Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Archive 2

message: Just to let everyone know, I've gone ahead with the new RFCN procedure, there may be a few teething problems at first, but stick with me on it and we'll sort them easily enough. Just for clarification, here are the new templates;
* - this template is to be used to put the specific RFCN page onto the main page, replace USERNAME with the username that is being discussed. This should be removed by the closer on archiving thediscussion.
* - this is the archive template which is put on the top of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be  result (optional statement on reasons for closing) ~~~~. Please note, that only admins who have not commented on the username should close the discussion.
* - this is the archive template which is put on the bottom of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be .
*I've also changed the main template for the page to instruct on thenew system; . Please check the diffs to see whats changed.
* - This template can be used on the blocked users talk page to explain the block and it gives a direct link to the discussion. All that needs to be done is add  ~~~~ to the talk page and this will show the user the reasons why their username was blocked 
* and  now link directly to the specific discussion page, don't forget to substitute them however 
Apart from that, if there's anything else you wish to know, then by all means contact me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 07:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#New_system_for_WP:RFCN. --Ali'i 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I will write a script that detects the removal of  type templates from WP:RFCN and add a link to the existing archives. It may be a few days though, as I have more pressing matters. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really, because a bot will automate everything, one would only need to clear away closed items. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Question, when a discussion is closed, should it be removed from the main RFCN page right away, or left for a while? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove on closing, people who have commented should have it on their watchlist, and when the bot starts archiving them, there will be a firm record Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RFCN gone live 

message: It appears that some users are having difficulty reporting under the new system, especially since it is impossible for anons to report easily. Perhaps the process is too complicated. I have also noticed that there is no link from the RFCN page to each subpage, but overall the system is better organised. G Donato (talk to me...) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IP's don't report usernamees here, until today (strange). In what way do you mean link to each subpage? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, at AfD there is a link in brackets to the subpage which contains the discussion. I feel that a similar link here would be useful. The fact that you said IPs don't usually report here has reassured me in that aspect. To calrify my final comment- the better organisation refers to the archiving and closing adins comments. Thanks. G Donato (talk to me...) 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll play about with the template then and see if we can provide a direct link, bare with me though Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kapu to bare with you. ;-) --Ali'i 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also found it a bit strange that an anonymous user suddenly started posting usernames after the discussion concerning anons' ability to post them. Leebo T/C 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someones doing it make a point, but I've now included in the template a link to the RFCN discussion similar to Afd Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two I've seen (and welcomed) are from an AOL IP (so it's probably one meat-person). --Ali'i 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! G Donato (talk to me...) 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those users had a 'UsernameConcern' put on their talk page, the noms should probably be removed because of that. RJASE1  Talk  17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say let them run, I don't think any are going to be disallowed, so there's no need for a username concern Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties 

message: A lot of these entries are a waste of time. A username block does not delete a username. Since most usernames are used once and never reused, there is no benefit in this process: by the time it reaches a conclusion, the user is gone anyway. It is actually counterproductive in some cases: for instance, if the username is spam, then we are actually calling way more attention to it. 
I say use your judgement more. If it's obviously offensive, block on sight. If not, let it go. Come here with borderline usernames that are continuing contributors. Don't waste 20 edits to block someone who only made 1. 
Just a thought, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is obvious spam, i will instantly block, and if it made it to RFCN, close the rfcn early. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction of RFCN 

message: Here is a summary of recent RFCNs, taken from the subpages of this page:
Name                      	Age pre-RFCN	Edits pre-RFCN	Result  	Edits post-RFCN
CliosCalamityOfClits      	2 days      	1             	block   	n/a
Fenian Swine              	over a year 	over 500      	allow   	about 10
Jezusfreak                	5 min       	0             	block   	n/a
Mmaarrcchhwwoooodd        	30 min      	2             	allow   	0
Nhl hockey 541@hotmail.com	over a year 	about 100     	allow   	0
Renegade cash@hotmail.com 	9 months    	2             	block   	n/a
Fact verification         	a week      	1             	allow   	0
John A. Robinson          	instablock  	n/a           	disallow	n/a
Mohamad ali               	2 min       	0             	allow   	0
Fattyfatfatfatty          	2 hours     	0             	blocked 	n/a
Metsfanatic0007           	20 min      	0             	allow   	0
Mrsdesenssucks            	instablock  	n/a           	none    	n/a
Pothead12345              	30 min      	0             	allow   	0
The "edits post-RFCN" column may be unfair due to them being so recent. So, here are 10 older RFCNs, taken from the start of the archive page of a week ago (Mar 31):
Name                 	Age pre-RFCN	Edits pre-RFCN	Result 	Edits post-RFCN
[ Bobandsteve]       	5 mins      	0             	allow  	0
[ Canister of Death] 	15 min      	10            	allow  	1
[ Suhass.badre]      	3 mins      	0             	allow  	0
[ JohnnyHasHUGEBalls]	5 min       	1             	blocked	n/a
[ Wikiministrator]   	45 mins     	2             	blocked	n/a
[ Hackauthor]        	5 mins      	0             	allow  	0
[ Amigoooooooooo]    	3 mins      	0             	blocked	n/a
[ Master editour]    	3 mins      	0             	allow  	0
[ Mmmmmooonnnnnn]    	5 mins      	1             	blocked	n/a
[ Z3r0n1n3]          	3 mins      	1             	allow  	0
Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of some RFCNs 

message: Cards face up: I don't like this new process. That said, I have some honest, good faith questions: 
#What is the reasoning behind this new process? I've seen people mention that the archives currently are unintelligible, and that this new process gives closing admins more room to explain their closure & dedicated talk pages for each name. Is this it? Are there other reasons why this was changed?
#If asking for opinions on a username now requires creation of a new page, won't this disallow "anons" from seeking opinions?
#User:Radiant! recently massively (overly?) simplified the page to a blank page with the note that the page was for requesting comments on a borderline case. Why is this method so much worse than the current plan? It eliminates a lot of process (and process for the sake of process is just plain wrong) and is much simpler. (Shouldn't keeping things simple be the goal?) Is there some sort of middle ground between that and the current format?
#Is this just a knee-jerk reaction to the Fenian Swine & TortureIsWrong discussions? Shouldn't process evolve slowly?
I appreciate any answers to these questions, as I've read through the talk page here, and still can't figure out why this is a good change. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had seen the earliest versions of the page and liked the quote, "Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by visiting admins. If a matter turns out to be controversial, a subpage may be created here to discuss it." A subpage may be created. Why the need to jump through hoops for a relatively uncontroversial name? --Ali'i 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh... why would an anon want to seek comments? For the same reason you (or anybody) would. That seems obvious. This stops them from doing so. --Ali'i 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because not all names need the new system, it does not mean that the new system is not needed. Many names do need much discussion, and their own talk page, and the closing need to be done with remarks. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new system's discussion on pothead username appears to be a calm consensus, Congratulations everyone who reformed this process. Wooyi 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the fact that it was a total waste of time, yes, it worked great. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Waste of time? No matter what we do there will be users who report names that are not in violation, how do you suggest we deal with those? We decided it was not in violation and closed it, how is that a waste of time? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do that by only archiving allowed usernames, without archiving the many blatantly bad usernames that are quickly blocked. Requiring a subpage to be created for every request is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I like it, radiant made a comment about it being an example of RFCN being overly bureaucratic, I don't understand how that can be. A name was reported, it would have been reported no matter how we format the page, it was quickly found not to be in violation and closed. How is the new system in any way effecting the actual decision making process? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If the system is bureaucratic, it's not because of the page's format.  The reporting and consensus procedures are largely unchanged.  Coemgenus 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bureaucracy requiring that subpages be created and then closed with closing templates where before it was as simple as making a normal edit to the page. It is bureaucracy because of the lengthy unnecessary instructions at the beginning of the page. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Radiant's comment I guess it's more humorous than serious, and I think he is referring to the whole RFCN process instead of specifically the new process. Actually I personally think Radiant is pretty witty in that comment. Wooyi 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, there is not denying the wit of Radiant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if some gets blocked for a username violation, the discussion could be stated on the talk page and transcluded or moved to a discussion.  Should consensus allow, the name is automatically unblocked. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like how the new system makes people read the instructions before making posts like this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're right. I guess it was the process' fault, and not Heliac's misunderstanding of WP:U and RFCN. </sarcasm> I guess we'll just spend our time (well, not my time) creating subpages for these ridiculous reports... which we will then archive (or possibly take to MfD in some cases, I'm sure). Seems like a good plan. --Ali'i 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Heliac did not read the instructions when he reported those names, chance are he would not have made the sub pages. Frankly there are too many people coming here without reading the instructions. I am not about to help a user create sub pages for ridiculous reports. While your sarcasm is clear, I am not sure what you would suggest as an alternative. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RFCN questions... 

message: #It allows us to keep clear records on all discussions here, just as is done in every other discussion on wikipedia. The closing admin can clarify themselves in the archival box, which stops arguments post closing on the exact reasons for closing. Also, each entry has a discussion page, so motions for closing, large ammounts of info, definitions can be placed their to stop it getting cluttered up.
#Why would an anon wish to start a discussion on a username?
#It is more inline with other RfC's, keeps the page size limited as only templates are transcluded, and may even stop people questioning a name which they think only has a mild chance of being blocked (i.e. WP:BITE noms)
#No its not a knee jerk reaction, it's something which I've been thinking about for a long time
#In response to radiant, the username policy clearly isn't obvious in the way it is written, there are many very ambiguous names which need discussion, one person can't decide if it merits a block or not Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... why would an anon want to seek comments? For the same reason you (or anybody) would. That seems obvious. This stops them from doing so. --Ali'i 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because not all names need the new system, it does not mean that the new system is not needed. Many names do need much discussion, and their own talk page, and the closing need to be done with remarks. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new system's discussion on pothead username appears to be a calm consensus, Congratulations everyone who reformed this process. Wooyi 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the fact that it was a total waste of time, yes, it worked great. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Waste of time? No matter what we do there will be users who report names that are not in violation, how do you suggest we deal with those? We decided it was not in violation and closed it, how is that a waste of time? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do that by only archiving allowed usernames, without archiving the many blatantly bad usernames that are quickly blocked. Requiring a subpage to be created for every request is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I like it, radiant made a comment about it being an example of RFCN being overly bureaucratic, I don't understand how that can be. A name was reported, it would have been reported no matter how we format the page, it was quickly found not to be in violation and closed. How is the new system in any way effecting the actual decision making process? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If the system is bureaucratic, it's not because of the page's format.  The reporting and consensus procedures are largely unchanged.  Coemgenus 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bureaucracy requiring that subpages be created and then closed with closing templates where before it was as simple as making a normal edit to the page. It is bureaucracy because of the lengthy unnecessary instructions at the beginning of the page. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Radiant's comment I guess it's more humorous than serious, and I think he is referring to the whole RFCN process instead of specifically the new process. Actually I personally think Radiant is pretty witty in that comment. Wooyi 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, there is not denying the wit of Radiant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if some gets blocked for a username violation, the discussion could be stated on the talk page and transcluded or moved to a discussion.  Should consensus allow, the name is automatically unblocked. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like how the new system makes people read the instructions before making posts like this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're right. I guess it was the process' fault, and not Heliac's misunderstanding of WP:U and RFCN. </sarcasm> I guess we'll just spend our time (well, not my time) creating subpages for these ridiculous reports... which we will then archive (or possibly take to MfD in some cases, I'm sure). Seems like a good plan. --Ali'i 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Heliac did not read the instructions when he reported those names, chance are he would not have made the sub pages. Frankly there are too many people coming here without reading the instructions. I am not about to help a user create sub pages for ridiculous reports. While your sarcasm is clear, I am not sure what you would suggest as an alternative. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers

