Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 3

message: My biggest problem with this is the name, actually. Usernames for Administrator Attention takes this procedure out of the hands of the community. In a Request for Comment, it's open. Sounds open, it invites you, whoever you are, to comment on this name. Very community centric idea. With the new board, this sounds closed off to Administrators only. Methinks this may tend to stifle debate some and not represent a true consensus. -Mask? 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins don't need community consensus to block users, if it needs discussion it can go to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, most username blocks are clear cut (and I mean almost all) - at WP:UAA there can still be discussion, but admins don't need a lot of discussion when blocking users. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) *If you look at the last x entries on WP:RFCN you will see that practically all have been speedy closed for whatever reason (blatant, blatantly not). The few contentious names can still go to WP:ANI and it makes sense to me to have a single place for UN problems (and I'm not an admin) GDonato (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less then a month ago we had this mammoth discussion with dozens of users getting involved. -Mask? 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That discussion prompted the first MfD. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A borderline case came up, the community got involved, decided it was allright and this prompted an MfD? For it working perfectly? Sounds like some were just upset with the outcome. -Mask? 22:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, I started the MfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Yeah, I loved that one, got quite some discussion on my talk page as well- I think you have pointed out one of the few that have had lots of discussion. GDonato (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Most username blocks happen with no discussion needed, no need for a board at all. Thats why we had a Request for Comment page on the ones that did need it. Your board does not do this. Untill you can find a way to reproduce that function of RfC/N, then I can't see this being a very effective proposal. -Mask? 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN - where admins who decide on the blocks can discuss it, WP:AIV is getting cluttered up with username violations. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When RFCN was created it was barely used, check the history, once it become used a lot it became a problem. People other than admins are welcome to comment at the new board, but it is a place to get the attention of an admin. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (originally posted at WT:UAA) I agree with a proposed merge. But since it won't be good to have people reporting at three places (UAA, RFCN and AIV), I suggest that we suspend RFCN for a short period and proceed with the new system. I know there will be unhappy people no matter what. Flyguy649talkcontribs 23:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I pretty much agree with Mask on this one. And Ryan and High both know and have heard my objections. I feel there is too much push lately to try and move things from community discussion to admin only, even if by name. Each time I post a comment like this, I get a response of something to the effect of "Admins could do it anyway without discussion." In fact, I hope I never hear something along those lines again, because really, I don't care if admins could do it without discussion or not, in some cases community discussion is the best. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is preventing community discussion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed in two MfD discussions (going on now over RFCN and CN) that there is a push by many admins to remove or limit community discussion in a location that actually sounds like a place for community discussion, and place those on admin noticeboards, regardless of the reasons. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that weren't true, the instructions at WP:UAA clearly say that discussion on names is unneeded. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "If you are going to comment on a username here, please read the username policy first.", comments are welcome. If a name needs a larger discussion there are many places to go, the users talk page, your peers, a AN, ANI, the same way we handle everything else. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is no need to countersign, endorse or express disapproval of reports other than your own", not every part of the instructions is going to discourage comments. And we do not handle everything else by saying "go to ANI if you have to discuss it!"  -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amarkov, well WP:U says the first place to discuss a username when in doubt is the user's talk page. From there I guess it could be listed at WP:UAA, or here, or WP:AN. I guess which depends on how many eyes you want to have see your request. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)At the risk of sounding incredibly obtuse... how is this different than deleting RFCN and moving all discussion to one of the Admin noticeboards, as suggested in the last two MfD's? WP:UAA was to combine AIV and RFCN functions, moving only monstrous discussions elsewhere CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What it says is not to say "Support per JoeBob"(endorse/countersign), but to read the policy and provide new information. People can comment, it just is not a vote. If you don't like the way the instructions are worded try the talk page, I have had no problem suggesting changes and having them implemented. I do agree that the part about not expressing disapproval of reports should probably not be there. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the community discussion issue goes, anyone may discuss at WP:AN, thats not a problem, and I'm not opposed to renaming WP:AN to make it clear that its not for admins only. I can see this working by the following method. Obvious requests (most of them) are sent to WP:UAA, not so obvious requests (the where talking to the user about it fails, and you still think its a violation). you could post here or on WP:AN (either or, though WP:AN will reach more people then this board). With this method, no username reports will show up at WP:AIV, this is a benifit, and allow that to go back to what it was for, users that are vandalizing. What I would suggest is giving the WP:UAA a chance and see how it goes for a week. If after a week we find there are problems, then we could consider moving things back here. I will note that it looks like the twinkle reports are being done at WP:UAA. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the splitting of UAA into two sections so most of the reports can be dealt with quickly and the remainder which need discussion can have that at the other section. Beauracracy? Perhaps, but sometimes a few extra instructions are needed to make sure that the situation gets dealt with properly. GDonato (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I support that, without extra discussion sections and what not - it's way too beauracratic. Just let it run like AIV and take anything needing discussion to AN (there can still be limited discussion on the page. We aren't going to know how this works before we try it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My concern with AN is that (A) it splits up usernames from one place (B) It could get lost amongst other issues on an already over-used noticeboard. GDonato (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well from what I see, I think we just need to try it and see how it goes. We can do the limited discussion idea, and see where it goes. I don't think we are going to be able to judge the worth of this without trying. One major benifit that I notice is that the AIV helperbots are already monitoring the page. This makes life easy on requests that need blocking. :) I will say one thing, it greatly simplifies matters. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err actually I take that back, its already in use... in a way, twinkle is now reporting there, rather then here. From what I see requests there are being dealt with quickly and per WP:U, which is figured out by the community. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, as I have commented at WT:UAA, although UAA is working fine at the moment, all it really seems to be is a fork of AIV for admins to block usernames based solely on their opinion of username policy. Now for blatant violations, that's absolutely fine and the advantage of segregating username reports from AIV is that it allows admins with a better knowledge of WP:U to focus on them. However, in my opinion as it stands at the moment, unless a discussion section is introduced, UAA does not encompass what occurs at RFCN because it doesn't really provide any forum for borderline cases. So I do like UAA, but without a discussion section I would not be in favour of it replacing this page. That would be a pity though, because as I wrote at WT:UAA, I think that with a discussion section, UAA would have many advantages over having separate boards for blatant and borderline username vios. Will (aka Wimt) 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry will, but that's more beauracratic than this page is now. We don't need to discuss most username violations, most that come here are blatantly against policy, or blatantly not, UAA allows these to be removed quickly and without any discussion, for the 1 a week that needs discussion, it can go to WP:AN, where more people can see it. As I've said time and time again, there can be discussion on the page, just not parahraphs and paragraphs - but lets face it, we haven't had one of them for ages. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bureaucratic? Ryan, all anyone has suggested is leaving a second section open to allow usernames to be pulled asside from the rapid fire admin-decision to be discussed, and if the discussion gets lengthy, then move it to WP:AN. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c) Yes I'm certainly not saying that we should discuss all usernames. My opinion is that, for each name reported, admins should have the choice to either block it clean off, dismiss it from the board altogether or, in the situation they feel to be rather borderline, open it up for greater discussion. That's almost exactly the same as what you are suggesting Ryan, but with the borderline cases discussion in a subsection at UAA rather than at AN. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- WP:UAA is working well but splitting it to allow the borderline cases to have discussion could help ensure a fair application of policy, with wider input. GDonato (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just discuss it on the talk page of the user? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is supposed to happen before it even goes to WP:UAA. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (e/c again) Well yes the first point of discussion should always be with the user themselves at their userpage. However though, if you want to open up the discussion to a wider group of people to guage their opinions, that isn't likely to happen at a user's talk page (not unless there's something pointing people to that page from UAA saying a discussion is occurring there). Will (aka Wimt) 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree compleley with Ben. Unless UAA has some major changes to it's structure and operation, I oppose any merge at this point. UAA is far flung from what was originally proposed on the last MfD and is, as Ben stated, working in a far more biting manor. How is anyone supposed to comment on usernames on a rapid-fire decision board? How are we supposed to know an admin will not block the name until after it is refused, and then becomes more of a situation than the current process of AIV saying "it's not blatant enough for here, take it it to RFCN". I don't see any improvement with the new system, and frankly, I believe it's a huge step backwards. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets just see how things go, most of the requests that went here were from twinkle, now those have been moved to WP:UAA, as more and more people purge their browsers, or restart their browsers, this page will get fewer and fewer requests. As far as the discussion section goes, either way is fine, but lets wait and see how many usernames really require discussion under the new format. If its only a few a week, then WP:AN is not a bad place to bring it up. If it turns out to be more, then it probably should be on that page. I'm not saying no discussion, you can discuss a name as it is now just by adding **two bullet points, and whoever the admin clearing it will read your comment. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[WP:UAA]] 

message: I suggest trying it without dicussion section for a week, we can always add it later, we just need to keep it as simple as possible, if we need to add a discussion section, we can do, but lets try it this way at first. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets just see how things go, most of the requests that went here were from twinkle, now those have been moved to WP:UAA, as more and more people purge their browsers, or restart their browsers, this page will get fewer and fewer requests. As far as the discussion section goes, either way is fine, but lets wait and see how many usernames really require discussion under the new format. If its only a few a week, then WP:AN is not a bad place to bring it up. If it turns out to be more, then it probably should be on that page. I'm not saying no discussion, you can discuss a name as it is now just by adding **two bullet points, and whoever the admin clearing it will read your comment. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Right, I would like to suggest we take all usernames through WP:UAA, ifsomeone feels a discussion is merited, they can move it here, firstly, ths will result in the loss of all speddy closures here and greatly reduce the traffic of the page, secondally, at WP:UAA, the majority of usernames will be dealt with effectively and quickly. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agre with the suggestion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse this suggestion too. GDonato (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK but we would need to modify the header at UAA to remove "There is no need to countersign, endorse or express disapproval of reports other than your own." and make it clear that comments can be made. Otherwise how would we know that there was no consensus? Plus we should note in the header that a lack of consensus will result in it being moved to RFCN. Will (aka Wimt) 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that line could be removed, I think it's clear that users are able to edit it, maybe an addition to the line if you are going to comment here please read the username policy to if you are going to comment here please read the username policy, if further discussion is required, the username will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Will (aka Wimt) 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. GDonato (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created, User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Usernames to list users who have userames concern templates put on their page, it's meant to be for my own personal use, but I'm more than willing to look out for any other users concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work, when are we going live? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we already are. TW is reporting blatant scandalous to UAA, the manual move from RFCN will need to be communicated to those that patrol UAA. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind we don't want voting. Comments like Oh, I don't think thats a violation becuase of X is fine, but just plain old endorse support or whatever needs to be discoraged. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye... My philosophy is if you're going to take the time to !vote, then add 5-8 words extra to explain it, hell, even if it rehashes a little bit of what has already been said, it's better than a flat out !vote. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 00:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I would say our new system is functioning well. Biting seems down, bickering is definitely down, voting is way down. Usernames are being dealt with. Other peoples opinions? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly working better, I'm keeping tabs on what reports come here - so far I'm unconvinced that we actually need this page at all, everything that's come through here has been obvious in one way or another. I think we should re-evaluate this page in another 2-4 weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loads of names are being reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention - many of which are borderline and I've moved here. I think one of the automated scripts (Twinkle?) is sticking them there. I'm not sure what the script does but it's not a substitute for reading the policy. Secretlondon 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing new system 

message: How random is random?  When I comment on usernames I think about how hard they'd be for to remember and distinguish from other names - is this acceptable? Dan Beale 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fine. But you have to remember, what might be distinguishable or memorable for you might not be the same for someone else. For instance, I can never remember Raul654's numbers, although it is very simple for most. I seem to always forget it. And User:Dragonsflight, or Dragons Flight, or Dragon's flight, or whatever it actually is. I just can't seem to get it straight. You are welcome to comment on your opinion, but others may disagree. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is my name easy enough to distinguish? :) Random is usually considered over 5-6 letters that have no meaning or pattern (ie. kfslfg, which I just made by tapping some keys). Another random one would be something like Bob98375935). Usually 4 random things are fine. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  random 

message: Let's not stick to process please (this user closed early or that user posted after it closed etc) or we're getting nowhere with this. I am assuming everybody strives for the best, so here are my considerations:
#Non-Latin usernames allowed clearly by WP:U mainly because of m:Help:Unified login (which would otherwise be rendered useless)
#Naturally very few people on earth have the capacity of reading all scripts, so there are bound to be unintelligible usernames (for most/many/some/few --doesn't matter)
Solution which is already foreseen: WP:U asks politely to tweak signature to Latin.
IMHO the above solution is insufficient, and creates lots of windows for numerous trolls. It also makes it hard for users to locate a username which they cannot type.
Proposed Solution:
*WP:U to clearly state mandatory Latin sigs with either a)the transliteration or b)translation of the foreign username.
*WP:U to clearly require a mandatory Latin user redirect of the same signed name to the foreign userpage.
That, proposed by a Greek. (Copying to WT:U shortly and encouraging discussion there -not here). NikoSilver 00:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WT:U Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Latin yet again 

message: This page is now a joke, we have people complaining left right and centre on any closure of debate. I can assure you I could come to a good policy descision on any username that comes through here, without the need to mass discussion by people. The page is once again turning into a vote and that's why users are getting annoyed when it doesn't go their way. I propose we tag this page as histrocial, UAA can deal with 95% of the usernames that come here - if it's not blatant enough to be blocked by UAA, then let it edit, if there needs to be a discussion, it can happen at AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this vote. --Kukini  hablame aqui 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. And maybe we should add the originally discussed proposal of a discussion section at UAA. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem, we don't need discussion, if its blatant, it will get blocked, if not - then it can edit. AN/I can be used to discuss the major disputes. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and if the name is allowed, but is then used as part of disruptive behaviour it'd be useful if some other guideline/policy included (or maybe just common sense) stuff about 'trolling usernames'. Dan Beale 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's unlikely a user would be annoyed that an administrator called their arguments (quotes from Wikipedia) trolling, then closed the debate to shut them up.  Especially a user who first asked the owner of the offending user name if there was some other usage a month ago.  No, it has to be I'm annoyed because it didn't go my way, it can't be that the adminsitrator abused his mop and broom.  So, now, no editor voices is the way to go.  Oh, those pesky non-mop holders.  When will they ever learn?  KP Botany 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usernames do not in any way help the encyclopedia, if this page is scrapped people might actually put their time to good use and do something constructive. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, instead of removing an area that we clearly need for less than clear cut names, why don't we just stand firm when people misunderstand the purpose the page? (H) 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, I don't think we need it, I'm quite confident in your ability to block any username (or not) without masses of discussion, and that goes for most other admins as well - it can be done at UAA, even with a little discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This would fit in fairly well at WP:LAME -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that supposed to mean? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand, these are controversial situations.  Don't bite the messenger.  It does not matter what any admin would have done.  If the user had been blocked, a good editor might have left because somebody had an issue with the name and I would have gotten bitched at.  If I did not block the user, as we see I get bitched at too.  I am OK with being bitched at but look at it in the biger picture.  Because a few people disagree does not mean this page has gone to shit.  I found the discussion VERY VERY useful and am glad there was a discussion ebfore making my decision.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While I aprpeciated BOLDNESS, i appreciated dicsussion as well.  I have always found RFCN useful as do many others. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, please comment on R. Postlethwaite's first comment without regard to any current request for comment. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you have some difficulty understanding what you wrote and what other people wrote.  THe content I removed was something somebody else wrote that you copied a large section of to another page.  What I did not remove was your comments.  Your accusations above are false and innapropriate.  I kindly ask that you cease accusing me of removing your comments in attempts to stifle your opinion.  Again, I did not remove your comments, just a large block of text you copied frome lsewhere.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My arguments WERE the deleted content.  Maybe you didn't look at it before you deleted it.  I bolded comments in the text that was in direct reply to comments made by your buddies (ChicagoPimp and Ivo). These were my comments.  That is what you deleted, my replies to your friends, whom you then immediately went out and congratulated (and barnstarred Ivo).  I can comment in any way that is appropriate.  Others brought up arguments which you and others shot down when  I used the same arguments.  I quote Wikipedia, bolding areas in response to comments your friends made.  You deleted my bolded cut and paste--these were my comments.  You then called me a troll and closed the debate, then went on to your self-congratulatory group hug for getting the name kept.  You deleted my comments, that text being part of them.  You edited what was above my signature, then you closed the RFCN, leaving my comment in the edited version, your edited version, NOT what I had posted.  You deleted my comments.  KP Botany 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The barnstar for Ivo was for his attempts to try to make amends with you, not for the discussion. Leebo T/C 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stand by my assessment of self-congratulatory group hug after deleting all my arguments against Ivo and ChicagoPimp--which is what it looked like.  And, frankly, I had to tell him to Ivo off twice, so essentially you gave him a barn star for continuing to annoy me, not for arguing me down as an assistant to you.  It's not that big of a difference to me.   KP Botany 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But the discussion here is either "ILIKEIT" vs "IDONTLIKEIT", often without reference to the actual policy (and if it does reference policy it doesn't always reference the policy in place at the time the name was created), or it's "This part of the policy sucks, so the name should be blocked / allowed".  And sometimes discussion is closed very quickly.  All this would be fine if people didn't get so annoyed by it, but for some reason people do. Dan Beale 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, posting on your talk page trying to facilitate discussion is annoying you. Whatever. By the way you don't own your talk page and should try to treat other good faith users with a little bit of dignity instead of acting like those who disagree with your opinion are somehow unworthy of existence. IvoShandor 22:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw: I never came across any of these users before today, maybe KP but not Chris, this is the first time I remember commenting here at all and only stumbled on ChicagoPimp's because he is on my watchlist from a time ago when I commented to him. So the implication that the editors involved were somehow friends a bit much. IvoShandor 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now we're into the sublime.  Time to suggest that everyone have a nice cup of tea and a few minutes away, me thinks.  Philippe 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, posting on my talk page after I told you not to, and was clearly upset by the incident is annoying me.  You aren't acting in good faith by continuing to address me while ignoring what I have to say.  You are the one who is continuing to treat me as if I am not worthy of existence--that is what this whole discussion has been about. I have no right to be offended by the user name, I'm being "politically correct," I'm "trolling," I'm over sensitive, my arguments are incorrect, not allowed, I can't use Wikipedia to support may arguments (says a user who then supports her arguments with Wikipedia), I can't mention a college newspaper in response to ChicagoPimp using one.  Who wouldn't be upset under the circumstances?  KP Botany 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. I heard all of your arguments, addressed them all in that discussion at RFCN, I don't see what else you want me to do here. Agree with you? I'm not going to. You can be upset, but I didn't do anything to you, I just disagree with you. IvoShandor 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that you heard all of my arguments, sinc eyou don't appear to have read what I just posted.  And you didn't read what I wrote the first time about posting on my talk page.  This is ignoring me.  In addition, my counter arguments (my bolded text from the copy-paste) were deleted, so you didn't hear all of my arguments.  And, when you're ignoring what I am saying, there's no point in continuing the discussion, which was my original intention of asking you the first time not to post any more on my talk page.  KP Botany 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag as historical 

