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 WikiLeon (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 1 April 2007 (→{{user|HolyCowProductions}}: closed as disallow.). 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



Canister of Death (talk · contribs)

This user has chosen a name which is morbid and vaguely threatening. (Zyklon B was what came in my mind, and I am not Jewish). I asked him to consider changing the name but he has refused, so I have brought it here. Sam Blacketer 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow, when I see the term I do think of things such as Mustard Gas (comes in canisters, causes death), gas chambers, etc. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Editor's thought-associations shouldn't be used to decide this sort of question. There's no violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak allow. I don't like it but I don't think it quite crosses the "implying violence" line. RJASE1 Talk 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, and I request that the submitter refrain from projecting, especially with RFCN, something that directly affects new users and may chase people away from the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sam has every right to bring to RFCN a username he finds that may violate WP:U. Under what authority do you have to ask that a user, under good faith, to refrain bringing a name that in his opinion violates WP:U to RFCN after following process? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to have misread my text. I wrote, and I quote: "I request that". Please let me know if I can help out in any other way. BTW, the submitter didn't mention that he felt it violated WP:U, unless I missed something. "Vaguely menacing" or "morbid" usernames are not addressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that all contributors to this page do this sort of 'projecting', to try to ascertain whether a username is likely to be perceived as insulting or offensive by other users. In my view this one is likely to be. I may, of course, be wrong. However I think this name implies violence in a way which WP:U recommends against; I wish no harm to the user and have told him so. Sam Blacketer 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Does not seem to be against policy to me. Kukini hablame aqui 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A google search of "zyklon b" and "canister" shows 1480 hits. I suspect, as Sam does, that the reference is intentional. I don't see how "kevinkillsfosho" is banned and this one is not. TortureIsWrong 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because, like many other things, gas comes in canisters. The Google search is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I don't think the user chose his name intentionally to make that reference; I just think that enough people who see the username will make the connection. Also if you go to Zyklon B you'll see a picture of a large pile of Canisters of Death. Sam Blacketer 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the average person would see a sinister meaning behind this username. I believe it implies real world violence (genocide, mass murder, etc), and that is the connection many average users will make. It is the first that came to mind when I saw it. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Many things come in canisters. Some canisters can cause death without the means of cyanide! Examples include: carbon dioxide canisters, oxygen canisters, and cans of soup. A rat placed in a CO canister would die. A plant placed in an oxygen canister would die as well. A can of soup, once placed into a bowl, could result in the drowning of a little kid who doesn't have enough manners to know that one shouldn't drink their soup without a spoon......The point is: stop using the Nazi reference. This username could mean many things--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow. When faced with "what's a good name?" too many people come up with something "that'd be a great name for a band!" I don't doubt there's a band named "Tracks of Death". Reading the WP:U, I see as general guidance
... it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with.
... take care to avoid anything that might cause offence ...
What is not strictly mentioned are names designed to cause disquiet or unease. If I chose a name "IKnowHowYou'llDie", that is not strictly inflammatory or hateful. Indeed, it is probably unfounded personal opinion. And I'd likely laugh it off. But others will see it quite differently, and as threatening, if vaguely. Where do these two names 'fit' into the guidelines? Shenme 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer would be the two lines you've quoted. It may be hard to explain, but editing and collaborating with "Canister of Death" just doesn't feel right, and although some my cry foul, but I have to wonder at one's motivation for wanting to be referred to online as a "Canister of Death". Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominoelectronics (talk · contribs)

Another business/company name. RJASE1 Talk 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fartymcgee (talk · contribs)

