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

Initial List

This list was supplied by User:Tim Starling with several additions that do not appear controversial. If you wish to add entries, please add them below under the heading "Additional Usernames"

User:Child of God (talk) (contribs)
** User:CrucifiedChrist (see also specific discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrucifiedChrist) (talk) (contribs)
User:Crusty Ass (talk) (contribs)
User:Eminem is god (talk) (contribs)
User:Fuck (talk) (contribs)
* User:Fuck You (talk) (contribs)
User:Fuck2 (talk) (contribs)
User:FuckAmerika (talk) (contribs)
User:FuckMenchi (talk) (contribs)
User:Fucking Asshole (talk) (contribs)
* User:FuckingFucker (talk) (contribs)
User:Fuckstick (talk) (contribs)
** User:Fuqnbastard (talk) (contribs)
User:God (talk) (contribs)
User:Godisgood (talk) (contribs)
User:Godisnowhere (talk) (contribs)
User:Jesus (talk) (contribs)
* User:Jesus Chirst (talk) (contribs)
User:Jesus Christ (talk) (contribs)
** User:Jesus Saves! (talk) (contribs)
* User:Jesus is Lord (talk) (contribs)
User:Jesus is a controversial word (talk) (contribs)
User:Jesus is a fudgepacker! (talk) (contribs)
User:Jesus is so much cooler than Brahma (talk) (contribs)
* User:JesusCantSave (talk) (contribs)
User:JesusChrist (talk) (contribs)
User:ManofGod (talk) (contribs)
* User:NoLordButJesus (talk) (contribs)
User:Satan (talk) (contribs)
User:Satan is our Saviour! (talk) (contribs)
User:Sum' D-Block Muthafucka (talk) (link to contribs broken, but there aren't any anyway)
User:There is no God (talk) (contribs)
User:Wrath-Of-God (talk) (contribs)
** User:PhatJew (talk) (contribs)
User:Cumguzzler (talk) (contribs)
User:Cockgoblin (talk) (contribs)
User:Illiterate Cow (talk) (contribs)
User:Nutsack (talk) (contribs)
User:Fragrant feces (talk) (contribs)
* User:CrapBeater (talk) (contribs)
* User:Allah is great (talk) (contribs)
** User:Olga Bityerkokoff (talk) (contribs)
* User:Sex (talk) (contribs)
* User:Rothwellisretarded (talk) (contribs)
User:Paki (some view this a a racist term for Pakistanis) (talk) (contribs)
User:always gods child (talk) (contribs)

Asterisks (*) denote users with more than a trivial edit history indicating that preserving attribution may be relevant
(**) for lengthy edit history (over 50)

None of these users has over 100 edits

Vote on initial list

Please read the whole page before voting. If you have a lengthy comment, please consider placing it on the talk page.

Concur with the list

Angela .
Dori | Talk 20:30, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
fabiform | talk 23:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 15:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fuzheado 03:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Danny 03:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Maximus Rex 03:43, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Martin 17:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
DJ Clayworth 13:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) with a little reluctance.
UtherSRG 18:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ropers 14:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) I concur, except for the case of "Olga Bityerkokoff" — What's controversial about this? Am I missing something? Or is the poster impersonating as some other person?

Do not concur

If you agree in general but object to one or more specific names, please vote here and list the ones to which you object.

I object to censoring these names

  1. Child of God
  2. CrucifiedChrist 
 15. Godisgood
 16. Godisnowhere
 17. Jesus
 18. Jesus Chirst
 19. Jesus Christ
 20. Jesus Saves!
 21. Jesus is Lord
 22. Jesus is a controversial word
 26. JesusChrist
 27. ManofGod
 28. NoLordButJesus
 29. Satan
 33. Wrath-Of-God
 34. PhatJew
 37. Illiterate Cow
 41. Allah is great
 43. Sex
 44. Rothwellisretarded
 45. User:Paki 
 46. always gods child

and also
  1. Jengod
  2. Hephaestos
  3. Stewartadcock

Sam Spade 19:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I also object to censoring Eminem is god & Satan is our Saviour! (why can other religions be promoted and not these two?) gracefool 06:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object to censoring any of the names. What is profanity is very subjective, and it's my experience that censoring only provokes people from finding another "offensive" names, causing more list and more work to censor names. If someone wishes to be known as "<four-letter>-face", and (s)he doesn't provoke any reaction, the novelty wears off fast. Now, if names were picked to target a certain individual I wouldn't object to censoring. But names like "God", "Satan", "Allah is great", I can't see the problem, not even as an atheist. Besides, if I supported the list, my name, which happens to appear in the bible as well, might be next. Abigail 15:23, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Concur with Abigail above. This probably isn't the place to say it, because I disagree with the policy itself and not whether this list follows the policy, but I just wanted to mention that I hate this censorship business. The only usernames I would support banning are those that are deliberately misleading.

