Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/User names - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by H (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 6 February 2007 (→{{user|Spamreporter1}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:16, 6 February 2007 by H (talk | contribs) (→{{user|Spamreporter1}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may list it here. However, before listing the user here, please consider contacting the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Misplaced Pages:Changing username.

When contacting the user, {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} may be helpful, but feel free to paraphrase it or write your own original text if you prefer. Please try to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers, if possible: allow for the possibility of innocent error or reasonable explanation.

Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by admins. Please also read Misplaced Pages:Username before reporting here. Grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:AIV instead.

Be aware that usernames are subject to specific criteria which differ from controls and guidelines regarding other forms of self-expression on Misplaced Pages. Please ensure you are familiar with the username policy before commenting on a username.

Please inform all users reported here with {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}. If the RFC is closed as "Allow", please follow up by informing the user with {{subst:UsernameAllowed}}.

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:

Do NOT post here if:

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

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

This page has an archive.

New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.


Omarion101 (talk · contribs)

Block? Maybe? It's the name of R&B singer Omarion. Acalamari 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We had this with Eminem 1 0 0. That user got blocked anyway. Acalamari 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I still personally feel that we should allow this. It is not harming anything and adds no detrimental value to wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Allow "Omarion" isn't just the musician, but also the name of a nebula in Star Trek . Of interest: IMDB's entry for Omarion uses it as his first name ; if this is, indeed, a common last name, then it's especially a non-issue (otherwise we could block User:Adam for impersonating Adam Sandler). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow There's no evidence this user is promoting edible squid confections the singer in question. No reason a fan of calamari R&B can't use a name of his favorite foods performers. Aelffin 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I get that point. For your information, I have never eaten squid before. If you want to know why I named myself Acalamari, please read my userpage. Acalamari 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I did read your user page, and I want to know why you think Omarion's R&B reference constitutes 'promotion', but your Star Wars reference does not. Aelffin 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another redlinked talk page. Acalamari, please first discuss your objections directly with the users on their talk pages, before bringing them to an RFC. You may end up not needing to bring some of them here at all, because a friendly conversation between the two of you just might resolve the issue. Ben 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A rename is not a simple thing. It has to be requested and approved. Acalamari 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case with zero contribs there'd be little point in a rename (in my opinion there is also no point in a block for the same reason). But I think the user should be invited to explain their choice and contribute here. Also, Essjay has recently clarified that there is no minimum edit count needed for a successfull WP:CHU request- all that he requires is a good reason. WJBscribe 23:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Come on people, let's start using {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}. ~~~~ Thanks. --Asterion 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Asterion. {{UsernameDiscussion}} should be standard whenever someone is listed here. Ideally a polite approach should have been made first to see if the user is amenable to WP:CHU once the problem and policy are pointed out to them. WJBscribe 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In his defense, nowhere did it say to use this tag. I've change the top of the page so that everyone knows (hopefully) to use it when reporting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. It was, after all, only created by Asterion on Jan 29.... WJBscribe 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: If an RFC/NAME is closed as "Disallow", the block and block notice let the user know about it. But if the consensus is "Allow", the {{UsernameDiscussion}} template is still left on the user's talk page, still claiming the issue is in doubt, and still pointing to RFC/NAME for a discussion that no longer exists there. I've created a followup template, {{UsernameAllowed}}, to notify the user of closure (and the archive). Could we pass the word wherever it needs to be passed, and "subst:UsernameAllowed" on all the appropriate user talk pages? Please? Thanks! Ben 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Acalamari, most good faith editors will agree to voluntarily change their username if it is politely pointed out to them that their current one violates the username policy. Many of these RFCs are completely unnecessary. Unless you particularly like listing RfCs on usernames? Please, try to talk to people before you file RfCs on them. I consider this a very unfriendly way to welcome new people who have simply made the mistake of not being familiar with our policies when they signed up. Imagine how you would have felt if before you'd had a chance to make any edits I'd filed an RfC on your name and you had to face this. I'm sure a lot of us wouldn't have bothered coming after this kind of welcoming. Sarah 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


