Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighInBC (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 14 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

As we all know, WP:RFCN is the place we go to discuss username violations. Most of the usernames that come to the board are clear cut, either obvious blocks or names that are obviously OK. In many ways this has been superceeded by UAA, in so much that admins who fully understand the username policy monitor the page and block or remove names from the list. I've been looking hard at this for a while now, and there aren't many names that go to RFCN that actually need discussion, if it is required, this could easily be done on an admin board and wouldn't add too much traffic to the page. At the minute, all I'm seeing from the page is one person making a good argument, and others either saying exactly the same thing, or putting "per Ryan" - this completely goes against the purpose of the page, which is there to advise admins on what to do with a username. It's also a very bitey page as well, a users first experience on wikipedia being a convoluted discussion of their name, between people they've never heard of, resulting in a block. In my opinion, a short, sharp soft block is all that is required with these usernames, allowing a user to move on and choose a new username without even making an edit from their blocked account. I also refer back to the first MfD where the result was reform, yet nothing here has changed and in many ways it's got worse. If there was a way to change this page to make it more feasible, then I would be all for that, however I believe that UAA and AN could easily handle these discussions without all the bureaucracy, hence why I believe this should be deleted or tagged as historical. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's the real reason Ryan proposed this. Read that if you're really motivated. I don't agree that none of the reforms in the first one have been instituted. We do boot names off where the user hasn't been notified (reform 1), we do suggest they talk to the user first (reform 2, which is a corollary of 1), and it is the place to list items you are unsure of (reform 3).Rlevse 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith, Rlevse. --Ali'i 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously that is part of the reason, as I've mentioned it in the nom, but there are other problems as well. It's all goes down to the mentality of the people commenting that isn't going to change. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really have to object to the above comment, sorry Ryan. The problems with RFCN have little to do with the people who participate, and to say that everyone who participates at RFCN has the wrong mentality, is a bit unfair. The problems stem from WP:U and the range of interpretations of the username policy. I believe everyone who participates at RFCN has the good of Wikipedia at heart, and that established editors who contribute to RFCN fully understand that it is there to judge consensus, not to "vote" on specific names. Ariel♥Gold 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite everyone's best efforts, reform has failed. It might work for a little while, but soon enough, it devolves back to its old ways. Since this page is basically redundant to the administrator's noticeboard and Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, I'm inclined to opine that this should be tagged as historical. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've silently been monitoring this page for a few weeks and come to the the conclusion that while the good will of the participants and their desire to help the project is unquestionable, this page is a clear case of instruction creep and distracts from encyclopedia writing more than it helps. Any uncaught vandals and bad faith editors will already be blocked after a few edits so even in the best case this only reduces vandalisms marginally, and the risk of unintentionally scaring away newbies seems significant. If this had been my first encounter with the Wikipedia community, I would have been greatly discouraged from the start. henrik•talk 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shut down and tag as historical I'm against total deletion, but I think that RFCN needs to be closed. The newcomer-biting is very worrying, and I wonder how many users were turned away from Wikipedia by being listed at that page. RFCN doesn't appear to be much better (if at all) than it was six months ago. Acalamari 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shut down and tag as historical I'm going to be honest. The functionality of this page has steadil;y been decreasing over the last month or so. There are only very rarely cases that take a good amount of discussion. I think that this page should be declared dysfunctional, and we should broaden the scope of usernames that can be fairly reported to UAA and be blocked, and widen the margin of sysop discretion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm just going to put my general comments. First, to begin with, our username policy is bitey. There's no getting around that; it is designed to block users with inflammatory or confusing names from editing. For many users, they don't think their name is inflammatory or confusing, but are summarily blocked — a user whose name is "CookieBot" would be blocked. There's really not any way to get around it; many users will end up finding their first experience with Wikipedia is being blocked because their name is not allowed. This page, being part of that policy, is going to be a little bit bitey no matter what we do; even if it was working 100% correctly, the first experience for many editors would be as Ryan describes above. However, I'm not sure that's any worse than just being blocked.
