Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment | User names

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KeithD (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 2 September 2005 (→Motion to reverse username change: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Trollderella

This RFC is for the purpose of determining whether User:Trollderella's username is appropriate, and, if not, what ought to be done about it.

I claim "Trollderella" is an inappropriate username under the guidelines stated at Wikipedia:Username because it is confusing and inflammatory. Trollderella has been advised by various parties to change it, but has not done so. I want Trollderella to change his/her username, involuntarily if necessary.

The name "Trollderella" is inflammatory because it is a statement "I am a troll". It is confusing because other users cannot readily determine whether this user is really a troll or not.

It is true that there has been one well-meaning editor whose username included the word "troll", namely the former User:ClockworkTroll. The existence of said user does not negate the inflammatory and confusing aspects of the name User:Trollderella.

This RFC is not for the purpose of determining whether User:Trollderella is a troll.

Wile E. Heresiarch 18:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This troubling RFC violates the principles of don't bite the newbies and assume good faith. Kappa 19:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still wondering whether to comment more generally or not, but this does not bite a newbie since the editor has been asked several times, nicely, to change. They are as yet under no obligation so to do, but they have not, to my knowledge, responded at all to those requests either "yes" or "no". There is no biting in making an RfC in those circumstances. -Splash 20:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What nonsense. If that were the case, we could never block people with offensive user names because they're newbies. And in the second case, Trollderella is not a newbie. And I have to agree that he is living up to his name. Zoe 21:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any great problem with this user's name. Comment: Wile E. Heresiarch says that Trollderella "has been advised by various parties to change it". But Trollderalla has also been advised by others that his name is fine. — Matt Crypto 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I rarely agree with Trollderella's VfD votes, I see nothing inflammatory about the choice of name. --GraemeL (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found this user willing to engage in dialogue; while his/her name may be problematic, it is much more of an issue to me if problematic =behavior= arises. Seeing none of that so far (except for a penchant for hyperinclusionism:)), I think advisement that the name is inappropriate is all that is necessary. Denni☯ 03:30, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem here, no confusing or inflammatory effects resulting from his username that I've seen. Trollderella's very inclusionist to be sure but in my experience has been level headed and reasonable when challenged on it. Rx StrangeLove 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything wrong with it. I wouldn't even see something wrong with the username Vandal or something like that. People are allowed to make jokes, you know? Of course, if they actually behave like their username suggests, then the name will just make things harder for them, and would generally be a valid reason to not quite assume good faith for so long; but as long as they're on good behavior, I don't see why we should worry so much about that kind of username. And, really, when they are real trolls, then I'm all in favor of letting the trolls and vandals label themselves for us. Aquillion 05:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to say that I am tolerant and unprejudiced enough to be perfectly OK with the username, but that would be dishonest. I do have to say that usernames containing the word "troll" make me slightly jittery. However, the objective side of me says that "Trollderella" is acceptable, and that it probably is a contraction of the trolls from fairy tales and Cinderella. As long as Trollderella's contributions to Wikipedia remain valid (and looking at the contributions to the main article namespace, I see no evidence that they are not), there is no good objective reason to demand a username change. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's some obscure Anglosaxon-only joke I'm missing here, I don't see anything wrong with the user name "Trollderella". — JIP | Talk 07:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see that it is objectionable. While Kappa is wrong to state that this was done in bad faith and "bites" a newbie, I do think that the name is acceptable. We should be worried about troll-like behavior, not usernames.—Encephalon | ζ  08:43:20, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
