Template talk:RFCUsername

Rearranging
I think this template is hard to read. I rearranged it a bit here, but wanted to see if anyone objects before I make changes to a high profile project page. --Ginkgo100talk 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As one of the people who's contributed a lot of the text filling that header (notably the bits about templates), I must say I like your revision very much. It organizes the material visually, with topical headlines to make the logic flow much more quickly evident to a new reader. Please, go ahead! -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 10:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one thing: the "Add a new listing" link ended up tucked behind the tools (listuser, IPblocklist) due to the lack of a blank line separating them. As this is probably the single most clicked link on the page, it needs to stand out. I took the liberty of reinserting that blank line (only) to your draft version. This was literally the only problem I could find. You did a good job! -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 10:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just made the same update to your draft that I did to the "production" version, about using "1=" to handle usernames containing equal signs. Say, if you don't move your draft into place pretty soon,  I  will! I've already given you a two-day head start.... --  Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Contact the user *first*
The line:


 * Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight.

was changed to:


 * Consider contacting the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Changing username.

with the edit summary:


 * (Being bold, making a change. Since when do we need to take actions before talking about something, we don't even need to talk before doing a username block. Revert and discuss if you disagree)

I have reverted it, with the comment:


 * (If one-to-one discussion w/ user works, RFCN need not be involved.)

I think that's sufficient reason. No need to take up other people's time and effort if the user (when approached directly) would simply say, "Oh, I see, of course I'll change it!" -- or perhaps give a simple explanation which resolves any concern about the name.

If a second reason is needed, I'll cite the Golden Rule: I myself, and perhaps you too, would prefer to be approached directly, one-to-one, about a problem with anything I've done, or not done, or how I did it, so I have a chance to fix it myself -- before anyone makes a great public fooforaw about it. We owe the same consideration to others.

Again, remember that RFCN isn't for the "blatantly" violating usernames -- those go straight to WP:AIV. This is for usernames that may possibly have innocent explanations, or at least innocent motives, so the courtesy of a direct (and relatively "private") approach would not be misplaced.

Please be aware that [ this issue came up on WT:RFCN ], back when that line was put in place. Also, contacting the user first was then, and still is now, part of the username policy (even after the revision): "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username.". Therefore the line as it now stands is in accordance with consensus and policy. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In a world where clear violations were actually dealt with at AIV, I would agree, but plenty of clear violations are turned away from there. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Showing that at least the person who turned it away did not agree it was "clear". -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Being turned away from AIV only means they could not make a decision in 30 seconds, the average time people spend on an entry their. It in no way validates the username. What is more, a username does not need to be clearly in violation, it just has to be in violation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. But if it wasn't clear in 30 seconds to an AIV watchdog, who presumably does understand Wikipedia policy, it might not have been clear to the username's creator, who may not have understood Wikipedia policy, from the little bit of it given on the username creation page. So... explain it to the user, give the user a chance to fix the problem himself or herself, and that may be all it takes. If that doesn't work, then there's dispute resolution, of which RFCs like RFCN are a part. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am all for the option of talking to the user first. But since no action needs to be taken before a username block, why should there need to be action before we even talk about it? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Talking to the user first is talking about it. Getting umpteen different people involved in the discussion is more of an "action" than that -- and would be a waste of all their time and effort IF the matter could have been settled in a one-to-one conversation with the user. If you can't take the time to ask the one single user about his/her name, or to change his/her name voluntarily, why ask anyone else to take time to discuss it? If the user's willing, WP:CHU is there; and if the user unexpectedly has a good and valid reason to keep the name, resolving your concerns about it, better still. That's putting the "least action" first, minimizing therbligs, minimizing the drain on others' time and energy, minimizing the BITE, and primum non nocere -- all of which isn't true of "drag to RFCN before talking one-to-one with the user", and is even less true of "block before discussing". -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Signing
Should the template ask users to sign their nominations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDonato (talk • contribs) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Oops...I obiviously need reminding myself! GDonato (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring some clarity
Some instructions, like the detail that usernames are not uncensored free speech, were removed as unnecessary. Now we see arguments like (re User:Bushsux) "Allow username as an expression of free speech (Wikipedia is not censored)"..., which show the instructions to be needed after all. Restoring these as concisely as possible, meanwhile removing one of the two separate times users were told to take blatantly bad usernames to WP:AIV. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 05:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments
Firstly, why is this a template? Why can't it just be on the RFC/U page? I don't think it's used anywhere that warrants it being a template. Secondly, can we make it more obvious that you are supposed to talk with the user on their talk page FIRST, and then come to RFC/U? I can't think of a good way to do this. And finally, should new ones be added to the top or bottom, and can that be included? i said 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a template so that the changes to the header message are not lost amid the page history at . A similar thing is done for Village pump, Administrator's noticeboard, etc. I do think this message is too complicated and therefore filled with instructions that few people will read. Re-arrange it if you want. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The notice
I hope this will be responded to, but I doubt it here. I dislike the notice now. Personally, I think the new starndardized templates are awful, but whatever, I'm just one person. The notice might work, but it is somewhat unsightly at the top of the page. Maybe moving it down, and unboxing/redbar it? Putting it at the top implies that it is the predominant concern of the page. While important, I don't think it needs to be the first thing read. I do however, agree that it should be more obvious. i said 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)