Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] User:Maaparty

Maaparty (talk • contribs) uses the signature --God and religion are distinct. I've asked him to change it (and in fact I've blocked him for an unrelated offence), but if he refuses to change, can he be blocked under the User-name policy, or is there some other route? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see how we could use a username block, because the users username is fine. Maybe a disruption block would be in order if the user carries on using the signature? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:SIG contains the guidelines, but they're not policy. Unfortunately, it's not their username so WP:U doesn't cover. Note the following from WP:SIG; "Signatures have been the subject of Requests for Comment, as well as resulting in some very heated debates. In one case, a user who refused to alter an unsuitable signature was ultimately required to change it[1] by the Arbitration Committee." - Alison☺ 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a weird situation; all a user needs to do (perhaps when blocked after an RfC on his User name) is choose an innocuous one and then use the blocked name in his sig. Surely something needs to be done about this. Any idea about where to start?
In the meantime, couldn't an eventual block (if he refuses to change the signature) be justified on the basis of an attempt to evade the policy at WP:U? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would personally endorse such a block. I pesroanlly feel that signatures need to apply to username policies. But, that is probably another discussion. as stated above, all one would have to do is register user abcdef and then change the sig to child molester 999. (example situation of course). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Mel. The guidelines for sigs need a major revisit and it needs to be discussed/endorsed as policy. Right now, anything goes and it can easily be used to evade WP:U rules, like you say. I'd say take it to WT:SIG for discussion - Alison☺ 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all; I've raised the issue at WT:SIG. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK this may be my bad...but isn't the above doing the same exact thing done on this page?Kukini hablame aqui 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
technically not. there official username is acceptable. There signature may not be. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry...feel free to move it back then. Kukini hablame aqui 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So now that this is back here, just wondering, do we not have somewhere to discuss the propriety of signatures? Kukini hablame aqui 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive problem?

Came back to check on the result from some nominations yesterday - Dvoted2christ, Satansanta, some others - they're not in the archive. Is there a problem with the bot? RJASE1 Talk 12:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seams to be having a few problems, I'll speak to User:HighInBC about it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It is ran sporadically, it should be caught up now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)\

[edit] Speedy closing

I've noticed that RfCs have been closed rather quickly lately; is the one on Hugsfordrugs (talk • contribs) a record? It lasted twenty-six minutes from being opened to being closed. This seems to be to be somewhat... well, overhasty. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I closed that because theres been a lot of usernames brought here that are promotional to groups recently and all have been disallowed. I actually originally brought it here from WP:AIV because I wasn't aware of the connection with the group, when the group was highlighted to me, I closed it quickly as disallow. Would you have suggested leaving it up still? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just that your edit summary said that you were closing it on the basis of consensus. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that was the wrong edit summary, sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time. But I fully agree with you, we should leave any of the RFC's up that aren't clearly violations - consensus can often change as valid points are made throughout. They should be allowed to run for 24 hours if this is the case Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is a blatant violation of username policy, there is no need for a RFCN (it should go directly to AIV), however, many of the AIV admins are not up to date with the latest and greatest username policies. When usernames come here that are blatantly name of a company, organization or website (they are generally capable of being blocked on site), i as well as other will go ahead and block and remove them (the same thing I would have done if i saw them at AIV). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent company spree

Below are the instructions that appear in the page for creating an account:

Registering a free account takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits.

Simply choose a username and password and click "create account". All usernames must begin with a capitalized letter. Do not use an e-mail address as your username. You are not required to share your e-mail address, but providing one is the only way to retrieve a forgotten password. Your username must not contain:

  • offensive, confusing, random or unreadable text or characters
  • names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians
  • words like "bot" or "script" that refer to automated editing processes
  • titles like "admin" or "sysop" that imply authority on Wikipedia
  • domain names

For more information about which usernames are acceptable on Wikipedia, see our username policy.

Notes:

  • You must have cookies enabled to log in to Wikipedia.
  • Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.
  • Do not use your e-mail address as your username. It will be very visible, and make you a target of spammers.
  • Find out more about logging in.

Please notice that it contains virtually all possible violations, except the company name issue! People may be using that in good faith, simply because they may be editing from their office. I'd be mad if I had done the same and hadn't been warned! Should we post that at WP:VPT? NikoSilver 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have brought this up somewhere before (I forget where) but yes, i would be all for appending the instruction on the signup page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's formulate the required additional bullet here, and we post the final proposal. How about:

  • existing company names and trademarks

Should we add more details? Also, I propose it be added below the "celebrities". Any other ideas? NikoSilver 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What about organisations? How about:
    • existing company names (including not-for-profit organisations) and trademarks
Also I suggest noting that band names or usernames implying a group aren't proper. Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Might i also suggest adding "the name of any existing website".
        Should that replace "domain names"? ShadowHalo 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So, we go for:

  • existing company names (including not-for-profit organizations) and trademarks

Yes? NikoSilver 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I love it! Humbly (ahem) Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames containing "666"

Has there been any consistent precedent or consensus on whether usernames with "666" are acceptable or unacceptable based on relation to the "religious" clause in the username policy? I've seen quite a few of these lately (User:Burnthepriest666 was an obvious block, but what about User:Lamp666, which was just created a few minutes before I posted this?). For now, I'm going to post it to the page as a test case. RJASE1 Talk 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disregard, I just found the debate on this topic from January. Holding off on listing any unless they contain obvious intent to offend. RJASE1 Talk 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, maybe check out Number of the Beast for refs - Alison☺ 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that 666 should be allowed, provided it is not used in a religious context. Fine:Pie666; Not good:Jesus666 --24fan24 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What about 13 because it is unlucky? What about 616 or 665, the other numbers of the beast? I don't think we can start objecting to specific numbers. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HighInBC. This sort of extremist interpretation of the rules would lead to a ban on HighInBC's name (the "BC" would be offensive to those who see it as a reference to Christ), etc. If people are offended by "666" they have only themselves to blame. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be an echo here. 666 in itself shouldn't be blocked, but it it's being used in a religious context (e.g. Burnthepriest666), it may be cause for a block. ShadowHalo 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow I don't see a lamp as demonic. G.O. 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think 666 names should be blocked on sight - in the time that I have used message boards, never have I seen a serious, non-trolling contributor use a name containing 666. However, when I raised the issue in January, it was clear that I am in a minority. --BigDT 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shelbyyoung

