of obsession being raised here. If we are reviewing names in relation to the policy, then additional people posting a duplicate opinion to one already expressed (with an allow or disallow symbol) are adding little or nothing to the debate. The older system which didn't actively encourage that, didn't suffer the same problems. Now I'm sure it isn't quite as simple a connection as that, but the way the page is setup and run certainly does alter peoples perceptions on the appropriateness or otherwise of activity. --pgk 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely have a point there. I would prefer more of a "outside view by X" with endorsements, rather than a debate of allow/disallow format. Mangojuice^talk 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Return to Calm?

Just pointing out unless anyone noticed that there was a sort of 'return to calm' earlier after the particularly bad set of RFCN's, which has now been thrown in the air AGAIN after someone decided to MfD RFCN, and has been made far worse by everyone throwing out their ideas for reform? We now have an argument over whether Admins should be the only ones to deal with usernames, or if a community discussion is better. Might I point out that this is not a utopia, and there is not going to be any single perfect solution to the matter of RFCNs. Furthermore, this discussion comes directly on the heals of some pretty heated RFCN, and I believe reflects more of people's distaste for what occurred than anything else. The board was fine, and although discussions were heated some times things were on the level weeks ago. Recently, we've had a situation where certain users caused disruption to the board. Although Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a democracy, it is not an autocracy either. Admins are simply editors who have been entrusted with certain additional functions. Their judgment is in no way more or less accurate than any member of the Wikipedia community, and any discussions on reform should reflect this fact. To leave RFCN the way it is would be irresponsible, but so would doing away with it and entrusting all decision in an area of dispute to admins. Just my 2 cents for on the matter... now I'll go and prepare a bullet proof vest, helmet, and remain in an underground bunker awaiting the flak I know I'm going to get over this. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• *ping* rattle *clang* What's this? Flak? No, a shower of M&Ms. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia writes: "Recently, we've had a situation where certain users caused disruption to the board." Or as I see it, recently we've had a situation where certain users interpreted determined disagreement and (eventually) successful advocacy as "disruption." Somehow I don't think "It's Only Disruption When The Other Guy Does It" is a winning slogan for Wikipedia. TortureIsWrong 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Behold, the nature of change, a common feature to a wiki. Sometime slow and steady other times sweeping and drastic. The fact is if there are so many people wanting this page deleted then it does not have the community support it should. So attempts at reform are both productive and needed(in my opinion). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

During MFD...

Name	Age pre-RFCN	Edits pre-RFCN	Time on RFCN	Result	Edits post-RFCN
StrategicInsanityAd agency	5 min	1	7 min	block	n/a
Mark anthony royle	8 min	1	45 min	block	n/a
Ghostbusters	45 min	0	12 hr	allow	0
Jesusfreak10	12 hr	0	4 hr	rename	0
[email protected]	over a year	4	12 hr	allow	0
Do me, baby	10 min	0	18 hr	allow	0
Sonypsprocks!	15 mins	1	18 hr	allow	0
Imam Khamenei=Islam	20 mins	10	12 hr	block	n/a

There has indeed been a partial return to sanity: the case rate has dropped right off, and I can list in a small table all the cases since the MFD started five days ago. I am also pleased to see people stepping up and quickly closing obviously pointless cases (e.g. no edits). While I expect MFD will not succeed in deactivating this entirely, I can still at least hope that this will not return to its previous state as soon as the wider community stops looking. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Actually the innocuous "Do Me, Baby" was disallowed. TortureIsWrong 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Consenus was to disallow, but an admin closed it because the user had made no edits and wasn't notified. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and when I said "pointless", that's one I had in mind. I also see we've gone over 24 hours without a report now. More impressive than how the report rate had skyrocketed over the past few months is the way it has simply dried up. I think we can be sure neither had anything to do with any real increase or decrease in bad usernames. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I could be that people have been scared away from this page due to all the drama. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy! Well, hint taken. I will try to take myself less seriously. But also bear in mind that not so long ago, less than one report per day was perfectly normal. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

SteveLamacq43

I tried to start a page for Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/SteveLamacq43 but I just realised I can't because I'm not registered, but I'm only mentioning this because Steve Lamacq is a famous radio DJ in the UK and I didn't think you could have a username of a famous person, unless you were that person. I've looked at his edits and they can't be the same person, unless he was editing Wikipedia while he was live on air. If someone else could take a look at this? 172.143.89.150 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not register an account? It's awful difficult taking your concern seriously if you can't be bothered to make one, with all respect. - CHAIRBOY (☎)

Actually, your concern is just as valid coming from an anon as a regular user. We do need a method for anons to make posts. Even if he did register it would be a week or so before he could create a page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure but I think page creations are allowed immediately after account creation. Page moves require a 4 day wait, however. GDonato (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The method for anons making posts is to just post on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, as it always has been without problem. —Centrx→talk • 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page going to be deleted?

Why is this page going to be deleted? Saturation2 ^{Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me.} 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

well, you could read the debate: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reforms

As I posted on the MFD,

The people in favor of deleting this page argue that this page is overly process involved and has a tendency of biting the newcomers. The people in favor of keeping argue that this page is indeed useful for borderline situations, stating that it is better than trigger-happy action and stuffing it on an already-overstuffed page. Incidentally, I agree with both sides. I propose the following reforms:

1. Users can only be list once they have edited. This is useful for weeding out certain individuals, because blatant vandal questionable username = definitely block. Likewise, if a person is being useful, they should definitely be given the opportunity to edit.
2. If you think it would be easier to approach the user and tell them they ought to change their username than take it to RFCN, then do that.
3. Likewise, if you are unsure what action to take, then you can list their username on RFCN. However, it should be purely a discussion over the merits of the username. No definite begin/ending times; when a general idea begins to develop, then the discussion can close. Additionally, boldface voting business is not all that necessary.

Discuss, please. This is a medium between all-out keeping and all-out deleting (and MessedRocker Solution). I hope that this pleases both sides of the argument. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We will consider this plan for reform, as well as the several we have already proposed above. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The system worked just fine until about 2 months ago. Subpages exacerbate the problem and make it look more like AfD. —Centrx→talk • 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Qui est "we"? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We, at #Possible_restructure, on this page, for the last few days, 7 different ideas, grammar, bad. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say right now that this plan actually is very good. I like how it addresses most of the concerns at the MFD. I don't want to see RFCN to be come the problem area it once was (see my comments in the MFD). Also did I miss that proposed idea thing? And how are we going to pick from the 7 (now 8) by voting? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, these are problems that are solved by the people reporting the names here. Those people never come to this talk page, they are vandal patrollers and they go off to other things after making a report. I suppose we can deal with it by rejecting names that do not follow these rules, but to be honest the problem with RFCN is not the people reporting, but the voting and vote counting that goes on. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that we should avoid boldface voting business as much as possible. Discussion should be more like discussion and less like ballot casting. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well all you have to do is put:

• Users can only be list once they have edited. This is useful for weeding out certain individuals, because blatant vandal questionable username = definitely block. Likewise, if a person is being useful, they should definitely be given the opportunity to edit.

At the top of the page. That there is the *primary* improvement that I see. Right now all I see is nitpicking over names that have not even edited, which is a total waste of time. It would probably also be a good idea to advocate welcoming and suggesting to change usernames. I would go with something like {{weclomeusername}}. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying that, but nobody has gone to WP:U to suggest that the policy be changed there, because as it is now, once a name is registered it is held to the policy. It is not an RFCN decision when a name should be held to policy, the policy decides that. WP:U used to be very clear that as soon as a name is registered it applies, but since it's major "style change" it seems to be missing.

Perhaps this is a good time to make this suggestion at WT:U about usernames not having to follow policy until they edit. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a backwards view of what policy is, and "discussing" these usernames that don't even violate the username policy and which have no edits is a complete waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 04:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, I disagree that we need to change the policy at WP:U. I see no reason to change the fact that obvious blatant violations can still be blocked before they edit by being reported to WP:AIV. The point is that WP:RFCN is for discussing borderline cases which are unlikely to cause major offense by making one or two edits. Therefore, as Centrx says, all this discussing before a username edits (when it may never edit) is a complete waste of time. Incidentally, I also think it should be a rule here that an effort has been made to contact a user and discuss their name with them before it is ever reported here to prevent biting. Will (aka Wimt) 08:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that long term vandals who have had a pattern of naming the sockpuppets -- those can be shot on sight. With what's being proposed at the moment, though, we cannot prevent vandals who makes an account, let it lie a few days, and run us over. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it is true that allowing vandal socks to become autoconfirmed is obviously not good. I have nothing against shooting obvious sockpuppets on sight, but surely this can be done via reporting to WP:AIV rather than here. A discussion here as to whether or not this similar name might be a sock isn't much use without any evidence as to their edits so discussing it here would probably be of no real benefit anyway. For dubious cases that cannot be reported to AIV, might it be better to file a checkuser request or possibly at WP:SSP (though I don't know if you can make a report there before edits have been made). To be honest, even if we didn't pick up on the fact that they were a sock and they then later made a revealing vandalising edit, we could then block them on site at that point anyway and the process of reverting and blocking would likely be less time consuming than a detailed debate here beforehand. Will (aka Wimt) 10:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, AIV is for active ones, I thought? I'm saying that there's a gray zone where it's not so clear cut. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree that isn't clear cut. But I've certainly seen obvious violations that haven't edited being reported to AIV and then being blocked. I see no reason why that shouldn't happen. Will (aka Wimt) 11:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here's a question. You see a username called User:Hell on Wheels. Do you

1. Block for being a suspected sockpuppet of User:Willy on Wheels,
2. Take it to AIV, or
3. Assume good faith and wait and see? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Block on sight (take to AIV) for having a username too similar to a known vandal Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Preventive measure. I know that 99% of the time it's correct to do so, but... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A username which is "... on wheels" is a perfect example of one to block on sight. No-one is going to set up an account with that name unless they know the connotations so we're not going to be biting an naive user by reporting that to AIV. Will (aka Wimt) 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archiving......

