Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 5

message: I'd like to suggest a modification to WP:U that I hope will raise the bar on username blocks to an appropriate level.  While reviewing WP:RFCN and the block logs, I perceive a trend tending towards blocking usernames that the blocker feels 'might be seen as obscene by someone'.  Specifically, the blocker isn't blocking a username that he/she finds offensive, instead the admin or concerned user is blocking/advocating the block of a username that they think someone, somewhere might be offended by.  I feel this sets the standard for this specific type of username block too low, and that the language should be modified slightly to reflect that someone _does_ find it offensive, not that some unspecified third party _might_ be offended by it.  Under the current policy, person X could block, say, User:Piehole, and then argue that someone might find it offensive.  Anyone who disagrees can only assert their own non-offendedness but cannot authoritatively say "Nobody will be offended".  The burden is inordinately skewed, in terms of backing up the assertion, in favor of the person reporting the theoretical case.  
The current language lists, as unacceptable: "Usernames that contain profanity, obscenities, or other potentially offensive language (including non-English profanities)."  I propose that it be modified to remove 'potentially', along the lines of "Usernames that contain profanity, obscenities (including non-English profanities), or other reasonably offensive language that a user has specifically objected to."  The burden should be placed on the accuser, not the defendant, to shamelessly analogize the essential matter.  Better language suggestions for the above are welcome, of course.  
The current wishy-washy 'well, someone SOMEWHERE might be offended' text creates a 'follow the letter, not the spirit' environment surrounding WP:U and cheapens its role in the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely disagree. I feel the current language serves us well, and I don't think blocks have been excessive. No one person can dictate what is offensive, therefore, the potentially needs to remain. There is no burden on anyone as WP:RFCN is not supposed to be used to review blocks, just to have conversations about them before if an admin feels they are borderline. Nowhere does RFCN state that reviewing already made blocks is its purpose, and though some use it for that, it is incorrect. You cannot say authroitatively that nobody won't be offended either. The potentially offensive wording has been long standing and useful. I see no good reason in your arguments to change it. If you have an issue with a specific block, you should be talking to the admin who made it. In practice, the potentially offensive argument is not abused like you are implying it is. pschemp | talk 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main request is that the person applying the block or reporting an offensive username actually believes it to be offensive themselves or has seen a complaint about it.  I'd appreciate any insight you can give as to why that would be an unreasonable request. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed, I don't block it unless I feel it is offensive. Your argument is a bit silly though. You don't have to be required to  be personally offended to block something. While I might not be offended by User:fuckJimbouptheass because I don't like Jimbo, the name should still be blocked. It is clearly potentially offensive, and as such, the wording of the policy works perfectly. I don't think waiting until someone complains about that name is reasonable either. "Potentially offensive" forces people to consider the whole wikipedia population and think past their own personal biases. Taking that away just results in dictating morals. pschemp | talk 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also strongly disagree with this change. Pschemp has already put it better than I could have. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I half agree half disagree. I don't believe the intent of the policy is to prevent pretty innocuous names which just could be found offensive by the one-eyed eskimo called Pete, whilst at the the same time as pschemp points out there are a number of names which I personally don't find offensive but I'm pretty confident others will. I doubt any change will have much effect, if I block name X merely because I think someone else might find it offensive, if asked I could just say I find it offensive (which by your criteria is end of discussion). That is to say I agree there maybe some problems with application of the policy, but it isn't the policy which is faulty. I also certainly believe we shouldn't be going out of our way to look for offense, and the idea of listing up every borderline case somewhere, so a group of people can hypothesise as to if someone could perceivably find it offensive is a complete non-starter for me. I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere about the way I look at these, if it's obvious to me that it is offensive or that someone else will find it offensive, I'll block it, if not I'll leave it be (There are enough people look at these, such that if we all let it be, there is a good chance the name simply isn't a problem). -pgk 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are really talking about a very small grey zone here.  There is no reason why any editor should ever pick an obviously offensive username... except to be deliberately offensive.  Doing something that is deliberately offensive goes against several wikipedia guidelines and policies.  They should be slapped down hard.  I would hope that every editor would have the maturity to avoid even potentially offensive usernames. But when they don't, they should be notified and politely, but firmly asked to choose another.  The only time there should be a question is when someone picks a user name that they thought was fine, but turns out to be offensive.  For example, (and I am deliberately going to extremes here) a new user chooses User:Joeblow as his name.  He honestly feels that this name is acceptable and inoffensive.  To him it is a common reference to annonimity.  Now there is an "off chance" possibility that "someone" might find this offensive - since it could be construed as a reference to homosexual acts, or cocaine abuse.  However, this is an unlikely occurance.  In this situation, an admin needs to use good judgment let the name stand until someone actually complains. Blueboar 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar's comment about names not known to be offensive seems reasonable.  A more plausible example might be a user that only speaks one or two languages and chooses a username that is perfectly innocent in those languages but also is an obscenity in some unrelated language.  They've picked a potentially offensive username, but have no idea that they did it.  This should be able to be handled gently by discussion without blocking.  Remember the urban legend about the name of the Chevrolet Nova. GRBerry 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Potentially is there for a good reason. We don't want people dancing on the line. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to reluctantly agree that having the 'potentially' there to provide a grey area is a better option than without. To my mind it should be seen as a way of saying "I can't define disruptive behaviour, but I know it when I see it. And I see it in your username. *zap*" However, there is a clear history of people here stretching the grey area far beyond that. To shift it back where it belongs, could I suggest something along the lines of "language that is considered likely to be offensive, in the judgement of (an administrator|an impartial person)"? Sure, it's not perfect (How do I know how likely it is? How likely is likely? Why does person X get to make the judgement?) but I can't think of any arguments that can't be equally applied to the 'potentially' wording. And to anyone claiming that the current language isn't abused - if that were true, I wouldn't be here right now. A year ago I was asked to change my name, evidently on the basis that there were a handful of country names that could be potentially used to potentially annoy people, and therefore we must systematically seek out everyone with a country name and get them to change their username. That incident undoubtedly coloured my view of the Wikipedia project, and put me off making a larger contribution to it. Today I see the same arguments still going on. I wouldn't normally get involved in Wikipedia policy as I find most of it (harmlessly) tedious, but this is an exception - it creates a scattergun culture of randomly pestering well-intentioned editors. It needs to be fixed. Slovakia 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested modification 