Reference to excretory function. RJASE1 Talk 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow, WP:U bodily function. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Nothing is excreted except air, are usernames that reference burping disallowed too? C'mon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Aside from the fact that this username is hilarious, I really don't think that this is a terribly offensive username. When I read "excretory functions of the body", I certainly consider it to be talking about stuff like shit and piss, not gas. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - per EVula TortureIsWrong 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - this may be against the spirit of WP:U, but it isn't against the letter. Passing gas isn't an excretory function. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow The Behnam 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - clear violation of WP:U bodily function. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Is 'Breathe' also verbotten? It's also a bodily function. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fart jokes and Poop jokes follow the same path. Laughter by something that comes out of one's ass. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but as I stated, this is still not a violation of WP:U as it's written. The relevant policy is, "Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." [emphasis only to relevant part] Passing gas is not an excretory function of the body. If we don't want such user names to be used in the future, then we have to change policy. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Excretion: The elimination by an organism of waste products that result from metabolic processes. In plants, waste is minimal and is eliminated primarily by diffusion to the outside environment. Animals have specific organs of excretion. In vertebrates, the kidney filters blood, conserving water and producing urea and other waste products in the form of urine. The urine is then passed through the ureters to the bladder and discharged through the urethra. The skin and lungs, which eliminate carbon dioxide, are also excretory organs." -American Heritage Science Dictionary as accessed from Dictonary.com, one of many definitions of Excretion. Flatulence is excretion of gasses from the anus, sometimes accompanied by a bowel movement. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just quoting a dictionary entry on the definition of excretion. Read into it any additonal meanings that you want. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflicts) And now we have to ban User:SweatyMcGee and User:BreathingMcGee? Excretory functions are normally considered defacation and urination. I don't like FartyMcGee (and I only see a couple of people thinking that it's hilarious and tasteful), but it ain't against the rules as I see it. However, this is why we have these discussions. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What does common sense tell you? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No one is inventing new ones. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You provided a definition that didn't describe flatulence as excretion, but asserted that it did. If you can provide a reliable source that accurately demonstrates what you unsuccesfully attempted to earlier with the dictionary def, it'll help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the risk of sounding increadibly rude and insensitive, I'm going to ask that you read the first line of the definition again, and perhaps a third time. Just incase that can't happen, here is it in bold: "The elimination by an organism of waste products that result from metabolic processes." What is flatuence? A waste product as a result of the metabolic process. Is that good enough for you? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • CO2 is a waste product of metabolic processes that is expelled by breathing. Please explain again why this doesn't meet your criteria? Also, no need to be rude, this should be about keeping a level head. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we'll deal with breathing when we come to that bridge. Right now the discussion is about flatulence. Why do you feel the need to dwell on something other than what we're discussing right now? On top of that, using common sense, breathing, as stated once already, is not a function that people would obect to. Flatuence is. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Specifically, you and a couple other folks object to flatulence in usernames, please be careful to avoid making globally inclusive statements like that. The history of RFCN shows that there are many, MANY names that a small group of people object to that the community at large is ok with. Please be civil, we're having a discussion here, and accusing me of "dwelling" on this really doesn't move the goal of finding consensus forward. We may disagree on an item, but that doesn't mean the person we disagree with is has ill intent. While you see this as a 'common sense' decision, I note that the end result of a "disallow" judgment is that a user will be told he isn't welcome here under his chosen name, and an expected result of that in many cases is that the person simply leaves the project rather than contributing. A "disallow" is, to use technical terminology, "pretty big voodoo" in that it has a MUCH larger effect on the target than it does on the person casually dispensing it. I urge perspective on the matter, and feel it is out responsibility to err on the side of Allow, and to save the ubiquitous "disallow" for things far more egregious than "Farty McGee". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chairboy, I understand you wanting to be conservative in disallows, but let me ask you this. How many times is the term fart used around you in a non-vulgar way, or not referring to expelling gas. 1/10? 