Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangojuice (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 27 March 2007 (→‎{{user|Darth cheney}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

Do NOT post here if:

  • the user in question has made no recent edits.
  • you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

  • has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
  • has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
  • is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

Demsaredonkeys (talk · contribs)

I had some doubts about sending this one here, but the user has not replied to my concerns about the name. Yes, I understand that the donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party (United States); however, given the user's POV-laden contributions so far, the username seems intended to insult - Donkey#Insult and vulgarity. RJASE1 Talk 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not seeing the insult, lots of barnyard animals are insults. I don't see how this is political. If the user's contributions are an issue then that is another issue for another place. Oh, I see it, I was thinking D'em(as in them), not Dems(as in democrats), not sure yet.. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Calling democrats donkeys, if that is even what it means, does not seem to be an insult to me as it is their symbol. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mexican" is a nationality, not a race. And a snake-eating bird is the official symbol of Mexico, on its coat of arms and its flag. If you claim that's a "slur", how can you deny that calling Democrats "donkeys" is a slur? -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disruptive POINT goes back to saying Democrats can be called by the party symbol, for which you explicitly changed the word "Donkey" to "Ass", thus stressing that "Dems are donkeys" conveys "Dems are asses" -- inflammatory, yes. "Straw man nature"? No such thing. "Changing a political affiliation with an ethnicity"? No, "Mexican" isn't an ethnicity, it's a nationality, which is another kind of "political affiliation" -- because both nations and parties are political entities. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the beef with Mexican snake-eaters? While I agree that's slightly crossing the line, the eagle eating the snake is an Aztec symbol that is part of Mexican culture. It's a part of their heritage that they choose to portray by putting it on their flag. bibliomaniac15 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where the issue is "what a name means", context can make a difference. And please don't sign with a template. -- Ben TALK/HIST
  • It is easy to observe that there is a very strong correlation between username and user conduct. Allowing partisan usernames tells users that Wikipedia accepts partisan conduct - which we do, actually, but are not supposed to. Names like this sow distrust and discord, and discredit the editors who take them. Upholding some basic standards here is a good way of improving the atmosphere, and helping new editors help themselves by steering clear of very pointless controversy.Proabivouac 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben TALK/HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I wouldn't. We're not talking about a nationality here, but I'm changing to weak allow. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're talking about group membership, and whether the symbol for the group can be justly applied to the separate members as describing each of them. That's the fallacy of division, applying a property of the group to its members, like "snow is deep and heavy, therefore snowflakes are deep and heavy". We're talking about why suddenly so many separate contributors here have embraced that same blatant fallacy -- that members of a group can be described as each being the thing that is shown on their group's symbol -- the Mexican coat of arms shows a snake-eating bird, therefore "Mexicans are snake-eaters"; the U.S. Democratic Party's symbol is a donkey, therefore "Dems are donkeys". It's quite literally an incredible argument, and even credulous I, who will credit almost any halfway credible reason, can't credit this. -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donkey is a not-so-subtle play on the pejorative use of "ass," while "elephant" has no common pejorative connotation, but even so, we shouldn't allow it. What benefit does it bring to the encyclopedia if users are allowed to include political statements or