:Behold, the nature of change, a common feature to a wiki. Sometime slow and steady other times sweeping and drastic. The fact is if there are so many people wanting this page deleted then it does not have the community support it should. So attempts at reform are both productive and needed(in my opinion). <small>[[User:HighInBC|<sup>High</sup><sub>InBC</sub>]]<sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:Behold, the nature of change, a common feature to a wiki. Sometime slow and steady other times sweeping and drastic. The fact is if there are so many people wanting this page deleted then it does not have the community support it should. So attempts at reform are both productive and needed(in my opinion). <small>[[User:HighInBC|<sup>High</sup><sub>InBC</sub>]]<sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
== Issues with new method. ==
I had the page watchlisted originally. Now I don't get to see each vote because they don't show up on my watchlist. We need to go back to the old method. [[User:Basketballfan1519|G.O.]] 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
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[1] 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.
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)[reply]
Actually, it seems fairly relevant. This non-policy-based "tolerance" of rather problematic user names is a persistent problem on this RFC. The Behnam14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As unlikely as it seems, I am not going after anyone specific. This is a problem that is getting worse over time. The small symptom that came about today is just a sign of it. If people "voted" with policy more in mind then the closings would match the vote count. I think Behnam put it best when describing it as "non-policy-based "tolerance"". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. TortureIsWrong15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if someone wishes to call my name to the RFCN they can make policy based arguments. Perhaps "Potential" should not be in the policy, I am not sure, but it is there. RFCN is not the place to change WP:U, rather a place to apply policy. Policy is changed on the policy talk page. And if "common sense" dictates that the policy should be ignored, then the common sense should be common to the closing admin. If not, then it probably was not common sense. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Behnam15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nader22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Two disagreements. First, "per so-and-so" is a perfectly reasonable reason if so-and-so has given a perfectly good reason. Secondly, while it may be that some people have made absurd excuses to allow User names, my experience has been that there's a number of regulars who feel that it's their duty to find ways in which a name might be a violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nader05:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Speaking of arguments and not votes, people continue to vote "allow" for Fartymcgee despite that I provided an RS for the obvious [2], 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 Behnam23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nader05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
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!
Perhaps you should see some of his edits before you insist you're able to read minds. Chaucer, Shakespeare, James Joyce and Henry Miller were all deemed "not serious" by some critters because they dealt with "impure," "non-serious" matters. TortureIsWrong04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm at it - South Park is a more serious commentary on today's society than anything you'll find on Fox News... among others. TortureIsWrong04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? CascadiaTALK| HISTORY17:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because in "respectable scholarly enterprises," people frequently use names like Proabivouac. I've seen names like that all the time in academic journals.TortureIsWrong07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? RJASE1Talk17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. RJASE1Talk18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.TortureIsWrong07:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I provide the links, I too had reservations about the username TortureIsWrong, however, it is clear there was a question of timing. At any rate, this edit started a literal WWIII on RFCN. The request was apparently justified, and the submitter indicated that they would abstain from an actual vote. However, the nomination came at a controversial time, even by chance. This was immediately followed by some of the widest stretching of WP:U I've seen for a while, on both sides. The user under review of the RFCN began bringing to light known contributers of her own RFCN that she could find any violation imaginable, here and here. My own nomination (which was added after I addressed concern of the mockery of the RFCN process) was the tipping point, and the TortureIsWrong was issued a temporary block for Disruption and WP:POINT violations.
The reason I bring up this issue is not because I want to get any user in trouble, but we need to consciously think how we are using the RFCN process after this incident. Editors were coming out of the woodwork for these particular RFCN's, editors I have not seen contribute here for a while. The issue even became so controversial, a WP:AN request was made to make sure a non-contributing Admin closed the issue. And now there is issue with the closing as the closing admin (at the time of writing this) did not provide an explanation on their decision to close as Allow.
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 Behnam04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Behnam04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a badge of honor to be considered abnormal by you, Behnam. But again, I have NOT always voted to allow. That's a falsehood and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat it. TortureIsWrong15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. (→Netscott)03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. RJASE1Talk03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Behnam03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. LeeboT/C03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not only did the people "voting" ignore policy, but the closer did not take it into account. Not sure what to do when it becomes the popular choice to ignore policy. What am I supposed to base my choice on? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? AecisBrievenbus09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No comment on the validity of the name - it seems borderline to me - but a bit of history on this one. The username was the result of a rename request at WP:CHU after the user's first name (MoeLarryAndJesus) was found problematic on this board. I pointed out some issues with his 2nd choice (NoBushpigsPlease) and he finally chose TortureIsWrong, which I had no strong views on. Obviously neither did the crat who performed the rename... WjBscribe04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and searched for the RFC with no result (I'm specifically looking for the RFC on "Tortureiswrong", not the previous ones). Wooyi04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[3]. Wooyi04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your well-reasoned decision, Thebainer. I'm happy to continue to contribute to a forum which has no rational objection to a username that says torture is wrong. TortureIsWrong07:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arrogance and smugness of some of the comments here are breathtaking. It's apparently OK for one person to close a discussion in which he's been involved, because he's impartial and following policy, but not for another person to do it in the same circumstances, becuase he's partial and ignoring policy. The people arguing one way are solid, upright, rational respecters of policy, while those arguing the other way are... well, we get the idea.
I don't understand why Wikipedia bothers with discussion, when it would be so much easier and more efficient to give the decisions to RJASE1 and HighInBC. As they're always right, and those disagreeing with them are always wrong, discussion is a pointless frippery. Would anyone be interested in a poll concerning the hand-over of RFCN decisions to them? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why I chose the name, and that's not it. But if I ever need the services of a mindreader I'll be sure to look you up. TortureIsWrong15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You don't need to pretend to do so, either. When you say why you think I chose the name, that's what you are doing. It's a nice skill to have, especially when you can pair it with being infallible. I'm envious. TortureIsWrong20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above guideline states "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale (such as content-related policies/guidelines)..."
So why is it that cases in this RfC forum are routinely closed based on majority decision rather than on arguments based on policy? (I know I'm echoing High's rant from above, but it needs to be talked about until this is solved.) This forum still has a serious problem and we need to figure out how to fix it. RJASE1Talk04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High's comment may be one cause, the other is perhaps it's easier to just go "One allow, one disallow, one allow, oooh, one STRONG allow!". Really don't know for sure. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish people wouldn't use "strong" to modify their vote recommendations. I usually find that either their arguments aren't that strong, or the name should be at WP:AIV. I don't mind "weak" votes though. Flyguy649talkcontribs04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strong/weak thing should be dropped, certainly — but this peculiar idea that the closing admin judges arguments by whether they're based on policy is peculiar. What happens is that a cogent argument that interprets policy differently from the closer gets ignored or downgraded, while a fatuous comment that mentions policy on the side that the closer favours gets given full weight. That's not how any other similar closing procedure is treated, to the best of my knowledge. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mel, it is not favoritism. If the opposing argument actually has an interpretation of Policy, it will and should get full weight. Argments such as "Allow, I like it and I'm not offended" or "Disallow, I don't like it" should get nil. You're seeing conspiracy where there is no conspiracy. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a distortion; there are weak arguments/comments on both sides; as usal, you give only the ones that you think should be discounted. What about the people who say "Pretty Young Thing" incites sexual lust, or that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to people into bondage, or who say that "canister of death" should be disallowed becuase it makes them think of Zyklon B? These are every bit as weak as arguments on the other side. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, despite the falsehood being used against me that I "always vote allow," I voted disallow on Canister of Death - and used that Zyklon argument because it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the name, as did others. When it was eventually allowed (or was it) I didn't flip out and insist that only my interpretation could be correct. For what it's worth. TortureIsWrong15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also dislike the "strong" or "weak" !vote. It seems that the same people use them all the time and expect it's supposed to count more. If we're snout-counting, then a vote's a vote, no matter how strongly or weakly the voter feels about it. If we're working toward consensus, as I thought was the case, then it's the argument that must be strong (i.e. possessing persuasive force, not just strong in the sense of a rambling ALL CAPS rant). Just affixing the word "strong" or "weak" changes neither the value of the !vote nor the strength of the argument, to my mind. Coemgenus13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to discounting allows, "because it is not offensive to me" is a very valid argument against disallowing a username. If it was black and white, there would be no need to have RFCN's. The fact is, many usernames are not black and white and we need to get the communities consensus as to whether it is offensive enough to disallow it. By saying that the allows are discounted, because they dont find it offensive (which, if not offensive, based on policy may be a reason to keep them) seems that there would be no point to having a RFCN. In short, if every named posted to RFCN, with an element needing interpretation by the community, had every allow nomination discounted because somebody disagreed with there interpretation, the whole RFCN process would be mute and pointless. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that many times those that simply state that it is not offensive to them admit that it may be considered offensive by some. I really feel that in order for this RFCN to function properly, one must be able to look around the issue, and take a comprehensive approach that is not based on personal feelings, but not whether the username is offensive to them personally. I've seen many names to which I am not personally offended by, but I find reasonable cause to support where a user would be offended by that, and I take a stance based on that. We really do have to consider the wider community that is wikipedia when making an argument, not just our personal feelings. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see my comment above. We shouldn't be second-guessing other people's responses. Moreover, it's possible for someone to take offence unreasonably, and we shouldn't give in to that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to cascadia, I agree, we should look at the bigger picture. The fact is though, you being offended shouldent take higher precedence over me or others not being offended. I see a RFCN as a venue to determine the communitys consensus on tough issues (like, liklihood to offend). I feel that if enough people are not offended by it (generally choosing to allow the name), it must not be offensiuve enough to be disallowed. If every name that came herem because somebody was offended by it, had all of there allows discounted, why not just diallow it before a RFCN? The fact is, RFCN is a venue for difficult situations, and often (especially recently, to determine what qualifies as offensive). While a few editors may take offense, I think it is important to get the overall view of the name, and why, If i find it not offensive, I should so state in a RFCN. That being said, because I find it not offensive in no way means that my argument is not based on policy, in fact, it is strongly based on interpretation of policy and the given username in the context of said policies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that one opinion should take precedence over the other. RFCN is a place for all sides to present their viewpoint of the situation. It really needs to be determined if we are going to debate the spirit of the policy, which is open for wide debate depending on whom you are speaking to, vs. the letter of the policy, which is really not debatable in most cirumstances, and if there is a debate that is an indication the policy is poorly worded and needs to be changed. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that policy should be followed. And in general, 99% of usernames are either blatantly acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with policy. In these situations, the RFCN is usually short lived and snowballed. The problem comes in the gray area. These are the most controversial RFCN's, usually yeilding pages of discussion over several days. In these situations, a usernames appropriatness in compariosn to policy is unsure. If there has to be pages of discussion as to the appropriateness of a name, it is not an obvoius violation, (and usually, with an element up to interpretation). I think we must be careful when viewing anything as black and white, because in real life (and wiki life) very few things actually are. I will agree on 99% of names that are baltant violations, the question again comes in the gray area. I just have personal concerns that when grey area names come up, each person chooses a side and tries to get the other sides arguments discounted as not policy based. I believe this is very innapropriate because the whole point of the RFCN is to determine if the community believes the name to be in violation of policy, (however, there is the push to say, "you disagree with the nominator, its not policy based, we will discount your vote"). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A vote against consensus based policy is not a consensus, it is a vote. To have a consensus you need to give the "votes" the proper weight based on their understanding of consensus. There is no gray area in any name that mentions "torture" because mentioning violent acts is explicitly disallowed, no gray zone here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point. If it was such an obvious violation, there should a.) have not been the need for a WP:RFCN and b.) such a large number of people disagreeing with interpretation of the policy. The fact is, the username fell in the gray area which is UP FOR INTERPRETATION. Your interpretation was no more correct than my interpretation. The fact is, the POLICY WAS UNCLEAR in this situation and the communitys input was needed for clarification. You cant say they were votes against policy when the policies interpretation was unclear. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed already that torture does not have to be violent. What I am saying is there were sevearl plausible alternative interpretations that were posed. It was mine, as well as several other editors opinion, that the username DID NOT violate policy. What you are saying, is we are wrong because of YOUR interpretation of the policy. Which, in that situation, you must be the RFCN god, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong? That seems pretty stupid to me personally. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC, you seem to have the "TortureIsWrong" discussion in mind, so allow me to point you to what I said above: "I closed as allow because, on top of the greater weight of numbers behind allowing, the arguments for allowing were stronger. They were based on the spirit of the username policy as opposed to the literal wording, which is the way we do things here at Wikipedia." See Chairboy's comment, for example, or CS42's, or Ryanpostlethwaite's. --bainer (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a random, somewhat ironic note, i looked up torture using my google dictionary and found an interesting defintion. "The act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean." I wonder if that was this users intended defintion of the word? It would make alot of sense actually. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is clear, and torture is violent, for gods sake, even the "non-violent" tortures are hellish to endure, to say they are not violent is ignorant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in the end, WP:U is explicit about very few things, and leaves a lot up to community interpretation. So, with few exceptions, it's hard to discount a !vote, even if it's really a case of "I don't think this will offend anyone" vs. "I think this might offend someone." Mangojuicetalk14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High In BC I do not agree that it clearly stated what you are saying it stated. The policy at the time he chose the name said "That promote or imply hatred or violence." To me this reads that advocacy for the use of violence is prohibited. TortureIsWrong is clearly advocacy against the use of violence, how is that a clear violation of the policy? I do not agree with your interpretation of the policy. --DSRH |talk14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, from WP:U, Feb 17th(when torture created his account), "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)". Referring is prohibited not just advocating. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you go just a few lines from your reference you will see mine. Which just emphasises that the policy cannot be seen as black and white and must be open to interpretation. Despite your argument, I still believe the intention of the policy was to prohibit advocacy of these things not against the mere mention of them. --DSRH |talk15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this policy is perfectly clear to me - I don't want to have to be thinking about torture every time I see this user's comments. We shouldn't have to be confronted with unpleasant imagery and issues unless we seek them out. RJASE1Talk14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reminds me of this - "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" TortureIsWrong16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DSRH, if what you say is true about the intention of the policy why include "or refer"? It was only one clear meaning. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to take the policy as a whole and see what the overall intent is. The wording of a single clause of a policy does not strike me as appropriate for determining the intent of the policy as a whole. Basically, I see the policy as expressing genuine concenrs for the sensibilities of people, but, not a club for enforcing username orthodoxy. --DSRH |talk15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to RJASE - That is somewhat faulty logic. Lets say it was the name of my ex-girlfriend in a relationship that ended anything but amicably. I would not want the name bringing back the memories and the thoughts of her, meaning that I should disallow the name because of the thoughts it would give me. This is a situation where the rest of you think I would be crazy for such an objection. Similarly, when i see torture in a name, i just thing of things i dont want to do. I.E., sitting in class is torture. participating in long RFCN's is torture. Dealing with the aftermath of closing afd's is torture. I dont actually associate it with violent horrible actions. In this situation, you cannot say I am igoring policy, i am just interpreting it as non-offensive to me. What defines offensive? If there is a book somewher of what is offensive and what is not, please let me know. Otherwise, it is up to interpretation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that violent actions are generally considered to be disturbing to the reasonable person, which is the standard we should be applying here. I believe that's why the prohibition on references to violent actions is in the policy. Regarding "torture", I went through training to resist it (or at least survive it) and I can say the word definitely causes a visceral reaction on my part. RJASE1Talk15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance of mass policy-ignoring was in the "bitch" usernames (which were finally disallowed). The term is clearly a sexist slur (as any dicdef will tell you), but a ton of people argued to allow because it didn't offend them personally. I think this was a clear case of mass policy-ignoring as well. RJASE1Talk15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I remember voting allow for "punkbitch", my vote should have been discounted, I think it even was. People are wrong sometimes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the bitch usernames as disallow, but would have closed the torture is wrong username as allow. It's not a mass ignorance of policy, it's a mass difference in interpretation of policy. Fair enough, disregard the I like its but if there are 2 sides to the issue, then people are going argue over them, but whatever the outcome, it doesn't need mass outrage because it went against somebodys opinion, whoever closed will no doubt have checked over fully and decided arguments for and against allowing it. Arguments like this don't occur at WP:AfD, and they shouldn't at WP:RFCN, everyones on the wrong side on consensus at some point Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the policy is not wishy washy about this, it makes it very clear. How is it even possible to read it as it was and not see it as a violation? Syntax, grammar, spelling, it all adds up to it being a violation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my reading, condensed(from april 1st version, emphasis added): "Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following..." "...Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to..." "...Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions..."