message: I've put together some statistics based on the recent database dump - here. I haven't made any effort to double check these so take them with a pinch of salt (and indeed some are not necessarily in line with my expectations.) The block information is based on the block log and IIRC some entries are missing from that log due to a bug in mediawiki, I haven't looked into that and if it was in effect for the date range covered. --pgk 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. So far it seems like usernameblocks are indeed a very small percentage. pschemp | talk 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I would like to raise a few issues with the current trademark policy.  First, I'll quote it as it stands:
:Unique trademarked names: Non-trivial trademarked names that undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark, such as "Google", "Wikipedia", or "New York Yankees", but not necessarily "AIBM" (IBM), Accord (Honda Accord), Goggle (Google) may be blocked on sight because of legal concerns involving copyright and trademark issues.
Problem #1: This policy invites a group composed mostly of non-lawyers to make a subjective determination about whether a name is a "legal concern" for Wikipedia.
Problem #2: This policy doesn't give any clue as to how "unique" or how strong of a reference constitutes a violation.  Clearly "New York Yankees", but where does "Yankees fan" stand?  How about "Jazz fan", which could refer to the Utah Jazz, or to jazz music?  How about a john-at-comcast-dot-com, which while discouraged as an e-mail address, isn't prohibited, and contains a reference to Comcast?  How about User:BuickCenturyDriver, which is undoubtedly a reference to a Buick Century, but certainly not a trademark infringement in the legal sense.
Problem #3: The notion that words like "accord" or "goggle" should be blocked is highly misleading and open to misinterpretation.  A lawyer can likely tell you that using these as usernames doesn't even come close to violating any trademark law anywhere.  With the amount of stretching that this "policy" demonstrates, just about any username could be accused of being "similar" to somebody's trademark.
Problem #4: The policy is awash in legal inexpertise.  If the person who wrote the policy doesn't even know that copyright law (as mentioned in the policy) doesn't even deal with trademarks AT ALL, then the rule was clearly written with an insufficient level of legal knowledge to be doing such a thing.  (The person who wrote the policy probably doesn't know that using a trademark as a username on an online forum isn't a trademark violation either, even if it's a blatant use of a trademark, save the exception that the person is trying to impersonate a representative of the trademark owner.)  Intellectual property law 101: Trademarks exclusively cover use of commercial marks, and copyrights exclusively cover works.
This rule should either be stricken, revised, or evaluated by Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer, as it clearly wasn't written according to Wikipedia's guidelines for self-imposing rules for legal reasons.  "The community [consisting mostly of non-lawyers] should not use its incomplete comprehension of legality to impose restrictions upon itself", and "the Wikimedia Foundation employs a lawyer who will inform [them] if and when restrictive actions are necessary." - See WP:PEREN#Legal issues.
--Reswobslc 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the rule is doing fine, have you an example of where this has caused a problem? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a restriction just for the sake of restriction that doesn't serve a practical purpose.  It's like prohibiting cannabis. Reswobslc 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with HighInBC, the current policy is fine - non trivial trademarks are disallowed - this removes any potential for legal issues RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply wrong. If the name is spammy or confusing, that's one thing -- but that is independent of whether or not the name is trademarked. On the other hand, if a username contains a trademark, but is not spammy or confusing, then there is no issue. The given justification for this rule was legal, and I seriously, seriously doubt there are any legal implications here. I think the whole trademark thing was a red herring, and I have removed this rule. Perhaps you can give an example of where there are legal issues. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *If User:Google (Appearing as google) was editing then this would be an infringment of trademark rules (Well it has the potential for google to argue that and by disallowing trademarks, it stops the potential for legal action) RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, I really don't think it's a trademark infringement. It may be spam, or it may be impersonation, or what have you, but that's something else, and has absolutely nothing to do with trademarks. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Reswobslc, plus what exactly does "non-trival" mean, operationally? Until 02:06, 17 February 2007, that passage read: "Unique trademarked names:' Complex trademarked names that undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark, especially sports teams like the Miami Heat, the Carolina Hurricanes, or the New York Yankees."  "Complex" as in word-combinations that made up the unique trademark, as opposed to single words like "Heat", "Hurricanes", "Yankees", "Apple", "International", "Business", or "Machines". "Apple Computer" may have changed its name to just "Apple", but that word by itself is not only (or "uniquely") a trademarked name.  The current passage, with ill-fitting terms like "non-trivial" and "copyright" tossed in like gravel in a salad, simply doesn't work.  I'm reverting to the version just now quoted, the last before that revision. If it needs to be updated from that, get input from Brad Patrick or someone else up there who actually knows what the WMF wants and needs said. This is a Wiki, yes, but on legal issues it shouldn't be the Amateur Hour. -- Ben 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This rule didn't come from the WMF. Jimbo has an issue with "Wikipedia" in a username, but again Nothing To Do With Trademarks. Just nuke the rule. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stongly oppose nuking the rule - there are potential legal issues if this rule is not included RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's not, but if you're concerned, go ask Brad Patrick, general counsel for the Foundation. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ryan, I agree with Titoxd there's not, and you are not a lawyer, and until Wikimedia's counsel advises otherwise, the community should not arbitrarily restrict itself based on an inaccurate knowledge of the law as you insist it should. Reswobslc 06:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, last time I checked, I was agreeing with you. Titoxd(?!?) 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  Response was to Ryan (as I hoped the indentation level would suggest).  I clarified it. Reswobslc 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A better example could be given. My concern was with the text outside the examples. -- Ben 09:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sports teams were the original motivating example, and copyright the motivating reason, actually []. It was also added without discussion. Now that it has been discussed and debunked, we can nuke it. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In defence of common sense, people shouldn't be editing on behalf of organizations like Google. And fanboys are nuts and shouldn't be editing on behalf of their favorite sports teams either. These names cause problems. The rule is fine. Its meant to *avoid* legal issues in the first place. There is nothing wrong with this approach. pschemp | talk 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In defense of common sense, my common sense isn't your common sense.  In America common sense says we eat cows and never horses - in India common sense says we eat horses and never cows.  It's one thing to be impersonating Google, which is already addressed by the impersonation rule.  It's another to forbid every user name that refers to a trademark, especially to do it based on an incomplete comprehension of the law.  If the Wikimedia lawyer says we need the rule to avoid legal issues, then so be it.  Short of that, the community need not restrict itself unnecessarily (did you get the memo? WP:PEREN#Legal issues) Reswobslc 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about an abuse of the rule situation. However, that hasn't happened. pschemp | talk 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be better to refer to "company names", etc. rather than trademarks, which is the intention of the rule. —Centrx→talk • 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. pschemp | talk 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats already covered; Usernames that promote companies RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with trademark policy 

