| Revision as of 02:14, 13 March 2007 editManopingo (talk | contribs)200 edits →{{User|Jehoshua}}← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:15, 10 December 2024 edit undoSYSS Mouse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,164 edits archivingTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{RFCUsername}} ] ] | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{Template:RFCUsername}} | |||
| ==Reports== | |||
| Please remember that this is ''not a vote'', rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion. | |||
| <!-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| <!-- Usernames should be *discussed* with the user prior to reporting here. --> | |||
| <!-- Undiscussed reports will be removed summarily. --> | |||
| <!-- Please be sure to use the {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}} template: --> | |||
| <!-- New reports go at the TOP, below this line. --> | |||
| :''Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.'' | |||
| ----<!-- Below this one --> | |||
| == {{user|Environmental protective coatings}} == | |||
| Promotes a company or product, see . ] ] 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *''Another company already''? '''Disallow'''. ] 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' - Company name] 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *This one seems iffy to me. It's the name of a company, but also a common phrase, and there aren't any edits to provide an indication one way or the other. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' in lieu of any evidence that the name is intended to be a business. With no edit history, it's hard to see how the assumption was immediately reached that this must be a business name. A business can be created to sell any noun, forbidding all usernames that contain nouns for this reason doesn't follow. - ]</small> (]) 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' Not clear. If there was an "Inc" for this phrase, it would be completely obvious. We should just wait until the promotional editing begins (if it does). ] 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - trying a new tactic to head off spammers before they create a bunch of spam that we have to clean up. If their username is blocked right off the bat, maybe they'll get the point before polluting Misplaced Pages with their spam. ] ] 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' I cannot assume that a user ''seriously'' suggests anything else than the company linked by RJASE1. Who would call themselves "Environmental protective coating" and for what other reason? There is a logical limit to ]. ]] 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' - company name. *sigh* - ]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' -Company name. --] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>] </sub></small> 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' as an obvious company name (C'mon, if it were ] it would be not be 'mistakenly' thought to be a company, but when the above user name "just happens" to pop up as first hit in Google...? C'mon!) ] 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' The username is specific enough to suggest that it is indeed a company name. ] 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|Jesusfreak1277}} == | |||
| Another religious figure name for review. ] ] 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Give option to rename''' - There is strong precedent disallowing this username. Even though the name of a popular song by the christian rock band ], previous discussion has always yelded a disallow consensus. ] 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Keep''' - there is nothing in this username which detracts from the value of the encyclopedia. Are we to disallow someone to speak their religion, but allow usernames which clear sexual references like {{user|Hentai Jeff}}. I just don't get it. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - I dont remeber that in the policies? Yes, it may seem conterproductive however here is where we judge a username on its appropriateness in relation to ]. ] 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' - ''Usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation including slang, innuendo, and double entendre.'' Is there something unclear about this one? For some reason, we disallow this name (which doesn't violate ] whatsoever, how I'm reading it), whereas the latter one did. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****We have recently decided that "Jesusfreak" is not good, although there is definitely some evidence that it is used in a positive way by Christians. It wouldn't make much sense now to go against that. As far as Hentai Jeff goes, well, I agree that it was a travesty. You will find that one of the weaknesses of this board is the tendency for people to insist upon far-fetched apologetic alternatives instead of the obvious offensive references this board is supposed to halt. ] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****I couldn't agree more. I'm rather of the impression that people on this board have an anti-religious bias (I would not think as much, except that they allow clearly offensive usernames like Hentai Jeff). ]<sup>]·]</sup> 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Guess what, Pat. I voted to allow {{user|Hentai Jeff}} '''and''' {{user|Dvoted2christ}}. Yesterday, I voted to disallow {{user|Gutjesus}} so there goes that theory - ]<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (religious but not Christian) | |||
