Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Fenian Swine

no consensus, defaulting to allow. I realize I'll probably receive some flaming for this, and I have my best asbestos clothing on for it, but a username cannot be blocked in the absence of consensus to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [view]


 * Note to the closing administrator: The user in question has attempted to skew consensus by commenting with a "sock puppet" (multiple user names)
 * The user was blocked for his name but wanted to present his opinion. He switched 2 letters and kept the same signature and was up front about it. Clearly not an attempt to skew. He was unblocked and resumed using the first account. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. He was unblocked prior to this RFCU opening, and after participating with his primary username, he proceeded to use his sock to skew consensus and advocate his username be kept, while referring to himself in the third person   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already made it clear that the other vote with Swenian Fine was a mistake and I requested that it be removed. You have of course ignored this request and tried to use it as evidence against me. Tut tut tut.--Play Brian Moore 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where have you made it clear that using a different username was a simple mistake on your part? Apologies, as I must have missed it.  In any case, it'd be good if you would remove the comments made by your sockpuppet on your own.  Cheers   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE:False Accustaions. The account was not set up as a sock puppet account. It was set up by myself(User:Fenian Swine) so I could argue my case. Remove Swenian Fines comment if you please. Cheers.--Play Brian Moore 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) is taken from the original argument and then it somehow ended up at the disussion page here. I will remove now so.--Play Brian Moore 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You were already unblocked before this RFCU began and you also used your primary username to participate before you chose to use your sock, as well  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a sockpuppet (yawns), I had set it up before I was unblocked to argue my case.--Play Brian Moore 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it is a bit late, innit? In any case, you logged into the other account to attempt to skew consensus during these proceedings after you were unblocked and after you had already participated with your primary username.   Oíche maith!   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The comments are gone now and I have explained what happened. You are attempting to argue comments that are gone now. Tog a bog é.--Play Brian Moore 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you removed the comments that you left with a sockpuppet after it was pointed out to you that using sockpuppets are disallowed in a consensus-building activity on Wikipedia. Sláinte   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a sockpupper.--Play Brian Moore 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was (a sockpuppet, of course, not a sockpupper).  Please see WP:SOCK   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see maturity is still policy at wiki. Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, it was set up while my other account was blocked. Therefore it was not a sockpuppet at all.--Play Brian Moore 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was (and is). The closing administrator with a good handle on policy will note this.   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed they will.--Play Brian Moore 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Talk  19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some users have expressed offence, which is I think why the sig was changed. The number is small, though. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 3 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. Allow as user predates the rule against "potentially inflamatory", it was only "inflamatory" then, so unless someone is actually offened this is a special case. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 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. CascadiaTALK 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral The users tenure causes me to rethink my position, however, I believe this is a case where if the user agrees to a compromise, then the chance for a block is avoided. CascadiaTALK 20:02, 2 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 allow almost everything, usually strongly, the fact is this is against policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that as well, TIW. We need to judge it by policy, not in a "fight the man" attitude. CascadiaTALK 19:50, 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  Conas tá tú? 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the use of "rantings" is a personal insult.  Of course that's the favorite sport in Galway. TortureIsWrong 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are ranting. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're high. So? TortureIsWrong 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure if this is relevant, but the user apparently transliterates his sig to something different. Also, since this is an established editor, I suggest we hold this open long enough for the user to comment. RJASE1 Talk  19:51, 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. — coe l acan — 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Disallow as the second blocking administrator and per my comments on ANI, which can be viewed in full here.  