message: I've recently noticed a lot of usernames with poop in are blocked for having offensive usernames, would anyone agree that this is not offensive and should be written into policy as an example of a username which is not offensive? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, the word "poop" does not really offend me. Nor "caca" for that matter. --Kukini  hablame aqui 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think the rules against excretory references is just fine the way it is. Using children's language does not make it any more appropriate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And even if its not used in this respect, surely no-one would find poop effensive, mildly comical at worst RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poop in usernames 

message: I have protected the page from further editing until the conflict over the "trademarks rule" has been settled. Having a revert war on official policy, especially one we ask new users to review before creating thier username, is a very bad thing. Please continue the discussion on the inclusion/exclusion, and request unprotection when the dispute has been resolved. Administrators are reminded to avoid editing or unprotecting protected pages if they are parties in the dispute; please ask an uninvolved administrator to make any necessary edits or unprotect the page. Essjay (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance you could give User:Brad Patrick the heads up to come and solve this? I've already asked him but I'm not sure how much weight he'll give to my comments on his talk page RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance we don't go crying to brad or jimbo about every little silly detail of this policy? Seriously. It isn't broken, I don't know why people think it needs to be so "fixed". pschemp | talk 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going crying to Brad, the page has been protected and this seams like a legitimate answer to the problem - he's the best person to advise us on this RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a handful of people saying a policy is needless and created for legal reasons by a non-lawyer and enforcing it like hapless rookie cops, then you have a handful of people who value restrictive policies without regard to their purpose, because "that's the way we've always done it".  And if nobody from Wikimedia can be bothered to say a word, then it's the lost leading the lost.  The version selected for protection was selected by pure timing and chance, not by any amount of rational thought.  If the big "cluster fuck" isn't apparent by now, then I don't know how to explain that to you.  It would be trying to explain why you can't see the forest because the trees are in the way.  Imagine if retail stores couldn't be bothered to set their own policies, such as their return policy, and customers were debating semantics and legalities back and forth in the aisles.  If the current state is "We're protecting the page until it's resolved", and the only person who can really "resolve it" doesn't bother to... in the military, that's called a cluster fuck and gets people killed.  On Wikipedia, it just makes Wikimedia look stupid. Reswobslc 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets all be civil here, geez, it is a policy discussion, don't take it so personally. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we can agree on a ceasefire and unprotect the page, or will that result in edit warring? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I am unprotecting this policy as it has several productive proposals on the table and it is not good to keep it locked for too long. Please do not edit war, it will be taken seriously. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose Essjay's retirement (which I found out about on CNN!) would be a good explanation for the "radio silence". Reswobslc 07:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Would it be possible to add "developer" to this section as an extension to this wording: Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator". to make it more explicit. The matter arose today at WP:RFCN. Archive link Thanks. Bubba hotep 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be up for that addition, think its should be made clearer in the policy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, me too. Also add whatever other role may exist in WP. There are legit normal professions out there that may just be the user's occupation. We should make clear which ones do carry an official WP role, because next we will have a username e.g. "User:Entrepreneur Joe" and people may suggest that it is confusing with WP entrepreneurs such as Jimbo Wales. NikoSilver 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be added, it clearly implies an official role. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Along with "Steward", and "Bureaucrat". There are union stewards, cruise-ship stewards, etc, and legions upon legions of bureaucrats; one or more of them may likewise think of putting the word in their names. I thought WP:U was pretty clear about the examples already given not being an exclusive list, but that didn't prevent a lively  on the grounds that he was a real-life (off-wiki) software developer and used that name as a "handle" elsewhere. -- Ben 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I seem to think that it's impossible to solve this supposed problem by creating a list of words.  No matter how many words are listed, there's always a legitimate use for each, and there's always going to be more words that could imply official status.  Example words that could imply official status: patrol, manager, supervisor, agent, director, operator, controller, auditor, technician, server, guardian, watcher, programmer, editor, chief,... I could go on and on.  