And what do you mean that arguments like this don't occur at WP:AfD? It happens so often there is a deletion review. Perhaps we need a RFCN review. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was put in policy in the first place to stop inflammatory usernames and ones which could cause distress, not to stop every single username which has the slightest hint of a real life action. Torture is wrong, who is really going to be offended by it? We need to discuss things logicially at RFCN, and think about the reasons things are in policy, not just take it as black and white. With regards to AfD, yeah there is deletion review, but editors don't go hunting the closer like what seams to be happening here. If you feel that strongly about a username, then you probably aren't the best person to bring a complaint up about it. Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we disallowed "I Dont Like Child Molesters". Has it occurred to you that the mere mention of torture is offensive to people who have any experience with it? This is not "slapping people is wrong", torture is a nasty horrible subject that people don't like to be reminded of. I think that is why the rule was added. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one who has been tortured would find torture is wrong as inflammatory. I didn't comment in the Child Molestation RFCN, but to me, it seams far mor inflammatory name than tortureiswrong Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're hunting the closer; I see this discussion as an attempt to learn from what happened to make future discussions less problematic. RJASE1Talk15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand how the policy could be read to indicate it is an optional rule. The fact is the TIW's name is in violation of policy, the votes to allow do not change that, the closing as allow does not change that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is though, in the same way that "I Dont Like Child Molesters" is inflammatory, not because of the message, but because of the content. Can you imagine having been through torture, then hearing it mentioned every time you try to talk to some guy? What about "Rape is bad"? The rule "or refers to" was put in there in that exact spirit. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, a.) torture is NOT always violent. b.) the defintion of torture that I am viewing has 2 defitions that may imply violence, and 2 that do not. It is not obvoius violence, and therefore not an obvious policy violation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Do you really think that an alternate definition is going to reduce it's potential to upset people who have gone through torture? And yes, there are many wikipedians who have gone through torture, it is far more common than people think. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Which of those definitions would the reasonable person think of when hearing the word "torture"? A possible innocent interpretation does not excuse a policy violation. Compare to Gay, which has innocent definitions as well but is still generally verboten in usernames. RJASE1Talk15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the specific TiW username, I read the policy of prohibiting "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions" to be targeted against usernames like "9/11Attack" or "HolocaustHater" or something. These are specific real-world actions being referred to. The word "Torture" alone is too vague, as the discussion has shown, and can't reasonably be read as applying to a specific real-world violent action. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torture itself is a real world violent action. The policy does not say a specific real world violent action, and for good reason. The fact is that people who have gone through torture are not going to show up here and say anything, because they are fucking terrified of any sort of confrontation because of the abuse they have recieved. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that people who have been subjected to torture would strongly agree with this username, and not find it inflamatory at least. I have not been tortured so I cant say for sure. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that they probably prefer not to be constantly reminded of it. However, the name doesn't have to be inflammatory, just mentioning the violence is a violation in and of itself. RJASE1Talk15:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure that it reflects a reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the policy, for reasons outlined above. If the username was 'RapeChafes' or something, I might see it, but the name in question is 'TortureIsWrong'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been tortured so I cannot say for sure. What I can say for sure is that there was a consensus in the past that names that refer to violent acts are not allowed. My example of "I Dont Like Child Molesters" seems to be ignored. Yet the term "torture" is just as emotionally charged to many as words like "holocaust" and "genocide" and "rape" and "child molestation". The reason for this is the these are all things that really happen. These are not things the world has universially agreed on, some people think these are okay things to do. These are not just things from hollywood movies. These things effect real people on Wikipedia.
What's somewhat shocking to me is High's constant refusal to even consider the argument of the closer that the decision was made due to considering the spirit of the rules and not to making a persnickety fetish out of one specific clause. It seems uncivil to pretend that this argument was not made and to continue to flog a horse that has been put down already. TortureIsWrong16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High is just standing up for what he believes is a detrimental decision on the effectiveness of RFCN and the WP:U. For or against, he is at least discussing this in the correct forum. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The soapbox remark was yours, Cascadia. I'm just giving it back to you. As for "serious debate regarding policy," I believe I have been very serious about this debate. TortureIsWrong17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is uncivil to 'return' provocative remarks. In general you need to check your civility, Torture, and aim to be more constructive. Thanks a lot. The Behnam17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense; it would be uncivil to respond to an uncivil comment by making the same comment to one's interlocutor — but TIW didn't — he merely referred to the comment, and asked if it was made to others. That you chose to reprimand him rather than the person who actually did pass the uncivil remark is indicative of the witch-hunting that has characterised this RFCN from the beginning. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to report that I believe Behnam engaged in a bit of punitive editing by undoing my addition to the [Byron Coley] page. Coley's a well-known critic of obscure music and a poet. I added that "as a bit of an anomaly" he had also written a biography of Chuck Norris. I mistakenly linked to Amazon to support this, which is (I am now told) not allowed. He also called it a POV edit. I believe, given the timing, that this was an obviously petty move. I have reverted the edit and added the ISBN # instead as suggested by another editor. It's ironic that I'm being chided by Behnam for incivility, though, given this incident. TortureIsWrong20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would like it if you would assume good faith, and not characterize TortureIsWrong as a witch. While the original remarker could use a warning, I am still not wrong in warning Torture, who has other significant civility problems on this board. Perhaps you can provide the needed warning to the writer of the original remark, Mel Etitis? The Behnam20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in relation to the user's consistant remarks regarding this conversation. After several attempts to explain to the user the reason for the discussion, I asked her to stop (hense the term 'soapbox'). CascadiaTALK| HISTORY20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through all this I have a few comments. I take no particular position on TIW's username and will not address that here (the rfc is done and over). However, I will say that some of the interpretation of policy seems off-base, to me.
"The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors, not by the creator of the name."
Thus, part of the purpose of WP:RFCU is to determine whether consensus considers a username to have crossed that line. WP:U currently reflects the context of the prohibition on violent usernames, which is not simply a blanket ban on all words associated with violence. The language of the page could sometimes be parsed to interpret a broader prohibition. However, it does not seem that consensus has endorsed anything but the context that is now explicit in the current version. Just some thoughts. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with 'em. Vassyana11:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How we enforce our policies
IMHO, this very project page is beginning to bite the newcomers. Now why do I say that??? Lemme explain:
The first day I began to hang out here, several RFCN's were submitted at the same time. Most of them resulted in an "allow" consensus. The noms for RFCN were without a doubt in check with WP:U!
Sometimes, the nominators fail to have a discussion with the user and see what's going on. If you're lucky enough, the newbie you talk to might request a new username.
Users come to WP to edit. That's why they set up an account. If we immediately block them without voicing our concerns personally with them, then that's biting the newcomers. Newbies are valuable to the community. As our older users begin to retire, we need to have a steady flow of editors coming in. If we chase them away, then the Wikipedian population will effectively become "extinct" in a few years as users become less interested in WP.
I hope you all realize that this is an ongoing problem. I suggest a major reform of the procedures here in order to make our process clear and concise.--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just procedure. The whole spirit/letter thing has to be addressed, especially because the "letter" is so unevenly and unfairly enforced. TortureIsWrong02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, and where it becomes a sticky point, is balancing interpretation of policy as close to the letter as possible to keep things as fair as possible, vs. having an emotionally driven decision that is not backed up by Policy. There are issues with going by the spirit only, as I've stated, the spirit of the policy is greatly open for debate. My interpretation of the spirit could be 180* in the opposite direction than someone else's. That is where problems come up. By sticking as closely as possible to "If username contains X, then it is disallowed" (x being insert rule here), we hope to prevent an issue of two similar usernames getting different results due to emotion. The spirit may indicate that it should only be disallowed if it is disruptive... that would mean far more potentially problematic usernames would slip through if no-one feels they are disrupive, although they violate WP:U. It is a tough decision to have to make, and it is not one that is made lightly (although I'm sure you'd disagree on this). When I look at a RFCN, I look at the issue subjectively. I remove my emotions and feelings from my argument, and look at it strictly based on "Does it or does it not violate policy". If I can find reason to let a username remain, it shalt be commented that way. If I cannot, then it will fall to the Disallow pile. To go through and selectively say "I LIKE this one, so I say we can keep it" or "I don't think it would offend anyone" is not being fair or subjective. This is an online community, and as such we have to consider the wider scope of humanity when we look at issues. A term that is "ok" in one place may not be elsewhere. While we are all human and cannot catch everything, and do make mistakes, the job of commenting on something that has been brought up for RFCN is not something to be taken lightly. It is also something that should be taken conservatively.
Anytime you are dealing with possible violations of policy, you must be prepared to have a negative impact on someone. If a user chooses a borderline username, then they should fully expect an issue to come up with it. If it is simply choosing a name that might match some obscure company or product, then a different approach would need to be taken... and in those cases where it is blatant, hopefully the user opts to just change to a better nickname. If it isn't obviously a company, and would require substantial search to come to that conclusion, then in that case yes, the username should be allowed.
The point being of this whole little speech is to show that those of us who are going by policy are not simply trying to make it "black and white", instead they are trying to keep 1)as close to the policy as possible as to avoid emotionally charged decisions. 2)Create a place where fairness means every username brought fourth will be treated subjectively, by the content, context, and whether or not content overrides context. Just because a username is not expressly forbidden (defined in a list) or doesn't cause a lot of people to become nauseous or angered, does not mean it is not in violation.CascadiaTALK| HISTORY03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that recently some discussions have degenerated into biting and namecalling and perhaps an overzealous application of policy, but that has been exacerbated by persons deliberately exacerbating it (by either trolling, or by deliberately choosing to rename themselves to borderline names, or by nominating names that are not in violation to make a point. It was, unfortunately, bound to happen. It'd be really cool if we could freeze RFCN for, let's say, a week, and then come back to it calm, cool, collected, and ready to do what's best for the project, instead of letting emotions take over. (And yes, I fully realize that the odds of this happening are slim to none. Doesn't change my opinion.) —bbatsell¿?✍02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we freeze RFCN, then that might make WP vulnerable to even more offensive account registrations. Nobody would be watching anyway...I suggest that we enforce this sentence in procedure: "Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight." This would solve many of our problems here at RFCN.--Ed¿Cómo estás?02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't think we would witness the downfall of Wikipedia if borderline names couldn't be listed on RFC/N for a week. AIV would still apply for obvious violations. Again, I know it won't happen, but tempers are high right now, which I think is the source of a lot of the hostility. —bbatsell¿?✍03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abolition of RFCN
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. Wooyi03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --tjstrftalk03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it becomes apparent that there's a problem when you consider that MoeLarryAndJesus, a name I've used for YEARS on beliefnet.com and which has never been objected to by the overwhelmingly SERIOUS Christians there is banned in short order HERE because it's supposedly going to cause problems with Christians. This despite the fact that no one ever claimed to be offended by it and it caused no such problems. The entire process is asinine and the policy behind it is poorly and stupidly defined. Nothing of any consequence would be lost if some of the policy junkies would lighten up. Half of them act like Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" - and dudes, it just aint that crucial a problem. TortureIsWrong03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. TortureIsWrong04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wooyi04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wooyi04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.) CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. When my username was affirmed editors like Cascadia and HighInBC kept up the attack by still insisting that it was a violation of policy. I guess submission to authority, in their minds, only goes one way - their way. By the way, why would a user be offended if their name was allowed? I'm quite glad mine was.TortureIsWrong04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hypocrisy at all. If my name had been banned I would have picked another one. After it was affirmed both you and High kept on posting about how the name was STILL a violation of policy. You expect people to accept your opinions as gospel but when you're overruled you don't do the same. That's true hypocrisy. TortureIsWrong04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Flyguy649talkcontribs04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Wooyi04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of editors passing comment here seems to have risen exponentially recently, making consensus nearly impossible to judge. The amount of devil's advocacy and wildly differing criteria used when passing opinion is getting ridiculous.. imo it worked better when a small number of dedicated editors with a policy-based, considered approach took care of most of the issues. If there is a way to put these decisions in the hands of a few rather than the many it would be more effective. Admins only? Would work for me. We're not out to deny freedom of speech, just to ensure that we all get along and act appropriately to build an encyclopedia, not identify ourselves as we might on Myspace, Beliefnet or MSN Messenger. Deiztalk04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page really is a place for policy wonks - that is, people who thoroughly understand policy and bother to research the meanings behind the names. I have been stunned at some of the comments on this page, which clearly ignore policy, common sense, and evidence. One must work on the assumption that anyone who takes the time to register here intends to edit here, and to interact with other users. The policy exists for a reason - Wikipedia seeks to attract users of the diversity of humanity to edit, and does not require them to be offended to do so. While editors could reasonably be expected to avoid articles on subjects that offend them, it is nigh on impossible to develop consensus without communicating with other editors, and that often involves referring to user names. Risker04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Risker, unless you give specifics about what you've been "stunned" by I have no idea what your position is. TortureIsWrong04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wooyi04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Shenme04:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply] (by the way, this is me saying that I don't agree with your idea)
Not what I said at all. For the record, I have NEVER blocked anyone, though I have been blocked myself for arguing my positions. I welcome disagreement - but when it's hypocritical disagreement, I point it out.TortureIsWrong04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This board definitely should be kept; it has sorted out a lot of names that would have been hard to investigate otherwise. I admit there has been some newbie-biting, but I'd say that most of this was related to Betacommand's wildly inappropriate blocks. Some issues have come up that point to a lack of specificity in the policy (excretory), but the most disappointing thing is that even after 'fart' was shown to be excretory with an outside source, people still showed up voting 'allow' because they thought it was funny or cute. People complain about wikilawyering and "Pharisaic" ruling, but they don't seem to realize that the mandate of this board is to comment on these user names with respect to the WP:U policy specifically. Of course there is room for interpretation; that is why they aren't blocked as blatant violations. However, the board has recently been plagued by people showing up without even anything near a WP:U based argument. Often they simply challenge WP:U or think that we are supposed to find 'alternate' explanations to overshadow the primary meaning suggested by the name. I have called this 'apologetic' and 'far-fetched' because that is what it is, and it seems completely contrary to the purpose of the board. If they have a problem with the policy, bring it to the policy's talk page and get the policy changed. Don't vote without regard to the policy because you have decided to defy and disregard policy in voting. WP:U is the standard here. Another common fallacious argument is to bring up some other name that hasn't been blocked, and argue that if that name is still around, then this new obvious violation should be allowed because they are similar. This completely silly argument keeps popping up even though the logical thing to do would be to haul new offenders in. "Someone else stole a car and got away with it, so why shouldn't this guy be allowed to?" Ridiculous. The Behnam04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing ridiculous about it. If you and the other policy cops at RFCN are so convinced that any name referencing 'violence' should be banned, then you should be VOCIFEROUSLY hunting down such names and banning them. But you're not, because that's not really a serious concern of yours. It's witch-hunting pure and simple, a virtual inquisition.
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... Flyguy649talkcontribs05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. If TortureIsWrong is banned, or names like it, then something is rotten in the Wikipedia forest. Who actually is offended by this name? Let them come forth and say so and say why. TortureIsWrong05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the policy section that says it's mandatory to format comments the way you want me too and I'll certainly do my best. But since you're not making this demand of anyone else and since I don't think there is any such policy... well, I'll continue to do what I'm doing. Capisce? TortureIsWrong05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I see [Any indentation system is acceptable.] That's "Any indentation system is acceptable." I trust RJASE1 will cease trying to intimidate me into using my own fairly consistent method now. TortureIsWrong05:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part right after? It then gives two general rules of indentation that any system should use. I think you jumped too fast on that one. Unless I am wrong... :) The Behnam05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, take this as far as you can and see if there's some valid policy reason to force me to use some random indentation system. I still don't see it. So yes, I think you're wrong, as usual, as you usually think I'm wrong. TortureIsWrong05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually just pointing out that jumping on the "any indentation system" part is kind of a bad way to argue your case, considering the general guidelines are put forth afterward. Still, the 2nd guideline has it so that the first user starts at the left and always stays there, second one indent, and so on. This is considered cluttered for big conversations. However, your method of starting with usually three regardless of your position in the conversation seems to be against this idea. Anyway, you probably should have changed your style simply because it was bothering and confusing other people. The Behnam05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern. I'll now consistently use three asterisks for comments - that should clear up any confusion and is in accord with the policy as I read it.TortureIsWrong05:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, but again you misread it. The guideline #2 has indentation assigned based upon entry into the conversation. Unless you were the third you shouldn't do three indents. More importantly, that is not how the rest of conversation is occurring, as this conversation is more in line with #1. So, you should start to respond by indenting one more than the response previous unless there is a topical need to start a new set at the left again. In other words you should try to match the format of other user when posting here to help preserve clarity. The Behnam05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you have problem with the 'violence' clause, get that part of the policy changed first. But don't plague the board saying that the policy is invalid. That board is supposed to use WP:U in making decisions. The Behnam05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no urgent need to do so since my username was AFFIRMED as okay. Sounds like you might need to follow your own advice if you disagree with the current AFFIRMED policy. TortureIsWrong05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (EC)[reply]
Abolition I don't agree with, it would leave the only place to discuss usernames being WP:AIV. I feel that reform is required though, there are way too many I don't like it comments. People who comment on the page should have a firm grasp of WP:U, and as it seams at present, many don't. I haven't got any firm idea's of where to go, but I don't agree with only admins being able to comment, there are many perfectly good non admins who contribute here and it would be wrong to stop them. I think their should be a few admin co-ordinators of the page, who simply don't vote on usernames, and are simply their to weigh up consensus. Discussions could be properly archived using templates, with the closer being able to give a reason for the closure if required, i.e. the result was allow per consensus, most allow comments were I don't like it's. I think if these 2 ideas were implemented, it would help to restore the integrity on RFCN Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk10:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fallen, fallen is RFCN, it has become a dwelling place for trolls. I admit, there are serious problems here, but abolition is not the answer. I'll admit I've thought of it, too, but that particular cure would be worse than the illness. I think a few changes would help, like clarifying some of the vaguer rules and keeping more easily accessible archives for precedential purposes. I know, we don't work by precedent, and it sounds a lot like wiki-lawyering, but there's a reason the common law has survived all these centuries. A system bound in precedent is predictable and consistent, but capable of change when changed conditions warrant it. Just my two cents, but I think it might reverse some of the decline in this area. Coemgenus12:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that precedents are frowned on, out of fear of abuse to justify problem names and against common sense, but yet I can't help but think that precedents accompanied by easily accessible reasoning can't but help. Which perhaps is another lead-in to the proposal below ... Shenme14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New way of running RFCN