message: Hi - So I'm making my daily round of the various pages on my watchlist, and I see that, frankly, it appears all hell has broken loose here again.  So I skip over to the project page to see what's going on, and I'm surprised to see that a highly contentious name has been opened, discussed, and closed within three hours.  I'm not going to suggest that it should have gone on forever - clearly not - but with one that generated so much discussion, I wonder if that three hour time period was really enough?  I don't mean this as a criticism of any admin(s) in particular, and I believe everyone acted in good faith, but... boy... I sure wish I'd been able to make my feelings known on that one.  I wonder if it would make sense to leave those extremely contentious ones open a bit longer?  Philippe 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't here to build a consensus, just to give opinions on it to an administrator before they rule on it. The admin heard all sides of it- that pimp could be used to someone who manages prostitutes, but also that it has many other uses, and wasn't being offended. It's not a matter of seeing what most people think it is, it's a matter of seeing if it's a violation of the username policy, which it isn't -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're not here to build a consensus, then it seems odd that the relevant policy page indicates that we are here to build a consensus. BTW, I don't think today's case is a good basis for comprehensive evaluation of the usefulness of this page.--Chaser - T 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's good to know that nothing I could add would be of any value, since the admin clearly heard all possible sides of it.  I'm struggling with that statement a lot, Feba.  Philippe 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have struck through my previous comments, because I have no desire to add to the drama here today, and the last thing I think this username discussion needs is yet another issue added to it.  I'll raise this issue again another day when tensions (and tempers) are lower.  I toyed with removing the whole section, but decided not to because other people had commented and I didn't want to remove their comments without their agreement.  Philippe 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, since you think I am not reading what you say, I agree that you're being politically correct and over sensitive, I never said you had no right to be offended, you obviously do. I didn't think you're newspaper example was apt because it was unrelated to the discussion about the word pimp, you said as much when you said it showed a picture of women's gentalia, you didn't mention the word pimp at all. I never said you were trolling and don't agree that you were. I never said that you couldn't use Wikipedia, I don't care if you do but I disagreee that the meaning you cited from the Wiki is what this user had in mind. You are free to disagree but I just wanted to be clear here since I have been accused of ignoring you, which I didn't. I don't know about the closure myself, I was surprised, but don't care that much, I just wish you wouldn't continue to mischaracterize me, that is what is annoying. IvoShandor 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ivo, are you talking to me?  Since your comment is below mine, I tend to think you might be, but you statements appear more directed at KP Botany.  If it's a continuation of the previous discussion, would the two of you mind refactoring it back up there, rather than down here in this section I was trying to close?  Philippe 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not at you, sorry I thought I posted it in the right place, I guess not, go ahead and move stuff around of mine if you need to, sorry. IvoShandor 05:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I also wrote exactly why and how my comment about the college newspaper related to ChicagoPimp's comments about the college newspaper--but you seem to have missed that.  I don't think I am mischaracterizing you at all.  I also asked you not to post on my talk page, but you ignored that.  And your opinion that I am "politically correct" and "overly sensitive" has no place in any argument--keep your opinions about my character flaws to yourself.  KP Botany 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I too think that some discussions are closed too early. There's a post from me in the archive somewhere about it, where a username (something like 'M3NT4L BR34KDOWN' was being discussed. This is, clearly, a policy violating name, yet the discussion was closed within a very short time. BUT: This page should be discussing whether usernames are against policy, yet it often ends up discussing whether the policy is right or not. (See Non Latin chars in usernames, which got spread to various other places as an example). It'd be nice if discussions were left open for longer, but it'd be really nice if people restricted their comments to the actual policy. Dan Beale 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, actually the latter is concentrated in WT:U#Proposal, and is going fairly well. Your input would be valuable there, and yes, the suggestions stemmed from the discussion here; so this venue may be of side-value too. :-) NikoSilver 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, I didn't say they were flaws, but they seem to be the impetus for this discussion. Secondly, it is unbecoming to suggest that I can't post on your talk page, as that is the only way to communicate with you around here, thirdly, I disagreed with your reasoning for the newspaper being relevant. Why can't we just disagree without it degrading into some personal war? I didn't bring up the pc or sensitivity stuff because I thought it was a flaw but because I thought it was the reason you disagreed with me, it wasn't meant as an attack. IvoShandor 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, THAT debate 

message: The archive page hasn't been updated since a month and a half. What's wrong? NikoSilver 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:HBC archive builderbot appears to be non-operational, stopped, paused or otherwise no longer editing, see User:H. GDonato (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the format of RFCN changed I never repaired the bot, I will put it on my list. The archives are not lost because the bot builds it from the history, so when I do get it working, it will be complete. (H) 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the archives? 

message: this section might confuse people unless you know that on some OSs without the proper language support some usernames are rendered as question marks, and thus become links to random pages.  The suggested download to allow support for east Asian languages is a hefty 230MB download.  I'm sure the people working on unified login are aware of this, and are taking steps to avoid problems.  Dan Beale 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further info for "various ascii usernames" 

message: Firstly, who should close decisions? Secondly, how is this page archived? i said 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive is now all but defunct, so reports are simply removed into oblivion when completed/closed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea to start archiving.  This could be done easily with, say, weekly log pages and transclusion.  — The Storm Surfer 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should ask Viridae. He usually closes. I would assume they go somewhere. i said 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if desired/needed, MiszaBot would be able to take care of it I'm sure. Ariel♥Gold 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it might, but that could be difficult to work. It was interesting how the previous bot did it. Every time a section header was removed, it created a link. That is a very good way to archive a page like this, where discussions are different. Although Misza bot could work. i said 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I can't give any insights with regards to archiving, I do my talk page manually, tedious as it is, I guess I don't think I'm important enough to really need a bot do it, lol. For how this page should be archived, you have a really good point, as sifting through a page with 40+ reports could be tedious work if you were looking for a specific "type" of name. I'm sorry I don't have any other suggestions to offer. :(  Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to check back in the talk archives, but I believe some people were trying to do an updated archive by username. This was going back to probably February or March of this year. I'll poke around and see if any of that is still around. It might be an idea to start archiving that way, or at least creating an index by username linking a chronological archive. The other possiblility is just linking diffs of the closed RFCNs on an index page. BTW, closing RFCNs only go back to March or so. Before that they were just blocked or not. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: */Archive1#Developing_consistency_and_transparency_of_process is where the talk is, Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory is the page, last updated March 21, 2007. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats interesting for setting precedent. However, is it there for precedent, or an indexed archive? i said 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a bit of both. There were issues with consistency at the time, and this was just prior to the RFCN blow-up that lead to the two MfDs (listed at the top of the page) and the subsequent creation of UAA. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It would at least be useful to see what was done recently with similar names. I'd prefer a listing by username, rather than date. If it's not bot-able, I'd be willing to give it a go, a few at a time. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. My only suggestion would maybe level three header by month, and then alphabetically within it. Also, if it is decided we do want an archive, we should make sure people who close often are aware of this. i said 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could a bot do that? Neil ム 10:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a bot doing it for a while, but I'm not sure what happened. I think the bot was doing it while the page used subpages. However the use of subpages ended following the discussions related to the MfDs and the creation of UAA. I'm willing to archive the closed cases for now if there is no bot. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that I've added the Month headers, it may be unnecessary to have the date of closure listed, since it's obvious in the link. Also, would it be worthwhile highlighting the usernames that were disallowed? Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. No need for a specific date that they were closed. The month should suffice. i said 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So did we decide the specific date after the list is not needed? i said 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the date is unnecessary and adds an extra bit of fiddley-ness to the process. So let's leave that out. We can always revisit how this works and what should be included in the future. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Further to the above, I've started an alphabetical archive at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index, with the idea being that names are added as permanent links to the RFCN page. It should be easy for archiving, since the person closing the RFCN merely creates a permanent link to the page, clicks on the username in the Table of Contents (if there is one), copies the url and pastes it in the /index subpage. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. My only suggestion would maybe level three header by month, and then alphabetically within it. Also, if it is decided we do want an archive, we should make sure people who close often are aware of this. i said 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could a bot do that? Neil ム 10:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a bot doing it for a while, but I'm not sure what happened. I think the bot was doing it while the page used subpages. However the use of subpages ended following the discussions related to the MfDs and the creation of UAA. I'm willing to archive the closed cases for now if there is no bot. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that I've added the Month headers, it may be unnecessary to have the date of closure listed, since it's obvious in the link. Also, would it be worthwhile highlighting the usernames that were disallowed? Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. No need for a specific date that they were closed. The month should suffice. i said 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So did we decide the specific date after the list is not needed? i said 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the date is unnecessary and adds an extra bit of fiddley-ness to the process. So let's leave that out. We can always revisit how this works and what should be included in the future. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetical archive