    • I did not state this was done in bad faith. Kappa 08:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Kappa. You stated that this "troubling" RfC "violates the principles of... assume good faith." This reasonably implies that the RfC was not done in good faith, i.e. was done in bad faith. I am happy to note, however, that it appears you did not mean what you said. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  09:06:10, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
        • Um do you understand that "assume good faith" means "assume that the other party is acting in good faith", not "act in good faith yourself"? 09:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-29 09:29:31 (UTC)
          • Kappa, please read WP:FAITH. You did not inquire of Wile E. Heresiarch whether he'd given the benefit of the doubt to Trollderella and assumed good faith; instead, you characterized his RfC as troubling, and stated that it was a violation of WP:FAITH. This can perfectly be seen to mean that you're saying the RfC was not done in good faith; more generous interpretations are also, I freely concede, plausible, if, IMO, exceedingly improbable. Please be careful with invoking WP:FAITH, Kappa; you have accused other editors, even in edit summaries, of acting in bad faith when it was quite clear they were simply doing their best for WP [1]. To your credit, you have also eventually conceded their good intentions [2]. One would hope that these experiences will compel greater discretion when asserting that others' actions violate the good faith policy.—Encephalon | ζ  12:18:35, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
            • OK you appear not to understand that "assuming good faith" is different from "acting in good faith" but I believe the difference should be clear. Kappa 15:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That this is patently untrue is clear from the above exchange; what is also clear, perhaps unfortunately, is that no good purpose is served by a continuation of this digression. All the best, Kappa.—Encephalon | ζ  00:42:43, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Objectionable name. I find some of his edits rather suspicious, a very large number of VFD votes, more than main space edits. Someone should check if he is a sockpuppet. --TimPope 09:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEH sums it up with This RFC is not for the purpose of determining whether User:Trollderella is a troll. While I also disagree with most of TD's VfD votes, he's consistent with a given rationale and I don't see how this RfC is anything more than heavy-handed peer pressure. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 12:53:59, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the username. Trollderella probably needs to realize that his/her edits will probably be scrutinized a little more than User:FooFooMerrySunshine's, just because of the name. Other than that, I see no problem. Joyous (talk) 23:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • While, like others, I often disagree with Trolderella's VfD votes, I do not have a problem with the user name either. Groeck 00:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any issues with assume good faith here, I think we can safely assume Trollderella created the name with no bad intentions, however given the connotations it has here, I do think she should change it, like ClockWorkTroll did when asked (eventually. I can understand that it's not a nice thing to have to do so people will hesitate, but doing the right thing in the end is what matters). If she refuses force may be necessary, but I trust that should the community decide the name is inappropriate she'll change it herself. --fvw* 03:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP this RfC is dumb, untill Trollderalla can be shown to be behaving in an abusive manner, let her keep her username. Klonimus 08:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Who is doing the trolling here, Trollderella or User:Wile E. Heresiarch? —RaD Man (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support Ed's decision - It isn't a matter of what he has done but that it violates existing policy. Nothing about this should be a judgement of the individual but merely an application of policy. - Tεxτurε 18:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