More relevant to this discussion, I'm curious to know who finds usernames like "God" and "Jesus Christ" offensive? I can understand "Allah is great" being offensive to some people, but "Jesus Christ" isn't even a statement. Arvindn 08:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

you must be joking. i'm not even sure why some of these names are listed. "illiterate cow"? "jengod"? "haephestos"? is this a personal vendetta list?

and for some of them, i am sure why they're listed, and it's distasteful: this list is anti-religion. we shouldn't ban "child of god", or "man of god", what possible excuse is there? Badanedwa 01:24, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I object to censoring the following names (with a few notable ones):

  2. ** User:CrucifiedChrist
  4. User:Eminem is god (talk) (contribs)
  5. User:Fuck (talk) (contribs)
  7. User:Fuck2 (talk) (contribs)
 14. User:God (talk) (contribs)
 15. User:Godisgood (talk) (contribs)
 16. User:Godisnowhere (talk) (contribs)
 17. User:Jesus (talk) (contribs) - how is this any different from "Hephaestos"?
 18. * User:Jesus Chirst (talk) (contribs)
 19. User:Jesus Christ (talk) (contribs)
 20. ** User:Jesus Saves! (talk) (contribs)
 21. * User:Jesus is Lord (talk) (contribs)
 22. User:Jesus is a controversial word (talk) (contribs) - what's wrong with this?
 25. * User:JesusCantSave (talk) (contribs)
 26. User:JesusChrist (talk) (contribs)
 28. * User:NoLordButJesus (talk) (contribs)
 29. User:Satan (talk) (contribs)
 30. User:Satan is our Saviour! (talk) (contribs)
 32. User:There is no God (talk) (contribs)
 33. User:Wrath-Of-God (talk) (contribs)
 34. ** User:PhatJew (talk) (contribs) - apparently, the person with this username
could quite possibly be a Jew who thinks he's Phat...
 37. User:Illiterate Cow (talk) (contribs) - I don't see anything offensive here
 39. User:Fragrant feces (talk) (contribs)
 40. * User:CrapBeater (talk) (contribs)
 41. * User:Allah is great (talk) (contribs)
 42. ** User:Olga Bityerkokoff (talk) (contribs)
 43. * User:Sex (talk) (contribs)
 45. User:Paki (some view this a a racist term for Pakistanis) (talk) (contribs)
 46. User:always gods child (talk) (contribs)

For example, I doubt anyone would censor these names:

User:Hephaestos (he's a Greek god; I for one do not believe in polytheism) - how is this different from User:Jesus Christ?
User:I am atheist or Christian or Buddhist or anything
We already have articles on the word fuck, sex, etc. - why not usernames?
And the ones that Sam mentioned.

ugen64 23:05, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Users blocked in whole or part for username

Object. While Jimbo decreed as GodKing that he wanted Fellowship banned because 'username alone was enough to justify banning', he never said that his username was offensive or in violation of this or any other policy. JRR Trollkien 18:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What was wrong with Tough Cat and Paki? ··gracefool |☺ 02:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The users above are already blocked, and their usernames were given as all or part of the reason. Assuming that we agree that their usernames are offensive, whatever mechanism is used to deal with the names above should be used with these names also (IE, strip them from edit history, please). Martin 16:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the username Tough Cat. To me as British, cat means "the animal that miaows", and tough means "strong, hardy", and I see nothing sexual or religious in either word. Anthony Appleyard 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also:

Martin

Discussion of how to handle the accounts on the list

My recommendation is:

Delete the user page and talk page
Reattribute any contributions to User:NameWithheld
Change the password to a random or invalid value to make the account unusable

I believe that this should be a standard procedure for any inappropriate names. --user:UninvitedCompany

I concur with UninvitedCompany in general. On the second point, we may want to reattribute to User:NameWithheld1 (2, 3, etc), so it is reversible. On the third point, equivalent actions would be an indefinate block. Changing the password has the advantage of decluttering the IpBlocklist, and not temporarilly blocking IP addresses. Martin 16:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

I feel very uncomfortable with the automatic, temporary IP blocks, and clutter on the blocklists is an issue in that someone may inadvertently remove a user if they are unaware of this discussion. Perhaps the accounts should be deleted entirely, so that they do not appear in the user name list. UninvitedCompany 03:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a better idea, though more dev effort. Rather than blocking or disabling the old accounts, set them as special "account redirect" accounts. For example, suppose somebody contributes as user:Shut your face uncle fucker, with password "southpark".

The account is renamed to User:NameWithheld57. All contributions are reattributed appropriately.
The old user and user talk pages are moved to the new location, leaving redirects.
If someone attempts to create an account called user:Shut your face uncle fucker or User:NameWithheld57, tell them it's already taken - standard message.
If someone attempts to log in as user:Shut your face uncle fucker, check the password - if it is "southpark", then log them in as User:NameWithheld57.
If someone attempts to log in as User:NameWithheld57, check their password - if it is "southpark", then log them in as User:NameWithheld57.