| *******I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about users who allowed Hentai but disallowed Dvoted2christ. Please, I wasn't attacking you personally. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow'''. Names expressing a religious/sexual preference (of whatever nature) are unnecessarily controversial, and likely to cause problems. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] does not say that at all. It says religious usernames are open to interpretation. What it says is ''if'' they're offensive (i.e., ]) or a clear godhead (i.e., confusing, ]), don't allow it. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*I should also note that other similar names, including "Jesusfreak" (an established contributor) and "Jesusfreak 07" have been username blocked in the past. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' Religious-based username: past "Jesusfreaks" have been blocked, so this user, if nothing else, should be blocked for having a name too similar to a ton of other users. ] 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''', unlike Dvoted2Christ above, ''this'' one can be misinterpreted or sound offensive to some. ]] 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' not offensive, to me anyway. ] 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' per all above.] 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' just like the last 5 times, come on guys. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **As said below very well, ''precedent is not a good argument when they were based on questionable thinking.'' Hope that clears things up. :) ]<sup>]·]</sup> 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Abstain'''. I personally don't see much of a problem with this username, as I indicated when the previous Jesusfreak was brought up here. But we can't disallow {{user|Jesusfreak12}}, {{user|Jesusfreak}}, {{user|Jesusfreek2}}, {{user|Jesus freak 2334}} and {{user|Jesus freak 777 316}}, and allow this one. Precedents can be a pain in the arse, but arbitrariness and inconsistency are even worse. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' on the basis that the usage here is not offensive (to me), and does not violate WP:U, "Usernames of religious figures .... Usernames partly comprised of these terms are ''not always necessarily prohibited'' but may be subject to review." . ] would be offensive. And bringing ] into this argument/discussion is irrelevant. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup>]</sub> 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' precedent is not a good argument when they were based on questionable thinking. I went to school with someone who quite proudly declaimed he was a Jesus Freak, and was studying to be a minister. Policy says "Misplaced Pages recommends that users avoid ..." and "... so take care to avoid anything that might cause offence ...", but how broadly are we to draw the border around 'might'? ] is not okay, but ] is? When reviewing a list of questionable names, that are still unblocked, I was struck by one distinguishing characteristic of those 'questionable' users - they hadn't done anything wrong. ] and ] aren't blocked. ] isn't blocked and surely that is just as controversial. I'm just seeing this more and more as arbitrary. ] 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak allow'''. I'm a Christian and it doesn't offend me; I know some Christians who are happy to describe themselves as "Jesus freaks" as a sort of mildly self-deprecatory statement. Is there anybody who states they themselves were offended by this sort of name? I am disturbed by the precedent; perhaps previous users who have been blocked should be unblocked and allowed to rename, although that discussion shouldn't happen here. By the way, Muhammed is a very common first name and not necessarily a reference to the Prophet. ] 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, indeed, who says this isn't some girl smitten with her boyfriend, Jesus? ] 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In religious issues personally I tend to side with those who ''may'' be "offended". I understand you may not, but the possibility that some ''may'', is IMO not worth the risk. ]] 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See ]: originally pejorative: ''However, some Christians now consider it a reclaimed word, as some Christians, especially Christian youth, occasionally use it as a positive term to let others know that they are not ashamed of their beliefs.'' See especially ], where all the senses are positive. Now, if the editor starts to edit with an anti-Christian bias, that's one thing, but if not, it's probably positive. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I know, I had read it. The problem IMO is that it still ''may'' be perceived offensive (by another ..."Jesus freak" who simply doesn't know the recent terminology). ''I find this number of people more important than the user's right to keep that name.'' I also believe that the community certainly doesn't need the possible negative reactions. "Probably positive" IMO is not enough. Finally, I respect precedents, as I feel that they save the community's time and effort. ]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' as has been done with so many others. ] <sup> ]</sup> 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''', religious-based username. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' on sight to many users it will mean '''Jesus''' ''is a'' '''freak''' ] ]/] 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' If it is religious it can't be used, is that right? Then ] is 'bad'? Look, please tell me you object based on the idea it might offend - it is really hard to hear you say you object because it is religiously based. That '''does''' sound anti-religious. We'll be throwing out a ''lot'' of usernames. ] 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|SatanSanta}} == | |||
