Requests for Comment/Username policy (2)

There has already been an RfC on this matter last year, though in the end it was closed with no consensus, since the format of that RfC was not great, and instead of having users vote on individual rules, it was on full proposals which did not work out. I think a username policy is necessary to have on Miraheze, as currently it's up to discretion and sometimes there is uncertainty (at least for me) regarding whether a username should be allowed or not. In the case that none of the policy proposals pass, the enforcement will remain "Steward discretion". Please feel free to add any other proposals, and of course in this case most proposals are not mutually exclusive. Proposals here are taken from my original draft as well as from Robkelk's. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Attribution: RfC Created by RhinosF1 and Reception123 with feedback from Spike.

Proposal 1

 * Stewards have discretion over which usernames should be locked or not for having an inappropriate username

a) Support

 * 1)  Username policies should be decided by communities (my own is ok with troll usernames, for example) so leaving the few fringe cases to the Stewards would still be better than enforcing general rules on everybody.--Wedhro (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  If someone has an offensive username, it's up to the admins to take action on it, since it can ruin the reputation of an entire website. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) ('C' ) 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with it. However, I think it is necessary to clearly define the locking rule. ——Shiyou (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  as the purpose of this RfC is to clarify what is allowed. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Policy should be clear.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above. Having a policy is a good idea.-- 05:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Stewards and CVT would have the duty to global lock an accounts username that is obvious abusive, even a local admin sometime would also applied the local block on it, so I don't think that "discretion" for the obvious abusive username is required. SA 13 Bro</b> (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  This is dubious, vague, and up to a wide range of interpretation. What is inappropriate to one person may be just borderline to another. Since the act of locking an account can potentially drive away legitimate contributors, a policy should be created to clarify this. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  My school also had a minor discussion on this matter, and found that some users on our local website were using abusive usernames. Those accounts who were disabled were community banned, not steward discretion. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 22:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Said like this there is a risk of abuse and sometimes the user may not understand why such username is banned. Better make the list clear for everyone to avoid these names (at least for the users having good faith). But letting just decide which is forbidden, just because of some random reason that may not be justified for everyone... Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  If this RfC passes, then including this piece in it negates it.  Other components of the RfC could leave it to Stewards to decide if a threshold has been passed, but the point of the RfC is to codify criteria for locking an account.   23:42 13-Sep-2019

d) Comments

 * I guess this RfC was created following my action of locking PIONEEROFUSOPEDIA, right? Just to clarify, my English name is The Pioneer, and I run a wiki named Usopedia, meaning that claiming to be "The Pioneer of Usopedia" is a clear impersonation (and also very unlikely to be a coincidence).-- 05:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been in draft for a bit but quite a few recent actions have influenced it. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
The following proposals detail what usernames are not allowed on Miraheze.

Proposal 2.1

 * Usernames that are offensive, contain insulting material, harass a user or do not respect any global Miraheze policies.

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Pretty obvious.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A clear case.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  This proposal make sense. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  This should be obvious. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  OwenFung87 08:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  Maybe clearly define "offensive content" (such as racial slurs, pornographic terms...) but otherwise, yes, it's obvious. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) --Hinami (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 11)  Make sense Gustave London (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 12)  An offensive username can make people feel unconfortable, so I certainly don't want any of that here. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  In practice, this vague language means: exactly as "Proposal 1", except with fig leaf of claiming "objectivity". See also: Code of Conduct takeover attempts. Or a recent feeble outrage over "horrible" Italian slur (with people from all sides, including Italians, replying that it's nonsense). Or even more recently, Swedes with "offensive" license plate ("TRUMP"). I'm mostly sure here it won't get quite this ridiculous on the next day, but — shams are corruptive. If there are no real rules, either veto it and own up to this, or don't. TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  This would prevent leisure, humor or generally lax communities to have fun with usernames, not to mention how there's no strict definition of what's offensive considering it's completely subjective.--Wedhro (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To reply to both comments, my opinion on this case is that policies need to leave some level of discretion to Stewards, you shouldn't have to define every single thing that is offensive. In many cases, it is easy to use common sense, and I think a Steward would be able to tell if a username is made for fun or whether its intent is to cause offence to another user. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1)  I agree with LulzKiller below under Comments that we need a definition of "offensive/insulting" (and this debate is at the heart of this proposed policy).  In addition, "not any" is ambiguous in English (like "may not").  "Usernames that...do not respect any global Miraheze policies."  What?  Do we need proof that the username disrespects every single global Miraheze policy?  Change "do not respect" to "disrespect", though there are better words (respect is a feeling).  "are in violation of any"?   23:50 13-Sep-2019

