Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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—— Eagle101^{Need 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... —— Eagle101^{Need 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 ;) ) —— Eagle101^{Need 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. —— Eagle101^{Need 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)

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)

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. Mangojuice^talk 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Mangojuice^talk 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. Mangojuice^talk 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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*. Mangojuice^talk 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)

Don't be too sure. Not so very long ago a conspiracy of morons harassed a user named MoeLarryAndJesus out of here. They would have had a problem with "Bongwarrior," too. Maybe things have changed around here, and the right-wing douchebags aren't as plentiful. That would be nice.

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)

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)

This used to be against the rules, but WP:U appears to have been modified. In particular, I'm thinking about User:McCain Landslide!. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends what the point of view is; I think the example you gave should be disallowed, but I can think of a few that wouldn't be so bad (even "McCain Supporter" would be okay, IMO). · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Potentially a block. Based on user contributions it is a possible POV pusher. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, A member named Plyjacks was blocked from wikipedia and User:Jerem43 is taunting him for it. He is not an admin but trys to be one. So please block him for it. Kegatic (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a probable sock of plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a banned sockpuppeteer. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is no real RFC area to discuss improper signatures. (see Wikipedia:An#User signature) I would like to suggest we word the intro to include those in this section of RFC. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely support this. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be more direct language on WP:SIG regarding what is/is not acceptable in terms of user signatures and how to handle improper signatures. RFCN is to handle potential violations of a policy and is part of a defined process; WP:SIG is not a policy and there is no process to handle "problem" signatures. These issues need to be addressed prior to opening up RFCN to signature issues (which I am not fundamentally opposed to). Using a somewhat out-of-the-way forum like RFCN to deal with an issue that is not explicitly delineated in policy strikes me as being somewhat .. oh, I dunno. Improper. Shereth 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that SIG needs to be clearer and the process defined but RFC is for guidelines like SIG also (not just policy). Anyone up for helping clarify WP:SIG ? If so I will start a discussion on that talk page tomorrow. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to offer my input. Shereth 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no real objection to expanding this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and signatures, though I doubt truly problematic signatures would crop up here more than very rarely. As per Shereth, though, it would be nice to strengthen WP:SIG first so that any recommendations made here would be grounded in more than just vague guidelines and personal opinion. -kotra (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And good luck with that.... Exploding Boy (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since that may have seemed overly flip, what I meant was that tightening up WP:SIG may be a protracted slog; people can be very sensitive about their signatures. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sure am not going to try. I don't have that much free time (or sanity). -kotra (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think the culture here isn't so well suited to discussing user signatures. Why not just use an ordinary user conduct WP:RFC, in the cases where this comes up? I've seen signatures discussed there before. Mangojuice^talk 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IU includes user signatures but the next section on what to do about inappropriate user names does not mention signatures. Seems like an easy fix to include them here. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The project page says "There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.", but the instructions for closing administrators says "Allow a discussion to run at least 24 hours (maximum 5 days)" (emphasis added). Am I misunderstanding, or is this a contradiction? It seems to be saying 5 days is the maximum length allowed for a period of discussion. -kotra (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it's a contradiction, and if it's not intended to be, it's just poorly worded. It should definitely be amended. I think just a minimum should be set. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If a 5-day maximum was intended, it has certainly been ignored. As a humble User though, I'd prefer someone else make the change. -kotra (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was no objection, so I went ahead and did it. -kotra (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I couldn't foresee any objection anyway. I agree with the removal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the deal with the archive? It starts at August 2008, but last I looked, this is October. And when I click the link for User:IReceivedDeathThreats, I get something completely unrelated. Is it just me? Am I doing something wrong? Franamax (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's broken. this should get you what you are looking for. The method of "archiving" used for this page is lacking, to be generous. Shereth 23:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently stumbled across User:Genius110, he has only 1 edit, creating his userpage, in June, so I was wondering what I could do and if this is the right place to bring this up. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 18:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming exclusive use of the word 'genius'?