.....is now set up. I've set it for Miszabot to archive discussions older than 7 days into /Archive2, if anyone feels thay it should be more or less, feel free to change it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

username question

I came across User:Barney Hill and there is an article on Betty and Barney Hill abduction. From WP:USERNAME: "Match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless you verifiably are that person, in which case please note this on your user page." The most recent most recent edit is more than one year ago.--mikeu 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this username is a problem. The Barney Hill from the abduction doesn't qualify (to me) as a well-known living/recently deceased person. Mind you, the person was editing UFO-related articles [3], so might qualify as well-known in the field. The user is no longer editing, though, so I'm tempted to leave it alone. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DONTLOOKFORPROBLEMSWHERENONEEXIST. He or she is no longer editing, ergo, there is no problem. If the resume editing, then seek discussion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the subpages

They're needless bureaucracy, and make the main page seem like a daunting process instead of a simple list. As noted in the table above, RFCN requests tend to last less than a day and tend to be really short, thus there isn't a practical need for subpaging. Per WP:BITE, those subpages could be seen as some kind of 'permanent record' against a user, which novices may not appreciate. And per the MFD, sufficient people dislike the present process that the earlier debate about it needs to be viewed in the light of more input. >Radiant< 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is this talk to get rid of the sub pages? I don't see a consensus Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that many people on the recent MFD found the current process too complex. I believe the main reason for using subpages to begin with was that it "helps archiving". >Radiant< 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Or, to put it differently, your recent suggestion to create these subpages (which was what started the debate) may have had a consensus of the people who were RFCN regulars back then, but does not have the consensus of the community as a whole. We have several policies and such against unnecessary complexity. >Radiant< 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Helping archiving was part of the reason, but it also keeps the whole discussion held together. The process problems are mainly when a username comes to RFCN, e.g. making sure the user has made edits, making sure the user has been asked about their name. Not really the sub page. The subpages is a very minor thing and it is mainly to help the organisation of the page. I think what we really need to discuss is how when a username is brought here. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That too, but the subpages are a major part of the "excessive bureaucracy" that people object to. If this is a very minor thing to its proponents, I suggest we get rid of them now and focus on the issue that's actually important, i.e. how/when a username is brought here. Perhaps we should make a template akin to {{user}}, so that people who report here are supposed to type "subst:SomeTemplate|username" and it works automagically. >Radiant< 13:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't object to that. I think it is important that we create a template though. Specifically is should say discussion where people can list specific area's of policy which a username fails or doesn't fail. We need to get away from allow per above comments, in fact, we need to get away from allow and disallow's full stop Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think the subpages are the worst part of this whole page, and have noted my objection to them in several places. I'll look at the MfD again and get back here with others saying similar things. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some diffs... here are three users complaining specifically about subpages, [4], [5], [6]. And that's not even touching the users complaining about the "process" or the "new bureaucracy", or the like. I'm sure there are more. I know there are many others saying they like the new process (ryanpostlethwaite, Wooyi, etc.), but just wanted to point out people on the other side. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so how's this: {{rfcn1}}. It's very simple now and probably needs some added text. It now gives us this:

ryanpostlethwaite

ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs)

- name is an anagram of "alternate typo wish" so he's obviously here to create misspellings and other trouble!!! >Radiant< 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I can't believe you got that anagram out of my name! I do like that template, it keeps it very organised. I've come up with another reason though why sub pages were implemented; they allow {{tl:UsernameDiscussion}} to point directly to the specific sub page so users can be better notified of a discussion. They also keep a similar format to other RfC's. I'm not all up for scrapping the subpages idea as yet, I think it keeps the page far more organised, it's not that much more trouble to list a username, it keeps a clear place to direct users who's names are under discussion to, I'm sure there's more but I can't think of them at the minute! would welcome others opinions on the template and the sub pages Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the UsernameDiscussion template point to the section header? >Radiant< 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it was done before, but the problem with that was, say the username was blocked and removed before they were online, the user couldn't see the discussion unless ploughing through the archives. It's also more personal if the user is directed to a page of their own Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I've seen there usually isn't much of a discussion (e.g. a bunch of "deny" countersigns). If there is relevant debate, I suppose it could be copied to the user's talk page. But what is there to say? "Your name violates the username policy, please pick a new one". >Radiant< 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• What I was trying to get at is that by seeing the discussion, they could see exactly why their username was blocked, it may help them understand the username policy better. My view is that the subpages are a better idea as it allows greater direction for the username involved. Maybe I'm wrong. I would be extremely open to a straw poll on all the idea's presented so see exactly where we want to go Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I pretty much fail to see how someone with a username violating the username policy, fails to see that they are blocked for violating the username policy. Is that policy unclear or does it need rewording? Note the many complains of WP:BITEing in the MFD. >Radiant< 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Especially to a new user, it may not be obvious which part of the username policy is referenced, or what sort of change would be sufficient to satisfy the objection. This is why the page instructions (before they were eviscerated) asked users to specify reasons and not simply say "violates WP:U". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seriously, having seperate subpages is really no different from listing the username the old way, it's just more organised, and allows easier template uses. The Biting comes from listing the username there in the first place, with loads of allow and disallows, thats what people are getting at with the process problems. Not having subpages isn't going to stop that. The real key part is working out when people bring the username here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not having subpages isn't going to stop that, but having subpages is going to encourage that. >Radiant< 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Remove indent) But how do subpages cause biting? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• (1) by telling users that their name is going to be subject to policy-related debate for several days, leaving them in the unknown until it finishes, (2) by encouraging pile-ups, (3) because invalid requests are left open too long, and (4) by forming a kind of permanent record against users with allowable names (we delete invalid RFC pages for the same reason). >Radiant< 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) The subpages make no difference to the debate itself or the length of time of the debate, a subpage could be closed quite simply after 5 minutes iuf required. (2) Per 1, it doesn't change the discussion, (3)Invalid requests can easily be closed, like any other method of running RFCN, (4) The users conduct is not in question, just their username which will not be held against them post discussion, an archive can be made of it, but this will not be seen by anyone as anything against the user in the future, in fact, it will more than likely stop the name being discussed again if someone tries to file an RFCN and finds it has already been discussed and the reasons for this. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since you've said that the subpages are a very minor thing to you, and several people object to them rather strongly, I've replaced that part with a request to use {{rfcn1}}. This may need rewording still, of course. >Radiant< 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you add a space for the reason in the template too, so there isnt reports without a reason. Viridae^Talk 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Certainly, but wouldn't the reason usually be "violates the username policy"? >Radiant< 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • If it gets taken to RFCN it is often not that obvious why it has been listed. Shit - even the ones that end up at AIV aren't always clear. Viridae^Talk 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Okay, done. >Radiant< 11:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Overturning blocks

As Mangojuice pointed out at the MFD, there have been a few instances of WP:RFCN being used as a quick appeal process for user names already blocked by admins (in some cases like here the blocking admin was not even contacted). I don't think that RFCN should be used as an appeal process at all and I think that we should add something to the header that makes this clear. If people think that a admin blocked a user name incorrectly, they should in the first instance discuss it with the blocking admin and, if that is not successful, raise it at WP:ANI. I think we could add text along the lines of "This is not the place to discuss if you think that an admin has wrongly blocked a username. In this instance you should try to contact the blocking admin or, failing that, raise the issue at WP:ANI" to the header. That needs rewording but it conveys the general idea. Will (aka Wimt) 11:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what the {{unblock}} is for. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well exactly so it shouldn't be discussed here. Will (aka Wimt) 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That said though, {{unblock}} is for the user to appeal the decision themselves - if someone else thinks it's unjustified that wouldn't be the way to go. Will (aka Wimt) 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows now that the place to discuss admins username blocks is not here, with the admin first, the AN, or AN/I if required Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please modify the header to reflect this then. Something like "If you are coming here to contest/question an admin's usernameblock, please be sure to first contact the admin, and give them reasonable chance to reply. If that does not work, drop a note by ANI. Please do not post those issues here on this board.". Something in that nature, the wording is not important, as long is it convoys the intent —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If everyone knows this, then the fact that they do is a recent development. Need I remind you of the dozen or so discussions on this page that took place after Betacommand's username blocking spree? They were still going through his block logs and dragging stuff to RFCN as late as March 27. I think making it explicit on the page is a good thing.--Dycedarg ж 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried adding Eagle 101's suggestion to the header to see what people think. I think making it explicit will avoid any possible confusion. Will (aka Wimt) 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this change. Using RFCN to check admin decisions bypasses too much of the community. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, when it comes to blocks we should make every effort to avoid play-mom-off-of-dad situations, and one facet of that is that only in very rare circumstances should any block be undone without at least a complaint from the blocked user: I just think that would make Wikipedia as a whole look really amateur and incompetent. Mangojuice^talk 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:und needs fixing?

The main page no longer instructs users to inform people of the discussion via the 'und' template - and the template itself is still set up for subpages. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Template fixed. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks are not "biting"

There is not a single major community based website that does not have and enforce their own username policy. A user who is given a username block is not in "trouble", it is not a blight on their record, their IP is not autoblocked, and they are allowed to create accounts, they can keep their contributions, and they can still run for admin. A very friendly message explains the whole issue. A user does not need to be "bad" to get a username block, and a username block does not mean we are being mean to that person.

Assume good faith is rarely a real issue with usernames as ones intentions do not change how people will read the name on a day to day basis. If you think the username policy is to restrictive, go to WT:U to change it, but please do not oppose a policy based block because you see it a "biting" because it is not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course blocking a username is not in itself biting. Furthermore I'm absolutely sure that nobody is intentionally trying to bite any newcomers with their username blocks. However, what we have to be careful of is blocking usernames which are borderline violations of WP:U but have been chosen in good faith without giving the user a chance to change their name first. Although the message they receive is friendly and well written, being told that they have been blocked could scare off new users. Also, if a user's first experience of Wikipedia is seeing a load of editors nitpicking over their good faith username here at RFCN, they could also decide that this site isn't worth their effort. So of course Wikipedia needs to enforce its username policy and of course a username block isn't a blight on their record but that doesn't mean that we couldn't inadvertently frighten a user off. Thus, although username blocks are not biting in themselves, we need to be careful not to be perceived as biting as we implement WP:U. That's my opinion at least. Will (aka Wimt) 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, that if people are to use Wikipedia, they are going to encounter people discussing their decisions, even their good faith decisions. That is just the way things go here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely and discussion is a very good thing. But we can still be careful not to act in a way that could be perceived as biting by a new user unfamiliar with the ways of Wikipedia. Will (aka Wimt) 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the same standard we hold everywhere for civility needs to be applied here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"voting"

I obviously missed the discussion and decision about this — but "disallow" and 'allow aren't votes — they're (parts of) opinions, bolded to make things clear. Ill-tempered "refactoring" of other editors' comments isn't called for. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When they are parts of arguments, it's not a vote. They should be more than mere opinions, though, and having a format where everyone says "allow" or "disallow" encourages voting and vote-counting. This seems to be pretty heavily agreed to per the recent MFD and some of the above discussion. I agree there's no reason to be testy about it though. Mangojuice^talk 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What is acceptable? Is e.g. Disallow: WP:U#Promotional ~~~~ acceptable or what should we devise? And why is there no explicit mentioning of that change per the mfd on the header? NikoSilver 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think putting a succinct summary in bold in with your opinion not voting. Voting happens when you just go down the list and count the bolded words. This "Refactoring" seems to be in bad taste. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me (and other users on a wikidiet) to the mfd? shouldn't there be a huge "don't vote see mfd" on top rather than people yelling in bold? NikoSilver 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names Shenme 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, Why isn't there a notification of the MfD above? How is one revisiting after a few days supposed to know? NikoSilver 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that notification of the MFD should appear at the top of the page so that people visiting can easily see the link and read the discussion that occurred there. I have added the oldmfd template to the top of the page accordingly. Will (aka Wimt) 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a discussion on wetther the username violates policy or not. If you think it does, soay so and why. If you think it doesn't say so and why. having bolded allow and disaalow enourages it to be treated like a vote (same problem occurs at WP:CN). The point of the page originally was to bring potentially inappropriate usernames to the attention of admins. A certain amount of discussion facilitates this process - but slapping a vote in with "per nom" or "per so and so" achieves nothing more than make the process more beuracratic and more hostile. As such I will continue to refactor vote like comments, simply removing the vote part untill people realise that we do not vote on wikipedia, we discuss and commentint doesnt involve voting. Viridae^Talk 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but nothing in my comment above suggests endorsement or opposition to the "voting" practice. My question was simple: Why is someone modifying my comment instead of letting me know in advance on the header? I honestly read it before "voting" (because I saw the flashy closings and was curious if anything changed). There was nothing indicating I shouldn't do what I used to do previously, apart from a [rude] "refactoring" of my wording. Talking about BITEing... How about WP:ANOT? NikoSilver 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