Regarding the Shelbyyoung (talk • contribs) kerfuffle (see this entry), I'm still not sure I buy it. There are plenty of websites where folks can generate their own messages to go on pictures like this that look handwritten, and even though this might have been done manually, it's just not realistic to assume that any photoshoppery would be immediately apparent. I gotta say, I'm uncomfortable with blithely accepting this account in lieu of some sort of better verification. I'm not going to do anything, but I counsel skepticism. See the Stephencolbert (talk • contribs) dustup for another example of "zomg it's obviously him" that turned out to be a mistake. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the picture? Do you know about photo manipulation? There are jpeg artifacts from the original image the cover her face and the handwriting, this is clearly not manipulated. This is how we have done celebrity proof in the past. Plenty of proof has been provided, and while concerns about photo manipulation have come up, nobody has pointed to any of the tell tale signs that are there when a photo is manipulated, I think AGF applies. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've seen the picture.
  • I know about photo manipulation.
I disagree that what was provided was proof, it's better described as evidence. I'm assuming good faith, and I'm not gonna block the user right now, the purpose of my message above is to counsel caution and urge consideration for a better means of verification. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you see any signs of photo manipulation? Any sort of indication? The image in question. Everything matches, the sharpness of the focus, the type of grain and compression artifacts, her hair goes over the paper, the text follows the plane of the page properly, the lighting is consistent, everything indicated this is a real photo. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
After two edit conflicts
My understanding was that it's impossible to tell a good photoshopping by merely looking at the photo. I also understood from previous cases that people were asked to provide e-mails (or e-mail addresses) to show who they were, not merely photos. I'll pass over the lack of courtesy in closing the discussion so quickly without bothering to let me know, as I'm beginning to get used to that sort of thing from many active admins. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intent to snub your concern, but this really has been dealt with already, it was more my intent to be courteous to a new user than to be discourteous to you. No, it is not impossible to tell a good photoshopping from a real photo, there are ways. I would say it is impossible to photoshop something so well it cannot be told apart. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is still any real concern we can re-open the RFCN, however, the user deleted the image for privacy concerns after getting several admins to review it. So any debate would be in the absence of such evidence that has already been accepted, then removed for privacy reasons. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this user's identity has been sufficiently verified. This is not such a high-profile individual as to breed imposters, in any event. I have also left a new user welcome message for the editor. Raising the concern about the editor's identity and username was in good faith and legitimate, but the overall WP:BITE effect of what happened here was quite high. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were to provide this image as proof of my identity, I would have to draw attention to the perfect focus, the JPEG artifacts being identical for both the text and the photo, and so on. The photo with the message is not good enough, and doesn't meet standards we've established in the past for other users. I appreciate the BITE concerns involved, and I'm not advocating blockage, but I think it's terribly premature to consider the matter closed and the picture as "proof". Like I said before, it is evidence at best. Mathematicians prove things, everyone else provides evidence. I'm expressing the opinion that our standards of evidence must necessarily be higher because it is _easy to fake that photo_. The 'similar JPEG artifacts' argument, as well intentioned as it is, is the easiest to discredit considering that all you need to do is start with a good quality picture, add your text, and then save the whole image at a higher compression rate. This has been a staple of "'shoppers" for over a decade. Spend a few minutes on worth1000.com sometime. As embarrassingly humorless as those guys are, some of them are wicked with photo manipulation on much more difficult subjects. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I'm not braying "FAAAAAAKE" like some digg or youtube jackass, I'm saying that we have a responsibility to use a better standard of evidence in situations like this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Woah, it's an honor to be editing Wikipedia with you, Mr. Einstein! Can I get your autograph?? :) —Krellis (Talk) 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Chairboy, the image you give is an excellent example of a fake, the jpg artifacts do not match, You can see one type of artifact on most of the image, and another type around the text, clearly added after the image was first compressed. Also, the lighting of the board does not match the lighting of the text. Also the text is much sharper than the focus of objects at the same distance in the image. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's fine that we disagree about this. I'd just like to ask that you consider how enthusiastically you've accepted the original picture. In your own words, you've repeatedly referred to it as "proof". With the Stephencolbert (talk • contribs) case, the standard of evidence we set was foundation correspondence with someone at his agency/Comedy Central. It's a good standard because it can't reasonably be faked by a teenager with a cracked copy of photoshop. BTW, your analysis of my "fake" made a couple errors. The compression artifacts were all applied at the same time after the text was added, they are the result of legit JPG encoding. The original was a quality photo, all artifacting came in a single save operation after the fact. If you can get that one wrong, how can you feel so confident about the veracity of the Shelbyyoung photo? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just not comfortable with signing off on the evidence photo and zapping the conversation this quickly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The heavy artifacts around the text on the image you added are the result of the manipulation, in a real image the lines would not be so sharp as to cause those high contrast type of artifacts. Regardless, I have every reason to believe the image is real, and nobody has pointed out anything to indicate it has been tampered with. Even in high budget movies like Forest Gump, if you look at the individual frames and know what to look for, then it is clear that Tom Hanks was added to the scene after the fact. That is why photos are still considered evidence in court, because fakes can be detected. I am not an expert on photo manipulation, but I have spotted my share of fakes, and this does not look like one. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've confirmed that it's her to a better standard by corresponding with her agent and parents, so I'm satisfied now, but I urge caution at accepting _just_ an image like that in the future. I would counsel consideration for establishing a set criteria that can be employed in the future to avoid arguments like this, something perhaps worth considering going forward. A copy of the e-mail exchange is available upon request, and I'll archive it in my Gmail. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to standardize the procedure, I am all for that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent company spree, part 2