All simple enough, conceptually. The same would apply to normal changes of username account too, which would be good if someone forgets that they now have a new username. Martin 23:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, we could do something I've done off and on for the past few days: try to think of all the possible accounts that we can, assign them random numbers as passwords, and leave it at that. That way, if anyone tries to create that account, they'll discover that it exists already. For example, we can be certain, because of my efforts, that there will be no users called fuckhead, fucker, or fuck1, because I created those accounts. In effect, they are blocked from use.--Ingoolemo 00:12, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

I think there should first be a warning and a period for appeals by users such as "Paki", "Jengod", "Hephaestos", "Fuzheado". First, I personally do not find these sorts of user names offensive. Second, I suspect that they can all offer personal histories that explain their choice of these names for reasons that have nothing to do with trying to shock others or give offense. If not, and if a majority of voters DO find them offensive, then they could be forced to change to a different user name. All of the other names on the list are not questionable, they should be blocked. JWSchmidt 22:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clearly the ongoing contributors, if any have names deemed offensive, should be handled with greater care and concern.

My two cents

Personally I find very offensive the objections themselves to the names Jengod, Hephaestos, and Stewartadcock. What do you do about the most prominent signer of the Declaration of Independence? ;Bear 20:20, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

I believe it was pointed out that those names may not have been added in good faith. A recently-created user, User:JRR Trollkien or something like that, added them, I believe. Rather than remove them and perpetuate an edit war, I thought it best to leave them and let them get voted down. UninvitedCompany 20:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I suspect you are referring to "Some contributions may not have been made in good faith." which was unclear about whose contributions to what. ;Bear 00:23, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

In what way is Hephaestos any better than "Jesus Christ"? Hephaestos = a Greek god. Jesus Christ = son of the Christian God (and other religions). In fact, Hephaestos is probably worse than Jesus Christ, because Jesus is a HISTORICAL FIGURE (according to this very encyclopedia) --- see Jesus Christ. On the other hand, I don't see a birthdate/deathdate for Hephaestos... ugen64 23:09, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos is an admin, Jesus Christ was a newbie. The Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers should be rewritten to emphasise the differing standards based on seniority and popularity. ;) Sam Spade 23:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User "Jesus Christ" was not a newbie, s/he was a user name created to provoke conflict. UninvitedCompany 23:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Three differences. First, many Christian contributors object to referring to someone by the name of Jesus Christ because of its religious significance to them. No one, as far as I know, has expressed any similar concerns with calling Hephaestos by his chosen name; indeed, such common words as January, and the names of the planets, are derived from legendary gods. Second, Hephaestos' choice of the name was made long ago, before there was any attempt at defining a policy on names. Finally, unlike the other users on the list, he is an active, ongoing contributor. UninvitedCompany 23:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a Grandfather clause in the Username policy. And, all "active, ongoing contributors" were once new. (Random832 12:18, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC))

Why did you leave user:paki down with jengod etc. I provided a quote showing how offensive this word is to Britons, and the only person who had objected accepted that. Here's an outline of the conversation:

lots of things are offensive somewhere, and SO WHAT? - ;Bear
- "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]
  - OK, I'll accept that - ;Bear

Would you move this up to the top section please, and alert anyone who's already voted to the change? fabiform | talk 19:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

- - Out of curiosity, what is wrong with "spastic" as a word? Is this some regional thing? (and, if so, might not also the former be? which is the point Bear was trying to make in the first place) (Random832 12:23, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC))

I have moved user:paki per your request. User:Sam Spade is the only one who has voted thus far, and I let him know. UninvitedCompany 19:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. I thought I might get told off for moving it myself. :) fabiform | talk 22:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did anybody ask Paki why he/she chose that name? It may be their actual name for all we know. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the apparent objection to ANY god name being used as a username:

Hephaestus was a Greek god. The Classical Greek religion has been extinct for at least 1400 years (except perhaps for a few stray revivalists). There is a HOST of things named after various of the Roman and Greek gods.
Germanic gods used as man names: Thor Heyerdahl for one (the Kon Tiki man).
Hindu gods: Many Indians have given birth-names that coincide with Hindu god names: Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiv(a). When I ride into Liverpool, I pass at a road junction a medical center with a label saying that it is run by a Dr.Shiv Pande.

Anthony Appleyard 20:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Related issue

What about users who have a normal user name but leave signatures like this: Antonio Panty scene lover Martin? JWSchmidt 23:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take it up at his talk page. As with any other text, you could edit the sig when you see it used, if you believe it is problematic enough to warrant it, possibly leaving an explanatory note when you do. Sigs do not show up in the history, only in talk pages, so I do not find them nearly as problematic as user names themselves. UninvitedCompany 03:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another name

For discussion of User:FoxNewsIsShit (created apparently in jest, and only briefly active), see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FoxNews.