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Allow - I came across this vote because User talk:Fenian Swine‎; page is on my watchlist. Am I allowed vote here? (Sarah777 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, thank you for your input and welcome to RFCN. Ya might want to watch out for low flying disagreements, but in all it's a great way to put in your input into a decision. (statement of humor, please take it as such) CascadiaTALK 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can edit (almost) anything on Wikipedia! As this is not a vote, but a discussion, it would be nice to provide some reasoning, however.   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Without policy based reasoning your vote will carry little weight I am afraid. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow Username is provocative and borderline inflamatory; this has an unignorable potential to offend readers. G Donato (talk to me...) 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Allow. It would be nonsense to block the name of someone who contributes well towards this site. Whether you perceive me to be anything is just your own personal opinion, it means nothing. Should you chose to block the name, you will be losing a worthwhile member over something as silly as political correctness.--Play Brian Moore 20:28, 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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 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  Conas tá tú? 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". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 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)
 * Your argument does not seem to be based in policy. How is calling a national group "swine" not insulting? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So if a midwestern pig farmer called himself ArkansasSwine, we'd have to remove that too? I ask again. How far is this touchy-feely nonsense going to go on? If ANYONE is offended by a name, we can change it? Good. I am offended by ALL names at Wikipedia, and think EVERY SINGLE USER should pick a new name. Get over it. He went through this once, compromise was found, and he has continued to be a good editor. This is not article content, this is a User, a contributing PERSON, and should not be up for debate again and again. If you lose this time, will you just wait a month and do it again? He's stated here that if forced to change, he will leave. I wish him well, it's clear where this mess is going, and have little doubt that I'll be up here at some point for some trumped up reasons, like 'In this language I made up last thursday, and made a tenet of my new self-adhered religion, ThuranX means something I think is offensive, make him change it'. Once and done for user name issues. ThuranX 02:11, 2 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 comment was removed in this edit, restored to make discussion easier to follow in reading archive)
 * 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  Conas tá tú? 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.
 * Fenian Swine should be unblocked and allowed to contribute to this debate. Sam Blacketer 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Blacketer, he's already been unblocked and has used both names to skew consensus. I invite you to read this discussion more closely before participating again, so as to understand the full picture   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow - "often considered offensive and a sectarian insult." Tom Harrison Talk 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I assume you know that often does not mean all of the time, just a majority of the time. This is one of those occasions in the minority where it is not intended to offend.--Play Brian Moore 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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  Conas tá tú? 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. CascadiaTALK 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)
 * Read the article again, ShenMe. The term goes back much further than that, to Irish legend. TortureIsWrong 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, and this is more polite than received from FS. What I was trying to point out is that the background is not apparent, and if FS is as ready to misinterpret meanings and motives as illustrated, then it shouldn't be a surprise that people would err on the side of caution.  FS's own words are what convinced me that bad reactions should be guarded against.  Frankly, otherwise I'd've wanted to be neutral.  Shenme 22:25, 2 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 Talk  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)
 * You are now dealing with a far different group of people, many of which are not admins. Perhaps a further compromise of simply User:Fenian will make both sides happy. CascadiaTALK 21:57, 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  Conas tá tú? 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  Conas tá tú? 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  Conas tá tú? 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  ¿Cómo estás? 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)