George Carlin (talk · contribs)

I would report this at AIV except the user is claiming to actually be George Carlin. His only edit so far has been (presumably) in good faith to the Carlin related article seven dirty words. John Reaves (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I have blocked this user, and left a polite note asking that he prove the claim he is really George Carlin the well known comedian before the account is unblocked. It is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that this is the real deal, but nonetheless far more likely it is not. HighInBC 23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, her account isn't a self-promotion account: she said she plans to get around to doing more edits when she has time. Acalamari 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's just ask him a series of personal questions that only George Carlin will know the answers to, like "What's with that stupid sitcom you did in the '90s?" :P Aelffin 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a great idea, with one flaw: he could just look the show up here on Misplaced Pages and then give us the answers (which we could already get by just looking at the article about the sitcom). :) Acalamari 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • ...With a simple solution: we just add inaccurate information to all of the articles about George Carlin, and if he cites any of this info as an answer to one of our personal questions, block him! :) Aelffin 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have suggested a he post a picture of himself with his Misplaced Pages username on it, that should suffice. HighInBC 05:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd support that as evidence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So any photo of George Carlin with the name "George Carlin" proves he's a Misplaced Pages editor? Would this same standard apply to all other "celebrity" usernames? Hmmm. There may be a flaw in that idea, but I can't quite put my finger on it....
Why not just add a link to his Misplaced Pages userpage on his official website? Fair enough? Ben 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally, if I see a picture of a celebrity doing the exact thing that is being requested, I'm willing to believe it's that person. A similar situation happened on MySpace with one of the Mythbusters crew (Grant). The legitimacy of his account was called into question, and so he was asked to post several different pictures (including one of him holding some fruit) to verify who he was (most of them have been taken down, except for Grant and Adam eating cookies).
That said, I'd be fine with a wikilink on his official website, too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also a lot quicker to just have him upload it here. If he doesn't run his own website (as in, doesn't directly manipulate code), then it might take a little longer. ShadowHalo 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the request I made asked him to hold a sign saying he is "George Carlin on Misplaced Pages". HighInBC 13:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's entirely too complex ... make a webpage on his website saying "I am User:George Carlin on Misplaced Pages" ... email someone from a georgecarlin.com email address ... we don't need a photo. --BigDT 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a photo, however it is a fine option. The website idea is a good idea, if he has direct control of his website, the email is no good because you can spoof e-mail from tags. HighInBC 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well ... that's true ... he'd have to receive a reply and reply to that reply. --BigDT 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
We could send him an e-mail, and he could repeat it. We really should come up with a standard practice for the WP:U policy. HighInBC 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Malakaville (talk · contribs)

This Username is definitely in violation of WP:U. It states in his User page that it is in reference to Malakas (He says: "See malakas - this means you!"). As you know, WP:U states that "names that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation including slang, innuendo, and double entendre" are Inflammatory usernames. Furthermore "Misplaced Pages does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia." Although malakas can refer to "friend or pal or dude, depending on the context", it still harbors its original offensive meaning in that context. Moreover, according to malakas "It falls into the class of slang where it is appropriate to use amongst friends, but may be considered an insult when used against strangers or enemies.". If necessary, I can further elaborate on the meaning of malakas, and why it is inflammatory and offensive. Agha Nader 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