| For review - contains the name of 1 1/2 religious figures. ] ] 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' - clever though, had never noticed the possible ]. ]] 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' quite a comical name and unlikely to offend (except maybe santa of course) ] ]/] 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **...or satan! ]] 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Perhaps it could offend, oh I don't know, Christians? <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **:I'm a christian and it certainly doesn't offend me ] ]/] 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **::Neither me. IMO it ''may'' offend some others, since it combines a Saint (children's favorite too) with the Satan. I cannot safely assume that we are not better off without it. ]] 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - uh oh - Satan gets through but Jesus gets blocked. ] ] 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' - Trivialization of ], a figure important to Abrahamic religions. ] 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' If Jesus and God get blocked, so should Satan; and vice versa. ] 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' or get cracking, a few hundred unblocked users right that start with Satan. - ]</small> (]) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' - Nothing patently offensive about it. Perhaps a reference to that movie where Satan was... well... evil. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' - The day we block Jesus and allow Satan is the day we'll all burn in Hell. // ] 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I second that. Double standards is an evil practice. ]] 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Please clarify, are you stating that Misplaced Pages shall make policy respecting a religious establishment? The ] policies regarding religious names have to do with avoiding usernames "which may offend other people's belief", specifically a muslim would be offended by a user named AllahSucks or a Christian would be offended by JesusFreak (apparently). Is there an assertion that satanists would be offended by SatanSanta? Otherwise, you're saying that christian users have an authority over others and that their wishes should be reflected by official policy. Ridiculous. - ]</small> (]) 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Who, me? // ] 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Yes, you seem to be suggesting that your religious prerogative should overcome policy. If that's not accurate, please clarify. - ]</small> (]) 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****My comment was just to lighten the mood a bit (I guess that didn't turn out so well). Let me rephrase it then: If we block JesusFreak on the grounds that it includes the name of a religious figure (at least, I think that's why they were blocked), then SatanSanta should be blocked for the same reason. And for future reference, I'm Athiest. // ] 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Hafta say - I laughed here when I read that comment :) - ]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Actually Chairboy, we disallow things in usernames that we would allow anywhere, a username the will clearly offend a group can be disallowed on that basis. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****As the use of computers by females is prohibited in many Islamic countries and considered offensive, the corollary to your specific assertion above is to disallow all Misplaced Pages usernames that sound female or are identified as such. I don't think that's an appropriate response to the high target of offending ''any'' group, and I suspect you don't either. - ]</small> (]) 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Chairboy, let's avoid using straw men, shall we? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******I was responding very specifically to HighInBC's statement of "a username the will clearly offend a group can be disallowed on that basis". Some feedback, I read your message as sounding condescending. If that wasn't your intention, please use care in the future. - ]</small> (]) 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***If you take any simple idea and reduce it to the absurd, it will be absurd, but that does not make it a compelling argument. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****I would like further clarification by Chairboy for his original post. How can "double standards" compare to favoritism for one particular religious group? ]] 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****The user seemed to assert that a user should be blocked because we would otherwise "burn in hell". This is not a standard that I believe has been applied to the construction of Misplaced Pages policy in the past, and seems to give christianity a bit of a leg up over the rest when it comes to the project. - ]</small> (]) 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' - although I don't fear burning anywhere except on the beach. ] <sup> ]</sup> 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' No brainer, Satan is a religious figure, a very controversial one at that, likely to offend. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow'''-Religious figure. --] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>] </sub></small> 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow'''. I'm really confused why there is even debate on a clear-cut name of a religious figure. It's only specifically in the policy... -] <small>]</small> 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{User|Jehoshua}} == | |||
| - contravenes ] - direct reference to religious figure. Currently revert-warring on ]. Prolly needs blocking outright. Comments? - ]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Sorry to sound stupid, but what does this word mean? ] 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** ] :) It's a major Biblical figure and unheard of in that form outside its religious context. I'm unsure, so referring it here - ]<sup>]</sup> 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***In that case, '''disallow'''. ] 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''' obviously. ~ ] 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow'''-Obvious. --] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>] </sub></small> 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', then we should bar names like Thomas, Calgacus, Setanta, Cuchullain---What's the fuss? ---] 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:15, 10 December 2024
Shortcuts
|
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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
Reports
Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
Category: