Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FoxNews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

user:FoxNewsIsShit

[edit] From VfD

Wikipedia:User_name#Inappropriate_usernames Jay 18:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Substub, patent nonsense, offensive, POV, I don't care what you call it just can it. Andrewa 21:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, so the substub and patent nonsense or OK on user pages! It still shouldn't be there. Andrewa 21:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm still waiting for someone to claim that (like with libel) truth is an absolute defense in this case. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:09, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I would accept User:Unfair and Unbalanced, however. Meelar 22:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Acceptable free speech. Mkweise 23:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Suggest they use User:FauxNews instead. — Jor (Talk) 01:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Rename as per guidelines. I personally would accept User:FoxNewsIsCrap or similar, but I think using "shit" in a username steps over the line. Lupin 01:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Username says The procedure for forcing a name change is described at Wikipedia:Bans and blocks, but it isn't. Where did you find it? Andrewa 03:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't check the link out :) There's a page Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Everyone_using_a_username_which_is_against_policy which may be interesting. Plus there's Wikipedia:Changing username, which seems to be where the action is.
• Delete. Everyking 01:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• This username clearly violates policy, regardless of how you feel. -- VV 01:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm fascinated that this has ended up on VfD and the account hasn't even done anything. Since when has VfD been used for deleting user accounts anyway? Secretlondon 01:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • AND no-one has seen fit to tell the user that their account is on VfD.... Secretlondon 01:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point (they could have emailed of course and you wouldn't know), and thanks for doing it. Andrewa 03:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• This is an excellent user name. I'd trade user names with this account. Fox News really is shit! 172 06:39, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment edited to remove annoying formatting. — Jor (Talk) 17:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Rename per guidelines - Tεxτurε 21:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep acceptable freedom of expression. 80.255 14:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - this is fine. The Trolls of Navarone 14:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - offensive language (only because of that) gracefool 04:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] from quickpolls

Userpage talk contribs

Contributor's user ID violates our offensive username policy. See vfd discussion. Suggest deletion of user account and any associated user talk pages or subpages. --Uncle Ed 14:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Danny 15:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Tannin 15:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) The username is way out of line. This is covered by existing policy (i.e., a Jimbo decree). There is no need for a poll.
3. Kingturtle 16:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. I got to admit this does violate the policy of no offencive usernames. Plato aka Comrade Nick

Oppose

1. I don't think this is covered by the policy (though I proposed adding it :) Ah, here 'tis buried: Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls/Archive1#Change username. Dori | Talk 15:09, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
2. This is not covered by the policy. anthony (see warning) 23:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   1. Try clicking Userpage here , to see past the asterisks, and you will find the user. And here for their contribs. --Uncle Ed 00:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• In general, instead of deletion, I support a combination of blocking and redirecting such userpages to EUaUWiAP, which should have a link at the top that you can follow if you've been blocked and want to request a username change. +sj+ 21:09, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy and Wikipedia:Username. There can be polls on this, but not quickpolls. JRR Trollkien 16:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I have taken the above vote out of the tally as the user placing the vote has not been here longer than 3 months, and therefore cannot vote in a Quickpoll, although they can comment (see the policy page linked to at the top of this page). Jwrosenzweig 17:01, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• There is also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy. Dori | Talk 15:25, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "deletion of user account"? If it is deleted, the user can't be blocked, and anyone could recreate the account. Wouldn't blocking it be a better idea? Angela. 15:32, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • The obvious permanent solution would be to add a check of each new username for specific substrings (a la Carlin's Seven dirty words) in the software. Mkweise 00:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Obvious, yes. Workable, no. Software is unable to deal with lots of perfectly valid english-language names such as, for example, Paul Hiscock. You need a human in the loop. Tannin
• See also wikipedia:blocking policy#usernames Martin 21:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of this quickpoll? This is a straightforward matter of an offensive username violation. The user should be informed of the policy and told they have to change their name. If they refuse, a name shall be provided for them (à la User:Saddam Hussein), and all their contributions etc. assigned to the new name. Unless they are actually a troll or other such troublemaker (I don't know, as I have not seen their contributions, and no such allegation was made), there is no reason for blocking. -- VV 22:01, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] continued

Let's clear some things up. Quoting from wikipedia:blocking policy (prior to a recent proposal to change it):

According to our username policy, inflammatory, deliberately confusing, and other inappropriate usernames are not allowed.

The decision as to what is an inappropriate name is made by general consensus. To determine consensus, we create a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment for a discussion on the user's name. If there is consensus after a period of a week, a sysop can force a namechange by blocking the username (with an expiry time of infinite)

So, let's find out if there's consensus, shall we? Martin 01:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Folks arguing that it's inappropriate:

• Andrewa
• Dante Alighieri
• Meelar
• Jor
• Lupin
• Everyking
• VeryVerily
• Tεxτurε
• Danny
• Ed Poor
• Kingturtle
• +sj+
• Angela
• Plato AKA Comrade Nick
• Dori
• gracefool

Folks arguing that it's appropriate:

• Mkweise
• 80.255
• The Trolls of Navarone (very recent user)

Others:

• 172 ("excellent username", but doesn't say whether appropriate for Wikipedia)

So, looks like there's a rough consensus in favour of the name being inappropriate. Somewhat borderline, with two longer term users feeling that it's appropriate, but not so bad. Martin 01:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate and should be renamed or blocked. I just don't think the quickpoll policy can handle this case as it is. Dori | Talk 03:44, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's why we're using the old-style inappropriate username policy, rather than the quickpoll policy. :) Martin 13:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)