With that said, this page has and probably still is being too bitey. People bring names to that page which are dubiously invalid, and never warn the user. In addition, many "speedy blocks" or "speedy not-blocks" occur, which don't allow an international view of the name. The idea of the page is to advise admins, but often action is being taken without a good cross-section of views being taken.
With that said, I don't know what the alternative is. Our username policy is flexible; we require some forum for the discussion of usernames which are borderline. I'm not sure that the posited alternative, of merging this to WP:AN is a good one, since we really don't need more views, we need a better method of dealing with views. Perhaps if we soften what WP:UAA is used for, we could end up with a better venue, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem. --Haemo 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shut down. Ryan actually beat me here, I was thinking about nominating this page myself recently. First, reform was mandated but has failed. Second, the username policy is already enforced harshly enough; username violations that would not be blocked at WP:UAA are just not a big deal if we just let them slide. Third, this is a horrible process for solving a dispute that, at the core, is something that the "target" typically takes very personally. Input from the user is not even expected; most postings get closed within a day or two so it's not even possible for most users to make comments, and the user's opinion, if they do give it, is not given any special consideration even though the process concerns them so significantly. Indeed, virtually all listings (I checked through all the archived ones from September to now) are not valid according to the page's own instructions, because insufficient attempts have been made to discuss the issue with the user, which is what WP:U specifies. In fact, I'll go one step farther: discussion with users about their usernames almost never happens anymore, because of the existence of this page. We just don't need this board; for the extremely rare cases where extensive discussion is really necessary, there is always the ordinary WP:RFC process. Mangojuicetalk 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag historical. My last run in there was a waste of time indeed, and not only because I failed to achieve the intended result. If you're in doubt about whether a username violates the username policy, for crying out loud: don't block. ➪HiDrNick! 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag historical I too have been reading it and it does seem that many of the cases are clear cut or could be simply addressed at UAA; the discussion there is often quite long too. So I believe while this page was good, it has lost much of its use and reforms having failed, the page should be tagged historical. Phgao 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throw upon the garbage heap of history This is the first time I lay my eyes upon this page and I dearly hope the last. A parody of XfD, with people's names instead of article titles. I'd rather have people calling themselves User:Fuck God in his Faggot Ass with a Big Nigger Dick than this.--Victor falk 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{historical}} it, per above users' reasoning. A lot of the cases that are brought to this page should have been dealt with at UAA, rather than wasting a whole lot of time discussing whether it violates the policy, when it obviously does and should be blocked. And then there's the issue of not contacting the user in question about their name before submitting the request... seriously bitey stuff goes on at RFCN, I think it's time for it to stop. ~ Sebi [talk] 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shut down and tag as historical, I never agreed to having this page exist in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I participate in RFCN. RFCB doesn't work. It's inconsistant; decisions don't always follow policy; people !vote; sometimes people apply policy way too aggressively; sometimes there's a feeling of an "unsuitable username patrol" - and that's sub-optimal. tag as historical. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like RFCU, but... people won't take the hassle to bring it to WP:ANI. That will result in even more bordeline, unreviewed, username blocks. Are we sure we want this? -- lucasbfr talk 13:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already not allowed to "appeal" username blocks at RFCN. This doesn't exist to appeal blocks so much as to attempt to block unblocked borderline cases. Which we could probably just let slide. Mangojuicetalk 14:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on principle, as I strongly disagree with Ryan about the validity of "per X" comments. Such comments are valuable, because they demonstrate added weight of support for a particular viewpoint; they demonstrate that person X's rationale is the one accepted by the community, and therefore allow the closing admin to make a decision based on community support rather than his/her own opinion. However, his other criticisms of the RfCN process are probably valid (I don't know, because I haven't even looked at RfCN for months, hence why this is a weak keep). WaltonOne 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag historical Though I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way RFCN has been working in terms of dealing with newcomers, it is plain that there is too much overlap with UAA for it to be anything but redundant. VanTucky Talk 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. UAA is for blatant violations; if in doubt, assume good faith and let