Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mel Etitis (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 1 March 2007 (→{{user|MoeLarryAndJesus}}: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

Do NOT post here if:

  • the user in question has made no recent edits.
  • you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

  • has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
  • has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
  • is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

Ebola (talk · contribs) (at WT:CHU/U)

Note. On past precedent, this discussion is taking place at WT:CHU/U. A user has requested to usurp this username but there is a concern that it violates username policy because it is a username "mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Please comment there. WjBscribe 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further comment moved to WT:CHU/U WjBscribe 00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs)

Almost blocked on sight, but decided to get second opinions based on WP:U, which reads "Usernames partly comprised of these terms (religious figures) are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." --Ginkgo100talk 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree that my Username is against policy, and I most certainly refuse to voluntarily change it. The policy as written says names like "God," "Allah," "Buddha," etc. may be banned. It says nothing at all about hybrid names which contain such terms. Would "Godforsaken" be banned? How about "BuddhistBoy"?

If "MoeLarryAndJesus" can be banned. then "MoeLarryAndOdin" or "JesusGonzales" or "MuhammadX" or "ThorsHammer" can be. What's the point? What is the specific objection to my Username, anyway? Ginkgo100 neglected to offer one. MoeLarryAndJesus 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Three Stooges. MoeLarryAndJesus 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's alarming that someone would advocate censorship over what someone "could" be offended by even though he or she isn't even "sure it's as open or shut as all that." When in doubt, why opt for the path of censorship? Freedom of speech should be the default position for intelligent, educated human beings. MoeLarryAndJesus 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Freedom of speech is a protection from government interference. Wikipedia is a website. I don't give a damn what you call yourself when you're not posting here, and I don't care what you say about various religious figures, or about the Stooges for that matter (I am also a fan of their work). I'm just trying to apply a reasonable interpretation of the rules. I'm personally a big supporter of the First Amendment, but a website isn't the government. Coemgenus 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments I removed from talk pages were false claims that I had sent harassing, obscene emails. I did no such thing. I should have followed procedure, though. I have not removed those comments again - instead I have asked that they be removed.

If someone posted similar lies about you, Nardman, I would feel the same way. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow I agree that this is a violation of the rules. MoeLarryAndJesus, is you disagree with the rules then I would recommend you register a username that is not in violation of them, campaign to have them changed, then switch back to it in the event that that they do change. In the meantime don't blame us for enforcing the current consensus of the editors of this site.--Dycedarg ж 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus writes: "I'm personally a big supporter of the First Amendment, but a website isn't the government."

I didn't mention the 1st amendment, and I'm well aware this site isn't the government. That's irrelevant since you're still voting against the freedom of expression of another person for no good reason - and one you don't even feel strongly about. I think that's sad. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our username policies. The reasons here should be based on these polciies formed through a consensus of editors. I reccomend dropping the oppression act as it will not help you retain the name in any way, shape or form. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dycedarg writes: "I agree that this is a violation of the rules. MoeLarryAndJesus, is you disagree with the rules then I would recommend you register a username that is not in violation of them, campaign to have them changed, then switch back to it in the event that that they do change. In the meantime don't blame us for enforcing the current consensus of the editors of this site."

Please provide evidence that my name is against consensus or precedent on this site. The rule is highly ambiguous and NO ONE has said they were personally offended by my name or why. There is a general avoidance of real discussion on Wikipedia which I find disappointing. Why is everyone afraid to express actual opinions? MoeLarryAndJesus 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will point this out. Wikipedias username polcies state, "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." This is a situation where your username is partly comprised of the name Jesus, a relgiious figure. In this situation, your user name is subject to review here at request for comment/usernames. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended by it at all, but it does have the potential to offend people. Christians will be offended becaue you are comparing Jesus to one of the three stooges, and there have been prescedents set in the past, I know of no active editor operating under the name Jesus or any other god for that matter. WP:U states that religious names are discouraged, however even a mention of a god in a username has the potential to offend people, hence why they are mostly disallowed RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a situation where your username is partly comprised of the name Jesus, a relgiious figure. In this situation, your user name is subject to review here at request for comment/usernames."

Obviously I'm well aware of that. All that I'm asking is that the review be based on reason and conducted with respect for the virtue of freedom of speech, which has NOTHING to do with government but everything to do with intellectual honesty.

NO ONE here claims to be offended by my username. No one has addressed it in any real way.

I love the Three Stooges. If I really meant to insult some religious figure I'd use a name like GeorgeLauraAndBuddha. I did not. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not offended by it at all, but it does have the potential to offend people. Christians will be offended becaue you are comparing Jesus to one of the three stooges, and there have been prescedents set in the past, I know of no active editor operating under the name Jesus or any other god for that matter."

So would "JesusGonzales" be banned? Seriously? And is any list of three names a "comparison"?

Would Three Stooges fans also be offended?

