From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result of the debate was keep, with the option of being complemented/superseded by WP:UAA if discussion is able to gain consensus for implementation (in which using it for tricky cases, {{ historical}} or redirect will just do). In any case I don't see how this page is going to be deleted anyway at this point. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

This page continues to be a backhanded way to attack new users without good cause. The previous discussion recommended reform, there is no sign of reform, users that have never edited are being reported, with the bulk of reports being in direct violation of Username policy. This is doing nothing to keep new editors, frankly and should be abolished as soon as possible. -- Nick t 21:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "with the bulk of reports being in direct violation of Username policy"? As for "users that have never edited are being reported". That is specifically prohibited. What's next? Deleting WP:AIV because some people can't follow the rules when reporting people? - Mgm| (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Oh for the love of all that is good in this world... Do we really need to do this AGAIN!?! This board has gone through some great reforms since the last MfD, and is now operating fairly efficiently. Some kinks still need to be worked out, but nothing on Wikipedia is perfect. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Question for nominator: I understand the nature of your concerns, but what procedure do you suggest be used instead when an administrator isn't sure whether to block a username or not? Newyorkbrad 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If you are not sure, then don't block or do as our username policy says here, ask the user themselves. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • And if that does not work? I think the WP:RFCN is an intermediate "clarification" step when talking to the user in question does not work but when there is also no obvious reason to immediately report to WP:AIV or block. + A.0u 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Cascadia, the page has been refomed:-
  • Less buro with the abolition of subpages
  • Users without edits are usually closed immediately either as speedily as an obvious vio or closed until the user edits (see header)
  • Proposals are underway on the talk page to see how newbie biting can be further reduced

The page isn't perfect yet but there has certainly been a huge impovement since the last MfD. GDonato ( talk) 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into WP:UAA,a better proposal. GDonato ( talk) 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm. Last time this was nominated, I !voted delete. However, since then some improvements have occurred to reduce biting, most importantly that discussions can only be over users who have actually edited. Also, one concern which was raised last time, that it was being used as a quick appeals process, has certainly been addressed with any such attempts at discussion being quickly closed. Now there is definitely a long way to go in reforming it properly in line with the outcome of the last MfD, but this seems a bit too soon to go through the whole thing again in my opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c) reply
  • Move to WP:AIV/N or something and reduce to a noticeboard - this should not exist in the form of a discussion forum. Lenghty discussions are conducted both when the nom made an obvious error (User:Brady Barbot) and in cases of obviously blatant WP:U violations. Too much biting, too many edits wasted on simple things (that includes both the discussions as well as spamming the talk pages of discussed users). Blatant violations should be reported to admins immediately, borderline cases reported on WP:ANI, but preferably only after the user starts to actually edit (and the edits are problematic). Миша 13 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • What exactly is your definition of Lengthy? Brady Barbot was closed after just a few comments! CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
It should've been closed after the first (your) comment - instead, 5 other (mostly uninsightful) comments were placed, for a total of about 10 edits, while no more than 2-3 could be used in a well-designed process. Миша 13 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
So... are we now conserving edits? Give me a break. Besides an admin may or may not have come by right after mine, and until it's closed, the discussion lives on, and as long as it is discussion, there's nothing anyone should really complain about. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hence why a move should be done, to attract more admins, something under ANI/N or something. I'll have to think about it, but the rational here is rather good :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I feel that moving the page will only cause it to become lost in the chaos that makes up the notice boards. The people that visit this board frequently have worked hard to reform the board, give it some time. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
