UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Inappropriate usernames

Discussion

Here we Go....

As long as we don't punish the user for a poor choice of name, and easily allow them to make a new one, then I'm fine with this. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So would "penispenispenis" be an inappropriate username? Because that's my cousin's name, and he might get offended » JS talk contribs » 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a perfectly reasonable policy to me, and honestly one I would have thought already existed. I guess there should be some type of an appeals process if the user feels like the name is not inappropriate. - Headshot Hal ^{Talk +1 Casting Call} 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem. Most new users don't go checking out the wiki's policies first. They usually sign up first, and by the time they see this policy, it's too late. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why only the name on the account is banned not the account itself, nor is the user prohibited from creating new accounts. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But if you ban the account, the user will probably think they got banned for no apparent reason. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if they have a name so egregious that it gets banned, they'll be able to figure it out. - Headshot Hal ^{Talk +1 Casting Call} 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're from Japan...They have a different view of sexual contents, you know... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will leave them a message, no doubt. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the regular wiki, it's good enough for this one. you've got my vote.--'BP^Tmz 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up. --Vault 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, under this I could justify banning Vantar because he is commonly confused with Vandr, I could also justify banning A Helpful Little Gnome because I feel his user name may be insulting to midgets(dwarfs, short people, whatever they are called these day, I really don't know, this is in no way meant to be offensive), I could justify banning Seventythree because another user has a name that's also a two diget number and so one and so forth. Everything but the purpose of this policy needs revamping and scrapping to be anything but a random excuse to ban users I don't like for whatever reason. I for one do not trust you for why you are putting this policy forward(the current A/VB case is the cause) nor do I trust certain other SysOps on the wiki not to use it as an excuse to ban people permanently and circumvent due process and the three edit rule.--Karek^maps?! 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

lol? Don't we have some sort of consensus thing written here that will remove the childish "I hate your name so now I'm getting you banned"? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we?--Karek^maps?! 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be an abuse of the rule, karek. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is in the best interest of the wiki to have a Civility rule this loosely defined(simpler, more direct).--Karek^maps?! 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But you agree that we need this sort of policy, yes? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is far from it.--Karek^maps?! 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Christ, no. Are there really this many people whom have little better to do then go around finding things to censor in each of our varying societies? If this were specifically targeting user-names that were clearly created to target & offend one person, such as AHLGisa(insert expletive here), then I'd no doubt be on board. Anything beyond that scope is ridiculous as morality is entirely relative, & this is after all, just a game. My American morality is potentially very different than a player from China, the middle-east...hell, even another American, so any talk of creating a universal-can-not-be-named-this list is pure BS. None of us are qualified to judge what constitutes a "proper" user-name when this game/wiki isn't region-specific, but is instead played world-wide. --Canker Sore^{|CK | GC | ZHU | MEM |} 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm assuming most people who use this wiki play or have played Urban Dead at some point. As Urban Dead itself lack censorship, I see no reason to apply it here. Illusionist 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few cases of censorship in UD, some are more visible than others, most notably Radio Auto Static works as a word filter, it blocks out certain words and or phrases from being aired over radio channels, there have also been comments by Kevan that seem to imply that people can actually lose the ability to speak depending on what they say, most notable it was mentioned in regards to racist content, however it may cover more than just that.--Karek^maps?! 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If a character or phrase is allowed on Urban Dead, then it should be allowed on the wiki. --#24 - Gardenator ^TMG

Some things

Two things I think should be modified.

• On the first count, where a username is inappropriate but not malicious, I think a warning period, maybe a few hours, should be put into effect before the username is blocked. Just blocking them outright makes it a higher chance they come back as pissed off trolls.
• "The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors." Usernames are a bit different than vandalism. If you want it to work like A\VB, then I suppose it's okay, but there'll be a lot more entries for this than for vandal banning, as it's harder to determine this.