name change

Policy clearly states:

The primary purpose of user names is to identify and distinguish contributors. This facilitates communication and record-keeping. The user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement. No one has a right to any particular user name.

So, I'm changing this contributor's name. One "troll" sounds like another, leading to confusion. Plus the purpose of the choice seems to be more to tick off others (like Zoe) than to provide a distinguishing identifying tag. In short, the username is offensive if only in that the choice makes a statment that the community cannot restrict names! (In itself, a trollish thing to do.)

I'm calling you EnduranceFan. You can apply for a different name if you prefer. Ask Angela or UninvitedCompany, or any other Bureaucrate. Uncle Ed 00:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, given that the RfC above indicates if not consensus then at least a strong majority for accepting the username as valid, you may want to review your action in light of your recent vow to abandon unilatoral actions on controversial points. --fvw* 03:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know this was a matter for us all to vote on. I exercised my judgment and determined that the name violates policy. If another bureaucrat disagrees, they will surely undo the change. Uncle Ed 03:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucrats serve the community, they are not a separate ruling class. --fvw* 03:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
But isn't it only the "troll" part of the name that happens to violate policy? Why not call him "Enduraderella"? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least give him notice that you're going to do this so he has a chance to pick another one? Seems only fair... Rx StrangeLove 03:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a vote, or a voting matter. We shouldn't set a precedent of the community being able to forcibly change a username by weight of numbers. Trollderella/EnduranceFan can challenge the name change very easily, as Ed's talk page is always available. It's more than a little arrogant to decline to comment here, too. -Splash 03:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just leave poor Trollderella's name alone. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I think you might want to read the section of the Username Policy on changing inapproprate usernames a bit more carefully, particularly if you're going to keep referring to it. While this is not a voting matter, it clearly states consensus is needed to change a username:
"After an appropriate time for discussion, a sysop can take a judgement on the name in question. They should only take action if their judgement is that a "rough consensus" has arisen that the username is inappropriate."
There is certainly no consensus here (not even a rough one) that Trollderella's username is inapproprate; if anything, there is a decided consensus that it is not. While the username policy does let you use your own judgement, it lets you use your judgement to determine consensus, not to ignore it. You can only change username within policy by first determining a rough consensus exists that it is inappropriate; as far as I can tell, you haven't claimed that here. If you're unhappy with that policy and want to change it to give yourself more leeway, you should do it through the approprate channels. Aquillion 05:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is out of line. If there was solid consensus or at least a fair majority against the user name above then Ed's action might be halfway reasonable, but the correct course would still be to 1) inform the user of the community's verdict 2) give the user a set length of time in which to choose a new name 3) implement the name change at the end of that period—if the user never specified a new name then this is a case where choosing a new name on the user's behalf could be a legit option. But all that is moot in this case because the general opinion above seems to be that the user name is tentatively OK, although some people are a little suspicious and may want to keep an eye on the user. So I think Ed needs to respect what the community is saying, and not just act independently. Nobody disputes that when we promote somebody to a higher position like admin or bureaucrat we invest them with a little room for subjective decision making in cases where the rules are not perfectly clear. But when one of these people acts completely without regard for community feeling, even when it has already been made known, then that is in my opinion an abuse of the trust we've placed in the admin or bureaucrat. Everyking 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that Trollderella's user name was changed when there's a clear consensus that his/her name is all OK. Even more so when it appears that the user wasn't asked for his/her own opinion. IMAO, the name should be changed back, unless the user him/herself is happy with the new name. — JIP | Talk 04:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At a quick glance, I find 11 comments supporting Trollderella's user name and 2 comments opposing it. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly out of line name change since there is a consensus that the name is OK. One other thing: if Wile E. wanted Trollderella to change the username, he would have been far more likely to obtain that by asking rather than going ahead and blocking with the comment "if you are a troll, go away". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Ed's actions were incorrect, and Trollderella's name should be reinstated. There is no consensus that the name is inappropriate (in fact, it would seem the majority think the name is fine). — Matt Crypto 07:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another obscene and nauseating abuse of admin powers - see User_talk:Ed_Poor#The_new_Ed_Poor:_Go_easy_on_Trollderella and add your comment if necessary. Also User_talk:EnduranceFan#Username_RFC. --63.239.116.254 08:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I strongly disagree with Ed's actions, but please let's try and keep the comments civil. Words like "obscene", "nauseating" and "abuse" are pretty inflammatory. I'm sure Ed meant well, but I would hope we could convince him politely. — Matt Crypto 12:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to say that the user was not asked or informed. I counted at least two or three messages on their former talk page about this, which were completely ignored. They also got a message about this RfC which has been completely ignored. -Splash 13:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. Trollderella posted this message to Wile E. Heresiarch, and similar messages to others: "Having reviewed the pages on usernames again, and also having acquainted myself with the pages on blocking and banning, I consider your actions to have been, at the very least, rude. I cannot concieve of anything more that we have to say to each other. The time that I have to devote to this project is limited, and I would rather spend it in writing and editing articles than in arguing over points of rules and usernames. I would respectfully suggest that, if you have spare time and energy, you too find some articles to improve." [3]. — Matt Crypto 13:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Community review of bureaucrat decision

I like what EveryKing said, particularly his 2nd and 3rd points. Perhaps I was too hasty. This is the 4th inappropriate username I've changed in a week, since I discovered the button that performs name change. No doubt a policy clarification will arise from this incident. (It often does, when I take bold action.)

There are two values being balanced here, and I personally place much higher value on the first:

  1. Wikipedia is a project to create accurate and useful encyclopedia articles.
  2. Wikipedia wants to welcome newcomers and provide a comfortable working environment for its volunteers.

I am not trying to set policy, but to interpret it. If I have made an error in judgment, a consensus will develop making this abundantly clear. Perhaps even a policy change will be made.

