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 TortureIsWrong (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 2 April 2007 (→{{user|TortureIsWrong}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:20, 2 April 2007 by TortureIsWrong (talk | contribs) (→{{user|TortureIsWrong}})(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



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)

  • Disallow, when I see the term I do think of things such as Mustard Gas (comes in canisters, causes death), gas chambers, etc. Cascadia 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Weak allow. I don't like it but I don't think it quite crosses the "implying violence" line. RJASE1 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • Allow Does not seem to be against policy to me. Kukini 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
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 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fartymcgee (talk · contribs)

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

  • Disallow, WP:U bodily function. Cascadia 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Nothing is excreted except air, are usernames that reference burping disallowed too? C'mon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Allow - per EVula TortureIsWrong 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - this may be against the spirit of WP:U, but it isn't against the letter. Passing gas isn't an excretory function. Flyguy649contribs 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow The Behnam 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - clear violation of WP:U bodily function. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: Is 'Breathe' also verbotten? It's also a bodily function. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fart jokes and Poop jokes follow the same path. Laughter by something that comes out of one's ass. Cascadia 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • 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." 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. Flyguy649contribs 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • "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 18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Just quoting a dictionary entry on the definition of excretion. Read into it any additonal meanings that you want. Cascadia 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • (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. Flyguy649contribs 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • What does common sense tell you? Cascadia 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • No one is inventing new ones. Cascadia 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • 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)
          • 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 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • 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)
          • 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 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • 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)
        • 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 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • 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)
  • Disallow per policy. Kukini 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • PROOF specifically cites farting as an excretory function. Please reconsider your votes accordingly. The Behnam 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - it's kinda hilarious and borderline WP:U - Alison 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why? What is wrong with the points brought up here? How isn't it a violation of the policy on excretory functions? Please consider . Thanks. The Behnam 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps you didn't read this ? 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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, please knock it off and read WP:POINT. RJASE1 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Accusing a user you disagree with of violating Misplaced Pages 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)
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 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Comment - it's probably a play on D'Arcy McGee - Alison 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. While we'd all like to expel brainlessness, it is not shown at all a brain fart is excretory. I'm sure that you all will recognize the embarrassing situation. And as for farting being quite so excreable as discussed above, have you all forgotten the renowned, imitated, but most illustrious Le Pétomane! Would you insult the memory of an entire nation by denigrating the entertainment of the flatulist! Tut-tut! And I say again, toot! Shenme 05:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Another fart apologist fielding fringe theories. jk, but seriously your far-fetched explanations don't refute the damning anti-fart evidence presented here. The Behnam 08:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
BUT THE POLICY BANS REFERENCE TO EXCRETORY FUNCTIONS! GAAAH! OK, I'm not that mad, but how did you miss the relevant policy point? The Behnam 08:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It disallows usernames that are "needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia". I don't believe that this violated the spirit of the policy. Sure, it's dumb, but it's not discouraging or disruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow. Toilet humour usernames are not constructive to the project in any way and will distract from normal conversations. --tjstrf talk 09:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow. I've seen worse. I can live with it. It doesn't shock me greatly. But it's mildly offensive, and I can't see why somebody needs to be mildly offensive every single time that he signs his name. ElinorD (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate anguage. Disallow. - Mike Rosoft 13:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow The username may not be about the actual account owner, it could be an attack username and because its unable to determine it puts the discussion in a different perspective.Tellyaddict 14:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - A discussion remains in progress on the WP:U talk page about this issue. The letter of WP:U does not appear to prohibit this specific username, though it does prohibit usernames that reference breathing and sweating. As this is unlikely to have been the intent of the policy authors, clarification is requested and your participation is welcome. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does; you simply ignore the evidence. What to do about that. The Behnam 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not so. No source has called 'breathing' as an excretory function. However 'fart' has been explicitly cited as so. Please review the proof, thanks. The Behnam 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes too. I already said it is, but only technically. Seriously, I don't find it that "potentially offensive" for that reason. Note that those "bodily functions", "excretions" etc, are listed under "potentially offensive". So if it is a bodily function (or a real-life violent act like TortureIsWrong's below) but it is not "potentially offensive", then we keep it. Simple IMO. Aside, I find this a borderline case indeed, so I change to Neutral if you feel strongly about it. (Let's not sweat and cry too much; after all, sweat and tears are also excretions - but I doubt we'd RFCN a "user:TearsOfLove" or something!) :-) NikoSilver 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well my point is that 'fart' is an actual excretory function according to sources but I have to see non-OR defs for sweat, tears, and breath calling them excretory. Also, I don't understand the accusations of 'Pharisaic' on this board. If you want to go by 'spirit,' a user with 'fart' in his name certainly doesn't fall into the spirit of making an encyclopedia: it is toilet humor. Furthermore, someone brought up that this could be an attack name, and I realize that this is a serious possibility. That is just more ground to disallow this thing. The Behnam 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Similar discussions here and here. InBC 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - Innocuous, it's fine. Don't see the WP:U violation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow per Chairboy.TortureIsWrong 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Allow Both "punk" and "bitch" are valid personality types. I hear bitch on radio and TV, is it even profanity? InBC 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow, this would be overly sensitive I think. Mangojuice 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per WP:U Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults. Cascadia 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the remarks above demonstrate this name is potentially inflammatory. RJASE1 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Disallow per tjstrf. ShadowHalo 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Disallow, per WP:U Usernames that are recognized as slurs or insults.Kukini 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. Neil (not Proto ►) 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per WP:U "Usernames that are recognized as slurs or insults." --Nick—/Contribs 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow, per Alison. Abeg92contribs 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Allow, great username and breaks no policy I'm aware of. --Fredrick day 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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.
    Misplaced Pages 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)
    (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)
    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)
    Mel, per that argument, any username would be allowed. RJASE1 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    We're not in a U.S. prison. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 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 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow-Weak profanity. --TeckWiz Contribs@ 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - only very mildly offensive. Moreover, Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • Allow - "punk" refers to rock, and "bitch" can refer to a female dog--Ed 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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., ,. 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)
      • 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)
You are perceptive: we are to maniacally attack earth with dreaded micronesian multi-hulled canoes, based out of riverine bivouacs, all this in the service of The Man.Proabivouac 10:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this name is very subjective, it could mean many things. It could be a powerful female who likes Punk (music), or it could mean girly coward. (where punk is another word coward, and bitch is a pejorative of female) I do not see a clear consensus, and propose to close it as such. --w 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, please don't close as "no consensus", if you don't mind. I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated so far that the name is potentially offensive or inflammatory, which would mean a disallow per WP:U. The counterarguments mostly seem to be "I like it" or "it doesn't offend me personally". Policy should be the determining factor. RJASE1 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    First, the characterisation of the "allow" votes is almost wilfully inaccurate. Secondly, this amounts to saying that those who say that it doesn't violate WP:I are wrong, those who say that it does are right, so ignore the former. Pretty much the approach that some of us have been complaining about at the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow It says that they must not be inflammatory on WP:USERNAME and this is, could have been instantly reported to WP:AIV.Tellyaddict 14:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow More than potentially inflammatory in my book.--Dycedarg ж 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow. If this is a good-faith choice of username, it is still too problematic to have to address this person, "hello, punk bitch." I am very uncomfortable with the idea of this, as much as I would be if an acquaintance insisted that their name was "nigger". I am insulted and take offense to the term being used at all, regardless of toward whom it is directed. I am not a particularly squeamish person, so if it offends me, it will certainly offend many more users here. If this is not a good-faith choice, well, the answer is obvious as well. In my part of the world, this phrase is heard before a gay man is physically assaulted. It is not something Misplaced Pages users should have to see on a daily basis. It's obvious, folks, disallow this. — coelacan — 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow punk+bitch. Offensive for some is a no-no in my book. There's no "fault of the offendee", unless it would be our fault to be offended if an Eskimo sleeps with our wives when receiving our hospitality (typical custom there). NikoSilver 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you explain the Eskimo comment... Cascadia 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • With pleasure: Ethics is always subjective. A typical extreme example for the subjectiveness of ethics is the custom of Eskimos to demand that you sleep with their wives if you are offered their hospitality. (I've already booked tickets) :-) So, what may be insulting/offensive/wrong for me, may not be for you. If something is "potentially insulting" (per WP:U), then I interpret it as "insulting for some". Apparently the particular name falls in that category (see jail comments etc above). When voting here, I always scale the rights of those offended ("right" or "wrong" and excluding me if possible) vs the right of the user to keep their name. The scale tilted on the left for that one IMO. NikoSilver 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The bitches (talk · contribs)

