Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 1

message: Came back to check on the result from some nominations yesterday - Dvoted2christ, Satansanta, some others - they're not in the archive. Is there a problem with the bot? RJASE1  Talk  12:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seams to be having a few problems, I'll speak to User:HighInBC about it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ran sporadically, it should be caught up now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive problem? 

message: I've noticed that RfCs have been closed rather quickly lately; is the one on  a record?  It lasted twenty-six minutes from being opened to being closed.  This seems to be to be somewhat... well, overhasty. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I closed that because theres been a lot of usernames brought here that are promotional to groups recently and all have been disallowed. I actually originally brought it here from WP:AIV because I wasn't aware of the connection with the group, when the group was highlighted to me, I closed it quickly as disallow. Would you have suggested leaving it up still? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that your edit summary said that you were closing it on the basis of consensus. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that was the wrong edit summary, sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time. But I fully agree with you, we should leave any of the RFC's up that aren't clearly violations - consensus can often change as valid points are made throughout. They should be allowed to run for 24 hours if this is the case Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy closing 

message: Has there been any consistent precedent or consensus on whether usernames with "666" are acceptable or unacceptable based on relation to the "religious" clause in the username policy? I've seen quite a few of these lately (User:Burnthepriest666 was an obvious block, but what about User:Lamp666, which was just created a few minutes before I posted this?). For now, I'm going to post it to the page as a test case. RJASE1  Talk  00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard, I just found the debate on this topic from January. Holding off on listing any unless they contain obvious intent to offend. RJASE1  Talk  00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, maybe check out Number of the Beast for refs - Alison☺ 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think that 666 should be allowed, provided it is not used in a religious context. Fine:Pie666; Not good:Jesus666 --24fan24 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about 13 because it is unlucky? What about 616 or 665, the other numbers of the beast? I don't think we can start objecting to specific numbers. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Personally, I think 666 names should be blocked on sight - in the time that I have used message boards, never have I seen a serious, non-trolling contributor use a name containing 666.  However, when I raised the issue in January, it was clear that I am in a minority. --BigDT 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...because the number alone means just that, 666.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames containing "666" 

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

message: A few of us have been creating an "institutional memory" subsection for this RFC in an effort to improve transparency and consistency in username decisions. It is currently called Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory. It is certainly young in its development and will require much building and adjusting, but I believe that the process we have begun there might help all those who work in RFCN to come to quick and equitable responses to usernames under discussion. Once the subpage is ready, I think we might want to link it to the project page associated with this talk to serve as an ongoing tool for use. --Kukini  hablame aqui 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea!! Thanks for the hard work. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developing consistency and transparency of process 

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

message: I'd like to ask people to comment over at Do we have a disease? Or just a condition...?.  WJBscribe pointed to there as the proper forum for discussing the policy (rather than implementation as above). 
(sorry, the direct link is broken, you'll have to click on the link in TOC) Shenme 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed link. It didn't like the fact that there were too spaces in your section title at WT:U. WjBscribe 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we have a disease? Or just a condition...? 

message: Let us not forget that going to an admin who is willing to deal with usernames is an option. For those who wish to not be rejected by WP:AIV or go through the process of WP:RFCN, you can report username violations here: User:HighInBC/Usernames.
Please keep in mind that I will not be processing any names that I have doubts about, rather I will direct them here, or just remove them. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AIV]] [[WP:RFCN]], and now a third option 

