The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate is reform.

The people in favor of deleting this page argue that this page is overly process involved and has a tendency of biting the newcomers. The people in f avor of keeping argue that this page is indeed useful for borderline situations, stating that it is better than trigger-happy action and stuffing it on an already-overstuffed page. Incidentally, I agree with both sides. I propose the following reforms:

1. Users can only be list once they have edited. This is useful for weeding out certain individuals, because blatant vandal + questionable username = definitely block. Likewise, if a person is being useful, they should definitely be given the opportunity to edit.
2. If you think it would be easier to approach the user and tell them they ought to change their username than take it to RFCN, then do that.
3. Likewise, if you are unsure what action to take, then you can list their username on RFCN. However, it should be purely a discussion over the merits of the username. No definite begin/ending times; when a general idea begins to develop, then the discussion can close. Additionally, boldface voting business is not all that necessary.

I will crosspost to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names where people can discuss this proposed plan. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

---

This is a procedural nomination due to concerns raised at WP:AN, I have no opinion on the matter Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Note: should it be useful, I have copied the AN discussion to the talk page of this MFD for reference (it will probably end up buried in he archives before this is done). Mango juice ^talk 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Note: As well, please see the short discussion at WT:RFCN Instructions, to note that it is the additional instructions/procedures that were being objected to. Shenme 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep-Usernames are rejected very often at WP:AIV, though they should be blocked. This is the place for that. -- TeckWiz ^Parlate Contribs _@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I have advocated for its abolition, but now since the process has been reformed I'd like to keep it. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep this and speedy close it. This is the only venue for discussing names outside of AIV, which is too crowded for discussion anyway. As soon as you get rid of this, AN/I will be flooded with requests over whether or not a name is "acceptable". John Reaves (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep but use sparingly, such as when a name actually appears in the edit history of an article. John Reaves (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This issue has been going on for months now, do users want this page or not? It's time firm decisions are made. if it is delete, we can rethink process on username blocks, if it is delete, we can look at how the page is run. What we can't do is let the current bickering as to whether this page should be kept or not Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This page, from what I can see, has developed its own sub-culture and is increasingly divorced from policy and reality. That there are process disputes over the page in which the appropriateness of a username is debated borders on the ridiculous. Blatantly (as in policy-violating) usernames can be blocked on sight. I'm unconvinced that we even need a mechanism for anything else. Many of these accounts don't even edit. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• So, you're advocating allowing a border-line policy violating name to exist as long as it doesn't edit? Nardman1 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sounds very familiar, but hopefully we can all stop putting words in others' mouths. — CharlotteWebb 10:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is no place else suitable for discussing borderline cases of WP:U violations without flooding already overcrowded places. Coemgenus 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This presupposes that said activity is useful and necessary. I would like to see a proof of this. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So WP:U is read in black and white? The policy gives absolute definitions in how it should be read? One person can't determine whether some usernames are acceptable without consensus Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Ryan, with respect, WP:RFCN does nothing of the sort right now. WP:U allows the blocking of blatantly inappropriate usernames. If you read the policy page it's clear about what those are. If a username is "borderline" then it probably shouldn't be blocked until the account starts misbehaving. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I do understand what your saying, but what about those accounts which may infringe on policy and do begin to edit? Shouldn't thet be discussed? There are many non blatant problems with username but community consensus is key or it just gives admins the right to block usernames which may fail WP:U Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • If it is iffy and they start editing, then it might be a good idea to talk it over with them. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Well, what if they do? It's not the end of the world. Administrators already have the right to block if they think the username fails WP:U; I know of no other way for a username to be blocked (even if you have your !vote at RFCN, you still have to find an admin willing to do it). This is make-work and it bites the newbies. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
            • Again I agree, but surely being blocked on sight is more newbie biting? At least with a discussion, consensus can be reached and the user in question can contribute to it. If I'd been blocked the minute I started editing for a username which was chosen in good faith without really infringing on policy, I can tell you for sure I wouldn't be contributing now Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
              • I disagree strongly on this point. A direct block from an administrator, with reasoning, tells the user exactly where they stand. Username filtering is not uncommon on the Internet. Most admins have email enabled. It can be worked out directly; maybe they'll get unblocked. Contrast this with five days of process-wonkery. Heavens no. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                • Firstly a new user wouldn't know how to use the email function, and also, without RFCN, an admin may be forced into blocking a username that doesn't break policy. Many users won't edit ever again if their username gets blocked within 1 minute of editing (Mackensen, I think me and you have very different idea's :) ) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • I think there's several misunderstandings or "gaps." The first is that my username is spelled "sen," but everybody gets it wrong so I won't hold it against you ;). Second, there's this idea that the problem of borderline usernames is of the present moment. If the user isn't vandalizing or engaging in tendentious editing, and their username wasn't bad enough to get blocked on sight, then there isn't a problem. If I'd shown up now I might have been dragged into this process for having a name too close to August von Mackensen. Should the first thing a newbie deals with be wikilawyering? Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • If I'd realised the connection with your username I'd have brought it up at RFCN already, but that is half the problem with RFCN, people bringing up username which are never going to be blocked, but if the process is run correctly, and only usernames which are most probably going to be blocked are brought to RFCN, then it shouldn't be an issue anymore. I stronly disagree blocking on sight (with or without a reason) is better than gaining a bit of experience into our policies (i.e. discussion). But border usernames should be discussed, User:JesusFreak3423 (well same name just different numbers) was rejected from AIV, but would you really be happy with it editing? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                      • If it started editing, then all someone would have had to do is request that he/she change his/her usernmame, its not hard, and a honest editor will realize why he/she is being asked. Also its a clear block if the first edit of the user is 'JESUS SUCKS' to the jesus article. :) Personally I'd rather be asked to change my name then to go through 5 days of bickering, when all I wanted to do was edit the encyclopedia. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                        • It's hardly ever over 24 hours and normally within a couple of hours Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment(now delete) I've noticed that the purpose of the page has changed slightly. As I remember this board used to be for bringing up names that might need to be blocked, now its being used to question admins judgement. I've seen more recently this being used to question every potentially iffy username block, not to question potentially iffy names that need to be blocked. More literally if an admin screws up badly its probably something for WP:ANI, not this board. If its purpose has changed, that needs to be mentioned in the header. If there are so many problems with this page, its either a lack to assume good faith, a problem or issue that needs to be clarified in the username policy, and or a problem with the header of the notice board. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • 99% of usernames brought up at RFCN are new usernames which haven't been blocked Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • From what is currently on the page 1/4 of them are questioning a block. Just a thought as to what might be wrong. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I'm going to elaborate further, problems with this noticeboard may decline if questions about admin actions are forwarded to ANI where they belong. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Exactly, user blocks should be discussed with the blocking admin first, but please check the archive, questioned blocks hardly ever happens at RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Ok, I had a nose around the archives, you are right, that the majority of the usernames referred are those that were not blocked by an admin, but I also don't see much talk before hand (ask about it with the new user anyone?), instead we are just rushing to post it to this board, which as Mackensen said, just turns into 5 days of process wonkering. I do want to note that there are the occasional cases that involve someone questioning an admin action (block) and that those should go to WP:ANI, rather then this board. (provided it is not deleted). Perhaps the header should be changed to specifically state if posting there is acceptable if the username is already blocked. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