I supported (and continue to support) the proposal above to add a line to the User name creation page instructions. But I think our prohibition/blocking policy still needs a bit of a talk-through. I posted this on WP:RFCN discussion for Wickedsuperbikes (talk • contribs):

  • Comment. This anti-company name thing is almost becoming too big, and I think we should have some more discussion about it. As quoted above by Coemgenus, With respect to company names, WP:U says "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." [emphasis added]. That is not the same as absolutely prohibited and will be blocked. We have to look at intent with the name. In this case, my first thought of the username is not that it is a business, just some person who likes superbikes. I believe we should assume good faith. Of course, if the user starts spamming or making edits that even subtly advertise the company, then obviously the name becomes a violation of WP:U. That is not to say that we should wait for intent in all cases; some names would always be bad e.g. User:Heart and Stroke Foundation. This pursuit of finding all usernames that are also companies also becomes a slippery slope. I'm pretty sure there are many businesses called "Joe's Garage." So is User:Joe'sGarage advertising, or is he/she a Frank Zappa fan? Anyway. Comments and feedback are welcome. [note: I added the full company policy above after the stricken comment. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)]

Anyway, I think more discussion is warranted. Here's a can of worms and a can-opener. I look forward to seeing comments both ways on this issue. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've added two companies to the latest spree, but both of them were using the exact name of the company, and both were spamming links to that company into a page I help monitor for spam. I don't 'know if we can put together a perfect rule for disallowing company-identification in user names. USER:Microsoft is an obvious no-brainer. It's disallowed, since we don't want readers of WP thinking that an article has been edited and/or endorsed by Microsoft. But USER:wickedsuperbikes? That's a hard one. If it's a company name, it would appear that it's entirely disallowed heavily discouraged under current WP rules. However, it's also a reasonable user name if one didn't know that Wicked Super Bikes is a company. In general, I personally won't put a user name on WP:RFCN until that user makes spammy edits or otherwise shows that he is - or is pretending to be - related to the company in question. LastChanceToBe 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But according to WP:U its not disallowed, merely discouraged. Compare this to the wording of the webdomain clause, "This may include usernames that contain .com, .co.uk, .net, .org or any other top level web domain. These usernames will be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." [emphasis added] Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good catch! I've changed my comment accordingly. Thanks! LastChanceToBe 20:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there isn't an unusual spree of users registering company names. Rather I think there is a spree of users googling new usernames in order to enforce this policy (which I am opposed to). --24fan24 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable company names should be examined and if warranted preemptively disallowed. However, I believe it is vastly preferrable to judge users by their actions, rather than by what our hypervigilance might imagine or fear. Take User:Dilly Deli for example (I made that one up). Obviously if they start inserting spam into Chicago articles advertising a local business, they're outta here. But if they instead are adding useful materials to Food safety, Food Safety and Inspection Service or even Potato salad, I'm going to applaud. They will be doing so from a knowledgable perspective. And if they mention on their user page they own a deli in Chicago, and their reputation here is positive, someone might look them up. That is, if they are polite and contribute, they will get far more positive effect than spamming will.
And this is what we want to encourage, knowledgable people contributing from all walks of life. Someone might prefer they had called themselves User:DeliJoe, but there's probably a Deli Joe somewhere on the planet. (Correction, there is, are "Deli Joe"s, a restaurant in CA, a product line, an Indian restaurant in Florida,etc.,etc. - all the good simple user names are *also* company names)
Let's not create a hurdle that new users have to jump to even begin contributing. Let users be primarily judged by their actions, not our assumptions. Shenme 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said. 24fan24 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The same argument can be applied to any of the other username policies. For example, User:Vandal-man might be an historical expert on Vandals who wishes to contribute to articles on Germanic tribes. User:Wikipedia-woman might be someone who loves Wikipedia and wishes only to spend all of their time improving Wikipedia. Yet those usernames are going to blocked on sight...why? Because experience has shown that the vast majority of people who choose that type of name intend to violate Wikipedia policies. If anyone here really believes that the majority of users who create usernames mimicking a company, product, or website do not intend to promote something, I encourage you to spend a few days working for the Spam Wikiproject; this will definitely dispel any WP:AGF naiveté regarding this type of user.
For borderline cases (like the hypothetical User:DeliJoe, mentioned above), I would not nominate for block - because the business name is so generic, a spammer would be unlikely to use it (or the username itself is ineffective as a spam tactic because the targeted product/business cannot be identified from the username alone). But for a more unique name like User:Wickedsuperbikes, where the number one Google hit is a website called wickedsuperbikes.com, experience shows that this is most likely a spammer who wishes to spam his website name in the edit history or articles about superbikes, even if he doesn't place any spam in the article per se.RJASE1 Talk 15:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Roman alphabet username transliteration

By any chance, has anyone already done a talk page template instructing users with Non-Roman usernames on how to include a transliteration in their sig? RJASE1 Talk 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We are having problems with consistency in this RfC