message: This disacussion was recently closed as "no consensus": Actually, there did appear to be a consensus, or a rapidly developing one: sixteen disallows vs. ten allows, six of the latter having been placed before there were any disallows. That's a very substantial majority disallow any way you look at it, with more recent comments four to one against.Proabivouac 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the closing personally.  There was time for the conversation to develop, (I.E., not speedily closed) and the originial allows had time to change there opinions and did not.  I belive that both sides had good arguments (meaning that neiother sides argument whould be discounted).  Even though the later ones were disallow, the orignial allows still stayed, and were unchanged making only the "most recent" comments not a valid judgement of consensus. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I would like to do a small rant. Consensus is not a vote count. Arguments made here that are not in line with policy do not get full weight, if any. For example(sorry to single people out) this carries exactly 0 weight, notice it makes not policy based arguments?
People also seem to be voting allow based on the reasoning "I don't find it offensive" and ignore the evidence provided that others may find it offensive. The policy is not against usernames offending you it is against "potentially offensive names".
AGF, does not apply to the vast majority of username because a name does not need to be bad faith to be in violation. Just because there is a chance that the name has an innocent meaning does not mean the potential to offend can be ignored.
Vote counting, we don't vote count here. When a RFCN is closed we don't just add it up and make a decision, a bot could do that. The closing admin needs to take into account the value of each opinion.
Okay, I feel better now, thanks for listening. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As that is completely unrelated to anything that I or anyone else here has said, I can only assume that sometthing else has set it off.  What, if I may ask? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it seems fairly relevant.  This non-policy-based "tolerance" of rather problematic user names is a persistent problem on this RFC.  The Behnam 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I propose a statement be added to the top of the page saying that this is not a vote. Furthermore the statement should say that all comments should be based on arguments, and that "per insert user" is not an argument. This so-called tolerance is largely due to the trend of making absurd excuses to justify a user name. For example the argument has been made that his real name could be an insult, and thus it should be allowed. I hope closing admins pay more attention to the arguments made and not to the number of allows or disallows. Is not it best that the closing admin not be part of the discussion? I believe that is the case in AfD, so there is no COI. Agha Nader 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What does "per so-and-so" add to the discussion? Is not it a vote? We might as well have a poll. 'If so-and-so has given a perfectly good reason', what need is there for your vote? Agha Nader 05:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of arguments and not votes, people continue to vote "allow" for Fartymcgee despite that I provided an RS for the obvious , without any response on grounds of policy or in response to the source I provided.  I cannot help but find this to be a bit frustrating.  The Behnam 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, as you may know, is that some tend to 'vote' based on their feelings and not WP:U. Also many 'vote' based on them being offended or not by the term. This is not a survey to see how many people are offended by a user name. Agha Nader 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that most of those who are offended by a username can find a portion of WP:U to backup that feeling. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue goes on and is getting even worse. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote counting, understanding policy 

message: From the RFCN page re. "Farty McGee" and the word "fart" being related to "excretory functions";
:"Actually, it's not strictly excretion - breathing and sweating are, believe it or not. Technically speaking, it's egestion (see here) and there's nothing in WP:U against defecation, believe it or not"
On reflection, I've come to realise that defecatory terms aren't strictly forbidden by WP:U on the above technicality. How strange!
Should this be fixed? - Alison☺ 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Policy_tweak:_excretory_functions. If we need to be clear, let's do it. I don't want to increase instruction creep, but I think those that wrote the current policy know what they meant, but didn't say it. Yes, wikilawyering a bit, but sometimes having more explicit policies might be better. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Proabivouc has a point. Someone who is truely serious about editing an encylopedia would not insist on keeping a username that causes problems. Most of them will choose something that represents them as a person (such as User:Radiant, or even myself, User:Cascadia, a nickname I've used for a long long time). Coming to a place of intellect and insisting to be called something refering to flatulence, is about the same as going to an  article and inserting the words "I farted" in the middle of the article. It is still an attempt to bring toilet humor to Wikipedia. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like hell it is. Maybe "Farty McGee" is a nickname for them, too (let's just... not think about why). Are they supposed to use a different name just because some people don't like their nickname? Are you seriously suggesting that someone that enjoys a good fart joke is completely and utterly incapable of improving the encyclopedia? If so, please see my contributions for a fairly thorough refutation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you crack a fart joke in front of the Board of Directors at your company? Would you crack a fart joke in the middle of a resturant? Would you crack a fart joke in the middle of a college classroom, church, or government meeting? No. The point I'm making here is there are places where fart jokes are just fine... like home. There are places where they are not acceptable. The question is, which is Wikipedia? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 17:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If we are ever to become a respectable scholarly enterprise, we cannot avoid acting like one.Proabivouac 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, because in "respectable scholarly enterprises," people frequently use names like Proabivouac.  I've seen names like that all the time in academic journals.TortureIsWrong 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is from an academic journal.Proabivouac 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not about serious usernames. It is about defining what we consider appropriet for wikipedia. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider all of the above names "appropriet" if they were new users? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn near every one of them. I personally would question User:Russ is the sex, but the rest are fine. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 17:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No offense, but the argument seems kind of straw man-ish. I don't think anyone had advocated any position which would block any of the above usernames. Unless I missed something, the controversy has all been around either scatological humor or potentially insulting usernames (i.e. bitch and "your mom"). Can you cite any examples to back up your concerns? RJASE1  Talk  17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this or this edit for an example of someone proposing that usernames need to be 'serious'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to refer to the scatological humor thing, not to inoffensive jokes. RJASE1  Talk  18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's part of the problem, 'Farty McGee' is an inoffensive joke to me and, I suspect, most people. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a legitimate point of view, but is irrelevant to your opening argument in this section. The reason for submitting "Farty McGee" was that it was an excretory reference disallowed by policy, not that it was a "joke" or "not serious" username. RJASE1  Talk  18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a legitimate point of view, it's a legitimate point of view. You know what's truly funny?  Burpy McGee, Farty's northern cousin, would sail right through.  It's all the same old gas, though.TortureIsWrong 07:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Same old gas?? I suppose that depends on what comes out when you open your mouth. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excretion / defecation debate 

