Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Fenian Swine


 * Note to the closing administrator: The user in question has attempted to skew consensus by commenting with a "sock puppet" (multiple user names)

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)
 * Note to the closing administrator: Someone below has !voted more than once . -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing administrator: The sockpuppet account in question used the same signature as the main account, identified the link between accounts on his user page, did not attempt to appear as a second individual, and used that account not for vandalism or creating an appearance of more votes. An inappropriate block was placed on the main account as the account should not have been blocked from contributing while the RFCN was in process. This block was removed. See Special:Contributions/Swenian_Fine for the alternate account's contribs. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment above; displays single vote by each account. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing administrator:
 * the user's original account was blocked from 00:14, 31 March 2007 through 10:50, 1 April 2007,
 * second account setup 00:47, 1 April 2007 Swenian Fine, with second edit being
 * "I have set up this page until my original(User:Fenian Swine) is unblocked, That is all." ,
 * all the points in Ben's struck-out Auto's strike-through text above are true,
 * and the user is very likely to not be familiar with the mechanics of !voting, since it seems they've never participated in an RfX before, let alone one directed at themselves. I would have thought it preferrable to simply note the mistake and strike it through. Shenme 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Second "Strong Allow", by "Swenian Fine" : 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Note that these were both posted more than nine hours after the main account was unblocked, and in fact the main account posted first, followed 19 minutes later by the sock. Obviously the sock's !voting was not due to the main account being unable to do so. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  First "Strong Allow", by "Fenian Swine" : 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing
Right, I'm struggling to find someone to close this one, there's been no-one offering help after posting on WP:AN. I have commented to disallow on this one already, but this was after reading through the whole talk and it was more of a consensus disallow. The major issue with the allow's is that they are saying that Fenian is OK in a username, and don't even address the term Swine, which seams to be the major concern. I would like to close this as disallow, per consensus, unless anyone objects Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but I count 21 Allows and only 20 disallows. Not sure where you got  I would like to close this as disallow, per consensus, unless anyone objects from. That completely untrue. So if you would kindly end it now with the result of allow (as the votes confirm), then we can all get on with the job in hand. Cheers--Play Brian Moore 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right so where is the concencus then?--Play Brian Moore 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already explained my reasons for disallowing the username, with respect of WP:CONSENSUS. I feel the arguments for disallowing, are greater than those to allow, as the allows don't take into account the full name, just individual words and they fail to recognise the context Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically, agree with you or your vote doesn't count. Robert Mugabe hasn't got a chair on the wiki board does he?--Play Brian Moore 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not agree with me or your vote doesn't count, this is my perception of the consensus, because the allows don't give as good policy based arguments as the disallows, it's quite simple Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I feel they do, so then it's my opinon versus yours. If your side is taken then the agree with you or your vote doesn't count theory would hold firm. More people vote allow and they're opinions are not deemed worthy is the way it appears to me. You wonder why people were asked to vote if you decide how the discussion finishes anyway.--Play Brian Moore 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't just your opinion, Fenian. There were numerous other users, including myself, who gave well-reasoned Allow arguments.  The call for a vote is a complete and total farce, and consensus means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the high-handed regulars who think they own RFCN discussion and policy.  The same utter nonsense occurred during the debate over my username (twice-affirmed) and continued AFTER the decision to allow.  We simply have users who despise being disagreed with and who go ballistic if a call doesn't go their way. I pity any admin who has to step into the morass of your name discussion, but if ever there was a poster child discussion for NO CONSENSUS, default to allow, it's yours.  Good luck to you.TortureIsWrong 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't policy arguments, and many of them weren't well reasoned Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I feel the same way about many of the Disallow votes. Am I allowed to disagree without being accused of disruption again? Not that you have done that yourself yet, but that has been my experience over and over again in these debates.TortureIsWrong 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone famously said. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. More people agree to keep the name and they still go trying to block it. It's a nice thank for the small amount of work I have done around here since the Summer of 2005.--Play Brian Moore 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not pick a new username to change to, or usurp an unused one?, for example, could be usurped, retaining the sound of your current user name but avoiding its controversial wording. Just a thought. Picaroon 01:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

TIW, I've actually encouraged the user to change names. While there was no consensus here to force the issue, it does seem that it's rather contentious. I hope that it will be resolved voluntarily that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In view of the comments above by TortureIsWrong and Play Brian Moore, I'll remind readers and participants that RfCs, like XfDs, are not "votes" and are not settled by "vote counting" or "majority rule". Further "assuming good faith" (in the absence of evidence for not doing so) is basic and essential to collegial discourse here -- and the above comments made to Ryan are clearly not in accordance with WP:AGF; in fact, to my eyes they appear abusive. I strongly urge TIW and FS to reconsider their comments, and rephrase ("refactor") accordingly. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll remember that you're on the Disallow side and I'll suggest that there is nothing abusive in my comments to Ryan. Nothing.  I do think that discounting opinions out of hand simply because they disagree with yours is a form of abusiveness itself.  I also think that blithely claiming that dozens of Allow votes are "not based on policy" without going into specifics is beyond the pale.  That's a tactic which I have seen far too many times in these debates. I hope I have not been guilty of it myself.TortureIsWrong 01:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The result is in and it's what I said it would be - NO CONSENSUS, Default to Allow. Reason prevails again!  Long Live Fenian Swine!TortureIsWrong 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still thank you for not allowing your personal opinion to color your view of the overall argument.TortureIsWrong 03:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is a joke - the user name is not offensive - if an Irish editor on here had the name "IrishSwine" it would be allowed, if a British editor on here had the name "BritishSwine" it would be allowed, if a New York editor on here had the name "YankeeSwine" it would be allowed - therefore Fenianswine should be allowed as it is in no way offensive, its not causing any offense therefore it is not offensive and to say it is is purely POV.--Vintagekits 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been closed as allow now, so theres no problems Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)