People adding these "Allow, agree with above." is at best a stupid waste of time and at worst treats it like a vote without considering the merits of the case. Contributing to the discussion requires actually responding to other comments or introducing new ideas. In addition, someone stamping on a Disallow is stating that he has made some sort of final decision, without allowing for comments that occur afterwards (if he returns at all). All the Allows and Disallows in the world are meaningless if the last comment on the page introduces new evidence or reasoning. —Centrx→talk • 00:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating that you agree with another persons reasoning is not a stupid waste of time. A point of view is a point of view, and if what you want to say has already been said, then what is the issue with pointing to someone else? A discussion turns into a vote when vote counting is the sole source of decisions. A discussion does not turn to a vote because of some bolded words. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a look at some of the past reports you will see that the discussion is certainly being treated as a vote by those contributing and as you well know in wikipedia we do not vote. Having it even appear like a vote, regardless of wether it is done by the closing admin or not is not in the wikipedia spirit and certainly not in the spirit of a request for comment. The MfD overwhelmingly showed consensus that something must be done to make it less BITEy and less beuracratic. This is the first step. Viridae^Talk 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How about having bolded,strong instructions saying: "Closing admins: Do not simply count votes, look at the arguments of both sides and come to a conclusion based on the arguments NOT on the number of people subscribing to that argument." That way it is visible to all that vote counting doesn't happen on this page. Regardless of whether there are bolded allows/disallows; an admin could still count the number of people on each side. GDonato (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think any of our admins will be swayed by bolded votes - the point is to make it less hostile for new users, less beuracratic and more wikipedian. Viridae^Talk 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolding != voting. This is really a stylistic campaign than a change in discussion methodology. Can you explain the difference:

• This should not be allowed because it is promotional in nature.

and

• Disallow Per WP:U#Promotional.

They have the same content, they provide the same argument. Neither is more votey than the other. It is just the same information put two different ways. When it becomes a vote is when an admin closes it as a vote, or more commonly an admin closes it properly and the admins has to explain for 3 days why he closed it that way because people expected it to be closed as a vote. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Already explained that up there further. Refer to WP:CN for more references for arguments against using voting or anything that could be percieved as such when blocking a user. Viridae^Talk 13:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, you really have not answered my question, I have read this discussion, and I keep an eye on CN. Voting is a procedure, not a sentence structure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a surprising use of a standard logical fallacy here: "people who have treated the discussion as a vote have used bolded words; therefore someone who uses bolded words is treating the discussion as a vote". COmpare: "Communists believe in equality; therefore someone who believes in equality is a communist". The (I'm sorry, but it has to be said) arrogant and authoritarian changing of other people's comments to fit with the conclusion of this fallacy is thoroughly objectionable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blush... I should say that I like NikoSilver's term "wikidiet"; I don't know if it's his creation, but I wish I could stick to one. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I can't remember if I've seen it anywhere else. It just popped up. If interested, see my notification on the userpage (which tries to to follow ...WP:UNDUE by swapping the terms for "wikibreak" etc). Also, browsing my watchlist from top-to-bottom (instead from my last edit to top) proved really useful. NikoSilver 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is an obvious fallacy in the argument outlined, as you have well explained. I also agree that exactly the same opinions can be expressed whether a bolded allow/disallow is included or not, and in either case admins will not treat it as a vote. However, one thing that I have noticed is that, since we discouraged this bolding, people have been explaining their opinion with more detail which I feel is better. If you look back at a random archive like here from a couple of weeks ago, most people are writing a bold allow or disallow and then a one line explanation (with many per noms which add nothing to the decision). Compare this with the current page and we now have much more of a discussion taking place, which is far better. So whilst I wouldn't support refactoring of anyone's comments to remove the bold, I do agree with those who discourage it as I feel this promotes better discussion between people. Will (aka Wimt) 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see plenty of explanation and discussion in that example. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely - I'm not trying to say there wasn't any explanation or discussion in that example. What I'm trying to point out is that by discouraging bolding we now have fewer people just adding something like allow -per nom. People are more inclined to respond to other people's views rather than just make short statements. Or at least that's my opinion - I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Will (aka Wimt) 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But if the nominator has a good point then what is wrong with referring to it as the basis of your opinion? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at all. In fact I would very much encourage referring to it as this is the kind of discussion that we want. However, I would personally prefer if people also wrote at least a brief reply themselves rather than just simply per nom or per X which we were getting before. It is surely better is people write I agree with X because... That is the basis of a good discussion. And since we reduced simple bold allows/disallows at the start of everyone's opinion I believe more people have started doing the latter. I don't mind people using bolding to summarise their points like "I agree with X because...; therefore I think we should allow the name" but I don't really think "allow per nom" is a statement that adds a great deal extra to the discussion. Will (aka Wimt) 22:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) The MfD showed an obvious need for reform. The point brought up was that t is too beuracratic and too BITEy. How would you like to be a new user , notified of a discussion of their username have them come to find a Line of Strong Disallow. If it is a good faith username, that is overly harsh. Futrhtermore, the perception that it is a vote (and thats what I am trying to reduce - the perception, I prefer to think it is not treated as such by a closing admin) encourages pile ons when they are not needed, encourage people to repeat the same info over and over, and appears to discourage threaded discussion (as that example given up there shows). This board was originally just somewhere to report dodgy usernames so they could be blocked by an admin, that there is now discussion is a good thing - not leaving the decision up to the judgement of one person - thats very wikipedia. However - as constantly repeated in the MfD, it has gone too far from that - the overwhelming consensus was that it needed an overhaul - if you would like to suggestother reforums, go ahead - but in the mean time, lets enact one of the mains ones brought up. Viridae^Talk 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means make it clear in the text that it's not a vote but a discussion, and if someone says "allow" or "disallow" (bolded or not) without explanation, ask them to explain (as I've often done at AfDs, RfAs, etc.) — but editing other editors' comments as you've been doing is not mandated by the MfD (which in any case has no power to mandate anything), and is indeed against Wikipedia guidelines. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Noone read the sintrcution at the top of the page - evinced by the number of people reported without being notified or asked first. Simply unbolding the support and oppose (orwhatever language used) section of the comment does not hurt the meaning of the comment, and it does quickly remove the voting process, to stop it becoming ingrained - ther is a certain amount of sheep like action here, once one person bolds a vote everyone that follows tends to. Removing the bp;d from the one gets it through to everyone else very quickly. Viridae^Talk 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But you're still making assumptions/committing fallacies. Bolding is not voting, and removing bolding doesn't turn a vote into a non-vote — nor is it likely to do anything to the particiapant except irritate her. Why not do as I suggest instead? Add something like this to obvious votes with no explanation: "Note: this isn't a vote; if you don't give a reason for your opinion, your views won't be counted." And "per nom." is a perfectly adequate explanation; why should someone be forced to repeat what the nominator has said if they agree with it, and it's their reason for thinking that the name shouldn't be allowed? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing bolding is of little benefit and is likely to annoy other users and that it is much better just to point out that this is not a vote. I do still hold my personal opinion that, as this is not a vote but a discussion, simply endorsing and saying nothing but per nom adds little to the discussion, especially if it has already been endorsed by another user. By all means people should agree with the nom, but it doesn't take much time to give a brief description of why and how they agree. I guess it's a minor point in the greater scheme of things though. Will (aka Wimt) 00:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Using bolded summaries is okay. If somebody does not provide enough information, ask them to give more, but don't change the style of their comment. It is up to the closer to decide if it is a valid opinion, and stylistic concerns are not relevant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated why they ARE a problem though - if it loks like a vote it will be treated like a vote (as seen previous to the mfd) by other users who then come and vote too. Have it looking like a discussion does not harm anyone, and the change is in line with the outcome of the mfd. Viridae^Talk 08:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel that these attempted changes are in the wrong direction, and I hate to bring it up to you, but I feel that we are demonising democracy and favoring oligarchy ("just to bring it to the attention of admins"?). There are numerous borderline subjective cases, where the input of many users should actually be pursued, rather than avoided. I also hate polls of all sorts when people try to justify their "votes" by repeating over and over the same thing. "Per nom" (or "per Tom") actually helps speeding up the process. For everybody, including future "voters" and closing admins.

I also feel that we are dealing in the wrong way with the [alleged] incompetence of certain admins to close these discussions effectively. If they just count, then train them, or revert them and close it yourself.

Finally, I understand that Strong Disallow may be too BITEy, so I would suggest we change the darn words to Endorse and Concerned. The latter simply suggests a mere "concern". Unlike "Disallow", "Concerned" simply demands an explanation from the signing user; you can't just type it. NikoSilver 23:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a final comment, I'd love to see supporters of the abolition of bolded opinions to close a poll of the size of this one (without the separate headings and the bolded words). Are you sure you are helping the closing admin with this focusing on the comment's content? I seriously doubt it. NikoSilver 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That example was always intended to be a poll, and didn't make things much clearer. Contrary what you said, and like I have said several times I welcome the changes to the RFCN system - comments from people are encouraged - I would rather close borderline cases with the support of the community that just on my own interperatation - thats why I reject so many at AIV. The reason (asI keep saying) for refactoring vote like comments is simple. It is not a vote, it should not look like a vote and should not be treated as one by any of the participants. The fastest way to stop it being treated as a vote is not to have it look likeone. Time and time again I have said, refer to the MfD - the outcome was reform. A large amount of people were not happy with the way it was progressing, and if you have a look at the ones a few weeks before the mfd you will see why. Poeple were playing whack-a-mole with the account creation list, reporting every single thing that might be considered even remotely offensive - good faith had flown out the window and it was being treated like a vote. Thats not what we want to introduce new users with good-faith names to. Removing the whack a mole status of the page and removing the appearance of beuracracy (because for a lot of new users this is their first brush with wikipedia process) can only help us get and more importantly keep good faith users. Being voted on makes you feel like you have no say in the affair - the appearance of threaded discussion can only encourage a new user to feel they have a chance in hell of being heard if they speak up. This is wikipedia, and like at the WP:CN where they have had the same problem, we do not vote - especially on wether to block someone or not. There as here, wether it is treated like a vote by the dealing admin or not is (largely) irrelevant - its that it 1. looks like a vote and 2. is treated like one by some of the participants makes it overly hostile for those involved, contains an incredible amount of BITE and is simply not in the wikipedia spirit. When I work out how to make a good template that doesn't break (not much good with in depth wiki syntax) I will post a note at the top of the page encouraging people to not use bolded vote like comments and to discuss the issue rather than voting on it. Viridae^Talk 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have argued over on Community Sanction Notice Board, the only difference between a comment With Bolding and a comment Without Bolding is just that, the bolding. As far as the vote fear goes, when people are asked to comment in favor or disapproval of blocking a username (A or B choice), no matter how many pages of discussion there is, it still is a "vote" either to block the username or to not block the username. Discussion in Wikipedia in areas where policy is being taken to the community as it relates to a user is, and always has been, nothing more than a Side A arguing with Side B. Comments for one side or the other are nothing more than a long winded vote. Opinions and interpretation should firmly have a reason for that interpretation that actually makes sense, but this fear of things "looking like a vote" because it will "eventually will be a vote" means not acknowledging that at it's core, it already is a vote. No one on RFCN or any of the other 'policy' pages are coming up with new ways to word things, etc., their arguing for or against something. When people put in their comments for or against, they hope to give one side a better show of force. Bolding doesn't make the vote... the subjects do. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point once again. Please read it again... Viridae^Talk 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Viridae, I did not miss your point. However, as a courtesy, I did read it again... and found nothing new... nothing changed my current opinion. Perhaps you are the one misunderstanding my opinion here. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not voting, but...