d) Comments

 * If this proposal is adopted, it would make sense that we create a guideline of what is offensive/insulting (which can often be a rather fervent debate), before we implement it and then vote on the guideline itself. LulzKiller (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes much more sense. Sounds like "fun", and more fun with each proposed update, but at least there's a good chance it can be contained. TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That debate is potentially prone to be a flame war and to lead nowhere, also because offence is subjective pretty much by definition.--Wedhro (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, create a list of what is exactly "offensive" for Miraheze. Some obvious things such as racial slurs or pornographic terms which can be disturbing for some other users. But after, there can be some offensive words that may not be that offensive for some other users. Better clarifying what is forbidden in all of this. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.2

 * Usernames that give the impression that the account in question has permissions which it does not have (e.g. "administrator", "bureaucrat", etc.).

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Makes sense, avoids confusion.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A clear case.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  LulzKiller (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  OwenFung87 08:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  Good idea. TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 10)  As per proposer. --Robkelk (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 11)  17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 12)  make sense Gustave London (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  No admin would call him/herself "Adminsomething", and everyone taking such a username basically asks to be called a troll. Leave it to the communities, some might not care at all (like my own).--Wedhro (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  I agree with Webhro on this one, how do you impersonate an admin here? I will not oppose that policy though, impersonation is still a crime. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * There may be some wiki communities that are okay with, or specifically have accounts that operate with, such usernames. I'm inclined to allow local wiki communities to decide on usernames like these. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 'No admin would call him/herself "Adminsomething"'. Maybe not "adminsomething", but we just had a new account "JamesBot" created on poserdazfreebies (where I've never given anybody Bot rights and have no plans to do so). --Robkelk (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea to this policy is that users are given rights, so it's not automatic to be an "admin". But mainly this policy is meant to prevent usernames such as "Admin90" or something similar, that would cause confusion as to where the administrator rights are held. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that since admin don't have "admin" in their username, it's unlikely someone would be identified as an admin just because it has "admin" in their username. Maybe some new users might mistake them as such, but new users make all kind of mistakes anyway...--Wedhro (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My wikia account was Swordsofwrathadmin refering to being a local administraitor on Swords of Wrath Wiki before it moved. Will the proposer tell me whether or not local admins are exempt? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 07:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.3

 * Usernames that are deliberately similar to other usernames in the possible scope of impersonation (i.e. user a is called "Example", user b is called "Examplee")

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  avoids confusion.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) While the proposal itself makes sense, I think we should give the user a chance to change their usernames before taking actions whenever we can think of the possibility of coincidental matches (ex. John is a common name in English Speaking countries, and a user can name himself John01 per his real name without knowing about our founder).-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this proposal would be more up to discretion, and it would only be applied if there is an obvious or fairly clear scope of impersonation. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 06:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , but the case should either be extremely clear (usually taking into account the actions of the user) or should be investigated, such as after consultation. Miraheze already has the AntiSpoof extension installed so that can help mitigate this to an extent already. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  OwenFung87 08:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per The Pioneer. Gustave London (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Impersonation (or attempt at impersonation) is a crime and that should not be allowed, people can impersonate other people just to ruin their reputation. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  "Deliberately" and "similar" are not objective criteria; especially, it's hard to tell if someone picked a username almost identical to someone else's on purpose, except when it's an obvious troll with malicious intent, and its actions would probably ask for a ban anyway. In more fringe-y cases it would still be left to the personal interpretation of Stewards, so it's kind of self-defeating rule.--Wedhro (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Same as above, there is a risk that two people not knowing each other can have similar or very identical names. Rather not taking this risk... Even if it goes with a good intention (real "trolls"). Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, there should be some level of Steward discretion. In this case especially, it would indeed be a up to Stewards whether a user is clearly impersonating someone or not. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * I still remember that this user has the deliberately similar to Artix Kreiger, the username contain the word "Bot" may let other to be impressive thought that bot account is belong to Artix, but that bot account is not belonged to Artix, and I leave a message told the user considering to request for renaming account. I do agree with Pioneer, but this proposal shall be more discretion. S</b>A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * Generally it makes sense, but needs much work. After all, JohnDoe1995 and JohnDoe1997 may always naturally happen. Then, think of the fandoms. You don't want to be the solemn arbiter of a squabble between "Galadriel2005" and "Galadriel2006", nor make it into "who's first", right? TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.4