2/10? You would prefer to err on the side of Allow, but I see no need to err. You say that we need to save 'disallows' for things much worse than this, because we may put off an editor. I would have to ask what the editor was thinking when they chose a bodily function for a username? This is a situation where I must say that the editor has chosen his boat. If that boat springs a leak and sinks, it's nobody's fault but his own. Policy isn't there to be dictated by "Oh, that's not THAT bad" vs. "Oh my!", but "The policy states X, you violated it. You could gladly come up with a new username, or we'll put it to the community." Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you never heard of a brain fart? I personally have experienced several of these unintentional and highly embarrassing breaches of common etiquette. And, now newly acquainted with the term, you'll recognize the meaning also. Quite embarrassing, I assure you. Shenme 05:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per policy. Kukini hablame aqui 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROOF [2] specifically cites farting as an excretory function. Please reconsider your votes accordingly. The Behnam 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - it's kinda hilarious and borderline WP:U - Alison☺ 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not borderline. Please read the link I provided above; this clearly is about a excretory function. Thanks. The Behnam 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not strictly excretion - breathing and sweating are, believe it or not. Technically speaking, it's egestion (see here) and there's nothing in WP:U against defecation, believe it or not - Alison☺ 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (edits too many medical articles for her own good)[reply]
Why? What is wrong with the points brought up here? How isn't it a violation of the policy on excretory functions? Please consider [3]. Thanks. The Behnam 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps you didn't read this [4]? A RS clearly stating it as excretory, and no contradicting reply has been made, so I don't think there is a real dispute here. The Behnam 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy disallows excretory functions, and fart can be found offensive anyway. Please read the discussion and if you disagree with points made for disallow, provide an adequate response. Thanks. The Behnam 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how this negates my point, with regard to precedents. Are you seriously suggesting that plays on "cunt" should be allowed because cunts do not have an excretory function? Please note that "cunt" is generally regarded as THE most offensive swear word in the English language (in all English dialects), whereas "fart" is only very mildly offensive if at all. 217.155.20.163 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to respond to my discussion, not about your 'precedent' discussion. I'm not talking about cunt which I agree is highly offensive. I'm talking about fart and the arguments brought against it here. Anyway, you should probably realize that if you find a problem with that user name, you should bring it here instead of citing it as a reason to keep 'less' inappropriate user names. Thanks. The Behnam 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please knock it off and read WP:POINT. RJASE1 Talk 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing a user you disagree with of violating Wikipedia to make a point isn't terribly proper, and a conflict of interest seems indicated. I'm sure it was an oversight, but please use caution in the future. I see no evidence that his actions are disruptive in the fashion suggested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the conflict of interest could be, but I think the numerous irrelevant mentions of some other username are somewhat disruptive. But, hey, whatever you say, Chairboy. RJASE1 Talk 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJASE, please read WP:DNFT :) . Anyway, it strikes me as odd that Chairboy continues to object even though his original reason seemed to incorrectly classify "excretory" functions and he has not responded to the RS cited proving that "fart" is indeed a excretory function and hence against policy. The Behnam 02:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow.. Just playful & friendly. And: That apparently serious discussion about what constitutes a "excretory function" is very, very bizarre policy creep and wikilawyering about nothing. Azate 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be "playful" to you, it is directly relevant to the policy against excretory functions. And if you are going to talk about wikilawyering, it might be noted that this kind of silly 'potty-mouth' name is definitely not in the spirit of WP:U, so please do not make ill-considered accusations. Anyway, unless I am wrong, you have simply tried to discard legitimate RS proof with unsubstantiated personal accusations. Please respond in a more appropriate manner. Thank you. The Behnam 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven! "FartyMacGee" is so harmless it would pass as a character's name in a TV programme aimed at children. The very fact that you get all worked up about my simply opining here, earnestly accuse me of accusing you, and use this dreadful lawer-language just serves to bolster my point. This is not a court case. No need to "discard legitimate RS proof". No need to delve into the finer chemical points of this borderline "excretory function". This is simply a clownish name. Your whole crusade here is either a nice April's fool thing - or you may need a vacation. Azate 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a board where we weight against WP:U, we should weight against WP:U, not WP:Does Azate think it is playful. So please, rather than telling me to leave WP please provide a response appropriate to this board. Thank you. The Behnam 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That obviously correct. But "Farty" can simply be shorthand for Farah, Fareeda, Farca, Faris, Farly, Farrah, Farrell, Farren etc Azate 03:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Insurgent Inc (talk · contribs)