• I think the issue isn't really with the bolding, but with the fact that most comments on this board are not in fact needed. If a user points out that "account X violates the username policy", then it is not necessary for five or six others to pile up and affirm that yes, it violates the username policy. Note that bolding-and-bulleting encourages this behavior. Actual debate is only useful for borderline issues, but those are pretty rare. What this board needs is a few admins to watch it, to speedily block anything that's a clear violation, and speedily close-and-unlist anything that's clearly not. >Radiant< 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Totally agree - that's the point I was trying to make earlier. Although I have nothing against bolding per se and it may make large volumes of text easier to read in some instances, it tends to encourage the unnecessary endorsing of one view by many users. As this is a discussion, pile ons add nothing to the debate. By all means people should agree with other users but they should discuss why and how they do so. Will (aka Wimt) 09:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, of course; what I'm against is the editing of other editors' comments and the ill-tempered finger-wagging about "voting" (when what's in fact happening is merely a minor formatting issue). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel could you comment on my suggestions above? Also check the "wikidiet" tips! NikoSilver 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you say, I think (my solution to not biting the newcomers, though, is not to be so hasty about taking them to RfC/N in the first place, but to approach them in a polite and friendly way on their Talk page first). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not mentioning that, since I thought it was a self-explanatory prerequisite, but now that I see it more carefully: An excellent idea would be to set within the procedural guidelines of this page a specific timeframe for this polite approach that may result in a voluntary renaming! NikoSilver 13:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like the time limits on image-deletion after notification that a source or license is missing? Good idea. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great way to add x days to each RFCN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone not on a wikidiet may get to it then? :-) "X days" will certainly reduce the bad faith connotations, it will help reduce the backlog here by many voluntary renames, it will help all involved eager voters (like me) think before they cast their aphorisms etc. I further suggest that admins may choose to bypass these timeframes for what they regard "obvious" cases. Also, a closing instructions manual would not be a bad idea... Thoughts? NikoSilver 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It would simply shift the backlog to other places and expand it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username."

At the top of RFCN it states, "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username." I thought it was worth starting a discussion around this point because, at the time of writing, we have two names listed on the page, neither of which have actually refused to change their username. So my question to all the regular contributors of this page is twofold. Firstly, do we all agree about this rule in the first place? Secondly, if so, should we be removing submissions to this page that don't fulfill this rule? Will (aka Wimt) 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior discussion here and here, policy here: "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username.". If you can't take the time to ask the one single user about his/her name, or to discuss your concern, or to change his/her name voluntarily, why ask anyone else to take time to discuss it? If the user's willing, WP:CHU is there; and if the user unexpectedly has a good and valid reason to keep the name, resolving your concerns about it, better still. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not aimed to be about whether I can take the time to ask the user about their name, it is about the fact that nobody is doing this at the moment and so we surely have to make a decision whether to alter the policy or to start enforcing it. There's no point having it written up there if everyone is ignoring it. Will (aka Wimt) 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"the fact that nobody is doing this at the moment" -- How do you know that? Maybe 50 people are; or maybe "nobody at the moment" is posting a new RFCN entry at all; how do you know? What is the factual basis of this claim? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I use the best factual basis that I can which is looking at the page history and the current submissions to the page which, as I stated, do not follow the current policy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do take your point that I could never be sure that nobody is requesting a user change their name and the user agrees and does so (thus there is never a submission here at all). However, I have scanned all the recent submissions to WP:CHU that I could find, and the only people requesting username changes due to having unsuitable usernames were doing so as they had been blocked. Thus I still believe that the current policy is not being followed by most. Will (aka Wimt) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC) I have now found a few examples of people changing their name after discussion on their talk page, but it is still few in number compared to submissions here. Will (aka Wimt) 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And maybe the number would be higher if more people had asked the users directly first, right? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Which comes back to my original point. If we decide not to change the policy, we need to start following and enforcing it. Will (aka Wimt) 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The point is so people don't unnecessarily and antagonistically post usernames here without addressing it first with the user. Fix it if you think the wording needs improvement. —Centrx→talk • 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I understand why the policy is there. However that doesn't address the whole reason I opened this can of worms which is that a lot of the submissions that are appearing on this page haven't followed this rule. As for changing the wording, I could change it to something along the lines of "only list a user here after first discussing it with them" which would hopefully prevent your concern of unnecessary postings whilst reflecting the fact that people might want to discuss the name here before actually asking the user to change their name. Thoughts on that phrasing? Will (aka Wimt) 07:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that policy. What if the username is ok, and somebody has a concern that it might not and wants a second opinion. Why ask them to change there name if it could be ok? It seems counterproductive to ask them to change there name if it might be ok, which is why there is RFCN, to get second opinions on usernames? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. One option would be to get rid of this rule and replace it with something along the lines of "Do not block a user based on a discussion on this page without first requesting them to change their username"? Will (aka Wimt) 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not be adverse to that. However, if it is a blatantly innapropriate username, or a bad faith username, admin can still block on site. I.E., if a new editor has a concern about a user, say, User:FuckFuckFuck. This is blatantly innapropraite and can be blocked on site. This would not need to run the full course of a RFCN, and if the user wants to change there name, they can create a new account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - blatant violations of WP:U can always be blocked on site and indeed should be submitted to WP:AIV rather than RFCN. Will (aka Wimt) 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy does not require that a discussion or request for name change take place before blocking a name, so I fail to understand why these steps need to be taken before talking about a block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion already, High. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my feeling that if you have a concern about a username, you should talk to the user first, because you are going to have to notify them of the discussion if you start it, so you might as well hear what they have to say first. Leebo ^T/C 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

True but I guess the point that Chrislk02 raised is that you submit to RFCN because you don't know if the username is unsuitable. So you don't want to ask a user to change their name before submitting them here. I do agree that we probably shouldn't block a borderline case without first requesting that they change their name, thus my suggestion for a rule change above. Will (aka Wimt) 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, asking to change first should not be required. I would like to see more users talk about their concerns before reporting here, but I guess that's another issue. Leebo ^T/C 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know if the username is unsuitable, why don't you ask the user what it means? —Centrx→talk • 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that's certainly a good first step. But what the user intends the name to mean isn't always the concern from my experience (take Ali'i's comment below for instance). So you still might have concerns but not be sure enough to ask the user to change their username at that stage. Will (aka Wimt) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec x4)My personal policy is to wait approx 24 hours for borderline cases from time of concern to time of RFCN, but that is just my personal policy. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am one of the people asking about a name (currently), so I guess I'll respond... I wasn't wanting TheGoogle to change his name. I wasn't sure if it violated any policy. I already knew what his explanation for the name was (per his user page). So I thought I would get comments on the name. I am not seeking to block that name, or make him change his name, I just wanted other eyes on the issue. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that this issue came up on WT:RFCN before, and also here. Also, contacting the user first was then, and still is now, part of the username policy (even after the revision): "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username.". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am stating that i disagree with that. There could be NOTHING wrong with there username, and an uninformed user thinks its a problem asks them to change a perfectly good username. The new user, not knowing what to do just gives up and quits because they dont want to go through that trouble when there was NO PROBLEM AT ALL. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"not knowing what to do" -- well, that's the point of all the information in {{subst:UsernameConcern}}, isn't it? Explaining the options, while expressing your concern gently and non-bitingly? How does not talking to the user first improve his "not knowing what to do"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not this discussion has been brought up before, it is clear that the current policy is not (and as far as I can see never has been) properly followed. Therefore we certainly need to make a decision either to change the policy if we don't agree with it or to actually begin following it if we do. Will (aka Wimt) 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, policy is supposed to be descriptive (explain how things are done), not prescriptive (telling people what to do), I'd say tweak the policy to the current way of doing things. --Ali'i 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For a while, RFCN entries were deleted if the user had not first been asked, so "never" is untrue. If someone else had a problem with something you'd done, or hadn't done, or how you did it, would you rather be the first or the last to know about it? That is, would you rather he approached you directly and quietly first, or not until after he'd told everyone else about it? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that submissions have never been removed through this rule, if that's how my comment appeared. However, you can look through the archives as well as I can and it can be seen that it's fairly rarely enforced with loads of usernames discussed here that haven't been approached to change their name and refused to do so. Therefore the policy isn't being properly followed so we either need to change what we are doing, or adapt the policy to reflect what we are doing. As Ali'i states, policy ought to be descriptive. Will (aka Wimt) 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning, no-one should ever be username-blocked at all, because WP:U should simply reflect the usernames that people actually do create. Some people actually do troll and vandalize, therefore policy should not dictate otherwise, etc, etc. In fact, there'd be no point to having "policy" at all, only a running news commentary on what is actually happening. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just don't follow that. I'm saying that in this instance our policy and our actions aren't the same. So we need to discuss here which of these (or indeed both) needs to change to be brought in line with the other. Will (aka Wimt) 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The implicit "we₁" in "our₁ policy" refers to the whole Wikipedia community. The implicit "we₂" in "our₂ actions" refers to those individuals who are contravening this particular policy. These are not the same "we", and the second is much much smaller than the first. Let's apply the same reasoning to trolling, vandalism, and other disruptive behavior: "our₁ policy and our₂ actions aren't the same"; so we should consider ditching all our behavior policies as a viable alternative to enforcing them? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK so I didn't phrase my argument very well. But surely you understand my point that, whatever the policy, our actions need to be the same as it. At the moment they aren't so we either need to come to a consensus here to alter the policy or else start following the existing policy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are ways in which we could ensure that a user is first to know that their username is going to be discussed here, even if we adapt the policy. One possible way of achieving this would be to create a policy that states that a user must be told that they are going to be discussed at RFCN before a discussion begins and that the discussion cannot begin until the user has made an edit after receiving this message (so we know they have read it and are aware of it). Just a suggestion. Will (aka Wimt) 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for crying out loud, if you're going to go through all that, why not consider the possibility that the user might have something to tell you about his name before you report it, and make asking him part of that process? Then if he has good reason to keep the name, or is willing to change it himself, you don't have to get anyone else (let alone everyone else) involved in discussing it at all.

