Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep with option.
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2007. The result of the discussion was reform.
Archive
Archives

/Archive1
/Archive2
/Archive3
/Archive4


Contents


[edit] Change name or else...

I agree to the rationale initially posted by Melsaran. Should the closing admin decide to disallow, we can follow the following procedure:

  1. Close the debate as disallow in 24 hours
  2. Notify the user in his talkpage by means of a polite template that his name has been regarded as incompatible with our username policy, and he will be allowed to edit for -say- 24 hours so that he manages to switch names (with the proper links for doing so etc).
  3. Enforce the block after that time, possibly automatically?

What say you? NikoSilver 15:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(section originally titled =="Forced rename" for non-blatant usernames with edits==)

If a good-faith username is disallowed after a discussion on this page (as happened recently with User:TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice), and it has edits, a thing to consider would be that blocking the name does not "remove" the name from page histories etc. Maybe it would be better to have a "forced rename" process for blocked usernames (with which I mean good-faith usernames, not blatantly inappropriate names like "Wikipediasucks"). Instead of blocking them, we would drop a note on their talk page saying "The community has chosen to disallow your username after a discussion (or: your username is prohibited because ...) Please file a request at WP:CHU to change it." Then if the user doesn't edit after that message, just leave it, since blocking it doesn't have a purpose when it doesn't edit anyway. If the user changes their name after a week, then that's fine, since there is no hurry. If the user flatly refuses to change their name and continues to edit, we may block it after all. Currently, when non-blatant usernames with edits are disallowed, we block them, and they don't want to go through the hassle of requesting an unblock and everything, so they just create a new account. The username, however, can be found in the history of dozens of pages (depending on how many edits the user has made), see for instance Special:Contributions/TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice. Alternatively to blocking them when they refuse to rename, we could let a bureaucrat "force a rename" (i.e. rename the user to a name chosen by the bureaucrat), although I'm not sure that would work in practice since we don't have enough bureaucrats. not possible to implement, see Ryan's comment below Melsaran (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

prior two posted at the same time—— Eagle101Need help? 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Its a decent idea, however does not fix some of the fundemental problems I think are in our username policy, but is at least a step in the right direction. However, most of the names I have seen so far are clearly a violation of our existing username policy. As in, if I saw them over RC I would have blocked. Thing is you guys, no real serious harm is brought to our encyclopedia by some of these usernames that we choose to put into our policy as not allowed, what does harm our encyclopedia is the general behavior that comes from usernames that match our policy. (I have never seen a username with XXXX ON WHEELS do anything good for example... —— Eagle101Need help? 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I should elaborate, if we feel the username policy is too strict, then we need to change the policy itself. In addition, this proposal may do well over at WP:UAA as well... this is more a radical re-thinking of how we deal with usernames... and as such may need to be worked into our existing policy. (perhaps with that much needed rewrite of the policy ;) ) —— Eagle101Need help? 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's better to keep the discussion centralised, but I'll post a link to this section on the relevant policy talk page and in the village pump. Melsaran (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I do suggest however that any resulting action, be written into our username policy, not something thats specific to this page. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I posted this below just five minutes after you did (Eagle101 - thanks for moving it). This is a good summary of the idea I was trying to describe, though. I think it would only have benefits, as it is less bitey, encourages them to change their username instead of creating a new account (which removes the inappropriate name from page histories if it has already edited), and leaving the name around for one more day doesn't really do any harm. Melsaran (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We can't force renames because how will the user know if he hasn't edited for a while what his new username is? He just won't be able to log in with his old username. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm yeah, that's true. Forget that comment :) Melsaran (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone realized that many newbies don't check WP multiple times per day like we do? 24 hours is a ridiculously short window of time. If you want to put a time limit on a rename, it'll have to be a week or so. Not that I expect this will fit well with the breakneck pace of username blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see my comment above (I proposed ± a week). 24 hours is, indeed, really short, especially for newbies who aren't as addicted as we are. Melsaran (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, if we say "please rename within a week or we'll block you", and the user doesn't edit for a week, there's no need to block them. Blocking is simply a measure to enforce a rename, and does not accomplish anything if the user doesn't edit anyway. Don't block unless the user continues to edit and ignores or declines the request to rename. Melsaran (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say "next time you edit Wikipedia"? That's simple enough, surely? Carcharoth 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My "24h" example was out-of-my-head. "Next time you edit" is fine. NikoSilver 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Or even (to avoid people stressing out immediately they see the message), to say "24h after you next edit Wikipedia", though trying to explain to a new editor that they can read the message without editing Wikipedia, and that other editors can tell when you've next edited (these are new editors remember), and so on, gets complicated. Maybe just say - "when you read this message, please contact us here or leave a response here." In other words, help them to get involved in the discussion. Carcharoth 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're closing in on the right idea. Saying "You will be blocked unless you carefully follow our directions within this specified period of time" will not help anything. Saying "you need to talk to us" might, and will lead to less rule-mongering. Although I have to wonder what it's supposed to help with; I haven't seen an epidemic of users with moderately unacceptable usernames who adamantly keep using them in spite of everyone, but that's probably just because someone on UAA indef blocks them first. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on