references in their usernames?Proabivouac 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow, per WP:U, specifically: Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Regardless of whether or not this is about Democrats it could be seen as a sort of attack. I also agree with Ben about the symbol. You don't call people by their groups' symbols. Mexicans aren't snake-eating birds, Iranians aren't tulips, and Democrats aren't donkeys. The Behnam 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Unlike the Mexicans are snake eaters example, the donkey is a well-known, neutral symbol of the Democratic party widely used in political cartoons and other literature. The user's POV does seem to leak through, and it's hard to say what benefit to the encyclopedia this name brings, but I think we may be getting a bit oversensitive about slightly colorful usernames. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike the Mexicans... example, the donkey is a well-known neutral symbol" ??? -- Go look at the Mexican coat of arms and the Flag of Mexico, SpuriousQ, or wait until Cinco de Mayo (May 5) and look closely at the flags being displayed and waved that day: the snake-eating bird is also a well-known symbol for Mexico, not merely "neutral" but official, cherished, and with a deeply meaningful traditional significance, going back to the founding of Tenochtitlan, long before the site became Mexico City, more than a century before Europeans even arrived in the "New World", and a long long time before Thomas Nast drew his satirical, ridiculing cartoons. -- Ben TALK/HIST 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "How is the intent obvious? Democrats are donkeys. Period. Its the same as saying Republicans are Elephants. And what does ChristiansEatJesus have to do with it? That doesn't make sense. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"
      • IT makes plenty of sense. Christians eating "the body of Christ" is a key symbol in Christianity, as the donkey is used as a symbol for Democrats, for whatever long-forgotten reason. But at the current time in our culture "donkey" has a "negative" connotation, as does "eating," but "elephants," by happenstance, does not. Language is a fluid device. TortureIsWrong 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The username Demsaredonkeys isn't directly stating that democrats are losers or that they are asses. Instead of trying to figure out what the user means by this name, why doesn't someone ask the user what he means by it? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow Intent seems to be to insult and disrupt. IronDuke 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow Appears that it can be perceived as offensive. Kukini hablame aqui 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to !vote, because I think people will see either simple statement Democrats=Donkeys or Republicans=Elephants as inflammatory, which is sad. (OMG: large, stomp on things, gray, loud and stink - that's bad). But as a thought experiment, what about DemocratsTakeBlues or RepublicansAreReds. Is it likely that someone will see these as 'bad'. Yes (sigh). So do we then have the situation that no one can use a political affiliation name as part of a username? Seeing the above, I'm afraid so. Do I hear a second? Shenme 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excerpts from WP:USERNAME: The username is not a tool to be offensive or make a statement. ... Please pick a username that helps us to write an encyclopedia. That means picking a name that you're comfortable writing under, but it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. Remember that a controversial name may color other users' perspective on your own credibility or political viewpoint. ... Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of politicians, military or religious figures, movements, or events, as well as any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure. ... Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. ... Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames. 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 are recognised as slurs or insults. ... Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. ... In particular, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia. [end of excerpts] Whether this name is controversial or inflammatory, I think this debate has answered by demonstration. The name is not merely "potentially offensive", it already actually has offended. The "line" mentioned above has been drawn. -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one and this one make me laugh. The one with the line, "whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?" is good for a chuckle too. (→Netscott) 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have linked to http://www.cafepress.com (a commercial T-shirt site) rather than http://www.democrats.org (the Democratic Party site). Where do "the Democratic party refer[] to themselves as donkeys" (plural), let alone "campaign as donkeys"? Having an animal symbolize a group does not mean the members "refer to themselves" as being members of that animal species. An eagle is on the symbol for the USA; I have yet to hear American citizens in general being called "eagles" or referring to themselves as such. There are sports teams that use such designations, but certainly not the USA population as a whole. -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the website you just linked! The article on McCain has an image of an elephant on it! If they are representing the Republicans as Elephants, then they must view themselves in some ways as donkeys. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to repeat myself, but having an image of an animal as a symbol for a party is not the same as saying that any or all members of that party are members of that animal species. Kindly point to where the Democratic Party website says that McCain or any other Republican "is an elephant", or says "Republicans are elephants". -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first cite is from "A blog written by a thirteen year old girl" (its actual title); your second cite is also from some sort of blog (a comment by "SandyH" referring to the Democratic Party as a whole, not to its members); your third cite, dare I guess in advance, why yes, it is once again a blog, and this time the post is from a seller of political buttons, whose icon or avatar is apparently a laughing donkey, just as the Pillsbury icon or avatar is the "Doughboy" -- and in both cases this isn't applying the term to any actual human being or group thereof, it's basically a company logo. Impressive citations, these blogs; it's a pity that none of the quotes are even alleged to be by the Democratic Party or its spokesmen, and that the only one actually self-applying the term "donkey" is from that 13-year-old girl's blog. Tell me, do you use citations like this in actual articles? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Johnson, as stated above. Read WP:AGF. Also, the name is not inflammatory. What would you do if the user name Republicansareelephants came up? Its the same situation. Its not like the user is saying "democrats are asses." Its stating the fact that the donkey is usually seen as a symbol of the Democratic Party. I could debate this forever, but we should get this user name finished up soon. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The www.democrats.org site clearly states that the Democratic Party has never officially adopted the donkey as its mascot. The Why I am a donkey and not an elephant is a blog posting (not an official Democratic party stance) and is attributed to a 13 year old. It is clear that a number of people here — declared Republicans and undeclared folks find this username to be offensive. — ERcheck (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow Context is everything. While "Donkeys Are A Democratic Mascot" or "Republicans Are Pachyderms" are not in and of themselves insults, the editor clearly chose to name the account "Democrats are donkeys" while only engaging in adding POV statements promoting a specific branch of Republican ideology. We shouldn't be willfully obtuse -- claiming this maybekindacould mean something different -- when the intent as a polemical insult is clear. ~CS 04:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow I mean, Dems really are donkeys in the cartoons. That's good enough for me. YechielMan 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow. It is truly an unreasonable stretch of AGF to imagine that the intent was anything else but to offend. ~CS, two comments above, shows this in brief, and Ben has argued it well in detail. As to the argument that "Democrats are donkeys. Period", this is actually quite false. The donkey is the symbol of the party itself, as an entity,[2] but not a symbol of individual members. That issue is nevertheless subordinate to the intent of offense, which renders this username a toy, that should be taken away. — coelacan — 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=SebWill= (talk · contribs)