message: Since we now have an archive, which adds a tad more work to getting rid of discussions, I would like to point out that anyone who wishes to help out can archive closed requests. Thankyou :) (this is called - ViridaeTalk is lazy!) ViridaeTalk 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyguy649not at all aBot will do it. Of course any help is cool. Archiving the historic cases been easier than I expected, since I just look for large drops in the size of the page in the page history. And archiving the cases soon after they close should also not talk much time. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help as well if I notice any needing archiving. Ariel♥Gold 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I notice that the username policy doesn't specifically address "drug related" names. What is the current policy on these types of names? Such as User:CocaineEyes, or other such names that reference drugs. I do know that there is a User:Bongwarrior, so it seems that a fair amount of latitude is given, but I've seen names like Narcotix, etc, and would just like to know policy regarding that. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 08:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to ask on the Policy page itself? But I would think that names such as Bongwarrior would not be approrpriate. i said 08:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Bongwarrior is actually an extremely good editor, and has been so for over a year. I'll check the archives for the policy talk page though, to see if there is any mention of names like CocaineEyes, etc. Thanks I! Ariel♥Gold 08:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bongwarrior has been an established user here for some time actually... Jmlk17 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no prohibition of names involving drugs and drug use. Part of it (as far as previous discussion goes) relates to the fact that the laws with respect to drug use are very different in different places. I quickly tried to find reference to specific discussion in the archives here and at WT:U with no luck. Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a side note here, we are no here to comment on the user. Only on the username. If a very helpful, respected and FA machine user had the name "Fuck you all" he should be required to change his name. No one is excused from an unnaceptable username. I don't mean Bongwarrior in this instance; just a general statement. i said 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol Melsaran, that's a really good analogy, and a great point. And so is yours, i, thanks! Ariel♥Gold 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: I've completed archiving all the usernames for which there was discussion back to May 1, 2007. There is an overlap of about 4 usernames with the previous (Bot-created) archive. One thing I started doing for the May names is putting a parenthetic comment indicating why the username was discussed if it wasn't obvious from the username. This might be useful for future archiving as well, although I don't think it's necessary. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving suggestion 

message: I'm wondering if it is appropriate to remove the Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over tag from usernames that are blocked indefinitely, to try to get the category page updated. (Is there a way to wiki-link category pages that have no shortcuts?) I removed the category from two usernames that were obvious (blocked indef), but then I thought I should probably ask here first if that's appropriate, or if that category is intended as a permanent record of every username that has ever had the  tag placed on it. If it is acceptable to do, I'd be more than willing to help clean up the category. Ariel♥Gold 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like not a bad idea. Oh, and BTW Ariel, I don't mean to cause upset, but, just so you know, you can create links to cats like this: :Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over brings :Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Why would that upset me? I've been trying to figure out how to do that for months, lol. Thanks dear! Ariel♥Gold 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Funny how a simple colon at the front makes expressing a cat so much easier! ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need a category in the first place? If you need to see a list of current concerns, you can come to this page. Otherwise, it's more of a record that we don't need; there are archives. So I don't think we need the cat at all. i said 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bot task :D. I'll work on something. ~ Wikihermit 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have been blocked indefinitely, it shouldn't just remove that category, it should replace it with :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages (can use ) as they should be getting deleted eventually. -- JLaTondre 01:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category question 

message: When discussing a name, should contributions play a factor? I personally thing they shouldn't. To use an example I used before, if we had an editor who has been here since 2004, has 13 FAs, is an excellent RC and NP patroller etc. but is named "Fuck you bitches", it should be required to change the name. This page is only for discussing the name, I don't think there are any other factors that should be considered.
Also, in an instance that just aroze with user Zzzzzzzzz, do we base our opinion/ruling/consensus forming discussion on the username policy as it was when the account was created, or what it is now? I don't know if there has been any significant change over time. But I would support it as the UP was when the account was created.
For administrators closing discussions, when the result is to require a name change, do you block them right away? Because if you do, how do they request a rename? They could post on their talk, but that would require someone outside notifying a Bureaucrat and helping to facilitate the rename. As a related question, what determines if the result is a block, or a required rename? i said 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We always check the contributions as silly name generally equals silly contributions. User:poophead or soemthing has a very tiny chance of being a serious contributor. This is really about identifying trouble - either vandalism or promotion. Zzzzzzzzzz is only going to cause problems with imposters, don't you think? The software blocks usernames that are that close anyway. Why hassle a good contributor? The rules are not law, they are to enable us to write a good encyclopedia. The encylopedia aspects always come first. Secretlondon 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: They post a template on their talk pages asking to be unblocked. This is checked by an admin who unblocks them. They then apply at WP:CHU. If they don't get a change they get reblocked. Secretlondon 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, the problem with taking into account the "longstandingness" of an editor is that doing so makes biting inherent. If we block you because you are new, but we don't block him because he has been here a while, that creates an imbalance. And I don't think we are here to identify trouble as in vandalism or promotion. There are other ways to deal with those. This should only, in my opinion, be about the username. Nothing more. i said 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly correct, contributions should have a very small (if not zero) influence on the result of the discussions. GDonato (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, however I would think with an established account a block would only be necessary if the account refused a request to be renamed.  Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and as far as contribution history goes, it is helpful to determine intent, most especially with "promotional" sounding names. They could be innocent coincidence, and without any contributions, it can be hard to tell, but once an editor contributes, it is generally apparent rather quickly when a name's intent was for promotional reasons. I think contributions shouldn't be confused with behavior issues when discussing usernames, however. If a user's name is borderline, but his history indicated behavioral problems, then the block would most probably be related to his behavior, rather than the name, because if his contributions were helpful, perhaps the name would not be blocked. For the Zzzzzzz... name issue, the contributions are significant only to show the user is established. However, a name change can keep contribution history, so should not be an issue if the editor agrees to the username change. Ariel♥Gold 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyguy— I agree. The  discusses getting a rename. Ariel— If the user should be blocked for his behavior, then he shouldn't be brought here; he should be taked to a more appropriate forum for blocking because of his behavior. I believe that name rulings/opinions/consensus forming discussions should be blind as to the contributions or behavior, in relation to the result (block/require rename or allow). However, established users (Zzzzzzzzzz) should always be given the opportunity to be renamed before blocking. As a side note, Zzzzzzzzz has requested a rename, but Secretlondon, as evidenced by her comments here, does not think he needs to. Uninvolved Rdsmith4 has also said that he thinks the comments voiced at the RFCN were "frivolous". Maybe we should reopen the case? Granted, I closed it, but there was no further need to discuss. Now there might be. i said 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that. I think we should leave it for now. If we need to revisit, then we will. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i, that's what I meant by saying it would be a behavioral issue, not a username issue, sorry I was not clear in that. I was referring to names that had no contributions yet that were brought here, and to names whose past behavior was counter-productive, the issue would then be one of behavior, and not username related, but it is entirely possible that the name was brought here with no look at the user's history, which is why there would be that cross-over, in those cases. Sorry I did not word it properly. However, I must still emphasize that a user's history is quite valid and relevant, when related to potentially promotional usernames. There is no other way to identify intent, except to review contributions, so to say we should be blind to contribution history, while valid with general names, should perhaps not be a blanket statement. Ariel♥Gold 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I completely agree, and as I mentioned on that RFCN, I thought it was simply a name for someone crafty (pun intended) as well. No worries, i, I pretty much figured that you weren't talking about promotional names, I just wanted that to be clear as far as my own opinion went. Ariel♥Gold 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I've added the page to :Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed. Hopefully not too controversial. GDonato (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea, surprised it wasn't already one, good catch! Ariel♥Gold 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing 

