Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy/archive

I'm told this is the appropriate place to complain about inflammatory usernames. Under our no offensive usernames policy, the following user accounts should be disabled:


 * 1) Always gods child
 * 2) Child of God
 * 3) CrucifiedChrist (see also specific discussion at Requests for comment/CrucifiedChrist)
 * 4) Crusty Ass
 * 5) Eminem is god
 * 6) Fuck
 * 7) Fuck You
 * 8) Fuck2
 * 9) FuckAmerika
 * 10) FuckMenchi
 * 11) Fucking Asshole
 * 12) FuckingFucker
 * 13) Fuckstick
 * 14) Fuqnbastard
 * 15) God
 * 16) Godisgood
 * 17) Godisnowhere
 * 18) Jesus
 * 19) Jesus Chirst
 * 20) Jesus Christ
 * 21) Jesus Saves!
 * 22) Jesus is Lord
 * 23) Jesus is a controversial word
 * 24) Jesus is a fudgepacker!
 * 25) Jesus is so much cooler than Brahma
 * 26) JesusCantSave
 * 27) JesusChrist
 * 28) ManofGod
 * 29) NoLordButJesus
 * 30) Satan
 * 31) Satan is our Saviour!
 * 32) Sum' D-Block Muthafucka
 * 33) There is no God
 * 34) Wrath-Of-God

I haven't linked to the user pages because everything you need to know about them is on this page. May I suggest changing the relevant passwords to some random string? That way they won't have their IPs blocked next time they try to log in. -- Tim Starling 02:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely support that. -- BCorr € &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 02:58, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * No objection, though it would be better if there was a way of blocking a username without blocking their IP so that if any of these users ever try to log in again, they will see the reason for the blocking, rather than being confused by a changed password. Angela. 03:11, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some more spotted by Pakaran are listed below. -- Tim Starling 04:27, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) PhatJew
 * 2) Cumguzzler
 * 3) Cockgoblin
 * 4) Illiterate Cow
 * 5) Nutsack
 * 6) Fragrant feces

Some more offensive usernames.


 * 1) User:Jengod -- Offensive: contains the word "God" in it.
 * 2) User:Hephaestos -- Offensive: a tribute to a pagan god (Hephaestos).
 * 3) User:Stewartadcock -- Offensive: contains the word cock. There is a precedent: User:TMC.
 * 4) More: See Offensive User Names Havers Club

Some of the names listed don't seem to me to be offensive. Is having a name of a religious nature ("Godisgood" for example) necessarilly offensive? Is there a policy in this regard? Sam Spade 05:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * from what I read here it is reccomended against, but not against policy. I can't see how such a name would be inflamatory or offensive, which would be. Sam Spade 05:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * We went through all this before. There was a long discussion, and a consensus was reached. If the policy page hasn't been updated fully, then the policy page is at fault. See User talk:Jesus is Lord! and User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange. It's got nothing to do with whether you personally find a name offensive, the question is whether some significant minority will find it offensive. -- Tim Starling 13:21, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Its clear to me that the vote you cite favors my position, not yours. I ask again, where is there evidence of any signifigant minority feeling this name is so offensive as to force a change of name? Sam Spade 04:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to change offensive names to something inoffensive. That removes the name from the page history. Martin 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd rather that the names be changed. Perl 23:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done since the presence of these names paints the project in a bad light. Perhaps they could all be changed to something like User:NameWithheld, especially if the number of edits is few. UninvitedCompany 21:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Jengod, Stewartadcock are from actual names. Nothing offensive there. Dori | Talk 18:21, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

A few more:
 * 1) CrapBeater
 * 2) Allah is great
 * 3) Olga Bityerkokoff

Dori | Talk 18:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

And:

Secretlondon 18:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Sex
 * 2) Rothwellisretarded

And:
 * 1) User:Paki (racist term in the UK)