I also forgot to mention that I occasionally go by Genius101. And no, for example User:Genius12. It's just that the 110 and 101 are very similar. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius101 and Genius110 are not that similar. Genius1o1, or l0l might be. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to avoid the confusion, don't use that as your signature. I don't see a reason why we should/would change someone else's user name just because you prefer to use a signature that is similar to that user name. Your user name (Genius101 Wizard) is not close to similar to Genius 110). either way (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a policy that forbids similar usernames. I think this one is borderline. If they continue to edit, and in the same areas as you, there may be a case for having them change. Keep watching them and if the similarity becomes a genuine problem, you have two options: change your username at WP:CHU, or ask them if they would change their username (I can do this if you want). If they refuse and our concerns aren't alleviated, it could then be reported here at WP:RFC/NAME for others to give input. -kotra (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is even borderline. The only reason this is borderline is because Genius101 Wizard insists on using Genius101 as his signature. He's creating the similarity out of this, either way (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that the full username is Genius101 Wizard. You may be right, then. -kotra (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for closing admins says the {{rfcn top}} is supposed to be placed underneath the section header, but current practice seems to be to put it above the header. Is there a reason why that is the current practice? If not, I think we should go by what that page says, because when the {{rfcn top}} is above a section header (placing it at the bottom of the previous section), people (like me) accidentally put their comments underneath it. Just a minor annoyance, but either way, the instructions should agree with how we do things, I think. -kotra (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to represent current practice, which I also think is a better way of closing. seresin ( ¡? )  00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens when a petitioner doesn't think the RFC should be closed, but an admin has properly closed it? Such a situation has apparently just come up with this diff. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say the petitioner needs to get over it, or discuss the matter further in another venue. They can take it to the administrator's talk page, they can take it to this talk page, they can go to a noticeboard if they really want. I have seen situations where a case has been closed and a consensus has formed on this page to re-open it. More often though it is just one person disagreeing(not saying that is the case here). Chillum 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

C'est la vie. If someone believes the closing administrator acted improperly they can take it over to the noticeboard. If they merely disagree, they ought to bring it up with said closing administrator. Ultimately, however, there is going to be someone who does "not like" the close and will just have to live with it. Shereth 16:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On further understanding of the RFCN process, I realize that it is the admin's discretion to close because the only thing that would be done other than close is block and therefore relisting would be pointless. Bedcause of this I reciend my formal opposition to the username as it is apparent that the general consnensus is that this username is acceptable. This message may be relayed to the user in question.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been operating on the assumption that all users whose names are being discussed here should be notified of the discussion, so they can participate. However, I just now realized the instructions don't actually say this. Would it be alright if we added the following text (in bold here): "List requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}, and notify the user that a request for comment on their user name is underway."

We could make a template so the notification is standardized and easier to use, like:

Thank you for your contributions. Relating to your username, a user has raised concerns that it may not meet Wikipedia's username policy, and it is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#USERNAME. Your thoughts considering the name are encouraged there. Thank you.

Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(changed wording of proposed template slightly) -kotra (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. I had a dispute recently about my username. About one-third of the discussion took place on my own talk page, which I feel looks like an indictment over a non-existent crime. Having the whole discussion immediately redirected to one appropriate, central location would have helped.

Also, the original template had a cheery, "Let's discuss on your talk page and try to work something out before escalating this issue," when the complainant really had no interest in doing so. The new phrasing cuts through the treacle and immediately directs to this page, which I think is more efficient.

Not to mention that it would have saved me hours upon hours of trying to figure out how to resolve the issue without escalating it for comment, when immediately escalating for comment may have been the best solution in the first place. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, people might still try to discuss on your talk page for a long time before it's brought to RFC. The notification would only help prevent the discussion from happening in two places at the same time. -kotra (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found out this template actually already exists: {{und}}. Added to instructions. -kotra (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me as I'm afraid this is not the right page to write my request. Besides French WP is rather tricky (even) for a French beginner, English WP is not easier to swim accross :-)

Here is my complaint (which I have just added on the discussion page of both related articles) :

Would the last person who hesitated three times but finally did erase my bibliography additions in both Blues-rock and British Blues articles be polite enough to give me proper reasons of this undo, as there is a Further reading section in many other rock articles, which fully entitles me to ask my similar section to be included in both my quoted articles. And please explain what u mean when writing 'using popups'. Thanks. --Polofrfr (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, would the user Wikilibs happen to be a 'bot ?