If you have not noticed, I have participated in some of those discussions, it never hurts to consider a move, and better possibilities. Really if the rest of the wiki finds the board as newbie biting then I'm afraid something more drastic then what has happened so far needs to be done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This has gone to MfD before, and was found to be reformed. Reforms have been made, and more are being discussed. Eagle, will anything besides deletion satisfy you? Are you firmly committed to seeing anything outside of having admins arbitrarily decide "yea" or "nea" on a username any less of a bite? I'm not sure about you, but I'd see it as more of a bite seeing that I've been blocked for name vio by an admin over seeing a notice that someone wants to discuss it (or has discussed it) in a public setting. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't see how it's improved, and even if it has, that's not enough if it's plainly a redundant (to AIV+ANI+simple discussion) entity that it is. There might be 100 "nay"s but if you don't find a single admin that finds it violating the policy, nothing will happen. And in case there is one such admin, even 100 "yea"s won't change a thing if the block is done. Миша 13 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
It's hardy a "Discussion" when 6 people say about the same thing one after another. Dunno, this may have a meaning for those suffering from editcountitis - oh what a great way to rack up your Wikipedia: namespace edits this is... Миша 13 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you asserting that people only contribute to the board to rack up "edits". I wasn't aware we're playing for points. What's the high score, and where's that mushroom. I need a one up. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid WP:RfA often proves some people are indeed playing for "points". And it's not about high score, but rather levelling up. Миша 13 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(re-ind) I don't see the basis for the comparison with RfA, whatever people say there is irrelevant for this MfD. GDonato ( talk) 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(ec) to Misza13: I'm sorry, but this seems like a stretch assumption. You're assuming to know what the motivations of other editors are. Please do not assume that any editor is trying to play for "points". Some people support the project by writing articles, others support the project with other means. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no comparison. RfA is just a forum where editcountitis shows its real face - my grossly inappropriate assumption is that some people might be using this forum as a way to pump up their edits in counterproductive "mee too" discussions. That's one reason for it to go away, the other being it simply useless and creepy. Миша 13 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm starting to like AIV/N myself as most everything that comes here either ends up blocked or an admin says thats not a violation of policy. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Correct me if I am wrong...There are ultimately three main options to resolve something in WP:RFCN: (1) Block because it is a violation of policy, (2) Allow because it isn't, or (3) Change username to resolve controversy. So, it really isn't surprising if the course of a discussion culminates in one of the three. + A.0u 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and use User:Ryan Postlethwaite/AIV/U (Obviously at WP:AIV/U - it would work so much better, any serious discussions can occur on WP:AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    Question... how is it not biting taking someone to an "Administrators notice board against Vandalism/usernames" versus "Request for Comment: Usernames"? Or is simply a good faith yet inappropriate username now vandalism? CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    Good faith usernames get taken to AIV all the time. I'm all up for having a completely seperate noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against usernames? Or WP:AIU? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the grounds of improvement I strongly support a move to a subpage of WP:AN. I would also like to see the "not a vote" part that was brought up in the last mfd enforced. Because we are dealing with discussions that frequently have very new contributors as the subject, the appearance of a vote, however it is treated by the closing admin, could be very daunting. Personally it would make me feel like I had little choice in the outcome of the discussion because most newbies wont be aware of wikipedia's stance on voting. Usernames listed there should also have to have made a recent edit, so they look like they might be active contributors - blocking offensive usernames achieves nothing if the account is never going to be used, the name stsill stay in the username log. Some attempt at propper discussion must have occured before they can be listed. Perhaps modify the starting template to show diffs or links to attempted discussion. This should not be templated dicussion either. Make the problem known specifically and try and engage the user in dicussion. If they don't respond after a 24-48 hours (and they have edited in that time so you know they got the message) then list them. If they don't respond and a week goes by, make a decision - are they going to edit or is it a throwaway account? If this doesn't happen withing 3 weeks of the closure of the discussion, I would be suggesting Delete and all blatant ones go to AIV (with rational ffs Twinkle users) and the the other one to two a day should go to WP:ANI for discussion by a wide subset of the community. Viridae Talk 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    You just described a lot of the debate currently going on about further reforms. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Rant Actually, I'd like to see TWINKLE users no longer have this ability to report usernames - too easy to report someone without any thought as to what your doing. TWINKLE users are often quite new editors that don't entirely understand policy anyway, so that's maybe why there's so many users being incorrectly reported here. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the number of usernames being reported, not moving the board about, giving it new names and such. At the moment, it's absolutely being used to generate edits to the Wikipedia namespace in order to help out at WP:RFA - the sort of process wonks who post lots of usernames here are the sort of people who want to be admins - am I wrong or do most editors here have a "This user wants to be an admin someday" userbox ?? -- Nick t 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that Twinkle shouldn't have a quick report function for reporting usernames to AIV, but that isn't really affecting the number of reports at RFCN. As for your assertion that RFCN is just a load of wannabe admins randomly racking up edits, I totally disagree. If people want to do that, they can just add pile-on !votes in XFD discussions - I can't see how RFCN is any worse in that respect. Frankly that should be a criticism of the arbitrary nature of RFA, not a reason to delete this page. Will (aka Wimt) 00:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Actually yes it is :) See this conversation. The long and the short of it is that traffic at this noticeboard has increased approximatly the same time as twinkle was introduced. This board used to get only 50 or so edits a month, last month it had 3000. I believe that twinkle's function should be modified to teach new users about existing policy. If that fails then removal of it might be needed, but no reason to not use the tool to teach new folks :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • OK I guess that might well be the case then. Of course, I think accounting the entire increase in traffic to Twinkle might be a little unfair, given that the previous MfD and discussion preceding it will also have contributed to making more people aware of RFCN. That said, I'd be very much in favour of Twinkle having a more advanced username reporting feature to reduce excessive unexplained and/or incorrect reports at AIV or RFCN. I've given AzaToth a note about it so hopefully we can get his input in that respect. Will (aka Wimt) 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This whole assumption that people get involved in RFCN are "Policy Wonks" and are merely trying to add "points" is not only absurd, but loaded with lack of good faith and loads of bite! How can you, nick, or any other admin/editor here assume they know my or anyone else's motivation for contributing to the project? You and Misza13 seem to have placed yourselves so high on a freaking pedestal that you feel you understand everyone's motivations. Here's an idea for the both of you: STOP. Stop assuming you know my motivation for contributing here or at RFCN, because frankly, you don't know, and you won't know. I find it absolutly disheartening and, frankly disgusting, that you, nick say in your MfD nomination that RFCN is a "a backhanded way to attack new users without good cause", then you stand here and attack GOOD users without good cause. If you want RFCN deleted, then please, bring to the table an actual argument for it's deletion, rather than stand here and first claim those who haunt the page commit endless bite and waste time while calling those who frequent the page that aren't admins "Policy Wonks" and "Admin-wanabees". CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Agreed, instead of trying to delete this, why dont you try to change the area which causes the problem in the first place and that is account creation. The developers can change the way a person creates an account by linking in usernames which aren't appropriate or those which are random (Maybe a Wikipedia:Manual on how to create an account and what not to do). RFCN isn't the problem.. creating usernames is..-- Cometstyles 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you Cometstyles... That is probably the best argument I've heard all evening because you do mention the root cause, the username creation process. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Nah I think the root cause is 2 fold, 1) WP:TWINKLE, traffic to this page increased by over 1000% the following month after twinkle had an automatic listing funciton. Secondly we need to insure that WP:U is clear, and that the folks that report these names know what WP:U says. Sure a developer solution would be nice, but really we have had no problems with this board before the introduction of twinkle, which implies to me that we have a bunch of users that might not understand WP:U reporting things. I've seen the majority of the "debates" getting closed very quickly. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep/move Grouping in my opinion should be done on the basis of function. For me this hinges on whether or not this is intended for mass input (in which case it belongs where it is now) or it's intended solely for bringing matters to the attention of administrators who may then perform a block on an innapropriate username (in which case in my opinion it should be a sub-page of Administrator Noticeboard, perhaps AN/Names or AN/Usernames). As it stands the location implies that public input is required and desired, which is how I've used this page in the past on rare occasion, if that's a desireable trait, then it should stay, if it's not then it should be moved to a venue where user comment is not explicitly requested. Perhaps this is a good subject for a policy debate rather than MfD vote? Wintermut3 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Weak delete- The nominator has a very wise and clever point, and this is a genius top quality dicussion with real meaning; and I think he has a point; we must follow WP:BITE as much as possible. However usernames are usernames, and really it is a sort of attack and uncomfortable welcoming for new users. I think we should scrap this and leave username decisions for admins to handle, and if they have a bad username and a contributing nicely. They could always have it changed or create a new account. Eaomatrix 09:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete If a username is clearly inappropriate, it can go to AIV, their is no "might be" allowed or not, its a case of reading and checking whether it is or not, if bad then you can report to AIV and if its not really bad you cold put not urgent on your report to allow administrators to deal with any more urgent requests first. Telly addict 10:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or change name, I think we should we rename.The name:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names really doesn't fit to the reason it's being used for.Correct me if I'm wrong.