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


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 no consensus. It's clear that many folks have valid concerns regarding the current functionality of the username blocking process in general, and RFCN in particular. From the discussion below, it is not at all clear whether closing that forum would alleviate or complicate the process. One point on which there is general agreement: the initial suggestion that controversial cases are better handled by AN/I has been rejected, given concerns that such cases would flood the board. The consensus below is that this area of policy is more than ripe for innovation; but, a shutdown is a "shot in the dark" without community support at this time. Xoloz 21:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User names
As we all know, WP:RFCN is the place we go to discuss username violations. Most of the usernames that come to the board are clear cut, either obvious blocks or names that are obviously OK. In many ways this has been superceeded by UAA, in so much that admins who fully understand the username policy monitor the page and block or remove names from the list. I've been looking hard at this for a while now, and there aren't many names that go to RFCN that actually need discussion, if it is required, this could easily be done on an admin board and wouldn't add too much traffic to the page. At the minute, all I'm seeing from the page is one person making a good argument, and others either saying exactly the same thing, or putting "per Ryan" - this completely goes against the purpose of the page, which is there to advise admins on what to do with a username. It's also a very bitey page as well, a users first experience on wikipedia being a convoluted discussion of their name, between people they've never heard of, resulting in a block. In my opinion, a short, sharp soft block is all that is required with these usernames, allowing a user to move on and choose a new username without even making an edit from their blocked account. I also refer back to the first MfD where the result was reform, yet nothing here has changed and in many ways it's got worse. If there was a way to change this page to make it more feasible, then I would be all for that, however I believe that UAA and AN could easily handle these discussions without all the bureaucracy, hence why I believe this should be deleted or tagged as historical.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the real reason Ryan proposed this. Read that if you're really motivated. I don't agree that none of the reforms in the first one have been instituted. We do boot names off where the user hasn't been notified (reform 1), we do suggest they talk to the user first (reform 2, which is a corollary of 1), and it is the place to list items you are unsure of (reform 3).Rlevse 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, Rlevse. --Ali&#39;i 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously that is part of the reason, as I've mentioned it in the nom, but there are other problems as well. It's all goes down to the mentality of the people commenting that isn't going to change.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really have to object to the above comment, sorry Ryan. The problems with RFCN have little to do with the people who participate, and to say that everyone who participates at RFCN has the wrong mentality, is a bit unfair. The problems stem from WP:U and the range of interpretations of the username policy. I believe everyone who participates at RFCN has the good of Wikipedia at heart, and that established editors who contribute to RFCN fully understand that it is there to judge consensus, not to "vote" on specific names. Ariel ♥ Gold 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite everyone's best efforts, reform has failed. It might work for a little while, but soon enough, it devolves back to its old ways. Since this page is basically redundant to the administrator's noticeboard and Usernames for administrator attention, I'm inclined to opine that this should be tagged as historical. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've silently been monitoring this page for a few weeks and come to the the conclusion that while the good will of the participants and their desire to help the project is unquestionable, this page is a clear case of instruction creep and distracts from encyclopedia writing more than it helps. Any uncaught vandals and bad faith editors will already be blocked after a few edits so even in the best case this only reduces vandalisms marginally, and the risk of unintentionally scaring away newbies seems significant. If this had been my first encounter with the Wikipedia community, I would have been greatly discouraged from the start. henrik •talk  22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut down and tag as historical I'm against total deletion, but I think that RFCN needs to be closed. The newcomer-biting is very worrying, and I wonder how many users were turned away from Wikipedia by being listed at that page. RFCN doesn't appear to be much better (if at all) than it was six months ago. Acalamari 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut down and tag as historical I'm going to be honest. The functionality of this page has steadil;y been decreasing over the last month or so. There are only very rarely cases that take a good amount of discussion. I think that this page should be declared dysfunctional, and we should broaden the scope of usernames that can be fairly reported to UAA and be blocked, and widen the margin of sysop discretion. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to put my general comments. First, to begin with, our username policy is bitey.  There's no getting around that; it is designed to block users with inflammatory or confusing names from editing.  For many users, they don't think their name is inflammatory or confusing, but are summarily blocked &mdash; a user whose name is "CookieBot" would be blocked.  There's really not any way to get around it; many users will end up finding their first experience with Wikipedia is being blocked because their name is not allowed.  This page, being part of that policy, is going to be a little bit bitey no matter what we do; even if it was working 100% correctly, the first experience for many editors would be as Ryan describes above.  However, I'm not sure that's any worse than just being blocked.
 * With that said, this page has and probably still is being too bitey. People bring names to that page which are dubiously invalid, and never warn the user.  In addition, many "speedy blocks" or "speedy not-blocks" occur, which don't allow an international view of the name.  The idea of the page is to advise admins, but often action is being taken without a good cross-section of views being taken.