the user go, or try RFCN to get some outside opinions. Melsaran (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the theoretical difference between UAA and RFCN. But in practice, those names which are not blatant enough for UAA are usually too borderline to elicit a strong consensus, thus making the process useless. Most of the names which I have seen get a clear-cut consensus should have been posted at UAA in the first place. The other issue is, and I think your comments below are a symptom of this, that no one can seem to agree on exactly how this thing should operate and what it should resemble. When you have just about every user operating under a different paradigm, it makes the process unworkable. And I don't think the present RFCN can be altered to deal with this comprehensively. Maybe in the future someone can create a radically different way for the community to have some input on usernames, but right now I think it's time to give it a rest. VanTucky Talk 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assume good faith and let them go or [don't assume good faith] and try RFCN? That is about what it amounts to. (Also note that in the prior reforms you were supposed to actually attempt to contact the user first. If there is a real problem with a username, someone will notice. If the user edits... anyone watching edits will see the user and his name. I'd just assume good faith until someone can actually show that the name is a problem. A very good comment right now on WP:RFCN#AnarcistPig is the following The policy forbids usernames which are blatantly offensive, not usernames that could maybe, somehow, possibly, or someday be offensive. I'm going to move to allow. by VanTucky. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe something we need to realise is that it is called "requests for comment" and not "votes for disallowing a username". It is currently acting as a vote, much like AFD but with blocking a username instead of deleting an article. It should be a place where admins can go with borderline cases, when they are unsure what to do with a certain username, to get a few outside opinions. I think this page, if used correctly, actually encourages us to be less WP:BITEy since admins who are in doubt with a username reported at WP:UAA can get some outside opinions before blocking. If we shut down this page, borderline cases will probably be discussed at WT:UAA or WP:ANI instead, and I think it's better to have a centralised page for this. If we shut it down, users will probably be blocked by "admin discretion", which in practice boils down to "I block this username because I think it's offensive, if you disagree then go to ANI and request an unblock", as opposed to the current practice: "I think this username is offensive, if the community agrees then we block it, else we leave the user alone". Melsaran (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However this has been tried once. See the prior MFD. Such a method would be useful... but if you are in doubt as an admin, leave it for another admin, or drop a note on a few folks talk pages... what is there now is unacceptable, we tried the reform route... did not work. I think we should try going without any such RFCN for a while and see if admins actually can find a few cases where they can't just leave it for another admin etc. If you have doubts about something.. don't block, either leave it or remove it as not blocking. If they turn out to be a troll or vandal, block for edits. If someone actually finds a problem later, and they are a good contributor deal with it with a proper request for comment. —— Eagle101Need help? 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with merging the function into WP:AN and I think we need a place for non-admins to report potential violations at other then the WP:AIV-style WP:UAA. If the problem is with user behavior, then the behavior won't change with it being under WP:AN. If the problem is with policy or the guidelines then the policy or guidelines need to be changed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, instead of having a discussion on disallowing a username, we should instead just have an admin that sees the name block immediately? Because that's MUCH less bitey. -Amarkov moo! 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and WE CAN'T MERGE EVERYTHING INTO ANI. -Amarkov moo! 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until I hear a good answer to Amarkov and Lucasbfr. GDonato (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above by various users, being blocked for username concerns in the first place is bitey. On WP:UAA admin discretion serves as a large purpose of the page. For example some admins may allow a particular name, while others may block that name. I have seen on many occassions names being removed from WP:UAA as allowed and later being blocked when it is readded to the page. At least on WP:RFCN, there is an attempt to gain some kind of consensus although I do agree that it should be more like a discussion than a voting system as it currently is. So I believe that reforming the page to be like that is more sensible than simply deleting or tagging as historical. In my opinion, as I have mentioned before, the WP:U policy itself could be made clearer. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shut down and tag historical - it seems that we keep trying to reform this thing, but in the end, we come back to the same concerns. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. How many times have we had the same discussion about this, resulting in the same suggestions for reform, and then starting the cycle over? Let's trust our admins and trust their discussion and just take it to WP:UAA. It was a nice experiment, but let's just accept that it failed, despite our very best intentions, and move on. In addition, I'm seeing this page turn more and more into a POINT-y place where people find an excuse to wikilawyer. It was nice training for citing policy when I was toying with the idea of becoming an admin, but in the end, I think it does more harm than good. - Philippe | Talk 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We only have adminship because we don't want to allow some actions to be taken by just anyone. "Trusting" them in the sense of removing processes to discuss possible administrative actions was never part of it. -Amarkov moo! 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if you disagreed with an admins decision at UAA, you are more than welcome to take it to AN/I for a review. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amarkov, that process just doesn't scale. Let's take it to extreme... do we discuss most vandalism blocks before we do them? Nope. We discuss the extra-ordinary - the unusual ones. Most of the names brought to UAA are not extra-ordinary or unusual. They're garden variety. If we see a need to discuss extraordinary ones, we have a mechanism in place for that: AN/I or AN. - Philippe | Talk 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that many names are clear enough that they don't need discussion, which is why we have UAA in the first place. I'm not advocating deleting that. As for replacing this with ANI: as I've said before, we can't just make ANI the noticeboard for any and all complaints, or it will be too crowded for any practical use. Having all discussion on anything take place on one page is bad. And it's not like ANI is somehow immune from the voting everyone complains about; it's just that many discussions there have nothing to vote on. -Amarkov moo! 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{Edit Conflict} Im not debating the trustworthiness of admins. Admins are trusted users who were selected by the community but don't you think WP:U could be made clearer and that username discretions can vary quite significantly. This is different from blocking vandals. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On UAA, all that is needed to block a name is one admin who thinks the name is a violation. RFCN acts as a "safety valve" where wider input can be sought on names that might need blocking, and an admin who is unsure on whether a name can refer it to RFCN. If RFCN is closed, I fear that many admins will block borderline names "to be on the safe side" because they know that if they do not block it, there is no other recourse. Personally, I think there is wayyy to much blocking going on over usernames, and putting more weight on the block-heavy UAA process is a step in the wrong direction. Also note that my own name (which I honestly can't see any problem with) was only allowed after a RFCN discussion. An admin wanted to block it as a blatant violation. Is he back? 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is not what is going on now. The current MO of most admins seems to be that it is better to block too many than too few. Take the example of Die4Dixie, whose name was allowed in a recent RFCN. That name could be seen as promoting slavery, or killing Blacks, etc., but the community spoke out and found that this name is OK because of the many other legitimate interpretations. However, if RFCN had not existed, and "Die4Dixie" had popped up on UAA, I'll bet that the admin would think "hmm, it could be bad, but I'm not sure. But if I don't block it, there's a chance many people will find the name offensive and I will have let a vandal slip by. I'll block it just to be on the safe side". Regardless of what the policies and rules say, UAA today is a block factory, and I'm quite sure removing RFCN will lead to more borderline names being blocked and newbies being driven away. But hey, they're only newbies, so they don't matter, right? Is he back? 10:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary section break 1
  • Tag historical I like the idea of shutting down RFCN and moving discussions to the admins' noticeboard. I had a situation a while ago with a user who chose the username "KaseyKahne", which is a violation because it resembles the real name Kasey Kahne. I gave him a "username concern" notice, and referred him to RFCN, and he chose a new name. No big deal. But that really didn't require much discussion, just an easy mechanism for him to start over with a new name. I believe UAA for simple cases, and AN for complicated cases, would be sufficient for that. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep it is useful resource. Usernames that need discussion can't be discussed at UAA, the physical dimensions of the board can't handle long discussions. RFCN is an excellent way to do this. Also, a number of users have recently began adding thier own ames to RFCN in order to check if they are suitable. They would be less inclined to do so at UAA, and it would be worse for them as UAA is more likely to take direct action rather than discuss it with them SGGH speak! 09:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically per Amarkov and Is he back. Deleting this page amounts to leaving more decisions in hands of the admins, being more WP:BITEy, and the "block, then discuss/take to ANI" mentality. See my comments above. Melsaran (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The borderline names will just go to WP:UAA where it will be all up to whatever admin comes along and sees it, so there will be no gauging of community feeling on the borderline ones. Rlevse 14:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=164511417"