I do like this policy, however, and I think people will be pretty mature about this. » JS talk contribs » 01:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What difference will a warning period make, exactly, given that you cannot change your username without starting a new account? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd like it if the warning period allowed you to request a name change, it might cause too many issues that could be easily remedied by making a new account. However, for the initial name-banning, a 'warning period' would be good. If we had a page where one could request a name change, this transition would move smoother. --Vandurn 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Things

I don't know how many languages are currently considered to be "alive", but I know that it's a lot. Coinsidences are just too easy, especially with shorter words. Even your real name might be an insult in another language. Many foreign words might also seem like misspellings of offensive english words.

I could be banned under this (misleading) as my username implies (even though it's misspelled) that I'm from Midian, which just isn't true, it being both a fictional city and a city/nation that was destroyed and enslaved by Moses & Co. in the old testament. Someone could possibly even find my username (indirectly) anti-semitic (due to the latter) and thus offensive, which it certainly isn't meant to be.

This policy needs to be reworked so that it forbids a minimal amount of entirely valid names (preferably zero). Or you could just limit it to blatant vulgarities, racial slurs, promotional usernames and obvious insults like "Conndraka is a doodiehead". You know, concrete, definite things, not just "offensive", as practically anything can be considered offensive by someone. And this world being highly over-sensitized, a lot of people often go along with it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Your name isn't blatantly offensive and I, for one would stamp it with approval. I doubt you would have any problem getting it passed on the "real" Wiki either. And casual references so far removed arn't considered anti-semetic. Hell, even Pharaohs Taskmaster would be ok but not Joseph_Goebbels. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 13:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion and I'm 100% sure that there is someone out there on the internet who would sincerely find my username (at least somewhat) offensive. Not to mention misleading, which it obviously is.

I do not like the fact that the only thing separating me from a perma-ban is common sense and public opinion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

UMM as a RL jew and playing one ingame. i even think this is stupid and a bit much. when i come across nazis in game I just kill them outright. now blatant antisemitism on the wiki should be avoided. but if it's just a name. it's not worth getting worked up about. if that person wants to be a douche bag so be it. free speech means free speech.----Sexualharrison 11:29, 2 April 2008 (BST)

I think we should ban anyone from having a name with obviously racist/anti-sematic (I.e. Klanmember or Gobbels), Homophobic (I.e faggothater) sexist (Hard to define, I'm not talking about something like "Iloveboobies" here, it'd have to be something serious) or explicitly rude (I.e, with the works Fuck, Shit, Cunt ect. in). Ban em, and ask them to create a new account, with a less childish name. It's realy not that much to ask our members to have a decent name, is it?--Seventythree^Talk 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you would like to ban a German surname (this is what I meant with over-sensitized). Yes, there was a nazi with that surname, but so fucking what? There are also normal people with that surname who have every right to use it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are talking banning Nazi-esque surnames... what of MrAushvitz? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for example, I have a 4th cousin with the surname Göering --Blue sam3 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

there should be a limit for what users can and can't use as nickname... but that limit should be really wide, just prohibiting the names who are clearly offensive. Banning nazi names is ridiculous... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

you know what i think is ridiculous? the nazis killed eleven members of my extended family (that we can prove) and i have to justify to people why i am offended by any nazi refrence --Scotw 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But if we bury any reference to the nazi regime, we censor the past. I agree, that anything that glorifies the nazi regime is not something that should be allowed. In fact, in some countries, it's not allowed by law. But glorification is different from reference, yes? --Funt Solo ^QT 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

do i want to censor the past? i dont think so, but in my experiences most (but not all) references to nazis make me feel a mixture of furious and sad. i have seen a twisted form of reality presented to suit the goals of a person or organization numerous times. i just would like to see us as a community being proactive against these anti semetic as well as other offensive material --Scotw 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement - it's just there's a difference between what you said ("offended by any nazi refrence") and what you then explained you'd meant. Of course, anti-semetism (as with any form of bigotry) is hateful. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

People are too extremist against the nazis. The whole thing that happened in the camps is an utter shame, but aside from that the nazi regime was like any other form of government to happen on earth. It united the germans and made them a proud people when they were living at the worst period of their existance (the world war 1 treatis were a bitch against them). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So. A list of definately banned subjects. Then seperately, anyone who deems a user offensive asks for it to be looked at by sysops, as a group or individually? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roslessness, that actauly sounds like a pretty good idea. --Seventythree^Talk 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Im just not sure what happens next. They get a warning the name is unacceptable, and they should reregister? Time frame? Sanctions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe give it 2 weeks from first post for their name to be challenged?--Seventythree^Talk 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that innapropriate user names are used generally by flamers or vandals. As such unless caught iut by vandal banning is 2 weeks too long? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, Rosslessness, what 73 was saying was after their first edit users/sysops would have two weeks to complain..after that it would be grandfathered in from that point forward. Am I right? Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Yes, Sorry, lack of sleep and lots of coffe makes me not make sense... .What I mean is a "borderline" offensive name, that would have to be ruled on by sysops would have to be reported within 2 weeks of their first post. However any name that is definately offensive would be banned. Users would be told to create a new account, and their "offensive" account would be banned permenantly. Basicaly this means that any new, offensive name would be banned. I mean, is it realy too much to ask that people have non-offensive names?--Seventythree^Talk 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are still ignoring the fact that there is a longtime user of this wiki with a potentially "offensive" username (that being MrAushvitz). The fact that this has gone largely uncommented on by other users (suggesting that perhaps feelings run less strongly than you might like to think) aside, is he going to be banned straight off the bat because of some retarded feelgood policy? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Pretty Certain that my next edit will take care of that concern. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And I don't think anyone is really considering anything against established users, just to deal with an issue that hasn't been permanently addressed before. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 03:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave the loopholes open and they will come. It's pretty much become an unspoken rule of the wiki. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Policy slightly Edited to reflect some of the discussed matters. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (perhaps for yourself but not really anyone else) the whole thing still oozes an almost complete detachment from reality on your part. For your next trick, are you going to propose a wiki policy dick-tating (taking in your case) that water should only be allowed to flow uphill? As a lot of people are now realising, you really are an arse; you can't even see that people with your mindset are in large (very large indeed) part the very reason that the likes of Hitler are able to terrorise an entire nation.

I am well aware of (and amused by)the irony of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum principle when taken in the context of this post. Funnier yet is that you, Connman, operate within what appears to be a "Reductio ad Terrorum" paradigm whereby anyone/thing who/that demonstrates dissent towards your halfbakery world view is demonised in just about any manner you can concoct. Similar to the manner in which "Young Earth Creationists" revert to ad hominem argument instead of one based on evidence.

So hilarious do I find your blustering here (and elsewhere) that I'm almost tempted to make a version of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfgn2lOSx6M just for you and your wikibollocks.

You have publically quoted your IQ as being 125; obviously you think of yourself as a cut above most other people. In a narrow, one dimensional way (which is preferred by your 'middlebrow' sort) I guess that's true - you score higher than most on a test that, when all is said and done, only determines how good you are at that particular test. Nothing more, nothing less. How vain of you to blab on about that.

You might be in, what the 80th percentile on 'the test' - your utterly bonkers behaviour and total self obsession would put you way down at the bottom of the lowest quartile (that is, the bottom of the bottom 25%) when it comes to wisdom though. Kind of like an "Anti-Forrest Gump" - I'm sure that one is self explantory.

I went to school with a few people like you. Slightly more intelligent than average, but conceited enough to think that you're right up their with the very brightest. Be assured, you aren't. Really bright people understand that any restriction can be circumvented. If your slimy-vulvaesque policy gets approved (if enough people have been imbibing crystal meth, it might) I will demonstrate this fact to you as often as I can be bothered.

Your mentality is rooted in the cold war era (as is your dress sense, probably - I'm thinking mullet , foot(hand)ball team jacket and mirrored shades.) - meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on from the command and control model of human interaction (well at least in those parts that don't believe in bogus christ or some other contrived mind-control horseshit nonsense).