*Tentative Disallow, depending on how 'strong' the word is considered in Greek. The article says it's about equivalent to 'wanker', which to my ears is not very offensive. I think the test should be 'if you accidentally said the word in front of your mother, would you be embarrassed for more than an hour'. Aelffin 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • User Aelffin provides an interesting point. That is: Is it offensive if you said it to your mother? (Assuming she isn't Greek). According to malakas its usage is widespread, and not restricted to Greek speaking populations. The article on malakas says: "In addition, in parts of the world outside Greece, with significant Greek population (e.g. the States), the word malakas appears well known among non-Greek people too." So it is evident that in the the United States the word malakas is offensive to a large number of people. User EVula objects to blocking users based on profanities from different languages "on the English Misplaced Pages". To a large extent I agree with User EVula. But the important note here is that malakas "is also one of the most common Modern Greek words known worldwide". So I think it is very probable that a user name that refers to malakas will be offensive "on the English Misplaced Pages". Even "potentially inflammatory or offensive user names" are not allowed. User Aelffin does not find the word malakas offensive. The word malakas has "English equivalents of asshole or jerk or dick or son of a bitch". To me this is quite offensive. Moreover, the article malakas says "Malakas is also used sometimes as a mild ethnic slur versus Greeks, when used by non-Greeks, because of its very common everyday usage." In reference to wanker Aelffin says "which to my ears is not very offensive". According to wanker "The term literally means "one who wanks" (masturbates). The term is not generally taken to be an accusation of masturbation but rather as a general insult." How is a general insult not offensive? Let us not forget this is not some online gaming forum, this is an online encyclopedia. WP:U states "Misplaced Pages does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia." How is Malakasville not inflammatory? In addition User Malakaville intends for his user name to be offensive, he states: "See malakas - this means you!" I think it is necessary to follow the policy WP:U. Agha Nader 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
  • Please read more carefully. I said I didn't find the word wanker offensive. Yes, it's an insult, but so are doofus, goofball, and cheeky-monkey. This category of grade school insult-words is almost totally inoffensive in American English, and I think they are fair game for usernames. If malakas falls into this category, then I say allow. If it falls into a more serious category of vulgarity--and especially if it is an ethnic slur--then I will stick with disallow. But the status of the word will have to be determined through sources that meet WP:RS. Aelffin 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel Etitis, you are mistaken. Profanities and insults in different languages are not allowed as user names. This is because they are potentially offensive. WP:U says that potentially offensive insults are not allowed. Take for example user Haramzadeh, his user name was offensive to Urdu speaking people, thus he was forced to change his user name. Agha Nader 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I see what you mean about the article on malakas. I will not take a stance as of yet on whether the article should be kept or not, but you present some very good points on why it should be deleted. The only interest I have in malakas pertains to user Malakaville. I explained in great detail as to why Malakasville is inflammatory. I hope you will read my previous post fully. I will make a breif summary as to why it is inflammatory. It is an inslut used worldwide, it refers to genetalia, it is a mild racial slur, and it is the English equivalent of "asshole or jerk or dick or son of a bitch". The article does cite credible sources on it being used worldwide, but this is a matter to be discussed on the AfD. Also it is currently the status quo and thus you have the burden of truth to show it is not used worldwide. Agha Nader 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
WP:U takes a very strict stance on inflammatory user names. It states "Misplaced Pages does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names." As long as a user name is potentially inflammatory it cannot be allowed. This user name has potential to be inflammatory. Agha Nader 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Although you feel malakas should not be used to show Malakaville is inlammatory, User Malakaville, himself, does. Must I remind you that he said :"See malakas - this means you!". He is obviously referring to the usage in malakas. He intends for his user name to be offensive.Agha Nader 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
We are trying to determine whether Malakaville means "See motherfuckers - this means you!" or "See poo-poo heads - this means you!". Aelffin 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The two meanings you are trying to determine from Malakaville are a distinction without a difference. They are both inflammatory and offensive. The point is user Malakaville made his user name in referrence to malakas, (based on evidence I have already provided) and malakas only has offensive meanings. The user name Malakaville is distrubing and should not be allowed. Agha Nader 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Are you suggesting that the Username "wanker" should be allowed? If not then it is a distinction without a difference. Furthermore I highly recommend you read wanker, it is obvious it is offensive. I can elaborate as to why wanker is offensive if necessary. Agha Nader 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Wanker is not an offensive term in this part of the world. It's a silly word, yes. But inflammatory, no. If it is inflammatory elsewhere, then wanker should be disallowed. But not every childish insult counts as an inflammatory term. Aelffin 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I insist that everyone who has voted allow read WP:U. It states that "Names that contain profanity, obscenities, or other potentially offensive language (including non-English profanities)" are not allowed. At the least, Malakas is a non-English profanity. There are Greek speakers that can attest to this. The user name Malakaville is offensive to Greek speakers. Agha Nader 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Aelffin agrees that wanker is an insult. How is an insult not offensive? According to an insult is "An offensive action or remark." Agha Nader 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Yes, wanker is an insult. So is goofball. Do you think goofball should be disallowed? Aelffin 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in the user name goofball. Please answer the question I asked: Should the user name wanker be allowed? Take into consideration "Wanker is a pejorative term of British origin, which is also common in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa." Agha Nader 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I don't know, because I don't know if anybody is offended by the term. Some insults are simply too childish to be offensive to adults. Goofball, for example. If wanker is truly inflammatory in any part of the world, it should be disallowed. But if it is equivalent to something childish like "goofball" (which is my perception), then it should be allowed. Aelffin 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Malakas does indeed cite sources as the malakas being an insult. Is there any dispute that malakas is an insult in Greek? Agha Nader 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Nope, it is definitely an insult in some contexts. The question is whether it is an inflammatory insult or an inconsequential insult. Aelffin 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Journalist2 (talk · contribs)

