Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Syntax malfunction

Following the prescribed format {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}} I posted as follows:
{{subst:rfcn1|LespasBot|[[WP:UN]] states explicitly: unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with bot. I have raised the issue with the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALespasBot&action=historysubmit&diff=433190071&oldid=433185773 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALespasBot&action=historysubmit&diff=433234585&oldid=433231529 here] but she has removed my comments without responding on both occasions. User may feel under attack from me as I have raised AfD's on two articles she created ([[Quintain(5lines)]] and [[Quintain (poetry)]], where, incidentally, she has been blanking. ~~~~}}
but instead of the expected listing, what appeared was:
===LespasBot=== {{#if:|<div style="display:none;">}} {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia| |{{error:not substituted|Rfcn1}}<div style="display:none;">}} {{user|LespasBot}} :{{{2}}} {{#if:|</div></div>}}
Helpdesk response was "Many templates will break down where they contain URLs with equal signs in them. Try adding "2=" before the reason", and this worked. In order to avoid such problems in future, would it not make sense to alter the prescribed syntax to {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolded recommendations?

I'm slightly confused over these edits. I understand that bolded recommendations here "are not necessary," but I don't see any prohibition on using them if an editor wishes to do so. Certainly correct me if I am wrong, however; I want any future comments I make on user names to follow proper protocol. But it seems to me that bolded recommendations, even if not required, are the most common way editors are leading off their comments, at least over the several months that I've been following and participating in discussions here. I'd welcome just a little bit of clarity about this matter. Thank you! --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolded recommendations are fine, and we use them all the time. Vote-counting without checking arguments often isn't fine, but that's a question for the person who closes the request, not for the participants of the discussion. Following "proper protocol" isn't 100% necessary, as this isn't a bureaucracy. What is really not fine is blinking, so I have reverted these edits. —Kusma (t·c) 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC- user:organization name

Moved from project page

Unresolved

Hey - I have no username to review yet. I want to ask about setting up accounts which are named for an organization, and this is in violation of WP:ORGNAME. I want to ask about precedent and maybe WP:IAR.

I work in medical technology and I have been talking with the public relations departments of some major international health organizations. A lot of these organizations have specific departments for promoting health education.

Officials in these departments are interested in exploring the possibility of releasing large numbers of their company-owned photographs into the public domain, or GNU or CC:0, or whatever else is best for Wikimedia Commons. These photographs would be depictions of health issues and health devices of broad general interest to the public and in my opinion, especially valuable for an encyclopedia.

Here is the issue - I know that Wikipedia has a release form for requesting a third party to allow someone like me to upload media content into Commons on behalf of someone else. I could bring this up, but I think it is not best. What I think is best is a companyname useraccount which uploads the media content and provides proof of its affiliation with the company, as right now, the huge number of pictures (hundreds, if not thousands) to be uploaded are all property of these non-profit health orgs. The company itself is going to have to make some kind of declaration that yes, the pictures were taken and rights are owned by the company, and yes, now it wants to transfer those rights to a free license and make available to the public so that the public can use them for any purpose by Wikimedia Commons standards.

Is this the way to go? Surely the company PR person should not open a personal account in their own name for the purpose of uploading pictures on behalf of their employer, as that person does not actually own the rights to the pictures - the company does. However, this seems to be the advice given by current guidelines.

What is the precedent in this case? How does a science organization with lots of technical pictures get them into Commons, and keep a record that they were the originators of the pictures (not to keep rights, but only to prove that they were legitimately granted)? Can company usernames be created in this case for this purpose? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If this concerned potential Wikipedia contributors, it would probably belong at WT:Username policy. That being said, it looks like you are mostly asking about Commons usernames, so perhaps this is best posted at commons:Commons talk:Username policy. From Commons:Username policy#Company/group names it appears that "a username such as 'Microsoft' will be blocked unless the contributor can show they are official representatives of that company or group, via e-mail to info-enwikimedia.org". –xeno^talk 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just moved this talk to this board at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Username_policy. For the purposes of this board, the issue is

Resolved

Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, actually it seems

Unresolved

due to lack of userbase discussing username issues on Commons. If anyone here is interested in the topic of usernames and has an interest in Wikimedia Commons issues, could you weigh in on the Commons username talk page? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved from project page –xeno^talk 23:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hail the Dark Lord Satan

I'm disappointed, that editors have chosen to support deleting an editor's moniker, over religious concerns. Also, disappointed if that editor has been indef-blocked, because of his moniker. GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User was blocked for disruption at this ANI - not because of this RFCN. 7 06:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's not clear (I just skimmed throught the ANI report), has HtDLS been indef-blocked for socking? GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The closing admin's comments clearly indicate the reason for blocking. 7 06:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an atheist, I see no reason to see this as about 'religious concerns'. Instead, it seemed to be about an egotistical jerk looking to make trouble by needlessly antagonising people, and succeeding. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't include his/her choice of moniker, though. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to suggest that "his/her choice of moniker" wasn't evidence for premeditated troublemaking? Do you really think that he/she was intent on making a positive contribution to Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have said this repeatedly in the RFCN, and I will say it again here.

Take your pick. We are not the U.S. Congress, and we have no obligation to allow free speech if it is not conductive to our goal of writing an encyclopedia. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 07:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to give a 'thumbs down' on these results. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on user names

No responses so far on a username RfC I started (concerning usernames containing orgnames), so perhaps I should advertise it a bit. It's at WT:Username policy#RfC: user names containing organization names. Victor Yus (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Non admin closure

Shall we allow non-admin closure for these. There is a case today where the account is already blocked as a VOA. Seems pointless to debate the merits of the username at this point. 7 23:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be ok for non-admins to close cases, especially ones where there is obvious consensus or otherwise uncontroversial like you mention above, similarly to how requested move closes are now performable by non-admins. Adminship shouldn't be about more than the specific tools we have access to. If a non-admin closes a case in a way that requires a username block, though, they'll need to get prompt admin attention (maybe by posting at WP:UAA?). -kotra (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kotra. 7 05:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Just went to go close it out and I see you just did. 7 05:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll save the next one for you. ;) -kotra (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's not just for admins now, I suggest we move the page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Closing instructions (matching Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions) -kotra (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. 7 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)