I believe we really need to become more consistent on this RfC...for example, User:JesusIsOurSaviour was blocked on 3/16/07 and User:Jesus was blocked on 3/05/2007 for policy violation. Yet User:ASERVANTOFCHRIST was allowed on 3/13/07 and User:Dvoted2christ was allowed 3/12/07. Any suggestions? It seems we should have not blocked User:JesusIsOurSaviour based on the other two rulings. This policy is a tad inconsistent and perhaps based too much on the judgment of a few of us who happen to be commenting on the RfC at the given moment. -Kukini hablame aqui 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem is with a really vague policy that is open for interpretation, along with some of the worst cases of Political-correctness I've seen in a while. Furthermore, I think the policy crosses the boundary between policing for vulgarity and people purposefully causing problems to policing people's ability to express their interest or faith. Although Wikipedia is international and worldwide, the Constitution of the United States protects a freedom of religion and speech, and so to the terms of what is accepted as International Human Rights. While I profusely dislike "bible-thumping", or anything along the lines of making sure everyone knows you are (insert religion) and love (insert diety), and this is a private website that may have it's own rules and regulations, we ought not be concerning ourselves so much with peoples usernames. If a username is "tasteful" and does not blatantly cause problems, then it should be allowed... whether it is "AllahIsMyFriend" or "ImDownWithBuddah" or "JesusIsOurSaviour", etc.,. Too many people on here seem to be spending more time patrolling for usernames they have conflict with than actually writing articles or reverting vandalism. It is simply nitpicking what need not be nitpicked.
I understand not wanting someone to claim they are "God" or "Allah", which is clearly an attempt to put one in a mindset of supreme power, having a 'religious' username that invokes the name of the diety one worships should not be the business of anyone on this encyclopedia. (Furthermore, I'm a bit purplexed why User:Jesus was blocked... as anyone who has two neurons to rub together knows that Jesus is "Hey-Sus" in spanish, and many are frequently catholic.)
The point is the rules need to be pinned down to a specific definition that allows freedom of expression while on Wikipedia. I believe there should be encouragement by people to have an editor change their username to something not so 'in-your-face-religious', but if they want to be "JesusIsAllRightWithMe", then so be it. < /rant > CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if the problem is WP:RFCN then this is the place for it, but if the problem is WP:U then WT:U is the place to bring up changes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly...I could not agree more that this policy is too "loosey goosey" right now. I have been spending time reviewing rulings to figure out how to propose a better wording to this policy. Thanks for the thoughtful response. In response to HighInBC, I think we are having trouble with consistently translating the policy as well. This may be a problem in process OR a problem in policy. Kukini hablame aqui 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that no matter where we draw the line there will be usernames close to that line and we will vary in decisions near that line. Even if we tighten or loosen the policy we will have this same problem with usernames that are near the point of the policies ambiguity. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but why is JesusIsOurSaviour bad while Dvoted2christ good? Kukini hablame aqui 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps people think that Dvoted2christ is only about the user's beliefs (with no statement about others' views), whereas JesusIsOurSaviour suggests that everyone should be devoted to Christ, and is therefore pushing a POV. Just a thought. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet look at the debate on SlavetoChrist! --Kukini hablame aqui 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know. To me slave means, well, slave. We could be pedantic and say what was in the original Greek, but the fact is that English translations are well (and almost exclusively) known. Some words have changed meaning with time and retained older meanings within specific contexts. That could be what's happened with slave/servant. I don't like the slave term, but if the user can justify it as being highly acceptible to a reasonable number of Christians, should we then block it? (I realize this next bit stretches the argument a bit, but bear with me). What do we do where a symbol of religion has been corrupted, e.g. the swastika. Swastikas have a connotation with Naziism for most Westerners, but are a religious symbol for some Hindus (I believe). Do we put a blanket ban on swastika as a part of usernames? I guess, like some of the Christ names, we end up stopping some people from being offended by offending others. Some are winners, some become whinners. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that they are so close to that unreliable results could occur. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit of both... the problem in policy is that it is too open for interpretation. Not necessarily a bad thing on paper, however, when put in the hands of people who, and I'm trying to find a nice way to say this, tend to be a little "over the top" in policing usernames. I'm commenting here because I think that 53% of the problem is with process, the rest is with the policy, which I will propose a change when I can find one that works. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
But we don't want instruction creep either. Part of the problem is that WP:U uses "Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." This is what is open to interpretation. Apparently it was originally intended for names like "Godfrey", but it says that usernames with the names of religious figure as a part of the name may be subject to review, and therefore may be alright. The black and white cases are the easy ones; it's the grey ones that aren't. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment could things be improved by removing the word "may" from the clause? The we'd be arbiters of what is offensive, rather that what may be. It might not make a difference. Thoughts? Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This might actually cause more problems. I'd say it would have to say something like: "usernames which consist solely of the name of a religious figure are prohibited (examples), in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion may be prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intollerance, or are blatantly disrespectful of the religion, are also prohibited. usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be discussed." Something to that effect. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wordy, but I agree with the intent. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Borisblue 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if there is to be a change in the username policy it needs to be brought up on the username policy talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
^^Done and done, proposal submitted. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Developing consistency and transparency of process

A few of us have been creating an "institutional memory" subsection for this RFC in an effort to improve transparency and consistency in username decisions. It is currently called Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory. It is certainly young in its development and will require much building and adjusting, but I believe that the process we have begun there might help all those who work in RFCN to come to quick and equitable responses to usernames under discussion. Once the subpage is ready, I think we might want to link it to the project page associated with this talk to serve as an ongoing tool for use. --Kukini hablame aqui 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea!! Thanks for the hard work. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submitting here without asking the user first

Please make sure you ask the user first, politely, if they would consider changing their username before submitting it for a Request For Comment here. There is even a template for this, {{UsernameConcern}}. I will keep removing submissions where the user has not been asked first, and been given a reasonable amount of time to respond (and submitting it here then telling the user that it's here is not asking them first).