 * With that said, I don't know what the alternative is. Our username policy is flexible; we require some forum for the discussion of usernames which are borderline.  I'm not sure that the posited alternative, of merging this to WP:AN is a good one, since we  really don't need more views, we need a better method of dealing with views.  Perhaps if we soften what WP:UAA is used for, we could end up with a better venue, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem.  --Haemo 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shut down. Ryan actually beat me here, I was thinking about nominating  this page myself recently.  First, reform was mandated but has failed.  Second, the username policy is already enforced harshly enough; username violations that would not be blocked at WP:UAA are just not a big deal if we just let them slide.  Third, this is a horrible process for solving a dispute that, at the core, is something that the "target" typically takes very personally.  Input from the user is not even expected; most postings get closed within a day or two so it's not even possible for most users to make comments, and the user's opinion, if they do give it, is not given any special consideration even though the process concerns them so significantly.  Indeed, virtually all listings (I checked through all the archived ones from September to now) are not valid according to the page's own instructions, because insufficient attempts have been made to discuss the issue with the user, which is what WP:U specifies.  In fact, I'll go one step farther: discussion with users about their usernames almost never happens anymore, because of the existence of this page.  We just don't need this board; for the extremely rare cases where extensive discussion is really necessary, there is always the ordinary WP:RFC process.  Mango juice talk 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag historical. My last run in there was a waste of time indeed, and not only because I failed to achieve the intended result.  If you're in doubt about whether a username violates the username policy, for crying out loud: don't block.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag historical I too have been reading it and it does seem that many of the cases are clear cut or could be simply addressed at UAA; the discussion there is often quite long too. So I believe while this page was good, it has lost much of its use and reforms having failed, the page should be tagged historical. Phgao 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Throw upon the garbage heap of history This is the first time I lay my eyes upon this page and I dearly hope the last. A parody of XfD, with people's names instead of article titles. I'd rather have people calling themselves User:Fuck God in his Faggot Ass with a Big Nigger Dick than this.--Victor falk 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * historical it, per above users' reasoning. A lot of the cases that are brought to this page should have been dealt with at UAA, rather than wasting a whole lot of time discussing whether it violates the policy, when it obviously does and should be blocked. And then there's the issue of not contacting the user in question about their name before submitting the request... seriously bitey stuff goes on at RFCN, I think it's time for it to stop.~ Sebi   [talk] 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading what has been said below, I am somewhat undecided on this one. The principle of RFCN is needed, but I don't think that the current system used on RFCN is satisfactory at all. ~ Sebi   [talk] 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut down and tag as historical, I never agreed to having this page exist in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I participate in RFCN. RFCB doesn't work.  It's inconsistant; decisions don't always follow policy; people !vote; sometimes people apply policy way too aggressively; sometimes there's a feeling of an "unsuitable username patrol" - and that's sub-optimal.  tag as historical.  Dan Beale-Cocks  12:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like RFCN, but... people won't take the hassle to bring it to WP:ANI. That will result in even more bordeline, unreviewed, username blocks. Are we sure we want this? -- lucasbfr talk 13:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already not allowed to "appeal" username blocks at RFCN. This doesn't exist to appeal blocks so much as to attempt to block unblocked borderline cases.  Which we could probably just let slide.  Mango juice talk 14:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot appeal blocks at RFCN? I didn't know that. But even if we cannot, they can still be appealed via the normal unblock request. i said 03:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the top of the page: "If you wish to contest or question the blocking of a user by an administrator, please do not post the issue here. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator or with other administrators." This was inserted because of the first MfD, and particularly this example.  And yet, people try to do this routinely.  Mango juice talk 15:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep on principle, as I strongly disagree with Ryan about the validity of "per X" comments. Such comments are valuable, because they demonstrate added weight of support for a particular viewpoint; they demonstrate that person X's rationale is the one accepted by the community, and therefore allow the closing admin to make a decision based on community support rather than his/her own opinion. However, his other criticisms of the RfCN process are probably valid (I don't know, because I haven't even looked at RfCN for months, hence why this is a weak keep). WaltonOne 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag historical Though I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way RFCN has been working in terms of dealing with newcomers, it is plain that there is too much overlap with UAA for it to be anything but redundant. Van Tucky  Talk 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. UAA is for blatant violations; if in doubt, assume good faith and let the user go, or try RFCN to get some outside opinions.  