message: I have read the brief discussion above and see no justification whatsoever for having page-long instructions. Reporting a username here is really very simple, and those instructions are more liable to simply turn a person away, to no benefit. Even if subpages are used, the enormity of the instructions for a very simple thing is quite ridiculous. Also, a new idea proposed 1 day ago does not suddently have consensus, nor does a discussion about it within one day have much significance. —Centrx→talk • 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that spirit, why didn't you revert to the version that existed immediately prior to the discussion of the past few days? RJASE1  Talk  21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have eliminated the current listings. They could be copied over though. Also, the bloat of the instructions and whether to use subpages and for what purpose are two separate issues. —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work centrx, consensus was reached on this page before implementing by people who regularly use this page - not by against consensus editing like you've just gone, I'm reverting back, if you disagree, get a bigger discussion going on the talk page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What consensus? You made a post about it less than a day before implementing it. The substantial objections to it have not been addressed. Wikipedia:Consensus has the general idea about this, your flippant attitude and disingenuous statements do not. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, you have neglected to respond to the argument in the original post here. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions 

message: I have nominated the above page for deletion which can be found at the above link. Concerns were raised at WP:AN and the only way that many of these can be sorted is by starting a deletion discussion. Please address any concerns there. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever notice that these things are often decided by people who never participate in the process under discussion? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think they'll step up to take up the slack at WP:ANI is RFCN is deleted? RJASE1  Talk  03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep the area open because more people should participate in the discussion.  That said, there's an obvious problem there because it IS an area where not enough people take part, leading to a certain amount of "we're the veterans, what the hell do you know" attitude among long-term participants.  Or at least that's been my observation as a newcomer.  I'm not pointing fingers here.  It's a natural phenomenon of organizational behavior. TortureIsWrong 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I was actually starting to get the feeling that the fireworks were mostly over and the different factions were working together in a respectful way (or at disagreeing civilly). RJASE1  Talk  03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things do work quickly here, it seems.  And no one in this section is arguing for the deletion yet. TortureIsWrong 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, where will you edit each day(good natured teasing)? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tralfamadoria, I suppose. TortureIsWrong 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look at recent exchange at User_talk:Wooyi#Johnny_the_Vandal and User_talk:Mangojuice#Robinson_case, there is simultaneously, a justification for the experienced admins to judge some names, and an unfortunate resemblance to "so there, we do know better and you shouldn't judge us at all."  I... just wish the communication were better in both directions.  At least then the gulf between the knowing and unknowing wouldn't look so formidable, to the unknowing.  Shenme 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the one kind of situation (obscure vandal names) where that comes up.  Actually, vandal usernames used to be better documented, but then, all of a sudden, WP:DENY came up.  Still, I am not sure there is a strong need for ordinary users to understand blocks that don't involve them without having to enquire.  Almost always there's a very good reason for it: just ask the admin who blocked and wait for an answer.  But the Robinson case was bad for another reason: it's one thing to debate applying a block, it's quite another to debate overturning a block.  Per WP:BP, overturning blocks must be done very cautiously, and almost always in full consultation with the blocking admin: a community input like this doesn't really have relevance.  Mangojuicetalk 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that in most cases an unblock should happen only after consultation of the blocking admin. But things happen differently if there is a wheel war going on. Probably I guess a consensus in WP:ANI, which is a consensus among admins, should do the unblock. Also WP:DENY is only an essay, not a policy, admins shouldn't be directed by an essay in detriment of obeying policy. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names]] 

message: I had the page watchlisted originally.  Now I don't get to see each vote because they don't show up on my watchlist.  We need to go back to the old method. G.O. 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (just between the new method and most recent old method) the benefits outweigh the advantage of seeing a recent comment on your watchlist. When RFCNs get transcluded, you see that in your watchlist. It's just like a lot of other areas. Of course, we may end up changing the format very soon, but it won't be so people can see the comments on their watchlists. Leebo T/C 13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you can have individual names that interest you on your watchlist. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When individual comments were placed on the main page, and that page was watchlisted, it was rather hectic and difficult to monitor what was going on. Now, by watchlisting the main page, you see when usernames are listed for the RFCN process and if one interests you, as HighInBC noted, you can watch that individual discussion. It's much more organized this way. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be fewer edit conflicts, too.  Coemgenus 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with new method. 

message: Suggestion by HighInBC(Need help? Ask me):
The idea here is that RFCN will be a place where people can get comments, about usernames. Instead of Allow, Disallow, people can simply make arguments and comments about the names merit in relation to policy. Instead of deciding if the name is to be allowed or not, it will simply be a place where comments are gathered. More of an information resource than a decision making committee.
An RFCN would run for 24 hours(or another length that we can agree on), or until an admin blocks the username, or an indef block for another reason. Any username block by the admin will be done by their own choice, not "per consensus". This means that admin decisions that are disagreed with would follow regular steps(Contact admin, get third opinion, ANI, talk page discussion etc...). If no admin has chosen to block the name after 24 hours the debate is closed, and the RFCN remains in the archives. If a RFCN needs to run longer(or shorter) than 24 hours for any reason, a consensus to do so on its talk page can be made.
When the RFCN is closed, the closing comments will consist of either "RFCN expired" or "User blocked by <name> with reason: <deletion summary>". This can be done by a bot.
The philosophy of this layout is de-bureaucratisize it, make it more in line with its name "request for comment", and make it less like an AfD. This process should be considerably less bitey.
==== Comments ====
I think this is one of the better ideas to come out of this discussion. While I have read the concerns in the discussion below, I still think there needs to be discussion before deciding if a username is appropriate or not. Removing the AfD-like Disallow, Allow votes should take some of the sting of this page away. Allowing comments from the community that a sysop would read prior to deciding whether or not they want to block a username would be a fair way to proceed. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments only, fixed duration 

message: I think this is one of the better ideas to come out of this discussion. While I have read the concerns in the discussion below, I still think there needs to be discussion before deciding if a username is appropriate or not. Removing the AfD-like Disallow, Allow votes should take some of the sting of this page away. Allowing comments from the community that a sysop would read prior to deciding whether or not they want to block a username would be a fair way to proceed. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I have created a proposal of a new alert board soley for usernames which would work in the same way as AIV, users could report username, admins take a look, block if required or remove if there is no infringement. AIV helperbot could remove blocked usernames and discussion on usernames could take place at WP:AN, the link to my proposal is  User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/U Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of RFCN and all username issues going through [[WP:AIV/U]]

message: In my view, the ordinary gruntwork of blocking bad new usernames can be handled via WP:AIV (or a new WP:AIV/U board), with WP:ANI as a backup in case more explanation is needed.  Normally, usernames do not require a "request for comments."  However, in rare circumstances, open comments from the community may be helpful.  I would prefer to see the board shut down entirely, and a full user conduct RFC used for cases needing wide input.  However, short of that, what I suggest is a much higher standard before a case is listed, specifically:
A1. The user in question has been contacted about the concern,
A2. The user has explicitly declined to change their name, or has implicitly done so by continuing to editing with it while ignoring the concern,
A3. The username has not been blocked after a report to WP:ANI, and
A4. The only issue with the user's behavior is their username, or
B. The user in question has been contacted about the concern and wants community input on their name before deciding whether or not to change it.
If a user is already blocked, RFCN should not be used.  If a user is blocked, they can request unblocking via the  template; if someone else questions the block, they should discuss it with the blocking admin or on the admin boards.  In extreme cases, disagreements over a username block may require further community input, but then this becomes a question of the misuse of admin powers, and should be presented in a full WP:RFC/User.  The one exception: if an admin wants feedback on their own block, they may request it at RFCN, but the understanding should be that it is up to them to decide to reverse the decision.
Most important, in my view, is my condition A2: this would eliminate almost all cases from RFCN as it stands now because it would eliminate all cases in which the user isn't making edits.  It's also highly logical: if I were a new user and someone mentioned a username concern to me, I'd probably just make a new account instead of trying to discuss it.  It's pretty lame to embark on a discussion about a user's name when they've already moved on to an appropriate one, and we can't always expect them to explicitly tell us that they've done so.  Condition A3 is needed to establish that there is some significant dispute on the issue, and A4 is there to avoid moot debates about vandal-only accounts with bad names.  Mangojuicetalk 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This here is about what I'm thinking. This goes along the line of what messedRocker stated at the end of the MFD. (note it does not match exactly but its fairly close). —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only for user-disputed cases 

message: The title would need to be changed or re-redirected as this links to the username policy just now.
Proposal in a nutshell: Reduce the number of posts which need to get commented on and restore common sense for decisions for usernames which are covered by a part of the policy.
My proposal is that WP:RFCN is basically moved to the above with a slightly new structure which does not strictly follow an RFC:
*Blatant username violations should still go to WP:AIV
*If the reporting user feels that the username violation is not blatant or is rejected by AIV it should be listed on this page.
*On UNP a couple/few admins (with some experience of the username policy) should watch the page. If they feel a listing is a violation, even if not blatant, they should block it and archive the listing. If they feel a username is not a violation, again even if not a blatant non-violation, they should archive/remove the listing. In a case where an admin is unsure then a note is left on UNP saying so and that comments would be appreciated (if a report gets to this stage the user (with the problematic name) should be informed). The report would then be closed per consensus based on the comments. This would help to reduce "snowball" discussions and not waste time arguing over usernames which really do not need to be argued over.
Any suggested improvements or criticisms would be appreciated. Donato (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:UNP (Username Problems)

message: *I have now included how this may look at User:GDonato/UNP — Donato (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on this

message: *Keep WP:RFCN in present form, but: deter trolls; ensure consensus is determined by fact-and-policy-backed arguments, not simple vote-counting where specious votes weigh the same as reasoned votes. Keep WP:RFCN, but as it's supposed to run, supposed to have run all this time, without all the lapses that have occurred recently. -- Ben TALK/HIST 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spurious requests at WP:AIV are removed summarily, not subject to a dozen me-too votes and then archived in a subpage. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The current format does not work, and folks are unsatisfied with it. See the recent DRV. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep in present form, handle better 