New user, whose username is very similar to that of our administrator Journalist (talk · contribs). I've suggested to this user on his/her talk page that he/she request a username change, but should this account be blocked in the meantime, to prevent any confusion? Aecis 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Politely disallowAllow, most likely a good faith coincidence, should have to choose a less similar name. Either the username policy changed or I remembered it wrong, it says to avoid Names that can be confused with other contributors, but it also says Similar disambiguation should be carried out if your username is similar to that of another Misplaced Pages editor., so I suppose a note on the user and talk page clarifying they are different people would be adequate. HighInBC 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that - off the top of my head there are a few people who have virtually the same name as an admin - when you visit their pages, they just have a "are you looking for..." link at the top. --Fredrick day 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What probably happened is that not quite a coincidence, but the user tried to register as User:Journalist, got conflicted with the existing Journalist, and went for Journalist2 instead. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow "Journalist" is quite a common word. I'd be more suspicious if a username like "Akalamari," "HignINNBC," or "Persian Peet Gal" appeared. Acalamari 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh I'm torn. Yes, it is similar to an admin's name, but like Acalamari noted, Journalist's own username is exceedingly generic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - come on! as long as they show no intentions of impersonanting an admin (which if they did, would be blocked immedatly). He probably wanted journalist and realized it was taken. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Journalist is a very generic name; the number is enough disambiguation for me. If it were something more subtle like Journalist' or Journalist., then it might be a different story. ShadowHalo 21:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - think of how many potential processes use a 2 to denote the second of something. If Journalist2 were to ever seek adminship, that could be confused for Journalist's second RFA ... ditto for RFC, RFARB, etc. If it were Journalist757, ok, whatever, but this one has too much potential for confusion. I would suggest, though, a "polite disallow", meaning don't block the user, but, rather, alert them as to the confusion and politely suggest that they change their name. --BigDT 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow It's a common occupation, you can't limit it to one person. Aelffin 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow -- no harm done. - Longhair\ 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahruman (talk · contribs)

I was looking in a history page for some article, and was disturbed to see a username that resembled the name of the epitome of evil, Ahriman. I looked at his page, wondering if maybe "Ahruman" is some sort of Swedish word, and asked him what his name means. His response showed that indeed, this user is deliberately named after Ahriman.

I think this is unacceptable. As I mentioned on his talk page, it is like having a User:Satan, or User:Satun (that is deliberately derived from Satan). Not only are is Ahriman a religious figure, but he happens to be the universal aspect of evil.

I prompted him to consider changing his username, but he claims that 'his' Ahriman is from the book Ormus och Ariman by Carl Jonas Love Almqvist . He also states that 'his' Ahriman is only about "chaos as opposed to stagnation and rigidity". I cannot help but note that the real Ahriman is about chaos and disorder as well, so I fail to see any significant difference. It is not like 'his' Ahriman is some sort of saint that was just named improperly!

More importantly, it does not matter where 'his' Ahriman came from in light of the original idea. Consider Satan; a User:Satan is not acceptable just because he was represented as a struggling guitarist on SNL! Nor is a User:God acceptable just because of movies like Bruce Almighty or Oh, God!. The original use, with grave religious ideas attached, definitely outweighs any other reference.