There seems to be a school of thought here (or a current of activism?) which insists that any behavior should be tolerated on this web site unless it clearly violates a specific rule (like 3RR). Moreover, many users argue (some explictly, but most implicitly) that "disruption of the project" is too vague and should therefore never be used "against" someone. As if Wikipedia were an experiment in anarchy or democracy - which founder Jimbo Wales has repeatedly affirmed this is not. Uncle Ed 11:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just in response to the last part, I don't think that really has anything to do with an experiment in democracy, and it seems like the opposite of what I'd imagine an experiment in anarchy to be, because all that school of thought means, at least as I think of it, is that everybody needs to follow policy, without any excessively broad or controversial interpretations, and getting community agreement about things is much better than having admins do things individually. I mean, we ought never to have a case like this where the community is saying one thing and an admin (or bureaucrat, in this case) sees that and yet goes and does something else. Everyking 12:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, although could you please respond to this specific point: the policy you invoked states that consensus is needed before the change is made; no such consensus was evident. In fact, it would seem there is a consensus that a name is fine. Will you therefore change the name back? I don't believe that this user was disrupting the project with his name, nor, it would seem, did many other people who commented above. — Matt Crypto 12:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a rough consensus, but maybe not the way you think. Does policy say that "if consensus (determined by a poll over 2 days or less) develops that a particular username is okay, it shall not be changed no matter what a bureaucrat thinks?" If so, then I have made an egregious error and should immediately be de-b'opped.

But my judgment had a different basis:

A. Offensive or confusing usernames aren't allowed (policy)
B. The old username was offensive or confusing (rough consensus)
C. Change it. (conclusion)

There was no consensus on the conclusion, of course. The only (rough) consensus I saw was on point B. I drew my own conclusion as a matter of judgment. If there's an error in my judgment, I'm sure a consensus will develop that I've misjudged the situation and that it should be reversed.

Shall we set a time limit on this? Conduct a poll? Or what? I'm listening to the community. Talk to me. How many people believe that the username was neither offensive nor confusing?

I don't think there's ever been a review like this, and inspired by UninvitedCompany's remarks to me earlier this month, I have encouraged and facilitated this discussion. It might even result in a clarification or change to policy.

Is there a larger issue here? Are people lobbying for the right to pick any username they want, regardless of policy, provided their choice survives a referendum? If so, let's put this proposed policy to a vote. Uncle Ed 15:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think most of the discussion is about this particular case. The consensus seems to be that the username in question was not in clear violation of the guidelines. Removing that username (even though done in good faith) was an error. --GraemeL (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that the "consensus" to be evaluated is not (1) whether or not the user has a "right" to their name but, more narrowly (2) whether or not the username clearly violates the guidelines. Am I hearing you correctly?
If so, then the only question left to decide is whether the username was in violation of the guidelines. How is that to be decided? What's the policy on this? Is there something that says, we hold a poll, and if most people who respond say they're not offended and not confused (or that the name is fine) then they get to keep the name?
Then the policy statement should be amended to say that the procedure for challenging ANY name should be to hold a poll of a certain duration (with the proviso that user:Cuntkicker gets to keep their username as a matter of right until and unless the poll goes against them. B-crats should never use their judgment but act only as vote-counters. Okay, let's put this proposed policy change/clarification to a vote, first. Then re-examine my decision. I will abide by the consensus: just tell me what the policy is on judging consensus! Uncle Ed 16:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the RfC, eleven people think the name can stay, and two people think it needs to be changed. You want to discuss the "policy on judging consensus". Do we need policy? How about common sense? It seems to me quite obvious that there was a consensus, or at least a strong majority, that the name was OK. I'm very surprised that you claim there was actually a "rough consensus" to the opposite effect. — Matt Crypto 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it has always been obvious to me that no one chooses a troll username unless they are up for trouble, it has long been obvious that the Wikipedia community does not support this position. I tried to force a name change about a year ago and got a lot of negative feedback. So Ed, what's up? Didn't you know, or did you think policy overrode consensus? Fred Bauder 16:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that, just looking at this page, and regardless of Ed's protests to the contrary, there was a clear consensus that Trollderella's username--and, as you say, 'troll'-style usernames in generall--do not violate policy. Since the policy itself requires consensus on that point before action can be taken, it should be noted that Ed's effective opinion seems to be not that policy overrides consensus, but that he himself can override both policy and consensus. If Ed wants to be able to change usernames without a consensus, he should try to get the policy changed; he shouldn't try to claim that the ~15% on this page that thought Trolderella's username violated policy represented any kind of consensus. Aquillion 20:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I don't know what to do when policy and consensus are at odds. Should we ask EnduranceFan (talk · contribs), or what? I mean all these personal criticisms of my character and motivation are nice, but what should I *do*? And on what basis? Uncle Ed 22:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Again, the policy for changing controversal usernames states quite clearly: "After an appropriate time for discussion, a sysop can take a judgement on the name in question. They should only take action if their judgement is that a "rough consensus" has arisen that the username is inappropriate." Policy and consensus are not at odds here; rather, by going against consensus, your actions are against policy. Aquillion 22:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what you should do, Ed, if you don't know what people think, is to bring the matter up, say on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and get some feedback before you do anything. Doing something then discussing does ensure participation in the discussion, but the easier way is to discuss first. Fred Bauder 22:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
It is clearly stated in the Wikipedia by-laws that Bureaucrats are empowered to shoot first and ask questions later. —RaD Man (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then a bureaucrat should be proposing to change the user name policy to reflect that. Dependant on wording, such a policy change would get my support. --GraemeL (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Driven away?

