Requests for comment/No username when titling any RFC

The following request for comments is closed. insufficient support for action, though we would expect compliance with Meta:Civility  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]


I would like to request a new policy for the Requests for comment/Policy to strictly ban writing out anyone's username when titling any RFC. Writing out anyone's username in the title, especially when accusing, is a very serious failure to assume good faith. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the accuser should face serious sanctions. Do not engage in defamation.--Jusjih (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support Support There's no need to mention a username via RFC titles. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose If someone has made something concerning, and an RfC needs to be started such as removal of global permissions, I can only imagine not trying to include the username of the user affected and it may cause confusion. Here is just an example of an RfC closed recently with a username:

Requests for comment/Removal of the global administrator DARIO SEVERI

All attempts of me trying to copyedit it removing the name seems to fail:
  • Requests for comment/Removal of the global administrator of a user
  • Requests for comment/The global permission of a user needs to be removed
  • Requests for comment/Removal of the global sysop
And what more, how do you write the title of a global ban, apart from "Global ban for xxxx"?
None of those make sense, and are likely to cause a lot more confusion. If a user has actually done something wrong, too bad. That's the bed they've made for themselves, and if they did nothing wrong, then in the back of the mind, they'd know that nothing will happen to them. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 00:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
first 3 cases can be just handled by SRP#Removal, for the 4th case, I suggest to create a separate discussion page e.g. Requests for Global banning. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Per Global sysop policyif a request for comment has shown that a significant minority does not trust the global sysop, RFC for removal of the global sysop is necessary unless modify policy. Also some complicated case may not resolved in SRP. I don't think we need to prohibit mentioning username as renaming the title of RFC or nominating deletion can resolve the incivility problem and it will only make the RFC policy more complicated unnecessarily. SCP-2000 11:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We can request to change that, can't we? Other than those cases, all other discussions regarding an user can just be dropped on Wikimedia Forum if global effects happen, or M:Babel for locally. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
So you still can't persuade me why it is necessary. --SCP-2000 23:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No. It's an unnecessary load of pages to remember. It's nice to have everything in one place, and re Requests for Global banning, we only do that once in a really long time, and I don't think that's also necessary. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 07:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose. I understood the concern of If Jusjih, but if a RfC needs to be started because someone has done something troubling, not including the username can cause confusion. I don't see it as a very serious failure to assume good faith. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oppose Oppose: Per SHB2000. Mentioning username in RFC title is usual and not include username will cause confusion. Also I guess RFC title which violate meta:Civility is more related to the problem of tone rather than mentioning the username (e.g. "Stupid admin xxx", even you remove the username, the title still violate civility ). Anyway, if the title has any civility problem, I consider renaming the title or requesting removal is enough. "No username when titling any RFC" is unnecessary. SCP-2000 10:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose,leading to more trouble of quickly understanding what happened and who you want to request a comment. And this RFC maybe a en:wp:snow I wish zhwiki could be saved. | Pavlov2 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pavlov2: please note that we don't do Snowball closures on Meta-Wiki. SCP-2000 11:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose No, I know your frustrations Jusjih, and I do respect you as a much more senior meta sysop, but what I will suggest is really to let that RFC play out. In meta don't we face many troubles regularly, we just have to weather the storm out. Having such proposals won't really help and per the above, for cases like removal of global rights/ global ban, there is a real need to include the user name. So this cannot be the case. I will suggest withdrawing as there is little to no chance to pass, we don't do SNOW closures here on meta per say but this is close to one IMHO.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Jusjih, this is not a valid RfC. Global community bans, for example, necessitate RfCs opened on the specific person. And there are many completely constructive RfCs opened about the conduct of people and/or projects other than global ban discussions. I recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that instead of trying to change Meta-Wiki policy to retroactively put someone you don't like in violation of it, you deal with the accusations made against you through the proper channels. Creating RfCs like this and continuing to seek administrative action against the person you are presently engaged in a dispute with, instead of handling the dispute through the relevant channels, does not reflect well on you as a Meta-Wiki administrator. Regards, Vermont (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I am quite surprised that Jusjih is a meta admin! Surely they'd know the policies better. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 04:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
They used to be a steward as well. Vermont (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Vermont: Where can I file a request for de-adminship?