Otherwise you're going through the whole process of setting up the entry, getting all our attention, and then the user gives that same simple answer, and then your effort and our attention turns out to have been wasted. How does that make sense? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK true, that wasn't a great suggestion. But of all the people here commenting, no-one else seems to be making any suggestions about how we should either change our actions or adapt our policy. I was just looking for a middle ground, though clearly that isn't it. Will (aka Wimt) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The requirement of discussion with the user before listing here does not appear to have survived the MfD. See MessedRocker's close: "Likewise, if you are unsure what action to take, then you can list their username on RFCN." WjBscribe 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:U#Reporting inappropriate names still says: "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username. [...] If that doesn't resolve the issue, do a posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. The user should be notified about this. In this process, other users comment on the appropriateness of the name.". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but that statement is not fixed. If we gain consensus we can always change that. It doesn't stop us discussing an alteration in the policy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The MfD close clearly contemplates discussing with the user (bullet point #2) and posting here (bullet point #3) as alternatives. As the most recent assessment of community consensus, I would think it takes priority. But I have no strong opinion- I see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. WjBscribe 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The MfD closing contained suggestions, but they are not binding. Clearly the community wanted change, but what change was not clear. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The MfD wasn't about WP:U, it was about the existence of WP:RFCN. There was no MfD about WP:U, or its sentence "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username." That doesn't depend on the existence of WP:RFCN, or on whatever reforms are or are not made to WP:RFCN's processes. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Spammyou

I've been discussing the Spammyou RFCN with HighInBC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at User_talk:HighInBC#WP:RFCN, if anyone is curious about developments relating to that username. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is unblocked, while his RFCN says "blocked by HighInBC". There is inconsistency, and please note that the thread does not even appear in the archive page, which is highly irregular. NikoSilver 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It was unblocked by chairboy who won't tell me why the block is invalid, and has even said the block is not invalid[7]. There is a consensus at ANI that the block should stand. Chairboy does not seem to want to either re-block or explain why the block is not valid. I would reblock myself but that would give the appearance of wheel warring. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user so that the RFCN could continue, but you immediately re-closed it, putting us in this awkward situation. And the consensus at WP:AN/I isn't exactly what you describe. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN does not depend on a user being unblocked at the time of filing, as far as I understand it. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but assumption of good faith suggests that the user name is "innocent until proven guilty". HIBC bypassed the RFCN and blocked on his own judgment, which is his right, and I consulted with him before unblocking on my own judgment because I felt the RFCN was active and offered valuable insight. Unfortunately, HIBC short-circuited this by re-closing the RFCN. I'm unwilling to edit war with him on this, we're supposed to work together, not against each other. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest we extend this "assumption of good faith" to the decisions of other admins then? NikoSilver 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's my request to HighInBC on the AN/I thread. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You will notice on that thread that others are telling you my block should have stood. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bypass RFCN? RFCN is not needed for a username block, and there was certainly no consensus to allow. RFCN is not supposed to be used to challenge blocks, but if you really want to re-open it, I will not re-close it. But do remember that admins can make decisions on their own discretion in policy based matters. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"RFCN is not supposed to be used to challenge blocks" -- Wasn't the RFCN already in progress before the username block occurred? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was, but it doesn't actually matter. If a user is blocked then the place for discussion is no longer RFCN - it should be either taken up at the blocking admin's talk page or at ANI. As such, I closed the RFCN debate when I noticed that HighInBC had blocked. RFCN should never be debating a blocked user (with the possible exception of when an admin begins a discussion here about a user that they themselves have blocked). Will (aka Wimt) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what the community was complaining about at the MfD, RFCN being used as a replacement for admin decisions. This is a place for comments that admins can use when making a block, not a committee to make decisions by majority. If you disagreed with the validity of my block then I could understand, but you say the block is not invalid, and that you are just unblocking to let RFCN decide, well that is just plain backwards. An admin can give a username block after zero discussion, a little, or a lot, unless there is a clear consensus against the block which there was not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the nature of the misunderstanding here. Yes, I disagree with your block, but that's different from saying that it's invalid. Specifically, I feel that once the RFCN conversation began, a good faith assumption would be to allow it to complete (or at least begin to form a clear consensus). In AfD, articles that are being discussed are speedy deleted often, but because they clearly meet a Speedy criteria. I don't believe this username clearly met the WP:U#Trouble criteria you linked to, and that, plus the fact that a conversation was happening, led me to try and get it going again. Since you offered, I'd appreciate it if you re-activated the RFCN discussion so it can have a chance to continue, and thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I said I would not revert you, I still think RFCN should not be used to challenge username blocks, so I won't revert and I ask you not to. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion guidelines are split into speedy and discussion needed categories. All of the username policy is speedyable. Your disagreeing with my block itself does not justify reverting an admin act, but if you disagreed with the validity of the block then you would have a case. The whole root of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding in policy. Usernames are not like deletions, the criteria are not split into discuss or speedy. Usernames may be blocked by an admin when they are seen to be in violation of policy. Any discussion taking place is for the benefit of the admin making the decision. If that decision needs to be challenged then the place is ANI, before you revert the decision. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of the applicable policies, there's plenty of precedent for reversing blocks after discussing them with the blocking admin, which I did. If I misread your initial grudging assent to allow the unblock pending the completion of the discussion (which you've vigorously prevented from happening, for some reason), than I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I believe that your recent actions following that have been increasingly unbecoming of an admin. I specifically draw attention to your inflammatory language in the AN/I thread and assumption of bad faith. Please reconsider your approach to this issue, there's no reason to A: Be personally offended or B: Respond emotionally, two things that I believe have happened here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you saw my response[8] as an invitation to unblock and then discuss then I completely failed to get across my point. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That discussion on ANI has already happened, and people have advised you that my block should have stood. Please re-instate it or at least give me permission to reinstate it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to re-block, go ahead. I think that it's against the spirit of the project and that you're biting a new user unjustly, but if it's your decision to unblock, I certainly won't reverse you, especially now that you've made the strength of your feelings on this subject so clear. We're all volunteers here, and I don't believe your tone has been appropriate and also that your handling of this disagreement has not been positive. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will re-block, I don't think it is biting(read #Username_blocks_are_not_.22biting.22 for my opinions on this matter), I think it is well withing the wiki spirit as I am only following the consensus established at WP:U. I think the most confounding problems here have been a lack of communication before acting. If my tone has seemed off to you, that can be attributed to both the confounding nature of text communications and my confusion as to your motives. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, we both have the best interests of the project at heart, and even if we disagree on the little things once in a while, I'm confident that we're both just trying to our jobs. Sorry for the misunderstanding, glad it's resolved. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My contributions weren't copied

Hi I've recently been usurped, and my contributions weren't copied. I was wondering if an admin or beurocrat could fix this. NOTE: My discussion page was copied, but not my contributions (EDIT: Well they were sent to User:Kkrouni, not Kkrouni usurped). (I was Sony trademark vs dell trademark before)--Kkrouni (usurped) 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the results of the usurpation to the Kkrouni (usurped or not). I will keep an eye to make sure further problems are resolved. WjBscribe 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems

I have noted on the main RFCN page, but we currently have two sections that have problems in them.

1. The way the truth and the light - This currently has a problem with bolded !votes, one of the problems raised in the MFD. This activity ought to be discouraged and emphasis of the discussion placed on "does the username violate policy as it stands?".
2. Grampiantelevision - This user was not asked to change his/her name prior to having his/her name brought up here. While it may be a block because of promotional reasons, if an immediate block were needed WP:AIV or WP:ANI is probably a better location for that, especially if the user is demonstrating a conflict of interest. Attempts should be made to talk to the user before posting here, after all if they are willing to change themselves, it saves time here.

Please note that the above links are permanent links to the sections, so if they are archived these links will still work. Lets try to address these issues before someone takes this back to MFD. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An idea to prevent problem #2 above would be to immediatly close and archive requests where the user was not talked to before hand. If the matter is so urgent that talking to the user is not an option then WP:AIV, or WP:ANI (for more complsex cases I suppose) should be used. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable, such as in the case for User:Grampiantelevision, to copy the comments as they were to that user's talk page, or would you simply put a link to the archived discussion on that user's talk page? And I agree about contacting users, as I have all along. If someone had taken the time to pose some of the questions I've dug up to the user directly, perhaps they would have had time to consider what the reasonable course of action would be. Shenme 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The voting issue has been discussed at length on this page. I agree that it is a problem, and is another example of one person doing so the rest do. Viridae^Talk 07:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you boil down the 'voting' discussion into a decoction for the unwashed masses? In a couple sentences, what is desirable and what isn't? In my comments in the User:Grampiantelevision discussion, would it have been so much better for me to have deleted the initial allow, but then bold the allow inside the comments? I guess I'm having trouble connecting the lack of !votes with the forcing of substantive and directed comments (the latter a very desirable (required?) object). Shenme 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't use bolded voting comments, take part in an actual discussion like we are here. In the end the number of people for or against the name means nothing, it comes down to "does it violate WP:U as it currently stands?" —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The way, the truth, and the light

Re: WP:RFCN#The way, the truth, and the light
Copied over from User talk:Viridae#RFCN closure per discussion there:

We had an edit conflict as I was posting the result of research with several links. I posted what I had begun writing before your closure. I did not comment thereafter on your closing remarks. However, please be aware that your saying the username "does not specifically claim to be a religious figure (however much that phrase is associated with one)" appears to misplace the line drawn by policy, which excludes even names "that refer or allude to ... The names of religions or religious figures". Furthermore, Eagle_101's question whether the name "provokes" is answered in the strongly affirmative. Please reconsider. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the user is ultimately good faith (see the edits) I don't wish to reinitiate the dicussion. However if you find another admin willing to folowo it through after seeing the dicussion, feel free. Viridae^Talk 08:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, "good faith" would only be an issue in deciding whether to disable account creation when blocking ("In these cases it is frequently useful to disable account creation, if the username is believed to have been created in bad faith."). "Good faith" does not make a username acceptable if it violates policy, just as "bad faith" would not make a username unacceptable if it obeyed policy -- the question of user conduct would be entirely distinct from username acceptability in either case.