 * Allow -I have been called a fenian many a time to which I happily reply yes I am -- Barry O'Brien   entretien  23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow, for the same reason that "Dirty N***er" would be an inappropriate username, even for an African-American editor. It's offensive a priori, why should it matter that it's being used "ironically"? - Merzbow 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not paying attention. "Fenian" is not the same as the N word because it had a long and positive history as a word in Ireland before the Black & Tan animals tried to turn it into a slur.  By the way, your own name could be viewed as a violation of policy because you just named yourself after a famous Japanese noise artist/musician.  How would you like to be forced to change it for no good reason? TortureIsWrong 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my point, I can see how some would correlate this situation to the "N word issue" in the US and beyond but that is totally different the main and original usage of that term is negative, the original and main usage of this term is a positive use and not an abusive or offensive use. To state that this is an offensive term is to accept the extreme minority view instead of viewing it in the mainstream usage and would set an unusual precedent. --Vintagekits 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild Disallow. An offensive name is offensive even if the named is being "ironic".  Irony is hard to grok from a username. But the user does not appear to be using the name to cause trouble, and has modified his sig as a compromise.  Dan Beale  07:26, 2 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 Wikipedia 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)

continuation of the vote/dicussion on Fenian Swine

 * Disallow The intent of the username is to propagate an insult. I really don't care if this is done ironically or not.  It's supposed to be about creating an encyclopedia and not projecting an ideology, political agenda, or irony. patsw 03:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow A username by nature has to be self-referential, so this must be viewed in as a self-deprecating (ironic) statement. Should be allowable as "Spartan Dog." -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 04:12, 2 April 2007(UTC)
 * Or as allowable as "Georgia Dawg," for that matter. TortureIsWrong 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that "dog" (and derivative spellings) doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation, whereas "swine" does. Flawed example(s). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry... Spartan Swine shall be my example then. Or even Swine. As long as it's not "You're a Swine," I don't think we have an issue. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow. We asked him nicely several times, he doesn't want to change it, he considers its use ironic, he has compromised by modifying his sig, and in the end the only thing we will achieve by attempting a forced change is to drive away a perfectly decent editor. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Allow. Not very offensive, he modified his sig, and it's intended to be ironic. --Burgercat 11:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild Disallow (with a strong request for the user to reconsider). Applying the pub test... could you walk into any pub in Ireland (particularly one in Northern Ireland), call out "A pint of Guinness please Fenian Swine" and expect to leave without the assistance of paramedics.  On that basis, whether used ironically or not, it will offend people. DrFrench 12:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope you're not seriously using this "Pub Test" to evaluate usernames. By that reckoning we'd have to disallow names such as "Pansy", "Shorty", "WebGeek" and "Brenda". How someone reacts to a name you've spuriously assigned to them has nothing to do with how they react to a name they've chosen and adopted themselves. What next - the "theatre test", where we disallow any name that would get you thrown out of a theatre if you were to stand up and yell it in the middle of the performance? Slovakia 09:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well I live in the Republic so I couldn't tell you about the North of Ireland. Im sure if you went into a bar and shouted 'Dan', some one called Dan could get angry and give you a box. So I'm not sure that your pub test cuts it at all.--Play Brian Moore 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I come from the North and the term Fenian is not a insult, using the term 'Fenian Bastard' to someone is intended as one, but if someone called me a Fenian Swine I would regard it as a joke.--padraig3uk 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow. It's self deprecating, and his name doesn't appear in his sig. A lot of Irish republican inclined editors are acquainted with FS and are not offended by his name. One Night In Hackney 303 13:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow per JzG and One Night In Hackney. Plus, this user registered their username in 2005; back then, the policy was not against "potentially" inflammatory names, just against "inflammatory or offensive" ones.  After nearly 2 years of contributions, I would think that if this name is actually offensive to anyone who edits with this user, it would have come up by now, and we should not be violating the reasonable compromise that was reached previously.  Mango juice talk 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow per Mangojuice. I'm not from Ireland, so I'm not sure how the word "Fenian" is perceived there, but if, as Mangojuice says, this editor has been contributing for two years and this is the first time someone raised the sisue of his name here, it's probably non-offensive. Coemgenus 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the first time.. but I would figure in all that time, if the name was going to actually offend someone (as opposed to seeming merely potentitally offensive), it would have done so by now. Mango juice talk 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes here's the first incident. I'm going to withdraw my allow, based on this and on Alison's comment below. Coemgenus 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow per Cascadia. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow. Username predates wording change. On that standard, I see it as a proud reclaiming of their heritage, i.e. Rebel Scum for someone in the American South. Ab e g92 contribs 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow - A general user won't know that he uses this as a matter of pride, but calling something 'swine' definitely is defamatory. Again, this is about the name, not the faith or intention behind the choice of name.  Sorry.  The Behnam 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow per The Behnam. Offense is always subjective, but better to err on the side of caution. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow per Mango and a suggestion to read Beatty's speech before he eats the flamethrower. If the name was intended to be offensive or should have been obvious that it would be massively offensive, thats an easy call here. This is obviously good faith, a strong contributor, and that makes this one an easy call as well. Let the name slide, and before someone accuses me of not basing my argument on policy, I'll point at WP:IAR and say that this is one of those cases where such a rule is exactly perfect. He broke the letter of the law, not the spirit. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow - this editor had his name ruled against about 2 years ago and all he did was change his sig. I was around on WP:IWNB and remember it well. The term Fenian can be quite offensive & it's usually followed by "b**tard" - you get the idea - Alison ☺ 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (from Ireland, BTW)
 * except that it wasn't followed by bastard. If the offensive term is Fenian Bastard, theres not a real issue here. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * However 'swine' is still an attack. The Behnam 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand the ironic and self-deprecatory use of the term 'fenian' here. However, amongst WP editors - esp. around Irish articles where he edits a lot - it's going to be constantly (mis)interpreted as being offensive. There's too much political history to that epithet - Alison ☺ 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it's going to be constantly (mis)interpreted as being offensive. Can someone actually show me examples of this. I was told that this would happen two years ago and I don't think there is a single case. Without proof, this misinterpretation malarky does not make sense.--Play Brian Moore 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can hold off with the "malarkey" comment now. As I clearly recall, you ended up in one dispute after another back then, including a lot of userpage vandalism as a result of your name (I remember because I reverted a bunch of it). And you insisted on putting pro-IRA slogans on your userpage . I remember because the RMS troll hit your userpage quite regularly back then. Then there was this account and its associated commentary. Tell me again that you're not being provocative here? - Alison ☺ 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me now. Those people were trolls. They had absolutely nothing to do with me at all in any way shape or form. I would appreciate you not using lies to try and sway votes. In what way am I being provocative here? 18 months after my user name was last questioned, the debate is brought up again and I'm being provocative? You didn't even answer my original question. Says more than actually answering ever would have.--Play Brian Moore 13:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you had "Tiocfaidh ár lá" written on your userpage. That's the Irish equivalent of "Al Quaeda Forever" and you know it. It doesn't get more provocative than that. As for demanding examples, there are plenty. Would you like me to go back through your edit history and provide some? You know they're there ... - Alison ☺ 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also  one dispute after another back then. As far as I recall, they're have been two naming disputes. You make it sound as though my first few months here were a continual battle to save my name which it most certainly was not.--Play Brian Moore 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There were sock-puppet accounts and impostors all over the place, as I recall. Shall I provide some evidence? There was also the debate on WP:IWNB which nobody has mentioned - Alison ☺ 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You really are poor at an Gaeilge. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá means 'our day will come'. It does not mean anything else. So your patent nonsence about it being simular to some Al Queda slur is pure rubbish. Therefore, on that point yoou are WRONG. Point 2 you claim There were sock-puppet accounts and impostors all over the place. I've already adressed this point and I wont be addressing it again. I already replied with They had absolutely nothing to do with me at all in any way shape or form. Therefore, you are WRONG here again. So you can provide as much evidence to sock puppet accounts as you want, they were not me and I say that for the last time. You still have not proved any of your points actually.--Play Brian Moore 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First point - stop making snippy comments about my language proficiency. You've already done so on my talk page today. Secondly, "Tiocfaidh ár lá" is phenomenally offensive and you know it. It's the slogan of a terrorist organisation and it's even got its own entry on WP which clearly states that. Its purpose only serves to inflame. Unfortunately, many here won't have the cultural context to see it for the offensive slogan that it is. Either way, it's not relevant to your username discussion. Point re. the sockpuppetry and userpage vandalism is that it shows that your username is contentious and inciteful (whatever about your terrorist slogans). - Alison ☺ 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was simply trying to help so as you didn't look foolish. You should always assume good faith. You never really addressed my questions, more you simply ignored them because you couldn't prove any of your claims. Wiki will work better if people don't lie about things. Go raibh maith agat.