I know this post will be censored, but someone will read it nonetheless so that's something. You aren't just an moron, Cunnty, you're a ball busting, shit eating, narcissistic hyper-moron; another word would be poly(i)gnoramous.

Anyway a suggestion: How about editing the policy to include the clause "No auto-fellaters on this wiki. Period." - No? - yeah, I can see why, you'd have to stop using it is that were the case, you cock-jostler, you...

For the record, I'm nothing to do with somethingawful.com - however, it is a bit of a co-incidence that you have attracted the attention of a group of people who positively relish baiting plonkers like you. I daresay that whatever grief you've had so far is nothing compared to what you might get if you become an internet meme like 'Bus Uncle' (are you related?).

If this comment gets censored, I'll just report it under another id. By the way (as you well know given your activity in the game area known as Dungpile Hills) tor is a wonderful thing when you want to bend the rules.

I suggest that those mods (and bureaucrat(s) - for fuck's sake (there is no god) don't ever let him become one of those) who aren't a ConnBollocks sock/meat puppet get records of his ip addresses when accessing this forum and compare tham against a list of known tor exit nodes. Then again, he may purposefully avoid logging in here when he clicks his torbutton/runs vidalia/etc. However, I betcha that if you get Kevan to analyse the game's database you'll find that an awful lot of DHPD members (and/or 'allies') log in from a tor ip - and I bet they do so in some sort of staggered logon fashion.

Frankly, the best policy the people involved in this wiki could implement would be to append the phrase "remember to add a pinch of salt to any assertions made here" to any and all posts made by Ole' Donkeydraka as a caution to others not to get sucked into his stage managed webdrama.

Oh, final remark (s?) Someone made mention of micro-dick's abuse of power (amongst other things) being the reason that he gets so much crap on here. Well, whoever said that was preaching to the converted in my case. Someone's rampant abuse of power is precisely why I have bothered to type this. Don't bother deleting this, it'll be back in short order if you do.

--MankyButtNutz 19:34, 1 April 2008 (BST) <--- I bet you have more than a few of those too

Instead of a grandfather-clause, wouldn't it be better to require a static number of edits in addition to two weeks from the first edit before giving them "immunity"? Maybe 25 edits? 50? Having just two weeks is a bad idea as I don't think it's unusual for newbies to make a couple of edits (most likely to their user- or grouppage), vanish for a period of time and then later come back. The only ones who would have even seen the username during that time are the people who stalk Recent Changes. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. But if we go to the trouble of setting a limit, wouldn't those who are just pushing against "the rules" just do however many edits? Admittedly that would make them more visible on "recent changes" so I just don't know... anyone else have input on this aspect? Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire concept of a grandfather clause of any kind promotes elitism. Unfortunately, not having one would be a field day for the wikilawyers. I guess there's nothing for it but to scrap the whole thing. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors could need more than x days *and* more than y edits before immunity is granted. That would prevent both 'edit-rush to immunity' and 'stealth to immunity' tactics. --Toejam 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. You'd need both over 25 edits and over two weeks from first edit before you'd get immunity. Though, now that I think about it, two weeks from your 25th edit would probably be better. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:01, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Look

Ok, look, this policy is a little overkill. We don't need anything to address Impersonation, that already exists, if having the moniker is itself of act of vandalism it's obviously a banable offense by default.

Usernames that promote are equally useless, they're covered by the addbots rule of when a user can be banned, so the only purpose that could serve is to ban users whose names are self promoting(i.e. their groups).

Outright trolling or personal attacks in names needs to go, it should be something completely seperate and in a Civility policy, specifically one to limit types of personal attacks otherwise it is pointless, most users that do that also commit acts of vandalism anyway and some users do that as a joke, AnimeSucks, for example, would he be punished if another user named themselves Anime*anything*. It's questionable and very very open to being abused or ignored completely without it being it's own policy with it's own limitations.