have we outlawed the use of equal signs? If so, I have no problem retracting this. By the way, this user has already been blocked by betacommand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No; there was a short-lived addition to WP:U which didn't survive, lacking consensus. The debate is still visible in the WT:U history. (2) I've put a {{subst:UsernameNotice|1==SebWill=}} on User talk:Betacommand; this is a courtesy notice to a blocking admin that the username block is being discussed. Please do likewise in future. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these users were blocked before the 1= variable was added to user templates to avoid breaking them. But I blocked = usernames due to the fact that they broke templates Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, using "1=" in templates has always worked. --Conti|✉ 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "1= variable" was not added to templates, it's an inherent part of template syntax. I only added (and documented) a named variable "User=" for those who find words easier to remember than numbers, at the excellent suggestion of VectorPotential, who also pointed out that using "1=" was already documented as the standard way to handle values containing equal signs: see Help:Template#Equals sign in parameter value. You blocked who-knows-how-many usernames for having equal signs, when the only problem was that you hadn't Read The Fantastic Manual. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Keep it cool, ladies and gents. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it is still a misleading/confusing use of characters, so block all of the = people. The Behnam 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how did either "=SebWill=" or "E=MC^2" mislead or confuse you or anyone else? -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per the precedent set by =fjf6756. AecisBrievenbus 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per Aecis. // DecaimientoPoético 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow although I fully understand the concerns raised above, there's a couple of points I'd like to make. 1) We don't set precedents, each name that comes here starts afresh. 2)It has already been shown that the = sign can easily be worked around by adding 1= to templates, laziness of established editors should not be a reason to disallow a name Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in another RFCN, precedents can be a pain in the arse, but randomness and arbitrariness are imo a lot worse. Either we block all users with equal signs, or we block none. We don't allow some and disallow others depending on the input of the discussion. And regarding your second point: how many established editors does Wikipedia have? And how many occasional viewers/readers/editors does Wikipedia have? The key question is whether the equal sign can cause technical confusion among reasonable editors, not among established editors. The latter should perhaps know better, the former cannot always be blamed for confusion. AecisBrievenbus 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow-It seems it only looks strange in the address bar. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - While it can be worked around, is likely to cause problems if less technically-skilled editors need to deal with this person. If they want equals signs, they can just use a fancy signature. —dgiestc 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Between the inconvenience of requiring an equal-sign-loving editor to use a signature template and the inconvenience of requiring everyone else in the project to futz with workarounds to accommodate the software's dislike of equal-signs in usernames, the cost-benefit analysis seems straightforward. Just as a matter of WP:CIVIL, one shouldn't have an equal-sign in the username. -- TedFrank 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, since there's no real technical problem here. It also isn't a "workaround" to use "1=" in such cases, it's the way it's supposed to be done in the first place. Anyways, these templates aren't vital or anything, oldskool stuff like wikilinking works, too. User talk:=SebWill=! See? --Conti|✉ 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are we discussing this? He's been blocked for a month. There is very little chance that the user hasn't registered a different username by now if he still wanted to edit, and all around there is even less of a chance that he'll ever notice that this took place or that the name was unblocked. If the editor cared at all he would have posted on his talk page by now. Are we going to review the block of everyone ever blocked under a particular part of the username policy every single time we change it or our interpretation of it? This seems like a complete waste of time.--Dycedarg ж 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's being discussed for principal, whether or not the users coming back, why should an accound stay blocked if it shouldn't have been? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no users have been blocked for this reason in a month, than it's not a current problem and thus a discussion about the principal is not necessary. If a user gets blocked for this in the future we can discuss it then. As for whether or not an account blocked for an invalid reason should remain blocked: There is no reason why it should. Conversely, there is no reason why it shouldn't. The user has almost without question either created an account or decided not to join Wikipedia at all by now. And if he has a new account, he'd have to usurp this one anyway to keep his contributions, and a block doesn't prevent that.--Dycedarg ж 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So by your principal it's ok for an invalid block to remain? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the case of a month old username block:Absolutely. There's a reason we have unblock templates and usurpation. If a user is blocked for having an improper username, and later discovers that the reasoning behind the block was flawed or has been superseded by a new policy, than he can request an unblock or can usurp if he's already made a new account. But very few random people who've had an old username blocked within minutes of making it for a username violation are going to assume there's the slightest possibility that it will be unblocked; they aren't going to check back and unblocking them accomplishes nothing. If anyone wants to go through Betacommand's block logs searching for more usernames containing an "=" to unblock than by all means do so, I just don't see any compelling reason to do so. And I see absolutely no reason why we should be reviewing this particular block. If you want to have a discussion about principle, there are talkpages for doing so, but I see no purpose for cluttering up this page for this kind of a discussion if there is no foreseeable benefit to be had.--Dycedarg ж 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, we obviously differ on opinions then Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-This account was blocked in February. The user probably already created a new account, and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't even know about this and if he gets unblocked because he doesn't have e-mail enabled. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. The precedent cited was a random slur of symbols, but this one doesn't have very much randomness in it. Don't see any reason not to allow. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow This name does not violate policy. If you think ='s should not be allowed then argue on the policy talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messssssssa (talk · contribs)

Rejected at WP:AIV, but seems a pretty straightforward application of the Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character rule -- TedFrank 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just for future reference, what is "too extended"? Messsssssssa? Messsssssssssa? Messsssssssssa? My rule of thumb would be anything that isn't immediately apparent to the eye and requires taking a few seconds to count, so I'd draw the line as anything longer than Messsssa. -- TedFrank 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this username "is going to be hard for users to remember in the future", as you say it is, this is a confusing use of characters, which is not allowed per WP:U. AecisBrievenbus 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment-This account was blocked in February. The user probably already created a new account, and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't even know about this and if he gets unblocked because he doesn't have e-mail enabled. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Dycedarg, this is a time for WP:DNFT. The Behnam 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That makes me laugh. :-) (→Netscott) 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomomma23 (talk · contribs)

Probably inflammatory as it references to "yo momma" style insults. Insults are not allowed as usernames, so a username referencing insults seems borderline at best. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Disallow - Oh yeah, apologetic speculation does not make the user name any better. The Behnam 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at yo. It could go either way. It is just a matter of what the user means by it . Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Allow Per WP:AGF. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I bother. I don't know how many different times and ways I can emphasize that we are supposed to stop reasonable offensive meanings, not preserve them based upon silly apologetic speculation. It doesn't matter whether or not the user made it in good faith. And I don't know where you all are from, but I have seen 'yomomma' be used as an insult by itself, amongst other things. I don't know why people go through such efforts to keep these obviously bad usernames. The Behnam 15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow This isn't an insult. It's a reference to a kind of insult. It's not the same thing. Yomamma is a retort, and I find it difficult to come up with a set of circumstances where someone would take offense at having someone randomly say it to them without any context. I don't see how this could be inflammatory.--Dycedarg ж 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're actually suggesting that I don't know what the phrase refers to? The vast majority of that article discusses how "Your mom" and variants are used as insults when combined with something. The part of it that states that it is an insult when out of context is unsourced; you're going to have to quote me something better than an unsourced paragraph of a Wikipedia article that could very well be one person's personal experience if you're going to expect me to take your word for it. I have never encountered anyone who was seriously insulted by the statement "yo mamma" without context, and while that isn't a firm basis for believing that it isn't an insult, without firm basis for believing that it is an insult and no logical reason as to why anyone would take offense I am not voting to disallow this name.--Dycedarg ж 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read it, reconsidered, and my analysis is unchanged. Just saying "yo mamma" should not, without more, offend any reasonable person, except prehaps a grammarian, who might become upset at the lack of a verb and an object in that sentence fragment. I did notice that the mother insult article references a television show named Yo Momma. Deosn't that suggest that it's inoffensive? A network wouldn't name a television show something calculated to offend its viewership, would it? Coemgenus 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I cite it to prove that the first two words of an insult, without more, are inoffensive. If the contestants on the show had simply repeated the words "yo momma" to each other, would anyone be insulted? The insult is in what follows, as in "Yo mamma's like a hardware store; five cents a screw." You see? The insult is in the appended description of the person's mamma. Without that, it's just a sentence fragment.Coemgenus 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A show about insults, entirely based on insults, whose whole raison d'être is insults, is titled by an insult, one that can readily start a fight, and this proves it isn't an insult at all? Somehow you skipped over the part about ...the phrase "yo mama" by itself, without any qualifiers, has become commonly used as an all-purpose insult... ? -- Ben TALK/HIST 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we'll agree to disagree. I stand by my "allow". Coemgenus 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth cheney (talk · contribs)

This user name appears to be intended to attack Dick Cheney by comparing him to Darth Vader. While not an attack account, it's still defamatory. —dgiestc 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if this wasn't a reference to the VP it could still be an attack on anyone else named Cheney. The Behnam 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see ways that it could be sort of an accepted nickname, but to be on the safe side let's not make assumptions about what Cheney would think of it. I think it is a funny reference to the VP but it doesn't work under WP:U. The Behnam 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I think is the fundamental problem with this RFCN. it does not say darth DICK Cheney. If it did, i would be against it. The fact is, it just says darth cheney. There are many many many people with that name. Making the assumption that because 1 famous person has that surname, that it must refer to them is a leap of bad faith. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who like Cheney (if they exist) can get offended by this and don't like being too literal by complaining that there is no inclusion of Dick. If there was these same people would say that it doesn't necessarily refer to the same person as the VP. Soon we'd allow all sorts of insult/attack name in because of silliness. That is why I disagree with the 'apologetic' approach taken by some users here and I wish this place would become much stricter. The Behnam 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this one is a clear attack name in my view. Assume good faith does not mean ignore the obvious. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. It's almost certainly a reference to Dick Cheney, but it can't seriously be called "defamatory". Do you really think the Vice President would be offended by this? Pick your favorite political figure and place the word "Darth" in front of his last name. Offended? Neither am I. The name is stupid, but inoffensive. Coemgenus 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names that attack people are against policy, you cannot just say how the VP will feel about it and say it is okay. Putting Darth in front of a persons name is a star warzy way of calling somebody evil. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to drift too far from the subject, I keep imagining Dick saying "Luke, I am your father" in a really creepy voice. But, I digress... Darth is the starwars 'Hitler'. And I believe this would godwin the discussion. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, aren't we getting a little carried away? TIW, please keep it Civil. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admnst (talk · contribs)