Insulting username. RJASE1 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. InBC 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. I can think of a certain 'C'-word that's way worse - Alison 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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. InBC 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ipodfreak44 (talk · contribs)

WP:U prohibits usernames with trademarked names. iPod is a trademark of the Apple Corporation. BlackBear 15:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fenian Swine (talk · contribs)

Bringing this here following a discussion at WP:ANI. This was also the subject of a previous request for comment. For the record, Fenian is a term for an Irish nationalist, and some apparently find the username insulting. I'm nominating this procedurally only, I have no opinion. RJASE1 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Disallow Insulting to a particular ideology. Even if "Fenian" was not an insult, saying "Irish nationalist swine" would also be insulting. The fact that the user may be using it ironically does not effect the potential to offend. InBC 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow, the article on Fenian even states it is an insult, and swine has been an insult for quite a long time. I really wish the user would've changed his username to something else that shows his heritage. Cascadia 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow - User's talk page shows he considers himself to be a Fenian swine in the sense of identifying himself with the freedom fighters of a century ago who finally obtained (partial) Irish independence. "Fenian swine" is being reclaimed by him proudly from the Black & Tan pigs who used to use it as an insult while they were brutalizing women and children. I consider myself to be a Fenian swine, too! TortureIsWrong 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You disallow almost everything, and you're fortunate that your own pot-promoting name wasn't banned. You would think you'd give others a similar break from time to time. In any event, I stand by my comment. The user is proud to be called a Fenian swine, as am I. If you bothered to look into it, you'd see that. By the way, the name has survived a previous attempt to shoot it down - why take a shot at it again? TortureIsWrong 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, no I don't disallow everything, check your facts. Secondly, if you think there is a problem with my name then go ahead and list it. InBC 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If the man is wrong, it's right to fight him. All Fenian swine know that. And the ever-blessed policy is not always clear, as these debates show. I think it would be better if people would acknowledge that instead of always claiming that they, and only they, know what policy means. It's a fluid thing, isn't it? TortureIsWrong 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that the rantings above are inappropriate for this discussion and were seemingly made to invite some sort of political sectarian argument gaillimh 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's very relevant. The Play Brian Moore sig was chosen as a compromise after the user was blocked by Zoe and quickly unblocked by Geni for this same thing back in 2005. — coelacan — 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not you we would block, but that name, no block is needed at all if you change names. Your allow argument does not seem to be based in policy. It is not how we perceive you, but how others will react to your name, this policy applies to everyone. InBC 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I challenge someone to go through my edits over the past 2 years and show me where I have made bad edit's or where people have reacted negatively because of my username. This has never happened and therefore the backbone of the disallow brigades arguemnt is non existent. They claim it is in my best interest to change my name, when I tell them I have had no trouble in the past, they suddenly change their angle to "it's wiki policy". This is clearly a vendeta against myself and it wouldn't surprise me if Mr.Gaillimh is in fact emailing his administrator buddies in order to win this petty debate.--Play Brian Moore 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I must protest to these ridiculous insinuations gaillimh 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not half as stupid as actually having this debate, a chara.--Play Brian Moore 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow. This is stupid, Fenian Swine in this context is not insulting, I would be regarded as a Irish Nationalist/Republican and I wouldn't regard this as insulting, it would be more a badge of honour if anything, I think the admin is being oversensative on this issue.--padraig3uk 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you really thing calling a group of people swines is not insulting? The policy says "potentially offensive" not "offensive to you". InBC 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow. As I read it, this has about as much offense as taking the name 'Kashrut Swine', and being a Schochet. Someone inside, who makes a joke about it, and has already compromised once? While WP is always 'evolving' as new people become established editors, that 'evolution' cannot always be backdatable. I've seen FS around before, and think it'd be odd and unfortunate to move all of his efforts to a new name, which causes all sorts of identity issues. there was a compromise which I think is plenty fine, and it should stay that way. What if he asks for a clearly pro his side name 'go fein!', perhaps?, and someone on the other side says, no that's offensive? will we make him change it to 'Man of Eire', until some british mapmaker says that's offensive to him, and then he's 'Irishman', which offends someone on classism and nationalism grounds, till he's just 'that readheaded bloke barry', and then some ginger flips out at him? (humor and irony intended.) how long do these dopey fights go till were'e all either #$trings, or we're all 'vaguehumanoideditor#3657837275553668367263565447'??? I get so tired of these sorts of disputes, while things like the EVP fight and Daniel Brandt rage for months without resolution. ThuranX 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow. It's a bit late for this debate ladies and gentlemen. Swine is not offensive at all. The user is a Fenian, henceforth if there is any sense left in this place, it will be allowed.--Play Brian Moore 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is completely inappropriate, as this account was made by User:Fenian Swine. He is attempting to skew consensus by using a sockpuppet to influence this discussion. The fact that he's being so overt about it shows a complete disregard for the community gaillimh 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That account was set-up so I could argue my case. Disregard for the community? What are you talking about, I am here longer than you. I don't do vandilism, you are clearly wrong on the matter.

