Wikipedia talk:Avoid offensive usernames

Obviously, there's no point discussing this policy with anyone but Wales. The nonsense moralizing going on in 'No offensive usernames' simply proves that there is no limit to the willingness of undemocratic people to rationalize the arbitrary powers of existing authority.

As it stands, this article states the exact policy and the real reasons for it, and only supposes what mind be going on in the dictator's mind. That should be useful to wikipedia contributors who don't realize Jimbo's Fuhrer-type role(s).

--

The talk and history of this file now stand as proof of the non-consensus intent of several wikipedians, notably Two16 and BrionVIBBER. They have censored a statement which was clearly true, clearly relevant, and an effective and accurate warning of what will happen to offenders and why

Those of you who believe Jimbo Wales, for owning the server, should make the rules, fine, that statement could just as well have been added. But you assume a certain model of property rights in hiding this text.

There is simply no point in participating in what is an adversarial process with individuals devoted to hiding the truth, rationalizing already-made decisions, and basically lying about both by telling the public that the decision was made by consensus, as opposed to post-facto rationalized.

I don't use offensive usernames, or any username, this is a process issue.

No doubt, eventually this will be removed from the log as further censorship, but it's moot, all it's done is reveal the fascists.

--

And 142 has proven themself conclusively to be a troll; I included clear instructions on how to retrieve the text and move it to a more appropriate place if desired. --Brion 01:31 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Isn't the present Wikipedia_talk:No_offensive_usernames proof that a blunt, honest, statement of executive fiat is preferable to a post-rationalized pseudo-policy? If something's going to be done by fiat, let it be done by fiat, admit that, and stop the chatter.