Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

• There's a substantive difference between saying that a group is often symbolized by something and saying that the group members are themselves examples of that something -- "Mexicans are snake-eating birds", anyone? -- especially when, as RJASE1 points out, calling someone such an animal is on record as an insult and vulgarity. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Maybe the user is just trying to state a fact that the democratic party's symbol is a donkey? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on what the user means by it, possibly. However, that could be more of a racial slur then just saying Democrats are donkeys. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mexican" is a nationality, not a race. And a snake-eating bird is the official symbol of Mexico, on its coat of arms and its flag. If you claim that's a "slur", how can you deny that calling Democrats "donkeys" is a slur? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow The ass is the democratic party of the United States' symbol. (→Netscott) 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, Ben maybe chill it down a bit... this responding to ever post is a bit POINTed. Why not User:Republicsareelephants? Your comparison is inflammatory due to its straw man nature of changing a political affiliation with an ethnicity. (→Netscott) 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The disruptive POINT goes back to saying Democrats can be called by the party symbol, for which you explicitly changed the word "Donkey" to "Ass", thus stressing that "Dems are donkeys" conveys "Dems are asses" -- inflammatory, yes. "Straw man nature"? No such thing. "Changing a political affiliation with an ethnicity"? No, "Mexican" isn't an ethnicity, it's a nationality, which is another kind of "political affiliation" -- because both nations and parties are political entities. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow, as above. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In view of the user's contributions, solely to Republican Party (United States) so far, the nominator's interpretation seems not only plausible but probable, and only a constant focus on WP:AGF keeps me from adding "bloomin' obvious" or saying "Disallow"... and I'm really stretching the bounds of WP:AGF at that. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I think this area is for discussions about user names not user conduct, no? (→Netscott) 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where the issue is "what a name means", context can make a difference. And please don't sign with a template. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST
• It is easy to observe that there is a very strong correlation between username and user conduct. Allowing partisan usernames tells users that Wikipedia accepts partisan conduct - which we do, actually, but are not supposed to. Names like this sow distrust and discord, and discredit the editors who take them. Upholding some basic standards here is a good way of improving the atmosphere, and helping new editors help themselves by steering clear of very pointless controversy.Proabivouac 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow. When the Democrats (not entirely voluntarily) adopted this as their symbol, they needed to accept that things like this would happen sometimes. Matchups 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Allow-The Democratic are symbolized by the donkey (even though it should symbolize the Republicans:)) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 19:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I wouldn't. We're not talking about a nationality here, but I'm changing to weak allow. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're talking about group membership, and whether the symbol for the group can be justly applied to the separate members as describing each of them. That's the fallacy of division, applying a property of the group to its members, like "snow is deep and heavy, therefore snowflakes are deep and heavy". We're talking about why suddenly so many separate contributors here have embraced that same blatant fallacy -- that members of a group can be described as each being the thing that is shown on their group's symbol -- the Mexican coat of arms shows a snake-eating bird, therefore "Mexicans are snake-eaters"; the U.S. Democratic Party's symbol is a donkey, therefore "Dems are donkeys". It's quite literally an incredible argument, and even credulous I, who will credit almost any halfway credible reason, can't credit this. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow a polemical statement against the Democratic Party and its members.Proabivouac 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. It is the party's symbol, after all. If the user is making inappropriate edits, he'll be blocked for that in the proper forum. Coemgenus 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A more apt analogy would be User:RepublicansareElephants. And, yes, I would allow that. Coemgenus 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Donkey is a not-so-subtle play on the pejorative use of "ass," while "elephant" has no common pejorative connotation, but even so, we shouldn't allow it. What benefit does it bring to the encyclopedia if users are allowed to include political statements or references in their usernames?Proabivouac 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not-so-subtle at all on some parts, especially when coding it as "The [[Donkey|Ass]] is...". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's funny that you say that when the first line from the Donkey article is, "The donkey or ass, Equus asinus, is a domesticated animal of the horse family, Equidae.", where's the assumption of good faith? Thomas Nast created both the Donkey and the Elephant which both parties adopted. Seriously... much ado about nothing. (→Netscott) 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Even the ass page is for disambiguation. The second dab is to Donkey and there is also a link to Wild ass. (→Netscott) 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow, per WP:U, specifically: Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Regardless of whether or not this is about Democrats it could be seen as a sort of attack. I also agree with Ben about the symbol. You don't call people by their groups' symbols. Mexicans aren't snake-eating birds, Iranians aren't tulips, and Democrats aren't donkeys. The Behnam 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Unlike the Mexicans are snake eaters example, the donkey is a well-known, neutral symbol of the Democratic party widely used in political cartoons and other literature. The user's POV does seem to leak through, and it's hard to say what benefit to the encyclopedia this name brings, but I think we may be getting a bit oversensitive about slightly colorful usernames. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unlike the Mexicans... example, the donkey is a well-known neutral symbol" ??? -- Go look at the Mexican coat of arms and the Flag of Mexico, SpuriousQ, or wait until Cinco de Mayo (May 5) and look closely at the flags being displayed and waved that day: the snake-eating bird is also a well-known symbol for Mexico, not merely "neutral" but official, cherished, and with a deeply meaningful traditional significance, going back to the founding of Tenochtitlan, long before the site became Mexico City, more than a century before Europeans even arrived in the "New World", and a long long time before Thomas Nast drew his satirical, ridiculing cartoons. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow. I don't really care, per SpuriousQ that this "might be seen" as an insult. I care a lot more that this seems designed to be an insult. Hence, I have no problem requiring the user to change names. Mangojuice^talk 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you mean "per The Behnam". -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually was trying to say I agree with you that we shouldn't be too sensitive over names that "might be seen" as insulting. It's the intent I have a problem with here. Allowing this username when it was chosen to insult is a poor idea; we ought to send the message that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are important. Mangojuice^talk 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Unless, of course, you think I should be allowed to use ChristiansEatJesus as my name. The intent is obvious, isn't it? TortureIsWrong 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How is the intent obvious? Democrats are donkeys. Period. Its the same as saying Republicans are Elephants. And what does ChristiansEatJesus have to do with it? That doesn't make sense. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • "How is the intent obvious? Democrats are donkeys. Period. Its the same as saying Republicans are Elephants. And what does ChristiansEatJesus have to do with it? That doesn't make sense. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"

• • • IT makes plenty of sense. Christians eating "the body of Christ" is a key symbol in Christianity, as the donkey is used as a symbol for Democrats, for whatever long-forgotten reason. But at the current time in our culture "donkey" has a "negative" connotation, as does "eating," but "elephants," by happenstance, does not. Language is a fluid device. TortureIsWrong 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The username Demsaredonkeys isn't directly stating that democrats are losers or that they are asses. Instead of trying to figure out what the user means by this name, why doesn't someone ask the user what he means by it? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has not responded to a {{UsernameConcern}} on their talk page. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likely because the user hasn't been back... Shenme 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Intent seems to be to insult and disrupt. IronDuke 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Appears that it can be perceived as offensive. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to !vote, because I think people will see either simple statement Democrats=Donkeys or Republicans=Elephants as inflammatory, which is sad. (OMG: large, stomp on things, gray, loud and stink - that's bad). But as a thought experiment, what about DemocratsTakeBlues or RepublicansAreReds. Is it likely that someone will see these as 'bad'. Yes (sigh). So do we then have the situation that no one can use a political affiliation name as part of a username? Seeing the above, I'm afraid so. Do I hear a second? Shenme 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excerpts from WP:USERNAME: The username is not a tool to be offensive or make a statement. ... Please pick a username that helps us to write an encyclopedia. That means picking a name that you're comfortable writing under, but it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. Remember that a controversial name may color other users' perspective on your own credibility or political viewpoint. ... Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of politicians, military or religious figures, movements, or events, as well as any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure. ... Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. ... Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to: ... Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults. ... Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. ... In particular, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia. [end of excerpts] Whether this name is controversial or inflammatory, I think this debate has answered by demonstration. The name is not merely "potentially offensive", it already actually has offended. The "line" mentioned above has been drawn. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow: Definite political slant in both username and contributions. --Valley2city^‽ 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, politically offensive etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - Not politically offensive, just a common sense statement, the democratic party is represented by a donky (If i am right). I think we are imagining things and assuming bad faith here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow No need to assume good or bad faith by the originator. The policy disallows names likely to cause others to take offence. This name will cause others to take offence. --Dweller 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a fine line here. ANy name can be offensive to somebody. SHould we not be allowed to have usernames? What about IP addresses that have the number 69 in it? that may be offensive to some. While i doubt it would be the case, we have to be careful when saying may be offensive to somebody. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when? When my name MoeLarryAndJesus was banned, not a single person claimed to be offended by it. You, Chris Kreider, specifically said it should be banned anyway. No calls for being "careful" then. TortureIsWrong 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We all evolve first of all. Second of all, there is a difference here. Likening of Jesus to the three stooges is much more likloey to offend in my opinion then saying demsaredonkeys (which is the symbol of there party). It is a judgement call and in teh case of MoelarryandJesus, i felt like it would offend a fairly large group of people as opposed to demsaredonkeys which i feel may have the possibility to offend a small number of people who are going to be offended by just abouyt anything. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, so it's a numbers game? Got it. Next you'll be saying it's okay to offend Jews or Libertarians. By the way, there are many more "Dems" than there are elephants. TortureIsWrong 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - Appears to violate WP:U#Random --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as per NickW557 - I did find a cylinder roller in a catalog under "M 1103100049", but not an ISBN, telephone number, SSN number ... Shenme 07:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good show of initiative, Shenme! You didn't sit back and say "I don't know it", you went out and actively looked. That's a credit to you! ... And it can't be a birthday like 11/31/49, since November has only 30 days. ... What if this is an IP number, with the dots removed? "110.31.000.49"? ... What if this is a "here's where I live" ID, like BostonMA? What if "M" is for "Map"? http://maps.google.com/maps?q=11.031,+00.049 yields +11° 1' 51.60", +0° 2' 56.40", about 2 miles south of Sinkanse in the northwest corner of Togo, near the borders with Ghana and Burkina Faso. (That's in Africa, just west of Nigeria and Benin, as you might expect of such low numbers.) Or there may be a survey map "M" with grid-coordinates 11031 x 00049 marking this user's home. Such numbers would of course appear random, without context; so would the numbers in your home address, without context. I'd like to see the user offer a context. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow as random string of characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per all above. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Even if there's a logic, policy is against apparent randomness. It's apparently random. --Dweller 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs)

• Commment Could we have an opening statement, Tim? Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - despite the lack of opening statement, I can't imagine any good-faith reason for this name - this is a variation of the Mother insult. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. I can't see how this violates policy. How it's suppose to be an insult I'm at a loss to fathom. (Cascadia, could you do something about your signature? Your comment took up five lines for an eight-word message.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I'd apply a common sense test here - if some random person left this phrase on your talk page (or said it to you in conversation), would you feel uncomfortable or insulted? If not disallowed as insulting, it should be disallowed per WP:IAR if nothing else. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How on Earth does IAR apply here? We're not going to block someone by using IAR as an excuse. Wouldn't AGF be much better? – Riana ^talk 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IAR should apply in that, even if it's not a specific violation of policy, a "reasonable person test" should be applied here. If a reasonable person finds personal remarks about their mother objectionable or insulting, it should be disallowed. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If that test applies here, I don't see the point of this noticeboard at all. The point is that we can discuss these things, not have arbitrary personal standards that we can impose on new users. – Riana ^talk 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point of this noticeboard is precisely to apply the reasonable person standard. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If anyone were insulted and offended because someone said "I find your mother attractive", I'd say that they probably need therapy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Mel, a majority of people would become extreamly defensive and take offense to anyone not outside of Mom's Significant Other stating she was attractive, so it is certainly there that people do take offense to such comments. Throw in the fact (as I stated below) that insults like this that seem like complements to some are actually popular among youth and immature groups. Whether you see it as a complement is along the same lines as saying it's OK to say such a thing about someone's Significant Other, such as "I'm attracted to your fiance", which in many circles usually winds up with the offender nursing a black eye. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've had cause to say before, offensive can be the fault of the offendee as well as of the offender; in this case, it's pretty clearly the former. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow, non-insulting and kinda funny. Certainly not violating policy, that I can tell. – Riana ^talk 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow I cannot see how this username can be anything but either someone's idea at being funny or as an insult. WP:U states: Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. I can say if I saw this on a talk page, I would be insulted. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) But it's not User:Buy a Paper Bag for Mother's Day, it's a compliment. Where's the insult? – Riana ^talk 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how it could be a comment. If someone stated they thought my mother was attractive, I'd have some serious issues with that statement. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 14:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I guess that is why it is discussed here because apparently several of us do not. Would you rather your mother not exist in conversation or always be talked about neutrally. I.e., "I think your Your mother is a peron" not "I think your mother is a great person" or a bad person. This is a bit different but the point is the same. What if it was sated, "I think your mother looks attractive today" or something like that? It is just a newer version of that statement in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hope you've heard, as mentioned above, of a moma joke. These need not be things as "Your mom is ugly" to be an effective insult. For someone outside of someone's mom's husband or significant other to use that term would/should not be welcome. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have heard of said jokes, and in all honsety, I would !vote to disallow a user:your mamma is so hot or any iuser started with the your mamm. However, I find this name tactfully stated in a manner that would not be confused with a "your mamma" joke, or really in a manner that would be offensive. In short, it is a compliment in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - I would not find it offensive. What is the alternative, "I find your mother to be ugly." While I understand where the possible negative connotations are, I think it is assuming bad faith to assume that this username is meant as an insult. Actually, it is probably a compliment to your mother, there rae many attractive mothers and it does not say, "I want to bang your mother" or other more offensive possiblities. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. While I personally am not offended, others will be. --Dweller 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Come on, this is clearly a yo mama name designed to offend. Most people are offended of the idea of a stranger going after their mom. Try the old walking down the street test, if you are walking down the street and some guy says "I'm attracted to your mom", how are you going to feel? What if you are pretty sure this guy has never seen you mom? If you don't know how that would make you feel, try saying it to a few strangers and report back the reactions you get. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think we have a new standard - anyone who assumes good faith for a potentially insulting username should be required to conduct the "HighInBC Walking Down the Street Test" before voting to allow. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider it more of a though experiment. My real point was to consider how people will feel. And this has nothing to do with good or bad faith, and name can be unnecessarily offensive regardless of motive. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - First off, I am pretty down to earth so i guess my response is just going to be ignored. However, If i was sure he had not seen her then i would just ignore him. If he had seen here, then good for him, she may be hot unfortunatly shes taken by my father and the said person will have to deal with it. THrough the whole process i find NOTHING offensive. (again, I am very down to earth and really hard to offend). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't seem to realize that phrases like "your mom is hot" or any variation of that, including the one above, is an insult used frequently by the grossly immature (think high school students, college freshmen, and those that just never grew up.) Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I do realize that, Trust me, but I am not offended by it. It is often used among my friends to refer to other friends whose mothers are attractive (and most of them are proud of it). I understand where you are coming from, i dont have a problem with the other disallows, i just think it could have been stated much worse and we need to assume good faith here and assume that it is not a childish joke. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume good faith where good faith assumption is due. When it is clear to me that someone's making a childish joke, good faith goes out the window. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow Clearly intended to be a "your mom" insult. Borisblue 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow; in my assessment this user's innocent intent could be taken the wrong way by others. Sam Blacketer 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - It isn't harmful, and is probably an oddly worded compliment. RyGuy 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I'm suspicious of the user's intentions. However, this RfC board isn't for intentions, it's for usernames; as it stands, the username isn't a violation of WP:U. Feel free to watch their edits to see if they become a vandal, but until they do something blockable, we should just leave them alone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, although WP:U doesn't clearly define this username as a separate bullet point, it does state that Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. This username is a common insult / inflamatory comment, which would have it fall under WP:U. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Actually, saying your mom is attractive, last I checked would seem to be a compliment? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, dispite the fact that such a 'complement' is used as an insult and inflamatory remark, it's okay because you see it as a complement. Okay, I'll remember that. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • - In this case, it is not obviously an insult. This is a page for interpretation. If it was an obvious violation, it would have already been disallowed. However you look at it, insult is subjective. You cant call me wrong for not viewing it as offensive, just like I cant (and wont) call you wrong for finding it offensive. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Allow - A funny name, and despite what Cascadia says, there's no insult in the name at all. "Your Mom Is A Whore" would be an insult. Nothing wrong with a respectful attraction. TortureIsWrong 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay... so I guess that phrases that are commonly used as an underhanded insult are okay on Wikipedia. Why do we have WP:U again? </sarcasm> Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • "We" have it to deal with actual insults. I have NEVER heard anyone use this "common" "underhanded insult" in my life. Nor has anyone else, apparently. I see your sarcasm and raise it. Now if only I could stop my eyes from rolling up in my head. TortureIsWrong 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may not know it because you don't spend much time with the younger crowd. May not be a insult commonly used in the mature crowd, but those college age and younger seem to find such comments and insults hillarious to use against people. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh-huh. It's so "common" that a google of "i'm attracted to your mom" came up with ZERO hits. Is this "younger crowd" still in utero? TortureIsWrong 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps your defintiion of commonly should be revised. THis discussion is for possible violation and to get a second opinion. A handfull of editors, as well as myself DO NOT view this as an insult. It has nothing to do with our disregard of Wp:U, however our interpretation of the username. I am sure if we felt offended or likley to be offended by this we would go the otherway. However, as it stands, several of us do not view this as an insult. Making sarcastic statements such as above is not going to help this conversation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow. It's vaguely insulting, I guess, but it's hard to see how it could be offensive. More silly than anything. Coemgenus 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per Coemgenus; if even someone who says "Allow" admits it's "vaguely insulting", well, "vaguely insulting" is sufficient reason to disallow. It's a "Yo Mama" remark, and one can start a fight by saying no more than "Yo Mama". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see "yo mamma" anywhere in the said username? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Inflammatory. The Behnam 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A usernameblock by User:Betacommand. While long, has a verious obvious pattern. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look through betacommands last 500 blocks and see there are several other ones that are not obvious blocks in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - too long. I don't know why people bother with these hard to recall names anyway. The Behnam 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - very obvious pattern, not confusing at all. No offense but if that pattern is confusing, then there is a problem editing here at the ENGLISH wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow obvious pattern, 18 characters is by no means too long. Metros232 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow The reason random usernames are disallowed is that they are hard to remember (and to type in the search box if you want to look for the user)- clearly not a problem with this username. Borisblue 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Long, but not random. No violation of WP:U. Coemgenus 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - But damn, it's one ugly name. TortureIsWrong 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Requires me to talk an otherwise unnatural sequence (for typing) and also remember to end at 'p' specifically, then remember 123. Tell him to get a real user name. The Behnam 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have we outlawed the use of equal signs? If so, I have no problem retracting this. By the way, this user has already been blocked by betacommand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - Equal signs are misleading/confusing. The Behnam 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe so, but I cannot locate the reference to such a ban, but I do recall seeing it... somewhere. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remeber it being a discussion but what I remeber, we agreed that they were OK and should not be outright blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be the case... I don't recall 100%, but at least you recall seeing something about this topic... reassures my assumption that I am not insane... yet. :-) Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - equal signs should not force an editor to hace to change there name. As it is shown with this, equal signs are compatiable with many templates etc etc. If this is unblocked, there are sevearl other = sign editrs that should probably be unblocked too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see anything offensive about this? I did a wiki search and is not notable enough to have an article here (the only username violation I could think of). Another block by betacommand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be noted there's a fairly well known user by the name of Terence Ong (now Terence (talk · contribs). -- Nick ^t 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow nothing wrong, unless Terrence Oblong was famous Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per nom, barring any evidence that this is a company name or something. Coemgenus 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per nom. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per nom - *sigh* - Alison^☺ 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is an admin by a similar name terrance Ong ?? I think Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are by far different enough? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow, point to the fact that Terence Ong is now Terence; I'd be a little iffier if he hadn't chaged his name.--Wizardman 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am really sorry to be doing this. A,) I am uncomfterbale just turning over a large number of blocks. Particulary this one, i see no username violation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Nothing wrong, and no technical issues Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Exuburant, but inoffensive. Coemgenus 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - nothing in WP:U to prevent this one - Alison^☺ 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow can't see any probs. Sarah 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no username violation here. Another betacommand block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow I can't see a violation at all Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - nothing in WP:U to prevent this one either - Alison^☺ 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Might be a combination of two famous names, Snoop Dogg and Lil Jon, but I think that's permitted under WP:U. Coemgenus 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow and motion to close.--Wizardman 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow pft. Sarah 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]