Examples of uses of words unlikely to be confused as official: User:747 stewardess, User:Aspiring FBI bureaucrat, User:AZHomeDeveloper. Reswobslc 05:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with the above comment, I can't see much point in this (not necessarily any harm at this stage either). As always it is the intent not the absolute letter of the policy which is important. We aren't going to be able to list out every possible way that a name can misrepresent authority on wikipedia. Attempting to do so would merely makes the list unwieldy and if it either purports or appears to be intended as a definitive list makes it subject to (more) lawyering when dealing with those not listed. One of those mentioned on the list is moderator, this was added I believe after a username (Moderator2000?) was apparently being treated as an admin and indeed was encouraging such, at that point I'm not sure anyone had seen a problem with the word moderator as we don't have moderators, the problem was "ordinary" editors often don't realise that, otoh I'm not sure even a brand new user seeing just the word Steward or Developer would see any real significance to it without some other words to indicate official capacity. --pgk 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh. Per WP:CREEP, we shouldn't be adding every single example on the planet. That's why admins have brains. pschemp | talk 09:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: Some clarity on this would be great.  Recently, my bee in my bonnet has been people reporting new editors to RFC purely because of their name, with no effort whatsoever made to contact the new editor first.  This, to me, smacks of newbie biting.  This policy - WP:U - says that if a username is borderline inappropriate, you:
# Ask them politely to consider changing it
# Wait for a response (should this be clarified with "a reasonable amount of time"?)
# If no response, submit to WP:RFCN.
However, the RFCN header () says "please consider asking first".  Given that this is the root policy, I've amended the RFCN header to match - changing "please consider asking" to "please ask".  I raise this here rather than on the template talk page as this should (hopefully?) recieve more input.  Is this a reasonable change?  IS this how we want it to work?  I am very much in favour of always asking politely first (we even have a suitable template to do so).  Proto ► 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other aspect I personally consider in the borderline cases, is that if the user is here to be disruptive in someway, they'll normally end up getting blocked pretty quickly anyway for that reason, often it's best to just keep an eye on someone if they are contributing constructively there simply isn't a good reason not to approach them in due course and ask them to change. --pgk 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFCN 

message: I saw  made an addition to the list of inappropriate names. I'm just wondering how closely related does the username have to be to warrant a username block? I mean, I don't see blocking Yankeesfan94, or Yankees4life indefinitely. Is it just referring to team names and such? Also, ::the examples posted were all team names, but would this same thing apply to companies and such? I have blocked a handful of usernames because their name implied commercial ties. Thanks, Nishkid64 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An example I just encountered is: . The user name was just created less than thirty minutes ago. I'm wondering whether the changed policy would apply to this. Nishkid64 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say let it go on this one, the page has been fully protected as there was an edit war regarding whether trademarks are an issue or not, I don't see how we can block a username when there is the real chance that this particular part of policy will be removed in a couple of days, hope that helps RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...okay. Another question, where exactly do we draw the line for vulgar names? I mean...I've been iffy on blocking users with the word "bastard" or "fruitcake" in their name. I left the bastard one for now, but I already blocked "totalfruitcake". Nishkid64 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I think you might have got it the wrong way round! Think bastard is generally clear cut, and would merit a block on sight. Totalfruitcake, I don't really think infringes on policy, he's saying hes a total fruit cake and I can't see any profanitites or outright vulgar words in there. Generally speaking, usernames that contain words such as fuck, cunt, twat, slag, slut e.t.c can be blocked on sight. The thing to remember really is sometimes these words can be inside other words and be totally harmless,  e.g. User:Darcyshitum, on first sight this looks offensive, but actually this could be his name, its cases like these that an RFC/N is probably a good idea RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Well the guy's name is  and all he did was post his Myspace link at his user and user talk page. :-P I didn't block this guy because bastard refers to someone who is an illegitimate child. That's not vulgar, but can be used in vulgar, in a sense. Totalfruitcake just gives me the impression that it's not the food he's talking about, but the inflammatory term. Nishkid64 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure what inflamatory term there is in "totalfruitcake", in the UK slang it could be someone saying they were a total nutter (An eccentric, insane, crazy or reckless person.) - Deriving I assume from "nutty as a fruitcake". OTOH Bastard I hear used as a direct insult more often than I do as a factual statement of someones parentage. I don't think either are offensive, but that isn't necessarily the only consideration as per the above discussion on poop. Personally I'd block neither --pgk 07:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total Biscuit is a character in a Discworld book. It could, I guess, be a take on that. Proto ► 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition 