message: Discussion on User talk:Flyguy649, User talk:ArielGold and User talk:I moved here to centralize. It has general relevance. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precedent:  User:↻. and  User:＃. Ariel♥Gold 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also on my talk. My main concern is that, for whatever reason, I cannot see the username in history logs. It just has the date and then (talk|contribs) In addition, it is near impossible to type on a standard keyboard. i said 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both were blocked by the same admin. Maybe RFCN will be a better locale. We can easily move there. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue I see, even with redirects, is the fact that someone can not type the name, when referring to the user in conversation, it would be impossible to type it or to type a shortcut to the user's page, without having to go there, and copy/paste it. That's just not a good situation in my opinion. (Condensed discussion from i's talk page) Ariel♥Gold 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same with non-latin usernames though. They are allowed because at some point in the future single user login might happen. Secretlondon 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: RFCN I think. Secretlondon 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more that were blocked, see halfway down the page. And I would rather it be there, as this is discussing a name, not the process. i said 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I was hesitant to take it to RFCN as I could not see a clear rule violation, but the issues this name is bringing up seem to be of such importance that comment is justified. Ariel♥Gold 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, according to Username policy/non-latin names, this username is ok since the user has an alternate latin name on his/her signature. I can see the symbol perfectly in Firefox. In IE, I can't see it but I can still acess the name by typing User:%D2%88. --Hdt83    Chat 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this does not qualify as a non latin username, because it is unicode, and a symbol. There may not be a dichotomy, but I think there is. i said 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted advice on image formatting, but it seems I got something else. Even if the policy meant to say "foreign characters" when it says "non-Latin characters" I don't see the difference, as foreign characters don't show on computer with incomplete character sets, and also cannot be typed. So I just don't see the problem that is not already accepted for the other "non-Latin" characters. Sunshine ҈ 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted it to RFCN. I think it is not acceptable to expect editors to even know the alternate keyboard combination (User:%D2%88) to try to communicate with someone, nor is it fair to those who have this display issue. That's only my opinion, however. Ariel♥Gold 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, do I talk about it here, on my talk page or a new place now? Sunshine ҈ 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is now on the main page. i said 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a request to have this issue addressed in WP:U at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Non-language character usernames -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. Hide or remove is fine. This moved quickly to RFCN. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User has been renamed officially, so feel free to remove the thread, as it will be archived on the RFCN page with proper links to those involved. Thanks everyone for the input. Ariel♥Gold 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:҈]] 

message: :Precedent:  User:↻. and  User:＃. Ariel♥Gold 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also on my talk. My main concern is that, for whatever reason, I cannot see the username in history logs. It just has the date and then (talk|contribs) In addition, it is near impossible to type on a standard keyboard. i said 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both were blocked by the same admin. Maybe RFCN will be a better locale. We can easily move there. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue I see, even with redirects, is the fact that someone can not type the name, when referring to the user in conversation, it would be impossible to type it or to type a shortcut to the user's page, without having to go there, and copy/paste it. That's just not a good situation in my opinion. (Condensed discussion from i's talk page) Ariel♥Gold 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same with non-latin usernames though. They are allowed because at some point in the future single user login might happen. Secretlondon 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: RFCN I think. Secretlondon 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more that were blocked, see halfway down the page. And I would rather it be there, as this is discussing a name, not the process. i said 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I was hesitant to take it to RFCN as I could not see a clear rule violation, but the issues this name is bringing up seem to be of such importance that comment is justified. Ariel♥Gold 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, according to Username policy/non-latin names, this username is ok since the user has an alternate latin name on his/her signature. I can see the symbol perfectly in Firefox. In IE, I can't see it but I can still acess the name by typing User:%D2%88. --Hdt83    Chat 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this does not qualify as a non latin username, because it is unicode, and a symbol. There may not be a dichotomy, but I think there is. i said 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted advice on image formatting, but it seems I got something else. Even if the policy meant to say "foreign characters" when it says "non-Latin characters" I don't see the difference, as foreign characters don't show on computer with incomplete character sets, and also cannot be typed. So I just don't see the problem that is not already accepted for the other "non-Latin" characters. Sunshine ҈ 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted it to RFCN. I think it is not acceptable to expect editors to even know the alternate keyboard combination (User:%D2%88) to try to communicate with someone, nor is it fair to those who have this display issue. That's only my opinion, however. Ariel♥Gold 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, do I talk about it here, on my talk page or a new place now? Sunshine ҈ 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is now on the main page. i said 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a request to have this issue addressed in WP:U at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Non-language character usernames -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. Hide or remove is fine. This moved quickly to RFCN. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User has been renamed officially, so feel free to remove the thread, as it will be archived on the RFCN page with proper links to those involved. Thanks everyone for the input. Ariel♥Gold 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current discussion

message: If anyone is interested, there is a set of responses intended for user talk pages of reported users accessible from User:GDonato/RFCN feel free to improve or update or ignore or whatever :) GDonato (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templated response 

message: This is not supposed to happen. Reports here are only for usernames that someone feels violated policy, and the user in question has refused to change their name after discussion. I suggest that any where this has not happened be removed. Thoughts?i said 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This seems to go in cycles and needs to be reemphasized. Note that names can also be brought here if the user has refused to discuss or has not discussed following a reasonable time (e.g. twenty-four hours) after  (or reasonable facsimile) has been used on their talk page. We can either remove discussions where this hasn't happened, or just suspend them. I have added a hidden note to the page and updated the the appropriate warning in the text above. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest suspending them somehow, but encouraging anyone to make the "warning" on the relevant user talk page if the original reporter did not do so, as a corollary of assuming good faith. SamBC(talk) 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just immediately archived them, with the comment "archived until notification" -- then just re-open them if they refuse the change.  --Haemo 00:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it's not just the warning that is required, it is an actual discussion. It can only be brought here if they refuse to change it. And I suppose archiving would work, but that might get confusing. I would just delete them. i said 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry to disagree, but if admins are allowed to block usernames without discussion, then surely we can talk about blocking such names without discussion. It seems a bit odd that we can block usernames on sight, but if we want to talk about it first that there are added requirements. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps usernames should normally be discussed with the user first. There are a fair number of reasonably blatant WP:U violations that somehow get rejected at UAA or occasionally get posted here instead of UAA. Obviously if an admin feels that a name is blockable, that's up to the admin. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed many times in the past; if anyone is interested, they could look in the archives. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive2#Placing_a_UsernameConcern_template_should_be_enforced,  Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive2#.22Do_not_list_a_user_here_unless_they_have_refused_to_change_their_username..22
Template_talk:RFCUsername#Contact_the_user_.2Afirst.2A Are some of the relevant discussions. i said 04:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some important differences in terminology here.  "Contacting" is one thing, "discussing" is another thing entirely.  Most new accounts aren't yet familiar with their talk page, so it may be days before they even realize any notice has been left for them, if they ever see it at all.  So, yes, leaving notice on a user's talk page should be a critical first step, perhaps unless the username is so blatant as to make the assumption of good faith foolish (User:JimboHasCreatedAMonsterAndThisUsernameIsIntendedToBeTooLong), for example.  Of course, that would probably go to WP:UAA right away, anyway, without discussion.  But, yes, at some point prior to WP:RFCN, a notice should be left, either inviting discussion on their talk page first, or if the username is a blatant candidate for WP:RFCN, then we can just direct them to the discussion here, and they can join in if they so choose.    justen   07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is a new message bar that doesnt go away until you go to your talk page. So I dont know why they wouldn't get the message. i said 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the user should be told that there's some discussion about their name.  New users might find this page a bit bitey, so having a polite discussion with them first is a good idea.  I wouldn't like it if a bunch of people had a discussion about my username and then told me it had to change.  Also - a user could give an explanation that's not obvious about their name.  (EG: 'cocks' is my real name.  Stop laughing, it really is.) Dan Beale-Cocks 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, I'm not saying it makes sense that new folks don't notice the messages we leave for them, it's just my observation that they usually don't notice them right away.  That doesn't excuse the need to leave the message, though, of course.  Dan, I agree that biteyness is to be avoided, and, in your case, waiting a reasonable amount of time for you to respond would have been reasonable.  If your username was Fyou Mfer, though I might not wait too long before asking for other thoughts at WP:RFCN.  Even if there is someone out there with a name pronounced, roughly, "Few Umfur."  :)    justen   22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then mabye we should qualify the time without discussion before coming here. i said 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I had a rant about a similar topic while ago (see the archives), and it got to the point where I was removing discussions where the user had not been asked to consider changing their name first.  Since then things seem to have improved on that account, at least. Neil ム 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a reasonable time period before bringing a name here is too subjective to be quantifiable. For example, User:Smithcorp who logs on and immediately starts work adding glowing commentary to the Smithcorp page should be notified on their userpage but have it brought here or WP:UAA pretty quickly. The same with usernames that are essentially personal attacks. A longer waiting period seems reasonable for users who haven't edited recently, usernames where the offense is ambiguous, or for obvious newcomers who may not understand the talk page or dont' speak very fluent English. I don't think we ned to quantify any period of time - just make sure the offer of discusson appears on their talk page before it comes here, and look at how long that offer was open for before opening an RfC.  Euryalus 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting here without discussing with user 