message: This is a follow up proposal from the earlier Only for user-disputed cases one. I would suggest keeping the same format as now, with seperate pages for each request, with a simple tranclusion of the template onto the main page - this keeps it similar to User conduct RfC's. I have created the following preloaded template which occurs when a user starts a request; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/ Docs/ CaseForm2. The user must provide diffs to show that the user in question has requested comments on their username, so in effect, the username concern is disputed. I fully support Mangojuice's earlier proposal and this is simply an addition to it. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan and Mangojuice, your combined proposals make up what I consider a very level-headed reform process. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this proposal too. It is fair and does not waste editor's time on non-significant discussions where the user in question has not made any edits. Although, I am not sure about A3 on Mangojuice's, would this not waste ANI's time. Donato (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Requesting "evidence" is a bad idea, because (1) people can just link to the username policy and give their interpretation of that, (2) it will lead to meta-debate about whether or not the evidence is valid, and (3) it allows trolls to wikilawyer their way out of here because "there's no evidence of offense". >Radiant< 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to be adding bureacracy to me. The process a year ago I'm sure was a lot simpler, what problems in that are trying to be fixed? --pgk 10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, that anyone can bring an RFCN request on any username anytime they want for any reason.  An RFC against a user's name is sort of like being taken to court: we shouldn't allow it for just any time comments might be useful.  Mangojuicetalk 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that was the case a year ago? And the proposed system is less "court" like? --pgk 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically speaking, a year ago, people weren't overusing this process the way they have been recently.  The proposed system is just as court-like, but at least expects there is some real reason to bother having a trial.  To me, the overuse exposed the flaw in the process -- unlike a user conduct RFC (which these are really very similar to), no barrier at all is provided to the listing of a dispute.  Mangojuicetalk 
12:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about the same page right? Looking back to 1 Jan 2006 here and it is quite apparent the page hasn't been touched for a few weeks and indeed before that use is pretty sporadic. From 1 Apr 2006 here and the picture is pretty much the same. Go back to 1 Mar 2007 (i.e. a month ago) here and we get more edits a day than we were a month a year ago. Sorry but the change to me seem to have just encouraged over use of the process, they haven't solved anything. --pgk 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The format of the page isn't the issue here, people will still abuse the page whichever we decide to take. However, by making sure users provide evidence that an RfC is required, it means that it has less chance of being abused. If the user hasn't made any edits, it gets delisted, if they haven't been contacted before regarding their name, it gets delisted - the page will only be used when it has to be used (solving all the issues with newbie biting and stupid names coming here). AIV or AIV/U could handle just about all username issues, the very very small number of others which require comments can come here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, a page which actively encourages people to say "allow", "disallow" etc. actively encourages such participation as if it is a vote. You can look through the page history and see many of the same names come here again and again. The poster below complaining that subpages doesn't allow them to monitor every single !vote placed here should give you an idea of the level of obsession being raised here. If we are reviewing names in relation to the policy, then additional people posting a duplicate opinion to one already expressed (with an allow or disallow symbol) are adding little or nothing to the debate. The older system which didn't actively encourage that, didn't suffer the same problems. Now I'm sure it isn't quite as simple a connection as that, but the way the page is setup and run certainly does alter peoples perceptions on the appropriateness or otherwise of activity. --pgk 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you definitely have a point there.  I would prefer more of a "outside view by X" with endorsements, rather than a debate of allow/disallow format.  Mangojuicetalk 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep same format, but request evidence that RFCN is required

message: Just pointing out unless anyone noticed that there was a sort of 'return to calm' earlier after the particularly bad set of RFCN's, which has now been thrown in the air AGAIN after someone decided to MfD RFCN, and has been made far worse by everyone throwing out their ideas for reform? We now have an argument over whether Admins should be the only ones to deal with usernames, or if a community discussion is better. Might I point out that this is not a utopia, and there is not going to be any single perfect solution to the matter of RFCNs. Furthermore, this discussion comes directly on the heals of some pretty heated RFCN, and I believe reflects more of people's distaste for what occurred than anything else. The board was fine, and although discussions were heated some times things were on the level weeks ago. Recently, we've had a situation where certain users caused disruption to the board.
Although Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a democracy, it is not an autocracy either. Admins are simply editors who have been entrusted with certain additional functions. Their judgment is in no way more or less accurate than any member of the Wikipedia community, and any discussions on reform should reflect this fact. To leave RFCN the way it is would be irresponsible, but so would doing away with it and entrusting all decision in an area of dispute to admins. Just my 2 cents for on the matter... now I'll go and prepare a bullet proof vest, helmet, and remain in an underground bunker awaiting the flak I know I'm going to get over this. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cascadia writes: "Recently, we've had a situation where certain users caused disruption to the board."  Or as I see it, recently we've had a situation where certain users interpreted determined disagreement and (eventually) successful advocacy as "disruption."  Somehow I don't think "It's Only Disruption When The Other Guy Does It" is a winning slogan for Wikipedia. TortureIsWrong 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Behold, the nature of change, a common feature to a wiki. Sometime slow and steady other times sweeping and drastic. The fact is if there are so many people wanting this page deleted then it does not have the community support it should. So attempts at reform are both productive and needed(in my opinion). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Consenus was to disallow, but an admin closed it because the user had made no edits and wasn't notified. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and when I said "pointless", that's one I had in mind. I also see we've gone over 24 hours without a report now. More impressive than how the report rate had skyrocketed over the past few months is the way it has simply dried up. I think we can be sure neither had anything to do with any real increase or decrease in bad usernames. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I could be that people have been scared away from this page due to all the drama. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy! Well, hint taken. I will try to take myself less seriously. But also bear in mind that not so long ago, less than one report per day was perfectly normal. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to Calm? 

message: Name                      	Age pre-RFCN	Edits pre-RFCN	Time on RFCN	Result	Edits post-RFCN
StrategicInsanityAd agency	5 min       	1             	7 min       	block 	n/a
Mark anthony royle        	8 min       	1             	45 min      	block 	n/a
Ghostbusters              	45 min      	0             	12 hr       	allow 	0
Jesusfreak10              	12 hr       	0             	4 hr        	rename	0
A41202813@GMAIL.COM       	over a year 	4             	12 hr       	allow 	0
Do me, baby               	10 min      	0             	18 hr       	allow 	0
Sonypsprocks!             	15 mins     	1             	18 hr       	allow 	0
Imam Khamenei=Islam       	20 mins     	10            	12 hr       	block 	n/a
There has indeed been a partial return to sanity: the case rate has dropped right off, and I can list in a small table all the cases since the MFD started five days ago. I am also pleased to see people stepping up and quickly closing obviously pointless cases (e.g. no edits). While I expect MFD will not succeed in deactivating this entirely, I can still at least hope that this will not return to its previous state as soon as the wider community stops looking. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Consenus was to disallow, but an admin closed it because the user had made no edits and wasn't notified. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and when I said "pointless", that's one I had in mind. I also see we've gone over 24 hours without a report now. More impressive than how the report rate had skyrocketed over the past few months is the way it has simply dried up. I think we can be sure neither had anything to do with any real increase or decrease in bad usernames. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I could be that people have been scared away from this page due to all the drama. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy! Well, hint taken. I will try to take myself less seriously. But also bear in mind that not so long ago, less than one report per day was perfectly normal. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  During MFD... 

message: Why is this page going to be deleted? Saturation2 Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me. 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, you could read the debate: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page going to be deleted? 

message: .....is now set up. I've set it for Miszabot to archive discussions older than 7 days into /Archive2, if anyone feels thay it should be more or less, feel free to change it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic archiving...... 

message: I came across User:Barney Hill and there is an article on Betty and Barney Hill abduction.  From WP:USERNAME:  "Match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless you verifiably are that person, in which case please note this on your user page."  The most recent most recent edit is more than one year ago.--mikeu 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this username is a problem. The Barney Hill from the abduction doesn't qualify (to me) as a well-known living/recently deceased person. Mind you, the person was editing UFO-related articles , so might qualify as well-known in the field. The user is no longer editing, though, so I'm tempted to leave it alone. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:DONTLOOKFORPROBLEMSWHERENONEEXIST. He or she is no longer editing, ergo, there is no problem. If the resume editing, then seek discussion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  username question 

message: They're needless bureaucracy, and make the main page seem like a daunting process instead of a simple list. As noted in the table above, RFCN requests tend to last less than a day and tend to be really short, thus there isn't a practical need for subpaging. Per WP:BITE, those subpages could be seen as some kind of 'permanent record' against a user, which novices may not appreciate. And per the MFD, sufficient people dislike the present process that the earlier debate about it needs to be viewed in the light of more input. >Radiant< 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this talk to get rid of the sub pages? I don't see a consensus Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the fact that many people on the recent MFD found the current process too complex. I believe the main reason for using subpages to begin with was that it "helps archiving". >Radiant< 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Or, to put it differently, your recent suggestion to create these subpages (which was what started the debate) may have had a consensus of the people who were RFCN regulars back then, but does not have the consensus of the community as a whole. We have several policies and such against unnecessary complexity. >Radiant< 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Helping archiving was part of the reason, but it also keeps the whole discussion held together. The process problems are mainly when a username comes to RFCN, e.g. making sure the user has made edits, making sure the user has been asked about their name. Not really the sub page. The subpages is a very minor thing and it is mainly to help the organisation of the page. I think what we really need to discuss is how when a username is brought here. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **That too, but the subpages are a major part of the "excessive bureaucracy" that people object to. If this is a very minor thing to its proponents, I suggest we get rid of them now and focus on the issue that's actually important, i.e. how/when a username is brought here. Perhaps we should make a template akin to , so that people who report here are supposed to type "subst:SomeTemplate|username" and it works automagically. >Radiant< 13:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ***I wouldn't object to that. I think it is important that we create a template though. Specifically is should say discussion where people can list specific area's of policy which a username fails or doesn't fail. We need to get away from allow per above comments, in fact, we need to get away from allow and disallow's full stop Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, some diffs... here are three users complaining specifically about subpages, , , . And that's not even touching the users complaining about the "process" or the "new bureaucracy", or the like. I'm sure there are more. I know there are many others saying they like the new process (ryanpostlethwaite, Wooyi, etc.), but just wanted to point out people on the other side. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I can't believe you got that anagram out of my name! I do like that template, it keeps it very organised. I've come up with another reason though why sub pages were implemented; they allow  to point directly to the specific sub page so users can be better notified of a discussion. They also keep a similar format to other RfC's. I'm not all up for scrapping the subpages idea as yet, I think it keeps the page far more organised, it's not that much more trouble to list a username, it keeps a clear place to direct users who's names are under discussion to, I'm sure there's more but I can't think of them at the minute! would welcome others opinions on the template and the sub pages Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't the UsernameDiscussion template point to the section header? >Radiant< 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's how it was done before, but the problem with that was, say the username was blocked and removed before they were online, the user couldn't see the discussion unless ploughing through the archives. It's also more personal if the user is directed to a page of their own Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *As far as I've seen there usually isn't much of a discussion (e.g. a bunch of "deny" countersigns). If there is relevant debate, I suppose it could be copied to the user's talk page. But what is there to say? "Your name violates the username policy, please pick a new one". >Radiant< 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What I was trying to get at is that by seeing the discussion, they could see exactly why their username was blocked, it may help them understand the username policy better. My view is that the subpages are a better idea as it allows greater direction for the username involved. Maybe I'm wrong. I would be extremely open to a straw poll on all the idea's presented so see exactly where we want to go Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **I pretty much fail to see how someone with a username violating the username policy, fails to see that they are blocked for violating the username policy. Is that policy unclear or does it need rewording? Note the many complains of WP:BITEing in the MFD. >Radiant< 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Especially to a new user, it may not be obvious which part of the username policy is referenced, or what sort of change would be sufficient to satisfy the objection. This is why the page instructions (before they were eviscerated) asked users to specify reasons and not simply say "violates WP:U". -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Seriously, having seperate subpages is really no different from listing the username the old way, it's just more organised, and allows easier template uses. The Biting comes from listing the username there in the first place, with loads of allow and disallows, thats what people are getting at with the process problems. Not having subpages isn't going to stop that. The real key part is working out when people bring the username here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **Not having subpages isn't going to stop that, but having subpages is going to encourage that. >Radiant< 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of the subpages 