Sorry to Jusjih, and while meta admins (or really on any project) aren't expected to know all policies, it should be good enough to handle most situations, which it seems Jusjih does not. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 01:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I honestly have no idea if we even have a de-adminship policy; I don’t think we do. And the last de-adminship I could find was basically the opposite of a RFA back in 2013. Though personally I don’t think it’s at a point to remove Jusjih’s userright (they didn’t abuse it by taking any actions themselves), that’s for the community/relevant stakeholders to decide. Maybe seek discussion on Meta:Babel or similar? Best, Vermont (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the response. No I was just asking since it is very unusual for an admin to not know the deletion policy themselves, and if Jusjih does something that they know is against policy then yeah... SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 02:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SHB2000 See Meta:Administrators#Policy for de-adminship on removal of Meta-Wiki adminships, in short, they can be removed only by inactive. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I did read that. Seems like this wiki doesn't have any guideline on admins who don't know policies... Oh well. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SHB2000 Actually we do have sort of admin removal process, just a reverse-RFA. We have some sysops removed for that and I can give those links if needed. But per Vermont, I don't see any abuse of tools right now. Re the above point about admins not knowing policies, actually at times policies are changed at a rapid pace. Like when RFC policy was passed, I am not here the whole duration. It took me sometime to learn the policies. Just my 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Jusjih somehow seems to be caught up in a lot of controversies in small Chinese wikis, for example going down the contributions list I see Requests for comment/Abusive user on Chinese Wikiquote, [1] and I am sure there are others. And there was this which I find appalling coming from someone who was a steward. That all being said, I would rather they were not representing the Meta project, but I don't know if this is enough to be worth a desysop. --Rschen7754 06:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Rschen7754: In that very same thread you linked, I find this statement by Jusjih: I disagree as you are not a steward or bureaucrat anywhere. I have even received even worse or irrelevant comments when I was a steward. When busy in real life, mind your own business more concerning. While they haven't misused their tools, being a sysop is not just about the tools. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 07:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Rschen7754 and SHB2000: It seems that there are some concerns about Jusjih's conduct have been raised. Opening a another discussion about their conduct in other places may be a better choice. SCP-2000 10:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
True. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Two two thousands (i.e. @SCP-2000 and SHB2000:), if you really want to request removal of an active Meta sysop, the only hope is to file a Meta-RFC to modify the "policy for de-adminship" above. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
might consider tomorrow, when I'm more afresh (21:33 in my time zone at the time of writing this). (Also, pings don't work without a signature) SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Rschen7754, SHB2000, and Liuxinyu970226: Since above discussion about Jusjih 's conduct is off topic, I will move it to Meta:Babel for further discussion. Thank you. SCP-2000 11:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks :) I'll comment there tomorrow if needed SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 12:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Was about to do the following but then I !voted here so I cannot be deemed as an UNINVOLVED sysop. Per RFC policy, any off topic issues should be moved to the talkpage which can be done only by any uninvolved sysop / steward. IMHO this discussion of their conduct is in the realm of off topic, so it surely will benefit for moving to talkpage.
Pertaining to the desysop, there is no need to file a new RFC to remove anyone. The policy covers inactivity, but clearly in meta we can and have removed sysops via a reverse-RFA process, there is no need for discussion on Babel generally, but I won't oppose one and ideally we have talking to the sysop first. Like blocks are preventative not punitive, desysops should be the last resort and to prevent further abuse of tools or status, this is my 2 cents. For examples of how this can be conducted, we can refer to this and this. Of course I personally will not object to any kind of discussion for a more formal desysop process. Since we do have sort of have an existing process, I don't see there needing too much of a discussion but then codifying it won't hurt.
My 2 cents, Best Regards Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello, I wonder these Jusjih self topic can be moved to this page I created. I can move this page as a cross project discussion of Jusjih's behaviour. --Zhxy 519 (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Camouflaged Mirage Thanks for your comment. I re-considered and have concern of moving above off-topic discussion as the job of moving discussion should be handled by Stewards or meta sysop per policy. So I will not move it ATM. However, IMO if all participators agree that discussion can be moved, that is possible no need sysop and Stewards assistance. So @Rschen7754 may I ask for your opinion of moving discussion? Thank you.
Regarding moving to Babel, although we have a reverse-RFA process, IMO there is no sufficient discussion, especially there have been no conversation with Jusjih about their conduct yet and seem no enough evidence to prove that they should be desysoped. I don't think present is the best time for requesting removal of adminship. Since Babel is the general discussion page for Meta-wiki, so I would like to move the discussion to there (or move to WM:RFC is also fine). However, I have no opposition to moving to the talk page first. Thank you. SCP-2000 07:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well yes if all agree, insisting a sysop to move is really very bureaucratic. I won't oppose any user to move in that sense. Just a note, meta is a little unlike zh where de-RFA requires discussion, and I think this is good in some sense to keep the process lightweight. In projects like simple, the de-RFA do not need any extensive discussion either, let the sysop involved defend themselves and users voting and discussing there is more preferred. This is partly due to project size, for small projects or medium sized ones (like meta is - I mean the so called "meta" community - debatable I agree), it's more economical to start it. And on meta, most of the votes are quite striaghtforward, it either almost destined to pass or fail, so any prior discussion isn't that helpful. That's said, I do support some sort of communication as my personal POV. I do also agree to @SCP-2000 point about the timing, but well I am open to people giving more evidences too. Just to take note this might not be a meta only issue as they are sysops in very many projects, so removing their local flag here might not be the
panacea to the issue afterall. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]