message: Wikipedia:Username says:
:If you wish to use your real name, but it appears that it might violate any of the rules on inappropriate usernames, please contact an administrator. A mutually acceptable solution can very likely be found.
It may not be obvious to a (potential) new user how to "contact an admin". Even if there is a wikilink to (say) the page with the list of admins, it's still a random thing as to whether (a) the admin contacted is inactive or not; (b) if active, the admin is on a wikibreak; (c) the admin notices and responds; and (d) the quality of the answer of one person who may not have much experience with inappropriate usernames.
So - a suggestion, for discussion:  What about an (additional) section at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names where someone could ask about the proprietary of their real name as a user name?  (I'm not suggesting a section to ask about potential usernames in general; that invites policy-testing and game-playing; only about real names.)  
In a nutshell, what about changing the policy from "contact an admin" to "post at WP:RFC/U"?  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real names - asking in advance 

message: There's an interesting issue with Usernames containing the word "Muhammad". Muhammad (name) is a very common Muslim/Arabic name (it is the most common first name and the most common last name in the world). However, by the letter of WP:U names like User:MuhammadRahman (literal trans: Muhammad merciful) would be banned, since they refer to a religious figure. (Just google "Muhammad Rahman" to see how common this name is)
:There was a very recent WP:RFCN here on the name User:MOHAMMED NO, closed as no consensus. This, imho would have almost certainly been deleted without my intervention. I'm pretty certain no one from an Arabic or Muslim community would take offense at this name, as it would more likely refer to a person's name, nickname, or initials (e.g. Muhammad Nor Othman). The issue I have with Username policy is that we have Americans and Europeans with scant knowledge of Islam and Arabic culture making judgments on what would be offensive to our communities. In the discussion I linked to, the nominator didn't even realize that "Muhammad" and "Mohammad" were different transliterations of the same name. One of the voters referred to Muhammad as God, an assertion that would get you stoned to death in some countries.  I'm sure they mean well, but can these people really decide what is offensive to a Muslim and what isn't? I suggest that rather than posting on WP:RFCN, usernames that might be potentially offensive to Muslims be referred to Wikiproject Islam instead. Borisblue 13:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad I was spared the stoning! :-) Btw you are right, of course, but still it could definitely be interpreted as an implicit reference to the founder of Islam (which is also not allowed IMO by WP:U). I strongly believe that in such usernames where sensible doubt can be raised, the "burden of proof" should lie on the user's side. If there is adequate clarification that no implication of religious figures is intended, then everything is OK. However, if there are doubts, and even if non-eligible (in this case e.g. Christian) users perceive it as "inflammatory", then the username should IMO be disallowed, on the grounds that this confusion will be extended to the editors that interact with the user concerned on each and every edit of his. Wikiproject Islam (or whatever applicable), while obviously more conscientious on the issue, will not be there to clarify every confused fellow editor. NikoSilver 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an admin I would not block usernames with Muhammad on that factor alone. Just like users with Jesus Gonzoles (or other similar Spanish style username) for jesus as that is a common username there also. But there should be other factors that play into the block. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, but if I were an admin, I'd certainly block usernames such as Muhammad/Jesus coupled with "NO"/"NEVER"/"NO WAY"/"NADA"/"KAPUT"/"ZILT"/"NEIN"/"NICHT"/"NON", and I wouldn't care if some wild Google search provided the (extreme IMO) possibility that they could be "real names", unless and until it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is so. It is these cases I refer to as "potentially offensive", and not "Jesus Gonzales" or "Muhammad Noah" or whatever else that cannot be misinterpreted as a potential religious offense. NikoSilver 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree on the burden of proof being the communities. However, it is a policy, not a guideline. It is arbitrary enough for interpretation though. HowIBecameCivil 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that it is a policy but one requiring interpretation. That is what WP:RFCN is for. I would like to see a consensus for allowing the names Mohammed (and variations) and Jesus when it is not clear they are meant in a way that would be considered offensive, inflammatory, or blasphemous to Muslim and Christian believers, respectively, due to the fact that these are also common names. --Ginkgo100talk 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad 