message: - name is an anagram of "alternate typo wish" so he's obviously here to create misspellings and other trouble!!! >Radiant< 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I can't believe you got that anagram out of my name! I do like that template, it keeps it very organised. I've come up with another reason though why sub pages were implemented; they allow  to point directly to the specific sub page so users can be better notified of a discussion. They also keep a similar format to other RfC's. I'm not all up for scrapping the subpages idea as yet, I think it keeps the page far more organised, it's not that much more trouble to list a username, it keeps a clear place to direct users who's names are under discussion to, I'm sure there's more but I can't think of them at the minute! would welcome others opinions on the template and the sub pages Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't the UsernameDiscussion template point to the section header? >Radiant< 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's how it was done before, but the problem with that was, say the username was blocked and removed before they were online, the user couldn't see the discussion unless ploughing through the archives. It's also more personal if the user is directed to a page of their own Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *As far as I've seen there usually isn't much of a discussion (e.g. a bunch of "deny" countersigns). If there is relevant debate, I suppose it could be copied to the user's talk page. But what is there to say? "Your name violates the username policy, please pick a new one". >Radiant< 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What I was trying to get at is that by seeing the discussion, they could see exactly why their username was blocked, it may help them understand the username policy better. My view is that the subpages are a better idea as it allows greater direction for the username involved. Maybe I'm wrong. I would be extremely open to a straw poll on all the idea's presented so see exactly where we want to go Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **I pretty much fail to see how someone with a username violating the username policy, fails to see that they are blocked for violating the username policy. Is that policy unclear or does it need rewording? Note the many complains of WP:BITEing in the MFD. >Radiant< 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Especially to a new user, it may not be obvious which part of the username policy is referenced, or what sort of change would be sufficient to satisfy the objection. This is why the page instructions (before they were eviscerated) asked users to specify reasons and not simply say "violates WP:U". -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Seriously, having seperate subpages is really no different from listing the username the old way, it's just more organised, and allows easier template uses. The Biting comes from listing the username there in the first place, with loads of allow and disallows, thats what people are getting at with the process problems. Not having subpages isn't going to stop that. The real key part is working out when people bring the username here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **Not having subpages isn't going to stop that, but having subpages is going to encourage that. >Radiant< 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ryanpostlethwaite

message: As Mangojuice pointed out at the MFD, there have been a few instances of WP:RFCN being used as a quick appeal process for user names already blocked by admins (in some cases like here the blocking admin was not even contacted). I don't think that RFCN should be used as an appeal process at all and I think that we should add something to the header that makes this clear. If people think that a admin blocked a user name incorrectly, they should in the first instance discuss it with the blocking admin and, if that is not successful, raise it at WP:ANI. I think we could add text along the lines of "This is not the place to discuss if you think that an admin has wrongly blocked a username. In this instance you should try to contact the blocking admin or, failing that, raise the issue at WP:ANI" to the header. That needs rewording but it conveys the general idea. Will (aka Wimt) 11:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the  is for. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well exactly so it shouldn't be discussed here. Will (aka Wimt) 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That said though,  is for the user to appeal the decision themselves - if someone else thinks it's unjustified that wouldn't be the way to go. Will (aka Wimt) 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone knows now that the place to discuss admins username blocks is not here, with the admin first, the AN, or AN/I if required Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please modify the header to reflect this then. Something like "If you are coming here to contest/question an admin's usernameblock, please be sure to first contact the admin, and give them reasonable chance to reply. If that does not work, drop a note by ANI. Please do not post those issues here on this board.". Something in that nature, the wording is not important, as long is it convoys the intent —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If everyone knows this, then the fact that they do is a recent development. Need I remind you of the dozen or so discussions on this page that took place after Betacommand's username blocking spree? They were still going through his block logs and dragging stuff to RFCN as late as March 27. I think making it explicit on the page is a good thing.--Dycedarg ж 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried adding Eagle 101's suggestion to the header to see what people think. I think making it explicit will avoid any possible confusion. Will (aka Wimt) 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this change. Using RFCN to check admin decisions bypasses too much of the community. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plus, when it comes to blocks we should make every effort to avoid play-mom-off-of-dad situations, and one facet of that is that only in very rare circumstances should any block be undone without at least a complaint from the blocked user: I just think that would make Wikipedia as a whole look really amateur and incompetent. Mangojuicetalk 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overturning blocks 

message: The main page no longer instructs users to inform people of the discussion via the 'und' template - and the template itself is still set up for subpages. RJASE1  Talk  03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template fixed. -- Ben TALK/HIST 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:und]] needs fixing? 

message: There is not a single major community based website that does not have and enforce their own username policy. A user who is given a username block is not in "trouble", it is not a blight on their record, their IP is not autoblocked, and they are allowed to create accounts, they can keep their contributions, and they can still run for admin. A very friendly message explains the whole issue. A user does not need to be "bad" to get a username block, and a username block does not mean we are being mean to that person.
Assume good faith is rarely a real issue with usernames as ones intentions do not change how people will read the name on a day to day basis. If you think the username policy is to restrictive, go to WT:U to change it, but please do not oppose a policy based block because you see it a "biting" because it is not. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course blocking a username is not in itself biting. Furthermore I'm absolutely sure that nobody is intentionally trying to bite any newcomers with their username blocks. However, what we have to be careful of is blocking usernames which are borderline violations of WP:U but have been chosen in good faith without giving the user a chance to change their name first. Although the message they receive is friendly and well written, being told that they have been blocked could scare off new users. Also, if a user's first experience of Wikipedia is seeing a load of editors nitpicking over their good faith username here at RFCN, they could also decide that this site isn't worth their effort. So of course Wikipedia needs to enforce its username policy and of course a username block isn't a blight on their record but that doesn't mean that we couldn't inadvertently frighten a user off. Thus, although username blocks are not biting in themselves, we need to be careful not to be perceived as biting as we implement WP:U. That's my opinion at least. Will (aka Wimt) 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely and discussion is a very good thing. But we can still be careful not to act in a way that could be perceived as biting by a new user unfamiliar with the ways of Wikipedia. Will (aka Wimt) 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username blocks are not "biting" 

message: *I think the issue isn't really with the bolding, but with the fact that most comments on this board are not in fact needed. If a user points out that "account X violates the username policy", then it is not necessary for five or six others to pile up and affirm that yes, it violates the username policy. Note that bolding-and-bulleting encourages this behavior. Actual debate is only useful for borderline issues, but those are pretty rare. What this board needs is a few admins to watch it, to speedily block anything that's a clear violation, and speedily close-and-unlist anything that's clearly not. >Radiant< 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel could you comment on my suggestions above? Also check the "wikidiet" tips! NikoSilver 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with just about everything you say, I think (my solution to not biting the newcomers, though, is not to be so hasty about taking them to RfC/N in the first place, but to approach them in a polite and friendly way on their Talk page first). --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not mentioning that, since I thought it was a self-explanatory prerequisite, but now that I see it more carefully: An excellent idea would be to set within the procedural guidelines of this page a specific timeframe for this polite approach that may result in a voluntary renaming! NikoSilver 13:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a great way to add x days to each RFCN. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone not on a wikidiet may get to it then? :-) "X days" will certainly reduce the bad faith connotations, it will help reduce the backlog here by many voluntary renames, it will help all involved eager voters (like me) think before they cast their aphorisms etc. I further suggest that admins may choose to bypass these timeframes for what they regard "obvious" cases. Also, a closing instructions manual would not be a bad idea... Thoughts? NikoSilver 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would simply shift the backlog to other places and expand it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not voting, but...