I know this is stated at the top of the RFCN header, as well as on it's parent policy at WP:U, but people are still not doing it. Ask the user first. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What good is asking the user to change their name if their name is probably okay? What if I had asked Theangryblackwoman or ASERVANTOFCHRIST to change their names? I would have been the one at fault, as RFCN clearly stated that that names were okay. RFCN gives users a chance to keep their names. Acalamari 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I do agree, however, that any listing where the user hasn't been notified with the correct tags should be removed. Acalamari 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If the names were "probably okay", why would you have sent them to RFCN in the first place? {{UsernameConcern}} simply suggests to the user that "some users" may find their username objectionable, and they can avoid this going any further by voluntarily changing their name. This does happen, as most people are happy to follow guidelines once they are made aware of them. If they are sure they want that username, and/or believe it would be acceptable (ie, they disagree that the username would be objected to by the majority of the community), then it goes to RFCN. for further comment and input from the community. That's what an RFC is - a more formal way of assessing and resolving a potential issue when simple discussion has not been able to resolve it. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Neil, its best to talk to the user first as Rfc's are meant to be a very formal approach once other steps have been taken, talking quite often resolves things, if theres no response, or the user doesn't wish to change their name, its often better to get a second opinion rather than taking them here - if all else fails, RFCN all the way! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I posted them there in case they did violate policy. That step saying: Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight should be reworded, because some users will not interpret that the way it's meant; and even I only recently realized what it meant. It's not clear enough. That sentence should be improved; or else this problem will continue. Acalamari 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realise it was unclear .. it makes sense to me. Do you have a suggestion how the wording could be improved? Neil (not Proto ►) 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something like Before posting a user's name here, or before using any of the tags informing them of a discussion; please kindly tell them that their name could be considered inappropriate, and ask them if they would consider changing their name if asked. Failure to complete this step will result in the removal of any listing here. I know that's not brilliant, but it seems more clear to me. What do others' think? Acalamari 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no point in asking someone to change their username if you are unsure if it is a violation. The note telling the user that the discussion is happening is plenty polite. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with (not-)Proto in finding the current wording crystal clear; i can't really see how it could be read in any other way than how it was intended. Secondly, I agree with HighInBC: there's been far too much of this "I posted them there in case they did violate policy" sort of approach. RFCN isn't the place to come on a fishing expedition to find out what policy says; User names should only be brought here if they seem clearly to violate policy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCN already clearly states that if a name clearly violates policy, it should go to AIV. Acalamari 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I was misunderstood, I was saying if you think a name may violate policy, but you are not sure, then WP:RFCN is the place to find out. The message notifying the user of the discussion is not accusatory, and starting a discussion is not an attack. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By "the note", do you mean 'UsernameConcern' or 'UsernameDiscussion'. One problem with the 'discussion' note is that discussions take place pretty darn quickly here, with neither much time or necessarily differing viewpoints. Once the RfC has been started, a user may have nearly no chance to respond to the concerns, as unless they are logging in every 12 hours they won't know anything is going on. In borderline cases, their input may influence the outcome. A disallowal might force them to do something about which they were never asked. Saying they should be notified is only right. Not actually giving them the chance (read 'time') to respond, is not really notifiying them to any effect.
Again, I'm not saying that in obvious cases speed isn't warranted. But there are cases where the users should be given a real chance to respond. Otherwise no requirement for notification should be specified at all, which is something I'd be very against. Shenme 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[After edit conflict]

I did misunderstand HighInBC, sorry — but I agree with what I overhastily read him as saying. I also put my second point badly, though. There are surely three (at least) levels:

  1. a name obviously violates policy, in which case it's blocked without further ado (or taken to AIV)
  2. it's pretty clear that a name violates policy, but there's enough doubt that RFCN is the right place to go
  3. there's a faint chance that it violates policy, who knows? Not sure how, but what the hell, let's take it to RFCN and see what happens.

The third of those is all too common (or cases that come uncomfortably close to it). The trouble is that there are enough people hanging around RFCN who'd manage to find a policy violation in just about any User name, that the result is too often a ridiculous decision to block (or, at least, the discussion is closer than it rationally should be). I winder how many good-faith editors have been put off when their first experience of Wikipedia is that sort of silliness? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to thump policy at the username owner, we'd better follow it ourselves:

How to report an inappropriate username

If you notice someone whose username is inappropriate, please ask them on their talk page to change their username.

When contacting them, [template discussion omitted] Please try to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers, if possible: allow for the possibility of innocent error or other reasonable explanation.

If they don't seem to respond, list them at WP:RFC/NAME, and if it appears that their name is inappropriate, they will be blocked indefinitely from editing using that username if community consensus is reached at RFC discussion that that their username distracts in any impermissible way from our goal of building an encyclopedia through its controversy and violation of policy.

Please inform them of the RFC/NAME on their talk page. ...

How was any of this not simply common sense and basic ethical practice? -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be any clearer. I think even my 8 year old nephew could understand that. I've been watching this page for over a week now consistently, and I would say that many of the names called for RfC should never have been called in the first place. Basically, chill and follow policy. No one is going to die if it takes 2 days to go from "concern" to "RFCN". Follow the steps and give plenty of time. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 07:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments from Mel, Ben and Cascadia. 2 days? Some recently have been given less than 2 minutes! See the discussion (consensus:allow) relating to User:Cuttingforyou [2], where I noted the timescale just before the discussion closed:
  • the account was created at 18:14,
  • concern was expressed at 18:18,
  • at 18:19 (!) a message was left that the issue was being taken to RFC,
  • the RFC was opened at 18:23.
It's over three days since the account was opened and then allowed and the user has yet to make any contributions - and is unlikely to, after this "welcome" in what was always going to be a borderline case (no obscenity, misuse of religious names or the like). At the risk of "instruction creep", should we say that 24 hours should be allowed to pass between expressing concern and taking to RFC if no response is received? If "dodgy name" = "dodgy edits", they'll be blocked for that reason anyway in the meantime. Bencherlite 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Can I just add a little something to this discussion, after considering everything, I feel that WP:RFCN should sometimes be used without giving the username concern template first, the username concern template is to try and get the user to change their username having to go to any for of dispute resolution, but this seams unfair if the user goes ahead andchanges their username when the result of WP:RFCN would be to allow. The username concern template should only be used first if the name in question is almost certainly going to be disallowed, jumping in with suggesting the user changes their username when actually it doesn't infringe on policy seams to be the wrong way to act, bringing to RFCN is a good way to decide whether or not the username should be changed. Maybe in the future, disallowed usernames could be given a new template on their userpages explaining that their username has been disallowed and that it will be blocked in 24 hours, it would also give them information on how they go about changing their username. During this 24 hour period, the discussion at RFCN could have an archive template put on it, and left their until the period is up, at this point the username is blocked and the discussion archived, anyway, its just a thought.............. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have a disease? Or just a condition...?

I'd like to ask people to comment over at Do we have a disease? Or just a condition...?. WJBscribe pointed to there as the proper forum for discussing the policy (rather than implementation as above).