            • Delete - per discussion above, its best to just assume good faith, instead of this voting. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep A short chop-chop idontlikeit-youreblocked doesn't look good for any process. If it isn't WP:SNOW obvious it should be brought up for consultation. The RFCN brings together people to examine a questionable name, allowing for experience and knowledge from multiple viewpoints. (e.g. recently 'Fenian') The people who strongly dislike process-wonkery will dislike this. They like short, sweet, sharpened blades. This process is definitely, and I hope deliberately, blunted. Process is painful. Not reacting immediately to one's own sense of 'obvious' is also painful. Organization that also functions as restraint will vastly frustrate some people. These changes are simply to further organize a process that is fundamentally needed. Shenme 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • And you favor subjecting our newest users to one of the worst features of our system? I'm actually familiar with a new user who got subjected to the RFCN process (her name was eventually allowed). She was annoyed, and found it ridiculous. I was in no position to disagree. Is this really the best way to go about things? Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Mackensen; more harmful than helpful. See, for example, Requests for comment/User names/Mohamad ali. Even though the allow argument is much stronger, the fact that the disallowsionists make up for around half of the participants is just scary. There's an encyclopedia out there, guys. Make yourselves useful and go edit it. Picaroon 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  And if your name is George Busch and the admin is having a bad day? Shenme 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  Depends whether his first edit is a grammar correction or "LOL I'M DRUNK" on George W. Bush. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the previous regime of RFCN was like a mobocracy, but now it is reformed, so it's way more helpful than before. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Long live the mob. Picaroon 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete per Mackensen. There is an incredible amount of bite in RFCN, more commonly than not these are new users and this is an incredibly bad way to intoruce them to wikipedia. RFCN is promoting wikilawyering and speculation that someone may at some time be offended by a certain username. If they are obviously offensive, they can be blocked per policy. If not then they can't. We don't need a forum to argue issues like this. Viridae ^Talk 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment There are good points on both sides. Seeing frivolous reports used to bite new users (sometimes within minutes of their registration) is quite frustrating. On the other hand, there are times when discussion could be helpful - but I sometimes feel like it encourages the assumption of bad faith. A reasonable, interested contributor will change their disallowable name if politely asked to. But that is extremely rare at RFCN. Nearly all names come without any discussion beforehand. Leebo ^T/ C 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - What would we do if we got rid of a page to report inappropriate usernames? They would reject some at AIV and we would have nowhere else to report. Sure, we don't all give lollipops to new users, but we need to take care of inappropriate usernames. BlackBear 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Go edit the encyclopedia, probably. Note the long debate above over whether this functionality is necessary or useful. Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • We already have somewhere to report inappropriate usernames, its called WP:AIV. Beyond that if it is really borderline and you need some wider input, take it to WP:ANI where it can be discussed, not voted on. However that shouldn't have to happen often as good faith should be assumed. Viridae ^Talk 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • WP:ANI is, as it states at the top, not part of dispute resolution. Taking a disputable username to WP:ANI to resolve that dispute would be a misuse of that page. To request "wider input" through discussion, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That's what WP:RFCN is, the division of WP:RFC that discusses usernames. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete The only real purpose a page like this serves is to contribute to a "witch hunt" of sorts by users who think some people's usernames are offensive. But who gets to define, "offensive?" That word can be defined 6 billion different ways by all 6 billion people on the planet, much the same as porn. Administrators already have power to block the true vandals, and deal with the obvious violations of the policy, so this page serves no purpose whatsoever. Dr. Cash 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Many users have been blocked at RFCN, where they have been rejected at AIV. -- TeckWiz ^Parlate Contribs _@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe the process has become so full of itself that they shouldnt have been blocked either way? AIV is for obvious ones, if they need more than a little explanation, then they probobly don't need blocking. Remember to assume good faith. Viridae ^Talk 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but restore common sense to how the page is used (meaning a lot less often, for one thing). The scope of the page has expanded unnecessarily in the past month and the tone has deteriorated, for reasons that are probably beyond the scope of an MfD discussion. On the other hand, if we delete this page, then admins on the wrong side of a borderline name will probably just block it, and the review will consist of one or maybe two reviewing admins rather than a potentially broader discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

On further reflection, some delete commenters (e.g. WJBScribe and Mackensen) have made some surprisingly (to me) good points. Reevaluating. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I have been involved in the board for a while and have become less and less convinced that it is helpful. There seem to be those who will argue stongly against almost any username and others who will find creative ways to allow obviously offensive usernames. None of it seems very helpful, especially as most new accounts never edit. Also in the case of established users- if they have been contributing for months without issue, where's the problem? Obvious violations can be reported at WP:AIV and the admin who reviews can use their judgment- if they are unsure they can leave the name for other admins or consult someone else. If there is a suggestion that a regular contributor should be blocked because of their username, I think that is important enough to warrant discussion at WP:ANI, where a broad cross-section of the community are likely to join in. I think Mackensen is right, the bureaucracy of WP:RFCN has outgrown its usefulness. I also think it may be right (though the thought had not occured to me previously) that being dragged to a board for comment by everyone is actually more of a WP:BITE problem that a block with a message from an admin suggesting a different account name- which many will regard as no big deal. WjB scribe 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Mackensen. Any clear violations can be reported at WP:AIV; if those are denied, just freaking drop it: if someone registers a name but doesn't actually use it, the only people who are going to be potentially offended, confused, or whatever, are the people who look over the User Creation log for bad usernames. Frankly, that serves only one good purpose I can see: identifying likely sockpuppet accounts for banned users before they start disrupting things. If absolutely necessary, there's always WP:ANI for a brief input from more admins, and in the extreme borderline cases involving editors who have actually responded to complaints about their name, username issues can always be brought up in a full WP:RFC. A terrific example of how this board has gone astray is the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson debate: here, a name was blocked for a username violation and the commenters on the board are questioning it; the blocking admin has been contacted but no response yet, and the user has been unblocked. I am reblocking, because I think it's a NCV/Johnny the Vandal issue, but whatever the case, this board is out of hand and should be decomissioned. Mango juice ^talk 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep but refactor - I very regularly would like a second place for a username opinion. SUre, it has become a second guessing ground for admin blocks. I think that those should be removed immeiatly and taken up with blocking admin. In othe rwords, i thin RFCN needs a revamping, but deleting it is not the way to fix it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - two distinct points I have:
  1. With these debates, there's too much risk in having uninformed people—and I can see that several people participating didn't do much research—vote on whether to keep a username. What may be a sexual invitation in one language could appear perfectly fine in English. What may be an ethnic slur in one dialect may sound innocent in another. This noticeboard leaves too little accountability for its voters, even though they may know about WP:U.
  2. It's one thing to have deletionists and inclusionists enforcing their agenda, thinking "hey, I'm going to pick a random article, and find a way to argue to (keep/delete) it". While I doubt that this actually occurs, the spirit of it is worrying. To expand this: it's one thing to have an article that's not notable; it's another to have a user with an offensive name edit an article. People that just "drop by and vote" with sympathies towards "let's just let everyone edit! Flowers and butterflies and huggles!" do not have to have knowledge about WP:U.
