Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:19, 27 March 2007

Shortcuts

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

the user in question has made no recent edits.
you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

Demsaredonkeys (talk · contribs)

I had some doubts about sending this one here, but the user has not replied to my concerns about the name. Yes, I understand that the donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party (United States); however, given the user's POV-laden contributions so far, the username seems intended to insult - Donkey#Insult and vulgarity. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not seeing the insult, lots of barnyard animals are insults. I don't see how this is political. If the user's contributions are an issue then that is another issue for another place. Oh, I see it, I was thinking D'em(as in them), not Dems(as in democrats), not sure yet.. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Calling democrats donkeys, if that is even what it means, does not seem to be an insult to me as it is their symbol. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a substantive difference between saying that a group is often symbolized by something and saying that the group members are themselves examples of that something -- "Mexicans are snake-eating birds", anyone? -- especially when, as RJASE1 points out, calling someone such an animal is on record as an insult and vulgarity. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Maybe the user is just trying to state a fact that the democratic party's symbol is a donkey? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what the user means by it, possibly. However, that could be more of a racial slur then just saying Democrats are donkeys. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexican" is a nationality, not a race. And a snake-eating bird is the official symbol of Mexico, on its coat of arms and its flag. If you claim that's a "slur", how can you deny that calling Democrats "donkeys" is a slur? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow The ass is the democratic party of the United States' symbol. (→Netscott) 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Ben maybe chill it down a bit... this responding to ever post is a bit POINTed. Why not User:Republicsareelephants? Your comparison is inflammatory due to its straw man nature of changing a political affiliation with an ethnicity. (→Netscott) 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive POINT goes back to saying Democrats can be called by the party symbol, for which you explicitly changed the word "Donkey" to "Ass", thus stressing that "Dems are donkeys" conveys "Dems are asses" -- inflammatory, yes. "Straw man nature"? No such thing. "Changing a political affiliation with an ethnicity"? No, "Mexican" isn't an ethnicity, it's a nationality, which is another kind of "political affiliation" -- because both nations and parties are political entities. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow, as above. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Comment: In view of the user's contributions, solely to Republican Party (United States) so far, the nominator's interpretation seems not only plausible but probable, and only a constant focus on WP:AGF keeps me from adding "bloomin' obvious" or saying "Disallow"... and I'm really stretching the bounds of WP:AGF at that. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this area is for discussions about user names not user conduct, no? (→Netscott) 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where the issue is "what a name means", context can make a difference. And please don't sign with a template. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST

It is easy to observe that there is a very strong correlation between username and user conduct. Allowing partisan usernames tells users that Wikipedia accepts partisan conduct - which we do, actually, but are not supposed to. Names like this sow distrust and discord, and discredit the editors who take them. Upholding some basic standards here is a good way of improving the atmosphere, and helping new editors help themselves by steering clear of very pointless controversy.Proabivouac 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. When the Democrats (not entirely voluntarily) adopted this as their symbol, they needed to accept that things like this would happen sometimes. Matchups 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Weak Allow-The Democratic are symbolized by the donkey (even though it should symbolize the Republicans:)) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 19:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I wouldn't. We're not talking about a nationality here, but I'm changing to weak allow. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about group membership, and whether the symbol for the group can be justly applied to the separate members as describing each of them. That's the fallacy of division, applying a property of the group to its members, like "snow is deep and heavy, therefore snowflakes are deep and heavy". We're talking about why suddenly so many separate contributors here have embraced that same blatant fallacy -- that members of a group can be described as each being the thing that is shown on their group's symbol -- the Mexican coat of arms shows a snake-eating bird, therefore "Mexicans are snake-eaters"; the U.S. Democratic Party's symbol is a donkey, therefore "Dems are donkeys". It's quite literally an in credible argument, and even credulous I, who will credit almost any halfway credible reason, can't credit this. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow a polemical statement against the Democratic Party and its members.Proabivouac 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. It is the party's symbol, after all. If the user is making inappropriate edits, he'll be blocked for that in the proper forum. Coemgenus 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you'd allow User:Mexicansaresnake-eaters ? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more apt analogy would be User:RepublicansareElephants. And, yes, I would allow that. Coemgenus 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey is a not-so-subtle play on the pejorative use of "ass," while "elephant" has no common pejorative connotation, but even so, we shouldn't allow it. What benefit does it bring to the encyclopedia if users are allowed to include political statements or references in their usernames?Proabivouac 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not-so-subtle at all on some parts, especially when coding it as "The [[Donkey|Ass]] is...". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny that you say that when the first line from the Donkey article is, "The donkey or ass, Equus asinus, is a domesticated animal of the horse family, Equidae.", where's the assumption of good faith? Thomas Nast created both the Donkey and the Elephant which both parties adopted. Seriously... much ado about nothing. (→Netscott) 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the ass page is for disambiguation. The second dab is to Donkey and there is also a link to Wild ass. (→Netscott) 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow, per WP:U, specifically: Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. Cascadia^TALK^|^HISTORY 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - Regardless of whether or not this is about Democrats it could be seen as a sort of attack. I also agree with Ben about the symbol. You don't call people by their groups' symbols. Mexicans aren't snake-eating birds, Iranians aren't tulips, and Democrats aren't donkeys. The Behnam 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Unlike the Mexicans are snake eaters example, the donkey is a well-known, neutral symbol of the Democratic party widely used in political cartoons and other literature. The user's POV does seem to leak through, and it's hard to say what benefit to the encyclopedia this name brings, but I think we may be getting a bit oversensitive about slightly colorful usernames. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike the Mexicans... example, the donkey is a well-known neutral symbol" ??? -- Go look at the Mexican coat of arms and the Flag of Mexico, SpuriousQ, or wait until Cinco de Mayo (May 5) and look closely at the flags being displayed and waved that day: the snake-eating bird is also a well-known symbol for Mexico, not merely "neutral" but official, cherished, and with a deeply meaningful traditional significance, going back to the founding of Tenochtitlan, long before the site became Mexico City, more than a century before Europeans even arrived in the "New World", and a long long time before Thomas Nast drew his satirical, ridiculing cartoons. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow. I don't really care, per SpuriousQ that this "might be seen" as an insult. I care a lot more that this seems designed to be an insult. Hence, I have no problem requiring the user to change names. Mango juice^talk 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "per The Behnam". -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was trying to say I agree with you that we shouldn't be too sensitive over names that "might be seen" as insulting. It's the intent I have a problem with here. Allowing this username when it was chosen to insult is a poor idea; we ought to send the message that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are important. Mango juice^talk 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - Unless, of course, you think I should be allowed to use ChristiansEatJesus as my name. The intent is obvious, isn't it? TortureIsWrong 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the intent obvious? Democrats are donkeys. Period. Its the same as saying Republicans are Elephants. And what does ChristiansEatJesus have to do with it? That doesn't make sense. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"How is the intent obvious? Democrats are donkeys. Period. Its the same as saying Republicans are Elephants. And what does ChristiansEatJesus have to do with it? That doesn't make sense. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"
IT makes plenty of sense. Christians eating "the body of Christ" is a key symbol in Christianity, as the donkey is used as a symbol for Democrats, for whatever long-forgotten reason. But at the current time in our culture "donkey" has a "negative" connotation, as does "eating," but "elephants," by happenstance, does not. Language is a fluid device. TortureIsWrong 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The username Demsaredonkeys isn't directly stating that democrats are losers or that they are asses. Instead of trying to figure out what the user means by this name, why doesn't someone ask the user what he means by it? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user has not responded to a {{UsernameConcern}} on their talk page. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likely because the user hasn't been back... Shenme 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Intent seems to be to insult and disrupt. IronDuke 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Appears that it can be perceived as offensive. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to !vote, because I think people will see either simple statement Democrats=Donkeys or Republicans=Elephants as inflammatory, which is sad. (OMG: large, stomp on things, gray, loud and stink - that's bad). But as a thought experiment, what about DemocratsTakeBlues or RepublicansAreReds. Is it likely that someone will see these as 'bad'. Yes (sigh). So do we then have the situation that no one can use a political affiliation name as part of a username? Seeing the above, I'm afraid so. Do I hear a second? Shenme 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpts from WP:USERNAME: The username is not a tool to be offensive or make a statement. ... Please pick a username that helps us to write an encyclopedia. That means picking a name that you're comfortable writing under, but it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. Remember that a controversial name may color other users' perspective on your own credibility or political viewpoint. ... Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of politicians, military or religious figures, movements, or events, as well as any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure. ... Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. ... Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to: ... Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults. ... Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. ... In particular, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia. [end of excerpts] Whether this name is controversial or inflammatory, I think this debate has answered by demonstration. The name is not merely "potentially offensive", it already actually has offended. The "line" mentioned above has been drawn. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow: Definite political slant in both username and contributions. --Valley2city^‽ 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow, politically offensive etcetera. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - Not politically offensive, just a common sense statement, the democratic party is represented by a donky (If i am right). I think we are imagining things and assuming bad faith here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow No need to assume good or bad faith by the originator. The policy disallows names likely to cause others to take offence. This name will cause others to take offence. --Dweller 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a fine line here. ANy name can be offensive to somebody. SHould we not be allowed to have usernames? What about IP addresses that have the number 69 in it? that may be offensive to some. While i doubt it would be the case, we have to be careful when saying may be offensive to somebody. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? When my name MoeLarryAndJesus was banned, not a single person claimed to be offended by it. You, Chris Kreider, specifically said it should be banned anyway. No calls for being "careful" then. TortureIsWrong 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all evolve first of all. Second of all, there is a difference here. Likening of Jesus to the three stooges is much more likloey to offend in my opinion then saying demsaredonkeys (which is the symbol of there party). It is a judgement call and in teh case of MoelarryandJesus, i felt like it would offend a fairly large group of people as opposed to demsaredonkeys which i feel may have the possibility to offend a small number of people who are going to be offended by just abouyt anything. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it's a numbers game? Got it. Next you'll be saying it's okay to offend Jews or Libertarians. By the way, there are many more "Dems" than there are elephants. TortureIsWrong 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Originally, I was going to !vote "allow", but then I realized that, at its core, this username is calling a political party the actual animal they represent themselves as. While the Dems' animal is the donkey and the Republicans' is an elephant, nobody would call members of the party an actual animal of that type. Given that, I find it hard to believe that the username was created in good faith. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - would allow "Dems are represented by donkeys" but not "are donkeys. Milto LOL pia 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone will remember the great Sam Gross cartoon I'm basing it on, but wouldn't "RepublicansAreSoftAndMushy" be a nice username? TortureIsWrong 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I plan to close this as disallow soon, after reading through the whole discussion, and looking at the value of each comment, I feel that this is what consensus has shown. Please comment if you wish me not to close this, or feel it is the wrong descision. Please note, I am completely neutral in this, and I haven't put across and opinion Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe consensus shows this at all. As someone who has not stated an opinion here, it seems as if there are both enough 'Allow's to create pause, and that caliber of their arguments seem well constructed. It would be premature to close as disallow, and I urge patience. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that's fine by me. I actually have no feeling on the username myself, thats why I suggested closing, but I fully accept what your saying, and I won't close it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow to me, this clearly violates WP:USERNAME rules discouraging political slants and inflammatory usernames. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I liken this to saying something like the SydneyLinuxUsersGroupmembersare SLUGs. Sure calling members like that SLUGs (especially for example if you are a Mac supporter of PC supporter) can appear a bit derogatory but these folks refer to their group as SLUG... (→Netscott) 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Democrats refer to themselves as Donkeys? A ecis^Brievenbus 00:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! And that's the core point.TortureIsWrong 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so: per this source:
Here is a tip for the political animals: The donkey first came to be associated with Democrats in the 1828 presidential campaign when Andrew Jackson's opponents called him a jackass. Jackson turned the tables by using the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters.
(→Netscott) 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our own Andrew Jackson article even mentions this. (→Netscott) 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~So your only example of a Democrat calling himself a donkey is 180 years old? Compelling. TortureIsWrong 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Uh, there's a reason Andrew Jackson is on the United States twenty-dollar bill. (→Netscott) 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic party refers to themselves as donkeys. It doesn't matter if the evidence is 20 years old or 180 years old. Democrats are referred to as donkeys. They are associated with the donkey. Look at this [1]. Why would they campaign as donkeys if they thought it was negative? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one and this one make me laugh. The one with the line, "whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?" is good for a chuckle too. (→Netscott) 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have linked to http://www.cafepress.com (a commercial T-shirt site) rather than http://www.democrats.org (the Democratic Party site). Where do "the Democratic party refer[] to themselves as donkeys" (plural), let alone "campaign as donkeys"? Having an animal symbolize a group does not mean the members "refer to themselves" as being members of that animal species. An eagle is on the symbol for the USA; I have yet to hear American citizens in general being called "eagles" or referring to themselves as such. There are sports teams that use such designations, but certainly not the USA population as a whole. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the website you just linked! The article on McCain has an image of an elephant on it! If they are representing the Republicans as Elephants, then they must view themselves in some ways as donkeys. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow - even as a Republican, it is quite clear this username is meant to be a double entendre. There is no reason the user cannot find a less offensive name. Patstuart^talk·edits 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm attracted to your mom (talk · contribs)~~
~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs)~~