Since you wish to refer the discussion to someone else, I'll copy this thread over to WT:RFCN for wider discussion. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)          (end quote)

The essential objection to this username, as already observed by several people, is that it is taken as referring or alluding to the attributes of Jesus Christ, not only in John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life") but also in John 1:4-5 ("In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.") -- making the "life"/"light" transposition especially apt. To take such a name carries the implication that one is claiming to be Jesus Christ. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Review request posted to WP:AN#2nd admin view on WP:RFCN, please. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeating my question from the actual RFCN... "The Way, The Truth and The Light" is a term used to refer to Jesus Christ. I guess it would be comparable to a name like Ar-Rasheed (one of the 99 Names of God in the Qur'an). Would we allow a user to use any of those names (or their English equivalents, e.g. "The Guide, Infallible Teacher and Knower")??? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Really not trying to throw fuel on the pyre, but we do need to understand the limits of religious references. The discussion closed before I got to post my latest discovery after being told how to use Special:Listusers - User:I am god. No rational person would think the user is God, but that doesn't stop it from being offensive, even if through pure hubris. I'm lost here. Shenme 22:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, are we going to block User:Cat because of "And having made the heaven and the stars and the rain, Diana became Queen of the Witches; she was the cat who ruled the star-mice, the heaven and the rain." from Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

More voting

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=124869021#Offshoreholdingco. Seems like the same problems before the DRV. Ideas are welcome on how to make it very clear it is a discussion and not a vote. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A VOTE. BOLDED COMMENTS WITHOUT ACTUAL DISCUSSION WILL NOT HAVE ANY WEIGHT ON THIS DISCUSSION AND MAY BE REMOVED.

CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Bright to read..Maybe in black...Good Idea though..Put it on top of the WP:RFCN Page

THIS IS NOT A VOTE. BOLDED COMMENTS WITHOUT ACTUAL DISCUSSION WILL NOT HAVE ANY WEIGHT ON THIS DISCUSSION AND MAY BE REMOVED.

...--Cometstyles 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)(sorry for stealing your idea)

I think that we can just enforce the whole not voting thing by just taking it into account when we close. Badgering users with ugly banners and incessant comments will not help anything. When people see their *'''disallow''' ~~~~ vote is not counted they will figure it out. And as I said before bolding has nothing to do with voting! I don't see any need to mention bolding at all, simply state(without an ugly banner) that you need some policy based reason to your opinion if you want it to count. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with discussing as we are now? Also keep in mind its really all up to the admins at the end anyway. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is only a vote if the closer decides to treat it as such, on every forum Wikipedia has we have people leaving incomplete opinions, we are not going to change that with a big box of text. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments here High, but I am not too hip on the rather biting wording "and may be removed." Does not feel at all in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. Regardless, I have turned to just deleting usernames that I deem not in keeping with policy and check in here to see what popular takes are on the policy to make sure I avoid straying too far from consensus understanding of the policy. This is particularly the case with the religion-oriented policy. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing peoples comments is biting unless they in violation of policy such as personal attacks. Removing a comment because they did not provide enough information, or used bold lettering, is rude and provides no real benefit to the project. It is the closers we need to be educating. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of communication, why not just add a note under any comment not thought complete, asking them to complete the thought/explanation/discussion/etc. ? That way, if I transgress through habit, but have explained for 5-6 lines-worth, it's no harm, no foul. If someone just adds,

Delete Opinionated 04:61, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

you can 'ping' them with, "could you say more to explain to us 'why'?" Shenme 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a much better approach. Politely let them know that as their comment is, it is unlikely to be given much weight. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that may work, just keep in mind it is highly likely if this goes back to the style that it was before the MFD to be re-placed on MFD. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some stats

Here are some stats about RFCN for ya folks: User talk:HighInBC/RFCN stats. It was created using a tool(there is a link on the page), I copied it here because it takes a lot of time to parse the 11k revisions of this page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Darn, only 14th. And High... spending a lot of time here, eh? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was plenty surprised about that too, 9.2% of edits hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool stats dealy. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

Month	# edits	# Minor edits (%)	ATBE*
06/2006	44	9	20.5
07/2006	69	6	8.7
08/2006	108	9	8.3
09/2006	83	8	9.6
10/2006	69	9	13.0
11/2006	60	2	3.3
12/2006	356	24	6.7
01/2007	1341	159	11.9
02/2007	3964	265	6.7
03/2007	4210	345	8.2
04/2007	1283	102	8.0

|} From User talk:HighInBC/RFCN stats, I'm wondering why do we even have this huge jump in the use of this notice board... did policy just become confusing or what? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that happened when TWINKLE came out with a 1 button username AIV report option, and AIV started sending all the vandal patroller's username reports here. It is interesting that the number of posts exploded, but the average time between edits did not decrease much, perhaps other time zones started using it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then! I was really wondering about that spike. In any case if things come out to be "the username is fine" I think that the folks that nominate need to know that, and if anything in the policy is confusing that causes a bad nomination, it should be looked into. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Template alteration

I just noticed that the protected template {{RFCNtop}} features the sentence "no further edits should be made to this page". Given that individual discussions don't have their own page any more, can an admin change this to "no further edits should be made to this section"? I think that makes more sense. Cheers. Will (aka Wimt) 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is common sense but...

Maybe it should be mentioned in the instructions to first check the user's block log to see if the user has been blocked already? I'm seeing a lot of indefblocked users being put up on RFCN. Borisblue 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is this line in the instructions; If you wish to contest or question the blocking of a user by an admin, please do not post the issue here. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator or with other administrators. - wouldn't that cover it? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. Take a look at Wikiadmin and JAPAN for instance on this page; they were already blocked before somebody brought up their usernames here. Borisblue 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I see, I'll add into the template, Make sure the user in question has not already been blocked before bringing here. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Ryan Postlethwaite

Ah yeah - good move. I was going to suggest that myself, having closed about three in the last few days that were already blocked. Will (aka Wimt) 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a tad annoying. Hopefully most people will take steps to make sure the user is actively editing (at least recently) before bringing up an RfC. --Ali'i 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought

Here I went ahead and dug through some names... these are all admins, but all of them "possibly could" violate WP:U. The point in this exersise is to show that some leeway should be given, and if it is not blatant wait and see if the user is a good faith editor, and or even bothers to hang around.

• User:A Man In Black -- Related to one of Men in Black (disambiguation)? -- Similar in tone to the discussion that we had on socom49. IE, if you don't think it is blatant leave it alone?
• User:Ground Zero -- possibly related to 9/11 (ground zero has violent relations )?
• User:ProhibitOnions -- seems to push an agenda (prohibit onions) - its not violent, nor does it cause a problem :)
• User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington -- character directly out of Harry Potter, Some be-headed ghost).
• User:Mets501 - related to the New York Mets?
• User:Zzyzx11 - Gibberish? (albeit not long gibberish)
• User:Jedi6 - name related to Star Wars?

I'm not sure if any of these are really a good example, but all of these are admins, and the usernames do have some realworld relations. If you really don't have any problem with the name yourself, then just leave it be and return to working on the encyclopedia. If someone else has a problem they are sure to take it up. :) Oh and if you are one of the folks mentioned above don't worry your name is fine :P. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of these are good examples of violations, except for Sir kick which may be overly long, and zzyzx11 which could be seen as gibberish(although short names are normally not held to that rule). We have never had a rule against character names like jedi and sir nick. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since it says on his user page that his name is based on Zzyzx Road, it's hardly gibberish. I wonder if someone could get away with User:Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, or even more absurdly perhaps, User:Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch based on places of the same names? Now this might be something to take up on WT:U. --Ali'i 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the second person exists... stopped editing back in 2005 though. Pity. --Ali'i 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They all seem beyond rational reproach to me. TortureIsWrong 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Invalid RFCN report template

Similar to the invalid AIV report template {{uw-AIV}}, I have created a similar version for RFCN: {{uw-RFCN}}. Have a look and let me know what you think of it before it is added to the main RFCN template. The way it is used would be as follows {{subst:Uw-RFCN|User:name of invalid report}} ~~~~. I have also created a final warning template {{RFCN4}} - again let me know what you think of that one :-). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If only we could actually follow through with the last one!;-) CASCADIA[[User