Just as a User:Satan is unacceptable, so should any other name based off of the most evil spirit. The Behnam 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you disagree with the entire part in WP:U about not using religious figures then, no? This is even worse since it is the devil. Even if you ignore the fact that this particular being is evil, it still violates the religious part of WP:U. And you probably shouldn't ignore the evil part! The Behnam 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The "evil part" is entirely irrelevant to absolutely everything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to dodge the policy part by focusing on the evil part? Interesting. The Behnam 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I disagree with is your POV nomination. John Reaves (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So you do agree that the policy-based argument is correct? Then it is odd that you don't vote based on WP official policy, and unfortunate. The Behnam 05:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you could use the policy to nominate this if you couldn't find anything constructive to do. Unfortunate to who? You seem to be the only one bothered by this. John Reaves (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate your mild accusation. I'm saying that the role of a deity in a religion (that is, the form of "good" or the form of "evil") is entirely irrelevant when interpreting the WP:U policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but it still violates the policy just by being a religious figure. The Behnam 05:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you do not wish to respect WP policy, even as you concede the correctness of a policy-based argument. The Behnam 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(to The Behnam)It's unfortunate that you choose to abuse Misplaced Pages policy to solve some personal issue you have with a username.John Reaves (talk)
Hmm. Insulting accusation & failure to address the real argument involving policy. What does that mean? I wonder... The Behnam 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It means your POV and exaggeration is clearly clouding this discussion. John Reaves (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That isn't the conclusion that I would arrive at. And you are still 'failing to address' the policy argument. You have agreed that the policy can be used to nominate this. Is my respect for policy "clouding" things? The Behnam 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually, it is. You're letting the literal interpretation overrule the fact that nobody is going to care if you have the misspelled name of a Zoroastrian deity. -Amark moo! 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur, well said. John Reaves (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So y'all think I should drop judgment by policy and judge instead by... what? Anti-Policy? I think the guidelines are the 'flexible' ones, while policies are much more strict. The Behnam 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the policy exists for a reason, namely to avoid problems in the normal editing of Misplaced Pages. If the policy serves this purpose, fine. But if the letter of the law is interpreted so strictly as to ban usernames that are clearly not causing problems, then perhaps the policy should be clarified. Aelffin 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The policy should itself be made clearer before the clarification is applied to a RFC. The Behnam 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the policy should be updated as areas where it is lacking become clearer. Otherwise, it would never change. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this a good lesson in ignoring the rules. This "issue" is preventing us all from maintaining and performing constructive edits to Misplaced Pages. John Reaves (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, except that policy doesn't actually apply here because it isn't actually the name of a religious figure. It is spelled differently! We don't have ignore the rules here, it doesn't break them. You don't seem to understand that. pschemp | talk 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow I don't have a problem with a tweaked name vs. an exact name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Allow - the user has had the username for over a year ... if it were a new user, ok, but I see no reason to compel someone to switch this far down the road. --BigDT 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative Allow Yes, the tweakedness of the name is important, so a user named seitan should be allowed. Besides, it's not clear that Ahriman represents 'absolute evil'. From reading the article, it seems that the spirit was traditionally simply the chaotic side of a dualist tradition, and from a modern perspective, a projection of Ahura Mazda himself. But I think that we should consult a Zoroastrian to be sure because it is extremely difficult for an outsider to tell what would be construed as offensive to a particular religion. If it is the case that the name is offensive, then I may change my opinion. Aelffin 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it's not even the common name of the figure... Ahriman is an archaic name (middle Persian). It would be equivalent to User:Eluhim, User:Sot, or User:Beal. I suppose the name's potential offensiveness would depend on how obscure it is in the tradition in question. Would User:Beelzobub be acceptable? Aelffin 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you consider it archaic. What do you suppose the modern form is? Also, if you want some information about Ahriman, I recommend reading up at avesta.org. For starters, here is the glossary def , which says he is the Devil. I think if you read around there for awhile you will quickly realize that this is an evil being, the epitome of evil. The Behnam 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I called it archaic because the article describes it as a Middle Persian, i.e. not a Modern Persian term. Not being very familiar with Zoroastrianism, I can't judge whether the term has any currency today. I do think the frequency of use matters when judging whether it is offensive. There is, for example, a User:Dagon. But how many people would recognize that as one of the infernal names? Aelffin 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the names to choose from are Angra Mainyu and Ahriman. As an Avestan word, Angra Mainyu is more archaic linguistically. Consider that the glossary entry for Angra Mainyu forwards to Ahriman. The Behnam 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to add another user to this list, but User:Thoth should be considered in the same category. I feel this will become a slippery slope...especially when we're considering alternate spellings. We'd rule out Theth and Thith and Tosh and Hoth and Roth and Both and Noth, not to mention Devol and Devin, Bael and Beal and Boal, Set, Sot, Sit, Sat, Sut, and Süt. What about Airman...that's pretty close too. Aelffin 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Also see . This shows their interchangability, and that Ahriman is evil. The Behnam 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This user acknowledges that his username is inspired by Ahriman. It is essentially the same thing as just writing "Ahriman". The Behnam 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. "Ahriman" is the same as writing "Ahriman". EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What?! Ahriman is clearly the source of his name, by his admission. It doesn't matter if he "mispelled" it or not. Shall I make User: George W. Bushh? And admit I named it after George W. Bush, but since it is mispelled, that is perfectly fine. The Behnam 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Living people != deities, though some on the far right might disagree with this equation... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how about User: Alllllah or User:Jehovahh HIMSELF? I'm telling you, these kind of usernames are not good. The Behnam 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Slippery slope. The Spanish word hola could be a misspelling of 'Allah'. How far does this go? Aelffin 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
These RFCs are supposed to sort deliberate references from simple coincidences like "hola". This is a deliberate reference to Ahriman. The Behnam 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the question is whether the deliberate reference is actually inflammatory. I may call myself Smith, in deliberate reference to Joseph Smith, and I may even state that on my userpage. But if the use of the name does not cause problems with other users in the normal editing of Misplaced Pages, I don't see how it can justifiably be blocked. Aelffin 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just did some research on Ahriman in my copy of Man, Myth, and Magic encyclopedia (mmm, religious reference tomes). Ahriman is most certainly a bad dude (to quote the entry: "Ahriman is the Zoroastrian Devil". Not a lot of room for interpretation there). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And to quote Ahriman's entry in the Encyclopedia of Hell: Ahriman is the Zoroastrian equivalent of the Christian Lucifer, the King of darkness and death. He is the despicable demon in Zoroastrianism...". I think we can safely say that, yes, the Ahriman figure is of a "not a nice guy" variety. That said, it doesn't matter when interpreting username policy; I'm only presenting this evidence so eliminate one of the debates brewing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
While I can't contest the possibility, I suspect an actual Zoroastrian source would emphatically not equate Ahriman with the Christian devil. Aelffin 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, avesta.org does equate to "the Devil"; the capital "D" suggests that this refers to the normal English usage for Devil with a capital "D". The Behnam 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hahahaha! :) Aelffin 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing. This isn't a coincidence. He admitted to a mispelling of Ahriman. If he had said it is a Swedish word, and this turned out to be true, then things would be different. This, however, is a deliberate use of a religious figure in a username. The Behnam 05:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone creates the name "MrMilkman", and they intend it to be a reference to... certain activities..., I'm still not going to say it should be disallowed. The issue is whether the name is bad, not whether the name plus what the user intended is bad. -Amark moo! 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So any reference outside of the original and current religious context puts a religious figure up for username? The Behnam 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes, unless the name is a clear and present danger to rational discussion. Aelffin 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Behnam is a common name. How do you know that he isn't named after me? The Behnam 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