--Play Brian Moore 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That why you posted "You really are poor at an Gaeilge" in the middle of an RfC? I'm sure others will decide accordingly. I'm not going to turn this into a flamewar so I'm done here now. Point made - Alison ☺ 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was originally attemting to help until you accused me of trolling. Simply not true and yet you still persist with the claim. Points made, not backd up with any evidence ach sin mar a tá an saol.--Play Brian Moore 16:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow - self-referential, as such not offensive, we should err on the side of caution in allowing fine contributors to continue contributing. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - For those that say it is OK when a username is OK if it normally is offensive but is in Self-Referal, would you allow "ImADirtyWhore" or some other self-refering remark that typically is an insult? Just curious. CascadiaTALK 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Grrr. Look, this one is only borderline offensive, and IAR exists for a reason: to stop the letter of policy getting in the way of the spirit, which is invariably "Let the good guys contribute." We should never let our sense of morality prevent us from doing what is right. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was just asking a legitimate question. Besides, I suggested to this user that perhaps he could drop the "swine" and simply go by User:Fenian as a compromise. The user has not responded to the offer I had mentioned above. CascadiaTALK 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I replied up above to this. - 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 Talk 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)


 * Sorry, I wasn't getting aggressive or frustrated there, just mock-annoyance. I still don't think this quibbling over usernames is really necessary: this chap is a solid contributor to the encyclopedia, just let him get on with it. The username policy is the one policy which need not be absolutely enforced. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I have restated my position above to Neutral. I really think this is a case where a compromise would be best. CascadiaTALK 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If ever there was a case of "no consensus" it's this one. The real compromise is to acknowledge that this username has not harmed Wikipedia in the slightest despite being in constant use for years.  Long live Fenian Swine! TortureIsWrong 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh... you're not helping. CascadiaTALK 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's quite obvious that there's no consensus.  I say either kick it over to Admin or let it drop.  Oh, and Long Live Fenian Swine! (I should probably take the yawn out but since you had to go and sigh...)TortureIsWrong 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * TIW, I'm trying to be as civil as humanly possible here (hense the sigh), I only ask that you return the favor. Should an admin decide that this is a No Consensus Stalemate, then fine by me. If the user is willing to compromise on the issue, then great. CascadiaTALK 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The sigh isn't civil, it's childish dramatics. I'm eliminating my yawn.TortureIsWrong 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please leave this here, guys. How is this improving the encyclopedia? Just drop it. Life's too short. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sad irony in all this is that, to the ancient Celts, in the time of the original Fianna, the Boar was a symbol of courage, often sculpted or engraved onto weapons and armor -- clearly not an insult to their bearer. Heraldry has preserved this symbolism, as in Richard III's badge. In the Mabinogion, swine were a gift from a prince of the underworld to a mortal prince; and in mythology they retained an association with the magical or divine. The goddess Arduina rode a boar, which is still the symbol of the Ardennes. See also "Boar" in the Celtic Encyclopedia, and Wikipedia's own Boar and Swine. But "swine" in modern English-speaking culture is an insult when applied to a person: "(pejorative) A contemptible person". The meaning in modern English-speaking culture is the meaning en:wp has to consider. Fenian Swine may be an excellent editor, but (as the top of this page mentions) this review of a username's acceptability is not about the editor's conduct. A great editor may have an unacceptable username, just as a lousy editor may have a perfectly acceptable username. I wish all participants in the discussion above had kept this in mind. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you think they didn't? As for "swine" always being an insult, that's not true when you combine it with another word.  