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 Manopingo (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 13 March 2007 (→{{User|Jehoshua}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:14, 13 March 2007 by Manopingo (talk | contribs) (→{{User|Jehoshua}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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


Environmental protective coatings (talk · contribs)

Promotes a company or product, see this. RJASE1 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesusfreak1277 (talk · contribs)

Another religious figure name for review. RJASE1 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 DC talk, previous discussion has always yelded a disallow consensus. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 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 Hentai Jeff (talk · contribs). I just don't get it. Patstuart 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 WP:U. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 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 WP:U whatsoever, how I'm reading it), whereas the latter one did. Patstuart 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. The Behnam 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow. Names expressing a religious/sexual preference (of whatever nature) are unnecessarily controversial, and likely to cause problems. -Hit bull, win steak 21:22, 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. Acalamari 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow, unlike Dvoted2Christ above, this one can be misinterpreted or sound offensive to some. NikoSilver 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow not offensive, to me anyway. Nardman1 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per all above.Proabivouac 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow just like the last 5 times, come on guys. InBC 22:55, 12 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 Jesusfreak12 (talk · contribs), Jesusfreak (talk · contribs), Jesusfreek2 (talk · contribs), Jesus freak 2334 (talk · contribs) and Jesus freak 777 316 (talk · contribs), and allow this one. Precedents can be a pain in the arse, but arbitrariness and inconsistency are even worse. Aecis 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." . User:Jesus is a freak would be offensive. And bringing Hentai Jeff into this argument/discussion is irrelevant. Regards, Flyguy649contribs 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'? User:Jesusfrkgurl is not okay, but User:Muhammed 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. User:Jesusfanatic60 and User:Jesusforlife7 aren't blocked. User:Shia-in-ny isn't blocked and surely that is just as controversial. I'm just seeing this more and more as arbitrary. Shenme 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. Sam Blacketer 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, indeed, who says this isn't some girl smitten with her boyfriend, Jesus? Shenme 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. NikoSilver 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See Jesus freak: 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 Jesus Freak (disambiguation), 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. Patstuart 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. NikoSilver 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SatanSanta (talk · contribs)

For review - contains the name of 1 1/2 religious figures. RJASE1 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehoshua (talk · contribs)

- contravenes WP:U - direct reference to religious figure. Currently revert-warring on Christ. Prolly needs blocking outright. Comments? - Alison 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)