Melsaran  (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the theoretical difference between UAA and RFCN. But in practice, those names which are not blatant enough for UAA are usually too borderline to elicit a strong consensus, thus making the process useless. Most of the names which I have seen get a clear-cut consensus should have been posted at UAA in the first place. The other issue is, and I think your comments below are a symptom of this, that no one can seem to agree on exactly how this thing should operate and what it should resemble. When you have just about every user operating under a different paradigm, it makes the process unworkable. And I don't think the present RFCN can be altered to deal with this comprehensively. Maybe in the future someone can create a radically different way for the community to have some input on usernames, but right now I think it's time to give it a rest. Van Tucky  Talk 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and let them go or [don't assume good faith] and try RFCN? That is about what it amounts to. (Also note that in the prior reforms you were supposed to actually attempt to contact the user first. If there is a real problem with a username, someone will notice. If the user edits... anyone watching edits will see the user and his name. I'd just assume good faith until someone can actually show that the name is a problem. A very good comment right now on WP:RFCN is the following The policy forbids usernames which are blatantly offensive, not usernames that could maybe, somehow, possibly, or someday be offensive. I'm going to move to allow. by VanTucky. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... oops, just now realized I quoted the person above me in my last sentence (not what they said here, but elsewhere) O.O ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 22:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe something we need to realise is that it is called "requests for comment" and not "votes for disallowing a username". It is currently acting as a vote, much like AFD but with blocking a username instead of deleting an article. It should be a place where admins can go with borderline cases, when they are unsure what to do with a certain username, to get a few outside opinions. I think this page, if used correctly, actually encourages us to be less WP:BITEy since admins who are in doubt with a username reported at WP:UAA can get some outside opinions before blocking. If we shut down this page, borderline cases will probably be discussed at WT:UAA or WP:ANI instead, and I think it's better to have a centralised page for this. If we shut it down, users will probably be blocked by "admin discretion", which in practice boils down to "I block this username because I think it's offensive, if you disagree then go to ANI and request an unblock", as opposed to the current practice: "I think this username is offensive, if the community agrees then we block it, else we leave the user alone".  Melsaran  (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However this has been tried once. See the prior MFD. Such a method would be useful... but if you are in doubt as an admin, leave it for another admin, or drop a note on a few folks talk pages... what is there now is unacceptable, we tried the reform route... did not work. I think we should try going without any such RFCN for a while and see if admins actually can find a few cases where they can't just leave it for another admin etc. If you have doubts about something.. don't block, either leave it or remove it as not blocking. If they turn out to be a troll or vandal, block for edits. If someone actually finds a problem later, and they are a good contributor deal with it with a proper request for comment. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging the function into WP:AN and I think we need a place for non-admins to report potential violations at other then the WP:AIV-style WP:UAA. If the problem is with user behavior, then the behavior won't change with it being under WP:AN.  If the problem is with policy or the guidelines then the policy or guidelines need to be changed. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, instead of having a discussion on disallowing a username, we should instead just have an admin that sees the name block immediately? Because that's MUCH less bitey. -Amarkov moo! 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WE CAN'T MERGE EVERYTHING INTO ANI. -Amarkov moo! 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until I hear a good answer to Amarkov and Lucasbfr. GDonato (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above by various users, being blocked for username concerns in the first place is bitey. On WP:UAA admin discretion serves as a large purpose of the page.  For example some admins may allow a particular name, while others may block that name.  I have seen on many occassions names being removed from WP:UAA as allowed and later being blocked when it is readded to the page.  At least on WP:RFCN, there is an attempt to gain some kind of consensus although I do agree that it should be more like a discussion than a voting system as it currently is.  So I believe that reforming the page to be like that is more sensible than simply deleting or tagging as historical.  In my opinion, as I have mentioned before, the WP:U policy itself could be made clearer.  Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut down and tag historical - it seems that we keep trying to reform this thing, but in the end, we come back to the same concerns. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  How many times have we had the same discussion about this, resulting in the same suggestions for reform, and then starting the cycle over?  Let's trust our admins and trust their discussion and just take it to WP:UAA.  It was a nice experiment, but let's just accept that it failed, despite our very best intentions, and move on.  In addition, I'm seeing this page turn more and more into a POINT-y place where people find an excuse to wikilawyer.  It was nice training for citing policy when I was toying with the idea of becoming an admin, but in the end, I think it does more harm than good.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We only have adminship because we don't want to allow some actions to be taken by just anyone. "Trusting" them in the sense of removing processes to discuss possible administrative actions was never part of it. -Amarkov moo! 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But if you disagreed with an admins decision at UAA, you are more than welcome to take it to AN/I for a review.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Amarkov, that process just doesn't scale. Let's take it to extreme... do we discuss most vandalism blocks before we do them?  Nope.  We discuss the extra-ordinary - the unusual ones.  Most of the names brought to UAA are not extra-ordinary or unusual.  They're garden variety.  If we see a need to discuss extraordinary ones, we have a mechanism in place for that: AN/I or AN.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that many names are clear enough that they don't need discussion, which is why we have UAA in the first place. I'm not advocating deleting that. As for replacing this with ANI: as I've said before, we can't just make ANI the noticeboard for any and all complaints, or it will be too crowded for any practical use. Having all discussion on anything take place on one page is bad. And it's not like ANI is somehow immune from the voting everyone complains about; it's just that many discussions there have nothing to vote on. -Amarkov moo! 