message: I have unprotected this page because there are a few proposed additions that seem likely to succeed. A major policy should not be protected for too long. I please do not engage in edit warring, it is often preferred to block users than to protect pages. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Er, as I've said, the fact it's been in the policy for over less than a year proves nothing. The policy says at the top that it represents consensus. Therefore nobody's going to change it because they've been told it represents consensus, even though it was a unilaterl change. So that's a non-starter as a justification.  And consensus? Looking at your link, I don't see any. The only user who was endorsing the policy as it was unilaterally created was inBC, Kukini wanted to modify it, as did Benedict_the_moor, and tjstrf. And that's with these people starting from the assumption (which is incorrect) that as the policy is on the page it must have followed consensus. Nobody noticed that some user just took it upon himself to add it, but despite that, there's still no agreement on it. So I'm not sure why you're saying it's been endorsed, as it clearly hasn't Nssdfdsfds 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I'm saying if you want to make it policy, establish consensus. That's the correct thing to do. Until there's consensus established (rather than just changing it and nobody noticing/objecting), it should not be in the policy. Nssdfdsfds 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Nope, I'm saying if you want to make it policy, establish consensus" - great. So go ahead and do just that, because right now, it is policy. - Alison☺ 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think a name that's five characters long has enough substance to be random. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- there should be a length limit to the randomness policy. Borisblue 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was just discussed a little while ago at #Concern over the concept of "apparent". My opinion is the same. Random or apparently random names are confusing and disruptive. However, if they are 5 characters or shorter, I do agree the problem is not as bad. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, why is a 7 character long random name like User:Mdd4696 more "disruptive" than a 10 character long random name like User:Nssdfdsfds? I agree that a long random username is quite confusing, but I don't consider 10 characters to be long. Maybe we can change the policy from "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences" to "Usernames that consist of long random or apparently random sequences". What "long" is could be discussed on a per-case basis at WP:RFCN. --Conti|✉ 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, if I saw a name like Mdd4696, I'd assume that the first three characters were initials, and the last four were a date (M.D.D., born April 6, 1996, or September 6, 1946, or whatever). When I see a name like Nssdfdsfds, I assume that the guy created a throwaway account by hitting several keys at random, since it's implausibly long for an acronym and it doesn't include any numbers. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me, but this policy currently states that not only random, but also "apparently random" usernames are forbidden. See a few sections above, where this was discussed in detail. I don't see anything wrong with either username, but per this policy they're both not allowed. --Conti|✉ 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am pretty sure we can make something more or less subjective, so I don't see any futility here, we can clarify the wording and still have it be subjective, just less so. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to see "no consensus" default to "allow" as that better fits the mission of inclusivity of wikipedia as well as best fits the "don't bite the newbies" rule. Kukini  hablame aqui 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary Section Break

message: Technical problems: Names that contain the character "=" will stop certain aspects of Wikipedia from working properly. Names with the "=" sign in it are not allowed for this reason.
:Feel free to edit it mercilessly, I will add it once we agree. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * change result in confusing the code to function as WikiMedia software code and thus the software may attempt to use the username as Wikicode instead of as a username' as I think that is clearer. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested wording 

message: Having found no policy or guideline on the matter of abandoning one username and starting anew with another (I know it's perfectly acceptable, but I think this should be in writing), I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Abandoning one username and starting anew with another about whether there should be formal, written guidance on this matter, and, if so, where.  
Comments are strongly invited - please post there rather than here so all information is in one place.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoning one username and starting anew with another 

message: The policy currently states that the MediaWiki software will disallow any username with an @ sign in it, yet I just saw and blocked someone w/ this sign in their username. So I'm confused. Natalie 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just can't f-ing read. Natalie 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  email addresses? 

message: I feel that a company name should be allowed as a user name, provided that the user provides some proof of their affiliation with this company. Any thoughts? --24fan24 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is spamming. If they are advertising, then don't allow. In a related theme, I am soliciting comment on the company name policy here on the RFCN talk page. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely not.  We often suspect that they're affiliated to the companies involved, which is what rouses our concerns.  How would proof of their affiliation reduce the problem? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how company names are an issue. If a company's name isn't known I especially don't see any harm. This certainly wont increase business for said company, no one is going to think, "Interesting username, I better search for any affiliated company and purchase their products/services." Furthermore, I think a lot of users are using these names not with intent for harm, but because it is an available name of which makes sense to them. It can be difficult to think of a username, especially on a big site like Wikipedia where many obvious ones are already taken. I think though that there should be a clause for proof of affiliation, because a user may create an account with the intent to harm the image of a company. --24fan24 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of a single instance of someone using a company name as usernames with the intent of harming a company's image. They use them with the intent of adding spam links, creating inappropriate articles, and having a visible presence on Wikipedia where they can try to get some free name recognition. Nobody buys anything from spam emails, either, but they still send 'em. Marketing doesn't have to make sense. The point of the rule is to avoid advertising. It has nothing to do with whether or not the user is affiliated with the company; 99% of the time, they are. Kafziel Talk 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, a company cannot have a "company user account". Group accounts or role accounts are strictly forbidden. —Centrx→talk • 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to group accounts. 24fan24 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision: Company names accepted with proof of affiliation 