• So, if these are true, what are we going to do? Two suggestions: first, let the admins handle it. I think that using WP:ANI should work: in addition, anyone can contribute constructively to the discussion. Logic, rather than a chorus of "per X user", is the best way to go about these. Second: tolerate less blatant additions to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist, and less blatant submissions to WP:AIV. Gracenotes ^T § 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - When I first began to hang out on RFCN, my first impression of that particular system was "chaos" and unjustified noms. The system has become heavily abused; people are now beginning to check user creation logs for offensive user names. I don't know about you, but I could think of hundreds of things I would do rather than nom usernames for RFCN. I think that editors who have made substantial contribs to Wikipedia should only be questioned; discussing usernames for single-purpose accounts are a complete waste of time.-- Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a needed portion of Wikipedia, without it there would be no place to request comments about usernames. Of course if this is deleted, there will always be User:HighInBC/Usernames. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That can be done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Usernames are pretty straightforward. — Centrx→ talk • 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Actually, if you look at the archives of the discussions, usernames are not straight forward. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Looking at the archives, the usernames are very straightforward. The listing of comments afterward that consisted either of meaningless me-too votes or that ultimately led to the original straightforward obvious conclusion, are what's not straightforward. — Centrx→ talk • 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• It looks like this has turned into a perverted, runaway form of AfD. It used to be a listing with a few respondents who made reasoned comments if they had something to add to the discussion. Now it has become this bloated bureaucracy with page-long instructions and superfluous subpages with row after row of wasted me-too votes culminating in the majesty of administrative templates top and bottom. Other ancillary administrative pages have been discontinued for running off into various forms of absurdity; it is unfortunate that people do not understand some of the basic principles of Wikipedia and of not wasting time and effort. — Centrx→ talk • 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Wow, please look through the archives, and the discussions that have happened. The last thing ANI needs is 5-10 more discussions per day that are specialized to a particular policy. Without this page usernames will be both allowed when they should not be, and blocked when they should not be. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have, and I also looked through it about 6 months ago. A block is worse than meaningless for an unused username, and a discussion is unnecessary if the user changes their name after being told about it. The remaining usernames do not constitute 5-10 a day. In any event, even assuming there were 10 a day, the straightforward nature of them means that the text of those 10 reports adds up to less than a single typical ANI discussion. — Centrx→ talk • 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Those who !vote for deletion make some good points, but I'm not sure things will get better when we delete this page. Obvious WP:U violations should be blocked on sight, there's no need to discuss whether they should be blocked or not. Accounts that don't edit at all can simply be ignored. But there is a very big grey area of usernames that could be a WP:U violation. Or not. What to do in this cases? Mackensen said, "If a username is "borderline" then it probably shouldn't be blocked until the account starts misbehaving." I completely agree with this, but I'm sure that we have enough admins that rather block borderline cases on sight. Let's say 10 admins look at a username and think "Hmm, that should be okay.", while one admin looks at the same username and blocks it. That would be a perfect case for WP:RFCN, IMHO, and without any proper venue to discuss such blocks/usernames, we'll get a de facto "When in doubt, block" policy. Or we get lots of block/unblock warring over usernames and endless discussions about the interpretation of policy on admin talk pages. Both doesn't sound very desirable to me. -- Conti| ✉ 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• So your suggestion is to leave it to only the admins to decide, and remove the page that the community gets a say in? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• No, that's exactly what I do not want. Sorry if that wasn't very clear, it's quite late where I am right now. :) Deleting this page and saying "There, now our problems are solved" will not work. But I think that Mackensen, WjBscribe and others make good points, too, so I'm not sure whether we should delete this or not. If we delete this page, we should find another way with dealing with borderline WP:U violations. -- Conti| ✉ 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• The community picked the admins in the first place, and admins are also members of the community and regularly review each other's work. I'm thoroughly unconvinced, moreover, that the wishes of the community are represented in RFCN as presently structured. This isn't a community vs admins issues, or it shouldn't be. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well if the page for community input on username blocks is removed, and only admins are left to make the decision, then I think the admins can handle it. I am just surprised that it is turning out to be the popular choice. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Although my initial suggestion is to keep, seeing as RFCN should be useful to the project, recent RFCN discussions have lead to a lot of acrimony. And the argument that bringing user names to RFCN when the account is never used is pretty much a waste of editors' time is valid. Perhaps using WP:ANI may work, as Gracenotes and others have suggested. However, remember that anyone may post to ANI, so it won't only be "the Admins handling it." I suggest that rather than deleting it, we suspend RFCN for some time, perhaps two or three weeks and see how things work. If there is too much at ANI, RFCN could be restored. Or this may justify RFCN's deletion. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I would like to see the result of that experiment. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Mmm, end of school-year plus two weeks? Then we test against both sets of bored children, at school, at home. :-) Shenme 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• I agree :) — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep: Serves a useful function: more viewpoints/discussion/consensus than one random admin responding at WP:AIV; keeps the topic from adding to the tall stack at WP:ANI (and why should community consensus be determined on an admin board anyway?); discussing usernames that fall short of WP:AIV's "blatant" blocking standard is a legitimate subcategory of the WP:RFC process, along with user conduct and articles that also fall short of "blatant" -- are we going to delete those too? Then where will the community consensus have any voice? Or will this simply have to be recreated as a subcategory of the Community [Sanction] Noticeboard? If there are problems (which I agree there are), we should fix them -- patch the leaky roof, not burn down the house. Heck, there are problems with just about every aspect of Wikipedia and the other projects, part and parcel of letting "anyone" edit (and comment, and nominate, etc.) -- should we ditch the whole concept and allow only trained professionals who meet our exacting standards of perfection and will never disagree, " angels in the form of kings"? Good luck with that project. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding your misconception about WP:ANI: It is simply a board for issues that require administrative attention; non-admins frequently comment there. The rest of your comment, the slippery slope argument, is thoroughly vapid. — Centrx→ talk • 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Let me put this differently, then. If a username were blatantly, indisputably, in violation of WP:U, then WP:AIV could handle it. If you're not taking it there, then you're admitting there's some chance of dispute -- which makes it a matter for dispute resolution, starting with talking to the user first, and (if that doesn't settle things) going up to such DR methods as an RFC on the username. I don't think it's either a misconception or vapid to point out that WP:AN and WP:ANI are, as they state at their tops, not part of dispute resolution. Taking a disputable username to WP:ANI for comments would be a misuse of that page. To request comments, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That's what WP:RFCN is, the division of WP:RFC that discusses usernames. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • ANI is overcrowded, you cannot even load the page if you don't have enough RAM. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, AIV rejects too many valid reports to not have a suitable alternative forum. Nardman1 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • commentPerhaps if AIV rejects them, just wait to see if the accounts even start vandalising, or just ask the user to change his name politely. If it is really bad, and the admin doing AIV rejects it, you can always try ANI, but it is probably best that you ask the admin why he/she rejected the name on his/her talkpage. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• The primary reason usernames are rejected from WP:AIV is that if you cannot make a decision in less than a 1 minute, then it does not belong on AIV, it is a fast moving page, and anything that needs any investigation does not belong there.
• The best thing about RFCN is that we find out things about foriegn words, and obscure religions, and other gems that we would never know about otherwise. In other words, we admins get comments about the name that inform us about how to better handle the case. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close - the page has grown progressively more ludicrous ... however, Wikipedia processes are not decided at xFD. -- BigDT 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • MfD seems to have become an acceptable location for such discussion. See WP:EA and WP:PAIN for examples. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • EA was not a Wikipedia process. PAIN might have been, but it was a rather poor one at that. -- BigDT 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to abolish RFCN. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete stepped way over the line as far as WP:BITE goes. Way more about splitting the community than uniting it.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment It occurs to me that the reason RFCN has become so popular is that this part of the community wants to be involved in block decisions. I can understand that, it's fun to have that kind of power. But it's also wrong for exactly that reason. Per the blocking policy, admins are never obliged to block in any circumstance, and are especially not obliged to undo blocks. RFCN has become the one and only process on Wikipedia by which ordinary users can decide to block people for reasons far short of the kinds of situations on WP:CSN. Why are usernames so special? In rare circumstances, a user's name may be borderline offensive. However, vandalistic behavior can also be borderline, edit/revert warring can also be borderline, and certainly more complicated block-related issues like sockpuppetry abuse, POV pushing, BLP complaints, and so on, can all be borderline... but in all those other scenarios, borderline cases are decided by admins. Why, of all types of block issues, should usernames be handled by community consensus? Mango juice ^talk 04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is still an admin who looks at the discussion and determines consensus. Well-crafted arguments, no matter who makes them, should count. (Part of the problem is the assumption of vote-counting.) And non-admins could still participate at ANI. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, but a lot of the keep !voters have been making this argument. For instance, Ben said: "and why should community consensus be determined on an admin board anyway?", Shenme said: "If it isn't WP:SNOW obvious it should be brought up for consultation.", et cetera. Things would be pretty different, de facto, if these complaints were handled via WP:AIV; borderline cases of non-editing usernames would often just be ignored in favor of more important issues, which is probably appropriate. In a rare case, as I said before, an WP:RFC might be the right call, but then it can be a full RFC: show us some evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, and show that more than one editor has tried to address the problem. Mango juice ^talk 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Many of the criteria for inappropriate usernames in the username policy require interpretation that should be done in a consensus form rather than as a decision by one administrator, such as: "are defamatory", "are insulting", are "extremely lengthy". What is insulting to one administrator may not reflect what is considered offensive by the community as a whole. As such, the community should have an attempt to persuade an administrator before he or she makes a decision as to a username's appropriateness and WP:RFCN is the only place where this can be done. -- Nick— ^Contact/ _Contribs 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Assume good faith when dealing with borderline cases. If it is decent contributor and its borderline, leave them alone. If the account has no edits its a waste of time anyway if its a vandal they are likely to be blocked for that. This place doesn't need to exist because any username blocks should be obvious under the policy. If it comes to swearing in a differnt language, clarify it with the user or if its blatantly offensive, explain it in your post to AIV. If you report one to AIV and it is removed without aaction, you can always report it to WP:ANI where all people have a say and it is not set up into a structured voting system, where real discussion takes place. This place and all those who trawl through the user creation logs scream of WP:BITE issues and wikilawyering. We just don't need a place where people argue over where a username may potentially be offensive to someone. If you find it offensive, take it up with them (and it isnt one of the seven/ten words or racist etc which is an AIV issue). If you don't get a response that you are happy with, take it to ANI. That shouldn't increase the workload of ANI that much though, as it should only be rare cases that would make it there if everything is done properly. No need to watch the user creation log for anything more than blatantly offensive/vandalistic names. When it comes to commercial users names, email usernames etc etc first take it up withth the user on their talk page then have them change it/ username block. Its quite simple and it doesn't need a protracted vote bloated process to achieve. Viridae ^Talk 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As with Nick, I feel that usernames reported to RFCN should be more of a consensus decision. It's more conducive to the environment when multiple interpretations come together as one. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete the RFCN trolls, keep RFCN. RFCN hasn't been running so smoothly the last week or so, I grant you, but that's more due to certain people who are just there to disrupt the process to prove a WP:POINT than anything else. Any problems caused by RFCN itself would be exacerbated by its removal. Why? Because the only other alternative process for blocking people with WP:U violating usernames would simply be to let admins run their own mental court and block people for usernames according to their own personal will. We would then have to start some sort of review process for controversial username blocks, which would be exactly like RFCN only more potentially hurtful because the people are blocked until the discussion concludes. -- tjstrf talk 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as this page is very useful in finding those bordeline issues that an admin may simply may throw out. It really seems like this nomination is primarily due a small series of particularly difficult and opinionated RFCN's. Does the navy destroy a ship just because the captains chair squeaks and there are some imperfections? No. They fix the problem. Whether it be removing trolls, limiting comments to those that actually have substance (citation of policy or a source outside), etc., or what have you, but to delete RFCN just because of a few discussions that really blew out of proportion due to actions of a few users is really not necessary.

As tjstrf stated, it was working smoothly a while ago. We can go back to that. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 05:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, used too often to WP:BITE new users. -- Myles Long 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • What do you see as an alternative, less-biting process by which usernames that may be offensive or misleading can be discussed? Some have suggested leaving it up to individual administrators to use their best judgement without community involvement and discussion, but wouldn't it seem that it would be a much bigger bite to be blocked from editing without being given the option to explain why you chose the username and, if needed, request a username change before being blocked? -- Nick— ^Contact/ _Contribs 06:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I think we need a Username noticeboard instead. Or just have it go through AIV. -- Woohookitty ^Woohoo! 06:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • What would the difference be betweeen a Username noticeboard and how usernames are currently discussed at WP:RFCN? And names do go through AIV at the moment, that is those which are blatently inappropriate, but AIV is not a page on which much discussion can take place. -- Nick— ^Contact/ _Contribs 06:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per tjstrf. The alternative is no meaningful enforcement of written policy. Proabivouac 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes ther is. Its called AIV and occasional ambiguous (non-wiklawyering) cases to ANI. Viridae ^Talk 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Move to a subpage of WP:AIV ( WP:AIV/U?) and reduce to a noticeboard for the admins (since it's only ultimately an admin who can execute the block), where usernames can be reported AIV-style (no notification for the reported user, no void discussions - why waste edits?) and if within, say, 24 hours no sysop finds the username violating WP:U, it's removed. Миша 13 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete as overcomplication; failing that, simplify to the noticeboard it was before ( [1]) without all the comments going on. The username policy is rather clear-cut; the bureaucratic variant is causing people to nominate usernames that they simply dislike, e.g. Pothead, which violates WP:BITE. >Radiant< 08:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. The username policy is a very complicated one, especially for new users. The vast majority chose acceptable usernames; there are some blatantly inappropriate names which are blocked immediately. This page only deals with the borderline cases, and it is clearly necessary to have somewhere where they are discussed. The Administrators' noticeboard is unsuited to such a role; discussions easily get lost there amid the welter of other issues being raised. This page, which as far as I can find is a very long established one, fills the role very usefully. More importantly, by being a separate page, it builds up a corps of regular commentators who are able to implement username policy in an appropriately sensitive, intelligent and respectful way. Sam Blacketer 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just to add a bit more, the idea that questionable usernames should be blocked pending discussion is a clear case where WP:BITE comes in. There is also a severe problem with different culture: Paki U Like ( talk · contribs), which is clearly offensive to anyone with a knowledge of British slang, was rejected at WP:AIV because the admin who handled it was unaware that "Paki" is a derogatory abbreviation of Pakistani. Sam Blacketer 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have never even met a Pakistani person, but I was familiar with the abbreviative slang. I would have thought the average American would at least be able to take one good guess. Either way, that is not a good example of the so-called "borderline cases" this process supposedly caters to. It was obviously a troll's sockpuppet with a username containing an ethnic slur. That's three good reasons to block on sight. By the way, the User:Achtung juden to which "Paki" was replying is most likely the same person (name is German for "Attention, Jews" so I am stunned that that account was not also blocked). — CharlotteWebb 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Success. — CharlotteWebb 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If you had a look at the contributions of that user you would see that the term Paki was being used in a non-offensive manner, so once again, why don't we assume good faith and note bite newcomers with such a beuracratic process. Viridae ^Talk 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps that makes the point that some forum is needed for dubious cases. Charlotte says it is obvious, Viridae says it was obviously non-offensive (although actually, the contributions are those of a troll sockpuppet). What actually happened was that it was reported at WP:AIV, refused there, debated on RFCN and blocked as offensive. Sam Blacketer 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Mackensen, Viridae, and WJBScribe, to name a few, have made some very good points. It's always seemed to me like this page was a great example of instruction creep. If a username really needs discussion, it can be taken to ANI, and I don't think it will result in a flood of requests, because it will force people to think about whether it's really a big deal if that username gets blocked or not. Grand master ka 09:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Also, after scanning through its archives, all the results seemed very obvious to me. I think we're smart enough as a community to do without this page. Grand master ka 11:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • WP:AN and WP:ANI are, as they state at their tops, not part of dispute resolution. Taking a disputable username to WP:ANI for comments would be a misuse of that page. To request comments, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That's what WP:RFCN is, the division of WP:RFC that discusses usernames. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • How blocking a username is "dispute resolution" is beyond me... I guess you just highlighted one of the main problems with this page. If it's not blatant enough to be blocked at WP:AIV, it should be allowed to edit constructively until someone files a legitimate complaint, at WP:ANI, so it can receive administrator attention. Turning an imagined username violation into "dispute resolution" is instruction creep of the worst kind. How is this helping the encyclopedia? Grand master ka 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, far too complicated bureaucratic waste of time for very little gain. Kusma ( talk) 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, look to reform We do need a page where marginal usernames are discussed by the community. The current process though is not ideal. There should be a mandatory requirement to inform the user and give them plenty of time to change name voluntarily and too many users with no contributions are brought up- there is no point in discussing the name of a user who will not contribute. Perhaps simplifying the process (with less instructions and less postings) will help and make the page less bureaucratic. G Donato ( talk to me...) 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  You just proposed new instructions ("there should be a mandatory requirement..."). Kusma ( talk) 11:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  This would be to reduce the number of unnecessary postings, therefore simplifying the page in one way and this instruction is hardly difficult to follow or instruction creep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDonato ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Sorry, I forgot to sign that. reply