message: At the top of RFCN it states, "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username." I thought it was worth starting a discussion around this point because, at the time of writing, we have two names listed on the page, neither of which have actually refused to change their username. So my question to all the regular contributors of this page is twofold. Firstly, do we all agree about this rule in the first place? Secondly, if so, should we be removing submissions to this page that don't fulfill this rule? Will (aka Wimt) 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior discussion [ here] and here, policy here: "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username.". If you can't take the time to ask the one single user about his/her name, or to discuss your concern, or to change his/her name voluntarily, why ask anyone else to take time to discuss it? If the user's willing, WP:CHU is there; and if the user unexpectedly has a good and valid reason to keep the name, resolving your concerns about it, better still. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is not aimed to be about whether I can take the time to ask the user about their name, it is about the fact that nobody is doing this at the moment and so we surely have to make a decision whether to alter the policy or to start enforcing it. There's no point having it written up there if everyone is ignoring it. Will (aka Wimt) 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the fact that nobody is doing this at the moment" -- How do you know that? Maybe 50 people are; or maybe "nobody at the moment" is posting a new RFCN entry at all; how do you know? What is the factual basis of this claim? -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the best factual basis that I can which is looking at the page history and the current submissions to the page which, as I stated, do not follow the current policy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do take your point that I could never be sure that nobody is requesting a user change their name and the user agrees and does so (thus there is never a submission here at all). However, I have scanned all the recent submissions to WP:CHU that I could find, and the only people requesting username changes due to having unsuitable usernames were doing so as they had been blocked. Thus I still believe that the current policy is not being followed by most. Will (aka Wimt) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And maybe the number would be higher if more people had asked the users directly first, right? -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Which comes back to my original point. If we decide not to change the policy, we need to start following and enforcing it. Will (aka Wimt) 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The point is so people don't unnecessarily and antagonistically post usernames here without addressing it first with the user. Fix it if you think the wording needs improvement. —Centrx→talk • 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I understand why the policy is there. However that doesn't address the whole reason I opened this can of worms which is that a lot of the submissions that are appearing on this page haven't followed this rule. As for changing the wording, I could change it to something along the lines of "only list a user here after first discussing it with them" which would hopefully prevent your concern of unnecessary postings whilst reflecting the fact that people might want to discuss the name here before actually asking the user to change their name. Thoughts on that phrasing? Will (aka Wimt) 07:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with that policy.  What if the username is ok, and somebody has a concern that it might not and wants a second opinion.  Why ask them to change there name if it could be ok?  It seems counterproductive to ask them to change there name if it might be ok, which is why there is RFCN, to get second opinions on usernames? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's a valid point. One option would be to get rid of this rule and replace it with something along the lines of "Do not block a user based on a discussion on this page without first requesting them to change their username"? Will (aka Wimt) 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be adverse to that. However, if it is a blatantly innapropriate username, or a bad faith username, admin can still block on site. I.E., if a new editor has a concern about a user, say, User:FuckFuckFuck. This is blatantly innapropraite and can be blocked on site. This would not need to run the full course of a RFCN, and if the user wants to change there name, they can create a new account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely - blatant violations of WP:U can always be blocked on site and indeed should be submitted to WP:AIV rather than RFCN. Will (aka Wimt) 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Policy does not require that a discussion or request for name change take place before blocking a name, so I fail to understand why these steps need to be taken before talking about a block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this discussion already, High. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: True but I guess the point that Chrislk02 raised is that you submit to RFCN because you don't know if the username is unsuitable. So you don't want to ask a user to change their name before submitting them here. I do agree that we probably shouldn't block a borderline case without first requesting that they change their name, thus my suggestion for a rule change above. Will (aka Wimt) 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, asking to change first should not be required. I would like to see more users talk about their concerns before reporting here, but I guess that's another issue. Leebo T/C 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't know if the username is unsuitable, why don't you ask the user what it means? —Centrx→talk • 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's certainly a good first step. But what the user intends the name to mean isn't always the concern from my experience (take Ali'i's comment below for instance). So you still might have concerns but not be sure enough to ask the user to change their username at that stage. Will (aka Wimt) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec x4)My personal policy is to wait approx 24 hours for borderline cases from time of concern to time of RFCN, but that is just my personal policy. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am stating that i disagree with that.  There could be NOTHING wrong with there username, and an uninformed user thinks its a problem asks them to change a perfectly good username.  The new user, not knowing what to do just gives up and quits because they dont want to go through that trouble when there was NO PROBLEM AT ALL.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "not knowing what to do" -- well, that's the point of all the information in , isn't it? Explaining the options, while expressing your concern gently and non-bitingly? How does not talking to the user first improve his "not knowing what to do"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether or not this discussion has been brought up before, it is clear that the current policy is not (and as far as I can see never has been) properly followed. Therefore we certainly need to make a decision either to change the policy if we don't agree with it or to actually begin following it if we do. Will (aka Wimt) 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, policy is supposed to be descriptive (explain how things are done), not prescriptive (telling people what to do), I'd say tweak the policy to the current way of doing things. --Ali'i 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For a while, RFCN entries were deleted if the user had not first been asked, so "never" is untrue. If someone else had a problem with something you'd done, or hadn't done, or how you did it, would you rather be the first or the last to know about it? That is, would you rather he approached you directly and quietly first, or not until after he'd told everyone else about it? -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that submissions have never been removed through this rule, if that's how my comment appeared. However, you can look through the archives as well as I can and it can be seen that it's fairly rarely enforced with loads of usernames discussed here that haven't been approached to change their name and refused to do so. Therefore the policy isn't being properly followed so we either need to change what we are doing, or adapt the policy to reflect what we are doing. As Ali'i states, policy ought to be descriptive. Will (aka Wimt) 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that reasoning, no-one should ever be username-blocked at all, because WP:U should simply reflect the usernames that people actually do create. Some people actually do troll and vandalize, therefore policy should not dictate otherwise, etc, etc. In fact, there'd be no point to having "policy" at all, only a running news commentary on what is actually happening. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I just don't follow that. I'm saying that in this instance our policy and our actions aren't the same. So we need to discuss here which of these (or indeed both) needs to change to be brought in line with the other. Will (aka Wimt) 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The implicit "we1" in "our1 policy" refers to the whole Wikipedia community. The implicit "we2" in "our2 actions" refers to those individuals who are contravening this particular policy. These are not the same "we", and the second is much much smaller than the first. Let's apply the same reasoning to trolling, vandalism, and other disruptive behavior: "our1 policy and our2 actions aren't the same"; so we should consider ditching all our behavior policies as a viable alternative to enforcing them? -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK so I didn't phrase my argument very well. But surely you understand my point that, whatever the policy, our actions need to be the same as it. At the moment they aren't so we either need to come to a consensus here to alter the policy or else start following the existing policy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, there are ways in which we could ensure that a user is first to know that their username is going to be discussed here, even if we adapt the policy. One possible way of achieving this would be to create a policy that states that a user must be told that they are going to be discussed at RFCN before a discussion begins and that the discussion cannot begin until the user has made an edit after receiving this message (so we know they have read it and are aware of it). Just a suggestion. Will (aka Wimt) 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for crying out loud, if you're going to go through all that, why not consider the possibility that the user might have something to tell you about his name before you report it, and make asking him part of that process?  Then if he has good reason to keep the name, or is willing to change it himself, you don't have to get anyone else (let alone everyone else) involved in discussing it at all.Otherwise you're going through the whole process of setting up the entry, getting all our attention, and then the user gives that same simple answer, and then your effort and our attention turns out to have been wasted. How does that make sense? -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK true, that wasn't a great suggestion. But of all the people here commenting, no-one else seems to be making any suggestions about how we should either change our actions or adapt our policy. I was just looking for a middle ground, though clearly that isn't it. Will (aka Wimt) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:U#Reporting inappropriate names still says: "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username. [...] If that doesn't resolve the issue, do a posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. The user should be notified about this. In this process, other users comment on the appropriateness of the name.". -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but that statement is not fixed. If we gain consensus we can always change that. It doesn't stop us discussing an alteration in the policy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MfD close clearly contemplates discussing with the user (bullet point #2) and posting here (bullet point #3) as alternatives. As the most recent assessment of community consensus, I would think it takes priority. But I have no strong opinion- I see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. WjBscribe 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The MfD closing contained suggestions, but they are not binding. Clearly the community wanted change, but what change was not clear. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MfD wasn't about WP:U, it was about the existence of WP:RFCN. There was no MfD about WP:U, or its sentence "The starting place to discuss a marginally questionable username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username." That doesn't depend on the existence of WP:RFCN, or on whatever reforms are or are not made to WP:RFCN's processes. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username." 

message: I've been discussing the Spammyou RFCN with  at User_talk:HighInBC#WP:RFCN, if anyone is curious about developments relating to that username. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is unblocked, while his RFCN says "blocked by HighInBC". There is inconsistency, and please note that the thread does not even appear in the archive page, which is highly irregular. NikoSilver 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was unblocked by chairboy who won't tell me why the block is invalid, and has even said the block is not invalid. There is a consensus at ANI that the block should stand. Chairboy does not seem to want to either re-block or explain why the block is not valid. I would reblock myself but that would give the appearance of wheel warring. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I unblocked the user so that the RFCN could continue, but you immediately re-closed it, putting us in this awkward situation.  And the consensus at WP:AN/I isn't exactly what you describe. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFCN does not depend on a user being unblocked at the time of filing, as far as I understand it. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but assumption of good faith suggests that the user name is "innocent until proven guilty".  HIBC bypassed the RFCN and blocked on his own judgment, which is his right, and I consulted with him before unblocking on my own judgment because I felt the RFCN was active and offered valuable insight.  Unfortunately, HIBC short-circuited this by re-closing the RFCN.  I'm unwilling to edit war with him on this, we're supposed to work together, not against each other. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest we extend this "assumption of good faith" to the decisions of other admins then? NikoSilver 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, that's my request to HighInBC on the AN/I thread. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You will notice on that thread that others are telling you my block should have stood. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Bypass RFCN? RFCN is not needed for a username block, and there was certainly no consensus to allow. RFCN is not supposed to be used to challenge blocks, but if you really want to re-open it, I will not re-close it. But do remember that admins can make decisions on their own discretion in policy based matters. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "RFCN is not supposed to be used to challenge blocks" -- Wasn't the RFCN already in progress before the username block occurred? -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, but it doesn't actually matter. If a user is blocked then the place for discussion is no longer RFCN - it should be either taken up at the blocking admin's talk page or at ANI. As such, I closed the RFCN debate when I noticed that HighInBC had blocked. RFCN should never be debating a blocked user (with the possible exception of when an admin begins a discussion here about a user that they themselves have blocked). Will (aka Wimt) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is exactly what the community was complaining about at the MfD, RFCN being used as a replacement for admin decisions. This is a place for comments that admins can use when making a block, not a committee to make decisions by majority. If you disagreed with the validity of my block then I could understand, but you say the block is not invalid, and that you are just unblocking to let RFCN decide, well that is just plain backwards. An admin can give a username block after zero discussion, a little, or a lot, unless there is a clear consensus against the block which there was not. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the nature of the misunderstanding here.  Yes, I disagree with your block, but that's different from saying that it's invalid.  Specifically, I feel that once the RFCN conversation began, a good faith assumption would be to allow it to complete (or at least begin to form a clear consensus).  In AfD, articles that are being discussed are speedy deleted often, but because they clearly meet a Speedy criteria.  I don't believe this username clearly met the WP:U#Trouble criteria you linked to, and that, plus the fact that a conversation was happening, led me to try and get it going again.  Since you offered, I'd appreciate it if you re-activated the RFCN discussion so it can have a chance to continue, and thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I said I would not revert you, I still think RFCN should not be used to challenge username blocks, so I won't revert and I ask you not to. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Deletion guidelines are split into speedy and discussion needed categories. All of the username policy is speedyable. Your disagreeing with my block itself does not justify reverting an admin act, but if you disagreed with the validity of the block then you would have a case. The whole root of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding in policy. Usernames are not like deletions, the criteria are not split into discuss or speedy. Usernames may be blocked by an admin when they are seen to be in violation of policy. Any discussion taking place is for the benefit of the admin making the decision. If that decision needs to be challenged then the place is ANI, before you revert the decision. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of the applicable policies, there's plenty of precedent for reversing blocks after discussing them with the blocking admin, which I did.  If I misread your initial grudging assent to allow the unblock pending the completion of the discussion (which you've vigorously prevented from happening, for some reason), than I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I believe that your recent actions following that have been increasingly unbecoming of an admin.  I specifically draw attention to your inflammatory language in the AN/I thread and assumption of bad faith.  Please reconsider your approach to this issue, there's no reason to A: Be personally offended or B: Respond emotionally, two things that I believe have happened here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you saw my response as an invitation to unblock and then discuss then I completely failed to get across my point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That discussion on ANI has already happened, and people have advised you that my block should have stood. Please re-instate it or at least give me permission to reinstate it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to re-block, go ahead.  I think that it's against the spirit of the project and that you're biting a new user unjustly, but if it's your decision to unblock, I certainly won't reverse you, especially now that you've made the strength of your feelings on this subject so clear.  We're all volunteers here, and I don't believe your tone has been appropriate and also that your handling of this disagreement has not been positive. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I will re-block, I don't think it is biting(read #Username_blocks_are_not_.22biting.22 for my opinions on this matter), I think it is well withing the wiki spirit as I am only following the consensus established at WP:U. I think the most confounding problems here have been a lack of communication before acting. If my tone has seemed off to you, that can be attributed to both the confounding nature of text communications and my confusion as to your motives. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, we both have the best interests of the project at heart, and even if we disagree on the little things once in a while, I'm confident that we're both just trying to our jobs.  Sorry for the misunderstanding, glad it's resolved. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Spammyou 