message: I am deeply saddened to see people allowing usernames like User:Hentai Jeff (an obvious sexual reference) at WP:RFC/NAME, but disallowing clearly benign usernames like User:Jesusfreak, which is only a positive connotation of a religious figure. The whole point of disallowing religious usernames is to avoid offensive ones (e.g., User:ChristIsNotGod, User:AllahSupportsViolence, etc.) or ones that deliberately misspeak of the place of the user (e.g., User:Allah; it could be very offensive to a Muslim to have a person claim to be God). But a username like User:DevoutBuddhist is offensive to absolutely no one, and we are disallowing these usernames left and right. Patstuarttalk·edits
:No we do not. Last example was a User:Dvoted2christ which was allowed. We only disallow those that may be perceived negative. Your example can be perceived negative if one assumes that "Jesus is a freak", which is highly probable for people who are not familiar with this recent terminology. That's why these are screened through WP:RFCN, and my and your perception should be irrelevant when voting there. We should vote taking into consideration if some users may be offended or not. WP:U explicitly states "potentially offensive", not "clearly offensive". NikoSilver 18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, that name has been disallowed over 5 times. Hentai does not mean a sexual perversion, but it has simply been used in that manner a lot. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, User:Jesusfreak has not been disallowed. Kukini  hablame aqui 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh?  --BigDT 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious usernames 

message: Current
Usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review. 
Proposed
Usernames which consist solely of the name of a religious figure are prohibited such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion may be prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intollerance, or are blatantly disrespectful of the religion, are also prohibited. Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed.
Reason
The current policy is far to open for interpretation, allowing for the potential of abuses and inconsistancies. The proposed revision defines far more clearly what usernames are prohibited, which ones are allowed (yet discouraged), but still leaving the option for review open. The proposal has come after the RfC for "SlaveOFChrist" uncovered some inconsistancies, as other similar names, such as "ASERVANTOFCHRIST" was allowed, along with other usernames that invoke the name of Christ.
Examples of tasteful usernames
To clarify, some examples of 'tasteful usernames' would be "ImCoolWithJesus" or "JehovahsFriend", "AllahsFriend", etc.
Examples of distasteful usernames
Distasteful usernames: "JesusSux", "DownWithAllah", "MayChristBeWithYou", etc.
TALK|HISTORY 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I like the wording on this one- previous wording left too much up in the air. Hopefully this will lead to more consistency on RFCN Borisblue 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The addition of the prohibition of claiming superiority over another religion is important, I prefer the new wording. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hehe, "Buddahistheonlygod" is a funny example because Buddhists don't believe in God, they believe in man(unless I am misinformed). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to avoid always using Christianity and Islam refs. Yup it's silly. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hahaha, yea that is exactly why i chose that reference is I was trying to shy away from using Christianity or Islam as the example.  (plus, i dont know a whole lot about Buddhism). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure if it is too soon, but I move to suspend draft comments and vote on the second draft for a final version, unless anyone has any further suggestions. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for a vote, the current discussion makes people's view on adding this clear, we can just let it go a little longer and see if anyone objects. Polls are for when consensus is less than clear. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Spent a little too much time with Parlimentary Procedures. Some habits die hard! Thanks for everyone's input on creating a clarifying policy. Hopefully RfCN's will be less heated now... emphasis on 'hopefully'. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand how you feel about parlimentry procedure. I very regularly want to motion, and all kinds of other things. I am kind of glad we dont have to go through all of that with the wiki interface, I think it might be kind of difficult. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made some changes below. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sorry, I meant grammatical clarity. The second sentence may need rewording. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "prohibited" appeared twice in the second sentence. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as the point is the same, i dont think minor grammatical changes are that big of an issue(I.E., dont need another draft), but that is just my opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I think we've agreed on the spirit, a few minor tweeks don't need much discussion. It reads better though. Thank's flyguy! CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I put them side by side to figure out what the changes were. This reads well. I think draft 3 should be the one that goes forward.--Kukini  hablame aqui 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not crazy about all the commas in the second sentence, but as long as it says what we mean... Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to get all semantic, doesn't the first sentence the mean that JesusChrist12344 is ok, because it isn't solely the name of the religious figure? jUst trying to get this right. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps replace solely with primarily, or we can count on common sense to realize that it's content is solely the name of a religious figure. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Otherwise someone will accuse us of ignoring our policy again. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh...GOOD point! Change to "primarily" please. --Kukini  hablame aqui 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't think about that. Good catch! CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SNOW, it shalt be invoked, I think. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we go for it, if consensus changes we can just change it back. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SNOW be it. Kukini  hablame aqui 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is done. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Policy Change for WP:U regarding Religious Figures 