Which is why I'll continue to insist that Fenian Swine is as acceptable as Swineherd would be. TortureIsWrong 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes me think that not all participants kept this in mind? Comments like "It would be nonsense to block the name of someone who contributes well towards this site." (Blocking the name would only force a change of name, allowing the editor to continue contributing well under a different name, and even keeping his contribution history intact -- by going to WP:CHU rather than creating a new account.) "I challenge someone to go through my edits over the past 2 years and show me where I have made bad edit's..." (A username's acceptability is not based on its user's edits.) "...in the end the only thing we will achieve by attempting a forced change is to drive away a perfectly decent editor." (So "decent editors" should get to ignore WP:USERNAME? What other policies may they ignore?) "This is obviously good faith, a strong contributor,..." (That simply isn't the issue here.) "...this chap is a solid contributor to the encyclopedia, just let him get on with it." (He could "get on with it" just as well under a different name.) "As for 'swine' always being an insult, that's not true when you combine it with another word. ... Swineherd ..." That's a disingenuous argument. Calling someone a swineherd is not calling him a swine, just as calling someone a shepherd or a cowboy is not calling him a sheep or a cow. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please carefully consider at what point repeating yourself becomes disruptive self-defeating. Make your argument for/against the best you can.  You are not convincing through repetition - repetition only weakens your statements each time you indulge.  What is most emphasized by your repetition is your frustration, not your reasoning. Shenme 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * True, I shouldn't have bothered repeating my basic position. But I did feel it was worth responding to Ben's "I wish participants had kept this in mind" line, which I found to be rather condescending. In any event repetition seems to be the custom here. TortureIsWrong 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd rather plain discussion. I just now responded to your comment above to my !vote because it was a reasonable query.  As for Ben's over-broad last sentence, it happens a lot with final summations.  (including mine, see below)  I think it expresses more his exasperation at the length of discussion.  I'd like the application of WP:U to be more mechanical, but whole careers have been made (and unmade) in the area of reception aesthetics, which this borders on.  It is a difficult area. (duh) Shenme 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe my last sentence ("I wish all participants in the discussion above had kept this in mind.") was overbroad. The comments I quoted above were based on user conduct, which isn't the issue here. Some, but clearly not all, participants kept their arguments on-topic. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind please formatting your comments correctly when posting here? Your use of three asterisks before every single comment, regardless of its position, is distracting and breaks up the flow of the dialog. I know it's nitpicking, but it gets annoying after a while. RJASE1 Talk  22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. It's nitpicking. TortureIsWrong 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I was initially more sympathetic. I saw it as akin to say, "CapitalistPig" or "CatholicDog", a bit risque and cheeky, but nothing terribly bad. For all the hairsplitting over "offensive" and "potentially offensive", there is no such distinction in the current policy. It appears to me that much of the opposition is based on a form of what Americans might call "white man's guilt", or rather a knee-jerk reaction towards political correctness. I don't see people from the Irish pages protesting his name, but rather outside editors, most of whom have no apparent connection to Irish republicanism. Additionally, for all appearances, his sig was changed as a previous compromise and a visit to his user page where the name is displayed shows his obvious Irish sympathies. On the other side, it is a slur, though a very context specific one. "Swine" as noted above additionally has a strong pejorative meaning in modern English. The user's belligerent attitude whenever the issue is raised is decidedly distasteful. Also, I believe the hand-wringing over the potential loss of a "great" and "excellant" editor is greatly exaggerated. While Fenian Swine is a good contributor, he edits very little and doesn't use edit summaries very much. To summarize, some opposition is very kneejerk and overreactive. Some support overly praises the user and is just over-the-top. While much discussion of the policy above is highly inaccurate on both sides, the name is against the current guidelines that prohibit "slurs". However, as has been pointed out above it doesn't seem to offend the "target audience", is a bit obscure and we're free to ignore rules when appropriate. Vassyana 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "I don't see people from the Irish pages protesting his name, but rather outside editors" - errm - hello? - Alison ☺ 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Vassyana was referring to editors from outside Ireland. I would make the point that it seems that a decision to disallow this name will cause more offense to the Irish than the name itself is doing. Sam Blacketer 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I only moved last August. Does that count? :-b  Seriously, though. It's hard to explain but the term can be quite offensive  -  Alison ☺ 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So can "Paddy" but that didn't prevent Christy Moore from using the phrase "Paddy On The Road" as the title of his first album. Moore's probably the quintessential Irish songwriter. Context matters. TortureIsWrong 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is why it's out of context here. "To where you're a Paddy, a Biddy or a Mick. Good for nothing but stacking a brick", as The Man also sang. Christy (a personal friend as it happens :) ) is more than aware of context in these matters - Alison ☺ 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he is, and if we followed your reasoning, PaddyOnTheRoad would be an unacceptable username. I'd (surprise) vote to allow it.  