Many thanks from Paris --Polofrfr (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The proper page for this would be the User talk page of the user in question, and the talk page(s) of the articles in question. And, no, User:Wiki libs is not a bot.--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to break this discussion over editing article bibliographies into another section, instead of letting it stay tagged on to the discussion over editing templates. Because I don't know very much about talk page etiquette, I didn't want to just delete it, even though I know it doesn't belong here. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That was correct. -kotra (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed a rash of stale accounts being reported both here and at WP:UAA lately. By stale accounts, I am referring to accounts that have not edited in several months; many of them made only a handful of edits, if they ever edited at all. While I have no compunctions about de-listing stale accounts at UAA without action, I am more hesitant to do so here as it would be out-of-process. Taking the time to report a stale account, discuss it over the course of several days, and then go through the administrative steps of closing the discussion and taking any further actions is not an efficient use of time and attention on the project when dealing with accounts that, in all liklihood, will never edit again.

What I am wondering is if there would be any consensus to do one or both of the following:

• Alter the third note at the top of WP:RFCN to read "If the username is NOT blatantly inappropriate, and the user has made no edits, or has not edited in several months, do not post as there is no need to take any action." (addition is in italics)

• Modify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Administrators, adding a line below "Allow a discussion to run at least 24 hours unless" that reads "The user in question has never edited or has made no edits in several months. Be sure to check the user's deleted contributions to ensure there has been no recent activity."

Thoughts? Shereth 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Both ideas seem reasonable - not instruction creep since it's ultimately helpful and precludes unnecessary time-wasting. Stale accounts certainly do not require any protracted discussion. Stale reports are removed from UAA all the time, so it seems silly to weigh in here for the same types. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• There seemed to be conflicting views on what to do about stale accounts here, so I wasn't sure whether or not to close the recent reports of this nature. But I agree that it is probably a waste of our time to discuss usernames that are unlikely to cause any further disruption. If they are "sleeper" accounts, they can be dealt with when they prove themselves to be such. I endorse both additions, except the first makes "and the user has made no edits" redundant, so that should be removed. -kotra (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As a newly registered user here, I took the time to scroll through the database of user-names... beginning with the first in line... which is punctuation marks before alphabetical listings. There were many numerous obscene, irrelevant, and spamming-types of names listed. As a new user, I doubt that I could begin blocking each and every one of these names that are often repetitions, double-usage, and never used to edit.

I would like to make a suggestion. Usernames must pass through a SPELLCHECK before being accepted. The check would decline every known obscenity, and get updated as new versions occur. What are computers for, anyway?

Also: Every section should have an administrator who ACCEPTS/DECLINES edits that are submitted to a particular article or section. The absolute vandalism that occurs otherwise, actually degrades the quality of Wikipedia. The same amount of time that it takes to approve edits... OR MORE... is used to clean up after these spammers and vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Light Cure (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no documentation for Template:Rfcn top, so I made some. If what I've written diverges from current (or "proper") usage, please change it. Also, moved Template:RFCNtop and Template:RFCNbottom to Template:Rfcn top and Template:Rfcn bottom, in line with similar templates and the admin instructions page. -kotra (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been closing several RfCs lately for failing to attempt a discussion with the offending user beforehand. This is per the instructions:

The user in question should first be notified and allowed time to discuss on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here. Do not post the issue here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply.

However, RfCs like this seem to happen all the time, even from experienced users. My question is this: is it overly bureaucratic and process-obsessed for us to close these RfCs prematurely for simply failing to meet this one requirement? Or is the prior discussion period something we should insist upon, so as to not waste other users' time with issues that could be better resolved one-on-one? -kotra (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable because it follows the form of practically any kind of dispute resolution or related process on Wikipedia : you begin by discussing the problem with the user in question. Given that UAA and RFCN almost invariably deal with new users, throwing them into the mix here without attempting to resolve the issue with them first is extremely WP:BITEy. It sets a bad precedent when a new user's first "problem" on Wikipedia ignores the crucial step of attempting to work the problem out prior to appealing to any kind of forum that may include measures viewed as disciplinary. Shereth 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the Reports section of this page, it states "Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary....", yet it seems that the common convention is to add bolded !votes (allow or disallow). I looked through the June 2009 archives, and it seems to be the norm. Just wondering if the wording at the top of the section should be revised, if not, then participants might need to be nudged. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I interpret "bolded recommendations are not necessary" to mean just that they aren't strictly required; they're still allowed. I don't consider it a vote either, but I feel that bolded recommendations help make clear people's positions; that's why I use them. Consider AfDs: they're discussions, not votes, but participants there also use bolded recommendations. -kotra (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much I could add to the above - it's merely for the sake of convenience that some editors choose to put a bolded recommendation in. I consider it a sort of highly-visible summary. Shereth 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1. COMMENT the bold comments should just be used to keep the page clear. I really hope any admin blocking usernames has a clear understanding of policy, and would not block a name even if many people thought it should be blocked if the name is compliant with policy. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put this at WT:UAA too.