(sorry, the direct link is broken, you'll have to click on the link in TOC) Shenme 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed link. It didn't like the fact that there were too spaces in your section title at WT:U. WjBscribe 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Closing again

I thought I'd bring this up again, which was briefly mentioned before... is that a lot of RfC's are closing within a few minutes of opening. I think we need to outline exactly what is needed to close an RfC. My suggestion is this:

  • Minumum 24 hours from origional posting, unless...
  • Should consensus appears obvious, a minimum of 8 matching votes with at least 2 hours of "live time".
  • Except in cases where it is blatanly obvious, then an admin can close without discussion and move to AIV.

Just my 2 cents. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some discussions need no discussion, others days, others an amount of time in between. I would say each name should be discussed long enough to come to a clear decision. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cascadia. There should be a minimum time — if it is only open for a short time and the first folks who see it agree, followed by a quick closing; that does not allow for the possibility that in a 24-hour period, later reviewers might have a different point of view. No harm in waiting. Not waiting and closing does not allow for true consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But username blocks can be done without discussion. RFCN is not a vote or even a poll, but a request for comments. We don't have time to give every name 24 hours, 2007-03-13 had over 25 user names go through, what if we gave all of them 24 hours. WP:AIV needs to make a decision in a minute or two, and if it to complex for that then we do it here, but that doesn't mean we need a minimum time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The cases aren't lined up sequentially, so you wouldn't have 25 cases x 24 hours = 25 days to process them all. You'd have the same 25 cases to close the following day, instead of on the day they opened. In the meantime, more people (who were in the wrong hemisphere or work shift to see the cases and respond within 2 hours of their opening) would have a chance to comment during a 24-hour period -- and other participants would have a chance to see and consider those comments, too. We're worldwide; let's act like it. Let the world spin once on its axis, so every time zone and shift can have its say, then close if the consensus is clear. There's no emergency requiring haste -- if the username were that terrible, it'd go to WP:AIV, not WP:RFCN. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Giving a minimum time limit is overly bureaucratic and undesirable: a lot of names come through RFCN in that time. Rough consensus of established users/people who get the username policy is what is desired, and if that consensus is very clear-cut discussions can be closed quickly. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that those who haunt the page would agree — but those who spend a great deal of time on other editing tasks often find that by the time they've reached WP:RFCN on their Watchlists, the name in question has disappeared. It'a all very well saying that a few comments demonstrate the right decision in obvious cases, but I've seen a number of cases where the first three or four comments are unanimous, all saying that the case is obvious, and I or someone else have disagreed, pointing out a mistake in reasoning, or something that's been missed, and the next three or four comments have gone the other way.