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * {Edit Conflict} Im not debating the trustworthiness of admins. Admins are trusted users who were selected by the community but don't you think WP:U could be made clearer and that username discretions can vary quite significantly. This is different from blocking vandals. Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. On UAA, all that is needed to block a name is one admin who thinks the name is a violation. RFCN acts as a "safety valve" where wider input can be sought on names that might need blocking, and an admin who is unsure on whether a name can refer it to RFCN. If RFCN is closed, I fear that many admins will block borderline names "to be on the safe side" because they know that if they do not block it, there is no other recourse. Personally, I think there is wayyy to much blocking going on over usernames, and putting more weight on the block-heavy UAA process is a step in the wrong direction. Also note that my own name (which I honestly can't see any problem with) was only allowed after a RFCN discussion. An admin wanted to block it as a blatant violation. Is he back? 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell if a name should be blocked or not don't block. Its not going to hurt anyone. If someone gets offended by a name later, we can always have a proper request for comment. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 07:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But that is not what is going on now. The current MO of most admins seems to be that it is better to block too many than too few. Take the example of Die4Dixie, whose name was allowed in a recent RFCN. That name could be seen as promoting slavery, or killing Blacks, etc., but the community spoke out and found that this name is OK because of the many other legitimate interpretations. However, if RFCN had not existed, and "Die4Dixie" had popped up on UAA, I'll bet that the admin would think "hmm, it could be bad, but I'm not sure. But if I don't block it, there's a chance many people will find the name offensive and I will have let a vandal slip by. I'll block it just to be on the safe side". Regardless of what the policies and rules say, UAA today is a block factory, and I'm quite sure removing RFCN will lead to more borderline names being blocked and newbies being driven away. But hey, they're only newbies, so they don't matter, right? Is he back? 10:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then change the rules of UAA, make a thing on there that says if you are not sure, don't block. Its not going to kill anyone. (Additionally make changes to WP:U, discussion has occurred there as well that the current interpretation of WP:U is a tad bity. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem IMO is that there is a longstanding culture at UAA and RFCN about how to deal with usernames, that is held in place by the username policy, Twinkle username reporting, and the fact that new users coming to these pages follow the examples they see there. This ingrained mindset means that trying to make any change in how usernames are dealt with is useless, as things quickly go back to how they were. For example, see how bolded recommendations have crept back into RFCN, how users without edits are again being reported at UAA for only slight violations, etc. I think that just deleting RFCN will not remove this "username culture", and will just mean that all names go to UAA instead and get blocked.
 * There is an interesting discussion going on about a major overhaul of the username policy. Many people agree that we are making way too much fuss about usernames, but the problem is not with RFCN in my opinion, it is the username policy itself. At WT:U, I have suggested a radical solution of getting rid of the username policy, UAA and RFCN altogether, in order to break up the "username blocking culture" that exists now - I believe that a complete cut-off is necessary, because reforms have been tried several times, and things just go back to how they were. My revised opinion is therefore keep RFCN for now, with the option of deleting it if a major overhaul of the username policy makes it obsolete. Is he back? 11:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag historical I like the idea of shutting down RFCN and moving discussions to the admins' noticeboard. I had a situation a while ago with a user who chose the username "KaseyKahne", which is a violation because it resembles the real name Kasey Kahne.  I gave him a "username concern" notice, and referred him to RFCN, and he chose a new name.  No big deal.  But that really didn't require much discussion, just an easy mechanism for him to start over with a new name.  I believe UAA for simple cases, and AN for complicated cases, would be sufficient for that. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But why can RFCN not deal with such things just as well as ANI? -Amarkov moo! 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there's a more sane crowd at AN/I.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And then what will happen to the insane crowd? Will some special anti-insanity spray make them disappear? Or is there something about ANI that prevents people from wanting to come? -Amarkov moo! 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I like the idea of an anti-insanity spray, apparently it hasn't been perfected at present. Maybe the crowd at RFCN could find something constructive to do with their time like vandal fighting or maybe....... creating a new page. No, in all seriousness, the people that comment at RFCN are valued members of the community, but I really don't believe it is required anymore.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, Ryan, you're number two in the insane crowd ;) (KETTLE comes to mind) GDonato (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I actually provide sane ratianale, and I hardly ever comment anymore. I don't substantiate my disallow with per GDonato.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryan, were you not one of the people arguing to keep this in the prior two MFDs... if I recall correctly? ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 07:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the first yes, in the second I suggested it be deleted. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and realised how I actually feel about the page, I really believe wikipedia would be a better place without it. However, if there is consensus that is not the case, then I am more than happy to just let people get on with it.