Then again, so is "Tom." TortureIsWrong 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong allow. The user identifies himself as a Fenian, which is just another way of saying he is an Irish patriot. The use of 'swine' is self-deprecatory to himself. The only insult which could possibly be discerned would not be to other Irishmen but implicitly to the English (because the Fenians were fighting against the English for the control of Ireland), and this I do not think is enough. I have part-Irish ancestry and feel quite strongly about this. Sam Blacketer 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    You have it backwards, mate. The word "Fenian" is used by some Unionists and some British as an insult to Irish Catholics and nationalists. gaillimh 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • There's nothing "backwards" about it - the Fenians were legendary Irish warriors in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and the name was adopted by Irish rebels BEFORE it began being used as an insult by Black & Tan savages. TortureIsWrong 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Originally it was but I don't think anyone very much uses it in those terms now. A quick google shows Fenians Irish Pub, The Fenian Page (supporters of Celtic, ie Irish catholic Scots). It is now a term adopted by anyone proud of their Irish ancestry. Sam Blacketer 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    It may have been used and intended by Loyalists and some brits as a insult, but I have never met a Republican yet that would be offended by being called a Fenian.--padraig3uk
    Perhaps the user should just go by Fenian. Cascadia 21:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow as offensive. Now I note the arguments relative to reclaiming the term and self-identifying, and I greatly sympathize for personal reasons. However, the other side is that the term is used offensively by some and understood as offensive by more. To which I'm sure the counter-argument is that y'all should just get better educated as to its roots and meanings. Which brings me to the fallacy in this particular case. In the first go-around the user disapproved of someone's disapproval, with the riposte "I assume your American." Which cracks me up as reading the Fenian article says that the original organizations were founded in the US. So... even the user does not necessarily understand the usages, and thus can't reassure us on this name. Shenme 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The term derives from the Irish Na Fianna or Na Fianna Éireann who in Celtic mythology were a band of warriors formed to protect Ireland, Fionn Mac Cumhaill being the most famous of its warriors. It derives from Fionn Mac Cumhaill, he was around a long time before our St.Brendan discovered America. Please don't question me on whether I know the origins of the term, Thanks mate.--Play Brian Moore 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - as Cascadia noted, the problem seems to be more with "swine" than with "Fenian". Is this really necessary to your username, or can some compromise be reached? RJASE1 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A compromise was reached, I would sign with a different signature. But even this appears to have been ignored.--Play Brian Moore 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow: "potentially offensive". NikoSilver 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow Besides being potentially offensive, it is a partisan political statement.Proabivouac 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow - It seems to my that those who would wish to "disallow" do not understand that historial origin of the term or its mainstream usage - which has been outlined immediately above. The term is only an insult if used in a specific manor by a specific group - the word is only an insult in the small minority in the context of its usage (this editor is not using it in that context and is not from that grouping and is using it in the correct/mainstream usage) For the vast majority of the time the term is used it is as a honour - I, for one, would consider it an honour to be called a Fenian. Instead of focusing on the minor usage I would look at its mainstream usage - therefore it is not insulting and should be allowed. Also - it is interesting to note that it is the "Fenians" that have said it is not an insult, that speaks volumes.--Vintagekits 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, you are quite mistaken in your generalisation that people who agree that this username should be blocked do not understand the term. I've outlined (in specific detail) the meaning of the term and why it can be considered offensive at multiple venues and have provided a link to this on this very page. Please refrain from making silly generalisations and perhaps read this page a bit more carefully before participating further. In addition, republicans do consider the term "Fenian Swine" to be an insult. I can point you towards numerous references, including Frank McGuinness' Observing the Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme gaillimh 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont appriciate you taking a snide and condasending tone with me a chara, I have set out my thoughts on the issue and just because they are opposite to yours do not attempt to reride them - to be honest I must say that your credability in my eyes has taken a serious nosedive over this issue and your handling of it. How about you stop focusing on a specific minority MISUSE of the term and remember the real mean of the term - SIGNED A FENIAN!!!--Vintagekits 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're taking this wrong. There's no condensation on my part (evaporation, perhaps, hehe). I was simply explaining how I have not generalised, as you mistakenly stated. Furthermore, as you agree that the term is misused by some, I'm not sure how you correlate this as not violating our username policy gaillimh 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment you are quite mistaken in your generalisation, silly generalisations even which was rebuttled with republicans do consider the term "Fenian Swine" to be an insult. It appears that Gaillimh has just generalised in the very reply where he had a go at someone else for generalising. Funny how I'm a Reoublican and I don't consider Fenian Swine(along with many others here) to be offensive. Maybe Gaillimh should realise his opinion on the matter is mistaken.--Play Brian Moore 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, no, there was no generalising on my part. You see, I provided a point of external reference to support my contention, and am happy to provide more gaillimh 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I can't seem to find the part where he ask all the Fenians of the world, past and present if they found the name offensive? How odd. Maybe he also generalised? I have Republicans here who don't mind the name and yet you make sweeping statements such as republicans do consider the term "Fenian Swine" to be an insult. That is generalisation if ever I saw it and linking to another person who generalises only goes to allow you to make my point for me. The more you talk, the less and less I find myself being able to consider your opinion plausable at all. Keep them coming a chara.--Play Brian Moore 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow: have come across this name many times and never imagined that people who see the context would be offended. Maybe Swenian Fine would get the irony across to those who think literally. And I took it at first that Play Brian Moore was a celebration of the resistance of Irish rugby players to England's unjust dominance at Landsdowne Road - now happily a thing of the past.--Shtove 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - If he wants to call himself an "Irish Nationalist Pig", then go ahead, let him!--Ed 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ed, not sure you are helping Mr Swine's case with that! (Sarah777 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
Ah but he is. I think he realises how silly some people are being. Also, feel free to call me Fenian. Mr.Swine's so formal.--Play Brian Moore 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Background to the Block