• Delete, misdirected process time-sink, as I've said many times. If we can't trust administrators to use good judgment for things as simple as this, we've got much a much bigger problem to deal with than the usernames of throwaway accounts. — CharlotteWebb 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not all inappropriate usernames are clear-cut enough for AIV. A central forum/venue to discuss such cases is necessary, and RFCN is that central forum/venue. If there are issues, RFCN needs reform, not outright deletion. Cows fly kites ^{Main account: Aecis/ Rule/ Contributions} 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete seems to be a process which has been taken too far. Seems to be overly concerned about rules and enforcement than result and building an encyclopedia. Agree with some of the comments above, that this seems to be a way for some to be "part of the block process". Also observe as elsewhere that this is a long way in form and result from our normal RFC processes. Also I note the comments like the username policy being complicated for new users to understand etc. The answer to that is not to build more complexity in form of a process around that, but to revisit the policy. I'm also not that sure the policy is that complicated, we've been enforcing it for quite some time without problem, if anything the over focus of forums like WP:RFCN is actually making it appear more complicated than it really is, not a bureacracy and apply common sense. -- pgk 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, let's just have Betacommand decide on whether to allow usernames. Keep obviously. -- Random832 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The substantial disagreement above suggests that the only obvious thing is your flippancy, which is markedly out of place here. Have you anything helpful to contribute? Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I meant it was obvious that my vote was keep based on what i said. And I think that despite the "flippancy" my statement was a valid illustration of the fact that if not for this, there wouldn't be anything but individual admins' judgement to decide whether a username violates policy. At least this way people have a chance to defend themselves. -- Random832 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, by which I mean mark historic, et cetera; bad ideas should be preserved for posterity, insert obligatory Santayana (mis)quote here. I agree with Mackensen. The whole thing is too crufty, bureaucratic, and counterproductive to be allowed to continue in this form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Request for closing admin. So far, a strict counting of the !votes above seems to be 20 keeps and 18 deletes, with a few comments or !votes to move. That said (and I'll say more on this later), I would like to explain my position. I recently came across a user name ( User:Brine Pepaz… a reference to Brian Peppers (unlinked here because most get this issue)) and I didn’t know if it violated policy or not (not just WP:U, but WP:BLP, and others). Basically, I just wanted to seek further opinions on the matter. I figured a request for comments on usernames would be the perfect place to do so (seemed obvious). However, when I got there, instead of receiving comments on the name, I received votes (and not !votes) to allow or disallow this name. I was confused. Since then, the page has become even more processy, in my opinion. Ok, so to my point… (e kala mai for such a lengthy comment, I just don’t know how to be concise here) Out of the 20 keeps above, there are many that clarified their comments saying that it simply needs reformed or made useful again. There is a need for a place people can go to request comments on usernames… however, this page should not devolve into Quickpolls. I've commented further on my qualms with the current page elsewhere, so I won’t repeat them all here. However, my request to the closing admin is that whatever the strict !vote here turns out to be, Ignore All Rules and scrap the page. It has ceased being useful, with so much bureaucracy and pointless names being brought forward to be voted on. As I said before, there is a need for a page to ask for comments, but this current system is busted. Revert the page to it's earliest days and disallow any voting there… return the page to a requests for comments page. Mahalo nui loa, to all that took the time to read this ramblin' comment. -- Ali'i 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • So. let me get this straight, we should just skip the mfd and delete it because you dont like what it has become? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No, let the MfD run it's course... most likely ending in no consensus. At that point, ignore all rules (meaning defaulting to keep), and modify the page to something actually useful. It's not that I don't like what it has become, it's that there are more options than the usual here, and doing something that eliminates bureaucracy/process/voting/stupidity (frankly)/quickpolls/etc. is always a good thing. -- Ali'i 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Ali'i, if you recognized "Brine Pepaz" to mean "Brian Peppers" (which I assume you did), you should have quickly blocked it (or requested a block) for impersonating a celebrity. I don't see how any amount of RFC discussion could make that clearer. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Ignore all rules does not mean ignore all people. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Whoever closes this, we can all expect, will read over all the arguments and make a good decision. Ali'i, you need not worry about a controversial debate like this being closed on pure vote count without a careful weighing of all arguments. However, I sincerely hope that the closer will properly interpret the community's opinion and not insert their own or choose sides (ie, not ignore all people, as HBC puts it), because the point of a debate like this is to settle the issue so we can all move on and that will be impossible if people feel ignored. Mango juice ^talk 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm not ignoring all people. Whatever way the closer closes, some people are going to feel bad. That's life. I was simply asking the closer to do something useful for the encyclopedia by deleting unnecessary process, but leaving an outlet for people to seek opinions and discussion. And yes, I trust most admins in this regard. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• How about this: It seems like the problem many admins have is that it has become less of a request for comments and more of a straw poll. How about we keep RFC/U around, but refrain from writing comments that are prefaced with allow or disallow, as though they were votes. I believe the purpose is to elicit comments to advise an admin before he decides what action to take. In this way it is more of an advisor group than a bureaucracy. RFC/U's best feature is that it uses the wisdom of crowds to point out what one admin might not recognise about why a username is violating some rule. So let's stop the !voting and return to this idea of consultation and discussion. Would that make it worth keeping? Coemgenus 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I think it should be a place where a name is posted, and an admin either makes a decision that it is appropriate, innapropriate, or leaves it around for a while. However, in the end, the closing admin has full decision to do what they feel is best with regards to policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• (edit conflict) This is true, it should be relatively clear from a comment whether the user is indicating that the name meets policy or doesn't, so the "allow/disallow" prefaces don't really add much (except for giving people a place to put STRONG before their comment). Leebo ^T/ C 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I completely agree with Coemgenus above - the problem is with the !voting, which can lead to results not in line with policy if the closing admin leans too heavily on the raw numbers. Keep the forum, eliminate the !voting. Also, reviews of blocks already made by admins should be discussed with the admin or at ANI, not by this forum. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It seems to me the key points that are made against this page have nothing whatsoever to do with its function, which everyone seems to accept. The objection is to the procedure and to the way people operate. That problem is not going to be solved by deletion. In my experience, decisions on individual names have not been made by means of a simple vote count, or even !vote count. Sam Blacketer 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Section break

• Proposal I've created a new idea for dealing with problem usernames which can be found at User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/U. In principal, this works the same as AIV, in that users can add names to the list, admins review it and either block or remove the report, anything slightly controversial can go to WP:AN. AIV helperbot could (if we ask HighInBC nicely) remove blocked usernames automatically, whilst non infringements can be manually removed by an admin. All username violations could go through this new alert board. The key thing is, that is specifically states should generally only be listed if they have begun editing, it's pointless listing otherwise and just wastes time. Take a look and make any desired changes, it's in it's rough draft at the minute, but we really need to come up with idea's in case RFCN gets deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • As far as whether the user has begun editing, there should be an exception for blatant violations, like User:IdidAnnaNicoleSmith or User:Poopshit. Otherwise completely agree. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Blatant ones could still be blocked in sight Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "... anything slightly controversial can go to WP:AN." WP:AN is not part of dispute resolution. To request comments on a matter of controversy, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If there are a lot of username controversies, they might even make a subsection of WP:RFC just for usernames, as they did for articles and user-conduct. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No they aren't part of dispute resolution, but commenting on wether t to allow or disallow a username seems to be hardly a dispute and the current way RFCN is run is a ridiculous beuracratic polling method. AN and ANI both bring users to the attention to a large amount of people, there is already significant discussion that goes on there anyway (without voting) and they are under the nose of any admin who wishes to block the username if the consensus has been reached that it violates policy (however it should be obvious anyway, and therefore consensus should be easy) this also puts the final decision under the nose of a large group of people (way more than frequent RFCN), any one of which could take issue if they do not think consens was met. However if people weren't so wikilawyerish about usernames, reported the obvious ones to AIV and assumed good faith with the rest then the amount of times ANI or AN would be called on would be few, not increasing the workload of that page much. Viridae ^Talk 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Er, Ben.... RFCU IS a part of the RFC.... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names is the full name... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have started a discussion at WT:RFCN#Possible_restructure to encourage a restructuring of RFCN, and given my own suggestion(and encouraged others to make their own). I would very much like it if those wishing to delete the page(and those wishing to keep it) can help make this page into something that the community can feel good about. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment The above two comments suggest that discussion about how to handle username issues is moving in a productive direction. I suggest closing this MfD as "no consensus" for now to allow those discussions a chance to hopefully reach agreement on more effective and user-friendly procedures. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per NYBrad: restore common sense, get more sensible people in, and start blocking users who perpetually bring laughable reports. That sounds about right. We have become overstringent with usernames, and it's farcical how creatively people try to make out that X username violates the policy. It's also farcical how many alleged "clear violations" I throw out of AIV per day that then wind up being allowed at RFCN. Unfortunately, we can't stop people combing through the user creation log and then whinging about the ones they don't like, so we'd better have a sane system to deal with that. AIV doesn't allow for discussion and ANI is overloaded as it is, so we'd best try to fix what we have. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless common sense can be restored. I removed this from my watchlist a few days ago because of the enormous, sometimes heated on some really trivial things such as whether sexiness is a sexual act, how empowering the term " bitch" can be, and whether flatulation is an excretory function that should be blocked. I mean, come on. ShadowHalo 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Useful for catching 'special' violations that may not be perceived by the average admin; i.e. foreign swear words, etc. It is useful for other things too, and the reasons for deletion seem more against the user name policy or against vague alleged 'creep' and 'bureaucrat' descriptions. The Behnam 18:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Special violations like foreign swear words are still going to be caught by the person who reports them (as happens now) they can report that to AIV and explain what it means if it is obviously meant to be offensive, or just take it up with the user if it doesn't appear to be so. Still doesn't show the need for the bloated beuracratic process. Viridae ^Talk 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This page is a wingnut carnival. No rational decisions have emerged from this page since 1974. Put it out of its misery please. Kaldari 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The proposal to delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion should be made on a separate page. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete (or mark historical or otherwise deactivate) - If not obvious enough to block on sight, there is little point in discussing a new username, as outlined here, and as others have said, above, as well as here. In the much rarer cases when actual discussion is needed, such as questioning a bad block, or for a user who continues to edit and is disruptive, I think we can use ANI, RFC/User, or at most some new page with much, much more limited scope. Do not try to revive RFCN. -- Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I was torn on this. On the one hand, it allows one to keep an eye on those whose approach to user names is doctrinaire, pettifogging, or even withchunting (to be honest, I've never seen any chunting there) witchhunting. On the other, it seems to encourage such approaches. In the end, I think that the latter outweighs the former. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Surely you meant to put a space between " with" and " chunting". -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• "A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." (Daniel Webster) "Hot tempers make for bad decisions." (Me) I'm going to go pet a cat. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I've been following this page for quite a while. Although there was one period that was particularly overzealous, I think that RFCU is important to the process. I've seen quite a few examples of borderline usernames come through, and I've seen most of them dealt with pretty well. I think that, overall, RFCU is more useful than it is detrimental. .V. _{Talk| Email} 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• (shuffles feet, looks awkward) Well, ummm, that's good to hear, but... (whispers) we're RFCN, those checkuser folks are RFCU, and the user-conduct folks are RFC/U. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment If we just ignore less than obvious violations, then we have the problem of less than obvious trademarks being refused, example, WP:RFCN#Ghostbusters_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_View_RFCN(a trademark for sure, which is a legal issue), which was refused from AIV. AIV refers to RFCN many many times a day, not because they condone the name, but because they don't have enough information to make an immediate decision. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't that be because we aren't provided with enough information "Clear violation of the username policy" is not a helpfull way of reporting usernames. To be honest I blame the Twinkle script for the sharp rise in violations reported because it appears to have feature where they can watch the user creation log and report. But the vast majority of these are either rejected outright or sent to RFCN because there has been no explanation of what this clear violation is exactly. In the borderline cases, as several people including myself have argued, why the hell cant these accounts (most of which will never be used) be left alone - assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. Viridae ^Talk 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "a trademark for sure" ? Are you sure? After searching for such a trademark, all we poor wretched RFCNers could find trademarked was the logo (with the ghost-and-prohibition symbol replacing the "O"), not the word itself (which appears to be free). Now we may not manage to block usernames at Betacommand's speed, but some of us actually take the time to do research on names. Try shoving that workload onto AIV or ANI; try holding your breath until they willingly accept it. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 07:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Can you explain this legal issue to me? Has this been done on the advice of wikimedia? In my non-lawyerly understanding the usual issue with trademarks is passing off, i.e. pretending your product/service is connected with the real trademark owner. My understanding of our username policy originally was that certain trademarks could easily be confused or used to misrepresent some official connection, hence the blanket ban. Your example actually seems to give a reason why we shouldn't be lawyering over minutae (it is the intent of the policy which is important, not the letter), I can't believe anyone would feel that using the ghostbusters name would be trying to pass themselves off either as representing whoever owns that trademark (if the trademark exists). It again comes down to the obvious blocks are the obvious blocks. -- pgk 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. The suggestion to take username issues to WP:AN/I or WP:AN is absurd; those are already clogged with more important issues. It makes sense to have a separate area to post and discuss usernames. As for a "vote", it's still up to the admins reading the page to decide what to do, and when one decides, he/she clears the name posting, closing the discussion. If there is a problem with how the page operates, the solution isn't to kill the page, it's to build consensus on an alternative way to operate the page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The system works fine as it is. YechielMan 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  April Fools was five days ago. Picaroon 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  Well maybe if people had actually bothered to start contributing to the page instead ofjust standing aside and slating it it would have worked fine Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Voting on the offensiveness of a username is just broken. The name either passes or fails on the interpretation of the blocking admin. An afd-like process doesn't help (and is as broken as afd). There should be a page for people to report dodgy usernames to admins, but I don't think a rfc is it. Secretlondon 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. I don't pretend that this is in any way an ideal system to deal with bad usernames. But nobody has suggested a system that works better, and we can't just ignore username issues while we wait for such a system. It's like the often-repeated argument for democracy: "It's the worst system, except for everything else." - Amarkov moo! 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I find it very interesting that many people here chime up and say that wikipedia is not a democracy, nor a bureaucracy... but I also say that it is not an autocracy either. Admins are no better or worse than any other editor, only they have taken the necessary steps to gain special privileges. Vesting all authority in Admins only furthers the disconnect between average editor and admin and furthers the idea that Wikipedia is an autocracy. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (ec) reply
    • How do you think this is different to (say) WP:AIV? Anyone can list up a user of WP:AIV an admin looks into it and makes a call on if to block and for how long. There are sometimes disputes as to what constitutes vandalism, we don't have a RFC/V for people to post up stuff they think might be vandalism for review, or post up blocks for vandalism that need lawyering as to if it was or was not vandalism. In suggesting that to not have rucks of voting processes on the trivial would be an autocracy is wrong. Admins wouldn't be artbitarily deciding what is/isn't vandalism. They are acting within the policy we have, within the community norms etc. i.e. the framework within which they work is decided by consensus, we don't need a consensus building process at a "micro" level. If an admin is consistently getting it wrong and behaving outside what the community believes should be happening, then we either (a) examine the policy and see if it needs changing (b) take the admin through some form of dispute resolution from a few users quietly suggesting the admin may like to review their actions through RFC through ARBCOM if need be. What we don't do to resolve the problem is start micro-managing the processes -- pgk 09:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • People can do that now with obvious violations of WP:U. It is those not-so-obvious violations, where a few times in the past have had the outcome changed by a little bit of research, is where RFCN falls into play. The process needs to be overhauled, but unlike vandalism, usernames are more open to interpretation and require research. Also, unlike vandalism, usernames are not sequential. Vandalism is usually taken to WP:AIV in instances where the user has either ignored repeated warnings or the vandalism was so severe to warrant GOING to AIV. Issues going to AIV generally have gone through this warning process, which satisfies the community involvement portion. Blatant violations of username policy go straight to AIV without warning. Areas where the violation may be subtle, those first receive a concern notice then a request for comment if concerns have not been addressed. The process needs to be overhauled, but not removed. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Can you give me an example of the "research" required? I would say it is quite the contrary, if you need to research then you are getting yourself tied up with the letter of the policy rather than the intent. It is the intent which is important ((Hence the wording of not a bureacracy). Most of the username policy is around a few things, (1) providing a comfortable working environment (this covers names which are difficult to read or confusing e.g. gibberish or two similar to another) (2) Concerning with the outside presentation of the project. i.e. what light is the name likely to portray wikipedia in, should it be more broadly reported. I can't see any great amount of research required in the context of that intent. -- pgk 18:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Good thing it is particularly slow at work. Here is one example where an RFCN was closed as an obvious disallow, reopened not much later after some research was done, the later result was to allow. As an admin, are you willing to do the necessary research into such borderline issues on a fast-react board such as AIV? Or are we going to BITE someone with an arbitrary single glance look at the username? Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Yep that illustrates it exactly. Ludicrous detail and lawyering. Within the intent of the policy is the name a problem? Could it lead to confusion with a company? Are people who see that name going to do similar research and thus no longer be confused? And of course the user has made no edits since . Seems a good example of a total waste of time. -- pgk 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Not trying to be incivil, pgk, but the way you talk regarding this issue it seems like you got the world figured out. Are you volunteering to take all username issues? In all fairness, the concern was raised that it could be confused with a company, the reporting editor was actually REFERRED to RFCN by AIV. Apparently there was enough doubt in the admins mind to send it to RFCN. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry it seems like that, but I am somewhat bemused by what what problems some of these things are trying to resolve, and how it is contributing to building the free npov encyclopedia we have. I'm looking at the same page a year ago and seeing very sporadic postings, cleared out occasionally by an admin, and wondering what problems are being solved by the huge amount of effort being expended on the page. All the wikipedia setup is to try and keep things simple we aren't total slaves to rules and procedures we don't have reems and reems of detailed rules. When a process appears to have gone from something pretty simple and apparently effective to an apparent over bureaucratic mess, concerning itself with micro interpretation and application of rules, I see something which doesn't "compute" with the wikipedia I understand. -- pgk 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is why I firmly agree that the process needs a definite overhaul. I do agree, there has been a bit too much bureaucratic process, and I have been guilty of going along with the masses. I believe we can achieve reform if we work towards it. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm neither for nor opposed to this page, but am opposed to any suggestion to move potential username violations to WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Update, typos shortcut, I meant WP:AIV. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I think the problem is two fold. Firstly the whole processes seems overblown, and secondly somewhere along the way the processes here have encouraged far more "excitement" about usernames and username blocking which has pushed the volume up. If we can move on from the latter than having the odd one on WP:AN/I every so often shouldn't be too bad, though I would personally favour going back to the system of old, a simple list of questionable names which admins could look in on and make a call as if to block or not. -- pgk 09:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Eh, the page seems to encourage witchhunting, and all I see nowadays on there are slightly iffy (if that) usernames and people hunting for reasons to block them, rather than a discussion to come to an agreement as to whether the name is acceptable. Not really what it's for-K @ng i e ^meep! 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a key process on Wikipedia, and acts as a check on arbitrary power. Because the offensiveness of some usernames is subjective, it would be unfair if admins were able to block all inappropriate usernames on sight. Just like deletions, they should be thrown open to community discussion. Wal ton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • RFCN does not prevent admins from blocking usernames on sight. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I know - that's why I said all inappropriate usernames. RfCN provides a forum where borderline-allowable usernames can be discussed by the wider community. Likewise, admins can speedy delete some articles on sight under WP:CSD, but more controversial deletions go to WP:AFD for community discussion. The same principle must be followed for usernames. Wal ton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • For about the thirtieth time, if people were trawling through the new users log looking for people to take to RFCN we woudlnt have a problem. If they are borderline allowable, let them be - there is no point in debating over where the line is. ON the rare occasion that (assuming this is deleted) it needs more community input take it to ANI, where there are far more eyes than RFCN (admins and non-admins alike) and where WE DO NOT VOTE. The current state of RFCN is pathetic. Viridae ^Talk 22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per TeckWiz. - Patricknoddy ^{TALK (reply here)| HISTORY} 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Section break 2

• Strong Delete per Mackensen and Eagle_101 : It's just a fucked up mess these days. There's no way to tell if a username has been brought here, confirmed to be OK or not, without wading through the history. It invariably has a small band of admins (no names, but you sure as hell know who you are) bitching about why another admin blocked a username, how wrong it is, and breaking damn near every WP:COI rule to close the same discussions are they've opened and commented on. The board is being abused by those who try to run it (their way) and it simply doesn't work anymore. It's full reguarly, when I was trolled here at New Year, it was deserted, my old username was about the only username under discussion, now it's being used to drag dozens of usernames up every day. But the best reason for deletion is it's utterly useless. I only found out about this MfD when I tried to check if a username had been brought before RFC/U and I can't tell, which totally and utterly defeats the purpose of having it in the first place. -- Nick ^t 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The current RFCN system is brand new; before, things were mentioned and then completely removed from the page, so yes, finding those is a pain in the ass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Could it be better? Yes. Does deleting the whole page make it better? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. It is not always clear-cut which usernames are unsuitable. If something does not technically violate policy and it is unclear as to whether or not it is suitable for Wikipedia, it should be put up for community consensus. The suitability of some names simply needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. When a username is in question by a member, discussion should be embraced, rather than an automatic keep or delete. -- Czj 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. To me, the entire concept of WP:RFCN is absurd. The vast majority of submissions are borderline cases which have not even performed an edit. These are then voted on by a hardcore group of participants at the page who think of inventive reasons to either allow or disallow the particular name. As such, I really don't agree with the argument that abolishing this page and discussing the odd complicated case at WP:ANI will reduce community consensus and participation. Quite the opposite in fact as a much wider cross section of users regularly read that page. I am also a very strong believer that in borderline cases we should assume good faith at least until a user has made some edits. Also, in the case of regular users who have a borderline user name, it would surely be much better to approach them about this subject and ask them to consider changing it rather than blocking it. As has been pointed out by numerous others above, obvious violations can be reported to WP:AIV like at the moment and the very small number of complicated cases who have made edits should be discussed at WP:ANI. WP:RFCN, albeit unintentionally, just encourages biting of newcomers which is totally not what we want to be doing. Plus, as User:Mangojuice demonstrated in his excellent example earlier, it is also being used as quick appeals process against user name blocks which is well beyond its remit anyway. Will (aka Wimt) 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Let me try to make my reasoning for why it is a good idea to delete WP:RFCN even clearer. If a user is in obvious violation of WP:U then they should be blocked on site by an admin or reported to WP:AIV for this purpose. An example that User:Ryanpostlethwaite gave earlier was a user name along the lines of User:JesusFreak3423 who was reported to WP:AIV but blocking was rejected. I do not believe that this is an argument in support of keeping WP:RFCN because, as this name clearly violates WP:U in that it is a name “of religions or religious figures”, reporting it to WP:RFCN would just result in a load of votes saying “delete - violates WP:U” which serves no purpose at all. This is in fact therefore an argument for stressing at WP:AIV that all violations of WP:U should result in a blocking. In borderline cases that cannot be blocked at WP:AIV, no action at all should be taken until the user makes an edit. If this edit is disruptive, it should be reverted and the user blocked. This reverting and blocking of the user will take less time and effort than a detailed preemptive discussion would take currently at WP:RFCN. If the user makes productive edits, then our assuming good faith has been successful. If, after these productive edits, no-one makes a complaint about the user name then it can be left as is. However, if someone feels strongly that this user name is inappropriate they should discuss it on the user's talk page and request them to change. If the user refuses, then and only then, may it be appropriate for a discussion to take place at WP:ANI where community consensus can be reached on the best action to take. I hope this addresses the concerns of a number of keep voters who think that the deletion of WP:RFCN will result in more biting due to borderline user names being blocked on the spot; it is my opinion that quite the opposite ought to be the case with a far greater assumption of good faith. Will (aka Wimt) 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Postscript - I like the idea of adding something like this to WP:AIV. Will (aka Wimt) 10:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete per Mackensen. I'm sure if my username came before RFCN now, it would get disallowed because "demons offend some people." Get over yourselves, honestly. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, it's a good way to confirm whether or not a username is allowed. Buick C en t urydriver ( Honk, contribs) 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete - thank God someone had the guts to MFD this thing. There are so many problems with this page that I can hardly list them. Here we go:

• Polls are closed within hours after opening; unless you're on 24 hours a day, you miss the chance to contribute. It's basically a copy of Wikipedia:Quickpolls. It's simply this: whoever happens to be online at a given time votes their preference (notice I didn't say !vote).