message: This username is allowed by policy, I'm not sure why it was brought to RFCN, but when it gets here, it gets hounded by disallowed comments and he was almost forced to change his username (in the end he did it voluntarily). I'm a little shocked to say the least, I just wish I was around whilst it was open because it would not have got to the stage where the user changed their username. User's that comment here have to understand WP:U, if they don't, then they shouldn't be commenting - this was just one great big WP:BITE violation. This page is for implementing policy, not changing it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this is interesting your view of it. I really respect you, Ryan, so I'd like to know, do the issues raised not seem valid, (users unable to type, or view the name) and do you think that the way it was discussed was rude? I know that I did my very best to be welcoming, friendly, polite, and yet express to the user the concerns, which were not only the fact that the name was invisible to some (and displayed incorrectly for others) but that it would be difficult for any editor to type the user's name to get in touch with them, or refer to/link to them in discussions. I even mentioned that you'd said at some point in the future names may all log in through one area, so alternate character names would be valid, but this wasn't a language character at all, and thus, not something on a keyboard of any language. That was the bottom line of the issue, from the way I understood it, and the bureaucrat Secretlondon agreed. As I said in the beginning, it was not a specific violation of WP:U, but the issue of "unicode" or "ANSII" names is not covered in the policy, so I think this was an appropriate thing to do, to discuss it. I honestly would like to know if you think these types of "symbols as names" are acceptable, such as User:↻ (who is blocked for username issues). I know that there would be no way I could know the correct keyboard combination to re-create that name, or this one, if I want to link to it I must go to the user's page and copy/paste it. I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this. Ariel♥Gold 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This wasn't me having a bitch at you Ariel, it was everyone involved. I think everyone was friendly with him, but the point is, it shouldn't have been discussed in the first place. Yes, the reason we allow non-latin characters is because SUL is coming and technically this isn't a foreign character, but it is still a character and forgeign character usernames represent the same problems such as typing that we have here - this is no different to any other non latin username, it doesn't effect templates and you can still click on the contributions and talk page from contributions from pages histories, if this had been blocked, I'd have unblocked and gone to smite the blocking admin, but I can't do this unfortunately as this user has had to change his name. WT:U is available if people want to ban non latin usernames, RFCN should not be used as it has been this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I see what your saying, and your point. I still personally think that this type of "symbol" username, that serves no purpose except "vanity", is not a good thing to encourage, but I also realize it is not covered by WP:U and therefore, I understand your reasoning. I apologize if I seemed at all defensive, but as I was the one that i went to for advice, I guess I feel a bit of responsibility for the issue, for asking others to add their opinions, and it was on advice of both Flyguy and Secretlondon that I did post it to RFCN. ~*Sigh*~ I'm sorry, and thank you very much for clarifying the issue. Ariel♥Gold 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have Ignored all rules and renamed/blocked it if necessary. We cannot have usernames that a large percentage of the userbase cannot display. That interpretaion of the rules is clearly getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia. Secretlondon 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said it before my friend, this page is for discussing violations, not creating policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, I see your point on this. However, I think we should fix the policy. Care to comment at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Non-language character usernames? -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you "my friend" me.. Secretlondon 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at :Image:Sunshine 1.png Secretlondon put this on the RFCN discussion.-- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was taken using Firefox and Ubuntu. I suspect windows and mac os users see different things, maybe even in different browsers. Secretlondon 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A circle of 8 bird-shaped things. ҈ - Almost like a smaller and flatter: ^ ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:҈]] 

message: I assumed that when a discussion ended with a decision to disallow, a user was told to change their name, and then if they did not do so, they would be blocked. But with the preponderance of "name change" votes, is this not the case, or is that just a nicer way to say "disallow"? -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what Secretlondon said to me above, they are always blocked unless it is an allow close; if they wish to be renamed they do an unblock template to request one, and if they don't request it after being unblocked, they're blocked again. i said 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation is a difference of how much good faith is being assumed with the name.  DoubtfulUsername might be asked to change name, whereas ComeVisitMySpamWebSite.com on the other hand might simply result in block.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Name change"? 

message: I am just curious. I feel that some people are counting the nomination as one "vote" towards block or disallow. A couple of times now I have come across reports where there are comments like "you need to AGF" and so on directed at the nominator. I would like to remind people that the user to brings the report here is quite often nothing to do with the username report itself. He or she has simple seen a lack of cencensus on UAA and brought it over here, sometimes without an opinion on the username itself. So firstly could I ask that users dont direct aghast comments about the lack of violation in a username at the reporting user, (that's fair enough, right?) I look over AfD debates, which start off in a similar fashion, the nominator is clearly (or at least pretty clearly) pro deletion. However I might just remind people that such is not the case in RFCN. 
Secondly, would it be prudent to pass your own opinion under a report you just brought over? Or is this going to create a flurry of confusion and "why did you bring this over if you dont think its a vio"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nominations as a sign you have a problem with it, but it doesn't always. And since I've seen several reports deferred here by UAA, commenting on a name while bringing it is perfectly acceptable. i said 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all my reports here have been ones from UAA that say "take to RFCN" and I am forced to help clear the board, so to speak. UAA unfortunatly doesn't have the capacity for drawn out discussion like RFCN, but I believe you are on the verge of leaving me a talk page message telling me what to do :D SGGH speak! 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominator's opinion 

message: Just reminding people that in the cases of people like Ishita sign, they may be offended by people claiming their name sounds like I shit a sign.  It might well be their real name, and saying his name sounds like "I shit a sign", may offend him, especially as he is new to wikipedia and didn't know what to expect probably.  Jackaranga 06:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but we must discusses that as a possibility. It's not inherently insulting if we discuss it dispassionately - as is normally done. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, talking about the potential for a name to be misunderstood is not uncivil. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insults towards users 

message: Is there any kind of guideline indicating how long a report must stay here before being closed? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: None whatsoever. Longer answer: The purpose of this is to give a guideline to administrators about the possibility of a username violation so therefore it is until a rough consensus exists or until the dicussion has been exhausted to the point where all concerns regarding the name that are possible have been raised. GDonato (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good answers. I agree with GDonato in his description of time limits. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long....? 

message: Can I make a suggestion that if a name goes to UAA, and they decline it, that it should automatically as a matter of procedure, come here, with a note to say that UAA rejected it? If someone took it to UAA, then at least one person found it objectionable, so it ought to be discussed if the UAA-watching decide not to object to it.  By mentioning that it went to UAA first, it would at least let people here know that that's happened, so that they don't express surprise that it didn't go to UAA. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UAA is for blatantly inappropriate names. If it is not considered blatant and is removed, the original reporter, or anyone else is welcome to bring it here. But I don't see the point in bringing it here automatically, often names reported to UAA are simply not in violation of the policy and it would be a waste of time to post them here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)There are times when names go to UAA that are not remotely a violation, often to do with foreign last names or the mistaken idea that non-Latin usernames are forbidden. If there's a possibility of a problem, bring it here, but use your discretion; I don't think we need a rule. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UAA 

message: The big template at the top that says "Please remember to contact the user on his or her talk page and alert them to the issue and Wikipedia:Changing username. Only after the user has either ignored the message or refused to change username should a posting be made here." again seems to be being ignored.  I have removed an RFCN for  because the user was not given any kind of time to respond (he did, actually, very courteously, on his user talk page, an hour after being templated on his talk page) - by then an RFCN had already been submitted for an hour.  
I will continue to remove RFCNs submitted where the user has not been given a chance to respond without it going here.  This is, after all, a request for comment, and other avenues of resolution should be tried first.  I do hope we don't need to codify some kind of mandatory delay between asking the user if they would consider a name change and posting it here. Neil ム 08:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about a persons behavior or even a good faith choice in names is not biting. It is a good idea to to try and talk to them about it first, but I don't think it should be a hard and fast rule. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does recently seem that most names coming here haven't had any message about it, let alone discussion, on the user's talk page. SamBC(talk) 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removals. I get so angry when people don't try to talk to the user first. I'd suggest giving them about a day with no reponse, or if they edit after you notify them, it can go sooner. — i said 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biting newbies and not being able to read size 14 bold text 