 * Usernames that contain phone numbers or email addresses

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  for everyone's sake.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A clear case.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Clear on it. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Allowing usernames like this is terrible opsec, let alone abusable by people wanting to dox others. LulzKiller (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  OwenFung87 08:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  These are generally private data, that is not to be publicly shared. Clearly agreeing. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 10)  Of course,make sense. Gustave London (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  These types of usernames may cause abusers to dox others, as what does LulzKiller said above. DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The preposal is that they are banned, so if you are concerned about doxing like them then you should support the proposal. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 07:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1)  Unless the person is actually trying to doxx someone else, it's none of my business if one wants to use their personal info for their username. By using their personal info for their username, they consent to let everyone else know about said personal information. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) Someone using their info as username do consent to have others knowing it. --Anderlaxe (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * Phone numbers and email addresses are, I presume, already subject to oversight. However, there are reasons why someone may want to publish their own email addresses (it may be a public email address). There is at least one user on Wikipedia who has an email address as their username (link), and although it is now technically impossible to do so (as usernames can no longer be created with the "@" symbol), they were grandfathered in and allowed to keep their username. They haven't had too many issues with this, aside from the occasional editor berating them for having such a username. Should this be considered? — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.5

 * Usernames that contain the exact name of a wiki (e.g. a user named "Metawiki") or the name of Miraheze unless the account is ran by that wiki's staff.

a) Support

 * 1)  I think that accounts should be individual and someone shouldn't have the same name as their wiki. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  With the bit I added on seen as I have QuIRC for QuIRC as a contact account.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A clear case.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  The account would need to be confirmed by at least one admin of the wiki in question to be a legitimate account. Local wiki admins should also be able to have such usernames usurped to prevent confusion, in case one malicious actor does register such a username. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  I've seen accounts called almost the same as the wiki they manage. Including wikis of only 1 user editor.Hispano76 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  LulzKiller (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  Wiki farm and meta, yes (much the same as 2.2). But specific wiki no, it's better left to the wiki itself (or block by default, but let wiki admins opt out, if it can be done this way). For one, that sort of thing is endemic in the fandoms (often annoying, but it exists). TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  make sense Gustave London (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Many users on my wiki enjoy using its name as part of their username and nobody ever complained. Fringe cases should be left to the communities.--Wedhro (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the policy is clear when it says "the exact name". If someone would be called "Example_MetaWiki" that would be fine, at least in the way that I interpret the policy. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It also says "contain", which means that nobody could pick "Example_MetaWiki_Dude" as an username, which is really not an issue to our community (a previous admin picked a name like that!) and I guess we're not alone. If a community is against stuff like that, let them forbid it without enforcing global rules or communities who don't.--Wedhro (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  I have no problem with self-promotion, but I can see why other people may be bothered by it, ban it or not it will not be an issue for me in the end. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.6

 * Usernames that resemble IP addresses (as these are expected to designate non-logged-in users), timestamps, system messages or are deliberately cause confusion are prohibited.