That's neat that you're a friend of Christy's - I've been a fan of his for decades and I did some minor editing to his article here.  A truly great man. TortureIsWrong 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose "ThickPaddy" and I'll vote to block it. Spot the difference? And yeah, a close family member ran Christy's website for almost a decade. He still officially "owns" the domain - Alison ☺ 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'd vote to allow ThickPaddy but not "PaddiesAreThick." Spot the difference?  In current usage ThickPaddy could just mean he could stand to lose a few pounds, while the latter is clearly a slur aimed at a group. TortureIsWrong 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally not! "Thick Paddy" or "Thick Mick" is the quintessential ethnic slur. Been there, felt that :( (see and ) -  Alison ☺ 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know all about it. But I also have a well-developed sense of irony, and I feel (for instance) that it would be okay to refer to myself as a ThickMick or a Harpo-American.  It's obvious in Fenian Swine's case that irony is in play, is it not? It's very much a defunct slur and he's taken it back - more power to him. TortureIsWrong 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It's certainly not been my experience - Alison ☺ 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, Vassyana, but is " gaillimh  Conas tá tú?" perhaps a Swedish name? or Polish? or Romanian? Since that user not only protested but blocked the username, I should think there's a rather notable example against your statement. --  Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I explicitly stated: "most of whom have no apparent connection to Irish republicanism". The comment that preceded it was a comment about a consistant lack of outcry from fellow editors on the Ireland-related articles he edits. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my statements. Vassyana 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that this section deserves its own subpage. Someone want to make one?  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 05:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Subpage? It's nearly a novel now.  What does it take to declare it an Allow by virtue of a lack of consensus, or to send it up to Admin?  Ihave no idea.TortureIsWrong 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you duck out. Your view is known, and several people consider that your continued argufying is disruptive.  This will be closed in due course, and the longer it runs the better in terms of providing a definitive answer which will avoid the need to have the argument again in a few weeks' time. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion considered and rejected. I have as much right to interject here as you do, Guy.  I merely suggested the move since it seemed helpful in ending the debate over my own username - and I wasn't the one who suggested THAT move. TortureIsWrong 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is, your interjections have been diagnosed as trolling by several onlookers, and you are engaging in advocacy while I am not. Of course you could carry on agitating, secure in the knowledge that some at least will vote Disallow solely because you have pissed them off, that is your prerogative. Guy (Help!)


 * I've got to say disallow on this one, I've read through all the comments, and many of the allows are allowing because usernames which simply state Fenian shouldn't be blocked. This isn't the issue here, the issue is the Fenian coupled with swine. That makes it potentially inflammatory, hence my disallow Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow. Naturally, "Swine" could refer to a sort of pig, but coupled with a word Wikipedia itself lists as offensive, this is not something to allow. If he pre-dates the rule, we can ask him to change it and give him time to do so before blocking. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow I see this name in the spirit of a long tradition of individuals and groups adopting previously negative epithets as a 'badge' of their own, as a way of defusing prejudice against them. "Queer", "Geek" and "Gun nut" are a few examples that spring to mind. In that respect, I'd say that if anything this name is likely to diffuse any anti-Irish sentiment on Wikipedia rather than inciting it - and I'm just as uncomfortable about the demands for him to change it as I would be if it were someone being told to censor the label 'queer' from their username. To answer User:Cascadia's question about why this name is more acceptable than ImADirtyWhore - the difference is that I wouldn't in good faith accept that that name was chosen by someone proud of their status as a prostitute. Slovakia 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For those voting allow, I ask how do you calibrate those irony detectors and those defusing prejudice detectors in an manner that is objective, reproducible, and precedent creating? Or, is this the arbitrary game of I know it when I see it?  For starters, is every user name which includes either "Fenian" or "swine" now per se allowable?  I'd like to know what other nationalities or political affiliations could be coupled with  "swine" and be declaratively allowable or disallowable.  