message: Hey, I just have a quick question. I've had a few instances where an account hasn't made any more edits after I expressed my concern. Do they need to be listed here, or can they be safely disregarded and left unblocked? Thanks. --Bongwarrior 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't edit after your concern, it may well be because they created a new account.  Or maybe you scared them off altogether.  But regardless, WP:RFCN is not needed in this kind of case.  Only if the user seems to dismiss the problem, either by ignoring the concern raised, or by directly saying they don't consider the name a problem, is WP:RFCN appropriate.  Mangojuicetalk 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to Mangojuice, this is why looking through the user name lists for WP:U violations is a bad idea. There are something like 5,000,000 accounts in English Wikipedia. Many of them have no edits, or were used once or twice and abandoned. Usernames reportable to WP:RFCN are only a problem if they get used. A marginal or promotional username that was abandoned is not a problem unless it becomes active. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I figured, I just wanted to make sure I didn't need to do anything else about them. Thank you both for the replies. --Bongwarrior 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable usernames that have stopped editing 

message: Quoting from #Questionable usernames that have stopped editing:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-using usernames 

message: The above section makes me wonder where we stand on this. I was under the impression that they are blocked without regard to edits, or lack therof (with the exception of promotional names) The above seems to contradict that. So where do we stand? Are requests made for users who have no edits rejected? Or what? — i said 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I tend to do, is if it's a blatant name vio, I block it even if it has no edits (Such as promotional names, things like "admin XYZ is gay", etc. But if it's more in the RFCN category, I'll leave it alone until it's user starts making edits (such as "warcraft"). Rlevse 11:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users with no edits 

message: I know the initial response to this will be to notify the use on his talk page, but before I even do that, I'd like input from others. I've come across a user whose username matches a local TV station and he's made several articles related to that station. My first reaction was this is a blatant promotional account. However he has right at 3000 edits and some edits do not pertain to this TV station. Why did this name catch my eye and how do I the articles pertain to the station--because I live in the same area and know that this first three articles on his user page (Hughes, Kincaid, and Zahn) are all on screen personalities for this station. Name in question--User:WAVY 10. WAVY are the station's call letters and 10 is its broadcast channel. Rlevse 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, the username is inappropriate, IMO, but not blatantly in any universal way. It looks like a normal word and a number, except to those few (proportionally of wikipedia population) who would recognise it. Talk to the user, explain politely how the name is inappropriate (and possibly politely point them at WP:COI so they can make sure they don't do anything really inappropriate), and suggest that they change it. If they refuse to, then I suppose you ought to bring it to RFCN, but I'd see it as a snowball case. SamBC(talk) 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't blatantly smack me as promotional. Have the edits he has made to the station been promotional, or neutral and verifiable? — i said 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to be blatantly promotional to anyone who recognises the callsign, which makes it a borderline case. SamBC(talk) 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I say leave well enough alone.  Appears to be a productive editor, even if a lot of folks recognize the name, it will only damage the editor's ability to edit related articles.  Looking at his userpage WAVY 10 seems to be a name he uses in multiple online settings and so probably wants it for consistency.  He seems to have an interest in broadcast/television related topics and I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.  That's my take!  Into The Fray T/C 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, he asked for a new username. Rlevse 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does lots of edits negate a blatant violation 

message: Remind me, which part of policy was this username blocked for? Dan Beale-Cocks 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it was disallowed because it matched the name of a company or group, actually two companies in this case. --Bongwarrior 01:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section four, promotional usernames? "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it."?  That is, frankly, baffling.Dan Beale-Cocks 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. There were only a few allows, and many many disallows.Rlevse 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the number of !votes isn't relevant - policy is.  Policy refers to names that match a company or group, especially if the user promotes it.  Chrysler is a company, GM is a company, but they're not connected.  As was mentioned in the !vote a similar name would be "Pepsi Coca Cola" or "Aston Martin Dodge Avenger".  The first seven comments, and the nom, and several more comments seem to think that "GM Chrysler" is one company, or that chrysler is a product of GM. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Promotion does not require the intent to promote, only the effect. The idea that listing 2 opposing companies somehow cancels out the promotional value is one that I, and many others, did not subscribe to. This block seems well within policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have known they were two different companies, but reading the discussion show many people didn't. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd (!)vote against "Pepsi Coca Cola" too because the effect is the same. The policy is fine.Rlevse 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is irrelevant if people don't use their common sense.  Honestly... having GM in a username doesn't have any promotional effect on GM - you have to remember that this is one of the world's leading automotive companies, and they spend millions of dollars on real advertising, and this username just won't have any effect on it.  That kind of username is blocked to handle a common, troublesome situation: when a relatively unknown business or group creates an account matching their name and starts editing about themselves or in related articles.  This is nothing like that.  The user's contributions had nothing to do with cars, GM, or Chrysler.  There was no potential for abuse of wikipedia via advertising, no confusion, no offense caused by this name, and the user was making good-faith contributions and didn't know the ropes of Wikipedia yet.  Not to mention that no serious attempt was made to discuss the issue with the user first.  Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If it was "common sense", then people would have agreed. The fact is people disagree with that interpretation, so it is not an issue of common sense.  ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not necessarily. It's common sense to stay away from the very edge of the top of the Granda Canyon, but people do it anyway. Rlevse 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't follow your comparison. I am simply saying it is not common sense if it is not common. A rare exception is one thing, but there is a significant amount of people disagreeing with the "common" sense. I guess we need to admit degrees of commonality if we are going to get semantic. So here goes, the sense that Mangojuice is calling common sense is really not all that common, much less common than the idea of avoiding dangerous precipices. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, apparently common sense isn't that common here, and that is a big problem.  That debate had about 10 people saying we should block a username for "being promotional" when it wasn't really promoting anything, and it is not advertising or promotional.  What's really going on there, if you look, was that people were just asserting blankly that it "matches the name of a company" and therefore we block it, not to mention that (1) it doesn't match any company's name since those two companies are not related and (2) we don't just block those names for meeting that criterion, it's an example of the kind of name we might block.  Mangojuicetalk 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But it does match the name of 2 companies. How the 2 companies are related is not really relevant. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't match 2 companies, it matches 0.  Part of the name matches one company, part matches another.  But that's not what is meant by "match," which is there so we don't block names like "Coke drinker" or "GM driver", but only names that exactly match the company name.  Mangojuicetalk 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: By that logic we would allow "Host your website at JoeHosting". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  That name is an obvious attempt to advertise.  "Coke drinker" and "GM Chrysler" are not.  Let me take a step back here.  This name is definitely not promotional: it's not trying to enhance the visibility of GM or Chrysler, or sell cars, and if it was it would be pathetically ineffective at it, so that is a lousy reason to block it.  A very legalistic reading of the WP:U examples (which are not block reasons, as WP:U explicitly says) may kind of match this name, but even that is quite debatable.  A plausible argument can be made that it's confusing or misleading, that maybe someone would think this user represents GM or Chrysler in an official way.  But, the user's edits don't bear that out, they don't edit on automotive topics so far, and a simple "I am not affiliated with GM or Chrysler" on the user page would alleviate that concern sufficiently.  Mangojuicetalk 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that we will just have to disagree on this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we at least agree that common sense should be applied to the username policy, particularly because it says so? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, but only if the sense really is common. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GM Chrysler? 

