Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Freaky4jesus32


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the discussion's talk page).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

No block. Assume good faith and don't bite newbies for gods sake AND THIS ISN'T A VOTE. Viridae Talk 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[view]

The name suggests everything...-- Cometstyles 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with this - the user is a fan of Jesus, that's all, who cares. Per WP:U, expressions of faith aren't forbidden.  Mango juice talk 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why was the user name "Jezusfreak" shot down? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)  20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For some time now, this board has become a place where people can get other users blocked. So, I think people got a bit overzealous.  That decision was wrong.  That said, I'm not going to go wheel-warring over it, if the user doesn't make an unblock request.  Mango juice talk 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear expression of faith, hence allowed (although discouraged). No WP:U vio. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We do have issues with consistency in this area. Below are some examples of past actions taken due to this RfC:


 * Disallow Based on the above, it seems that in keeping with the going understanding of the username policy, we must disallow.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's be careful: User:Jesus is a completely different story, and Jesuslikeshotcakes is belittling. The rest were blocked inappropriately directly in opposition to WP:U, during the overactive period on this board.  Anyway, we should use common sense here, and the policy makes sense, whereas mindlessly blocking every username that even mentions Jesus doesn't.  Mango juice talk 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be careful. I didn't think there was a problem with "JesusIsOurSaviour," which is quite comparable to the one under review. Also, note "Jesusfreak." This one is quite comparable as well. Finally, I am also wary of the inconsistency that we demonstrate in religion-oriented names. The list above was posted to increase transparency of our process and based on my belief that the history of the choices made in the RfC does matter.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If any of those users challenge their blocks, I'd be happy to overturn. Actually, I believe at least one did, saying that they were just using the name of a song for their username.  I worry about inconsistency but we shouldn't make the wrong decision just to be consistently wrong.  Mango juice talk 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow an expression of faith - the name describes the user, it doesn't describe Jesus (as JesusIsOurSaviour does) and doesn't pass the user off as Jesus (as Jesus does). I don't think RFCN is intended to be a precedent-setting and -using area, so if we've blocked names such as Jesusfreak1277 in the past (in my view probably inappropriately) then that doesn't mean we should continue to do so.  Canthusus 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that we certainly shouldn't block this user for for consistency's sake in the same way as we shouldn't make arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in deletion discussions. I also agree with Canthusus myself that there is a definite difference between saying that you are "freaky for Jesus" as opposed to saying that Jesus is a freak. The latter is making a description about Jesus which could be seen as a violation of WP:U. However, in the case of this user, it is my belief that the username is more of a faith expression which I don't think violates any policy. I also don't believe that this username is going to cause any offense to other people. So I am not in favour of any blocking action. Will (aka Wimt ) 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment In light of the RFCN discussions going on at the time, discussion on WT:RFCN  lead to the policy with respect to religious names being modified on March 20, 2007 here, which was after the discussion of the above usernames. I believe this strengthens the allow arguments. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No WP:U violation in letter or spirit, although the user should be encouraged to consider changing their username to one that does not use the name of a deity. CASCADIA Howl/Trail 03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is allowed, then user Jezusfreak must also be allowed, as well as all of the other Jesusfreak users. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)  03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, no. It's one thing if those users, who are blocked, request unblocking.  It's another to just unblock them anyway: see Wheel war.  Mango juice talk 03:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.