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  so it's clear whose logged in or not.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) --Tiger (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  In reference to comments section, believing Miraheze behaves like Wikipedia does, useless to put this in the list since technically creating such an username is not possible. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Like I said for proposal 2.4 regarding privacy, it's none of my business if an active user on my wiki uses their IP address as their username. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) I'm not sure about this, because the border line is unclear. For example, User:999.999.999.999 cannot be an IP address (which is clear to me), but some might say it resembles it.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree with Pioneer, IPv4 CIDR notation has no such of number bits larger than 255. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Some users use names like this.Per The Pioneer also Gustave London (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * I believe usernames that resemble IP addresses cannot be created in the MediaWiki software per w:en:Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions). I'm hesitant on prohibiting timestamps and system messages; usernames like "0823, 12 September 2019 UTC" or "What links here" don't seem to be problematic to me. "Deliberately cause[s] confusion" needs to be defined a bit more clearly. Also, I hope we don't consider usernames like this one to be problematic. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.8

 * Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes) or indicates it is part of the mediawiki software, unless the account is of that type.

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  as joint proposer.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A clear case.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Leave a message warn the user considering to request for renaming account first, before discretion to apply the block. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  per SA 13 Bro. Local wiki communities may also prefer having a little more control with regards to this policy, so consultation should be sought before any action is taken. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 15:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  It's a Wikipedia policy.Of course that i'll go support. Gustave London (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  If someone passes themselves off of being a bot, when in reality they are not, then their intentions are obvious and should be threated with a warning and then a proper ban. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  This might prevent fun usernames such as "BotFather" or "IHeartScripts" and, again, it should be up to the communities to decide what's "easily misunderstood".--Wedhro (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, Steward discretion, special cases will be dealt with differently. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it the whole point of this request for comment to have rules that prevent Steward discretion? (which I'm ok with) I'm just saying that rules too open to interpretation won't solve the "problem", while still taking away freedom from the communities to decide their own policies.--Wedhro (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * It must have a system or a plugin that automatically identifies if an account is a bot or a human using an in-house solution (or a third-party one, but its not recommended) based on the rate limits monitoring and recent activities and must be put beside the username (not combining together) of that account in question. DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2.9

 * Usernames that seem intended to provoke a reaction ("trolling").

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer, makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Of course  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A clear case.-- 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Quite obvious (same as with "offensive content" in usernames). Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  Totally agreed with this, particularly if one decides to make their username something like "KillAllFurries42069", being edgy does not give you a free pass for having an offensive username. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  That's an invitation for internet mind-reading and thoughtcrime policing ("seem intended to"), and asking for arbitrary complaints backed with self-issued victim cards ("Why does he need to mention snaaaaakes?!") from tumblr crowd. TBeholder (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  As TBeholder said.--Wedhro (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Strongly disagree that one person's claim of offense automatically justifies restriction of another person's rights.  Suppose I register an account "MAGA" (Donald Trump's signature "Make America Great Again").  California university students would immediately claim this makes them feel threatened or is even an endorsement of racism or planet-killing.  I can see what this proposal is getting at, and it "makes sense" until one thinks through the implications.  The proposal needs a basis to distinguish the legitimacy of the offense claimed, including actual trolling of another Miraheze user and overt hatred (yes, ban the N-word in usernames), and excluding sloganeering that someone of a different movement claims to be "offended" by.   23:39 13-Sep-2019

Proposal 3

 * Username ban should NOT apply to users if the username is accepted on ALL the local wikis where they have edits and/or logged actions apart from automatic account creation (that is, wikis where the user in question visited but did nothing further will not have a say on this). Local administrators have the right to ask for unlocking mistakenly locked accounts on Stewards' noticeboard if a steward ignores the local community.

a) Support

 * 1) As the proposer and seeing comments made by Wedhro and Spike.-- 01:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  This is better than the above proposals but I still think there should be no global ban of usernames so that communities could apply local bans based on their own rules.--Wedhro (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Yeah I guess, mistakes can happen. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I have to oppose this and reply to Wedhro's comment by stating that as you know Miraheze accounts are global, so because of that, there should be a global policy to regulate them. "if the username is accepted on ALL the local wikis where they have edits and/or logged actions" would make things very complicated, as every single wiki would have to be checked, and furthermore the user could always create accounts on new wikis where they would not be accepted. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 14:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  What reception said.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) User accounts are global Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comment

 * This will allow humor wikis to be more tolerant on usernames that might not be accepted on other wikis.-- 01:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think humor wikis would have a problem anyway, since stewards would use their discretion for those usernames. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (General enforcement)

 * If an account that does not respect this policy is created, they should be warned, linked to this policy and invited to change their username. If they do not do so in a time period determined by a Steward they will be locked for violating the policy.

a) Support

 * 1)  I only support this because the alternative option is too harsh on new users who might have no idea what warnings are (I've seen it happen), but it would be better if the time limit was not arbitrary.--Wedhro (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  It would be far more preferable, than just banning on sight, I would give the guy 48 hours to make the username change after they've been warned. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  the time period could be confusing, proposal 2 is more clear. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  allows for discretion  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Hispano76 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Same as above. The time has to be given publicly. Risk of abuse. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) per Reception Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) I don't think giving a time period itself is a bad idea, and I would've supported it if the "time period" were made clear on the policy page (and not determined by Stewards' discretion).-- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (General enforcement)

 * If an account that does not respect this policy is created, they should be warned, linked to this policy and invited to change their username. If they edit a wiki globally and ignore the warning from a Steward, they will be locked for violating the policy.

a) Support

 * 1)  I think users should be given a chance to change their username, but if they edit and ignore a warning they should nonetheless be locked. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: Support is only counted if Amendment 1 passes, if it does not I oppose. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 15:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: Support is only counted if Amendments 1 and 2 pass, if it they do not I oppose. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  gives user a chance but clear in when to act.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  As I said previously, this would still be better than banning on sight, still give the person 48 hours to change their username in case they suddenly become inactive. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) As I think there are some flaws in this proposal, I won't cast a support vote unless some additional conditions are added.
 * 2) Requesting for wiki creation and other logged actions should be counted as well.
 * 3) Not all users receive global notifications, and it should be made clear that the warning should be posted on the wiki where the user is active (and not necessarily on meta).
 * 4) Clear cut cases of bad faith violation (ex. a clear impersonation of a complicated username, usernames with clear intentions to attack others such as "f*ck USERNAME") should be exempted from being warned and can/should be locked on sight.
 * -- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  I've seen all kind of goofy things done by innocent new users and that includes having no idea what talk pages, messages or warnings are. Punishing them after their first action might be a little too harsh. A time limit seems more fair.--Wedhro (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Amendment 1 to Proposal 2 (General enforcement)

 * Warnings given should be posted on wikis where users are active and will see them.
 * Clear cut cases of bad faith violation (ex. a clear impersonation of a complicated username, usernames with clear intentions to attack others, usernames that violate policies) don't have to be warned and can be locked on sight.
 * CLARIFICATION: "edit" in Proposal 2 is changed to edits or logs

a) Support

 * 1)  Per the Pioneer. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 15:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm inclined to support this amendment if there is also the additional clause that if the username is not a clear cut case, the user should be talked to informally rather than "warned". A one-on-one discussion with the user should be sought before any sort of community-wide RFC is held to determine if the username is problematic, in order to avoid embarrassing users. If it's a clear cut case though, then obviously they should be locked right away. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 15:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) A fair amendment.-- 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  If this is sure there is bad faith, yes. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  reasonable and provides clarification.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  It would be a mistake to ban anyone on sight. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Amendment 2 to Proposal 2 (General enforcement)

 * When considering cases, Stewards should be more lenient towards accounts which do not appear to be created with malicious intent, especially when locking.

a) Support

 * 1)  Per K6ka above. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 01:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Totally! MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Due to the impact of locking accounts and allows for common sense rather than black and white enforcement.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) LulzKiller (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (General enforcement)

 * If an account that does not respect this policy is created, they will be globally locked on sight by a Steward and must create another account in order to edit.