message: I'm concerned at the above sentiment that all usernames here should be "serious".  Some of the best contributions to this project have come from people with silly names.  I dream of a day when we judge editors by the quality of their edits, not the silliness of their username.  Would you ban , , , , , , , or  based on their usernames because they don't sound serious?  I'd hate to think you were suggesting that only new users who can't defend themselves with a history of good edits are to have a "serious username" requirement attached?  That seems to be the end-result of what a couple of folks are suggesting.  If that's not the intent, then the whole 'the user name sounds silly' argument should be dropped. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about serious usernames. It is about defining what we consider appropriet for wikipedia. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider all of the above names "appropriet" if they were new users? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn near every one of them. I personally would question User:Russ is the sex, but the rest are fine. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 17:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No offense, but the argument seems kind of straw man-ish. I don't think anyone had advocated any position which would block any of the above usernames. Unless I missed something, the controversy has all been around either scatological humor or potentially insulting usernames (i.e. bitch and "your mom"). Can you cite any examples to back up your concerns? RJASE1  Talk  17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this or this edit for an example of someone proposing that usernames need to be 'serious'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to refer to the scatological humor thing, not to inoffensive jokes. RJASE1  Talk  18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's part of the problem, 'Farty McGee' is an inoffensive joke to me and, I suspect, most people. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a legitimate point of view, but is irrelevant to your opening argument in this section. The reason for submitting "Farty McGee" was that it was an excretory reference disallowed by policy, not that it was a "joke" or "not serious" username. RJASE1  Talk  18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a legitimate point of view, it's a legitimate point of view. You know what's truly funny?  Burpy McGee, Farty's northern cousin, would sail right through.  It's all the same old gas, though.TortureIsWrong 07:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Same old gas?? I suppose that depends on what comes out when you open your mouth. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Serious''' usernames only?

message: I see some of today's RFCN's (everyone should be clear as to the two I am referring to) are pretty much making a mockery of the RFCN process. Further escalation of such RFCN's will damage the credability and usefulness of the RFCN board, if it hasn't already. Snide comments are not needed in reply to this... doing so only proves my point. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide some diffs? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: TortureIsWrong had been making arguments that strongly suggested bringing his name up, so it is no surprise it happened.  It cannot be helped that he continually posts here.  Should a user with a questionable name be forever free because he happens to post on this board? No, because his name is still inappropriate, so timing shouldn't prevent it from being commented upon.  The Behnam 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that. I stated there were some concern raised due to the timing of the opening RFCN. I personally do not agree with those concerns, but it however open a hornets nest. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it as damaging, though some of the problem may be Torture's.  If he was a normal editor at this board, as in not always voting allow, not questioning the legitimacy of the policy, and staying civil, I don't think it would have been such a big deal for his name to appear here.  In fact, normal participants sometimes even nominate their own names when there may be room for doubt.  However, he has been more controversial here, so the fact that timing may be a problem is really only a second effect.  The Behnam 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mockery of the RFCN Process 