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep it is useful resource. Usernames that need discussion can't be discussed at UAA, the physical dimensions of the board can't handle long discussions. RFCN is an excellent way to do this. Also, a number of users have recently began adding thier own ames to RFCN in order to check if they are suitable. They would be less inclined to do so at UAA, and it would be worse for them as UAA is more likely to take direct action rather than discuss it with them SGGH speak! 09:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The one user I saw adding his own name was most likely a troll/vandal (something about quntrillion names), which matched a sequence of of naems such as Billion names, Trillion names etc. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 09:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, basically per Amarkov and Is he back. Deleting this page amounts to leaving more decisions in hands of the admins, being more WP:BITEy, and the "block, then discuss/take to ANI" mentality. See my comments above.  Melsaran  (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The borderline names will just go to WP:UAA where it will be all up to whatever admin comes along and sees it, so there will be no gauging of community feeling on the borderline ones. Rlevse 14:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Names are regularly left on WP:UAA with a few comments until someone makes a decision. A fair amount of the improper use of WP:RFCN have been reports being "referred" to RFCN from UAA without anyone bothering to try to discuss with the user.  Mango juice talk 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't be, I keep removing them. UAA can't fit discussion unfortunately SGGH speak! 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely, most are acted on with little or no discussion, even the borderline ones. Rlevse 12:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag as Historical, as said above, many of the cases could be addressed at WP:UAA or WP:AN. Thanks, Codelyoko193  Talk Contributions  15:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * UAA can't deal with protracted discussions and I also fail to see how it's a good idea to shove more crap on a board that already requires super aggressive archiving to keep it under 500k. Yes, the board could take over those cases... but is it a good idea? AN could also take over ANI, AIV and RFC... but eventualy we get to a point where ANI gets so large it's useless. The justification that seems to pop-up at many of the keep votes "AN could do it" seems fairly week to me and it ignore the point that the function of this board must exist somewhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Can I ask where exactly an admin should go to confer with others regarding a username? I fail to see how AN better, it is less community based, and even if it wasn't it would not solve the perceived problems with RFCN. 1 != 2  15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Heaven forbid I have a place to confer with my peers about usernames.
 * Addendum:AN/I is going to be so freakin huge, with the ban discussions, now username block discussions. I mean all for centralized discussion, but come the freak on?  Too much of a freakin good thing, is too freakin much... ...for freaks sake.  If you centralize everything, you are going to have a huge mess, and I might be unwilling to wade through that mess. M er cury    15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have the people saying "keep, because it RfCN is less blocky than UAA" seen some of the recent blocks that have been happening? 'GM Chrysler' is blocked, because it "promotes the car company" (even though that's 2 seperate car companies). Or usernames that have made no edits get reported, without the user being informed.   Dan Beale-Cocks  15:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not anymore they don't. That has been clamped down on now. Users are always informed and only reported to RFCN after 2 or 3 days where there is no response. SGGH speak! 16:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is called consensus, and an admin who was willing to act on consensus. I guess the question we should all be asking is "Do you want admins to have a place to get community input, or should they just make up their own minds?". I would prefer to have a place that lets me get the advice of my peers, but lacking that I will just have to interpret policy the best I can. Oh, Keep by the way. 1 != 2  15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point your making with "User:GM Chrysler"'s block... Do you think that somehow magically a different result would have been reached at WP:AN if the subject was broached there? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * About 'GM Chrysler' - people who think RfCN is broken might not be editing there, thus reporting a name at a different place could get a different reaction. Especially if the fact that 'GM Chrysler' isn't against username policy.  Dan Beale-Cocks  20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the users arguing for this page to be deleted seem to be arguing that the process has failed. There is no clear evidence that this process has failed.  There are alot of usernames which should get a discussion first.  Deleting this page may simply result in more usernames being blocked unnecessarily.  This is especially the case as the WP:U policy leaves alot of the work to admin discretion.  Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it has actually resulted in a productive discussion many times. It is a good thing to get some outside opinions before acting, especially when that act can drive a newbie away.  Melsaran  (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The creation of WP:UAA by Ryan has reduced the content of WP:RFCN, but it certainly hasn't exhausted it. New things frequently emerge from the discussion there, both for the usernames under discussion and -most importantly- for tweaks and clarifications of the WP:U policy itself. I don't see how a mere discussion over a username can offend the bearer, more than the bearer himself intends to offend the community by using a borderline username. Admins will frequently need a community consensus to back up their decisions, and this is the best way to request such a feedback. NikoSilver 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This board does a lot more damage than it does good. Going back to the beginning of september according to the archive and the page's current contents, there have been 21 usernames disallowed. Of those, two were "appeals" of blocks that were denied, two were blocked independently, and of the rest only one (User:GM Chrysler) was actively editing, and that one was not a vandal or a spammer and the name is only questionably in violation. So, this board certainly isn't accomplishing the blocking of usernames that need blocking, because borderline non-editing usernames don't hurt anything.  