Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (2nd nomination)

message: *It appears some change is necessary as a fair proportion of users are unhappy with the current format so how about a place for usernames similar to the current RFCN layout. I propose a solution which is one page divided into two sections:
:*(A) Blatant vio=WP:AIV, 
:*(B)vio or non-vio= Section where admins fimiliar with the UN policy unilaterally decide 
:*(C) When the admins aren't sure (it can happen with usernames); a section where discussion takes place (only at this point is a user informed). 
This seems to address many of the concerns such as newbie biting (because a discussion basically has to get admin approval before it is even necessary to start community input) but retaining the opportunity for discussion. A while ago, I had how this may look at User:GDonato/UNP (now deleted- feel free to undelete if you want). Any thoughts or just another silly, instruction-creepy proposal ;-) ––  GDonato (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undeleted so non admins can take a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this just adds more bureaucracy. Right now we have Concern or AIV, and then RFCN. Your proposal is now Concern then A,B, or C. I'm just afraid that by practice, part C will slowly die a death because of admins trying to keep names in either A or B. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 19:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean but it would be AorB, concern/dicussion, C. Obviously, if Concern alone can do, then the situation is ideal but this rarely works in practice. GDonato (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I in someways like your idea better than the others... I would be more apt to go along with it as long as it doesn't become a away for community input to be killed off. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That was the idea behind it. GDonato (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support the proposal, as it is better than some of the others that are out there... but could we add a stipulation where a non-admin, or even just the user in question, request it go to Community Discussion if it is taken to option B (eg a editor has had their username brought up for vio/non-vio (arbitrary decision by admin), the editor in question could specifically request community discussion?). CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This would be OK, but if an admin makes a decision on something in B; it should not be discussed anywhere other than that admin's talk page and if the involved user was allowed to move from B to C; the system could be abused (maybe something which we would have to see how it works in practice). Also, while in B or quickly after a move to C it remains the admin's decision but if a user (esp. if >1) particularly wants discussion on something then they should be allowed to have one. It remains the fact that in usual circumstances, nothing can start in C. GDonato (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry but this is way too bureacratic, I really don't support something that is going to be a bigger process than RFCN is at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why in general I am torn on the issue, Ryan. It does add more bureaucracy, I admit that... my personal preference is to leave it alone. No one has really suggested anything that would be an improvement, everything else is kind of along the lines of just trying to pacify some critics. GDonato's suggestion is ok, but I do have quite a few reservations about it. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few myself! I don't think it is possible to please everybody on tis issue with such contrasting views- c'est la vie. GDonato (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal/Compromise