I have created a new system for running RFCN in my userspace (User:Ryanpostlethwaite/RFCN). It's run very similar to Afd, in that each username discussion has its own seperate page, which when discussion ends, can be archived with templates. Instead of all discussion being on the RFCN page itself, all there is on the page are template links to the discussion page. Firstly, it will keep the size of the page down to a minimum, but it will also allow better comments from the admin who closes it as they can address concerns in the archival template. There will also be a talk page for each username to discuss concerns, and it will also allow people to better monitor the names they have commented on (they can watchlist each particular username page. Take a look at it, and let me know what you think, make any ammendmants that are needed Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of having a place for closers comments other than just an edit summary. Perhaps it will reduce vote counting. I also like that each user name will get a talk page of it's own. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea as well. I have found the archives of the current RFCN a tad difficult to follow. I am assuming that we are considering bringing this approach to replace the current approach. --Kukinihablame aqui14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think this is a great idea. The ability for the closing admin to add comments should help alleviate some of the second guessing that accompanies some of the more heated discussions. Ver well done Ryan. --DSRH |talk14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd be hoping for, in likening the transformation to a more AfD format, is a renewed sense that you say your piece, the best you can, and unless questions are addressed to you, you stop there. (best case anyway) Too many interactions can't help the process. Shenme14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! One tiny suggestion is to put a specific reminder in the instructions to inform the user who's name is the subject of the RFCN, perhaps as number 4. Flyguy649talkcontribs14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, repetition of the instruction against the embarrassment of not informing the user is a no-brainer. Please add to the sequenced instructions. Shenme14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed a similar proposal in here at Village Pump, but no one seemed to care, so I got so frustrated then I decided to propose the abolition RFCN, a decision which I now regret. Wooyi15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the praise; it looks good. Can we also include the normal AfD condition that closing admins shouldn't have been involved in the RfC discussion? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would users still be able to access ongoing discussions with one watchlist jump, or would each discussion have to be accessed separately? TortureIsWrong17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we're ready to go, I've now changed all the templates so they work on the main RFCN page and not my userpage, before I move it across, anyone fancy closing that swine username? I've commented on it so I can't close it Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a project for this weekend, I may try putting the old discussions from the archive into the new format for ease of reference. RJASE1Talk17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor addition Ryan, since people now only have to replace USERNAME in the box, why not add the "1=" so that all usernames are understood(including those with initial = sign)? Flyguy649talkcontribs18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more. I also suggest a mod to the 'indef blocked' userpage template to reference the RFCN discussion (or maybe a new template?). Also, recommend that closing admins reference the discussion page in block summaries, as they do for deletion summaries in AfDs. RJASE1Talk18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Seems like it took a series of particularly heated RFCNs to get some good changes made. Sometimes that's how change is made. Great ideas though! CascadiaTALK| HISTORY18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sometimes heaed debate is the ignition that creates change. Please keep that in mind as you try to get me banned from Wikipedia for engaging in it, per your discussion at [5]. Thanks!TortureIsWrong19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talked to User:Ben about creating a new username blocked template with an added parameter to add a link to the discussion, we'll see what he says. Will add a suggestion that the admin includes a link to the discussion in the block log Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, ben says {{UsernameBlocked}} already has this parameter, simply use {{UsernameBlocked|1=of the consensus reached at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME]]}} - note, it's best to use 1= so that there's no issue with the template Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a specific reason in "UsernameBlocked"
What isn't documented at {{UsernameBlocked}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{UsernameBlocked|1=reason for block}}, or even {{unb|1=reason for block}}, 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: {{unb|1="Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} 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:
{{unb|1="1337 H4XZ0R" falls under [[WP:USERNAME#Trouble|"usernames that... give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking"]], and was disallowed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=119514027#1337_H4XZ0R_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 a discussion at WP:RFCN]}}
Notice in the above that, since the URL includes equal signs, you need to declare the parameter explicitly with "1=". -- BenTALK/HIST07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
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? Wooyi15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Shenme16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to my username? If it is not ok I can change it. Wooyi16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Shenme17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an English speaker I cannot help but mention that "Wooyi" is really easy to remember. Much easier than Morton Devonshire. The Behnam16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the policy junkies would like to pretend that policy is clear and never in need of much interpretation, the randomness and length provisions are ALWAYS "I know it when I see it" decisions. That doesn't seem to cause any particular problems. Someimes, Anna, a banana is just a banana. TortureIsWrong17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving this page
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? RJASE1Talk15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). CascadiaTALK| HISTORY18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). NikoSilver21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let everyone know, I've gone ahead with the new RFCN procedure, there may be a few teething problems at first, but stick with me on it and we'll sort them easily enough. Just for clarification, here are the new templates;
{{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 {{subst:RFCNtop}} '''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 {{subst:RFCNbottom}}.
I've also changed the main template for the page to instruct on thenew system; {{RFCUsername}}. Please check the diffs to see whats changed.
{{RFCNblocked}} - This template can be used on the blocked users talk page to explain the block and it gives a direct link to the discussion. All that needs to be done is add {{subst:RFCNblocked}} ~~~~ to the talk page and this will show the user the reasons why their username was blocked
{{UsernameDiscussion}} and {{UsernameAllowed}} now link directly to the specific discussion page, don't forget to substitute them however
Question - would it not be easier to not create a subpage for each instance, the way DRV and CFD and TFD and RFD work? >Radiant<14:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, when a discussion is closed, should it be removed from the main RFCN page right away, or left for a while? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these entries are a waste of time. A username block does not delete a username. Since most usernames are used once and never reused, there is no benefit in this process: by the time it reaches a conclusion, the user is gone anyway. It is actually counterproductive in some cases: for instance, if the username is spam, then we are actually calling way more attention to it.
I say use your judgement more. If it's obviously offensive, block on sight. If not, let it go. Come here with borderline usernames that are continuing contributors. Don't waste 20 edits to block someone who only made 1.
The "edits post-RFCN" column may be unfair due to them being so recent. So, here are 10 older RFCNs, taken from the start of the archive page of a week ago (Mar 31):
Cards face up: I don't like this new process. That said, I have some honest, good faith questions:
What is the reasoning behind this new process? I've seen people mention that the archives currently are unintelligible, and that this new process gives closing admins more room to explain their closure & dedicated talk pages for each name. Is this it? Are there other reasons why this was changed?
If asking for opinions on a username now requires creation of a new page, won't this disallow "anons" from seeking opinions?
User:Radiant! recently massively (overly?) simplified the page to a blank page with the note that the page was for requesting comments on a borderline case. Why is this method so much worse than the current plan? It eliminates a lot of process (and process for the sake of process is just plain wrong) and is much simpler. (Shouldn't keeping things simple be the goal?) Is there some sort of middle ground between that and the current format?
Is this just a knee-jerk reaction to the Fenian Swine & TortureIsWrong discussions? Shouldn't process evolve slowly?
I appreciate any answers to these questions, as I've read through the talk page here, and still can't figure out why this is a good change. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is how the page used to work. List nasty names, they get blocked. List silly names, they get ignored. We don't need a long discussion over, say, User:Pothead12345 because no sane admin is going to block him anyway. >Radiant<15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had seen the earliest versions of the page and liked the quote, "Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by visiting admins. If a matter turns out to be controversial, a subpage may be created here to discuss it." A subpage may be created. Why the need to jump through hoops for a relatively uncontroversial name? --Ali'i15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answers
It allows us to keep clear records on all discussions here, just as is done in every other discussion on wikipedia. The closing admin can clarify themselves in the archival box, which stops arguments post closing on the exact reasons for closing. Also, each entry has a discussion page, so motions for closing, large ammounts of info, definitions can be placed their to stop it getting cluttered up.
Why would an anon wish to start a discussion on a username?
It is more inline with other RfC's, keeps the page size limited as only templates are transcluded, and may even stop people questioning a name which they think only has a mild chance of being blocked (i.e. WP:BITE noms)
No its not a knee jerk reaction, it's something which I've been thinking about for a long time
In response to radiant, the username policy clearly isn't obvious in the way it is written, there are many very ambiguous names which need discussion, one person can't decide if it merits a block or not Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... why would an anon want to seek comments? For the same reason you (or anybody) would. That seems obvious. This stops them from doing so. --Ali'i15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because not all names need the new system, it does not mean that the new system is not needed. Many names do need much discussion, and their own talk page, and the closing need to be done with remarks. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new system's discussion on pothead username appears to be a calm consensus, Congratulations everyone who reformed this process. Wooyi15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of time? No matter what we do there will be users who report names that are not in violation, how do you suggest we deal with those? We decided it was not in violation and closed it, how is that a waste of time? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that by only archiving allowed usernames, without archiving the many blatantly bad usernames that are quickly blocked. Requiring a subpage to be created for every request is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like it, radiant made a comment about it being an example of RFCN being overly bureaucratic[6], I don't understand how that can be. A name was reported, it would have been reported no matter how we format the page, it was quickly found not to be in violation and closed. How is the new system in any way effecting the actual decision making process? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If the system is bureaucratic, it's not because of the page's format. The reporting and consensus procedures are largely unchanged. Coemgenus15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bureaucracy requiring that subpages be created and then closed with closing templates where before it was as simple as making a normal edit to the page. It is bureaucracy because of the lengthy unnecessary instructions at the beginning of the page. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Radiant's comment I guess it's more humorous than serious, and I think he is referring to the whole RFCN process instead of specifically the new process. Actually I personally think Radiant is pretty witty in that comment. Wooyi16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if some gets blocked for a username violation, the discussion could be stated on the talk page and transcluded or moved to a discussion. Should consensus allow, the name is automatically unblocked. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're right. I guess it was the process' fault, and not Heliac's misunderstanding of WP:U and RFCN. </sarcasm> I guess we'll just spend our time (well, not my time) creating subpages for these ridiculous reports... which we will then archive (or possibly take to MfD in some cases, I'm sure). Seems like a good plan. --Ali'i16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Heliac did not read the instructions when he reported those names, chance are he would not have made the sub pages. Frankly there are too many people coming here without reading the instructions. I am not about to help a user create sub pages for ridiculous reports. While your sarcasm is clear, I am not sure what you would suggest as an alternative. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this new system encourages users to nominate names that they don't like based on some novel interpretation of the username policy. See, admins generally think twice before blocking anyone; whereas any random user does not necessarily think once before putting something in The Process. It is better, imho, to tell a new user "welcome but this name is not allowed", than to tell them "welcome, but we're not sure if your name is allowed or not so we're going to argue about it for five days, but you're welcome to join the argument too if you read up on policy first." >Radiant<08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difficulties
It appears that some users are having difficulty reporting under the new system, especially since it is impossible for anons to report easily. Perhaps the process is too complicated. I have also noticed that there is no link from the RFCN page to each subpage, but overall the system is better organised. G Donato (talk to me...) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, at AfD there is a link in brackets to the subpage which contains the discussion. I feel that a similar link here would be useful. The fact that you said IPs don't usually report here has reassured me in that aspect. To calrify my final comment- the better organisation refers to the archiving and closing adins comments. Thanks. G Donato (talk to me...) 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also found it a bit strange that an anonymous user suddenly started posting usernames after the discussion concerning anons' ability to post them. LeeboT/C17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those users had a 'UsernameConcern' put on their talk page, the noms should probably be removed because of that. RJASE1Talk17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Placing a UsernameConcern template should be enforced
I think the best way to reduce frivolous reports here would be to require that users have a {{UsernameConcern}} presented to them before being listed here or being told that their username is going to be discussed by the community. This is in line with the idea that we shouldn't be biting, and we should be assuming good faith. There should also be a waiting period after the concern has been issued to allow the user to respond. I get the feeling that a lot of these names come from users browsing the new user log and immediately taking borderline ones here
If the steps described above are not followed, the name should be un-transcluded from RFCN if it was already added, and any link to that discussion on the user's talk page should be replaced with the concern template. Here are my thoughts:
This page is only for borderline cases; if the name gives the impression that waiting for their response is inappropriate, it should probably go to WP:AIV.