fabiform | talk 18:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We have had this page up in one form or another for almost a month. Since there appear to be no serious reservations about dealing with the clear-cut cases, and particularly since many of these are not regular contributors to the project, let's take action. Can we just delete the accounts, or do we want to go through and re-attribute the edits, first, to something neutral like "no longer a Wikipedian" or "name withheld"? And are we going to delete the user pages, or not? UninvitedCompany 23:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that those which are obviously offensive should be changed, or banned, or what-have-you, but I also want it very clear that there is no concensus about religious names which are clearly not universally offensive, like god is good, or allah is great, or whatever. Sam Spade 23:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Rather than re-open that debate at this time, it may be wisest to remove those user names that are, as you say, obviously offensive, and perhaps also any marginal cases that appear to have been created for trolling or shock value; that is, those without meaningful edits. Once that is done, the remaining names can be dealt with in a more leisurely fashion, or perhaps not at all.  UninvitedCompany 23:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of the names listed on this page are clearly offensive and obviously intended as such. Some ot the arguments against other names lean toward absurdity.  I think it would be worthwhile for everybody to read "The Death of Common Sense" (as for the ISBN, I dunno, my copy is either in storage or loaned out, but as Yogi Berra often said, "You could look it up").  As to the policy "Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of religious figures", for Pete's sake, gazillions of people are named after religious figures.  Get real!  And for the one about how "Paki" is offensive somewhere, lots of things are offensive somewhere, and SO WHAT?  Example:  "Omaha" means "piss" in Tahitian.  If someone wants to call himself Paki, that's not at all the same as one person tossing it as an epithet at another.  ;Bear 05:26, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * Pardon? I live in the UK, we speak English, this is the English language wikipedia.  In case anyone else is wondering if this word really is offensive: "In research, 50% or more people said the words that should never be broadcast are cunt, motherfucker, nigger, Paki and spastic" [research carried out by the BBC and various broadcasting watchdogs].  I doubt people would defend any of those other words used as a username.  fabiform | talk 10:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll accept that -- but one comment: things change, keep that in the back of your mind. In particular, about the word "spastic": forty years ago I had a small British auto, and I recall that printed on something that came with or was about it, in one corner of the cover (or an early page inside) there was this "public-service announcement" thing: a drawing of a hand holding  a flower, with the legend "Help Spastics". ;Bear 04:32, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

I disagree with a policy condemning all names which carry any religious significance. Specifically, I think objections to Jengod, Hephaestos, and Stewartadcock are unfounded and ridiculous. I do agree, however, that names containing profanity or racial slurs should be deleted. There is a clear difference between names which are intended to offend ("Fuck You") and names which simply contain some religious reference ("Child of God" or "Godisgood"). The latter should not be deleted. If you find "CrucifiedChrist" to be offensive, you are free to politely request a username change on his/her Talk page; but I disagree with a policy which forces deletion of those names. My two cents... Cribnotes 05:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with a name like "CrucifiedChrist" is that it puts other people in the position having write things like, "CrucifiedChrist, your writing is inappropriate and laced with profanity" or "CrucifiedChrist, I disagree with your edit on the Mormonism article" or something. I can see where that may be uncomfortable for some Christians. - Nat Krause 07:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't. The truth is it isn't Christians who have been suggesting his name to be offensive, but rather others suggesting that someone else might be offended. Clearly nobody is offended by Hephaestos's name (I have found him otherwise offensive, buts thats neither here nor there), and in my opinion anybody who is offended by CrucifiedChrist's name needs a long and intimate date with a bible. In summary I am intensely offended by people claiming to be offended by anything remotely holy, and UC is right, get rid of those who are offensive to all, and we can debate the "theoretically offensive to somebody" at a later date. Sam Spade 08:19, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam, that's absolute nonsense to suggest "it isn't Christians who have been suggesting his name to be offensive" as you don't know the religious views of those voting. Angela. 11:03, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

ok, then I will say that being offended by his name is unchristian. Sam Spade 11:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Christians could have very valid reasons for objecting to someone using the name "CrucifiedChrist"&mdash;something about not taking a certain name in vain springs to mind, and Cyan's comment about Matthew 6:5-6 (from User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange) is just as applicable to this username. &mdash;67.71.79.111 11:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we should split these up in an appropriate way, and I will do that tomorrow unless there are objections. UninvitedCompany 21:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is an encyclopedia, the objective is to write articles, not express yourself. There is no reason not to pick something low-key, as most editors do. There is no reason not to be aggressive in enforcing a username policy. If you want to express your views, do it on your user page, that's what it's for. In the article histories though, there is no reason for having POV/offensive/etc names. Dori | Talk 22:02, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I won't try to sway your opinion, but for the record: I do believe there is a reason not to be "aggressive" in policing usernames: Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones. Just my two cents... Cribnotes 19:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep any of these usernames (except Jengod, Hephaestos and Stewartadcock of course). I really wouldn't want to have to type out "Godisgreat" in order to reply to someone, or indeed "JesusCantSave". I agree with Dori, for most people it doesn't seem to be too difficult to pick an inoffensive username, there's no need to have names which stir up bad feeling or offend people. fabiform | talk 22:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * whatever, clearly we all have our own ideas about what is acceptable and what isn't I agree w UC about dealing w the ones we all agree about 1st, for example any w foul language. Sam Spade 22:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)