-- Trampton 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Um, A)The boards purpose is to serve as a place to request comments about potentially violating usernames. B)The nominator has made it clear his issue is not with the name of the board, but how he feels people are using it, namely to "Policy wonk", add "points", and to bite newcomers. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Remove - it's an exercise in newbie-biting, and has singularly failed to improve in any observable manner since the last nomination. Read through the nominations and wonder what these people could do if they were writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - an imperfect system, but some reform has happened since the last listing. Now there is an expectation that users without edits shouldn't be listed, attempts should be made to address the situation with the user directly first, newbie-biting reports are actively frowned on, the board is not being used as an appeal of block decisions, and people try to avoid voting over discussion. Many of the reports could go to WP:ANI instead, as they are simply block requests that don't need discussion. We could send those queries back to ANI, but there's not much reason to, this is taking up some of the load. Mango juice talk 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We are not going through this again. Motion to close... Cool Blue Light my Fire! 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Second the motion, please spare us from this again. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Who is this "us" —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I presume a reference to everyone who voiced their opinion in the previous MfD. I have to say that, as but 3 weeks have passed in the intervening period, this does feel a bit déjà vu. Will (aka Wimt) 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Again, I presume "us" = users who spend too much time on this overly wonky forum. Self-censored for a highly inappropriate comments. (To Cool Blue) "'We are not going through this again" is not at all a reason for keep. If concerns have merits, a discussion is valid. Миша 13 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Valid Reason - Changing the name or space of reporting usernames won't help. Besides, we're not biting the newbies, but rather, they've just chosen a username that's incompatible with policy. What's the point of having a policy if you're not going to enforce it? Every other policy is enforced. Besides, the new users can change their usernames, or just create a new account. No big deal. Cool Blue talk to me 00:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Also the system should be, when you create a user name it will reject User name violations and have a Character limit. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
An automated system would be difficult to operate without any serious errors. + A.0u 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While tensions sometimes run high there (more than I would like), this page is needed for usernames not obviously blatant enough for direct reporting to WP:AIV. In many such cases, further discussion is required to find a community consensus, which I consider a check against the abuse of blocking power on basis of inappropriate usernames. + A.0u 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You are welcome to seek such consensus on WP:ANI. Also, in case that a username is ruled to be inappropriate, time to block will shorten dramatically (no things like "ok, so it's a disallow - now let's find an admin"). Миша 13 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep awkwardly named, yes, but important. The activities carried out here are needed on the 'pedia. - 137.229.197.71 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If it is not obviously blatant enough to someone then it probably should not be blocked. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Of course if a username is not "obviously blatant enough", it should not be immediately blocked. But the point is, we need a method/process by which we can clarify things. WP:RFCN currently attempts to do that. + A.0u 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • One , we should not change the policy every 2 days. Two, we should enforce the policy i.e any name that has a name or word outlawed by user name policy should be dissalowed. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, they are needed. But they can also be carried out more efficiently on other forums (AIV+ANI). Миша 13 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's much better than it used to be, yes. But I'm still seeing a near-total lack of cases that are actually controversial on this page. We can do without this piece of mind-numbing bureaucracy. Grand master ka 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete (although I do sometimes participate). I agree that there is a near-total lack of usernames really worth discussing. Turning username patrol into a police state bites the newbies. - Gilliam 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BITE DXRAW 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Ryan's idea about WP:ANU isn't bad (although I'd remove "against" and replace it with "on" -like "Admin Noticeboard on Usernames"). Niko Silver 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Needed for borderline cases because one person's "blatant" is another's "not that bad". Forcing all cases onto AIV short-circuits the chance to debate. —dgies t c 16:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Nobody's suggesting all username issues should be solved on AIV - borderline cases fit well on a AN/I (or you can approach the user directly and ask them to change their username, which is probably the best solution in cases of good faith editors). Миша 13 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • ANI is so high-volume that I'd rather see specific types of issues broken out into separate areas, such as is done with WP:SSP, WP:AN3. Just dumping everything on ANI is a good way to ensure it gets ignored. —dgies t c 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Did you know... that approaching the user directly, and discussing it with them first, is actually in the username policy itself? Really do we need this board to talk about names? when a simple discussion with the user, or a post to ani would do? Right now the additional traffic of this board would be about 1 good report a day... if that, the vast majority that have been on this board are things that can be resolved at intervention against vandalism, or the users own talk page. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Before shutting down RFCN on the grounds than ANI is just as good a discussion forum, perhaps we should actually try it out first? I'm not convinced more borderline cases will really get a good hearing there. —dgies t c 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • (ec)Yes, Eagle. I'm sure we're all aware. In fact, we've been discussing this very aspect on RFCN for a few days now. Yes, concern should be raised with the editor first... THEN it should go to RFCN when those discussions break down. I have serious reservations when taking a disputed name from Concern directly to AIV... a board about VANDALISM... which is quite more of a bite, because in effect you're calling the editor a vandal. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
            • What Cascadia says is right, and further illustrates how this request is premature considering that changes are still taking place. Mango juice talk 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
            • Then we can pick a more neutral name, like Wikipedia:Administrators' intervention regarding usernames (removed "against", which may have bad connotations). But that doesn't change the fact that when facing a new user with a questionable username, there are only two possible cources of action: A) in case of a blatant policy violation (e.g. "User:Joshisgay"), bring it to admins' attention via a simple AIV-style noticeboard or B) the username is just questionable in which case the user should be approached directly (and asked to change their username) or the matter brought up for discussion on WP:AN/I (esp. when problematic edits are also involved - otherwise, does it really matter?). Миша 13 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
              • RFCN provides the discussion an uncluttered location to perform the discussion that you suggest we bring up on WP:AN/I. I have to ask you this: What is the difference between discussing on RFCN where the discussion is centralized and not cluttered with other issues, and ANI, where it is likely to get lost with the myriad of other issues? CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                • One significant difference is that there's no overhead in the form of an extra process. Other important thing (which can't be stressed enough) is, where's the art of direct communication gone? What do we have the User talk: namespace for? (Just don't tell me: "for giving barnstars".) If you have a problem with a username, act on this impulse: tell that directly to the user (ask for an explanation, consideration of name change, etc.). If you get no reply (because the user doesn't edit) then no big deal. If he does and does so in good faith, that's a minor problem; he may be convinced to change the username eventually - otherwise you might ask for an opinion on AN (to request an administrative pressure, perhaps). If the user disrupts Wikipedia, the username problem becomes secondary - AIV and ANI are the to go now. What I'm trying to prove here is that RFCN is not necessary for the task of handling usernames. Other forums can cope with it well (the claim that ANI doesn't get enough attention is also false - a quick look shows that most threads get a second opinion within a reasonable amount of time). Миша 13 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(Indent Reset)**Misza13, RFCN doesn't provide any extra process, any more than taking something to ANI. An editor first expresses concern, then request for comment if that does not go anywhere. Your plan is to have a user express concern, then post to ANI if it doesn't go anywhere. There is no difference except the location! We've been discussing the process of Concern THEN RFCN for some time now, and have been enforcing it fairly evenly. You have not proven that RFCN is not necessary, but rather it is necessary. I'm begining to think that your issue with RFCN has less to do with the reasons you've posted and more with not liking RFCN. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 18:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have proven multiple times how it's unnecessary by explaining how these issues could be solved otherwise and within frames of more centralised (AN = more input available!) or direct (stressing it for the 4th or something time) methods. Lasty, WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do here - I have no feelings whatsoever towards inanimate objects like RFCN. I am however worried about the biting related to the forum and counterproductive, uninsightful discussions. Миша 13 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