message: Hi I've recently been usurped, and my contributions weren't copied.  I was wondering if an admin or beurocrat could fix this.  NOTE: My discussion page was copied, but not my contributions (EDIT: Well they were sent to User:Kkrouni, not Kkrouni usurped).  (I was Sony trademark vs dell trademark before)--Kkrouni (usurped) 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained the results of the usurpation to the Kkrouni (usurped or not). I will keep an eye to make sure further problems are resolved. WjBscribe 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My contributions weren't copied 

message: I have noted on the main RFCN page, but we currently have two sections that have problems in them.
#The way the truth and the light - This currently has a problem with bolded !votes, one of the problems raised in the MFD. This activity ought to be discouraged and emphasis of the discussion placed on "does the username violate policy as it stands?".
#Grampiantelevision - This user was not asked to change his/her name prior to having his/her name brought up here. While it may be a block because of promotional reasons, if an immediate block were needed WP:AIV or WP:ANI is probably a better location for that, especially if the user is demonstrating a conflict of interest. Attempts should be made to talk to the user before posting here, after all if they are willing to change themselves, it saves time here. 
Please note that the above links are permanent links to the sections, so if they are archived these links will still work. Lets try to address these issues before someone takes this back to MFD. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An idea to prevent problem #2 above would be to immediatly close and archive requests where the user was not talked to before hand. If the matter is so urgent that talking to the user is not an option then WP:AIV, or WP:ANI (for more complsex cases I suppose) should be used. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be reasonable, such as in the case for User:Grampiantelevision, to copy the comments as they were to that user's talk page, or would you simply put a link to the archived discussion on that user's talk page?  And I agree about contacting users, as I have all along. If someone had taken the time to pose some of the questions I've dug up to the user directly, perhaps they would have had time to consider what the reasonable course of action would be. Shenme 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you boil down the 'voting' discussion into a decoction for the unwashed masses? In a couple sentences, what is desirable and what isn't? In my comments in the User:Grampiantelevision discussion, would it have been so much better for me to have deleted the initial allow, but then bold the allow inside the comments?  I guess I'm having trouble connecting the lack of !votes with the forcing of substantive and directed comments (the latter a very desirable (required?) object). Shenme 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, don't use bolded voting comments, take part in an actual discussion like we are here. In the end the number of people for or against the name means nothing, it comes down to "does it violate WP:U as it currently stands?" —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Re: WP:RFCN#The way, the truth, and the lightCopied over from User talk:Viridae#RFCN closure per discussion there:
We had an edit conflict as I was posting the result of research with several links. I posted what I had begun writing before your closure. I did not comment thereafter on your closing remarks. However, please be aware that your saying the username "does not specifically claim to be a religious figure (however much that phrase is associated with one)" appears to misplace the line drawn by policy, which excludes even names "that refer or allude to ... The names of religions or religious figures". Furthermore, Eagle_101's question whether the name "provokes" is answered in the strongly affirmative. Please reconsider. -- Ben TALK/HIST 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the user is ultimately good faith (see the edits) I don't wish to reinitiate the dicussion. However if you find another admin willing to folowo it through after seeing the dicussion, feel free. ViridaeTalk 08:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viridae, "good faith" would only be an issue in deciding whether to disable account creation when blocking ("In these cases it is frequently useful to disable account creation, if the username is believed to have been created in bad faith."). "Good faith" does not make a username acceptable if it violates policy, just as "bad faith" would not make a username unacceptable if it obeyed policy -- the question of user conduct would be entirely distinct from username acceptability in either case.Since you wish to refer the discussion to someone else, I'll copy this thread over to WT:RFCN for wider discussion. -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Review request posted to WP:AN#2nd admin view on WP:RFCN, please. -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Similarly, are we going to block User:Cat because of "And having made the heaven and the stars and the rain, Diana became Queen of the Witches; she was the cat who ruled the star-mice, the heaven and the rain." from Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches? CASCADIAHowl/Trail 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The way, the truth, and the light 

message: Here are some stats about RFCN for ya folks: User talk:HighInBC/RFCN stats. It was created using a tool(there is a link on the page), I copied it here because it takes a lot of time to parse the 11k+ revisions of this page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn, only 14th. And High... spending a lot of time here, eh? CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was plenty surprised about that too, 9.2% of edits hehe. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool stats dealy. --Kukini  hablame aqui 00:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stats 

message: Month  	# edits	# Minor edits (%)	ATBE*
06/2006	44     	9                	20.5
07/2006	69     	6                	8.7
08/2006	108    	9                	8.3
09/2006	83     	8                	9.6
10/2006	69     	9                	13.0
11/2006	60     	2                	3.3
12/2006	356    	24               	6.7
01/2007	1341   	159              	11.9
02/2007	3964   	265              	6.7
03/2007	4210   	345              	8.2
04/2007	1283   	102              	8.0
|}
From User talk:HighInBC/RFCN stats, I'm wondering why do we even have this huge jump in the use of this notice board... did policy just become confusing or what? —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that happened when TWINKLE came out with a 1 button username AIV report option, and AIV started sending all the vandal patroller's username reports here. It is interesting that the number of posts exploded, but the average time between edits did not decrease much, perhaps other time zones started using it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then! I was really wondering about that spike. In any case if things come out to be "the username is fine" I think that the folks that nominate need to know that, and if anything in the policy is confusing that causes a bad nomination, it should be looked into. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering 

message: I just noticed that the protected template  features the sentence "no further edits should be made to this page". Given that individual discussions don't have their own page any more, can an admin change this to "no further edits should be made to this section"? I think that makes more sense. Cheers. Will (aka Wimt) 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template alteration 

message: Here I went ahead and dug through some names... these are all admins, but all of them "possibly could" violate WP:U. The point in this exersise is to show that some leeway should be given, and if it is not blatant wait and see if the user is a good faith editor, and or even bothers to hang around.
*User:A Man In Black -- Related to one of Men in Black (disambiguation)? -- Similar in tone to the discussion that we had on socom49. IE, if you don't think it is blatant leave it alone? 
*User:Ground Zero -- possibly related to 9/11 (ground zero has violent relations )?
*User:ProhibitOnions -- seems to push an agenda (prohibit onions) - its not violent, nor does it cause a problem :)
*User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington -- character directly out of Harry Potter, Some be-headed ghost).
*User:Mets501 - related to the New York Mets?
*User:Zzyzx11 - Gibberish? (albeit not long gibberish)
*User:Jedi6 - name related to Star Wars?
I'm not sure if any of these are really a good example, but all of these are admins, and the usernames do have some realworld relations. If you really don't have any problem with the name yourself, then just leave it be and return to working on the encyclopedia. If someone else has a problem they are sure to take it up. :) Oh and if you are one of the folks mentioned above don't worry your name is fine :P. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of these are good examples of violations, except for Sir kick which may be overly long, and zzyzx11 which could be seen as gibberish(although short names are normally not held to that rule). We have never had a rule against character names like jedi and sir nick. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since it says on his user page that his name is based on Zzyzx Road, it's hardly gibberish. I wonder if someone could get away with User:Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, or even more absurdly perhaps, User:Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch based on places of the same names? Now this might be something to take up on WT:U. --Ali'i 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, the second person exists... stopped editing back in 2005 though. Pity. --Ali'i 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They all seem beyond rational reproach to me. TortureIsWrong 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food for thought 