message: I noticed it was closed as allow - has anyone seen any explanation for this? RJASE1  Talk  03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest although I understood it, I found the nomination to be a bit off myself considering this user's level of involvement in the past week or so here. I think other channels for pursuing this line might have been better employed.  03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, the username had been bothering me for a while until I finally decided to research it - it was then I decided it violated policy and I decided to request comments. RJASE1  Talk  03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No explanation. Just an Allow and Poof, gone like a "fart in the wind" (shawshank redemption).Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested an explanation at WP:AN. RJASE1  Talk  03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  It seemed that the against view had a stronger basing in policy, and this policy is what this board is supposed to weight against.  I didn't vote myself because I felt I would be morally wrong in 'disallowing' a true phrase, but I recognize that the 'against' votes had much better arguments considering this board's mandate.  The Behnam 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user had to change his username from User:MoeLarryAndJesus, so he picked one that is clearly a borderline case and then began allowing just about everything that gets reported to RFCN, often without a policy-based reason. I know he has sometimes just said "Allow" without any reasoning whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if he kind of wanted it to be nominated so that the process could be tested again. Leebo T/C 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At a quick glance, seems pretty normal.  Looked like 8 people wanted to prohibit the name, and 13 folks made arguments for allowing it.  I'm not snout counting, it's just a useful piece of data. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the allows votes were in either defiance or ignorance of the policy, whereas the disallows were directly based on policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this username was so blatantly in violation of the policy, why bother taking it to RFCN in the first place? Why not block it on sight? Or does RFCN only serve to justify and legitimize decisions already taken? AecisBrievenbus 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The policies require interpretation on occasion, as the existence of RFCN attests to.  If you're unhappy with the exercise of collecting consensus to make decisions, you may wish to discuss it at Village Pump, though it would require quite a bit of change to the foundation of Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: is this strawman or just another time for WP:DNFT?  The Behnam 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question, are you calling me a troll? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I am concerned the name is still in violation. I have seen no arguments to refute the fact that it refers to violence. The case was simply closed incorrectly, failing to take policy into account. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case if it really contravene with established policy, I am forced to invoke the doctrine of WP:IAR. This name is totally innocuous as it refers to a commonsense statement, "violent" or not. We are not bound by policy when the policy force us to act unreasonably, there is a reason why Jimbo has endorsed the principle of IAR. Wooyi 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, here is the permalink to the RFCN before it was cleared. — ERcheck (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mel, apparantly you're reading a bit too much into the comments by RJASE1. He made the comment because the closing admin had not provided any explanation in their closing, just closed it. I too was taken back by the sudden and seemingly arbitrary closing of this RFCN. Had the closing admin provided some sort of explanation, this conversation would most likely have never taken place. Your comments about RJASE1 and HighInBC being "Always right" is uncalled for. Your disapproval is noted, but please, remember everyone here is human last time I checked. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would the TortureIsWrong RFCN get a more in-depth closing explanation than any of the others?  They all close with edit summaries much like the one in this case.  Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that this reaction comes because you disagree with the outcome, not because of any type of actual problem with the procedures. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the closing note in the history, it merely stated Closing- Allow, I don't recall seeing any note if it was Consenus, etc.. I'm okay with the closing decision of any RFCN as long as there is some hint as to the reasoning. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not contesting the closing admin's decision, I was just looking for the reasoning, like Cascadia said. RJASE1  Talk  14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On a lighter(more tragic?) note, I think TIW has gotten exactly what he chose that username for, a reaction. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason you chose the name will not have any effect on how it effects others. I do not need to read your mind to apply policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  People are a bit oversensitive lately.  Aomeone suggested nominating User:Zorena Blue Lightning or something like that because it referenced lightning, which kills people.  A tad oversensitive.  Spirit of the law, not the letter, Pharisees. G.O. 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was meant ironically. AecisBrievenbus 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|TortureIsWrong}} 