a) Support

 * 1) As for clear cut cases, this should be applied. Only for those that could be a coincidental violation (without bad faith) should receive warnings beforehand.-- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  for clear cut cases only. For more edge cases, a one-on-one discussion with the user should be attempted, and then an RFC for the community to decide if that doesn't work. Edge cases shouldn't result in them being locked if the user is otherwise contributing in good faith, as we'll drive away much needed contributors. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 15:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  per above, I think there should be a chance to change it before an immediate lock. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  let's give some notice.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Username policies are far from being intuitive so most people won't be even aware they're breaking them. A warning and a chance to change username is just fair.--Wedhro (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Wouldn't assume good faith. Better warn first, but never never close the door directly to their faces. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Third time I say it, but banning on sight would be a mistake, well at least the person is not IP-banned according to this policy. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) I feel like this would drive possible good-faith users away Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3.1 (General enforcement)

 * If the account is not respecting proposal 2.5 (assuming it passes) they may be warned instead of being directly locked (since it could be because of ignorance of the policy)

a) Support

 * 1)  per above. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  It's fair, most people won't even know they're breaking a rule while picking a username.--Wedhro (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  I agree with this! Also @Wedhro it does not mean there were past cases of people getting banned for being ignorant that their username was offensive that it does apply to everyone who gets banned from having an offensive name. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) I wonder why it's only 2.5. It should be applied to any cases when we can think the possibility of a mere ignorance.-- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Provisions for accounts created prior to the policy being adopted)

 * Usernames which already exist and that do not respect this policy (after it is in effect) will be given a warning and invited to change their username immediately, if they do not due so in a period of 3 months, they will be globally locked.

a) Support

 * 1)  Three months is a generous time for current users to change their usernames. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC) changed support to Proposal 6
 * 2)  generous and allows time to apply for a name change and stewards to do it.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  DekuPH2006AJHalili (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Seems fair. Not too much, not too though. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  It's exactly what should be done! MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) While 3 months is enough for active users, it might not be for inactive users, and I think we can wait for 6 months or even more for those who have been inactive after the warning. At least, they won't do any harm as long as they are inactive. Besides, if proposal 2 passes, newcomers won't be locked as long as they remain inactive, which is contradictory.-- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Unless it's a clear cut case of being extremely inappropriate, such as when it is disparaging another user, the user should be notified of the new policy and encouraged to change their name. There should be a grandfather clause to grandfather existing users into the new system. Locking usernames created for violating a policy that hadn't yet existed when the account was created seems to be a great way to drive people away from the project. No way; this is too harsh. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  As Pioneer said. Anyways it could be fixed by suspending the 3 months period for inactive users until they log in again. (it's actually Proposal 6)--Wedhro (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Provisions for accounts created prior to the policy being adopted)

 * Usernames which already exist and that do not respect this policy (after it is in effect) will be given a warning and invited to change their username immediately, if they do not due so in a period of 6 months, they will be globally locked.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Six months is too much, if for some reason a user would return they could eventually contact Stewards and agree on a username change. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 17:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ^  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) While 3 months is enough for active users, it might not be for inactive users, and I think we can wait for 6 months or even more for those who have been inactive after the warning. At least, they won't do any harm as long as they are inactive. Besides, if proposal 2 passes, newcomers won't be locked as long as they remain inactive, which is contradictory.-- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  per my comments on Proposal 4. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 16:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  6 months is too much for active users and not enough for inactive users. See my proposal about starting the 3 months only when a users logs in at least once after the new rule is implemented. (it's actually Proposal 6)--Wedhro (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Too long. 3 months is better. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  The duration of 6 months before the account gets locked is way WAY too long. 2-3 months is much more appreciated, at this point if it would take 6 months for someone to respond, let's consider they are not active anymore on Miraheze. MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Provisions for accounts created prior to the policy being adopted)

 * Usernames which already exist and that do not respect this policy (after it is in effect) will be given a warning and invited to change their username immediately, if they are confirmed to be active globally after the warning and do not change their usernames in a period of 3 months, they will be globally locked.