Waiting gives us a chance to see the user's intent on Wikipedia.
If they're going to vandalize, they'll get blocked for that.
If they're going to contribute constructively, they are more likely to be open to changing their name, and we will have avoided scaring them off with a trigger-finger discussion.
Many username concerns could easily be resolved with private discussion on the user talk page. Offering the suggestion of disambiguation would be good for usernames that looks like disallowable real world names.
To sum it up, the biggest problem here is that usernames are too often reported with no warning to the user and no prior discussion. These steps should be enforced, just as lower level methods of dispute resolution are required before higher ones. It would save everyone wasted effort, and it would save many new users from an unpleasant first experience. LeeboT/C17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest also adding a recommendation to leave it up for 24-48 hours... no one is going to die in that amount of time frame if a username isn't taken to RFCN. A user should be able to watchlist the username or link to it from their "TO DO" section of their userpage. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the goal is to keep people from reporting usernames without thinking about it or discussing it personally first. Slapping a discussion link on a borderline user's page 10 minutes after they register without expressing a concern (it happens) is biting in my opinion. LeeboT/C18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply starting a discussion about a name is not biting. If a user does it in a biting fashion then it is, but that is not a given. The blocking policy does not require any action before performing a username block, so why one earth should action need to be taken before a username discussion? This is policy creep. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing a concern to the user is already part of the steps that the page lists as required, indicating that if the concerned is not expressed the discussion can be removed -- but I don't think I've ever seen this enforced. Using the {{UsernameDiscussion}} template comes after that step of listing here, which comes after expressing a concern. I'm asking that if we have these protocols on the RFCN page that they be enforced. LeeboT/C18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a judgement call. I think it just depends on how much potential for offense or disruptions a username has. RJASE1Talk18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it says that it should not say that. The fact is that no action is needed prior to a username block, so why should we need to take action before simply discussing the block? This does not make sense. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it does not say you have to, it says it "may be helpful", this is correct. It is not required, nor should it be. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "may be helpful" refers to using the template as opposed to composing it yourself. It still indicates that skipping it could result in removal of the report. LeeboT/C19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it does indeed say that, not my reading, then it is contrary to regular practice both here at RFCN, and in general. Like I said, there is no policy that says a user must be told before a discussion about their name starts. This step simply bogs down the whole procedure. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is not to bog down process for the sake of bogging it down. It's my personal opinion that users should be talked to before getting the community involved, as is the purpose of the {{UsernameConcern}} template. I noticed that this opinion of mine fell in line with the idea that listings can be removed if the step is skipped -- but if there is consensus that the wording in question needs to be changed, I don't mind keeping it as my opinion and just that. LeeboT/C20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Leebo. A user that intends on being an active contributor to the project should respond favorably to a concern notice and ask what they can do to change their username, having to never have brought it here in the first place, bogging RFCN down with names that could have been changed with dialog. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of names mentioned are names of brand new users who often never come back. So you end up delaying every username discussion for a day or so while the message sits on their talk page. Maybe 1 in 8 people actually participate in their own RFCN's after being notified it has started. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also my opinion that names like that probably don't need to be brought here if the user isn't even contributing. Like I said in my first post of the thread, it seems like people browse the new user log until they find something questionable and then report it. RFCN would see a lot fewer frivolous reports if there was some measure of discretion. And again, that's my opinion. LeeboT/C20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is that usernames need to obey the policy if they are registered, not if they have made edits. Perhaps a change can be made at WP:U, but I see the point if this idea as being to prevent these names from ending up in the edit histories. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point too. I can continue to ask users before reporting them here (I've actually had a good success rate with that). LeeboT/C20:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for talking to people before discussing their names with others. I just don't think it should be mandatory for every case. But I do think that the person should be notified of the discussion every time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring the template itself would not be sound. Simply requiring notification would serve the same purpose without requiring a mechanical process or a sycophantic template.
Some usernames are blatantly inappropriate and, while they could be more appropriately listed at WP:AIV, they can and should still be blocked here. There is no reason for someone who finds this page looking to report a blatantly inappropriate username should not list it. —Centrx→talk • 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone reported a blatantly inappropriate name here without asking the user about it, I'm sure the response wouldn't be to reject it on the basis of not notifying the user. It would either be sent to AIV or blocked by an admin on the spot. LeeboT/C22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(In every discussion here I feel like I have to qualify by saying that "obviously bad names" are not being discussed here (sigh))
I think talking to the user is always the best first step. As pointed out, many users register and never come back. No work to do here - no need for any action. As pointed out, good editors will see the UsernameConcern and want to do something about it, like add disclaimers to user page, change the name, or say why it wasn't 'really' a concern to begin. No work to do here - no 'immediacy' needed. If the original worried editor sees no response to an ongoing concern (continued editing with the worrisome name) then as part of bringing it here they should change the tag to UsernameDiscussion to notify the user.
We aren't bogging down process if there is no need for process here to begin with, or if process can be pre-emptively redirected into positive resolution (e.g. user changes name). Shenme22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says once a username is registered it must follow the username policy, so you can't just say that if the user never edits then there is no need of discussion. I disagree that talking always needs to be the first step. Some level of judging is required. A user must always be told the discussion has started, this is enough. Why should simply talking about a username need prior action, when acting on a username does not? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, one perennial bone of contention is over blocks in situations that are not clearly preventative, one situation being a block when a user has clearly ceased to vandalize, for instance because they haven't edited in the last hour or so. Many people react to the issue strongly, and in both directions.