There have also been 8 users who have voluntarily changed their username. In those cases, basically, the problem was solved through discussion, but thanks to RFCN there was some unhappiness: User:Wordless symbol (formerly User:҈) was certainly quite put out and hasn't edited since the incident, and we had to keep apologizing to User:Z10x about how obnoxious the process was (see User talk:Z10x).  In almost all of those cases, simple discussion with the user would have produced a satisfactory result, and wouldn't have been something we needed to apologize for.  Finally, there have been quite a few usernames "allowed" but seeing as none of them in the last month and a half have been ones that exhausted discussion first, those debates were useless at best and unwelcoming and hostile at worst.  Mango juice talk 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really think the best thing to do, if this board is shut down, is to not replace it with more reports to WP:ANI or expect admins to always reach a decision on their own at WP:UAA, but rather to treat such cases as ordinary disputes between users, to be worked out via discussion, as WP:U says we should do. Mango juice talk 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea, if such a system were used. But it should be pretty obvious that deleting this board will just cause the same general thing to take place elsewhere. -Amarkov moo! 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]]  It's a perfectly valid system; most of the time the usernames are clearly chosen by 'idiots' who know better. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just.  Wow.  Mango juice talk 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Also some users do volunatarily request a name change during the process. So this process gives newbies a chance.  Blocking because of username concerns which aren't offensive or rude but simply go against policy, when a new user has no idea of the username policy, can drive newbies away.  Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Involving a new user in a heated discussion about their username is probably more likely to drive them away, discuss with them or give them a short sharp block and let them choose a new username rapidly.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Short, sharp blocks do not strike me as particularly friendly welcomes. GDonato (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They can move on quickly and create a new username rather than being the subject of a few days of discussion. Trust me, if I was put into the lions den so quickly after I started I wouldn't be around now.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And if I thought that the community would rather immediately sanction me than discuss something, I wouldn't be around now. -Amarkov moo! 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A username block isn't an editing sanction, it's just a restriction put on an account that has a username that isn't allowed. The user can quickly and easily go and create a new username that isn't in violation of the policy. In the first MfD, Mackensen put it a lot better than I have, but someone he knew had been subjected to RFCN and found the process very disturbing, he would have preferred to have had a straight block and let him move on rather than go through the bureaucratic and bitey atmosphere that RFCN can be at times.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made my point clear enough. I would much rather go through a "bureaucratic and bitey" discussion than just have an admin block me immediately. I may be in the minority, but your preference isn't universal. -Amarkov moo! 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both ways can royally piss people off. See User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12 for a valuable contributor who was alienated by an out-of-hand block, and User talk:Wordless symbol for a valuable contributor alienated by an unfriendly discussion they couldn't defend themselves from.  What we probably need is some real reform of WP:U; the policy probably needs to be drastically changed if it's not going to be out of touch with common sense.  Mango juice talk 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:U has some problems with it. And as long as the underlying policy has problems, any method of implementing it will have problems. It's not RFCN's fault. -Amarkov moo! 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So let's fix RFCN by getting rid of it, and then fix WP:U so RFCN won't be needed. Otherwise we'll be stuck with a chicken-and-egg problem.  Mango juice talk 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But a place to discuss whether or not something is a policy violation is good. There's no way to make a policy so unambiguous that discussion on its implementation is never needed. -Amarkov moo! 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good if our goal is to enforce absolutely every violation of the username policy without making mistakes. That's just not a good goal, because the cases on the borderline are both (1) most likely to be good-faith users who made a bad choice and (2) most likely to be no big deal if we don't block them.  I agree that discussion about a policy is a good thing, but that's not why this board exists.  Discussions about what WP:U means and how it should be interpreted can take place in many places - WT:U, WP:AN, et cetera.  This board exists so that we can handle those borderline cases, not so people can discuss the policy.  Mango juice talk 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced RFCN doesn't work for the benefit of the project. Those examples of productive users can very well be still working under a new name so as to eliminate connection to their past, which proves that they too acknowledge their names were wrong in the first place. Not to mention they can be looking at us and laughing from a corner, that we actually bought their prank and have made it into an... argument for deletion of the very process that helped them become more accepted by the wiki-community. NikoSilver 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been less and less impressed with the board lately. It is intended to be a request for comment, not a !vote. I'll even go so far as to say it isn't strictly a consensus building page; as an administrator doesn't need consensus to block, they just want outside opinions on the vague username policy. Thus, the generally bolded recommendations do not help. I think Amarkov and Mercury have a good point about how to deal with borderline cases, should this be deleted. We now have ban discussions at AN(I), now we might have username discussions as well. AN(I) is large enough as it is; these two could really clog them. Now, to the board's validity. I think the problem is not the board, or the people who discuss at it. (As a side note, I hate when people say there's something wrong with a page when it's the people who comment's fault, not the board's) It