Where are all these offended Christians, by the way? I've used this name in many forums for YEARS. Never got any negative feedback from these hypothetical "offended Christians." Even when I used it on belief.net. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government, the First Amendment, and your love of the Three Stooges are all irrelevant here. Policy is policy. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that JesusGonzalez would possibly be the one name which wasn't blocked due to it more than likely being a real name, however, I very much doubt that your real name is MoeLarryAndJesus. Christians do have the potential to be offended by one of their gods being portrayed with 20th century comics RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Christians do have the potential to be offended by one of their gods being portrayed with 20th century comics" They should be flattered.

Let's here from some of these offended Christians, though. It would be more interesting than reading patronizing claims about what "Christians" might be offended by. I know Christians - including two ministers - who think the name is a riot. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In assuming good faith, I don't believe that you intended to offend anyone - but this isn't about free speech or censorship. Look, this issue concerns the username's potential to offend - merely because no one before was offended does not mean that everyone won't be (My personal opinion is that to assume otherwise is flawed inductive reasoning). There's always the possibility that someone else might be seriously offended in the future, and that's why we are here - to prevent future conflict. I really hope that you will cooperate, since no one benefits from high tensions. +A.Ou 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Imaginary offenses! I suppose if I used the name "EvilMartian" someone would say, "Well, someday we may have a Martian colony, and that name would be offensive." Or "NastyPorpoise" - "Porpoises are intelligent and may someday be able to access Wikipedia, so that's potentially offensive." "StopGlobalWarming" - "People who work for oil companies might be offended."

Come on! Did I end up on Conservapedia by mistake? MoeLarryAndJesus 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. It depends on the context. Religion is apparently a very touchy subject (maybe not to you, but sometimes to others, including me), more so than "martians". +A.Ou 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow. The username contains the name of a religious figure in a way that can reasonably be considered offensive to many Christians. As such, this name is not allowed per our existing username policy. AecisBrievenbus 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow the username. Religious figures should try to be avoided. He's also close to a block for disruption alone, so I suggest he take this a little more seriously than he is. — Moe 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow. The username is potentially offensive, the religious reference clearly intentional, and the user who bears it being generally incivil. The incivility is tangential but when combined with the name will make it more likely that people will be offended. His cries of "freedom of expression" also show a general misunderstanding of what Wikipedia exists for. --tjstrf talk 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow I thought he was one of those vandals with wierd names when I saw him. · AO Talk 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the same, actually. His name matches the CamelCapsPhrases pattern used by a certain troll. I don't think it's him though. But it might be worth checking the edit patterns. --tjstrf talk 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow As needlessly disruptive & divisive (if only potentially). Whether the intent was to offend or not, it is plausibly offensive, a state that exists independent of any Christian (or whomever) expressing such offense. The statement "I most certainly refuse to voluntarily change it" is unfortunate. Hopefully this user will come around and find a new user name and bypass this unnecessary distraction. -- Scientizzle 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis writes: ""Jesus" is just a name; "Christ" is a religious title."

Wasn't Diogenes the Greek philosopher who was searching for an honest man? I search for reasonable men. Thanks, Mel. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Okay, seriously, how can you be serious? Disallow, and watch WP:POINT. -- Consumed Crustacean" The username "Consumed Crustacean" can be seen as offensive to vegetarians and therefore, given the "reasoning" some display here, should be banned. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read through WP:CIVIL. You are taking things out of context and making personal attacks. This is simple: Cool down. +A.Ou 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't be cooler, Ou. I also haven't made any personal attacks. Although some have been made against me, and for some odd reason I can't get any action taken on that issue. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. "given the 'reasoning' some display here" - you're commenting on and insulting other users ("Consumed Crustacean" can be seen as offensive to vegetarians and therefore...should be banned.") instead of providing any legitimate rebuttal. We've tried to tell you to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, whereas you've chosen to ignore our warnings. Disruption is not cool. +A.Ou 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of the "reasoning" here, Ou. You plainly disagree with mine, but I don't find that offensive. I'm used to being disagreed with and it never offends me. My comment about Consumed Crustacean's name being potentially offensive to vegetarians is absolutely serious, though. And it's as based in reality as all of these hypothetical "offended Christians" some are so worried about.

It's highly amusing that when I used this name on belief.net not a single Christian objected, but here on Wikipedia I get threatened with a ban for completely imaginary offenses against completely imaginary Christians.

Then again, maybe the families of Moe Howard and Larry Fine would be offended. MoeLarryAndJesus 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to WP:DR, I'll refrain from commenting any further. I will say for the last time, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT. +A.Ou 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have an entry for 'Kafkaesque'? If so, it should be deleted, because it really doesn't need one.

I'm also reminded of the movie "Brazil," where the entire society is grounded by fear of fake terrorists and bureaucrats end debate by asking for forms. Now where did I put my form WP:24B? MoeLarryAndJesus 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I find this somewhat depressing. While I can see that MoeLarryAndJesus is his own worst enemy, I'd hope that people here could see beyond that, and not vote against the name on the basis of the behaviour of its bearer. "Jesus" is simply not a religious name, any more than is "John", "Mark", or Peter"; it's a common first name in places like Spain, Mexico, etc. The religious title, referring to the role claimed for a particular person known as Jesus, is "Christ". I'd vote against MoeLarryAndChrist, on the basis of WP:U. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=111944509"