'Acting' without need seems wasteful of our time, hence my repetition of "no work to do here." I'm sorry that I don't understand the need for immediacy. It seems the only positive explanation I can think of for omitting UsernameConcern is that it lessens the work on the original reporter. No, I guess I can see that the concerned party might think it needful enough that others be consulted. I worry, however, that 'concern' will always translate to "right now"! That is something I'd like to explicitly inhibit, not prevent (see parenthesized sentence above)
And I worry about the ultimate extension of your first sentence - the workload of "cleaning house" would be extraordinary. So we can't say 'always' there either? Shenme23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not going to be a way to prevent frivolous reports, in all likelihood. If someone reports a name immediately after the user registers, and it's unanimously kept, or it could have been easily resolved, there's no way to take that back. People would probably still do it even if there was some way help it. Situations like that tend to breed resentment. I've seen it happen quite a few times and it probably could have been prevented with politely asking users to change names, but that's the reporting user's judgment. LeeboT/C23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions
I have read the brief discussion above and see no justification whatsoever for having page-long instructions. Reporting a username here is really very simple, and those instructions are more liable to simply turn a person away, to no benefit. Even if subpages are used, the enormity of the instructions for a very simple thing is quite ridiculous. Also, a new idea proposed 1 day ago does not suddently have consensus, nor does a discussion about it within one day have much significance. —Centrx→talk • 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that spirit, why didn't you revert to the version that existed immediately prior to the discussion of the past few days? RJASE1Talk21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would have eliminated the current listings. They could be copied over though. Also, the bloat of the instructions and whether to use subpages and for what purpose are two separate issues. —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work centrx, consensus was reached on this page before implementing by people who regularly use this page - not by against consensus editing like you've just gone, I'm reverting back, if you disagree, get a bigger discussion going on the talk page Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? You made a post about it less than a day before implementing it. The substantial objections to it have not been addressed. Wikipedia:Consensus has the general idea about this, your flippant attitude and disingenuous statements do not. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: most of the instructions are not recent. What was recent was using subpages for all entries (not just the lengthy ones), and the matching instructions in the messagebox surrounding the subpage-creation inputbox. Somewhat less recent was a cleanup-restructuring of the instructions to make them easier to read; and a strengthening of the injunction to contact the user first (which is required by WP:U). You deleted everything, including instructions that had been there without objection for months. -- BenTALK/HIST18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the above page for deletion which can be found at the above link. Concerns were raised at WP:AN and the only way that many of these can be sorted is by starting a deletion discussion. Please address any concerns there. Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the area open because more people should participate in the discussion. That said, there's an obvious problem there because it IS an area where not enough people take part, leading to a certain amount of "we're the veterans, what the hell do you know" attitude among long-term participants. Or at least that's been my observation as a newcomer. I'm not pointing fingers here. It's a natural phenomenon of organizational behavior. TortureIsWrong03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I was actually starting to get the feeling that the fireworks were mostly over and the different factions were working together in a respectful way (or at disagreeing civilly). RJASE1Talk03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at recent exchange at User_talk:Wooyi#Johnny_the_Vandal and User_talk:Mangojuice#Robinson_case, there is simultaneously, a justification for the experienced admins to judge some names, and an unfortunate resemblance to "so there, we do know better and you shouldn't judge us at all." I... just wish the communication were better in both directions. At least then the gulf between the knowing and unknowing wouldn't look so formidable, to the unknowing. Shenme03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one kind of situation (obscure vandal names) where that comes up. Actually, vandal usernames used to be better documented, but then, all of a sudden, WP:DENY came up. Still, I am not sure there is a strong need for ordinary users to understand blocks that don't involve them without having to enquire. Almost always there's a very good reason for it: just ask the admin who blocked and wait for an answer. But the Robinson case was bad for another reason: it's one thing to debate applying a block, it's quite another to debate overturning a block. Per WP:BP, overturning blocks must be done very cautiously, and almost always in full consultation with the blocking admin: a community input like this doesn't really have relevance. Mangojuicetalk04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in most cases an unblock should happen only after consultation of the blocking admin. But things happen differently if there is a wheel war going on. Probably I guess a consensus in WP:ANI, which is a consensus among admins, should do the unblock. Also WP:DENY is only an essay, not a policy, admins shouldn't be directed by an essay in detriment of obeying policy. WooyiTalk, Editor review04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible restructure
It looks like the MfD will be a no consensus. Now while that does mean that the page will most likely be kept, it also means that the community is not very impressed with how this place is being ran. So I propose a drastic restructuring of the process, not a technical restructuring like we just had, but a restructuring of how we discuss.
I propose, that we all propose a few different models that may work, and we can all brainstorm to see how we can improve this. I will get us started with an idea, I hope others will follow with their ideas. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea here is that RFCN will be a place where people can get comments, about usernames. Instead of Allow, Disallow, people can simply make arguments and comments about the names merit in relation to policy. Instead of deciding if the name is to be allowed or not, it will simply be a place where comments are gathered. More of an information resource than a decision making committee.
An RFCN would run for 24 hours(or another length that we can agree on), or until an admin blocks the username, or an indef block for another reason. Any username block by the admin will be done by their own choice, not "per consensus". This means that admin decisions that are disagreed with would follow regular steps(Contact admin, get third opinion, ANI, talk page discussion etc...). If no admin has chosen to block the name after 24 hours the debate is closed, and the RFCN remains in the archives. If a RFCN needs to run longer(or shorter) than 24 hours for any reason, a consensus to do so on its talk page can be made.
When the RFCN is closed, the closing comments will consist of either "RFCN expired" or "User blocked by <name> with reason: <deletion summary>". This can be done by a bot.
The philosophy of this layout is de-bureaucratisize it, make it more in line with its name "request for comment", and make it less like an AfD. This process should be considerably less bitey.
Comments
I think this is one of the better ideas to come out of this discussion. While I have read the concerns in the discussion below, I still think there needs to be discussion before deciding if a username is appropriate or not. Removing the AfD-like Disallow, Allow votes should take some of the sting of this page away. Allowing comments from the community that a sysop would read prior to deciding whether or not they want to block a username would be a fair way to proceed. --Nick—Contact/Contribs17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comments period
This page doesn't need comments, it only needs to be a place for listing suspect usernames. If a name is a clear-cut policy violation, as judged by the blocking admin, case is closed. If the name is not, assume good WP:FAITH and only block the user if xe misbehaves. Simplicity is best, procedure isn't needed, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant<15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, no. I don't think it needs to be. Note how article RFCs do not resemble user RFCs, and that listing username violations on the RFC page is a matter of coincidence, not deliberate design. >Radiant<15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the community would benefit from less communication. I don't know of a single place on Wikipedia where decisions are made, but commenting not allowed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly commenting is allowed, for instance on the user's talk page or on the admin noticeboard or on the village pump. It's simply not necessary, if someone reports User:SomeInsultingName, that five or six people go "endorse block" or "do not block, it's funny" before anything happens. It's far better to tell new users "welcome but please make a new account because of that policy", than to tell them "welcome but we're not sure if your account name violates policy so we'll discuss that for five days or so and please join in the discussion after reading up on the actual policy". >Radiant<16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How is being blocked on sight better than being invited to a discussion? You seem to think a name is either in clear violation or it is not, but there is a gray area. My suggestion above allows for violations to be blocked on sight, but it also allows for a place that admins can post a name they want comments about. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people being "invited to a discussion" are not those who will be blocked on sight. If nobody can be brought to block on sight, then let this "grey area" go, let them edit in peace (if that's what they were going to do) and spare them the "discussion". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being blocked at sight is better, as long as account creation is kept enabled and the IP is not blocked. This tells the user they made a simple mistake and get to fix it right now. The user isn't blocked, only the account is; the user will likely respond "oh, I didn't know that, how's this name instead?". Dragging a novice into a bureaucratic process generates tension for them. >Radiant<09:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be basing your opinion on the belief that one person can tell if a name is in violation of policy. The policy is full of things like "offensive" and "inflammatory" that really need group discussion to decide. I cannot tell if a reference to Buddha is made in an insulting way, but an RFCN will provide much information about the subject. I think RFCN should lose it's teeth, become an advisory area instead of a decision making area, but I don't think we need to stop talking about complex username issues before making a decision. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The complex username issues are fairly bogus. If you can't tell if a reference to Buddha is made in an insulting way, then leave it. If nobody else sees why it is immediately offensive and blocks it, then nothing happens. This is almost always the correct outcome, especially considering the username is usually only going to be used once. If not, it can be re-opened later, if and when it becomes an issue. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then maybe you shouldn't decide. I can decide: I think it's usually pretty clear, and in cases where it isn't, I see no reason not to just default to allowing the name. Surely, if the name is actually going to cause a problem, it will cause one and it can be revisited, probably in the light of the name combined with questionable behavior. Frankly, WP:U should be explicit on this: when in doubt, assume good faith, don't bite the newbies, and don't block. Mangojuicetalk16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't decide to block them, a Betacommandbot will. Haven't we, quite recently, had altogether too much of unilateral no-discussion username blocks by admins? -- BenTALK/HIST
Admins are supposed to be trusted members of the community to make such decisions. Sometimes individual admins get it wrong. If you really believe no admin can be trusted to take reasonable decision then we all know where WP:RFA is (either that or you should be running as fast as you can from the project). If individual admins are getting it wrong, then it's the same process as we use for other disputes dispute resolution. Ranging from the informal to get them to see their thinking is out of line with the general community, to formal arbitration. The policy as it stands (or did last I looked) has a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" type clause for the borderline cases and specifically states that people shouldn't try to find "the line". For borderline instances, immediate review is potentially just inviting trolling by doing just that, keep trying to find the line, keep trying to "attack" and admin by stretching that. I'll encourage what I always encourage, if you aren't certain it is an immediate block, ignore it. There are enough people who look at these, that if no one believe it is an immediate block, chances are it isn't a problem. --pgk18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Admins are supposed to be trusted members of the community to make such decisions." And here I was thinking that admins were ordinary editors with some extra buttons, given "mops" not "crowns"; that they had only the same amount of voice-not-vote in decisions as anyone else, rather than being authorized "to make such decisions" for everyone else; that they were to use their buttons to enforce consensus, not ignore it. Perhaps I was thinking of some other Wikipedia. -- BenTALK/HIST19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you were. Anyone can flag up an inappropriate name for blocking, same way anyone can flag up a new article for speedy deletion or add a vandal to WP:AIV, admins are trusted to make a decision, block don't block, delete don't delete again block/don't block and for how long - we don't sit back and take a vote on it. The WP:AIV example is not actually a bad one, we define vandalism and there are sometimes disputes as to if certain editing constitutes vandalism or not, we don't have a RFC/V to lawyer over those cases, we take a common sense approach, and ultimately on WP:AIV and admin does make a call, this works has worked for a long time, as indeed had username blocking worked and worked for a long time, expanding the process doesn't actually seem to achieve anything. As to if they use the buttons to "enforce" consensus, yes it is consensus which forms the username policy in the first place, if an admin is consistently going against consensus then see dispute resolution. WP:NOT wikipedia is also not a democracy nor an anarchy nor a bureacracy. We don't put voting processes in place for the sake of it. You'll also note in terms of disputes lawyered around precise reading of a policy, we again go through dispute resolution within that process the "power" to give out arbitary blocks is with ARBCOM (who represent Jimbo), not a vote on RFC --pgk08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really that "obvious", when Betacommand's name (not a -bot's) was on all those username blocks? And he was denying that any -bot was involved? -- BenTALK/HIST19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sympathies to the victims of unnecessary username blocks, I do understand where you're coming from with this. But surely there is a way to overturn a username block that doesn't involve having to discuss a whole bunch of other usernames that were never blocked in the first place! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just because Betacommand appears to have made some mistakes does not mean we need to instantiate a bureaucracy. First, that doesn't actually solve the problem (because it doesn't stop him or somebody else from donig it again) and second it has undesirable side effects (BITEing). It fails the WP:CREEP-test. >Radiant<09:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of RFCN and all username issues going through WP:AIV/U
I have created a proposal of a new alert board soley for usernames which would work in the same way as AIV, users could report username, admins take a look, block if required or remove if there is no infringement. AIV helperbot could remove blocked usernames and discussion on usernames could take place at WP:AN, the link to my proposal is User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/URyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only for user-disputed cases
In my view, the ordinary gruntwork of blocking bad new usernames can be handled via WP:AIV (or a new WP:AIV/U board), with WP:ANI as a backup in case more explanation is needed. Normally, usernames do not require a "request for comments." However, in rare circumstances, open comments from the community may be helpful. I would prefer to see the board shut down entirely, and a full user conduct RFC used for cases needing wide input. However, short of that, what I suggest is a much higher standard before a case is listed, specifically:
A1. The user in question has been contacted about the concern,
A2. The user has explicitly declined to change their name, or has implicitly done so by continuing to editing with it while ignoring the concern,
A3. The username has not been blocked after a report to WP:ANI, and
A4. The only issue with the user's behavior is their username, or
B. The user in question has been contacted about the concern and wants community input on their name before deciding whether or not to change it.