Likewise for "Fenian" coupled to other animal references. patsw 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding here that "Fenian" in and of itself is some sort of insult. It isn't, really, any more than "Yankee" is. TortureIsWrong 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Allow admitably, I haven't read this entire page, but there are many groups in history that are loved by some and loathed by others. The English invaded Australia and killed many indigenous people, yet if my username was 'Englishman' would it be disallowed? Ok maybe not such a good comparison, but you know what I mean. I dislike this whole "OMG EVER1 RESP3CT TEH POLICIES TO TEH LETTR" business that has been going on since Wikipedia became popular. Just a bunch of people trying to prove they are admin material by using lots of acronyms and taking part in discussions about trivial irrelevent issues. Sorry, back on topic, just loosen up. If Jimmy Wales was dead, he would be turning in his grave. Darkcraft 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm What about "English swine"? The name is not just "Fenian". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

People
 * Strong disallow politically motivated username that can easily be perceived as an insult, totally violates WP:U. It doesn't matter that the user defines it as positive, I'm sure plenty of users would incorporate n*gg*r into their usernames by saying they are using it in a positive way, but this doesn't change the requirements of WP:U. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disallow. Even if it's intended to be ironic, the phrase itself is still clearly an insult. --tjstrf talk 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Disallow: I'd withheld any !vote in my earlier comments to see whether the answers would ease my concern. Instead they have intensified it. None of the arguments to allow have addressed the central violation of WP:USERNAME; that both "Fenian" and "Swine" even separately, are currently pejorative terms for people. While some people do attempt to "reclaim" pejoratives as proud self-identifiers, unfortunately this does not change the fact that to others these remain offensive and even inflammatory words. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to make the attempt at reclamation, just as it is not the podium from which to announce new discoveries, or any other news. Wikipedia is expected to follow, not lead, such social changes. When these words no longer have pejorative meaning in general usage, that will be the time to allow them as usernames. Now is not that time. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is simply untrue that Fenian, on its own, is seen as an insult by us Fenians, as demonstrated by this link. I could provide plenty of other examples.  You're simply wrong. TortureIsWrong 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "...both "Fenian" and "Swine" even separately, are currently pejorative terms for people." Pointing to something you wrote 15 minutes ago as if it represents current Wikipedia opinion basically amounts to sockpuppeting, you realise. (Not that I disagree with that edit, but don't try to pull the wool over our eyes please.) Slovakia 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote neither Fenian nor Pig (disambiguation) nor wikt:swine, which is what I have pointed to. I have only added category tags, to do the pointing. I did not add the pejorative meanings; those were already detailed there before I added these tags. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant quotes from: Fenian: The term in its more modern usage is often considered offensive and a sectarian insult. [cited: {Oxford English Dictionary definition: "informal, offensive (chiefly in Northern Ireland) a Protestant name for a Catholic". Accessed Wednesday 14 February 2007.] Pig (disambiguation): The words pig, piggy and swine may also refer to:
 * Pig, an offensive insult directed at a person implying slob-like, womanizing, or gluttonous behavior wikt:swine: ... 2. (pejorative) A contemptible person (plural swines). None of that was written by me; I've only added links and tags to help get you there. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, the OED's definition of "swine": "noun 1 (pl. same) formal or N. Amer. a pig. 2 (pl. same or swines) informal a contemptible or disgusting person." ... which, again, I did not write. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Little difference that it will make now but often does not mean always. So saying Fenian "is often considered offensive" still means that I could it is often not, my name being a case in point. It is named after the Irish rebels called Fenians, not some form of slur against Catholics from the North of Ireland.--Play Brian Moore 00:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, Slovakia! Nice detective work, and you're right - what a horrible move! TortureIsWrong 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Disallow: From the wikipedia article on Fenian: The term in its more modern usage is often considered offensive and a sectarian insult.Oxford English Dictionary Swine is of course an insult as well. The user doesn't appear to be using it as an insult. If he could at least take out swine that may be acceptable to me.-- Wizardman 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might also be helpful - if Wikipedia pages are going to be used as "evidence" - to take a look at the discussion page attached to "Fenian." It's simply untrue to say that "Fenian" is merely an insult.  Saying a person of Irish descent should be insulted by being called a Fenian is like saying a US Southerner should be offended by being called a "rebel."TortureIsWrong 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have put a motion to close on the talk page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)