message: I've seen a lot of RFCN pages, and there are many unreasonable, laughable comments regarding to the procedure, such as trying to ban a username stating torture is wrong. Lots of newbie-bitings are present here. After thinking, there is only one resolution to this problem - abolition of RFCN. First, Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy. Second, an offensive username will affect no one if the user does not edit actively in pages that require signiture, and if a user with offensive username gets active in project/talk namespace, we should simply use WP:ANI, let admins decide I changed my mind, see below "frankly..." comment. Wooyi 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a way to make the problem of wiki-ethnic-feuders with racist names in foreign languages, POV pushing names that aren't blatantly obvious, and accusations of unilateral admin blocking abuse way worse. --tjstrf talk  03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So, your proposed resolution to the problem of people making stupid arguments is to abolish discussion? That is so stupid it isn't even very funny, and trust me, I have a large sense of humor about stupid ideas. I really have no idea how I could phase that more nicely. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah... umm, no.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TIW, if you have an issue with the wording of the policy, you know, you can bring it up for discussion. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we're biting them too much. Usually autoblock is turned off to allow the user to create a new account. Maybe the blocked indefinitely because of username notice should contain no bold and no signs, so we don't bite the user. Closing RFCN isn't the solution. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't close it, either.  I'd just make it a lot harder to intimidate people into changing marginal names, and I'd change the policy to reflect the real world letter-wise, to discourage policy junkies from going overboard.  They're doing that now. TortureIsWrong 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My idea may sound stupid, but if you analyze it deeply, you see these findings: 1) If a person register a name like "niggerfighter" or something like that, and he just leave it there without actively editting wikipedia, who is going to see his username and get offended? 2) If a user has a bad username, but makes good edits, there is no point to ban that user. 3) After all, censorship is wrong. 4) If a username is unacceptably bad even to most people, which is very rare, the admins and arbcom can take care. This RFCU only creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Wooyi 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your car has an oil leak, do you set it on fire? Hopefully not. There may be issues to work out, but the way to do it is not to open WP up to more problems. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wooyi: there are two problems. One, if censorship is always wrong, then we can post porn on your talk page, and you can't remove it. Two, the user isn't banned, they just pick a new name. -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing RFCN would not make bad usernames unchecked, simply the power would be conferred to ANI and ArbCom. Often times when a username is objected by the mass editors they try to muffle it, and the RFCN discussion is filled with hatred and biting. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and certainly not a mobocracy. Admins and ArbCom can make better decisions on usernames than a discussion among common editors. I recant the last comment, see below.  Wooyi 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin is a common editor, just with technical abilities and the rights to interpret policy after discussion. (ie consensus)--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When a user picks a username, they assume all responsibility FOR that username. If they are offended or taken back that their username came up for comment and was decided to disallow, or allow, they clearly should not have chosen such a username. (edit conflict, thank you for that comment Ed.) Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)TIW, you keep insisting through your comments that High and myself were wrong, and then go on to say "Iguess submission to authority, in their minds, goes only one way - their way." By making that statement, you are saying that the opinions of High and myself are irrelevant because it does not meet TIW's definition. Hypocrisy at work, ladies and gentlemen. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, TIW, I've had it up to my eyeballs with people sitting around letting your actions go. Heck, I've even stood up for you when High took the issue back to your username. Even THEN you could NOT drop the insults. Discussing the issue on this talk page to get to the bottom of what went wrong was one thing, but taking it back to your user talk page was another. I even had to go so far as to ask you do dismount your soapbox, and the next day, I get flack for my comment. Nope, not anymore. TIW, please take this as immediate notice that I WILL NOT stand by idly while you continue to provoke everyone around you. If any editor has a problem with this, please, take it to my talk page, but I have had it! Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ECx2) So now the idea that Admins are just editors with bonus tools is really a fallacy? I think a better solution is to be specific that policy is important, but we have to use common sense more. I certainly have been trying to follow policy (I'll say trying to follow the letter), but is our (i.e. Wikipedia's) interest always served by blindly following policy? I worry about so-called wikilawyering, in the sense that we try to tighten policy to be specific, and then people try to find loopholes, and we end up in a never-ending circle. Unfortunately, we will never please everyone. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (Unindented) Frankly, the ideal way to deal with username I propose would be using technical filtering codes to filter out all these offensive words (f***) and racist words (n*****) instead of wasting a great amount of time discussing borderline issues. Wooyi 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is in the process of being implemented, once we get some admins with MediaWiki experience to understand why it won't work. But we still need discussion for some cases, because we can't block everything that might be offensive in some context. -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)First of all, and I hope I don't offend bot masters, but bots are 'stupid'. They would see a combination of letters, and decide "Delete/NoDelete". RFCN at least allows for a username to be considered, taken into context, shaken till disolved, and poured into a cup. By that I mean humans can look at the issue better than a bot. There WILL be disagreements, but then again, life is full of them. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's exactly why I propose using technology to filter obscene/racist words in the username regisration process is way better than burning human resources in a discussion place. Wooyi 04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wooyi, this simply is not possible.  If we could codify the username policy to be just a list of forbidden substrings, we would.  You can't create an automated algorithm for determining what names would be considered offensive by humans... well, it would be a great advancement in AI if you could. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So what happens when DoctorTurekin gets a rather rude awakening?  Is a bot going to know 'fenian'?  Any list will have to be limited, to limit false positives, and that really then begs for people to see what they can get away with, just as everyone is already worried about.  No purely technological solution is a solution.  People will need to be involved no matter what.  Suppressing the number of people who can comment will mean potentially bad decisions can be made.  Yes, there's a flare up here.  Why?  Overzealousness?  ILikeIt decisions getting through?  IDontLikeIt decisions getting through?  Abuse of process that isn't controlled?  Guidelines that are unclear?  You know the answer to these, yes.  The answer isn't throwing it over the wall.  Shenme 04:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm highly active on the RFCN board, and I definitely see a problem with the board. Right now, we generally have to gather consensus before blocking usernames; I can't just arbitrarily decide who stays and who goes. If we can just shut up the "consensusistas" and institute a Wikipedia:EVula is always right-type policy, I think we'd see a dramatic decrease in problem discussions, as there wouldn't be any discussions to become problematic. Anyone with me? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What about WP:BURO (brought up in an earlier thread by another user)? It would seem that we should be applying some common sense to policy, too. I have certainly been guilty of not following this, but I think some of the marginal names might pass (or fail) if we realize that although something is in the policy, it might not make sense to apply it. Granted, that brings up the problem of when to apply policy, and when to apply common sense... Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've asked before, please format your comments correctly, thanks. RJASE1  Talk  05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Formatting of talk pages WP:TALK#Layout suggests proper formatting, inter alia. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Flyguy, indeed it does. I've tried to follow that aspect myself, and I know I have failed on a few occations. This is why were discussing this, to find out WHY these issues happen, and how to FIX them. Thank you for your comment, Flyguy. I will be adding WP:BURO to my list of quicklinks tomorrow as a reminder. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolition of RFCN 