May I say that I am mystified as to how I'd even know that this debate was taking place were it not for my watchlist. User was notified on his talk page

I am not the User whose name is being challenged (not yet anyway). I was not notified of this. (Apologies, I forgot to sign the inclusion below) (Sarah777 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC))


Anyway, this was the discussion on User:Gaillimh:

"Again, there is no debate. Please change your username." Mr Galway, can you tell me by what authority you have chosen to block this contributor? Please respond. And I would also like an explanation as to why you took it upon yourself to delete comments I made on another editors page. That would appear to me to be a gross abuse of whatever admin powers you may have. (Sarah777 03:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi there! First, please allow me to extend an apology for removing your comment on the talk page. It wasn't my intention; it was simply a miscue when pasting my response onto User talk:Fenian Swine. I didn't block the user by some sort of selective authority. As I've mentioned several times, the username was a clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy. gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, do you not think you are being a bit high-handed? The policy would seem to support you but it also appears that you are the only one finds the name offensive. Surely as an Admin you should be refereeing rather than imposing your pov? There is a clear implication in the Wiki-rules you referenced (which I read) that a name is offensive only if someone decides to be offended by it. In your position as Executioner, you should not also be Judge and Jury. Surely? (Sarah777 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

The username is blatantly offensive, for reasons I've detailed on User talk:Fenian Swine. In addition, I am not imposing any biased point of view. Anyone can see that the name is offensive. gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Swine is being IRONIC, given his obvious Fenian sympathies. This case was argued out some time back (before my time here) and he was unblocked. You seem to be the only one offended since then. I am at a loss to understand why your are taking such an uncompromising line on this. (Sarah777 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Ironic or not, the username is entirely inappropriate; it invites conflict and division in addition to disparaging a group of people. To say I am uncompromising is a gross misrepresentation of my actions. For more than a week, I offered to help the user change his username and was met with nothing but hostility and insults. gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fenian Swine is a long standing contributor, and blocking him without discussion at WP:RFCN is inappropriate. Please feel free to direct me to any discussion regarding endorsement of your block, otherwise I will raise this matter elsewhere. One Night In Hackney303 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank God for that, I thought I was the only one who saw you as being overly-harsh. Honestly though, it is in your best interest to unblock me, one person being offened by a name is not grounds for blocking, especially when the user who blocked me appears to make sweeping decissions without at least asking other administrators. Play Brian Moore 15:33 IST, 31 March 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.159.12 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the post above is from User:Fenian Swine, who signs himself Play Brian Moore. You only come across the "offending" name if you click on his User-link. It takes some effort to be offended. Mr Gaillimh, to suggest that I am grossly misrepresenting your actions is a gross misrepresentation of my comments. I think we could perhaps keep the tone of this discussion calm yet frank. It is my view, that your actions in this matter constitute a misuse of Administrative power. Where should I take this matter for adjudication? Regards (Sarah777 09:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

As a result of your failure to reply to my message, I have started discussion at ANI over this matter. One Night In Hackney303 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs)