message: Similar to the invalid AIV report template , I have created a similar version for RFCN: . Have a look and let me know what you think of it before it is added to the main RFCN template. The way it is used would be as follows  ~~~~. I have also created a final warning template  - again let me know what you think of that one :-). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only we could actually follow through with the last one!;-) CASCADIA[[User 
talk:cascadia|Howl]]/Trail 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good I have made some minor changes. GDonato (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah cheers for that, especially for the wikilinking in uw-RFCN4! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page" -- not to mention that it's basic courtesy, the same as when bringing anything about a user up on a noticeboard, so you're not going behind his or her back, blindsiding the user, and being a dick. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the rule about discussing the name before discussing it is a little silly. I don't think this "rule" has ever gained true consensus, and is inconsistent with the username policy which allows for a block without discussion. Why should we need to take a step to discuss a name, when that step is not needed before blocking a name? I think notifying the user that the discussion has started is plenty. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first template was serious... the second was satire. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well everyone seams to be having a nice time removing any name that comes here that hasn't had the concern template put on. Maybe in that case then, we should be able to discuss names that come here before people irrationally remove them for not following the correct procedure. I thought we were meant to be getting away from a beurocracy? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the discussions but not talking to the user first would not make the process less "bureaucratic" but more: bureaucracies are famed for making decisions that affect other people's lives without letting the people affected know about it ahead of time or have a say in it. Talking one-to-one with the user first is the non-bureaucratic approach. Everything else, including using admin power to block the user, is the bureaucracy part. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that requiring editors to concern first, then comment is a bit too much red tape. However, it should be encouraged. And notifying potential offenders of the RfC process should be required. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, all this removing comments that are seen as votes, and removing names that have not gone had previous discussion seems like policy creep to me. This is a place to talk about names. Let the person know that you are talking about them out of courtesy that is plenty. We need to stop thinking of this as a decision making board, and look at it more like a place where admins thinking of a username block can get further opinions(not a place to delegate the decision itself) or a place for other users to bring names to the attention of admins(not propose a decision, but ask for comments). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is, that if a name is a blatant infringement on policy it can be blocked straight away. But what if we're not sure? Why should a user change their name because one user thinks it's against policy when infact it isnt. That's what bugs me about the username concern template and having to use it first. high makes a very good point above me - what if I really am not sure of whether a username infringes on policy? I want to discuss it with people who know about policy not someone that's been here 5 mins, and as I've previously said, what if I'm wrong? I've made a new user choose a new name for no reason. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it makes sense. Thats why I think that going straight to RFCN is plenty fine, concern should still be an option and encouraged, but not actively. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template doesn't say the user MUST change his name; rather, it expresses that the writer has a concern, lets the writer specify that concern, gives links to the username policy and the dispute resolution options, so the user has a better idea of what's going on. Not giving that information to the user before coming to WP:RFCN is leaving the user in the dark, with no advance notice or explanation, before dragging his name in front of other people. Frankly, that's rather dick-ish. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, obviously if brought here, the user should be made aware that discussion is taking place. That's just common sense. (Just thought I'd add that if I wasn't clear before.) --Ali'i 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree on that point - that's certainly compulsory. It's just the prior notification that I feel shouldn't be a must. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you feel that. But policy still says "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page," and the RFCN header should reflect existing policy. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why ask if there's no violation? Because a hell of a lot of usernames get brought here that are allowed so subsequesntly I'm guessing a hell of a lot of users change their usernames before it reaches RFCN that wouldn't need to have - that's biting. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bring the username here if you're not willing to discuss it with the user first? Look at any "conduct" RFC, where you have to prove, with diffs, that resolution directly with the user was attempted before opening that RFC. RFCN doesn't ask for that proof, because RFCN is "less bureaucratic"... but if people keep flat-out refusing to discuss with the user first, maybe RFCN should start requiring the same proof as other RFCs do, because the bad habit's getting engrained. Already people here are denying that policy says what it says. Dragging people's names into RFC without advance discussion is not only biting, it's being a dick. That needs to be stopped now. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, thats why this board needs to be for folks that refuse to change their name after being asked. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't make policy decisions with an MfD, if those people want to effect RFCN process, they can come to this talk page. Where are people supposed to get comment on if the name is in violation before asking them to change their name? There is no consensus for such a rule. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We could ask them to change post discussion if it is decided that it does violate policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, lets just wait for it to show back up on MFD then :) biting new users will make this process go back to MFD, and really if the majority of users change their names when asked, then why drag them through this anyway? As far as for where to ask, use common sense, if WP:U is that hard to read, then the policy needs a re-write or clarification. Perhaps the trouble here is unclear policy, who knows, but a polite message to a user who you think has a bad name is not that hard to do. And if the user refuses saying I don't think my name violates the policy, then take it here for more opinions. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But what if you don't want them to change their name, but would rather simply have some comments on it. Take for example: I see a user, User:Jumbo Whales. This name is similar to User:Jimbo Wales... but is it a violation? Who knows? I think it's referring to really big water mammals. But am unsure and would like other people's opinions. Say on his user page he even talks of his love for cetaceans. Why can't I bring it here and ask for other people's opinions? (Maybe a bad example since Jumbo Whales has been blocked for quite awhile now:  But that's not the point) Thanks. --Ali'i 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to the user, say what your concern is, link to the policies, and offer the user a chance to discuss it with you, with a 3rd opinion, or with RFCN. Say... that's exactly what  is for! -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, then you would want to think about chatting up the WT:U talk page, as you would be asking for a change in the policy, not asking the existing user to change. (You would basically be saying that the policy needs to say XXX type of names are bad). Now any more edit conflits? :P —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the whole idea of having to be so sure about a name that you are willing to ask someone to change it, before you can get comments on the name is just backwards. If I was so sure that I asked the user to change it, why would I even need RFCN? RFCN is a place to get comments when I am not sure, why should I ask a person to change their name if I am not sure? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then you are talking about them behind their backs, which is not all that nice and is not really needed. If you are not so sure then the policy needs changed to be clearer. In any case I'm sure that any good faith editor would be ok with replying to a concern (even if you turn out to be wrong). Its Ok to ask someone and then upon hearing their reply say "ok" sorry for bugging you and welcome to wikipedia! If after hearing them, and your concern is still there, *then* its time to take them here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have all agreed that a user should be told the discussion is going on, so it is not really talking behind their backs. The policy is ambiguous on purpose, its application is meant to be discussed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right so if you are going to tell the user, why not give them a chance to say "oh you are right" and bypass the need to even drag them on here at all. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Eagle, something might be in violation of existing policy, but still be unclear. I certainly agree that RFCN is not the place to propose new rules, but that is not the issue at hand. The existing rules are ambiguous and sometimes need discussion to clarify. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right which can be done after asking the user, after all the user might say "oh yeah thats a problem, let me fix it". Not asking the user beforehand is basically failing to assume good faith in the user. If you have doubts, perhaps the user might be able to clarify them. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we can all agree though that there is not a consensus for this rule. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That hasn't been demonstrated, because that rule's from WP:U, and this isn't WP:U's talk page or any other policy's talk page. WP:RFCN is just one outgrowth of WP:U. If you want to change username policy, discuss it in the proper place, which isn't this page. This is for discussing WP:RFCN, and whatever RFCN does needs to stay within the limits of Wikipedia policy. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does it say on WP:U that we need to make contact with a user before talking about the name? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nm, I see it. Hmm, perhaps this is an issue for WT:U. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And probably WT:RFC and WT:DR as well, because RFCN is part of RFC, which is part of Dispute Resolution, and the whole Dispute Resolution escalation begins with talking to the user first -- which makes it a fundamental element of dispute resolution we're discussing, not a trivial or superficial change. -- Ben TALK/HIST 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not about dispute resolution, it is about deciding if a name is in violation or not. This is not a behaviour discussion board. WT:U is plenty enough venue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the username violates policy would be the dispute to try resolving, first with the user and then at WP:RFC/NAME -- just as whether or not the user's conduct violates policy would be the dispute to try resolving, first with the user and then at WP:RFC/USER. These are both subpages of WP:RFC, which is part of WP:DR, and the principle of "talk with the user first" is consistent across all of them. By now you know this already... don't you?"WT:U is plenty enough venue." -- and WP:U makes the same point, "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page," so please take seriously what all these pages are saying. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats fine with me, But please make it clear to them that they can change their names and avoid all this fuss. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really I'm just having a hard time thinking... if we can solve the issue with one post by one user, thats not as good as solving the issue with who knows how many posts that this board has. I find that rather odd, and not very efficient, plus it tends to bite the users. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: , which we all agree should be used, already explains that they can change their name, I have no objection to this being clarified further. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already modified the main RFCN remplate to remove the statement that says you must talk to the user before bringing here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, as long as the discussion is based on current policy, and not future policy it should be fine, though I personally hold that this is biting new users. I'm also going to be very interested to see how many "bad" usernames we get now that we are not asking them to change before hand. I will note that we had mostly good ones recently, which seems to be indicative of users changing names when asked? or perhaps a deline in bad names? :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "current policy" says "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page," so I've put that back in the RFCN header to keep it in line with current policy... and basic courtesy. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is good that it is still recommended, but not mandatory. I also agree whole heartedly that RFCN is not the place to propose new policy, but to interpret existing policy. In response to your query Eagle, I think people are using a little more sense in choosing which names to report since the MfD. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Concern should always be encouraged, but if it's not done, we should not remove RFCN requests. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in all cases users need to be notified in a kind manner. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also going to note that if policy is ambiguous and that is found here, it should be suggested to be changed at WT:U. And darn! how many edit conflicts you guys getting! —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec, a lot of them)I am a little confused about the biting, I would rather be told that there is a discussion about my name I can participate in than to be simply asked to change my name prior to discussion. However, we each see things differently, perhaps the templates could be modified to address your biting concerns. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read ? If not, please do. It doesn't simply ask the user to change his or her name. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: UsernameDiscussion looks fine to me, it doesn't bite at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't think it is bitey at all. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is no bite. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I feel that the method (of taking them here at first glance) without checking to see if they will change it is not assuming good faith in the user to change his or her own name, but the template addresses some of that. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eagle, answer this, what if the username concern template is used, the username is no-where near violating policy, but the user changes their name, is that fair? That template basically states that the user should change their name because it's against policy, if this is the case, why not just block on sight username which don't respond to the concern. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in this case you are simply pointing them to WP:U, and you can tell them if they disagree to bring it here. (I'm assuming that you would give the user a chance to change his name). They could read the policy, and see yeah my name is a violation and change it of their own will. Or they could read it and totally ignore it, in which case after one notices that they have ignored the message, you bring it here. The third option would be for the user to actively disagree with your interpretation of policy and bring the issue up on this noticeboard. Thats the ideal situation that I see. It gives the user about as much control over how things go as you humanly can, in other words with names that don't blatantly violate WP:U, you Assume Good Faith in the editor. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you really aren't sure that the name infringes on policy, then why would you talk to the user first? You'd want comments to suggest wether or not it does. The user in question can then get involved in a (now by removing allows and disallows less bitey) discussion and can fully understand the concerns that are raised. UsernameConcern isn't the right approach if your not confident it is against WP:U. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "why would you talk to the user first?" -- If there were going to be such a question or discussion about my username or behavior or anything else, I'd want to be the first to know about it, to have a chance to fix any problem before involving others, and (if matters do get to the point of a group discussion) to have a part in discussion from the beginning. Wouldn't you? By the Golden Rule, we should extend the same courtesy to others. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Most username violations have nothing to do with motives, so assume good faith is not an issue. The motive of the person choosing a name has little effect on how it is perceived. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sure, but if you personally can't find anything wrong with the name, then leave it be. If someone actually finds something objectionable trust that they can deal with the name. Its not a black art :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ben, while I appreciate your participation in this discussion, please get a consensus for that rule before re-adding it, as there is no current consensus for it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: High, that rule is from Wikipedia:Username policy (WP:USERNAME): "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page", and WP:RFCN needs to follow Wikipedia policy. That this talk page has three people who aren't happy with Wikipedia policy doesn't relieve WP:RFCN of that obligation, and certainly doesn't overturn the policy itself. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see that now, and have reverted myself. I agree that RFCN should remain a service to WP:U, thus this should be discussed at WT:U. I did not notice when that was added to WP:U so I was not aware of it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I did not notice when that was added to WP:U so I was not aware of it." That provision's been in WP:U since the same day the page was created, 13 January 2003, though phrased a bit differently.  -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: this is why we shouldn't be forced to discuss with the user first, people want a page where they can come and request comments as to whether or not it's against policy before speaking to the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page" -- not WP:RFCN.Maybe people also want a page where they can come and request comments as to whether or not a user's conduct is against policy before speaking to the user -- but that's not WP:RFC.This isn't complicated, and it isn't fuzzy. It's simple and clear. The answer needs to be  "Talk to the user first", and keep being "Talk to the user first", until they've done that. After they've done that, if it hasn't resolved the issue, then they should come to WP:RFCN. -- Ben TALK/HIST 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was about to post pretty much what Ryan just said. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I offer you the same answer. It's right there in WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved; in WP:RFC#Request comment on users; and in WP:U#Reporting inappropriate names: talk to the user first, before taking the issue anywhere else on Wikipedia. No behind-the-back skulking; be upfront, and discuss it one-to-one with the user first. If you're too shy to do that, how can you bring it up before a crowd instead? -- Ben TALK/HIST 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you see any dispute in the example Ryan gave? It was a request for comments, that is what he got, no dispute involved. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, like here "I just thought I'd get more feedback." led to comments like "Block" and "Disallow" and "I have indefinitely blocked the account."... and the user hadn't edited for five days before the RFCN opened; his username was blocked without any advance discussion (the first notification of any username problem was posted after the RFCN was opened).Please note that the requestor was , and replied "Frankly... no."Maybe every RFCN from now on will say "just requesting comments", or "I just thought I'd get more feedback", if those are the magic words to negate policy, but will that make a difference to how the people will feel who were blocked in the absence of any advance discussion directly with them ? -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can request comments however I feel best helps the encyclopedia. You have a misunderstanding of what that Brine Pepaz thing was even about. I wasn't looking to block that name. I wasn't looking to have it changed. I wasn't even really asking if it violated WP:U. I was seeking opinions because of the whole Brian Peppers affair and BLP issues. There was no dispute to resolve. Like I've said now about 10 times, maybe this board is misnamed. You contend it is not for requesting comments, but rather something more like "Requests to have this name be made to be blocked or changed". Also, as I've said, people can ignore rules if it helps the encyclopedia. Asking for other people's opinions almost always helps the encyclopedia. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Addendum: And if I had known what RFCN was like when I came here seeking comments for Brine, I most certainly would have said, "fuck this, I want nothing to do with this... I'm going to seek comments on WP:AN." I wasn't asking whether the name should have been allowed or disallowed. That was the monster that was RFCN... hopefully we're moving past that spectre. --Ali'i 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ben, what I'm trying to get at is there are other uses to this page other than actually requesting comments as to whether a name is blocked or not. You know, some users really might not know if the name violates policy - so they bring it here for comments on the name. After they get the comments, they may decide to drop the issue completely, without the user ever having to get involved, or they may then talk to the user and be able to better explain why their name is against policy. As ali said, this shouldn't be a page just about getting usernames blocked, when people have finished discussing, we should then talk to the user, explain that their name is against policy and ask them to change it before blocking them, there's no use a user changing a name if it's not against policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And no one (I think) disagrees with the commonsense idea of letting the user know discussion is taking place here. If they want to come and comment, they are more than welcome to, as well. --Ali'i 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that's common courtesy. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking to the user first, rather than going behind his back, is common courtesy (and policy). -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ali'i, you can do many things, whether or not you should do them. WP:U says clearly and simply: "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page". Why be so very concerned about whether someone else's name violates a policy, if you are not at all concerned about whether your own actions violate that same policy ? Why complain of the dust motes in their eyes...?  -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooooooh. You're a policy wonk. I see now. We'll just never agree on this issue it seems. Best of luck. --Ali'i 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am starting to think the MfD has a point, if nominated again I don't know if I can defend this page. It seems like it is being pulled in two directions at once, and neither side will let go. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry High, but I feel really strongly that this page should be for comments on usernames, not allows or disallows, just comments and I really think it's pointless talking to the user first if the name isn't even against policy, especially when the user may change their name because of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I totally agree with Ben's point earlier that users should not be blocked as a result of a discussion here, without discussing it with them first and asking them if they would change their name. What that means though, as I tried to raise about a week ago, is that we either need to decide to remove submissions that haven't involved discussion with the user (like Chairboy just did) or else the only other realistic option is to say that admins have to discuss it with the user after the discussion here but before they make a block. The latter option is an ugly one in that it would basically involve an admin saying to the user, would you change your name please else I'm going to block you, but would mean that in some cases it would avoid users being told that their name is inappropriate when it turns out not to be. Whatever though, we need to make a decision and enforce it because RFCN is a bit of a mess at the moment, with some names being debated on without the user being asked whilst some names are removed because of this. Will (aka Wimt) 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the "ugly" option also means that WP:U ("The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page") got ignored -- which leaves us in the awkward situation of violating the same policy we're enforcing on someone else. How could we practice or defend that kind of hypocrisy? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see an RFCN without teeth, a place to discuss things, not a place to decide things. But I am going to leave this page for a few days, let you folks figure it out(I hope) and will come back and follow whatever system you come up with. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I see this place as, a user has a concern over a username (The username personally bothers them), they bring it up with the user in question, the user in question says no, or ignores the request. Then it would be a good time to take it here. (Thats following the username policy). I mean if you are really not sure, then it probably is a good idea to ask at WT:U, as the policy might need clarification. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck you could even make a template, something along the lines of "Welcome to wikipedia! I think your username might violate the username policy, please give it a read and if you want to change your name do blah blah blah (tell them how), otherwise, post something on WP:RFCN explaining why you think your name is valid." Something of that nature. But this is not the page to discuss the username policy "Is there something wrong with this style of name?", thats for WT:U. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at ; does that say what you want said? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid RFCN report template 

