Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

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

Name of a religious figure in what can be interpreted as a deprecatory context. Normally I would wait a while for the user to change name, but religious figure names have high potential for flame wars. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, already sent to AIV and they referred it back here. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - might be offensive to people who worship this rather...plump and portly deity--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - I swear I've seen fat statues of the Buddha before...I must be mistaken. Can anyone tell me who that really fat guy you see in Chinese businesses represents? Now I'm really confused; I looked at WP articles and no such description exists. :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a full text site search of Wikipedia. Turns out his name is Hotei or "laughing Buddha". I'll probably add the link somewhere to the Buddha article later. Nardman1 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume everyone is aware that names of religious figures are not allowed per WP:U. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral For Now - There are Fat Elvis fans and Skinny Elvis fans, but they're all Elvis fans. I don't think the name here is definitively deprecatory. Then there's also the slang use of "heavy" to mean something deep or serious. On second thought...TortureIsWrong 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - There's the second thought. TortureIsWrong 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, Buddha states "In Buddhism, a buddha (Sanskrit बुद्ध) (pronunciation (help·info)) is any being who has become fully awakened (enlightened), and has experienced Nirvana.". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these buddhas normally proclaim that someone is a "super duper pimpmaster"? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that somehow relevant to the discussion of the name?TortureIsWrong 02:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume you looked at the userpage? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed I did. It has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion about the username.TortureIsWrong 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Disallow-Name of religious figure. Obvious violation of WP:U. Should've been blocked on sight. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the definition above that I provided from Buddha, you appear to be operating under a misconception. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Name of a religious figure isn't enough. Some Jesus names have been allowed. TortureIsWrong 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jesus and Mohammed are common given names. Buddha isn't. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again irrelevant. Jesus names obviously referring to the Jesus of Christian legend have been allowed. TortureIsWrong 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may have been mistaken about the Jesus names, but both ASERVANTOFCHRIST and SlaveOFChrist have been allowed recently.TortureIsWrong 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflictx2)Buddha doesn't always refer to Gautama Buddha--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Heh... at first glance, I thought the name was a reference to a "heavy bruddah", not "buddha". Weak disallow per WP:U. --Ali'i 02:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification. The Buddha is the religious figure, while a buddha is simply an enlightened person? The Behnam 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, also keep in mind the following articles: List of the 28 Buddhas and Gautama Buddha (one of the 28)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what about them, they are from Buddhist theology....What would happen if I declared myself to be some kind of high authority in some religion? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing would happen if you used terms like Reverend or Priest or Minister or Pastor or Preacher or Imam or Mullah or Druid or Saint... and so on, and so on. TortureIsWrong 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - unless we allow people to have usernames proclaiming themselves to be gods etc, Blnguyen *(bananabucket) 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see how that relates to the use of the word buddha. Even the Buddha was not a "god" the way we think of it; he was a teacher. Leebo ^T/C 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply It's also regarded a a taboo to declare oneself to be enlightened, as described in the Vinaya. Does this user claim to have reached this state? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Perhaps no more than most "claims" made by Internet handles. Again, I perceive the potential offense taken by a Buddhist to be minimal. Leebo ^T/C 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well if someone calls themselves Modest_Genius (talk · contribs), nobody cares, but that isn't religious is it? I for one don't think that usernames should be used for religious selfmarketing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the folks saying disallow, please take a moment to review Buddha. Those of you describing Buddha as a religious figure appear to be operating under a pretty basic misunderstanding of Buddhism. A Buddha is not a specific person or diety, it's a person who has achieved enlightenment and reached Nirvana. As such, disallowing under WP:U as a 'religious figure' display an unfortunate ignorance that can be corrected by taking a moment to research the subject. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Buddha is a religious term, but this name is not offensive and it's not controversial. I find it very hard to believe that a Buddhist would take offense, or a user of another religious belief would take it as a challenge to their faith. Leebo ^T/C 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - what led me here for this name was this username block of User:MyBuddha. Not that precedent always applies. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference; in the previous case, Buddha is capitalized.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny (in a sad way) how the two Christ names I mentioned were Allowed while an innocuous name like MyBuddha was summarily killed. There couldn't be any pro-Christian bias involved, though, could there? Nah. That sort of thing never happens in America.TortureIsWrong 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I should clarify - I think all of the names involved should be allowed. TortureIsWrong 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that MyBuddha was blocked back before the rule on religious names was just about completely rewritten. Therefore the fact that it was blocked shouldn't be seen as any kind of precedent; if the same name had come up now the result could have been different.--Dycedarg ж 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Totally rewritten since February 27, 2007? Interesting. TortureIsWrong 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The username policy, like any actively edited page on Wikipedia, is capable of changing quite a bit in a relatively short period of time. Here is a diff encompassing all the edits between the version as of February 27 and now. You can see the old religion policy in the left column.--Dycedarg ж 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Upon realizing where you're going with this: Yes, your prior username was blocked before that part of the policy was rewritten. However, I find it highly unlikely that it would be any more allowable under the new policy than it was under the old one. It was blocked because it could quite easily be considered offensive by Christians; that hasn't changed.--Dycedarg ж 04:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In fact that hadn't occurred to me, but thanks for the information, anyway.TortureIsWrong 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Leebo's comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Chairboy. Being used lowercase is valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Allow - Per Leebo--$UIT 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral HeavyBuddha could be seen as disrespectful by Buddhist. I'm leaning towards allow however. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in general doesn't seem to have a problem with portrayals of overweight Buddha, so it's hard to see who would be *offended by this name. Has anyone used BeardedChrist?TortureIsWrong 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Changed to allow. TIW, I'm still laughing over your user name appearing on RFCN. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Laughter is good for the soul... even though I don't believe in souls.TortureIsWrong 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow erm, rather generic name, considering Buddha is neither a god nor a messiah, technically (his image is worshipped, but only for what it represents. Nevermind he later transcended as a pink elephant or something, that still doesn't make him a god. It's complicated) and the fact he's always seen as fat... Nardman1 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this name might be referring to Hotei. Thanks to HighInBC for the info.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User's only contrib is a slander on his userpage. I think we can see he's not going to do anything useful. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Again, totally irrelevant to the question of the acceptability of the name.TortureIsWrong 03:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Seems innocuous enough. Probably referring to Hotei, but he's become a pretty generic symbol of Buddhism at this point, and I don't see why Buddhists would be offended. Remember, there is no longer a blanket ban on religious names as long as they don't consist solely of the name of the figure in question or are insulting. This is neither.--Dycedarg ж 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This name originally caught my attention as beginning with "Jizz" but upon further inspection it isn't obvious that it was intentional. Either way, appears to violate WP:U#Random. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Disallow Looks like it rhymes. Its still random however. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Disallow per above. Wooyi 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-Long and random. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Too long and nonsensical--$UIT 03:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - removing the "izz" interjections, you get "Jonygonads", which is otherwise problematic. --Random832 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - per Wooyi. Some sort of jizz and gonads thing going on but I don't care about that aspect.TortureIsWrong 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - as per nominator. Obscure and looks like its been typed in a great hurry! Violation of WP:U#Random Thor Malmjursson 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment'; - Take out the "izz"'s and you will find out he/she/it is called "Jony Gonads" - Disallow also on obscene/inappropriate Username. Thor Malmjursson 04:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Didnt norice someone else post that. Struck - Tam