Just letting people know I won't be working in the WP:UAA nor WP:RFCN areas anymore. Rlevse 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD

So have any new policy changes arisen from the MfD that are going to be implemented? SGGH speak! 11:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some revamp efforts at WT:U. It's probably better to wait and see what happens there before we figure out what should change here. Mangojuicetalk 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real names

I wasn't told my name had appeared for discussion here, so I'm glad it got speedy closed. I'm happy for my name to be used as an example. What do we do if people like Clifford_Cocks (or his family) wanted to register?

There's a bit of discussion about the name Cocks in this Usenet news discussion.

Also, did no-one else notice "anita gowe-toda toylett" = 'i need to go to the toilet'? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspected they were a troll, but no I didn't read the name that way :-). As to real names, they should overwhelmingly be acceptable. That said, if someone told me that my name was a horrific ethnic slur that might offend many editors, I'd probably decide to use a different screen name. But names that happen to include "Cock" or similar are fine - otherwise we'd also have to ban words like "Scunthorpe" and "Wristwatch". Bottom line, names should be absolutely fine - though AGF only goes so far, if someone claims that are "John Fucktwatwank" I think we are entitled to disbelieve them ;-) ... WjBscribe 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't worry about that, it was an obvious attempt at trolling. I'm actually surprised anyone even responded to the request as if it were in good faith. Yes, I noticed the name, and so did the person who indef-blocked that user. Discussion on WT:U has generally agreed that people should be allowed to use their real names. Mangojuicetalk 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if someone wants to establish that it's their real name (with the potential to be offensive) they should verify it though WP:OTRS first before they can get the go-ahead. Maybe not OTRS... any admin would be fine really. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
OTRS is the best way to do it, though. I don't know how I'd go about checking what a certain user's real name is. Presumably, they do, or they can find a way to. Mangojuicetalk 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jesus

Why is there no User:Jesus? Is this something that has been discussed here at WP:RFC/NAME? It's a common name in a very large region of the world, I have a hard time believing that nobody would have a legitimate claim to it --ffroth 00:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there was one, it was blocked [1]. --Bongwarrior 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember blocking that one; despite it being a possible first name, it's at least misleading. But the probably more relevant answer is: someone registered the name and never used it. *shrugs*. Mangojuicetalk 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, "Jesus" by itself wouldn't sit too well with a lot of people. When it's combined with something else to make it apparent that it's an actual name, that's a different matter. --Bongwarrior 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] asking for advice before starting the process

Some usernames are borderline. Some editors are unsure of username policy. It seems that a few reports here are asking for advice before starting a process. Either ed1 asks "is this okay, or should I do something about it, am I just being over sensitive?" ed2, ed3 and ed4 say "no, it's okay" and ed5 says "it seems like it might be a vio of section x, but it should be okay", and thus nothing happens, OR ed1 asks "is this okay" and ed2, ed3, and ed4 say "woah, that's not good." at which po9nt ed1 *starts* discussions with the user about name changing etc. Seems to me much less bitey. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to close some RFCs?

The RFCs for Justjihad and Adznet have been running for some time now, and no new input is being added. Time to close them? Is he back? (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep – at least justjihad, which I would close but am involved in. It's been running much longer than the necessary 5 days —αlεx•mullεr 13:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)