• "Precedents" have been often set without broad community input. Because of the quick open/shut nature of these cases, this is not fair. I have often been told my opinions are irrelevant becuase previous precedent was to ban/keep a user. Except I had no ability to shape that consensus, and it's an unwritten consensus. And it's inconsistent. This is very against the Wikipedia spirit that if there's consensus, it should be explicitly coded into the given policy/guideline page.
• Ridiculous violation of Wikipedia is not a vote. This page is 100% vote (except where a small minority of users previously created a consensus. Though often seen these "consensus"es are not a consensus at all, but because 55% of users supported at one occasion (:cough:vote:cough:), this "consensus" is maintained).
• Per Mackensen, common sense has so been thrown out the window. We disallow the most inane religious usernames because they might offend someone, but then we almost allow names like User:I HAVE GIANT BALLS because "balls" might not actually refer to testicles. This is ridiculously inconsitent.
• The previous system worked better. Period. Less hurt feelings, more common sense. Sometimes it's better to let admins have the individual decision.
• People are submitting borderline usernames without even a warning to the user first. Bad WP:BITE problems.
• And finally, least, and probably least importantly: What's up with spending all this argument mostly on users who will never contribute?

And what a shame it is that this decision will be closed as no consensus. Because this page stinks. Patstuart ^{talk· edits} 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And you think admins can do better? A co-worker of mine decided to sign up a username with a bull-headed scheme to see how long it would get blocked (had I known prior, I would've unpluged his eithernet cord!). The admin blocked it, yet nothing was ever put on his talk page regarding why or how to change it. This notion to throw out RFCN because it sucks is highly irresponsible. Like I equated before, if your car has a few bad spark plugs (or something else that needs to be fixed), most people don't push their car off the end of a pier. They fix the problem. The problems can, and are in process, of being fixed. And to complain that this discussion may be closed no consensus shows that it is less about consensus and more about personal opinion, and which should win. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

People are blocked all the time without a note on their talk page. But this is isn't a problem, becuase it shows up in their block message, if the admin does their job right. And your case is in fact showing the reason why this is a farce, if they purposefully created a bad username, then why go through this whole process? In any case, if there are a few bad spark plugs, then you replace them. But if the whole engine is shot, and the steering system screwed up, and the clutch broken, then you ditch the car altogether. I might support the idea of this board if I thought it could work properly. But I don't. And worse, here's the thing: near everyone agrees there's problems on this thing, but, if this discussion is closed as anything but "delete", none of them will be fixed. People will continue to bully, set precedents aside from policy, and do all the things mentioned above. Nothing will change. It is not irresponsible to call for deletion of something that works this poorly. Just remember the WP:ELAC; a great idea, but deleted because it was run terribly. Patstuart ^{talk· edits} 03:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. excessive process. As other commenters have pointed out, getting sent to a noticeboard for a discussion of your username is a terrible way for newbies to get introduced to Wikipedia. WP:ANI will serve for the borderline cases. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The thing is that I've seen AN often clogged up and some posts remain unattended. A separate page can resolve the workload of admins. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Well a separate page distributes the workload of admins across different pages, which may or may not be beneficial (I happen to think the latter in this case). WP:RFCN certainly doesn't resolve the workload of admins though, because they have to make a decision based on votes over a huge number of user names who have never even made an edit. If we deleted this page, we could just address borderline cases at WP:ANI after the user has made a productive edit and someone has objected to the name. Will (aka Wimt) 09:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Gets community's imput involved if the username is rejected at WP:AIV. Real96 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete pretty simple really... If its blatantly violating, a post to AIV. If its a vandal, will already be blocked before discussion of username finishes. If they're not vandals, RFCN is a great way to frighten of newbies. -- KZ ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I hope all those advocating for deletion mean something more close to historify/esperanzify/WP:PAIN-ify, no? -- Iamunknown 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Question Has anyone gone to WT:AIV and asked how they felt about all the username issues going there? Because previous discussions seem to indicate they want less usernames, not more. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think it's so much that people want all usernames to go to WP:AIV, as they would rather just have admins take over the decisions. Although, it would be enlightening to find out what WP:AIV says about it. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Well I think that's why an idea like AIV/U as Ryanpostlethwaite proposed earlier could be a good idea because it would mean that the admins who are not interested in usernames and think that they clutter WP:AIV could avoid them and focus on vandalism, whereas those who are more experienced at blocking usernames could patrol WP:AIV/U. Will (aka Wimt) 16:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Never used it, but appears needlessly complicated, as several others have pointed out. The proposed User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/U, or WP:ANI where discussion appears to be required, would do just fine. Sandstein 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep; deleting it would be far more likely to lead to WP:BITE violations, as marginal usernames would be unilaterally decided by admins rather than reviewed by the community as a whole. Furthermore, I prefer community processes to unilateralism whenever possible. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

No one is suggesting we scrap the username policy and just let admins decide on an adhoc basis, the policy is decide by community consensus. This isn't a replacement for admin making judgement calls, indeed the vast bulk of blocks based on username are made without reference to this page. This page is often used when an admin has already decided NOT to block and people want to argue about micro-interpretation of the username policy. -- pgk 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete If a username isn't a blatant enough violation to be blocked in AIV, then it doesn't hurt WP to have it around. If someone feels justifiably offended by a username, (s)he should contact the user to request he change, or at worst case bring it up to WP:ANI. As is the RFCN mobs block ridiculously tame usernames that more often than not violate WP:U by letter and not by spirit (if, indeed they violate WP:U by letter at all). Borisblue 05:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and give the pencil pushers something better to do. The RFCN page defies common sense and is damaged beyond repair. Burn it with fire. RFerreira 07:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment AIV stands for "Administrators' intervention against vandalism". I cannot accept username being discussed at AIV/U due to the fact that username problems != vandalism. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I fully accept that, but the reason why I have suggested AIV/U is because it will be a very similar format to AIV. I agree though that good faith users who have chosen a problem username shouldn't be labelled as vandals, altough that is what currently happens Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No it's not - they come before Requests for Comments on Usernames - at no stage do we describe them as vandals. They are treated like vandals here though, which is why I totally support the abolition of RFC/U. The naming of WP:AIV also raises the question of whether that noticeboard has the correct name. -- Nick ^t 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • When I said they are labelled as vandals, I mean at AIV. I think we need a major reform on how we handle all username issues, I think Mackensen may have opened a few eyes of us RFCN regulars, as to how a straight block may involve less biting than a hot discussion first ending in the same thing. Maybe many people above are right, If we have to think long and hard about whether a username infringes on policy, do we really need to block it? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • The point raised here is actually a very good one. Whilst I don't think anyone is advocating any discussion at AIV/U (rather just a simple reporting area for obvious username violations like is done at AIV at the moment), it is true that labeling the violation as vandalism is unproductive. Perhaps we could consider a splitting and renaming of WP:AIV, possibly along the lines of Wikipedia:Administrator Intervention/Vandalism and Wikipedia: Administrator Intervention/Usernames. Will (aka Wimt) 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • I say it can belong where it is (you ask for others to comment on whether something is correct or not-- isn't that what RFC is?). Naming it AI/U would serve no purpose (intervention on what?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• delete (mark historical) per Ryanpostlethwaite immediately above. -- Random832 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.