talk:cascadia|^Howl]]/_Trail 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good I have made some minor changes. GDonato (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah cheers for that, especially for the wikilinking in uw-RFCN4! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These are nice (and funny), but they are incorrect. There is no rule that states you must "discuss" a name with the user before seeking comments. Maybe This board is wonderfully misnamed, but seeking comments on a name DOES NOT EQUAL (pardon my shouting) wanting to have the user change his or her name nor wanting the username blocked. And you cannot banish users to the wolves if they are simply seeking comments. Perhaps this board just needs a rename? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page" -- not to mention that it's basic courtesy, the same as when bringing anything about a user up on a noticeboard, so you're not going behind his or her back, blindsiding the user, and being a dick. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the rule about discussing the name before discussing it is a little silly. I don't think this "rule" has ever gained true consensus, and is inconsistent with the username policy which allows for a block without discussion. Why should we need to take a step to discuss a name, when that step is not needed before blocking a name? I think notifying the user that the discussion has started is plenty. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The first template was serious... the second was satire. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well everyone seams to be having a nice time removing any name that comes here that hasn't had the concern template put on. Maybe in that case then, we should be able to discuss names that come here before people irrationally remove them for not following the correct procedure. I thought we were meant to be getting away from a beurocracy? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Having the discussions but not talking to the user first would not make the process less "bureaucratic" but more: bureaucracies are famed for making decisions that affect other people's lives without letting the people affected know about it ahead of time or have a say in it. Talking one-to-one with the user first is the non-bureaucratic approach. Everything else, including using admin power to block the user, is the bureaucracy part. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that requiring editors to concern first, then comment is a bit too much red tape. However, it should be encouraged. And notifying potential offenders of the RfC process should be required. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, all this removing comments that are seen as votes, and removing names that have not gone had previous discussion seems like policy creep to me. This is a place to talk about names. Let the person know that you are talking about them out of courtesy that is plenty. We need to stop thinking of this as a decision making board, and look at it more like a place where admins thinking of a username block can get further opinions(not a place to delegate the decision itself) or a place for other users to bring names to the attention of admins(not propose a decision, but ask for comments). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is, that if a name is a blatant infringement on policy it can be blocked straight away. But what if we're not sure? Why should a user change their name because one user thinks it's against policy when infact it isnt. That's what bugs me about the username concern template and having to use it first. high makes a very good point above me - what if I really am not sure of whether a username infringes on policy? I want to discuss it with people who know about policy not someone that's been here 5 mins, and as I've previously said, what if I'm wrong? I've made a new user choose a new name for no reason. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes sense. Thats why I think that going straight to RFCN is plenty fine, concern should still be an option and encouraged, but not actively. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{subst:usernameconcern}} template doesn't say the user MUST change his name; rather, it expresses that the writer has a concern, lets the writer specify that concern, gives links to the username policy and the dispute resolution options, so the user has a better idea of what's going on. Not giving that information to the user before coming to WP:RFCN is leaving the user in the dark, with no advance notice or explanation, before dragging his name in front of other people. Frankly, that's rather dick-ish. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, obviously if brought here, the user should be made aware that discussion is taking place. That's just common sense. (Just thought I'd add that if I wasn't clear before.) --Ali'i 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree on that point - that's certainly compulsory. It's just the prior notification that I feel shouldn't be a must. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you feel that. But policy still says "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page," and the RFCN header should reflect existing policy. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys please read the MFD, part of the problem were WP:BITE related issues with dragging bringing folks here without even asking them politely if they are willing to change. That was one of the valid concerns in the MFD. If after asking them, they are unwilling to change, *then* its time to bring it here for further comment. As far as bringing names here to discuss them if you believe that it should be disallowed, but is not currently in the policy (ie, the user could not have possibly known), is improper and rather silly to expect folks to be mind readers of not just current, but future policy. It is also not exactly the welcoming I'd hope to see out of good faith contributors , take those concerns to the talk page of WP:U, and get them written into the policy itself if it is a problem. There should be a clear distinction between talking about "does the name violate current policy", and "should we modify the policy for the future." —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why ask if there's no violation? Because a hell of a lot of usernames get brought here that are allowed so subsequesntly I'm guessing a hell of a lot of users change their usernames before it reaches RFCN that wouldn't need to have - that's biting. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why bring the username here if you're not willing to discuss it with the user first? Look at any "conduct" RFC, where you have to prove, with diffs, that resolution directly with the user was attempted before opening that RFC. RFCN doesn't ask for that proof, because RFCN is "less bureaucratic"... but if people keep flat-out refusing to discuss with the user first, maybe RFCN should start requiring the same proof as other RFCs do, because the bad habit's getting engrained. Already people here are denying that policy says what it says. Dragging people's names into RFC without advance discussion is not only biting, it's being a dick. That needs to be stopped now. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thats why this board needs to be for folks that refuse to change their name after being asked. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't make policy decisions with an MfD, if those people want to effect RFCN process, they can come to this talk page. Where are people supposed to get comment on if the name is in violation before asking them to change their name? There is no consensus for such a rule. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We could ask them to change post discussion if it is decided that it does violate policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, lets just wait for it to show back up on MFD then :) biting new users will make this process go back to MFD, and really if the majority of users change their names when asked, then why drag them through this anyway? As far as for where to ask, use common sense, if WP:U is that hard to read, then the policy needs a re-write or clarification. Perhaps the trouble here is unclear policy, who knows, but a polite message to a user who you think has a bad name is not that hard to do. And if the user refuses saying I don't think my name violates the policy, then take it here for more opinions. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But what if you don't want them to change their name, but would rather simply have some comments on it. Take for example: I see a user, User:Jumbo Whales. This name is similar to User:Jimbo Wales... but is it a violation? Who knows? I think it's referring to really big water mammals. But am unsure and would like other people's opinions. Say on his user page he even talks of his love for cetaceans. Why can't I bring it here and ask for other people's opinions? (Maybe a bad example since Jumbo Whales has been blocked for quite awhile now: [9] But that's not the point) Thanks. --Ali'i 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk to the user, say what your concern is, link to the policies, and offer the user a chance to discuss it with you, with a 3rd opinion, or with RFCN. Say... that's exactly what {{subst:usernameconcern}} is for! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, then you would want to think about chatting up the WT:U talk page, as you would be asking for a change in the policy, not asking the existing user to change. (You would basically be saying that the policy needs to say XXX type of names are bad). Now any more edit conflits? :P —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole idea of having to be so sure about a name that you are willing to ask someone to change it, before you can get comments on the name is just backwards. If I was so sure that I asked the user to change it, why would I even need RFCN? RFCN is a place to get comments when I am not sure, why should I ask a person to change their name if I am not sure? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then you are talking about them behind their backs, which is not all that nice and is not really needed. If you are not so sure then the policy needs changed to be clearer. In any case I'm sure that any good faith editor would be ok with replying to a concern (even if you turn out to be wrong). Its Ok to ask someone and then upon hearing their reply say "ok" sorry for bugging you and welcome to wikipedia! If after hearing them, and your concern is still there, *then* its time to take them here. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We have all agreed that a user should be told the discussion is going on, so it is not really talking behind their backs. The policy is ambiguous on purpose, its application is meant to be discussed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Right so if you are going to tell the user, why not give them a chance to say "oh you are right" and bypass the need to even drag them on here at all. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, something might be in violation of existing policy, but still be unclear. I certainly agree that RFCN is not the place to propose new rules, but that is not the issue at hand. The existing rules are ambiguous and sometimes need discussion to clarify. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Right which can be done after asking the user, after all the user might say "oh yeah thats a problem, let me fix it". Not asking the user beforehand is basically failing to assume good faith in the user. If you have doubts, perhaps the user might be able to clarify them. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we can all agree though that there is not a consensus for this rule. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That hasn't been demonstrated, because that rule's from WP:U, and this isn't WP:U's talk page or any other policy's talk page. WP:RFCN is just one outgrowth of WP:U. If you want to change username policy, discuss it in the proper place, which isn't this page. This is for discussing WP:RFCN, and whatever RFCN does needs to stay within the limits of Wikipedia policy. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say on WP:U that we need to make contact with a user before talking about the name? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nm, I see it. Hmm, perhaps this is an issue for WT:U. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And probably WT:RFC and WT:DR as well, because RFCN is part of RFC, which is part of Dispute Resolution, and the whole Dispute Resolution escalation begins with talking to the user first -- which makes it a fundamental element of dispute resolution we're discussing, not a trivial or superficial change. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not about dispute resolution, it is about deciding if a name is in violation or not. This is not a behaviour discussion board. WT:U is plenty enough venue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the username violates policy would be the dispute to try resolving, first with the user and then at WP:RFC/NAME -- just as whether or not the user's conduct violates policy would be the dispute to try resolving, first with the user and then at WP:RFC/USER. These are both subpages of WP:RFC, which is part of WP:DR, and the principle of "talk with the user first" is consistent across all of them. By now you know this already... don't you?

"WT:U is plenty enough venue." -- and WP:U makes the same point, "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page," so please take seriously what all these pages are saying. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine with me, But please make it clear to them that they can change their names and avoid all this fuss. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Really I'm just having a hard time thinking... if we can solve the issue with one post by one user, thats not as good as solving the issue with who knows how many posts that this board has. I find that rather odd, and not very efficient, plus it tends to bite the users. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameDiscussion}}, which we all agree should be used, already explains that they can change their name, I have no objection to this being clarified further. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already modified the main RFCN remplate to remove the statement that says you must talk to the user before bringing here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as long as the discussion is based on current policy, and not future policy it should be fine, though I personally hold that this is biting new users. I'm also going to be very interested to see how many "bad" usernames we get now that we are not asking them to change before hand. I will note that we had mostly good ones recently, which seems to be indicative of users changing names when asked? or perhaps a deline in bad names? :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, "current policy" says "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page," so I've put that back in the RFCN header to keep it in line with current policy... and basic courtesy. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is good that it is still recommended, but not mandatory. I also agree whole heartedly that RFCN is not the place to propose new policy, but to interpret existing policy. In response to your query Eagle, I think people are using a little more sense in choosing which names to report since the MfD. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Concern should always be encouraged, but if it's not done, we should not remove RFCN requests. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But in all cases users need to be notified in a kind manner. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to note that if policy is ambiguous and that is found here, it should be suggested to be changed at WT:U. And darn! how many edit conflicts you guys getting! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec, a lot of them)I am a little confused about the biting, I would rather be told that there is a discussion about my name I can participate in than to be simply asked to change my name prior to discussion. However, we each see things differently, perhaps the templates could be modified to address your biting concerns. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read {{usernameconcern}}? If not, please do. It doesn't simply ask the user to change his or her name. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

UsernameDiscussion looks fine to me, it doesn't bite at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think it is bitey at all. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no bite. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I feel that the method (of taking them here at first glance) without checking to see if they will change it is not assuming good faith in the user to change his or her own name, but the template addresses some of that. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Eagle, answer this, what if the username concern template is used, the username is no-where near violating policy, but the user changes their name, is that fair? That template basically states that the user should change their name because it's against policy, if this is the case, why not just block on sight username which don't respond to the concern. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case you are simply pointing them to WP:U, and you can tell them if they disagree to bring it here. (I'm assuming that you would give the user a chance to change his name). They could read the policy, and see yeah my name is a violation and change it of their own will. Or they could read it and totally ignore it, in which case after one notices that they have ignored the message, you bring it here. The third option would be for the user to actively disagree with your interpretation of policy and bring the issue up on this noticeboard. Thats the ideal situation that I see. It gives the user about as much control over how things go as you humanly can, in other words with names that don't blatantly violate WP:U, you Assume Good Faith in the editor. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But if you really aren't sure that the name infringes on policy, then why would you talk to the user first? You'd want comments to suggest wether or not it does. The user in question can then get involved in a (now by removing allows and disallows less bitey) discussion and can fully understand the concerns that are raised. UsernameConcern isn't the right approach if your not confident it is against WP:U. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"why would you talk to the user first?" -- If there were going to be such a question or discussion about my username or behavior or anything else, I'd want to be the first to know about it, to have a chance to fix any problem before involving others, and (if matters do get to the point of a group discussion) to have a part in discussion from the beginning. Wouldn't you? By the Golden Rule, we should extend the same courtesy to others. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Really if you are not confident, then assume good faith. If later objections are raised by someone else who has more of a clue then it can be discussed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Most username violations have nothing to do with motives, so assume good faith is not an issue. The motive of the person choosing a name has little effect on how it is perceived. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure, but if you personally can't find anything wrong with the name, then leave it be. If someone actually finds something objectionable trust that they can deal with the name. Its not a black art :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, while I appreciate your participation in this discussion, please get a consensus for that rule before re-adding it, as there is no current consensus for it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

High, that rule is from Wikipedia:Username policy (WP:USERNAME): "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page", and WP:RFCN needs to follow Wikipedia policy. That this talk page has three people who aren't happy with Wikipedia policy doesn't relieve WP:RFCN of that obligation, and certainly doesn't overturn the policy itself. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, and have reverted myself. I agree that RFCN should remain a service to WP:U, thus this should be discussed at WT:U. I did not notice when that was added to WP:U so I was not aware of it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"I did not notice when that was added to WP:U so I was not aware of it." That provision's been in WP:U since the same day the page was created, 13 January 2003, though phrased a bit differently. Exact quote: "If you find a username offensive, please inform the user and politely ask them to change it to something more suitable to a collaborative encyclopedia. If it is not immediately obvious, please explain to the user the reason for your offence. Be patient." -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

this is why we shouldn't be forced to discuss with the user first, people want a page where they can come and request comments as to whether or not it's against policy before speaking to the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page" -- not WP:RFCN.

Maybe people also want a page where they can come and request comments as to whether or not a user's conduct is against policy before speaking to the user -- but that's not WP:RFC.