We're talking here about what can be a very intimidating procedure for a new user; spending a decent amount of time discussing it and getting it right isn't too much to ask? The bureaucratic approach is to do things in a way that benefits us; let's be non-bureaucratic for a change, and bear the "victim" in mind instead. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding a bit rude to some, but I did suggest that cases where a consensus appears to be obvious, leaving it open for 2, 3, or even 4 hours isn't much to ask to make sure that people haven't found anything that needs to be brought up. I give the example where Ben reopened a case after finding some additional information. Had the case been left open longer, he would not have needed to reopen it and ask to unblock the user.
I also stated that if the username is a blatant violation that an admin can close it without discussion and move to AIV. Closing a RFCN too soon seems to be an injustice for what 'could be' a violation. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So are we saying with this that clear allows should be left to stay up for 24 hours and simply put the good faith user on edge as to whether or not they're going to be blocked or not? I understand the disallows, there may be issues raised after say 12 hours which changes peoples opinions, but clear allows (and clear disallows which should have gone to AIV) should certainly be closed early. Consensus reaching isn't something that can be done over a set period of time, it's something which evolves within the discussion and putting a set period on it is only going to cause bureaucracy Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be a night-shift worker or someone on the far side of the world who comes up with the one detail (Webster's Dictionary?) that changes everything. We should wait for them to have a chance to respond, the same way we should wait for the user to have a chance to respond -- not just to the original {{UsernameConcern}} but to the RFC discussion itself. A hasty close may deny the user a chance to defend his or her own username at the RFC, possibly the time to look up evidence -- all in order to avoid "putting the good faith user on edge"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but what about obvious allows and disallows? Still leave up for 24 hours? What if User:Ryanpostlethtwat or User:Sing to the birds comes here? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, please read my suggestion above again... I clearly recommended items where there is a clear consensus that it shouldn't be up for 24 hours, but for some time to allow more comments. Perhaps it could be worded that names that are Obviously not violating WP:U could be removed on sight by a admin or experienced editor and a kind apology left on the subject's talk page. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone modifying your name to end in "-twat" would probably go to WP:AIV as blatant. But we just had a real-life case, WebstersDictionary, speedily closed as an "obvious" disallow; shouldn't it have had more time despite that, without requiring a re-open and un-block for the good-faith user? Maybe we'll think User:Sing to the birds is an equally "obvious" allow... until someone tells us, hey, that's the name of a famous Navajo singer, toured with Douglas Spotted Eagle, but she just died a week ago, so this can't be her! "Obvious" ain't always "correct". If one day's time can help us get more "correct" decisions, I think that's worth waiting on some of the "obvious" decisions. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That is precisely what I would like to avoid... and thats why I made the recommendation that I did. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In other words, there are few obvious allows or disallows, because the obvious ones don't usually come here. We all see various names as being obviously one or the other, but the point of this page is that one person's view isn't enough. Closing early means that one person is deciding what's obvious, and that goes against the whole point of discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of obvious ones do come here, really obvious ones that AIV rejected. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That my point exactly, and showing that consensus isn't build on a certain time frame, I would endorse leaving non obvious violations up for longer, but not under any set length of time Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that unless there has been a pause without contributions, speedy closes should be avoided. Also, can I ask that people not close discussions they have participated in (unless the result is pretty much unanimous)? WjBscribe 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "Speedy closes should be avoided" -- here's a case in point: No UsernameConcern (or equivalent) was given the user. UsernameDiscussion notice was given the user at 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC), and the actual RFCN was closed/deleted at 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC), with the user blocked in the same minute. One hour and 40 minutes, start to end. Tell me how that constitutes enough time for the user to respond. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ben, I stand by that one. Shlopolikerleegomareelsenheimer was a ridiculously long name and apparent nonsense that would probably have been blocked at AIV. It had been discussed for nearly two hours without an allow opinion. And the only contrib from that user had been vandalism (the block was on account of both). WjBscribe 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    The absence of an allow option just might have something to do with the fact that it was closed an hour and 40 minutes from the first mention of any problem with the username, including on the user's talk page. If the user wasn't on Wikipedia during that 01:40, he had no opportunity to explain his name. I myself did a few quick Googles, typed a comment, tried saving it, got two edit conflicts, and found the section gone. Just the UsernameDiscussion alone should be left on the user's talk page for a day, to let the user respond, before the RFCN is opened. And the RFCN, on a name that no-one responding yet understands, should give readers in other parts of the world time to respond -- because they may understand it. My own poor attempt might have affected some opinions, perhaps even changed some "disallows" to "allows" -- but I'll never know, will I? You deleted that, too. And now you bring up "vandalism" in one sole solitary contrib as justifying this hasty closure? Wrong, very very wrong. Vandalism has its own set of warnings escalating to a block. That one contrib got that warning; it's at the top of the user's talk page. WP:RFCN is a separate discussion, and says so at the top of that page. This case violated procedure. If we're going to enforce policy on users, then in doing so we should abide by policy ourselves. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually Ben, the procedure that should have been followed with this user was to report them at WP:AIV, where any admin would have blocked the account. It ended up here instead, but the automatic block for clear violations does not cease to be applicable because a name is mentioned on this board. If you wish to persuade me as the blocking admin that a user with a ridiculously long and nonsensical name whose only edit was vandalism should be unblocked, you know where my talkpage is. WjBscribe 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I explained on WP:RFCN why the username was neither "ridiculously long" (one character shorter than Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington) nor "nonsensical" (a given name one letter different from an actual lawyer's name; a middle name similar to one that gets many Ghits; a surname that is in actual use and also gets many Ghits) -- it's simply runtogetherwithoutspaces, which meets no definition of "vandalism" on Wikipedia. You immediately deleted that explanation from WP:RFCN, which was not only the appropriate forum for public discussion of usernames, but was where the discussion of this username had been brought. That explanation was not meant For Your Eyes Only, such that you should delete-after-reading or redirect it to your own talkpage; it was meant to add to, and affect, the public discussion. Where was the urgent need to delete my comment? Or to close the discussion so quickly? How would Wikipedia have suffered from allowing the discussion to continue while comments were still being added? As opposed to how it suffers from closing out discussion and deleting differing views? -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ben, I did not the the WP:RFCN in question, but I will self admittadly close rfcn's speedily when I feel appropriate. If there is a strong general consenus (usually more than 5 in one directon with strong pilcy arguments), I will close the. If it is a highly contested name that is new and there is a possibly a consensus could be reviewed, I leave it longer. I dont think there is anything wrong with closing an RFCN in an hour if there is a strong consensus to allow. There are alot of things that happen when we are away from wiki. I cant say, dont block a vandal because I was gone and did not get time to comment. The fact is, this process should move efficiently, and waitning for everybody to comment on a snowball adds little value. In most cases it ends up being a case of Color of the bikeshed where everybody throws there 2 cents in on the easy ones and the more difficult ones sit around. After a while, we dont care what color the bikeshed is and need more focus on the difficult questions at hand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact is that an admin can block a user for their name on their own discretion. Unless there is a clear consensus to allow the name an admin can be bold and block it. If I had seen Shlopolikerleegomareelsenheimer I would have blocked it on sight, regardless of RFCN. RFCN is for less than clear cases, and blatant policy violations can be blocked, even if they make it to RFCN. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Chris and High: did you read my comments on the case? You'd have had to read fast. Here's part:

    "Shlopo-Liker Leegomare Elsenheimer". Starting at the end: "Elsenheimer" is a plausible surname, in fact an actually existing surname; "Leegomare" I haven't seen, but it's reminiscent of "Lungomare", which I have seen; and there's an Israeli lawyer named "Shlomo Liker", "Shlomo" being the Hebrew name often rendered as "Solomon". Not an implausible name, all in all. ... Too long? As long as "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"? No, in fact, one letter shorter.

    (end quote) Since the basis of the Disallows was that the name was (a) random nonsense and (b) too long, I think that text might have changed minds -- if it hadn't been deleted from RFCN. Or other people than me might have given the same simple explanation of how this was a plausible real-world name -- if they'd been able to see the discussion at all during its 01:40 lifespan. When did Jewish names become "blatant policy violations"? The user's lamentable behavior isn't the issue here; the username committed no violation. -- Ben TALK/HIST 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no concerns about the legitimacy of the names used, Jewish names are fine, that is not the issue. It is to long, so is Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's name, not going to do anything about it, but it is. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're not going to do anything about a 32-character-long username (which I agree with, since I don't think it's unreasonably long), then how can you say a 31-character-long username is a "blatant policy violation"? Even the proposed username-length limit was 35 characters. Where was the proposal, let alone the consensus, to declare 31 too long? If a limit of 30 or less was never made policy, how can 31 be a "blatant policy violation"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV WP:RFCN, and now a third option

Let us not forget that going to an admin who is willing to deal with usernames is an option. For those who wish to not be rejected by WP:AIV or go through the process of WP:RFCN, you can report username violations here: User:HighInBC/Usernames.