How is AN more centralized? Putting username discussion in the mix with everything else that requires Admin attention is not centralizing the discussion. And you keep stressing the direct method, well, I've stressed WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE. We're working on limiting discussions to username issues that have failed the direct method. As far as the bite is concerned, WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE as well, and are CONTINUING TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. You seem to have not gotten the fact that it has been only a few weeks since the last MfD, and many reforms have taken place, but it has only been a short time and NOT ALL reforms can take place immediately. We are jumping the gun on this MfD. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid I see little evidence you have adressed these issues. There were still users with no edits and unused talk pages listed for "comment" when I added the MfD template to the page.-- Nick t 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, Nick, I find it interesting that several others here do see the evidence that these issues have been addressed, or are being address, yet you fail to. Nothing here is perfect, and we're not going to satisfy everyone. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You haven't answered the question though, which is telling. Users are still being reported without being asked to change their username first, that is not indicative of the issues I and many, many others have addressed on this and the previous MfD. -- Nick t 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Usernames are always going to be reported without prior concern, but they do not stay there very long. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there's a clear need for this page. Some usernames are borderline; where the impropriety is subjective, it's best to open it to community comment and consensus, rather than simply expecting individual admins to make every decision. Wal ton Need some help? 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Tell me please - can the community also exercise a block on the user in question, using its own will and without the help of an "individual admin"? Миша 13 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The discussion takes place with more community imput, but an admin is still needed to do the dirty work, but has input to go along with. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As I've said elsewhere, it's an imperfect page, but you grow a stronger plant by pruning, not scorching the earth. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It was a bit of a surprise to come back to RFCN and find another MfD... but anyway. I'd say that the system is vastly improved to what was happening before. It's not perfect, but there's no pleasing everyone. I don't think there is a way to achieve perfection. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I took a look at the older MfD right after posting my comment; that closed a whopping 18 days prior to this one's opening. Isn't there some policy/guideline about running an XfDs so soon after a failed one? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We need this place for people to complain about inappropriate usernames. Anthony Appleyard 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • "Complain"? I thought this was a discussion board and a request for comments, not the complaints department. If you find a username offensive then why don't you boldly complain to the user himself (or AIV/ANI)? Seriously, I hope this is an isolated opinion. Otherwise (that is, more people were treating RFCN this way), it'd give all the more reasons for deletion. Миша 13 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Remove its teeth It should not be a decision board, but a place for discussion and comments. Too many people count up the opinions then insist admins use that as the sole basis of a decision. Instead of closing with a decision, it should just be closed after 24 hours or when a block is applied. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into WP:UAA. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So, you're saying that if an admin doesn't like the outcome of an RfCN, they should be able to block the user anyway on their own authority, and disregard consensus? Consensus rules on Wikipedia, not admin discretion. Wal ton Need some help? 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I am saying that we do not run things as a vote, and that is what RFCN is being treated as. A random group of users on RFCN rarely applies policy correctly, in the end the admin is the one who has to interpret policy. Arguments like "Like like it" or "I don't like it" or "It won't offend me because I am not Jewish" and other arguments not based in policy need to be ignored, but if an admin closes with any result other than what a vote count would give people get upset. You also need to remember that a smaller consensus at RFCN should not override the larger policy consensus at WP:U. Deciding to do an admin action or not is ultimately the decision of the admin, and if the decision is right or wrong, the admin is the one who is responsible for it. If an admin decision appears contrary to policy then a discussion can start at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but RFCN should not be the place to review or dictate admin decisions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This RFCN "discussion" is a clear example why username blocks should not be the outcome of a discussion - a pile-on of "allow"s on a username that's been legitimately blocked as a vandal's sockpuppet (simply because noone else got the reference). You ask if an admin should disregard "consensus"? My answer is, yes he should (if he has a good reason to do so). Миша 13 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Misza13... that discussion predates the last MfD and the subsequent reforms. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Misza13, that user had a legitimate concern with the username and had good arguments, whether we agree with it or not. HOWEVER, The discussion should have been closed sooner by an admin since the user had not been notified. Perhaps I should start being extremely WP:BOLD and remove such listings myself. Reforms are slow, and take time, and take policing. And always remember, NOTHING here will ever be perfect or satisfy everyone. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I see we are on the same wavelength finally, HighInBC. I utterly agree. Viridae Talk 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Arbitrary Section Break 1

Comment any proponents want to explain why an admin was reported on RFC/N today on the absolute flimsiest of excuses and without any notification beforehand, let alone any dialogue over the username. [1] -- Nick t 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

User should have been contacted indeed. However, the fact that they are an administrator should not matter. FWIW, I read "Jesus", which is explicitly forbidden, but I is a minority here, but not "flimsy". Abuse of RFCN procedures is as likely as that of AIV or ANI or any other venue. Niko Silver 19:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Indeed, I read the editor had a legitimate issue with the name, and it was properly discussed, and closed. Besides, Nick... how can anyone else here be asked to explain why someone else requested RFCN? CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
And I'd love an explanation on how exactly process in ANI or AIV would not be abused/misused like it was here (no offense to the reporting user, I mean the fact that the user in question was not notified). IMO it would be much harder to follow procedure through such high traffic and long pages. Niko Silver 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Jesus isn't forbidden at all, controversial usernames such as say Jesus Was A One Legged Transvestite Drummer Who Smoked Crack and Raped Little Boys ( talk · contribs) would probably be blocked whereas something like Jesus Mendoza ( talk · contribs) wouldn't. Is this why there are so many incorrect reports, just basic misunderstanding of the username policy, does it need to be clarified as to what would be acceptable and what wouldn't, specific examples and such ? -- Nick t 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Per policy, and I quote Offensive usernames include those that refer or allude to...The names of religions or religious figures; in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion are prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intolerance, are disrespectful to the religion, or promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others. Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed. It has been determined that calling one's self the name of a religious figure can be offensive to others in the faith, as well as asserting divinity. That is why Jesus wouldn't be allowed, but Jesus Mendoza would be. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
So why are names like Jesus Mendoza being reported - because people don't read or don't understand policy ? -- Nick t 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
All this is beside the point. My question to Nick is simple: How is abuse/misuse supposed to be prevented in AIV/ANI/etc.? Niko Silver 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and sigh All the reasons for keeping have pretty much already been addressed here. // Pilot guy radar contact 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Remove The process is way too political. There are really no standards for blocking user names. If the user names are bad enough they are reported to WP:AIV. If they aren't its left up to a bunch of editors who point fingers and fight with each other. Px Ma 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete- once again, I don't see this page as necessary. Any truly harmful usernames can be handled in WP:AIV. The marginal stuff doesn't hurt the encyclopedia at all. Borisblue 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AIV is not a good forum for discussion or consensus gathering. The names reported there should be the most obvious violations, such as User:IeatsmallchildrenYumYum. RCFN fulfils a useful purpose in debating the more tricky names. That some participants don't/won't read the policy shouldn't surprise anyone who's ever been to AfD or RfA etc. That some nominations are very POINTy should also be no surprise. The only thing wrong with RCFN is that not enough people participate - deleting it isn't going to solve that problem. With a bit of luck, this MfD ironically might. -- Dweller 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This isn't "a backhanded way to attack new users". It actually attempts to keep people around by making sure theuir username won't cause them any problems. That's something better solved sooner than later. If someone reports a user without giving them notice, the reported user shouldn't be blocked. The policy can't be specific about anything so we need a place to discuss names the policy isn't clear about. Context is everything and what may be offensive in one context won't be a problem in another. To judge if something is offensive you need input from more than just a few users. - Mgm| (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If