A User:(Trollderella) posted this at User:Trollderella: "Due to behavior that I am no longer able to ignore, I am taking a break for a while. If someone is kind enough to restore my account, I would like to return at some stage. Thank you for the kindness that all but a few of you showed". Has this user — who was making a number of very useful contributions — been driven away because of this nonsense? — Matt Crypto 10:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, phew. As long as that dirty, dirty username never has to be around, it's ok if we drive people off. Hipocrite 11:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, has this user ever explained exactly what the "troll" in his/her user name is supposed to be referring to? Self-depreciating humor? Fantasy characters? Those little spiky haired dolls? Internet trolling? I'm sure if it was explained to be any but the last, then any opponents, perhaps including Ed, would be inclined to relent. Everyking 11:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, have you ever explained exactly what the "king" in your user name is supposed to be referring to? Jesus? Krishna? George Bush? I'm sure that if it was explained to be any but the last, then any opponents, perhaps including Ed, would be inclined to relent. Hipocrite 12:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was opposed to the block. I was just wondering. It would be helpful to know. Everyking 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was supposed to be a joke on the dichotomy between a graceful, dancing Cinderella and a troll. The image it always put into my head was a sterotypical fantasy troll in a dress, attempting to dance at the ball. Aquillion 04:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know you were opposed to the block I think questioning people about what their usernames mean (OR ELSE!) is little better than just changing their name without comment. That's the point I was trying to drive home. Apologies if it didn't come across that way. Hipocrite 12:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting

I've asked repeatedly, and have received no answer to the following questions:

  1. To the person who originally created the account, are you requesting the username to be changed back?
    • Note that due to the possibility of impersonation, I can only count remarks made from your user:EnduranceFan account.
  2. Absent any response from EnduranceFan, should I leave it as is, or change it back anyway?
    • And how is a b-crat supposed to "determine consensus" on this 2nd question?

I read all the talk above. I heard people repeatedly telling me that I was wrong. But "you are wrong" is not the same as "please do this now". I need a little bit more, before I can distinguish grumblings about the enforcement of policy from a consensus that policy was disregarded/misapplied and that a specific remedy should now be applied.

Fred, Angela, or frankly anybody please propose a process whereby this matter may be resolved. Shall we put it to a vote? If so, how long shall the polls stay open, and what percentage shall determine the matter? UninvitedCompany, what are your thoughts? Uncle Ed 11:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would just as soon drop it at this point, but note that forcing change of a troll name does not have community support (although I wish it did). I guess you should put a note on the user's pages saying he can use the old name if he wants to and undo anything you have done to prevent that. No use voting over a user who has probably moved on. I suppose an attempt at an explanation to the user is in order, but hard to imagine they would understand it if they are not, in fact, one of our old "trolls." Fred Bauder 12:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
How many times do you have to read the contents of this RfC Ed? People want you to reinstate the name. There is no need for a vote, a change of policy or anything else. Semantic gymnastics will not help you here - reinstate the name, move on and let's all do what is important. --63.239.116.254 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the answer to question 1 is blatantly obvious. We can see this from Trollderalla's various comments, including those he has left on his old user page (which you've wiped out twice). He wants the name back. This action has directly resulted in his departure from the project. This is not the outcome that anyone wanted, regardless of which side of this debate we've taken.
For the second question, I think the answer is equally obvious. You stated "(B) The old username was offensive or confusing (rough consensus)". There's two parts of that. First, the latter. Was it confusing? According to Wikipedia:Username, confusion is defined as "designed to cause confusion with other contributors, or features of the software". This simply isn't the case; nobody's made any claim of impersonation, and it certainly doesn't conflict with software design features. So, we're left with whether the username was offensive or not. This RfC was started explicitly to determine if it was offensive. At the time you changed his username, the vote was 11-2 that it was not offensive. If you include me, that vote is now 15-5 that it is not offensive (if anyone wants to challenge that counting, feel free; I'll support it). You made a claim that concensus existed that it was offensive. Yet, the opposite is obviously true. There was at the time you changed the name 81% concensus that it was not offensive. Now, it's 75% that it was not offensive. You've repeatedly said this is not a democracy, and indeed it isn't. Still, the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Consensus says "Wikipedia works by building consensus". You ignored the concensus that had developed here.
As noted by others, you violated policy and concensus in changing the username. Yet now, you're claiming being hamstrung by a lack of policy to change the name back. Why? By my count, 8 people (including myself) opposed your action in changing the username, and 1 supported. That's 88% (clear concensus) that the action was wrong. We have spoken. You were not hamstrung by policy before, there is no reason to be hamstrung by a supposed lack of policy now.
I feel the correct action is for you to take responsibility for the error, acknowledge it as such, change the username back and invite the contributor to return. If this action is not taken, I think our next step is to start an RfC to return Trollderalla's name to him, and have you recuse yourself from the discussion.
Further, I don't think it is helpful to refer to those of us who have opposed your action as being the "peanut gallery" and that we "can just shut up" [4]. This is bordering on personal attacks. While those of us non-admins might be able to get away with something like that, you are a bureaucrat. We have to hold you to higher standards. --Durin 19:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Durin. — Matt Crypto 19:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finished waiting