1. Users should be subject to consistent enforcement of the rules. (as far as that is possible with many admins and many rules)
   
2. BAD FAITH users can be blocked for many reasons. I'm not suggesting 'more tolerance' for people making no useful contributions
   
3. A bad faith user with an acceptable username gets very much longer to continue bad faith editing than a bad faith editor with an unacceptable username. see point 1 about consistent treatment
   
4. Fallout from this is that good faith, but clumsy or bad, newbie editors get caught in instant, permanent, blocks. this is obviously very bad.
   

• Thus: Editors engaged in bad behaviour should be blocked for that bad behaviour. This sends a clear message that the behaviour is the thing that must change, and that an editor coming back doing the same things but under a new username is not welcome.
• Thus: Good faith but clumsy editors get a more welcoming message. You may not have the time to help newbie editors, that's fine. send them to some adoption project.
• You can say the username block policy is not BITEy til you're blue in the face. You need to ask the people blocked under it if they felt bitten.

87.113.86.207 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As a newly registered user here, I took the time to scroll through the database of user-names... beginning with the first in line... which is punctuation marks before alphabetical listings. There were many numerous obscene, irrelevant, and spamming-types of names listed. As a new user, I doubt that I could begin blocking each and every one of these names that are often repetitions, double-usage, and never used to edit.

I would like to make a suggestion. Usernames must pass through a SPELLCHECK before being accepted. The check would decline every known obscenity, and get updated as new versions occur. What are computers for, anyway?

Also: Every section should have an administrator who ACCEPTS/DECLINES edits that are submitted to a particular article or section. The absolute vandalism that occurs otherwise, actually degrades the quality of Wikipedia. The same amount of time that it takes to approve edits... OR MORE... is used to clean up after these spammers and vandals. This is my first post, and I forgot to sign it... thus the editing problem.The Light Cure 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The Light Cure 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The Light Cure 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not happening, Light. Too tedious of a task for administrators and flies in the face of anonymous editing. Also, spellcheck is worthless; profanities are far too easily bowdlerized to bypass such filters. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what Light is suggesting is basically flagged revisions, which a good chunk of editors (including our Fearless Leader) are pushing for. However, at least to start out, they would only be for a small subset of articles, at the most all biographies of living persons. As for clearing out the policy-noncompliant usernames, Jeremy is right about such filters being ineffective (and the number of false positives would be prohibitive); besides, blocked usernames remain in the user list, and that's usually not considered a problem (it's only a problem if the offending account edits, which they can't if they're blocked). -kotra (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Manually archiving the RFCs are a continuous chore that nobody wants to do, and we have excellent archival bots that do the job well. Therefore, unless there are any objections, I would like to set up MiszaBot II to archive every RFC after they've been closed for a week or so.

This would mean we would have to place {{rfcn top}} underneath the header instead of above (as we do now), and in the future, archived RFCs would not be listed briefly alongside their (subjectively interpreted) result, as currently; instead, the archive pages would be more standard, like Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive70.

