Wikibooks talk:No offensive usernames

Initial text adapted from en:Wikipedia:No offensive usernames --mav 07:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes

 * RobinH 09:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Why are we creating rules where no problem exists? Don't we want to at least try asking someone nicely if they will use a different name? Before we make ourselves little dictators of our virtual domain, perhaps we ought to think about the ramifications. Systems of crime and punishment are a failure state. They are an admission that we weren't able to work congenially as co-editors on a common project — that our little Animal Farm couldn't exist without making some of us "more equal." Do we really want to duplicate the system of punishment and vandalism that exists at Wikipedia? Is their instruction creep working for them? Perhaps we could learn something from our founder:"The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control. ~Jimbo Wales May 3, 2006 WikiEN-l" --Zephram Stark 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) If needed should be done at the wikimedia software level not as a policy. --Panic 07:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) From the current version: "however this has yet to occur in practice."!! This is far too explicit. Be civil and Profanity already cover it nicely and the better parts of it (e.g. "While colorful, interesting, or expressive names may add to the pleasure of Wikibooks, they are not essential.") may be added to those. Some parts of this are even bad (e.g. "Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by the people who are offended, not by the creator of the name." I remember seeing a request by someone who was offended by a username. The whole thing was a misunderstanding, but that didn't deter the offended who refused to listen to reason). --Swift 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger to Profanity
I propose we merge the text of this policy into Profanity. I also propose that after the merger, we move the new composite policy to enforced status. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it need to have consensus to become a enforced policy ?!?
 * Words like "Avoid" aren't prohibitive and then at the end of the section "Users with offensive usernames may be blocked without prior warning." seems very prohibitive and against the votes here. --Panic 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does require concensus. I have proposed those changes, and I am asking the community to try and agree on it. If we dont reach concensus, this things wont happen. I agree with you that there are inconsistencies with the language in this one, and those need to be corrected. I would rather not make any substantive changes to this proposal until we've discussed the merger to Profanity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose we don't. The essential parts are currently coverd by Be civil and Profanity (though both are still only proposed). We don't need to it to be so explicit and we'll have a better time at getting consensus on those I mentioned if they don't have stuff in them which doesn't even seem to have majority support! --Swift 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right in saying that the important material here is duplicated in other places. However, those other places are themselves still just proposals. If we move to reject this policy, then it would seem we should move to enforce Be civil and Profanity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about not rejecting anything till the matter has been accepted in some policy? I say we go for Profanity first. If we get consensus on that we can move to reject this one. If not, we can revisit this one. --Swift 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's focus our attention on that policy first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Reject
I am moving to reject this policy. All the key points here are already found in Profanity, and This policy is poorly written in comparison to that one. Also, I am simultaneously moving to enforce Profanity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as soon as Profanity has been made official. --Swift 04:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this one to rejected I see no reason to wait for the profanity policy, because with or without that proposal being accepted, there is no desire to keep this one. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)