message: What isn't documented at , and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. , or even , will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter:   you get:
:Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
::::(and the rest of the template stays the same)
If the username was blocked following a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, you may wish to link to the archive of that discussion, for instance:
:
Notice in the above that, since the URL includes equal signs, you need to declare the parameter explicitly with "1=". -- Ben TALK/HIST 07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting a specific reason in "UsernameBlocked" 

message: The username policy explicitly prohibits "random" usernames, this seems vague, because any username that has no meaning (like my username) would be considered "random letters". What's the exact meaning of it and what's the rationale behind it? Wooyi 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good question to ask at WT:U. RJASE1  Talk  15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The rationale behind it is that if the name is overly random, it is very difficult to remember the exact sequence of letters, numbers, symbols, etc.  If it is short, or if there's something there to grab on to so that your mind can remember the name and keep it straight, then I personally don't think the random clause applies.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, of course, what it is remembered as is out of your control.  For instance, it's '5' '1' in Mandarin - quite easy to remember! But. which means I need to research/ask at WP:U, as we've seen that "avoid names which may be offensive, confusing or unintelligible to English-speaking users." might not cover enough, uh, territory?  Shenme 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to my username? If it is not ok I can change it. Wooyi 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, I meant wu3 yi1 are the numbers '5' and '1' in Mandarin Chinese, "五一", if that comes out on your system.  My other comment is more my worry to query about at the policy page - not directed at you.  My user name has been misremembered as a couple different things - I'm happy if people come 'close' to the right thing.  Very sorry to have caused you worry. Shenme 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As an English speaker I cannot help but mention that "Wooyi" is really easy to remember.  Much easier than Morton Devonshire.  The Behnam 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I was about to archive this talk page, but does anyone agree we should add some autoarchiving via WerdnaBot (or his new clone, Shadowbot3) or MiszaBot3? RJASE1  Talk  15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive way! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Would agree Mizsabot archiving would be  good idea Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've started - I'm at my real life job now, if you don't finish I'll take care of it later. Thanks, Ryan... RJASE1  Talk  18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's MiszaBot II, not III. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was the one who added the archive box at the top... I'm on an extended lunch due to a "Company Fun Event" type thing... How far south should we archive (setting it up later for a bot sounds good). Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this archive thing should have been solved long ago. Those bots should be working on virtually all talkpages IMO. If the tin-can can do it, then human involvement is excessive (and usually erroneous, because active stuff is also archived). NikoSilver 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Archived. Bots can start now. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 21:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving this page