...common sense? Seriously, unless you're about two thousand years old... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't... are you more than 500 years old? Regardless, Wikipolicy suggests you should have to prove that's really your name, right? Aelffin 05:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a joke :) The Behnam 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly. But you didn't answer the question... do you think it's fair for us to ask you to prove Behnam is your real surname? Aelffin 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to give out my personal information to verify this, but it isn't relevant here anyway. The guy doesn't claim to be named Ahruman, he claims it is a reference to a book that involves Ohrmazd and Ahriman; without a doubt religious figures. If you object to my name, start a new listing here on this page. The Behnam 06:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to your username because I think it's sufficiently decontextualized from Mor Behnam to avoid causing problems with other users. And I think Aruhman's name is likewise sufficiently decontextualized. Aelffin 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And in simple English, "sufficiently decontextualized" = "too freakin obscure for people to be offended." pschemp | talk 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly... the moniker fulfils the requisite cognitive divergence from the potential locus of offense as suggested by orthographic substitutive processes inherent in the Wikipedian's self-identification vis-a-vis the stated caveats pertaining to the policy in question. Aelffin 06:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could eschew obfuscation? John Reaves (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but if it weren't for obfuscation, there would be no encyclopedias. They would all have but one page saying simply 'Look around you--that which is, is.' Aelffin 07:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - This is just too obscure for the average reader to make the connection. The likelyhood of people being offended by this is very low. pschemp | talk 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we can create usernames such as Lucyfer, Deeyablow, and Zewse, we can add this one. Concur with pschemp. --w 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Alas, I must sleep. What dire direness it is that I will not be able to further elaborate my position for some hours. I hope you all reconsider; this guy is named after the Zoroastrian equivalent of the Devil; a complete violation of policy regarding religious figures in usernames. The Behnam 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, his doesn't violate policy because it isn't actually the name of Zorastrian devil. Plus, it is just too damn obscure to be likely to offend. And according to policy, it has to be likely to offend. Sorry, your interpretation of policy is just off. pschemp | talk 06:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So since there is only one person opposing this name and it has been shown that this name doesn't violate anything, can we can consider this an Allow? John Reaves (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say so. Close it. pschemp | talk 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of fairness, I think we should wait more than a couple of hours (opened at 04:35, currently 6:40) before closing this particular one (though I agree that it will most likely be closed as "Allow"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - of historical interest only.Proabivouac 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Motion to close per WP:SNOW.Proabivouac 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Regretfully, Strong Disallow. Zoroastrians may be a small minority, but they're still a living religious group (not merely "historical"), with as much right to respect and courtesy as larger groups. Addressing earlier comments: "Mazda" is a car name, yes, but car companies aren't bound by WP:U; WP usernames are. "Average readers" are not the touchstone for offensiveness; other usernames have been blocked because they were offensive in "obscure" languages, or to minority groups. As to "taking a Persian deity and trying to squeeze it into a Judeo-Christian concept of Satan", that's almost precisely backwards. The "Judeo-Christian concept of Satan", and Muslim concept of Shaitan, descend from the Zoroastrian concept of Ahriman; even the very words "satan", "paradise", and "amen", derive from Persian, Zoroastrian, words. (Zoroastrianism long predates Christianity and Islam, and had noticeable effects on Judaism, the Book of Job being one example sometimes cited; the Zoroastrian monarch Cyrus/Koresh freed the Jews from capitivity and is remembered as a messiah.) If "User:Satan" is no-go, then "User:Ahriman" is too, and likewise for variant transcriptions. Ben 07:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Doesn't matter which god came from which, what matters is the modern perception. If it is offensive to Zoroastrians (which is, by the way a major religion), then disallow. If not, then allow. But don't assume that because the figure is equated with the devil that Zoroastrians necessarily see it as an offensive term or an evil term. Actually, I should say... don't assume Zoroastrianism has the same perception of evil that Christianity does. Aelffin 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reopening after premature closure. The above comment was posted at the same time as the closure, invalidating the motion. --21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Unlikely to cause offense. I know you are saying there is a minority that may be offended, but is anyone specific actually offended? HighInBC 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Spamreporter1 (talk · contribs)

Do you think this implies an official function?--Werdan7 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Holycrapitsed (talk · contribs)

A bit too profane. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)