Violation of WP:U#Violence, refers to real-world violent actions. RJASE1 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This user spends a full 1/3rd of his edits here and has already responded, so no, this can continue.(or was that a joke?) InBC 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Disallow, Nominating Argument is correct on the interpretation. (Grabs helmet and gets in bunker) Cascadia 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarification, my decision was in no way based off of the users actions or comments of RFCN. Cascadia 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per nom. The guy posts here every day and nobody caught this one yet? lol. (Now how long until HighinBC goes on trial for being "a drug reference" and myself for being "random"?) --tjstrf talk 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec)There is no rule against drug references or illegal stuff. Just promoting a controversial point of view, but it does not promote anything, more it states a fact that I don't think is in doubt. Now if it was violence instead of drugs then yes a simple mention or allusion would suffice for a violation. I think yours would pass as it seems short enough and the tendency is to allow such names. InBC 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly - not only that, but I requested this name as a namechange after my previous name, MoeLarryAndJesus, was banned. So this name somehow was approved. Imagine that. No one here batted an eye at it until after I myself suggested it would be next. Misplaced Pages - the place where torture and child molestation are value-neutral activities! Is that really what people want? And please spare me the policy, policy, policy mantra. It's just not that clear. TortureIsWrong 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently one of the Bureaucrats wasn't up to date on the username policy. And the policy wouldn't have to be that clear if people would just catch on that it means "don't pick a name that will cause problems with conducting encyclopedic and neutral editing or civil discussion". --tjstrf talk 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, torture can be non-violent. ShadowHalo 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point, Shadow. I always like to see real thinking going on instead of reflexive chants of "policy." Thanks. And you're right, many of the techniques of torture (though not all) approved by the current American adminstration - sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, etc. - are arguably not acts of violence. TortureIsWrong 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Violent, meaning something the violates, how can torture not violate in some way? Perhaps you are thinking of only physical violence. InBC 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That argument has more to do with a play on wording than any sort of reason based argument. Perhaps the wording can be changed to clarify that violence means violence to people and not property, but as it stands that distinction has no relation to this case. InBC 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow yes, yes, very droll. But the clause about referring to violent actions is in the context of "Misplaced Pages does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames...This includes, but is not limited to:...". I don't believe it's inflammatory, so no contravention of WP:U. But it is POV.Canthusus 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you are misreading: "Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to..." "...Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions". Includes but is not limited too, it is explicitly forbidden. If you think refer to should not be in there than change policy, but don't misread it. InBC 20:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't *think* I'm misreading it. Policy states that we shouldn't have inflammatory usernames. Then it lists a load of examples of types of usernames that would normally be regarded as inflammatory. We're judging whether a username contravenes policy, not whether it matches an example. There's plenty of usernames out there that contravene examples, eg User:Bird flu, User:Mr. Flu all refer to illnesses, but I wouldn't regard them as inflammatory. Canthusus 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Those names are also in violation. "This includes but is not limited to...", this wording makes it clear that while other things are against policy, the following has already been determined to be. WT:U is the place to make policy changes, not individual username debates. If you are using IAR or something then fine, but the policy is clear. InBC 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Participation in this forum should not excuse a user from being nominated here, if anything he should be held to the standards of the board he uses just like anyone else. If he did not post here, would we have not noticed? Maybe, is it a reason not to nominate? No. InBC 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with both your comments that commenting here does not excuse a nomination AND the one that, if anything, higher standards should be strived for here. However, what I meant in my comment was that in this particular instance a contribution here had a direct impact on the fact that he was nominated here. In the end, though, policy must be followed and this does violate the policy if it is taken to the letter as it, perhaps, has to be. G Donato (talk to me...) 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow So tell user TortureIsWrong, does not your name refer to torture? Is not torture violent? If we are not to base our decisions on policy, what would you wish we base them off of? Agha Nader 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
      • I'd ask that you base them on reason and common sense, and take another look at the guidelines. There's another provision banning names that promote hatred or violence. I would argue that by promoting the banning of torture - and thus promoting the opposite of violence - I am operating under the spirit of THAT provision. You can't just cite one small unit of the policy without considering what the WHOLE policy is meant to promote. Or at least you shouldn't. TortureIsWrong 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Common sense, remember WP:IAR? ShadowHalo 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That is very subjective, enumerated rules are not. Agha Nader 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I find it ironic that you say the nomination may be WP:POINT, when User TortureIsWrong admits his name is WP:POINT. I am referring to his name "promoting the opposite of violence". User names are not supposed to promote any view. Agha Nader 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