Grandfather clause, good idea when dealing with people serving bans, bad one when dealing with users period. It establishes a point in time which allows users to break the rules and is a sort of classing system. With certain things(personal attacks/trolling) removed from this policy it's hardly important anyway.

This brings me to the one part of this policy I actually think is usable and needed, the third point, "Blatantly offensive usernames which make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, such as usernames that are bigoted, racist, or deliberately slanderous in nature." That alone should be the whole policy, with much alterations of course. Limit it to Racism, deliberately slanderous(intent), and Lewd usernames. Make it's requirement an A/VB case and a warning with maybe a day before banning the nick so they are informed why they are not allowed to have that nick _{(unless a user can still log on while banned and get the new talk page message notice, then no time is needed[I've yet to be banned so I don't know how much it actually limits what you can see/do])}

Without doing that this whole policy is open to frequent abuse and doesn't solve the problem so much as make a username review group out of the SysOp team, that's a bad idea.--Karek^maps?! 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You can ban yourself, then get someone to message you I guess. I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt for names that may be offensive. If someone finds it offensive, they can bring it to A/VB where it can be reviewed and a decision made. Seems silly to ban a name that nobody finds offensive. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to consider usernames to be offensive. So someone has a name, big deal. Ignore it. or you could grow up. Nothing offends me because I have a thing called guts. That and I know they are only words. Why do we single out some words but not others? If a word is going to make you cringe then what are you doing on the internet?--Xan2020 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Show Need

Given that sysops are allowed, as part of the General Conduct guidelines, to act on their initiative on those rare occasions where they judge it necessary to do so, and also have to report such actions through (for example) A/VB, where their peers may question their actions - why is this policy needed?

Of course, this policy is only here as a reaction to the CunntLikka case, and the subsequent (and now deadlocked) Misconduct case.

Isn't this the only time in the history of this wiki that someone has been banned purely because of their choice of username? If that's the case, and the systems in place are dealing with the decision, then it follows that there's no real need for this policy. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid stupid misconduct cases and to allow the community to have some discussion on what we should deem offensive. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about stupid misconduct cases. I mean, I agree that some are stupid, from my perspective. But then, maybe other people thought the Misconduct case I brought once (and was found not-misconduct) was stupid, but I didn't. It's all down to perspective. That's what Misconduct is for: to decide if a given action which one party feels is Misconduct, either is or isn't. As for a community discussion on what's offensive - what's the point? If it's as out-and-out, cut-and-dry offensive as (for example) "cunntlikka", and so obviously created to cause a fuss, then the A/VB system exists to report it and attempt to have it removed. That's what I'm saying: we have the systems to deal with it: what do we gain from attempting what is essentially an impossible task in trying to define "offensive"? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this: the word Conndraka means "One who fellates the goat" in Kazakhstani. Borat would find that offensive, so therefore the name should be banned. While you're at it, why not ban anything that a tiny mind gets into a tizzy over, like balanced debate, critical thinking or logical deduction to name but a few examples. Personally, I'd ban wankers, but there seem to be so many of them these days that the economy might take a hit if we did that. --MankyButtNutz 19:47, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately, sysops who ban people for their name are being brought to misconduct because there was no written policy. This should fix that. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The precedent that has been established makes it redundant. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The misconduct page has it's uses, AHLG... some level of drama is unavoidable in a vibrant community. Inappropriate usernames can be viewed as bad faith. Some disagreed, and it was tested in misconduct. The verdict was basically what this policy tries to set out, however policy is almost useless in grey area's like this. It takes too many words to say what should be damned obvious to any reasonable poster, and even if those words were set out, there is bound to be some loophole for a determined jerk to wriggle through. Leave it to the sysops to determine on a case by case basis, knowing that if they overstep the mark, they face the drama of misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:37 29 March 2008 (BST)

Erm...

What's the point? If someone really wanted to have an insult against someone all over the wiki, creating an username wouldn't be the way to do it.