As I said before, I might have been wrong here. I then counted around 6 people who said the name violated policy, and about 9 who said it was okay as it was. There were several hanging chad, dimpled chad and pregnant chad votes which carefully avoided mentioning the name but only said that I was not evaluating consensus properly. I didn't count those.

Having refused to set up a vote the community leaves me with a 60% to 40% split in favor of reversing my decision. That's not a consensus. So I'm going to do nothing.

Any other bureaucrat, feel free to undo my "mistake" if you feel there is a community consensus to do so. Uncle Ed 19:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Although I have commented elsewhere, such as on Trollderella's talk page, I've yet to make a statement here because the RFC appeared to be somewhat convoluted. Please include me as one of the parties who are disappointed with this unilateral name change and sincerely wish to see the change reversed. The user in question, Trollderella, has expressed that s/he would like to have the account restored back to normal as well. Hall Monitor 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You really think that there wasn't a clear consensus that the name was OK? If so, then, I'm sorry to say, that suggests to me that you lack sufficient judgment and understanding of the wishes of the community to be a bureaucrat. — Matt Crypto 19:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement to community

When Ed Poor changed this user's name, he had this written on his user page[5]:

My statement to the community
Well, I've finally come to a decision. It's been hard, but I have had a lot of help. Many people spent long hours in IRC dialogue with me to help me understand the direction I need to go.
Then it took me quite some time to get myself actually attuned to this new direction. I've had some false starts, but I think I've finally settled into the new course...
...I will no longer do zany or arrogant things like delete a major project page or defy consensus on a vote. Nor will I claim a right to "decide" such things; when it's close I will consult the others, abide by the consensus and let others make the final move.

It would seem, at least to me, that Ed Poor's actions here speak against his stated intent. — Matt Crypto 11:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll to resolve dispute

Effective with the beginning of this section, I (Durin) am conducting a poll of users interested in this debate to vote on what should happen. This is based on Ed Poor's suggestion that we do so. This section is NOT for debate. We are not debating in this section whether concensus existed before or not. Please use other sections for any debates on this or related topics. If you feel compelled to offer a comment as to rationale for your vote, please keep it very short (one line). Please note; the inception of this poll is not intended to replace or otherwise invalidate any prior concensus whether such existed or not. This poll is simply in response to Ed Poor's suggestion.

Motion to reverse username change

You are hereby requested to vote on this motion: Ed Poor (Uncle Ed) will reverse his username change of Trollderella, reinstating the original username. Please vote, Support or Oppose.

I would expect so. I would hope that, however, Ed doesn't have a pregnant-chad rationale for this section. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:19:41, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Perhaps, though you might support this motion even if you supported the name change originally; for example, you might wish there to be consensus before the name is changed. — Matt Crypto 07:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll status

Oppose: 1 (4.8%) Support: 20 (95.2%)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella&oldid=22410562"