  • That's a very serious accusation, would you please back it up with proof? RJASE1 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed it is, I was close to nominating this name myself, it is in violation of the username policy. Your allow does not in any way address the name. InBC 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Leaving aside the Pharisaic approach to POLICY, which is a general problem here, this user has been commenting on this page for some time; that his name is nominated only after he has been in disagreement with the nominator and those voting against is at best deeply unfortunate. Even if the proposal was made in good faith, it would have been much more sensible to have left it to someone else. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • He didn't disagree with me - I stated I had no opinion. Use your eyes. I've also concurred with some of the user's opinions in the past. You're unjustly assuming bad faith. RJASE1 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, there is no rule regarding when a username violation may be taken to RFCN. Bad timing may be on RJASE1's hands, but the act of bringing the username here is not. Cascadia 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow, it's not advocating violence, as the spirit of WP:U clearly intends. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The WP:U policy clearly intends that simply referring to violence be disallowed, that is why it says that. Why are so many people suddenly ignoring policy? Try to change it instead of ignoring it. InBC 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - To allow polemical statements in principle puts in the position of deciding which ones are acceptable and which ones are not. In some cases, this is unavoidable, but it's wise to minimize the occasions for this inherently problematic enterprise. Even so, WP:U#Violence explicitly bars this name and should be upheld.Proabivouac 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. I agreed with the above that 'refers to' exists only in relation to the listign of a number of incidents where such would be inflammatory. TortureIsWrong is only offensive to Jack Bauer, these guys, and maybe these knuckleheads. Is anyone here really saying they are offended by the notion that torture is wrong (And if so, Please state your adamant support for torture), or is this simply some point based exercise in rules use? ThuranX 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's the latter, beyond any question. Of course, I invited this action myself during a debate over another name, and it is playing out just as I knew it would. Chairboy's reference to the spirit of the rules would prevail in most cases, but I suspect it won't here. I respect ShenMe's recusal, and wonder why that path wasn't taken by one or two others - High, in particular.TortureIsWrong 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • ThuranX, by your logic we would allow "I Dont Like Child Molesters", but we have a policy that does not allow even referring to certain things like sexual acts or acts of violence. If you want to change policy please use WT:U, but it is very clear that the list if items are one's already found to be offensive by consensus. InBC 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • So you support torture? This screen name isn't offensive. This is probably a retort to the Fenian Swine above ,that TIW got involved in. The name's not offensive, my vote stands, and yes, i think ' I dont like Child Molesters' is a fine name too. Should We block 'MeatIsMurder', because it's a political statement, and has the word murder, despite the fact the user might just a fan of The Smiths? How far does this go too we're all wearing nerf gloves on our fingers because one person once got, or so we heard through a friend of a friend, carpal tunnel from too much wiki anality? ThuranX 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per HighInBC above and per user's remark, "I was waiting for this. Hilarious." Tom Harrison 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow - WHile I feel this user may have some civility issues, I feel that a RFCN is not the appropriate venue to address such issues. IF I am correct, this is the second RFCN (meaning they have changed there name once, and been involved in the community for a little while). It is not like this name just popped up. THis user has been involved at RFCN, and i feel that this nomination may be to make a point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    The point of the nomination is simply that the username violates policy, as stated in the nom. RJASE1 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My name is meant to make the point it makes, and not to make a point about Misplaced Pages. It was only after reading some of the recent debates here - especially the one over the "I Don't Like Child Molestors" name - that I realized it was only a matter of time before the Pharasaic (love it!) approach was aimed at this name, too. TortureIsWrong 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Chrislk02, you have made no mention of the issue of the name violating policy. Your "strong allow" does not address the issue we are discussing. If RJASE did not nominate this one I would have, not to make a point, but because it violated policy. InBC 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, ok, here I go in mention of the policy. First off, I only see to poosible ones it violates (sure, I pay attention to the nom but when a name comes here, i go straight to WP:U and make my own decision. FIrst off, "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view." I personally do not see this as an inflamatory point of view. The other one, "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)." FIrst off, this does not promote it, so the only question is refer to. I see this as refering to the opposite of torture. I think it is obvious that it is a stretch that this name violates policy and agree with others above that this may border on a WP:POINTnomination. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So what was taking you so long? If it so obviously violates policy, why didn't you nominate it right away? Here's a hint - if it takes a devoted policy fanatic a month to realize it violates policy, maybe it actually doesn't. TortureIsWrong 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Simple reference to violent real-world actions is only one part of the question. Is it potentially inflammatory or does it disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia as well? As far as I can see, this name is akin to User:CrimeDoesNotPay: while this phrase is polemical, I don't see it it disrupting, distracting, or having any potential to be inflamitory. ~CS 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Borderline Allow: There are no possible real life good connotations with the examples provided in WP:U#Violence (terrorism, organized crime). There are possible good connotations for torture (metaphorically, in poetry, "sweet tortures" etc). Hardly comparable with "child molesting" (!!), and definitely less insulting for everyone. I'd parallel this with the JesusFreak series vs the iPodfreak above. CS42 right above made a very good point. NikoSilver 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My example was certainly not evoking WP:WAX. I was evoking WP:STRAW ;). ~CS 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest rename to User:TortureIsUsuallyConsideredWrongButSomePersonsWithAlternateButLegitimateMoralValuesMayDisagree. --BigDT 21:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow, I see no clause in WP:U that disallows such a username. And if it's not disallowed, it is by default allowed. Aecis 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Allow. I came here because I'm a (third) party to the "Fenian" dispute above. But the notion that "Torture is wrong" could offend ANYONE is bizarre. A reference to "real world violent actions"? This is real Angels-on-the-Pinhead stuff! What ever happened to the right to offend (aka FREE SPEECH)? This is PC insanity. no, not even remotely PC thinking of the current case - just insanity! (Sarah777 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Allow. Not inflammatory. Abeg92contribs 23:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak allow and block user for disruption for the above comments. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but block for disruption, as above. User's last name was disallowed here, and he seems to be engaging in a little WP:POINTyness and general disruption over it. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Dismiss - Although this user participates in discussion everyday, procedure clearly states "Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Misplaced Pages:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight." No efforts have been made to discuss with this long standing user concerns about his username on his talk page. Therefore, TortureIsWrong should not be dragged through this process since he hasn't had ample time to express his own concerns. If it is impossible to to dismiss this RFCN, then my opinion is that this username should be allowed. WP:U#Violence regards inappropriate usernames as "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)". TortureIsWrong does not, I repeat not, promote violent real-world actions. His username is a denunciation of a violent act, it represents an opinion held by many common-sensed people around the world. If we disallow this username, we're sending the wrong message that torture is perfectly acceptable among the Wikipedian population at large.--Ed 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    The user is perfectly aware of username policy, as they have been through this process before. RJASE1 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    What "they" are you referring to??? There is no "they" here. Also, no matter how often this user has participated in this forum, that is not an excuse to breach procedure and not express one's own concerns with him on his talk page.--Ed 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    "They" is used as an alternative to "he" or "she", I don't know the user's gender since they can't be bothered to create a userpage. RJASE1 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also, nobody said this username promotes torture, simply that it refers to it. That's enough. RJASE1 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer Please remember when closing this that the policy says that names that simply refer to a violent act are not allowed. Any argument that does not accept this should not be given full wieght. If people want to alter policy, do it on the policy discussion page. Torture is a heavy subject, and can be as offensive as "slicing eyeballs is not cool" to people who have gone through it. InBC 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think he is reminding the closer to ignore the arguments that don't come from actual policy. The Behnam 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's been a little too much policy-ignoring around here lately, I agree closing admins should be reminded. RJASE1 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No matter how many times we refer users to WP:U, the general population will interpret the disallow voters as users who are in favor of torture. Face it, the general public doesn't give a shit about policy, all they care about is common sense and the moral side of things.--Ed 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Neither administrators nor bureaucrats are "ranks", they're simply trusted editors with different technical capabilities. The important part is that we trust them, not that that they "outrank" other users. Leebo /C 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As HighInBC stated earler, even bureaucrats aren't above following policy. This one may have been unaware of WP:U#Violence. RJASE1 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Torture means to inflict severe pain or suffering with the hope of achieving some end, be it a confession, or punishment, or coercion. It can be mental or physical, but it's clearly abusive even if it isn't physically violent. My question is of whether or not having the word "torture" is enough. Would User:HomeworkIsTorture be disallowed? I can't imagine it would be in that sense. The only thing I see it doing is showcasing a strong view point. Leebo /C 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the username homeworkistorture is an excellent example. Would that username be disallowed? I beieve that torture does not always equal violence. I feel a strong effort by the other side to get all allow nominations discounted because they do not take policy into account. I strong believe that torture does not always equal violence and is therefore not a violation of policy. Similarly, i believe it would be innapropriate to discount other allow nominations because somebody feels it does not agree with policy, when in fact the argument may take polcy into account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So, you do agree that the word torture can be ambigous when being used to define violence? If it would be possible to qualify it by saying, "homework is torture", then the term torture must not have such strong ties to violence that all instances of it should be disallowed. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course. People also use "torture" to define gym workouts or visits from their mothers-in-law. Using the policy mantra to ban such a word is pure intellectual laziness. TortureIsWrong 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Homework is torture" can only make sense if you use the pop-culture version of "torture" (to be difficult). TortureIsWrong is different - using other meanings of torture makes no sense. Having difficulty with something is wrong? I'm sure if that's what the user intended to say, there are much better ways to do it. That covers "assume good faith/assume good faith even flying 300mph into the face of common sense) However, in the extreme likelyhood the user means torture as in the military definition, that is expressing a POV. Though I suspect few would disagree, the recent Guantanamo Bay accusations of torture could make this username seem to be expressing an anti-administration viewpoint. Regardless of that, it's still a point of view. -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)