Let's face it, if The Dead had one of their hordes change their group affiliation to "Conndraka is a whining whore, who enjoys bestiality! LULZ!11!", precedent states that a page must be created as they'd show up on the groups listing. Then every member of that group could have a link in their signature that would appear every time they voted on every public vote on this wiki. By trying to do this you're creating a policy open for abuse and not, in any way, preventing someone insulting you, which is what this is all about. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But people can do that now if they want. This is about removing inappropriate usernames, not about banning people from insulting each other.--xoxo 10:03, 26 April 2008 (BST)

This policy is redundant. You are removing inappropriate usernames; which certain people may find personally insulting. You say they are different but it all stems from the same issue of offending someone. It is impossible to define what is truly offensive, language is too big of a barrier and written work can only be truly interpreted by the author. The fact that people can legally walk around in public with shirts that say "JESUS IS A CUNT" should tell you something. You cannot and should not censor what people say/write. If you do that, you undermine one of the fundamental laws of democracy; free speech. I personnally don't agree with shirts like that, or the ravings of political and religious fanatics, but that does not matter. They have a right to express their feelings and their opinions.

The current system deals with this issue already. There is no need for this policy. Sysops study each case individually, determining if it has been created in bad faith, or just someone trying to get a laugh and even a little shock value. This policy simply censors our already heavily policed wiki. The sysops generally do a good job, and if not, thats what misconduct is for. --Scurley7 14:13, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Appeal

What happens when someone gets blocked for a name which is actually pretty ok and whoever did it was just incompetent? This policy doesn't give any right of appeal or review. Grarr 18:08, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I agree. This should be incorporated into A/VB. People should be listed there as having an inappropriate username this way disagreeing sysops can thrash it out there (and other community members on the talk page ;) ;) ;) ) --xoxo 10:05, 26 April 2008 (BST)

A/M.--Karek^maps?! 13:39, 26 April 2008 (BST)

....So you're going to have to create another username just for the purpose of bringing a misconduct case against someone. Firstly most noobs if they got banned would have no idea as to what happened/what to do about it. Secondly, if they were bothered enough to create another username and file a misconduct case then surely they would just stick with the new username instead. While this IS a good outcome its a tad unfair on the person who created the username if its offensiveness is minimal. Hence i think a period should be set on which people can comment before someones permaed on their username.--xoxo 00:20, 27 April 2008 (BST)

You're gonna have to create another one to edit the wiki anyway. But no, anyone can start an A/M case for anything they see as misuse of administrative powers, regardless of how directly it effects them. I should also point out that you'd probably have to make a new account for the Appeals system you suggested anyway.--Karek^maps?! 03:37, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah i sorta meant that a few sysops would rule on it before acting, sorry i didn't make that clear earlier. I mean i totally agree with this policy but some noobs might just make a vaguely inappropriate name, get banned and get totally turned off the wiki. I presume they get an email telling them whats going on? Do you even have to give an email address to join the wiki? --xoxo 07:03, 27 April 2008 (BST)

How about when they try to log in a message comes up saying 'Sorry, we think your name was too offensive, and so you can't use it anymore. Please feel free to rejoin _here_, and, if you feel your name was not offensive, question the ruling _here_.' This assumes that's possible, of course. -Grarr 20:53, 29 April 2008 (BST)

You can change the message, I believe. I'm not sure it can be done selectively. Alternatively, a message can be put on the talk page. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:55, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Grandfather Ruling

..should be updated to read "To avoid a rush to eliminate established usernames and/or users any username in use prior to (timestamp) will be exempt from this policy." where timestamp is the day this policy goes for voting. If it goes for voting. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]}

Closing?

Why isn't this archived and locked yet, it was obviously abandoned and was only resurrected by someone who saw it after a month of it being commentless.--Karek^maps?! 10:30, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Because some of us have a real life to attend to... But since you bring it up.... Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:27, 1 May 2008 (BST)

And No, I dont expect it to pass, I'm just old school in the fact I beleive that all sugested policies should at least be voted on before being tabled. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:46, 1 May 2008 (BST)