Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cascadia (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 23 May 2007 (→‎Too rapid closing?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reviewing new system

I would say our new system is functioning well. Biting seems down, bickering is definitely down, voting is way down. Usernames are being dealt with. Other peoples opinions? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly working better, I'm keeping tabs on what reports come here - so far I'm unconvinced that we actually need this page at all, everything that's come through here has been obvious in one way or another. I think we should re-evaluate this page in another 2-4 weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a few cases where people were unclear if something was a symbol of hate or such, those discussions seemed productive. It is about as active now as it was for the months before it exploded in usage. The lack of bickering on this talk page or WT:UAA shows that something is working right. (H) 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of names are being reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention - many of which are borderline and I've moved here. I think one of the automated scripts (Twinkle?) is sticking them there. I'm not sure what the script does but it's not a substitute for reading the policy. Secretlondon 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that users who mis-use TWINKLE are a bit of a problem. Non blatant usernames should just be removed from WP:UAA. We have already created a template for the user pages of mis-reporters to explain how things work. (H) 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too rapid closing?

How long should discussions be open for?

(How come "Ment4lbre4kdown" was closed so early? Mental breakdown is an outdated way to refer to mental health problems. Section 5 says 'Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way.' whic, IMO, pretty clearly covers "Ment4lbre4kdown". ) Dan Beale 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this example, I would say consensus was present and, as you have explained, the term as a medical reference is outdated. GDonato (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the outdatedness of the medical reference more, not less, reason to block the username? especially in a belittling way Dan Beale 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's used for comments so an admin can decide what action to take, if they feel they don't need any more comments then they can close at will - however long it's been open for. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, what Ryan said. (H) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I agree most names are clear allow or block. But if they're here, shouldn't there be some time to allow people to have a say? I don't want to bang on about this name because the decision has been made and I don't want to seem like I'm trying to change it, but using it as an example it seems a pretty clear vio of section five. Dan Beale 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion... perhaps if you feel it needs to be open a while longer to get some good feedback, then perhaps the admin considering closing could note something like this:
  • Please do not close, I am seeking to have this remain open for 24 hours to get proper feedback. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 00:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=132817022"