message: Ben, yeah that was what I was hinting at, but I too missed the thing directly in the policy. In any case I agree. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am starting to think the MfD has a point, if nominated again I don't know if I can defend this page. It seems like it is being pulled in two directions at once, and neither side will let go. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry High, but I feel really strongly that this page should be for comments on usernames, not allows or disallows, just comments and I really think it's pointless talking to the user first if the name isn't even against policy, especially when the user may change their name because of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I totally agree with Ben's point earlier that users should not be blocked as a result of a discussion here, without discussing it with them first and asking them if they would change their name. What that means though, as I tried to raise about a week ago, is that we either need to decide to remove submissions that haven't involved discussion with the user (like Chairboy just did) or else the only other realistic option is to say that admins have to discuss it with the user after the discussion here but before they make a block. The latter option is an ugly one in that it would basically involve an admin saying to the user, would you change your name please else I'm going to block you, but would mean that in some cases it would avoid users being told that their name is inappropriate when it turns out not to be. Whatever though, we need to make a decision and enforce it because RFCN is a bit of a mess at the moment, with some names being debated on without the user being asked whilst some names are removed because of this. Will (aka Wimt) 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the "ugly" option also means that WP:U ("The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page") got ignored -- which leaves us in the awkward situation of violating the same policy we're enforcing on someone else. How could we practice or defend that kind of hypocrisy? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see an RFCN without teeth, a place to discuss things, not a place to decide things. But I am going to leave this page for a few days, let you folks figure it out(I hope) and will come back and follow whatever system you come up with. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I see this place as, a user has a concern over a username (The username personally bothers them), they bring it up with the user in question, the user in question says no, or ignores the request. Then it would be a good time to take it here. (Thats following the username policy). I mean if you are really not sure, then it probably is a good idea to ask at WT:U, as the policy might need clarification. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck you could even make a template, something along the lines of "Welcome to wikipedia! I think your username might violate the username policy, please give it a read and if you want to change your name do blah blah blah (tell them how), otherwise, post something on WP:RFCN explaining why you think your name is valid." Something of that nature. But this is not the page to discuss the username policy "Is there something wrong with this style of name?", thats for WT:U. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at ; does that say what you want said? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section break 

message: I have created a new page in my userspace which I believe would be an ideal middle ground before users take their concerns to RFCN, it allows users to list user names at the page, and request admin guidance as to what to do. The admin who reviews the name will simply respond with  or  - obviously, discuss means that the user should start a discussion with the user, no violation means the username is fine, so no contact needs to be made with the user. I think this will limit the number of users that are brought here, but allow better guidance for users who are unsure - it will certainly decrease unnecessary newbie biting. Let me know what you think. Oh yeah the page can be found at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Guidance. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same as HighInBC's? GDonato (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar, but High's was more report it here and I'll block or not block - this page is simply a guidance page for users who are unsure. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this page would be part of this page, not in my user space - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Guidance Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this abide by WP:U's "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, arguably it might not. But if we agree on a consensus here for what might be a good idea for how to take RFCN forward, then we could move our suggestion over to WT:U and attempt to gain consensus to alter that part of policy. I would note that the reason that phrase in the policy was introduced was to reflect how RFCN was meant to be used. Will (aka Wimt) 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay, to be honest, this is great idea but if people just follow the existing instructions we should not get many unnecessary postings. This proposal is good for avoiding bite. GDonato (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I've created the page is because many users post  templates if they think the username infringes on policy. This page would stop the unnecessary username concern additions and allow people to get a second opinion before starting talking to users. The page wouldn't be there to block usernames, it's simply there for advice, it's an intermitant page between doing nothing and posting at RFCN, as I said, hopefully it will reduce the biting, but also people may actually want a second opinion on a username before talking to the user about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "many users post  templates if they think the username infringes on policy." -- And the problem with this is...? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion that is the advantage of the page, avoiding WP:BITE. I have seen a couple of cases where I think users were  put off the site by an intial posting of the Username Concern template, or maybe they just changed name right away... we can never tell. GDonato (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would urge you to point to anything biting in , or suggest any way to make it less off-putting, since it was created specifically to be as gentle and diplomatic as possible, and any improvement along those lines would be welcome. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing biting in the template, other than the fact that it exists. If the first thing you see on a site is someone posting an almost-complaint template then it is off-putting. GDonato (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do I read this correctly in that it would be an optional step? I can definitely see merit in it, though it obviously relies very much on the judgement of the admin. Are we going to have a set few admins that would patrol this page? Or are we just going to leave it to the admins to decide whether they are familiar enough with WP:U to give guidance. I guess either way would work fine. Will (aka Wimt) 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, looking at HighInBC's groovy RFCN stats page, a not inconsiderable number of the most frequent contributors here are not actually admins. Might it be beneficial not to limit the givers of guidance at that page simply to admins? Open to discussion. Will (aka Wimt) 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats doable, but the discuss template means for the user to go ask the new user to change names right? In any case anything that shows up too often, ought to be clarified in WT:U, and added and or modified with the policy. Really though I have yet to see anything which was so ambiguous that you could not just ask the user to start with. Can someone give me some names that might show up in using this? (To be honest, right now everything is running smooth). I'm almost thinking that we should just leave the board be for a few days and see how things  go. If anyone finds a name that they are not sure about (I.E. have to ask on a board instead of just asking the user, I'd like to see a few cases. Our policy should be clear enough to good faith users, if its not we have problems. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template (which should be used first) certainly does not just tell the new user to change names. Neither does . Please read them. -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know :) As I think I said, we should stick to the current format of the page for a few days. In the mean time I'm wondering what these borderline names are, examples would be welcome. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Will, please explain how an admin will be able to provide any better guidance than an experienced editor familiar with policy? Admins and Editors are equal, save a few buttons. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still a relative newcomer here, but I have to say that all of these constant procedure shifts and policy debates seem like a classic scenario of organizational behavior.  An entrenched gang of bureaucrats has a vested interest in creating a maze of nonsense in order to secure their own position(s).  People tend to fall into this trap without even knowing they're doing it. The function of this particular area seems fairly simple - it shouldn't resemble Byzantine politics.  But it sure does. TortureIsWrong 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey - that's exactly my point Cascadia. If we were to introduce a system like this in which we offered users a second opinion before they discussed it with the user and considered a nomination here, I asked whether we should make it the most experienced editors here rather than just admins as Ryan suggested. Will (aka Wimt) 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Will. My mistake. Thank you for correcting it. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that a pre-RFCN board might cause more problems. Right now, the way things are running are running smoothly and without too many problems. Lets leave well-enough alone for now, if things get out of hand, we'll reexamine solutions. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RFCN guidance page proposal