a) Support

 * 1) As the proposer and per above.-- 06:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Wedhro (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Good faith assumed and leaves enough time to consult the notice. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Changing my support to this as it makes more sense than my original proposal, since users might just have taken a break from Miraheze and it would be unreasonable for them to return and find that their account has been locked without them knowing of the implementation of this policy. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 14:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) makes more sense and doesn't contradict enforcement against new accounts.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  But what if the person never logs back on? MarioSuperstar77  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * See my comments on Proposal 4 and on . Unless the account is clearly malicious, it shouldn't be locked for simply using the word "Administrator" or "Bot" in their username, or vaguely resembling an IP address. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Amendment 1 to the enforcement section (good faith)

 * Stewards have the right to apply discretion and not enforce the policy in good faith or borderline cases and/or apply an exemption to the account.

a) Support

 * 1) To address concerns surrounding black and white locking of accounts.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Amendment 2 to the enforcement section (Provision for RfC/U)

 * Any user (including the locked account) may request a review of both locks made under this policy and any exemption made under this policy at a Request for Comments/Usernames page. When an RfC/U is opened the community should be given 7 days to decide what action to take and 60% support will be required for any proposed action to pass.

a) Support

 * 1) as proposer  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * Please note that an RfC/U wouldn't apply to violations of the Code of Conduct or Terms of Use although any RfC/U declined under those policies may only be declined by the Code of Conduct Commission or Staff teams respectively. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How would a locked account open an RfC/U? -- Void  Whispers 22:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A reminder on locking accounts
I just want to remind folks that locking an account is a pretty extreme thing. When an account is locked, the user cannot log in to the account anymore. They are not notified of the account being locked (until they try to log into it) and they are not shown the reason for the lock. As such, I'm very much opposed to locking accounts that violate the username policy unless the username disparages a person or identity, or contains things like profanity and whatnot (malicious usernames, we'll call them). Locking an account that innocently uses "Administrator" is rather harsh, especially if the user is here in good faith. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, the policy needs to be clear that, if there is no malice, what we want to happen is that the user is coaxed to pick an acceptable username, and that Stewards will "cheerfully" rename the user to preserve continuity of his edits; if the user does not cooperate, locking his account is "without prejudice" to his continued use of Miraheze. If there is malice, what we want to happen is for the user to pester some other wiki farm instead of us.   00:06 14-Sep-2019

Procedure
Above we see another effect of decision-making via conversation versus the rigor of an actual business meeting or legislature, which I said earlier calls for a drafting period followed by a voting period. In the process of voting, voters have seen fit to amend the thing being voted on. This immediately calls into question whether the votes already cast can be taken as support for the proposal as amended. In a real meeting, you would hammer out exact wording and only then begin a vote for or against that wording. 00:06 14-Sep-2019

Per-wiki option
There are several comments above that certain infractions should be at the option of individual "communities" (wikis). Humor wikis are notoriously more tolerant of users who want to assume the identity of a bot, a general, a Chief Justice, and so on. Classic Uncyclopedia tolerates this but does not extend the toleration to misrepresentation (Admin, which would cover the recent Miraheze user named "System Operator"). In addition, "Sir" on that wiki has a specific meaning and those with not yet enough works to be "knighted" cannot claim it.

The problem on Miraheze is that usernames are global to Miraheze, and someone picking an offensive or deceptive username that his pals on a humor wiki might accept as part of a joke is automatically empowered to carry that username to wikis that would legitimately object to it. 00:06 14-Sep-2019
 * will be a solution to this.-- 01:07, 14 September 2019
 * That would be "easily" solved by letting wikis ban "bad" usernames locally, because in a multilingual farm there's pretty much nothing that is not acceptable everywhere. Also, many users just stay on their wiki of choice and don't go bother others; and if they do they're probably trolls that need to be dealt with as trolls no matter their username.--Wedhro (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have some points about this discussion.
 * Yes, username policy if adapted should be a policy or global policy, although per-wiki usernames policy are better. If a wiki adopts a username policy locally, Miraheze staff should edit the project page (regardless of protection levels and local policies) and incorporate the core username policy bits into the local policy. I also noticed users like PIONEERSHIROPEDIA come to vandalize our wiki, and this RFC may help a lot regardless of outcome.
 * Currently I also see some opposes on certain proposals, and that reflects that some users do not care about this RfC. --username or IP address removed 07:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)