there's people who report users without talking to them first as the rules require, they need to be given a stern warning. Deleting the board is not going to address the assumed newbie-biting behavior of editors. The proposed solution doesn't fit the problem the nominator is seeing. - Mgm| (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep the issues raised in the previous MfD have been addressed and reform has taken place. The fact that some people do not follow the reformed instructions when bringing names to RFCN is not reason to scrap the process. -- Nick— Contact/ Contribs 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Like I said on the MfD for the community noticeboard, it makes zero sense to end a faulty process if you don't have something better to replace it with. And things which actively discourage discussion over reports are not better. - Amarkov moo! 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep: Does its job pretty well on the average. Problems? SOFIXIT rather than SODELETEIT. Yes, some people have come in with complaints that weren't discussed first with the user in question. They might have done the same at WP:AIV or anywhere else. Deleting the instructions did not improve the situation, nor should it have been expected to. We'll always have newcomers who need to be shown the ropes. Please take that into account. -- Ben  TALK/ HIST 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Per consensus at WT:AIV and WP:AN, I have created the above page, which incorporates both AIV username section and RFCN. If this is adopted, RFCN should be tagged as historical, and I have created User:Ryan Postlethwaite/UAA/to do with what needs to be done to various other templates and pages to incorporate the new system (there may be others so please add to the list) - regards. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin - if you decide to go down this road - I'm more than happy to do the dirty work and sort everything out. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Oppose Sorry, the page is a great page, but this relies on one administrator making the decision, not the community concensus. Cool Blue talk to me 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)*Support - Perhaps I was a little too harsh. I like the design, and if RFCN is deleted/kept for historical interest, it would be a good alternative to use. Cool Blue talk to me 13:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Since when has community consensus been required to block a username violation? RFCN is their to provide comments on usernames for admins to apply policy, this can be done at the above page, but with far less bureaucracy. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Ryan, I know it is your intention to have the availability for comments on this page, but as it sits right now, there is no indication, no notification to editors, that comments are allowed. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
AIV doesn't state that comments should be made, but they are left occasionally, this is just an elaboration of that, if the admin isn't sure wether or not it fails policy, he can recuse from the descision making, or take it to WP:AN, as it clearly states on the header, if a comment is disagreed with, it can be discussed with the admin that dealt with it and if that isn't satisfactory, it can be taken to WP:AN/I. Administrators can make there own mind up on usernames, but sometimes the odd comment here and there may help. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
If someone has something good to say, they will not need much encouragement. Perhaps we can add "If you are going to comment, please read WP:U first", that sounds welcoming. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Something along those lines would work, actually. CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Done - it states that comments can be made, but doesn't specifically ask for them - think it's a good inbetween. Note, just the same as AIV, non-admins are more than welcome to remove non policy violations. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Useful for community input to weigh in on some of the more controversial potential user names... Smee 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, but needs improvement. Many of the usernames posted at RFC/N are really easy cases. However, there are some tricky decisions, and I think RFC/N steps through in those situations. In general, it would be best for admins to use their best judgment in deciding on a username violation, and keeping in contact with the user on his/her talk page. Nishkid64 ( talk) 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Tag as historical per my comments at last MfD. Now seems superceded by the proposed Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which seems a far better way of dealing with problem usernames. WjB scribe 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into WP:UAA, a page with a better focus. – Pomte 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • suspend RFCN and Merge into WP:UAA since it doesn't make sense to have people reporting at UAA, AIV, and RFCN. Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah ditto, this is doable, I like how the helperbots are there to help remove blocked requests, and the bulleted format. Much more streamlined, and users can still comment with **something if they wish :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I have commented above, but I just want to make it clear that I oppose this merge. Anything which discourages discussion is bad. - Amarkov moo! 04:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Check out my suggestion on WT:UAA, i think it ill encourage the discussion when necessary. Viridae Talk 04:17, 5 May 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1151011210"