Username is either promotional or a trademark violation (or both). RJASE1 Talk 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krishangallery (talk · contribs)

Promotional username. RJASE1 Talk 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punkbitch (talk · contribs)

Nominating to disallow as insulting username (both Punk and Bitch). I understand this nomination will probably be contentious because 'Punk' has other meanings and 'Bitch' has been partially reclaimed, but I've only ever seen these two words combined in an insulting context. There is no clear precedent here so far as I can see - according to the archive, "Skankbitch" was disallowed but "Cuddlebitch" was allowed. RJASE1 Talk 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Similar discussions here and here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - Innocuous, it's fine. Don't see the WP:U violation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow per Chairboy.TortureIsWrong 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disallow obviously insulting. "N*gg*r" has been partially reclaimed too, but that's not an allowable username either. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Both "punk" and "bitch" are valid personality types. I hear bitch on radio and TV, is it even profanity? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, this would be overly sensitive I think. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per WP:U Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the remarks above demonstrate this name is potentially inflammatory. RJASE1 Talk 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - we've been over this one before. From my previous comment; controversially, the word bitch can be empowering if used in the right circumstances. Here's an example. Then there's Image:Bitchstar.JPG which survived an RFD and is now used amongst editors (including two admins) as a 'badge of honour' in reverting vandals - Alison☺ 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your argument, but the policy says that potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames are not allowed. Let's apply HighInBC's "Walking down the street" thought experiment - if you walked down the street saying the word "Bitch" or "Punkbitch" to every female you met, do you think a majority would thank you for empowering them? RJASE1 Talk 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious disallow. Forget "potentially" inflammatory, this will offend someone. It offends me, and I'm not even female. --tjstrf talk 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per tjstrf. ShadowHalo 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disallow offensive and disreputable. While it is possible that the name was created in good faith by a self-assertive female who likes punk, the more common usage is as a derogatory term for a male homosexual.Proabivouac 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow, per WP:U Usernames that are recognized as slurs or insults.Kukini hablame aqui 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Neil (not Proto ►) 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per WP:U "Usernames that are recognized as slurs or insults." --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, per Alison. Abeg92contribs 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant disallow. I like reclaming words, but I still think most people don't mean anything complimentary when they call someone else a bitch. Natalie 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What on Earth does "reclaimed" mean? Are people harking back to some golden age when calling someone a bitch wasn't insulting? In my part of the country, in fact, it's often used differently, but I'm pretty certain that's not what people are talking about — so what are they talking about? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, great username and breaks no policy I'm aware of. --Fredrick day 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. I should have said — my question above doesn't mean that I'm against this name. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Usernames aren't just personal choices, they force other editors to use them in the course of normal conversation. If this user is allowed to participate under this username, I will not allow him/her to post on my talk page, and will refuse to address him/her by this moniker. Proabivouac 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choice, though it might lead you into trouble; I don't think that there are any grounds for you to act in such a way, and in certain circumstances you could be seen as being disruptive or uncivil, and even blocked. And it wouldn't be User:Punkbitch's fault. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of civility would compel others to use uncivil language if this is part of another's username - in fact, it is the username itself that is uncivil.
    Wikipedia is supposed to be a respectable enterprise. If so, usernames of this nature have no place here. If they become common, we will sink further into well-earned disrepute.Proabivouac 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, replying to Mel) Not so. This is one of the reasons that we forbid names like Jesus Christ or Yahweh: depending on the context and how strictly an individual interprets their religion some users might feel that another user's name is literally forcing them to sin if they engage in conversation with them. (For instance, I would feel somewhat uncomfortable addressing a User:GodDamnIt, and I'm hardly what you would call an overly pious individual.) While obscenities are somewhat different than profanities, shouldn't we extend the same courtesy here?
    When people complain about our having articles on offensive subjects, the standard justification is that we don't force people to look at articles on offensive topics. In this instance the "offensive topic" in question can seek you out. --tjstrf talk 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said a number of times, offence is often the fault of the offendee not the offender. Also, language is never uncivil — only the use of language. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mel, per that argument, any username would be allowed. RJASE1 Talk 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which? The first comment isn't an argument, just a truism (but one that's often overlooked). Sometimes offence is given, but sometimes it's taken. There are a few serial takers here. The second comment is again a truism: sentences aren't true or false, only statements (or propositions), and similarly words aren't uncivil, only the uses of words. A dictionary writer isn't being vulgar and uncivil when she types "bastard" at the beginning of a definition, nor is an actor in a Shakespeare play — but if I called you a bastard because I disagreed with you, then I'd be uncivil and wrong. If Proabivouac used the name "Punkbitch" when replying to a user, he waouldn't be being uncivil. It's not an argument for any User name – not even for any user name that meets all the other criteria – because names can clearly be intended insultingly, or would be taken to be insulting by someone of normal sensitivity. We shouldn't allow the acceptability of names to be dictated either by the insensitive or the oversensitive. But this should be discussed at Talk. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are unaware of the strength of this epithet in parts of the United States. It is used, for example, in prisons to describe one who is compelled to submit to sexual assault. Like other terms associated with prison life, its connotations are well understood by large segments of the population.Proabivouac 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't get all the navel-gazing here. Is 'bitch' a potentially inflammatory and insulting word, or isn't it? If it is potentially inflammatory, it needs to be disallowed per policy - even if it doesn't offend some particular people. As I've said before, please try to apply the reasonable person standard, not your own personal standards. RJASE1 Talk 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add I politely asked the two users with 'bitch' in their names to please explain their reasons for choosing those names, and I gave them several days to reply with no response. That doesn't bode well for good faith. RJASE1 Talk 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow-Weak profanity. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - only very mildly offensive. Moreover, Wikipedia has a track record of allowing innuendo-laden usernames, such as the CUNTtator, sorry "cunctator" (ho ho ho). Come on guys - post-Siegenthaler, Essjay, Fuzzy Zoeller, etc, there are surely worse problems than this to worry about. 217.155.20.163 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - 'Punk' is just some sort of music. And 'bitch' may be mildly offensive - or a female dog. Azate 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - "punk" refers to rock, and "bitch" can refer to a female dog--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Disallow. Personally, I like it. But if the standard is "might cause offense" then we are going to have to come up with defining illustratory examples which ... will not be readable by those easily offended - it'll have to be a sub-page. I would like to point out that one of HBC's examples, User:Bitchen has been contributing just fine thank you. Shenme 05:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder how many "allows" are based on simple ignorance, a trend seen in previous allows of plainly offensive (in a foreign language) as in User:Malakaville and in disallows of real names as User:Vivekvaibhawdwivedi and User:Islam ghali. While English differs from place to place and from class to class, the meaning of "punk bitch" is plain to tens of millions of Americans (at least), and couldn't be more derogatory if it tried.[5], [6],[7]. To allow based upon ignorance of this fact is no different from allowing a usename which to us means nothing, but in Russian means "sex with your mother."Proabivouac 06:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proabivouac says - 'While English differs from place to place and from class to class, the meaning of "punk bitch" is plain to tens of millions of Americans (at least), and couldn't be more derogatory if it tried.' Actually tens of millions of Americans loved punk music and get the joke and couldn't be convinced that it's 'derogatory' if you used a baseball bat on them. By the way, what's a "proabivouac"? It sounds like either a commercial plug or some maniacal military reference. TortureIsWrong 06:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bitches (talk · contribs)

