Wikipedia talk:Offensive username proposal

message: Is that character you propose putting in front of those user-names just a box, or is it omething?
What I mean is, you said "if we put the usernames as BOX-001" or something like that. But what was the character I represent as BOX? I really want to know. Thanks, ~ Flame-viper 12  (22:24, 21.06.06 UTC) 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character?

message: When was this proposed? What happened? It obviously has not been implemented so, wtf? SoaP 16:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... 

message: that vandalising on wikipedia isn't a crime. Just think of the reduced ammount of vandalism here, if we could just report the IP's of numptys(like the one that has posted above me), to their ISP's, and get their internet access(atleast with their current ISP) stopped. dbalsdon 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a pity... 

message: Many people share AOL IPs, the Cabal could just report anyone whose views didn't agree with theirs and put them in political prison, we would be no better off than China or Soviet Russia. 205.188.117.69 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TINC :P ViridaeTalk 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must concur with Viridae. There is no cabal. Nor has they ever been. Nor will there ever be. No matter what Daniel Brandt and his ilk say. »ctails!« =hello?= 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and there are plenty of problems with the poster above me's suggestion 

message: I would like to add that this is a good policy. We should ban offencive usernames. It is a shame that this place IS bombarded with people who are just wanting to ruin a great website, when is shoulden't in the first place.
Aquaspoon 06:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is good! 

message: I have categorized this page for easier navigation. If anyone can find a better category for this page, please feel free to change it. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - good thought. bd2412 T 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorized 

message: While there are some blatantly obvious examples given, this proposal is really too vague and subjective to implement. What may or may not be offensive is a personal matter, and varies from place to place and culture to culture. Even the US Supreme Court was unable to do much better than "I know it when I see it". It might be possible to create a definition for the most blatant examples, but there is too much grey at present. Agent 86 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found an example of the difficulty in developing an enforcable proposal and the personal nature of the issue on this Administrators Noticeboard archived discussion. Agent 86 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already allow username blocks; this could simply be made standard action after a username block (with a 'crat being a second level of security). Not sure how much extra work this would give the 'crats, though... --ais523 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust the 'crats to make the judgment call over what is a username that should never be. As noted above, there are "some blatantly obvious examples" - several thousand of them, in fact. bd2412 T 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't want it automated in the first place - this can be done by hand by any 'crat. Perhaps some automation could bring up a list of likely suspects, but the actual warehousing would be done by hand, and would not cover the above examples (we trust the judgment of our 'crats in many other circumstances, we can trust it here as well). bd2412 T 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not good in present form 

message: I'm fairly neutral on the proposal, but obviously one needs to be aware of both names which may contain offensive characters while being entirely innocent (such as if someone from Scunthorpe wished to use the name of their town in a username, or someone named Cockburn. Equally there may be accidental collisions - I'm sure most people have heard about the troubles faced by [www.PenIsland.net Pen Island.net] and [PowergenItalia.com Powergen Italia] to name but a few...
So basically my conclusion here is that this never should become an automated process - otherwise poor old Gayle Bush might be deleted if she's normally known as Gay. --Neo (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want it automated in the first place - this can be done by hand by any 'crat. Perhaps some automation could bring up a list of likely suspects, but the actual warehousing would be done by hand, and would not cover the above examples (we trust the judgment of our 'crats in many other circumstances, we can trust it here as well). bd2412 T 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Checking