message: There's a discussion going on on WT:U about what it means for a username to be "blatant" enough to block, and in particular whether this means that it's an obvious violation or an egregious violation. People here may be interested in that issue. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  06:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "blatant" (on WT:U) 

message: Where are the instructions for closing a RFCN discussion?Rlevse 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use  below the header. You can put a reason after a pipe, and  at the end. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to putting this as instructions to closing admins at the top of the article, uh, project, page?Rlevse 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, go ahead, or link to it as a subpage. GDonato (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please do not remove it when you close unless you archive. It's difficult to go through the history of this page to find removed but unarchived ones. You don't need to archive when you close, and you probably shouldn't right away, so that people can see the outcome. Someone will archive it after it's been on here long enough, or the page gets clogged. Thanks. — i said 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I can live with this.Rlevse 10:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing instructions 

message: SUGGESTION: All people making comments for 'disallow' should cut and paste the section of policy that they think is being broken.  This especially applies to people bringing names here for comment. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. I'm not sure that's necessary. Presumably everyone who takes part in these discussions is familiar enough with WP:U that they already know which part of the policy is applicable, without having it spelled out. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for the person who starts the discussion to do so, but even then it shouldn't be required. --Bongwarrior 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unneeded. Rlevse 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maybe give why it's disallowed, but copy/pasting the policy would be a little extreme. нмŵוτнτ 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it shouldn't be needed. When discussing here, we are basing it off of the username policy. It should be clear from the comment what the infraction is. i said 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't think too many people posting here don't know the policy, besides, maybe those whose usernames are being reported. нмŵוτнτ 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting slabs of WP:U isn't needed, but explaining your comments is. Unless the reason is blindingly obvious, simply saying ""Disallow" or "Disallow per reason 4" offers no good reason why this should be done and implies that the process is an actual vote. Instead, peope should expalin why they think like they do, with reference to the policy reasoning. For example "Disallow User:Rolls Royce because the name breaches general reason 4 (Promotional usernames) and the editor has extensively edited the Rolls Royce article to highlight the high-quality engineering and design of the car."  Euryalus 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just put a comment below such opinions saying they are not based in quality. It is not a vote anyways, and an admin makes the final decision. If the admin does not know which arguments to ignore they will quickly find themselves being scrutinized and reversed, fortunately this does not happen often. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I just don't think RFCN has implemented the reforms mandated in the MFD, and I kind of doubt that it can.  The volume is down since March thanks to WP:UAA, but usernames are still routinely listed here without any effort being made to discuss with the user first.  It also still effectively operates as a vote: arguments should be based on WP:U, and they sometimes are, but the quality of arguments is just not as important as the quantity here.  Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these things are true, but it's not as bad as all that. It is routine for names to be listed here without notifying the user but it is also routine for those listings to be removed for that reason. There's plenty of apparent "votes" without rationales but this occurs everywhere from AfD to regular RfC's. Just as with those forums, the closing admin no doubt gives very little weight to someone posting "Delete per nom". No suggesting there are no problems here(I am on record as making exactly these same points elsewhere on this talk page) but I think it works reasonably well as a place for community discussion on borderline usernames.  Euryalus 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUGGESTION: quote from policy when !voting 

message: Please can everyone stop with the "Disallow - per Ryan" comment rationales. It really serves no purpose to the discussion, rather it implies that this is a vote. Unless something hasn't been said already in the discussion, it is best to keep out of it all together. Remember, this page is not a vote, and serves only to help administrators decide if there is a username violation or not. Interpret the policy at will, but don't simply copy someone elses view. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree. This page is turning into a vote more and more, a few months ago we didn't use bolded recommendations or vote "per User:XYZ". This is not AFD, this is a place where admins decide whether to (dis)allow a username in difficult cases. Melsaran (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree and I don't like the additional comments just add to the page on this. You're basically saying "if you agree, don't speak". If you want consensus, you don't get it by telling people not to participate. So, if I, esp as an admin, totally agree with Ryan, I can't say that? That's wrong. Saying I agree with Ryan totally serves a purpose, towit--helping build a consensus. Rlevse 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. It adds nothing to the discussion, and adds to the vote-like atmosphere that has re-emrged. And we are not even necessarily "building consensus" here. There is nothing to build consensus toward. This is supposed to be a place where someone can seek comments on the appropriateness of a username. Having someone come in and say, "per User:ABD" adds nothing that already hasn't been said. After a bit of discussion, an administrator can come in, look at the comments, and decide if it violates policy. They do not need to count votes. We don't need to vote if something violates policy (effectively making "per..." comments unnecessary). It's a discussion. --Ali'i 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see both sides, honestly. While neither this, nor RfA, AfD, etc, are votes, often, someone else has already raised extremely valid and explanatory policies/guidelines/rationales, and it is often quite appropriate to say that you agree with that person's explanation. On the other hand, we all know that I'm the Queen of Verbosity, and I will often redundantly repeat what others have said. Is that helpful? Perhaps in showing that I've got a grasp of the policies or guidelines, but is the outcome the same? Yes. Now, if someone says "I agree per so-and-so", and so-and-so gave no valid reason for their opinions, then that's a questionable thing, to me. But, I don't think Ryan is saying if you agree, don't bother coming to comment, but just to perhaps expand on why you would personally agree with what someone else has said, even if that's just to cite a policy you feel is applicable, or a guideline you feel relates to the situation. I don't cringe at those who choose to say "Agree per (name)", but I also wish sometimes for more elaborate explanations. As for bolding recommendations, I realize it may appear to be similar to voting, but for me personally, they help me know who has what views, and I do not at all equate them to a "vote". I like seeing who is agreeing or disagreeing, supporting or opposing, instantly, so I can read issues right away that I may not have thought of. This is really helpful here at RFCN, at least to me. If I think a name is fine, I'd like to be able to immediately see who opposes it, and the bolding does that. That lets me go over those opinions and perhaps even change my mind. As long as those commenting realize it is not a vote, I think that's  a helpful thing. All that being said, I don't think that all "per above" comments are bad, but I also see Ryan's point. And, as usual, I've rambled on, and people will groan when they see I've left my comment, lol. Ariel♥Gold 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact is that two different people can have a reasonable opinion that contradicts. If someone makes a point that I agree with, I am going to mention it. I see no harm, and I think it does add in that I am lending credibility to the opinion. Consensus does involve the number of people with an opinion, even though it is not a vote count. 1 != 2 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If someone replies earlier than others, and states with good explanations their opinion, it is helpful to have others say they agree, even if they choose to only say they agree with the person who stated their opinion, and give no further reason. This is how we judge consensus. Just because I personally tend to also elaborate on some agreements, doesn't mean it is any less valuable if others don't. Without agreement or disagreement, there can be no consensus. Ariel♥Gold 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand the problem being highlighted here, but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that "Disallow per Ryan" comments should be somehow barred. Statements like "Disallow per Ryan" can help to show where there is broad support for a particular opinion, but as this is not a vote the closing admin is likely to give such posts less weight than ones that explain themselves in more detail. There is also no point in adding another "Disallow per Ryan" if it's clear there is already strong consensus for that point of view. In general though, it's a community discussion and anyone should feel welcome to contribute at whatever level so long as they recognise that one well-argued and researched post may outweigh half a dozen short and uninformative ones. Euryalus 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A problem with some recent discussions show people AGREEing with some comment that is pure opinion, that has no basis in policy.  Sure, people can say they agree with that, but what's the point?  it serves no purpose. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Per ...." comment rationales. 

message: I think we need to consider relaxing our intreperation of the username policy. As it is we have one of the strictest username polices on the net. If a username is merely making a user look stupid we should not be blocking for having an offensive name (as in the case of CaptainPervert). I endorsed the block because our username policy prettymuch states thats an unacceptable name. Question is... is that name really unacceptable? Does it blatantly offend? Does it insult anyone other then the bearer of the name? Thoughts? I do think we need to consider how we can do a rewrite of the policy, and perhaps make it a bit less... overbearing. (feel free to move this to another forum if this is not the place ;) ) —— Eagle101Need help? 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I've always though our names were a bit silly... :-) Carcharoth 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be of those who support an even stricter policy. I am of those who value the right of some legitimate users that may be offended, much more than I value the the right of one user who likes being on the edge; but, hey, that's just me. When I !vote (lol - I know-I know) in such discussions, I always take into account what some may think, and not what I personally think. In the example that Eagle gave, "pervert" may not be offensive to you or me (and it isn't), but I wouldn't want my mother or my daughter to come across such a name. Others may think otherwise, and that's why UAA is not enough in my view. Remember: the original policy says "potentially offensive". Not "offensive to everybody at all times". And I happen to agree with the offended minority's right, more than with one user's right (to have fun in an encyclopedia). NikoSilver 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To both NicoSilver and Rspeer... offensiveness is not a reason to block in and of itself; the policy makes clear (albeit not as clear as would be good) that such names are only frowned upon because they are found to inhibit "harmonious editing"... which implies a certain amount of wishful thinking. It's something to think about. However, wikipedia has never (and apparently will never) prohibit anything simply because it offends people. Needless offense isn't generally considered wise, however. If you ask me, offensive/disruptive usernames are a problem where they are, in themselves, a breach of civility, which is I think what the "harmonious editing" note in the policy is getting at. SamBC(talk) 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice approach. In all honesty I never thought of the correlation with WP:CIV (although apparent)! Maybe this should be included in WP:U. Like "usernames that if addressed to someone or some group they can be considered uncivil". NikoSilver 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think "disruptive" and "offensive" names could be considered one category, either "disruptive", as the reasoning against offensive names is that they're disruptive, or just recognise that the base problem is civility and call them "uncivil" names. But this belongs in a discussion at WT:U. SamBC(talk) 10:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to username policy