If a user is already blocked, RFCN should not be used. If a user is blocked, they can request unblocking via the {{unblock}} template; if someone else questions the block, they should discuss it with the blocking admin or on the admin boards. In extreme cases, disagreements over a username block may require further community input, but then this becomes a question of the misuse of admin powers, and should be presented in a full WP:RFC/User. The one exception: if an admin wants feedback on their own block, they may request it at RFCN, but the understanding should be that it is up to them to decide to reverse the decision.
Most important, in my view, is my condition A2: this would eliminate almost all cases from RFCN as it stands now because it would eliminate all cases in which the user isn't making edits. It's also highly logical: if I were a new user and someone mentioned a username concern to me, I'd probably just make a new account instead of trying to discuss it. It's pretty lame to embark on a discussion about a user's name when they've already moved on to an appropriate one, and we can't always expect them to explicitly tell us that they've done so. Condition A3 is needed to establish that there is some significant dispute on the issue, and A4 is there to avoid moot debates about vandal-only accounts with bad names. Mangojuicetalk17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNP (Username Problems)
The title would need to be changed or re-redirected as this links to the username policy just now.
Proposal in a nutshell: Reduce the number of posts which need to get commented on and restore common sense for decisions for usernames which are covered by a part of the policy.
My proposal is that WP:RFCN is basically moved to the above with a slightly new structure which does not strictly follow an RFC:
Blatant username violations should still go to WP:AIV
If the reporting user feels that the username violation is not blatant or is rejected by AIV it should be listed on this page.
On UNP a couple/few admins (with some experience of the username policy) should watch the page. If they feel a listing is a violation, even if not blatant, they should block it and archive the listing. If they feel a username is not a violation, again even if not a blatant non-violation, they should archive/remove the listing. In a case where an admin is unsure then a note is left on UNP saying so and that comments would be appreciated (if a report gets to this stage the user (with the problematic name) should be informed). The report would then be closed per consensus based on the comments. This would help to reduce "snowball" discussions and not waste time arguing over usernames which really do not need to be argued over.
KeepWP:RFCN in present form, but: deter trolls; ensure consensus is determined by fact-and-policy-backed arguments, not simple vote-counting where specious votes weigh the same as reasoned votes. Keep WP:RFCN, but as it's supposed to run, supposed to have run all this time, without all the lapses that have occurred recently. -- BenTALK/HIST17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. If you want to encourage "fact-and-policy-backed arguments" without vote-counting, you should start by doing it yourself. —Centrx→talk • 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is to keepWP:RFCN in its present form, with the provisos I gave above. Your deleting the verb from a sentence in another person's comment, so that it says nothing at all, was rather rude. -- BenTALK/HIST18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparent that Ben was only bolding the basis of his idea. If he says he wasn't voting, then he probably wasn't voting. Isn't the whole point of this discussion to put a few more good-faith assumptions back into the process? To be honest, this isn't really helping matters. --Nick—Contact/Contribs18:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nick. Since the other ideas presented were not merely "bolded" but "bigged" (being section headers), I thought a merely "bolded" keyword under "Your idea here" was not excessive. Besides, since this isn't an XfD, if I were going to !vote, the starting word would have been "Endorse:" or "Oppose:" followed by one or more reasons, not a verb that was actually part of the sentence. -- BenTALK/HIST19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it wasn't part of the sentence, it seems perfectly appropriate to bold and place at the beginning the position argued in the reasoning. The Behnam19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to this issue, I think this is the best way to go about it, and it kind of ties into HighInBC's idea above. I think RFCN is a necessary process, but could use some reform. Simply providing AFD-like votes of "disallow" and "allow" seems to be the stem of the WP:BITE concerns. If we could turn this page into a place where usernames are actually discussed, not just voted upon, we might be able to resolve the concerns that have been raised. --Nick—Contact/Contribs19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think changing the format of the comment will help: with or without the leading "Allow" or "Disallow", the reasoning given can be sound or unsound, based on policy or whim, asserting fact or fantasy. Reducing the effect of unsound/whim/fantasy arguments requires active attention, both during discussion (to remind commenters) and afterwards (when determining the result). Having an admin who merely "counts votes" would be just as bad, even if he had to hand-tally each comment as "Allow" or "Disallow" in order to count them, due to the absence of that summary from the comments themselves. -- BenTALK/HIST20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same format, but request evidence that RFCN is required
This is a follow up proposal from the earlier Only for user-disputed cases one. I would suggest keeping the same format as now, with seperate pages for each request, with a simple tranclusion of the template onto the main page - this keeps it similar to User conduct RfC's. I have created the following preloaded template which occurs when a user starts a request; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/ Docs/ CaseForm2. The user must provide diffs to show that the user in question has requested comments on their username, so in effect, the username concern is disputed. I fully support Mangojuice's earlier proposal and this is simply an addition to it. Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposal too. It is fair and does not waste editor's time on non-significant discussions where the user in question has not made any edits. Although, I am not sure about A3 on Mangojuice's, would this not waste ANI's time. Donato (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting "evidence" is a bad idea, because (1) people can just link to the username policy and give their interpretation of that, (2) it will lead to meta-debate about whether or not the evidence is valid, and (3) it allows trolls to wikilawyer their way out of here because "there's no evidence of offense". >Radiant<09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be adding bureacracy to me. The process a year ago I'm sure was a lot simpler, what problems in that are trying to be fixed? --pgk10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea here
Return to Calm?
Just pointing out unless anyone noticed that there was a sort of 'return to calm' earlier after the particularly bad set of RFCN's, which has now been thrown in the air AGAIN after someone decided to MfD RFCN, and has been made far worse by everyone throwing out their ideas for reform? We now have an argument over whether Admins should be the only ones to deal with usernames, or if a community discussion is better. Might I point out that this is not a utopia, and there is not going to be any single perfect solution to the matter of RFCNs. Furthermore, this discussion comes directly on the heals of some pretty heated RFCN, and I believe reflects more of people's distaste for what occurred than anything else. The board was fine, and although discussions were heated some times things were on the level weeks ago. Recently, we've had a situation where certain users caused disruption to the board.
Although Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a democracy, it is not an autocracy either. Admins are simply editors who have been entrusted with certain additional functions. Their judgment is in no way more or less accurate than any member of the Wikipedia community, and any discussions on reform should reflect this fact. To leave RFCN the way it is would be irresponsible, but so would doing away with it and entrusting all decision in an area of dispute to admins. Just my 2 cents for on the matter... now I'll go and prepare a bullet proof vest, helmet, and remain in an underground bunker awaiting the flak I know I'm going to get over this. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cascadia writes: "Recently, we've had a situation where certain users caused disruption to the board." Or as I see it, recently we've had a situation where certain users interpreted determined disagreement and (eventually) successful advocacy as "disruption." Somehow I don't think "It's Only Disruption When The Other Guy Does It" is a winning slogan for Wikipedia. TortureIsWrong19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behold, the nature of change, a common feature to a wiki. Sometime slow and steady other times sweeping and drastic. The fact is if there are so many people wanting this page deleted then it does not have the community support it should. So attempts at reform are both productive and needed(in my opinion). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with new method.
I had the page watchlisted originally. Now I don't get to see each vote because they don't show up on my watchlist. We need to go back to the old method. G.O.13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