This isn't complicated, and it isn't fuzzy. It's simple and clear. The answer needs to be "Talk to the user first", and keep being "Talk to the user first", until they've done that. After they've done that, if it hasn't resolved the issue, then they should come to WP:RFCN. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to post pretty much what Ryan just said. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I offer you the same answer. It's right there in WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved; in WP:RFC#Request comment on users; and in WP:U#Reporting inappropriate names: talk to the user first, before taking the issue anywhere else on Wikipedia. No behind-the-back skulking; be upfront, and discuss it one-to-one with the user first. If you're too shy to do that, how can you bring it up before a crowd instead? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any dispute in the example Ryan gave? It was a request for comments, that is what he got, no dispute involved. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, like here "I just thought I'd get more feedback." led to comments like "Block" and "Disallow" and "I have indefinitely blocked the account."... and the user hadn't edited for five days before the RFCN opened; his username was blocked without any advance discussion (the first notification of any username problem was posted after the RFCN was opened).

Please note that the requestor was asked to Please discuss a questionable username with the user *first*, and replied "Frankly... no."

Maybe every RFCN from now on will say "just requesting comments", or "I just thought I'd get more feedback", if those are the magic words to negate policy, but will that make a difference to how the people will feel who were blocked in the absence of any advance discussion directly with them ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can request comments however I feel best helps the encyclopedia. You have a misunderstanding of what that Brine Pepaz thing was even about. I wasn't looking to block that name. I wasn't looking to have it changed. I wasn't even really asking if it violated WP:U. I was seeking opinions because of the whole Brian Peppers affair and BLP issues. There was no dispute to resolve. Like I've said now about 10 times, maybe this board is misnamed. You contend it is not for requesting comments, but rather something more like "Requests to have this name be made to be blocked or changed". Also, as I've said, people can ignore rules if it helps the encyclopedia. Asking for other people's opinions almost always helps the encyclopedia. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: And if I had known what RFCN was like when I came here seeking comments for Brine, I most certainly would have said, "fuck this, I want nothing to do with this... I'm going to seek comments on WP:AN." I wasn't asking whether the name should have been allowed or disallowed. That was the monster that was RFCN... hopefully we're moving past that spectre. --Ali'i 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what I'm trying to get at is there are other uses to this page other than actually requesting comments as to whether a name is blocked or not. You know, some users really might not know if the name violates policy - so they bring it here for comments on the name. After they get the comments, they may decide to drop the issue completely, without the user ever having to get involved, or they may then talk to the user and be able to better explain why their name is against policy. As ali said, this shouldn't be a page just about getting usernames blocked, when people have finished discussing, we should then talk to the user, explain that their name is against policy and ask them to change it before blocking them, there's no use a user changing a name if it's not against policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And no one (I think) disagrees with the commonsense idea of letting the user know discussion is taking place here. If they want to come and comment, they are more than welcome to, as well. --Ali'i 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's common courtesy. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking to the user first, rather than going behind his back, is common courtesy (and policy). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali'i, you can do many things, whether or not you should do them. WP:U says clearly and simply: "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page". Why be so very concerned about whether someone else's name violates a policy, if you are not at all concerned about whether your own actions violate that same policy ? Why complain of the dust motes in their eyes...? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooooooooh. You're a policy wonk. I see now. We'll just never agree on this issue it seems. Best of luck. --Ali'i 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Ben, yeah that was what I was hinting at, but I too missed the thing directly in the policy. In any case I agree. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to think the MfD has a point, if nominated again I don't know if I can defend this page. It seems like it is being pulled in two directions at once, and neither side will let go. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry High, but I feel really strongly that this page should be for comments on usernames, not allows or disallows, just comments and I really think it's pointless talking to the user first if the name isn't even against policy, especially when the user may change their name because of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I totally agree with Ben's point earlier that users should not be blocked as a result of a discussion here, without discussing it with them first and asking them if they would change their name. What that means though, as I tried to raise about a week ago, is that we either need to decide to remove submissions that haven't involved discussion with the user (like Chairboy just did) or else the only other realistic option is to say that admins have to discuss it with the user after the discussion here but before they make a block. The latter option is an ugly one in that it would basically involve an admin saying to the user, would you change your name please else I'm going to block you, but would mean that in some cases it would avoid users being told that their name is inappropriate when it turns out not to be. Whatever though, we need to make a decision and enforce it because RFCN is a bit of a mess at the moment, with some names being debated on without the user being asked whilst some names are removed because of this. Will (aka Wimt) 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And the "ugly" option also means that WP:U ("The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page") got ignored -- which leaves us in the awkward situation of violating the same policy we're enforcing on someone else. How could we practice or defend that kind of hypocrisy? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an RFCN without teeth, a place to discuss things, not a place to decide things. But I am going to leave this page for a few days, let you folks figure it out(I hope) and will come back and follow whatever system you come up with. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I see this place as, a user has a concern over a username (The username personally bothers them), they bring it up with the user in question, the user in question says no, or ignores the request. Then it would be a good time to take it here. (Thats following the username policy). I mean if you are really not sure, then it probably is a good idea to ask at WT:U, as the policy might need clarification. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Heck you could even make a template, something along the lines of "Welcome to wikipedia! I think your username might violate the username policy, please give it a read and if you want to change your name do blah blah blah (tell them how), otherwise, post something on WP:RFCN explaining why you think your name is valid." Something of that nature. But this is not the page to discuss the username policy "Is there something wrong with this style of name?", thats for WT:U. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at {{subst:usernameconcern}}; does that say what you want said? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

New RFCN guidance page proposal

I have created a new page in my userspace which I believe would be an ideal middle ground before users take their concerns to RFCN, it allows users to list user names at the page, and request admin guidance as to what to do. The admin who reviews the name will simply respond with {{RFCNDiscuss}} or {{RFCNno violation}} - obviously, discuss means that the user should start a discussion with the user, no violation means the username is fine, so no contact needs to be made with the user. I think this will limit the number of users that are brought here, but allow better guidance for users who are unsure - it will certainly decrease unnecessary newbie biting. Let me know what you think. Oh yeah the page can be found at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Guidance. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same as HighInBC's? GDonato (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar, but High's was more report it here and I'll block or not block - this page is simply a guidance page for users who are unsure. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And this page would be part of this page, not in my user space - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Guidance Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How would this abide by WP:U's "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, arguably it might not. But if we agree on a consensus here for what might be a good idea for how to take RFCN forward, then we could move our suggestion over to WT:U and attempt to gain consensus to alter that part of policy. I would note that the reason that phrase in the policy was introduced was to reflect how RFCN was meant to be used. Will (aka Wimt) 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, to be honest, this is great idea but if people just follow the existing instructions we should not get many unnecessary postings. This proposal is good for avoiding bite. GDonato (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I've created the page is because many users post {{UsernameConcern}} templates if they think the username infringes on policy. This page would stop the unnecessary username concern additions and allow people to get a second opinion before starting talking to users. The page wouldn't be there to block usernames, it's simply there for advice, it's an intermitant page between doing nothing and posting at RFCN, as I said, hopefully it will reduce the biting, but also people may actually want a second opinion on a username before talking to the user about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"many users post {{UsernameConcern}} templates if they think the username infringes on policy." -- And the problem with this is...? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion that is the advantage of the page, avoiding WP:BITE. I have seen a couple of cases where I think users were put off the site by an intial posting of the Username Concern template, or maybe they just changed name right away... we can never tell. GDonato (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would urge you to point to anything biting in {{UsernameConcern}}, or suggest any way to make it less off-putting, since it was created specifically to be as gentle and diplomatic as possible, and any improvement along those lines would be welcome. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing biting in the template, other than the fact that it exists. If the first thing you see on a site is someone posting an almost-complaint template then it is off-putting. GDonato (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I read this correctly in that it would be an optional step? I can definitely see merit in it, though it obviously relies very much on the judgement of the admin. Are we going to have a set few admins that would patrol this page? Or are we just going to leave it to the admins to decide whether they are familiar enough with WP:U to give guidance. I guess either way would work fine. Will (aka Wimt) 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at HighInBC's groovy RFCN stats page, a not inconsiderable number of the most frequent contributors here are not actually admins. Might it be beneficial not to limit the givers of guidance at that page simply to admins? Open to discussion. Will (aka Wimt) 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats doable, but the discuss template means for the user to go ask the new user to change names right? In any case anything that shows up too often, ought to be clarified in WT:U, and added and or modified with the policy. Really though I have yet to see anything which was so ambiguous that you could not just ask the user to start with. Can someone give me some names that might show up in using this? (To be honest, right now everything is running smooth). I'm almost thinking that we should just leave the board be for a few days and see how things go. If anyone finds a name that they are not sure about (I.E. have to ask on a board instead of just asking the user, I'd like to see a few cases. Our policy should be clear enough to good faith users, if its not we have problems. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{UsernameConcern}} template (which should be used first) certainly does not just tell the new user to change names. Neither does {{UsernameDiscussion}}. Please read them. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know :) As I think I said, we should stick to the current format of the page for a few days. In the mean time I'm wondering what these borderline names are, examples would be welcome. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Will, please explain how an admin will be able to provide any better guidance than an experienced editor familiar with policy? Admins and Editors are equal, save a few buttons. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a relative newcomer here, but I have to say that all of these constant procedure shifts and policy debates seem like a classic scenario of organizational behavior. An entrenched gang of bureaucrats has a vested interest in creating a maze of nonsense in order to secure their own position(s). People tend to fall into this trap without even knowing they're doing it. The function of this particular area seems fairly simple - it shouldn't resemble Byzantine politics. But it sure does. TortureIsWrong 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey - that's exactly my point Cascadia. If we were to introduce a system like this in which we offered users a second opinion before they discussed it with the user and considered a nomination here, I asked whether we should make it the most experienced editors here rather than just admins as Ryan suggested. Will (aka Wimt) 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Will. My mistake. Thank you for correcting it. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it's really a giveaway if you feel the need to say "I don't mean to seem unfriendly, but..." And to be honest there's probably no simple way around it: somethings are inherently unfriendly, and welcoming someone to Wikipedia with a form letter containing an ill-founded complaint is probably one of them. What's ironic is that making a more welcoming place for people to contribute is the foundation of WP:U (at least the offensive-names part). --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Users who post unnecessary {{UsernameConcern}} messages are being unfriendly, and should refocus their attention on something more useful to the project: that's the only advice they need on any specific cases that would fit this message board. Ben is right - if you have a problem with someone's username, you should discuss it with them. If you don't have a problem with someone's username, don't discuss it with them or anyone else, it's unnecessary. There's a good reason for that in the policy: it's to discourage irrelevant, unnecessary, unwelcoming username nitpicking. Folks, we have WP:U for a reason -- it's not about being the taste police, it's about making sure that (1) peoples' usernames aren't so offensive, inflammatory, or confusing that they get in the way of the project of building an encyclopedia and (2) preemptive blocking is justified for users that seem intent on causing trouble. If anyone wants advice from anyone else about the policy, the best palce to go is WT:U, or ask anyone whose opinion you respect. Creating a noticeboard for pre-RFCN advice, though, will just encourage this sort of behavior. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a pre-RFCN board might cause more problems. Right now, the way things are running are running smoothly and without too many problems. Lets leave well-enough alone for now, if things get out of hand, we'll reexamine solutions. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)