Please keep in mind that I will not be processing any names that I have doubts about, rather I will direct them here, or just remove them. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demsardonkeys (talk • contribs)

This disacussion was recently closed as "no consensus":[3] Actually, there did appear to be a consensus, or a rapidly developing one: sixteen disallows vs. ten allows, six of the latter having been placed before there were any disallows. That's a very substantial majority disallow any way you look at it, with more recent comments four to one against.Proabivouac 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the closing personally. There was time for the conversation to develop, (I.E., not speedily closed) and the originial allows had time to change there opinions and did not. I belive that both sides had good arguments (meaning that neiother sides argument whould be discounted). Even though the later ones were disallow, the orignial allows still stayed, and were unchanged making only the "most recent" comments not a valid judgement of consensus. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


I've reopened this, there was no consensus to disallow it, good arguments on either side, but by allmeans continue discussion Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for future reference though, it might be a good idea to speak to me first, Ben has, and I responded stating I would discuss the closing tomorrow and I was happy to discuss it. Please talk to whoever closed the RFCN first to discuss reasoning Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing of Yomomma23

I've just tried (and been immediately reverted) to reopen a discussion closed as "consensus to disallow"; the "votes" were 13 to 9, which isn't normally accepted as consensus. the defence of the closure was that one has to judge the quality of the reasons; fair enough, in fact a good idea — but in that case, it shouldn't be closed by someone who has participated. I, for example, thought that many if not most of the reasons given for disallowing were weak, and some were downright silly — but I also shouldn't have closed the discussion, because I was involved.

Could we agree that discussions be closed by someone not involved, unless they're clear (unanimous or near-unanimous opinions)? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Especially in situations where it is close and the closer had an active opinion in the orignial argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I already explained, the votes are only 13-9 if you do a count. Well we are not voting. Even if I only dismiss Tortureiswrong's "I think it is funny" argument that makes it 61% disallow. But that is not even an accurate count. Several allow "votes" claim it is not an insult, yet those seeking to disallow provided sources showing it was an insult. WP:CONSENSUS describes what I did very well.
There is also some confusion where people think "if it does not offend me it is okay", the WP:U policy says "potentially offensive", not "offends you".
Now I know I participated in this one, and if you think that makes me bias then another admin can review the closing. But the fact is that everyone that normally closes these participated in that one, and it was dragging on. There was a consensus to disallow, I think it was clear. I have certainly closed these against my own opinion in the past, I am not favoring my side. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


I can only say that I disagree with your final claim, though I'm sure that you didn't consciously or deliberately favour arguments for your position. My general point remains though. I don't want to make this a debate over your decision in this case; I simply used that as a springboard for my general concern about procedure.

Incidentally, another admin did review the closing, and reopened the discussion (me); you reverted me immediately. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reason you gave was a vote count[4]. However, you have explained your position much better now. If you wish to re-open it I won't revert, but I still stand by my closing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rational

Okay, to make things more clear, here is my math: HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Format:

  • <reason>: votes (value) (explanation)
Allow
  • Per WP:AGF: 1(0) (good faith, bad faith, not relevant to the potential to offend)
  • It is funny: 1(0) (Not a policy based argument)
  • This is not an insult: 6 (valid policy based opinion)
  • No violation of policy: 1 (valid policy based opinion)
Disallow
  • Insulting despite apologetic speculation: 1 (1) (valid policy based opinion)
  • Insult/offensive: 12 (12) (valid policy based opinion)
Totals
  • 7 allow
  • 13 disallow
  • 65% disallow
Note

This tally does not take into account that the position to disallow provided examples of the phrase being used as an insult. The claims by the Allow position that it is not an insult were counted the same regardless of information to the contrary. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote counting, understanding policy

I would like to do a small rant. Consensus is not a vote count. Arguments made here that are not in line with policy do not get full weight, if any. For example(sorry to single people out) this[5] carries exactly 0 weight, notice it makes not policy based arguments?

People also seem to be voting allow based on the reasoning "I don't find it offensive" and ignore the evidence provided that others may find it offensive. The policy is not against usernames offending you it is against "potentially offensive names".

AGF, does not apply to the vast majority of username because a name does not need to be bad faith to be in violation. Just because there is a chance that the name has an innocent meaning does not mean the potential to offend can be ignored.

Vote counting, we don't vote count here. When a RFCN is closed we don't just add it up and make a decision, a bot could do that. The closing admin needs to take into account the value of each opinion.

Okay, I feel better now, thanks for listening. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


As that is completely unrelated to anything that I or anyone else here has said, I can only assume that sometthing else has set it off. What, if I may ask? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems fairly relevant. This non-policy-based "tolerance" of rather problematic user names is a persistent problem on this RFC. The Behnam 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As unlikely as it seems, I am not going after anyone specific. This is a problem that is getting worse over time. The small symptom that came about today is just a sign of it. If people "voted" with policy more in mind then the closings would match the vote count. I think Behnam put it best when describing it as "non-policy-based "tolerance"". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'd call it the application of policy in a spirit of common sense. There are many people who seem to go out of their way to be offended, or to find "potential" for offence. It has been pointed out that your own User name could be seen as offensive, implying as it does the approval of drug-taking in British Columbia. That's not far off the level of argument of many of the contributors to discussions here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "And I'd call it the application of policy in a spirit of common sense. There are many people who seem to go out of their way to be offended, or to find "potential" for offence." I could not POSSIBLY agree more with this. For many here, the standard seems to be that if the most persnickety old church lady on the planet could take offense to a name it must be banned. It's a ludicrous attitude. TortureIsWrong 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What about the persnickety old church ladies that use Wikipedia? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suspect even they think "the most persnickety" one is a humorless pain in the posterior. TortureIsWrong 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And if someone wishes to call my name to the RFCN they can make policy based arguments. Perhaps "Potential" should not be in the policy, I am not sure, but it is there. RFCN is not the place to change WP:U, rather a place to apply policy. Policy is changed on the policy talk page. And if "common sense" dictates that the policy should be ignored, then the common sense should be common to the closing admin. If not, then it probably was not common sense. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course there will be different levels of opinion here. But the problem is that some users aren't even looking at this in a very policy-oriented sense such that they aren't looking at ways a user name could be offensive as much as they are looking for ways that it could not be offensive. I'll try to revise this for clarity in a bit. The Behnam 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate getting up late and jumping at the end of a conversation. But I have noticed this too. I also think there's a little bit of 'fighting the man' attitude showing up to. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_User_names_75df.html"