Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names


 * Note: This discussion began on the Adminstrators' Noticeboard: Administrators' noticeboard. The following is a copy of the thread as it existed when this MFD was begun.  Mango juice talk 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New system for WP:RFCN
Just to let everyone know, there's a new procedure for WP:RFCN new RFCN procedure, it basically means that it's going to be run like AfD, where each username has it's own page, and all that is listed on the main page is a list of templates directing to the specific discussion page, new archival templates are then used to properly close the discussion. this will hopefully allow the closing admin to better justify themselve, and give a firm policy reason for their action, hopefully this will stop many of the currect current bureaucratic actions there. I'd suggest having a quick look at the RFCN page just to check on the new way it work. For clarification, here are the new templates
 * RFCNdiscussion - this template is automatically added onto the specific discussion page when someone starts a new RFCN. Please be aware of the hidden comments.
 * Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME - this template is to be used to put the specific RFCN page onto the main page, replace USERNAME with the username that is being discussed. This should be removed by the closer on archiving thediscussion.
 * RFCNtop - this is the archive template which is put on the top of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be result (optional statement on reasons for closing) ~ . Please note, that only admins who have not commented on the username should close the discussion.
 * RFCNbottom - this is the archive template which is put on the bottom of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be.
 * I've also changed the main template for the page to instruct on thenew system; RFCUsername. Please check the diffs to see whats changed.
 * . This template can be used on the blocked users talk page to explain the block and give a direct link to the discussion. USERNAME should be replaced with the name of the blocked user.

If there's any problems you can see with it, let me know, or leave a note on WT:RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to running WP:RFCN like WP:AFD. All those !votes of "allow and deny" are really inappropriate. The page used to be a warning board for dodgy usernames, and at any rate the username policy is pretty clear cut on that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah... the problem is unnecessary process. What is so bad about the current way these are handled? If a discussion gets too long to fit on a page, or too unruly to handle (even with refactoring), then it can get moved (as in the recent Fenian Swine situation). Why introduce all kinds of formal templates/tranclusions/subpages... etc.? This seems like a tremendously bad idea to give us more work. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree it seems to be taking on a life of it's own, really have people nothing better to do than read through the new user creation log looking for names which can be lawyered over? --pgk 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCN should go back to what it was a year ago, not to even mention the latest. El_C 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, especially with pgk's point; unfortunately there's a small group of editors who haunt the page, trying to see how user names can be shown to conflict with policy, often offering bizarre arguments (a recent one: "TortureIsWrong" shouldn't be allowed because it's potentially offensive to BDSM-devotees(!); a current case is User:Fact verification &mdash; the claim is that newbies might be fooled into thinking he's an official...). given that RFCN has reached this stage, though, Ryanpostlethwaite's aproach helps to keep things tidy. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mel, your TortureIsWrong example was a dumb April Fool's comment that was quickly struck out - not really a typical example. RJASE1 Talk  13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was certainly struck out, but there was no sign at the time that it hasd been meant as an April Fool. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mel, the primary argument against User:TortureIsWrong is the policy WP:U that says "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions" are not allowed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument will do nicely to illustrate my point, I suppose; less extreme, but still a desparate stretch to apply policy to a name that is clearly unobjectionable. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I've changed the page to a much simpler version. Please take a look at it. Bureaucratic subcultures are not always a pretty sight.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While the most recent change in system was discussed and agreed upon, your rather major change was not Radiant, I have reverted it in the spirit of WP:BRD. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no effect on how we will discuss with the new method. It will make more concrete archives, and allow for better closers statements. As for how difficult it is now, well the people who actually participate in RFCN think it is a great idea. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The new system is the same way that other Rfc's are run as well, as HighInBC said, it gives concrete archives of discussions instead of just deleting it and archiving a diff. But unlike as you seam to suggest Radiant, the username policy isn't set in stone, and it is open to interpretation, if it wasn't, be could software block all usernames Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it was an archival problem, then why not just fix the archival system, rather than drastically increase the amount of work required to seek other opinions on a person's username??? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? --Ali&#39;i 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not just an archival problem, there is a real need for a page that the closer can leave an explanation on, and a dedicated talk page to discuss the name/closing. What is more, it is not that hard, the people who actually participate in RFCN thought it was a great idea, check out WT:RFCN. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How often does a discussion need an explanation of why it was closed whichever way it was closed, and how often do people dispute the closing (as they would on these new "dedicated talk pages")? As I said above... certain long discussions can get a subpage, not all need them. As to the fact that "people who actually participate in RFCN thought it was a great idea", that just seems to discourage casual users who stumble across a name as I recently did. It is more work. Yesterday, I simply went to the RFCN page, and clicked the tab to create a new section, and asked for other opinions, dropped a note on the user's page, and was done. If I had stumbled across the name today, I would look at the process involved of creating new pages/transcluding them, etc. and said "fuck it", and ignored the problem. (On a side note, if a new request takes starting a new page, aren't we disallowing anons to ask for comments?) --Ali&#39;i 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the new page hasn't resulted in any change to the process, but simply makes it more tidy and easily accessable. The process is no more diffciult than before, and probably should be easier.  Coemgenus 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Folks, this is not an admin issue, so the correct place to discuss this would be at WT:RFCN where there is already a near unanimous consensus that this change is a good change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I'm disturbed by this proliferation of bureaucracy and find it counterproductive. Is this great clanking mass effective? Have a flood of marginally-possibly-think-of-the-children offensive usernames been blocked? Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if there's a negative trend lately, it's probably promotional business/trademark usernames. RJASE1 Talk  14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and also several have gone through that should not have. Read through the archives or the WT:RFCN for details. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A good example is Pothead, a username that could potentially refer to drugs but also to a zillion other things. It would seem that many users get a first impression of Wikipedia along the lines of "Hey! your username is invalid! You must change it now!", and that RFCN does a lot of WP:BITEing.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been a certain amount of discussion about admins blocking names which is considered biting and leter RFCN later "overturns". To me an admin blocking (although undersiable if being overzealous), deals with the issue quickly and lets the user move on. If I were a new user I'd probably be far more put off by being dragged into some bureaucractic process immediately whilst people argue the letter of the law. --pgk 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the current process, a new user isn't "dragged into the process" without a discussion concerning their username first (via the 'UsernameConcern' template on their talk page, or equivalent.). RJASE1 Talk  15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the past that frequently hasn't been used (not sure about the current status I'll admit), I can't see it as much different in effect though, within a short time of creation names clearly are being taken through that process. --pgk 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, some folks new to the process sometimes don't give the user enough time to change their name (or explain the reasons for it) - or sometimes we just screw up. I haven't been perfect about this in the past, either - it's been a learning process. Usernames should only come to RFCN quickly if there's reasonably clear policy violation (but maybe not quite clear enough for WP:AIV). Of course people's opinions on "clear policy violation" will vary, as recent discussions have shown. RJASE1 Talk  16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "HighInBC" sounds like another stonerism but I will agree with Radiant here. This is no point in wasting time arguing about the validity of usernames which have not made any edits, such as this case, where we have no way of knowing whether the user is a troll or whether he registered that name so he could disrupt marijuana related articles. It could be that that was User:Pothead12345's original plan and he forgot the password (for whatever... reason). At the very least I suggest limiting WP:RFCN to discussions of users which have actually made useful edits. — CharlotteWebb 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what stonerism has to do with username policy. Also, discussing a name then allowing it is not biting. The suggestion that usernames in violation of policy should be allowed if they have not made edits should go at WT:U. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never made that suggestion. However, I did say that lengthy discussion of the usernames of unused accounts is a complete waste of time. If it's offensive, block it. If they are actually interested in helping the project, they'll be back under a more suitable username, and nobody will know who they were previously. This would be the least painful solution for everyone involved. — CharlotteWebb 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant's change of RFCN was made out of a misunderstanding of present procedure regarding username discussion. The usernames that Radiant is thinking of, that are clearly inappropriate, should be handled by WP:AIV, which is the equivalent of Radiant's change. RFCN is designed to be expressly for usernames that are borderline and require discussion to determine whether or not they comply with our username policies. Is RFCN sometimes inappropriately used? Of course it is, just like every other noticeboard or process on Wikipedia. That's not a good reason to oppose it entirely or engage in reckless bold editing without any sort of discussion on the relevant talk page. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am >< close to mfd'ing the whole thing. Not only a waste of time, but users seem to get the idea that it's a democratic process (let alone the fact that common sense went out the window a long time ago). Patstuarttalk·edits 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually kind of thinking the same thing. If it's an obvious violation, any admin should be able to take care of it. It is much like Quickpolls as I have heard of it. Kind of the same way the "Community sanction board" or whatever its name is. However, there are legitimate times when further comments (NOT straight votes) would be required, which is why I haven't MfD'd it. --Ali&#39;i 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) The new policy is already being implemented, and is very successful, no need to debate about its merit. Wooyi 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &#91;citation needed&#93; Debate is fine. And processes can change (as evidenced over the past 2 days at RFCN), so nothing is final. --Ali&#39;i 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These subpages are a waste of time and effort. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now Mfd's this page, please raise all concerns their Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)