Insulting username. RJASE1 Talk 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the connection between the two words. The N word has a clear insult racist meaning, whereas Bitch can mean "Female dog", "bad tempered", or "strong willed", no comparison. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I can think of a certain 'C'-word that's way worse - Alison☺ 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that the name only applied to females, I have heard men and women use it in a positive fashion towards both men and women. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also heard it used in a strongly derogatory fashion toward males and females, far more often than in a positive fashion. I definitely believe it's potentially offensive per WP:U. RJASE1 Talk 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont Like Child Molesters (talk · contribs)

Ran across this name. My response is "well, duh.." and a Disallow because it's such a touchy subject.Hi There, Im Ron 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Comment - How is this 'touchy'? Most people don't like child molesters. This isn't a controversial position. The Behnam 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like permission to keep this name if he gets to.--FondlingChildren,Torture,ANDKickingPuppiesAreAllWRONG 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Disallow-Strong opinion to have on talk pages and other things, and it's showing hate for a type of people.--TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Uncontroversioal per se, but: This user better avoid topics with easily provoked Muslims. They may think this user wants to slam the prohphet Mohammed. Maybe this his intention. Maybe not. Azate 02:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disallow- Offensive, because I happen to like a child molester. The guy that lives down the street from me listed on the sex offender list, is actually a nice guy. Notice I dont say "child molesting", because that is dead wrong!. Finley6969 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous user sounds a troll and a real jag!I DETEST CHILD MOLESTERS 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - It's a common opinion. Nobody likes child molesting.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow as potentially offensive language, usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, usernames that refer to violent real-world actions, and needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. The message behind the name isn't what's offensive here (I'd wager very few editors disagree with it) -- but it's disruptive to be editing articles at say, Rugby or Starfish, and be faced with someone bringing up the repulsive topic with every edit. Furthermore, when an editor with this signature gets into discussions or disagreements with other editors on talkpages, it will look like he or she is implying other editors are child molestors. ~CS 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow as the name is advocacy, and is disruptive. Shenme 06:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So being anti-child molestation is a kind of advocacy Wikipedia should condemn?

Really? TortureIsWrong 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hgjgghhgcnn (talk · contribs)

This username appears to violate WP:U#Random. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Which definition of random says 'A random set involves more' than 5 letters? Agha Nader 05:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Rcbookpublishing (talk · contribs)

Disallow as promotional/trademarked username. Normally I would wait a few days for a response to a username concern template before reporting here, but this user seems to already be spamming by creating an article on Cathy Jourdan, who is one of the authors in this publishing company's stable according to this page, among others. RJASE1 Talk 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change name request has been submitted here. — ERcheck (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=119441328"