Seems to be an obvious violation of WP:U, probably referring to adminstrator. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 07:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do that. You're not allowed to templatize your sig. See WP:SIG. I'll try to shorten it though.--KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? --KZ Talk • Contrib 09:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the word "administrator" abbreviated as "admnst". There isn't a single job advert in this country which does so. That's why it is non-standard. I don't know why you take such an aggressive and cynical tone. Sam Blacketer 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In this country"? Sam, how do I put this gently? Wikipedia isn't just "in this country", whichever "this country" happens to be when anyone says that. Are you saying you don't live in the UK? Because Jobs of Business and Administration in UK is linked by "Business & Admnst." -- Ben TALK/HIST 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site you link to is, as I read it, an American site for Americans seeking jobs in the UK. Can I say I do not appreciate the atmosphere of confrontation in which this debate is taking place? One shouldn't have to "put things gently" because this only needs doing when others have not been gentle. Sam Blacketer 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Sam, what are you saying in your 14:31 comment? No UK reader will see "Admnst" as an abbreviation for "Administrator"? That's nice to know, but it doesn't relieve the problem for those paltry few dozen Americans on Wikipedia, when American job adverts do use that abbreviation and therefore it's quite likely that at least some Americans will read it that way. -- Ben TALK/HIST 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some abbreviations are desperately in need of context (FSH GSOH) else if you did not know the general area whould not know where the sign for B'mth would lead you. Agathoclea 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow I was actually about to say Allow, but I just ran a Google search and it does seem in fact to be in common use as an abbreviation for Administrator or Administration. As such, there is a good chance for confusion, even if the user did not intend for this. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak allow, I don't see this being confused as anything official, however, I can't help but question the motive of the user. I would still encourage the user to change his name to something a bit more 'unique'. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to agree that the name does violate policy. However, policy was also violated when the user was not asked to change their name before being reported here. Policy was violated again when this discussion was started without notifying the user. The user was not made aware of this discussion until I did so just before this post, several hours after the discussion was started. If we are going to use policy to block users we should at the very least follow it ourselves. --DSRH |talk 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • aaaaaghhh... *thud* Let's table this for a day and give the user a chance to respond. We shouldn't have even begun this process until he or she had been directly notified of the problem, had had time to respond, and had either not done so or refused to change names -- since he or she might not have refused, in which case all this would be unnecessary.

    As the instructions at the top of WP:RFCN say, before listing a username for comments, please make your concern known to the user, and give him or her a chance to respond first. That may resolve the issue without anyone else getting involved. Only if that direct approach fails to settle matters, one way or the other, go to WP:RFCN and at the same time notify the user that you are doing so, giving him or her a chance to respond there as well. Otherwise it comes off as going behind the user's back, an impression I'm sure no-one here wants to give.

    The RFCN instructions list some helpful templates for these user contacts, if you're not entirely sure how to say things diplomatically. You don't have to use them, but if they even suggest ways you could phrase your own message, they've served their purpose. -- Ben TALK/HIST 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=118342818"