message: I feel that it is a needed change.  I think the semantics need to be worked out but WP:RFCN is becoming crazy.  You never know which way it is going to swing and it depends on whose online, and often, who the first person to get a good argument in is.  I think we eiliminate way toooo many names and unless it is blatantly offensive, I have no problem with it.  The problem is going to be drawing the line between offensisve and not offensive.  I think the recent WP:RFCN for AslaveofChrist (not sure the proper capitalisation on that one) was an issue because some people thought it might be offensive.  A clarification of the policy would not have helped this situation.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I like the wording on this one- previous wording left too much up in the air. Hopefully this will lead to more consistency on RFCN Borisblue 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Based on feedback from others (see above), I'm proposing the following modified version of the origional form:
Usernames which consist solely of the name of a religious figure are prohibited such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion may be prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intolerance, are blatantly disrespectful of the religion, promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others (e.g. "ChristOnly", etc.), are also prohibited. Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed.
====Comments on 2nd draft====
:The addition of the prohibition of claiming superiority over another religion is important, I prefer the new wording. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, "Buddahistheonlygod" is a funny example because Buddhists don't believe in God, they believe in man(unless I am misinformed). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to avoid always using Christianity and Islam refs. Yup it's silly. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hahaha, yea that is exactly why i chose that reference is I was trying to shy away from using Christianity or Islam as the example.  (plus, i dont know a whole lot about Buddhism). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure if it is too soon, but I move to suspend draft comments and vote on the second draft for a final version, unless anyone has any further suggestions. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for a vote, the current discussion makes people's view on adding this clear, we can just let it go a little longer and see if anyone objects. Polls are for when consensus is less than clear. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Spent a little too much time with Parlimentary Procedures. Some habits die hard! Thanks for everyone's input on creating a clarifying policy. Hopefully RfCN's will be less heated now... emphasis on 'hopefully'. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand how you feel about parlimentry procedure. I very regularly want to motion, and all kinds of other things. I am kind of glad we dont have to go through all of that with the wiki interface, I think it might be kind of difficult. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made some changes below. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Rewording

message: :The addition of the prohibition of claiming superiority over another religion is important, I prefer the new wording. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, "Buddahistheonlygod" is a funny example because Buddhists don't believe in God, they believe in man(unless I am misinformed). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to avoid always using Christianity and Islam refs. Yup it's silly. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hahaha, yea that is exactly why i chose that reference is I was trying to shy away from using Christianity or Islam as the example.  (plus, i dont know a whole lot about Buddhism). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure if it is too soon, but I move to suspend draft comments and vote on the second draft for a final version, unless anyone has any further suggestions. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for a vote, the current discussion makes people's view on adding this clear, we can just let it go a little longer and see if anyone objects. Polls are for when consensus is less than clear. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Spent a little too much time with Parlimentary Procedures. Some habits die hard! Thanks for everyone's input on creating a clarifying policy. Hopefully RfCN's will be less heated now... emphasis on 'hopefully'. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand how you feel about parlimentry procedure. I very regularly want to motion, and all kinds of other things. I am kind of glad we dont have to go through all of that with the wiki interface, I think it might be kind of difficult. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made some changes below. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on 2nd draft

message: Because people seem to like this, I'm proposing some minor changes for clarity. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, I meant grammatical clarity. The second sentence may need rewording. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "prohibited" appeared twice in the second sentence. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as the point is the same, i dont think minor grammatical changes are that big of an issue(I.E., dont need another draft), but that is just my opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I think we've agreed on the spirit, a few minor tweeks don't need much discussion. It reads better though. Thank's flyguy! CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I put them side by side to figure out what the changes were. This reads well. I think draft 3 should be the one that goes forward.--Kukini  hablame aqui 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not crazy about all the commas in the second sentence, but as long as it says what we mean... Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to get all semantic, doesn't the first sentence the mean that JesusChrist12344 is ok, because it isn't solely the name of the religious figure? jUst trying to get this right. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps replace solely with primarily, or we can count on common sense to realize that it's content is solely the name of a religious figure. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Otherwise someone will accuse us of ignoring our policy again. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh...GOOD point! Change to "primarily" please. --Kukini  hablame aqui 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't think about that. Good catch! CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SNOW, it shalt be invoked, I think. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we go for it, if consensus changes we can just change it back. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SNOW be it. Kukini  hablame aqui 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is done. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rewording, Third draft

message: Isent that just minor gramatical changes? The content is still the same as far as I can tell.  If it is different, could you highluight the changes? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, I meant grammatical clarity. The second sentence may need rewording. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "prohibited" appeared twice in the second sentence. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as the point is the same, i dont think minor grammatical changes are that big of an issue(I.E., dont need another draft), but that is just my opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I think we've agreed on the spirit, a few minor tweeks don't need much discussion. It reads better though. Thank's flyguy! CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I put them side by side to figure out what the changes were. This reads well. I think draft 3 should be the one that goes forward.--Kukini  hablame aqui 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not crazy about all the commas in the second sentence, but as long as it says what we mean... Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to get all semantic, doesn't the first sentence the mean that JesusChrist12344 is ok, because it isn't solely the name of the religious figure? jUst trying to get this right. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps replace solely with primarily, or we can count on common sense to realize that it's content is solely the name of a religious figure. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Otherwise someone will accuse us of ignoring our policy again. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh...GOOD point! Change to "primarily" please. --Kukini  hablame aqui 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't think about that. Good catch! CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SNOW, it shalt be invoked, I think. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we go for it, if consensus changes we can just change it back. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SNOW be it. Kukini  hablame aqui 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is done. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on 3rd draft