Any objections? -kotra (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means - this is tremendously overdue. Shereth 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, though couldn't MiszaBot II bet configured to archive anything between the {{rfcn top}} and {{rfcn bottom}} tags? I find it better to have the full discussion, including header, to be within the tags as it looks cleaner. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand MiszaBot (and the other main option, ClueBot), they will only archive the section header and everything after it, nothing before the section header, which would technically be in the previous section. It may be possible to get User:Misza13 to program a workaround for our purpose, but if I correctly understand the bot's current archival method (which I might not), it would involve a fairly large restructuring. We could ask, though, if it's important. -kotra (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the silence, folks. I've been off-and-on trying to set up a test in my userspace (currently at User talk:Kotra/RFCN archiving test), to no success. I'm sure I'm missing something completely obvious. In any case, I will try to give it another stab within a few days, but I'm preparing for a trip, so I may not have time. If anyone would like to set it up, please do! -kotra (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party, but the automatic archiving is something I don't think it's something we really need to worry about. This isn't a high-traffic page, and it's not that difficult to archive. I also dislike that we would lose closing notes in the archives. So this guy sees no need. ÷seresin 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the current archiving method as non-standard and somewhat confusing, and since it's a low-traffic page, few care enough to actually do it. The closing notes I see actually as a minor annoyance (a recent bunch have been noted incorrectly, in my opinion), and it's easy enough to scan through the archives for the bolded closing result at the top of each section... but that's just my view. It sounds like you're just expressing mild disagreement, but if you're expressing a strong objection I won't do it (I may not anyway, at this rate, but...). -kotra (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is is appropriate to discuss inappropriate sigs here, & if not here, where? DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd take it to the user's talkpage, and if you don't think a one-on-one conversation will get anywhere, ANI. If it's —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS though I don't think it's really ANI-worthy. It doesn't seem to break any of the rules listed on WP:SIG and although some people don't like bright colors in signatures I think they can be helpful to sort out a busy page. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the area in which you request comments on user names. Not particularly for discussion but for evaluation of community views although doesn't seem to be a hive of activity... ~ R.T.G 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, when I wrote this, I hadn't realized that the font being used was in Wingdings because I use Firefox and it automatically substituted a readable serif font. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This username was brought to attention because it is advocative and non-neutral, contrary to guidelines wuch as WP:SOAPBOX and WP:USERNAME. After much heated debate about the merits of nationalism in particular, wether it was acceptable to be non-neutral or advocative when it came to anti-nationalism. The main advocate of persecuting nationalists declared that the neutrality was not debatable unless User:Anti-Nationalist didn't produce a very good reason on the occasions chosen to "throw stones" at nationalists and suggested that the discussion be closed. It was closed less than fifteen minutes later with the suggestion that the matter be taken up at RFCU. Is RFCU not Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names which is in fact this project page? ~ R.T.G 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U. Triplestop x3 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... this is a sub-section of that page... if you think the username... blah blah... do you know what you are doing? ~ R.T.G

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct vs Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User Names. And yes, I do have basic reading skills. Triplestop x3 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As you suggest, this is the place to bring attention to usernames whereas the other is the place to bring attention to conduct, thanks ~ R.T.G 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This user name is clearly belligerent: it says that a person is against nationalists. In his explanations in AN/I User:Anti-Nationalist claims that "nationalist" is not an offensive term. Therefore, by his logic this name is an indications of controversy against non-bad POV. While User:Anti-Nationalist has rights to his POV and to defend his POV within the limits of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies, this name does not serve well for harmonious editing and may be considered an attack name, which is already happening.

As I see, quite a few usernames staring with "anti" are blocked: ‎ user:Anti-Francaise, user:Anti-Greek, [[User:Anti-US]A], User:Anti-hippy (even User:Anti-Colonel Sanders :-). Therefore I would strongly recommend name change, unless fight with nationalists is seen as a higher priority than creating an encyclopedia. - Altenmann >t 17:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there conflicting instructions at the top of the page? ~ R.T.G 02:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, have a look at my talk page where this question was discussed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed this at User talk:Paul Siebert/Archive/ 2010/June#Username RFC. Admittedly, the wording is probably confusing. I've changed it so it's more clear now (no recent edits + blatantly inappropriate is already covered by the first bullet). Feel free to revert/discuss if I've misunderstood consensus. -kotra (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this username, and there's some discussion about whether this was the right thing to do. I'm particularly interested in feedback from females, since we're always looking to bump female editor participation up from its current dismal 15%, and I think it's possible that more women than men would be offended by the name. (I'm posting this here and at WT:CHU, WT:U, and WP:VPP; I'm trying to get a sense of whether women answer the question differently when they don't see themselves as a tiny minority in the discussion, so if you know female editors who you think might be interested in the question, please show them the link, User_talk:Dank#Gayguy69. Even if this particular name is okay, I'd like to get a sense of whether women find usernames offensive that can't be seen as anything other than a reference to a specific sex act.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This RFC has used enough of Wikipedians' time, I think. Would an uninvolved admin be available to close it? -kotra (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Let's give this user the chance to prove their constructive intent and perhaps avoid further biting. gonads³ 09:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, I'm not impressed with their speaking in circles and accusing everyone else of bad faith. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying the close needs to be "allow". I just think the RFC has gone on long enough, whichever way an uninvolved admin sees consensus leaning. -kotra (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I third it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure, was my closure here appropriate? I don't see any guidelines on non-admin closure of RFCNs, but this seems pretty uncontroversial. Feel free to revert the close if I was incorrect to do so. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was coming to do the same thing myself and I'm pretty sure it's OK to close an RfC if the user has already changed his name. —Soap— 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Thanks for the confirmation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)