is a problem with the policy. We should address the problems with the policy, not neccesarily how it's being enforced. I think the policy should be overhauled, with some respect to how it'll be enforced. I don't like the oppose !votes based on the "reforms" this page should have had. The reforms were proposed by the MfD closer, not mandated. So, if you're going to oppose, give a better rationale than "it didn't submit to non-binding reforms" please. To Ryan&mdash;as said before, the username policy is bitey. I agree that, in most cases, RFCN would be more distressing than just a quick block. However, the focus then becomes to block things that could be violations on sight; which is not good. So, all of the above considered, I propose that we keep the page for now, and instead shift our focus to fixing the username policy (with some respect to how it will be enforced), which should (hopefully) deal with the board's problems. i <font color="Black">said 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of the last RFC was "reform". It didn't. Shut it down.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. It's clear now that MfD decisions of "reform" do not work. So if you're saying "keep because we'll fix problems X, Y and Z"... don't do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs)
 * How is "Delete the request for comment process, hide the problems in the policy under the carpet" better? I personally think that a lot of people are thinking that by deleting RFCN, they will make the process less bitey for newcomers, but that is probably just changing the gauge and putting our hands on our eyes to prevent seeing the actual problem. Discussions at ANI won't be less bitey than at RFCN, they will be shorter. I am not a big fan on how we are implementing the username policy, I don't think RFCN is perfect (IMO it should be a place for admins to have a second opinion before performing a block), but I don't think the proposed alternatives (discuss it at WP:UAA? Why not put everything back at WP:AIV, just for fun?) are better. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 08:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some say the problem is with the policy and not the policing, and I think I agree. --Victor falk 09:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Suppose I bump on a user and I have a problem with that user's username. Which is the appropriate venue? Quick parallel: If I had problem with the user's conduct in general, I'd naturally go to WP:RFC/U; and if the user was a blatant vandal, I'd go to WP:AIV. Same, for usernames, I'll go to WP:RFCN; and if the username is a blatant violation, I'll go to WP:UAA. I can't understand why we must be deprived of a request for comment on usernames, when we have a RFC/U process (to which I'm sure nobody objects). Both processes will bring the user to an inconvenient state, but both are needed. It is simply irrational to keep the one process and dump/merge the other to ANI or whatever. NikoSilver 09:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point that I wish to make is that if there really is a username that needs to go to RFCN (I haven't seen one in a while) then let them go forth and edit as it obviously isn't that bad. If it's blatant it will get blocked at UAA, likewise if it is obviously against policy, for all the rest, does it really matter? AN/I can be used if people disagree with a decision made at UAA, I doubt we need anywhere to discuss username violations, unless there is a problem with someone dealing with a report at UAA.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how do you explain all the names that DO go to rfcn? I feel we need a place to discuss names that admins are not sure about, because in many cases they are still deemed offensive. There has been all this discussion on how username blockings are all down to an individual admins feelings, and how unfair that is, but without RFCN that problem would be multiplied. SGGH speak! 10:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then how do you explain all the names that DO go to rfcn? - some users don't understand username policy, thus they create bad names; some users don't understand username policy and thus think someone's name is bad and needs to be checked; some people do understand policy, but don't understand how it's applied (eg: reporting names because they think "someone might be offended", with no evidence that anyone actually is offended); some users are prolific reporters of usernames, (it sometimes feels as if there's a "new username patrol" happening.) Then there's a few reports from people who think a username may be a vio, but they're not sure and they'd like to get advice first.  Dan Beale-Cocks  15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus all sorts of ideas emerge from this venue, such as the need for modifications in WP:U. NikoSilver 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus UAA (or ANI) may be bitey too, and what'll happen is that those requests will be tunneled there. NikoSilver 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I appreciate Ryan's concerns - and it sure ain't perfect - but RFCN is useful, is reforming and provides a necessary alternative to ANI and UAA. What bogs it down is the wikilawyering and "past champions" who have lawyered their way into keeping their idiosyncratic usernames lingering around and lawyering for the next "little guy" against the evil system. However, closures tend to be sensible and I just don't see a compelling argument to get rid of it, unlike with, say, Esperanza. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Serves a necessary purpose between the block factory of UAA (which I note, perhaps irrelevantly, was created by Ryan) and AN/I, which has enough added on there already, thanks.  Really, it ought to be UAA that should be being re-assessed, as it is unnecessary and could easily be merged into WP:AIV.  The problem is that if a username is borderline, too many admins will block thinking that it really is the best way to deal with a difficult choice.  If it's a difficult choice, it should not be blocked.  And we have RFCN to pick up the slack and provide visibility.  I don't trust a lot of our admins to make the correct call in line with assume good faith.  Neil   ☎  15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually what needs reassesed is our username policy. It needs to be clear that difficult cases should not be blocked, and rather emphasis is placed upon... is the user disruptive? ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No ANI I do not think it should move to move to ANI, too much is already there, more is getting moved there, it's already a mess to manage and will only get worse. Rlevse 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep To quote, "'If you put lots of things in one place so that more people see it, eventually everything is in one place. And nobody can find what they want.'" Personally, I believe this is very fitting to this situation. Now that CSN issues will be discussed at ANI, it will recieve even more posts. To add to this, the issues normally discussed on ANI amount to around 25 gigabytes over the course of its existence (if my memory serves, there was a discussion about this at WT:AN recently, but I'm not sure). In any event, going against WP:ATA, it's useful. Sure, bolded votes can make RFCN seem more like an XfD debate than a discussion, but it serves a purpose in that it deals with questionable usernames that are not blatant enough for UAA. With the amount of requests that are added to the RFCN page on a regular basis taken into consideration, and also the enormous length of some of them, I feel that ANI would be flooded with kilobyte after kilobyte of threads that could be more organized in a separate location. Thus, while I can sympathize with Ryan and the other opposers to this MfD, I think it is a much better thing to do to keep RFCN and keep ANI the way it is without making things any larger than they need be, rather than integrating it into AN or ANI and simply increasing a backlog that RFCN is perfectly capable of handling by itself. The only thing I would suggest is that RFCN work on its flaws, and increase discussion to determine consensus rather than voting to determine a majority. With a few minor tweaks to the system, I am confident that we can save ANI a bit of trouble and keep this division of RFC alive and well :) Cheers, and happy editing, ( <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ar <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ky ) 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * another comment: Some of the 'discussions' are very rapid - "mental breakdown" allowed after a discussion lasting a few hours, "captainpervert" (which was an appeal) kept as disallowed after six minutes. Dan Beale-Cocks  20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * RFCN is not an appeal board, plus it was a blatant vio.Rlevse 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't addressed the fact that "mentalbreakdown", clearly a vio, was allowed. RFCN makes some kind of sense if a user can 'appeal' a username block and get other the advice of other users. But not allowing users to discuss a block that's happened forces username talk onto other pages.  Which seems to be exactly what all the keepers don't want.  Dan Beale-Cocks  15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- It does have some issues (though I'd stop short of calling "the crowd" there insane), but no moreso than does AN/I or any where else (IMHO). I say weak not because of the issues but because of the fact that it's a touch duplicative.  But the fact remains that there will always be a subjectivity to judging user names (unlike vandalism) and folks will need a place to take them.  WP:ANI is a poor, overcrowded edit-conflict-a-thon of an alternative.  In the event that it's tagged historical or deleted, I'd suggest taking "discussions" to WT:UAA or even WT:U, not ANI.   Into The Fray  <font color="#999999">T /<font color="#999999"> C  03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We need to weed out inappropriate usernames. I am in another forum, where usernames are not weeded, and there one user called himself "allahthesupremegod". Plus confusingly similar or hard-to-read usernames. Anthony Appleyard 13:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. We have WP:UAA, which already weeds out bad usernames as much as we need to.  Mango juice talk 14:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. UAA does a horrible job with names that need actual discussion to come to a consensus on. It's quick moving and decisions are generally rendered by a single person with little to no discussion. This is great for obvious names, but borderline cases are still best handled at RFC/N. ANI would likewise not be ideal for this, it's not nearly as fast, but still has a high rollover rate. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point out a few borderline cases where you feel WP:RFCN was helpful? Mango juice talk 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was helpful for me when trying to determine whether to allow an account creation request for " ". (It turned out that the username was barred by technical restrictions, but RFCN decided disallow, and UAA, where I tried first, wasn't sure.) --ais523 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment UAA is a great system. It takes care of obvious violations of the username policy that require little of no discussion. RFCN is important because the username policy is very open to interpretation in some cases, and these cases need to be discussed. It seems that there is a general consensus that this is true. So then, we are posed with the question of where to handle these borderline cases. They could be handled at AN of ANI, but those noticeboards are constantly backlogged with multiple threads that stretch over the span of kilobytes. Yes, more discussion is done at the admin noticeboards, and bolded votes can make RFCN seem more like XFD than a request for comment. However, if the bolded votes were removed, and discussion took place, I think that RFCN would have no problems. Therefore, instead of clogging the incidents noticeboard with debatable username violations, we can use RFCN for its original purpose. This is a very small change to be made, and thus a surmountable problem. If we work together to fix things we can fix instead of redirecting them to a central hub, we can maximize efficiency and maximize results. For this reason, I see no better option but to keep RFCN. Happy editing to all, ( <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ar <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ky ) 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is, MfD decisions of reform don't work. The MfD closes, people agree to reform... but any concrete proposals are shot down. Remember, this is the third MfD. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if RFCN is shut down and we have a bunch of admins with no place to go for advice on usernames, I have created a talk space in my user area for username discussions. It is not a noticeboard, you can just talk without all the red tape: User talk:Until(1 == 2)/Usernames. 1 != 2  14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * kEEP RFCN has its use. SYSS Mouse 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but I do believe it gets used too early and perhaps too frequently. If it is kept, I would strongly urge it be used only when communication with an active user has failed, or for those individuals thinking of registering a potentially controversial name wish input. Searching for username violations in the list of users is a waste of an editor's time. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.