Sorry for the lack of opening statement (here's one, I know it's kinda late)... Anyway, RJASE1 has pretty much summarized it - it's a variation on the Mother insult. I can imagine some would find it offensive, and I can't really think of a good reason for allowing it. It doesn't (in my opinion) have any good-faith reason. T_im.boun^ceback - TaLk 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Could we have an opening statement, Tim? Cascadia^TALK^|^HISTORY 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - despite the lack of opening statement, I can't imagine any good-faith reason for this name - this is a variation of the Mother insult. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. I can't see how this violates policy. How it's suppose to be an insult I'm at a loss to fathom. (Cascadia, could you do something about your signature? Your comment took up five lines for an eight-word message.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd apply a common sense test here - if some random person left this phrase on your talk page (or said it to you in conversation), would you feel uncomfortable or insulted? If not disallowed as insulting, it should be disallowed per WP:IAR if nothing else. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth does IAR apply here? We're not going to block someone by using IAR as an excuse. Wouldn't AGF be much better? – Riana ^talk 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR should apply in that, even if it's not a specific violation of policy, a "reasonable person test" should be applied here. If a reasonable person finds personal remarks about their mother objectionable or insulting, it should be disallowed. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that test applies here, I don't see the point of this noticeboard at all. The point is that we can discuss these things, not have arbitrary personal standards that we can impose on new users. – Riana ^talk 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of this noticeboard is precisely to apply the reasonable person standard. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone were insulted and offended because someone said "I find your mother attractive", I'd say that they probably need therapy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it insulting and offensive, but no therapy for me, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, a majority of people would become extreamly defensive and take offense to anyone not outside of Mom's Significant Other stating she was attractive, so it is certainly there that people do take offense to such comments. Throw in the fact (as I stated below) that insults like this that seem like complements to some are actually popular among youth and immature groups. Whether you see it as a complement is along the same lines as saying it's OK to say such a thing about someone's Significant Other, such as "I'm attracted to your fiance", which in many circles usually winds up with the offender nursing a black eye. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've had cause to say before, offensive can be the fault of the offendee as well as of the offender; in this case, it's pretty clearly the former. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow, non-insulting and kinda funny. Certainly not violating policy, that I can tell. – Riana ^talk 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow I cannot see how this username can be anything but either someone's idea at being funny or as an insult. WP:U states: Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. I can say if I saw this on a talk page, I would be insulted. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) But it's not User:Buy a Paper Bag for Mother's Day, it's a compliment. Where's the insult? – Riana ^talk 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it could be a comment. If someone stated they thought my mother was attractive, I'd have some serious issues with that statement. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 14:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that is why it is discussed here because apparently several of us do not. Would you rather your mother not exist in conversation or always be talked about neutrally. I.e., "I think your Your mother is a peron" not "I think your mother is a great person" or a bad person. This is a bit different but the point is the same. What if it was sated, "I think your mother looks attractive today" or something like that? It is just a newer version of that statement in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope you've heard, as mentioned above, of a moma joke. These need not be things as "Your mom is ugly" to be an effective insult. For someone outside of someone's mom's husband or significant other to use that term would/should not be welcome. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of said jokes, and in all honsety, I would !vote to disallow a user:your mamma is so hot or any iuser started with the your mamm. However, I find this name tactfully stated in a manner that would not be confused with a "your mamma" joke, or really in a manner that would be offensive. In short, it is a compliment in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - I would not find it offensive. What is the alternative, "I find your mother to be ugly." While I understand where the possible negative connotations are, I think it is assuming bad faith to assume that this username is meant as an insult. Actually, it is probably a compliment to your mother, there rae many attractive mothers and it does not say, "I want to bang your mother" or other more offensive possiblities. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow. While I personally am not offended, others will be. --Dweller 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Come on, this is clearly a yo mama name designed to offend. Most people are offended of the idea of a stranger going after their mom. Try the old walking down the street test, if you are walking down the street and some guy says "I'm attracted to your mom", how are you going to feel? What if you are pretty sure this guy has never seen you mom? If you don't know how that would make you feel, try saying it to a few strangers and report back the reactions you get. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we have a new standard - anyone who assumes good faith for a potentially insulting username should be required to conduct the "HighInBC Walking Down the Street Test" before voting to allow. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it more of a though experiment. My real point was to consider how people will feel. And this has nothing to do with good or bad faith, and name can be unnecessarily offensive regardless of motive. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First off, I am pretty down to earth so i guess my response is just going to be ignored. However, If i was sure he had not seen her then i would just ignore him. If he had seen here, then good for him, she may be hot unfortunatly shes taken by my father and the said person will have to deal with it. THrough the whole process i find NOTHING offensive. (again, I am very down to earth and really hard to offend). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to realize that phrases like "your mom is hot" or any variation of that, including the one above, is an insult used frequently by the grossly immature (think high school students, college freshmen, and those that just never grew up.) Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do realize that, Trust me, but I am not offended by it. It is often used among my friends to refer to other friends whose mothers are attractive (and most of them are proud of it). I understand where you are coming from, i dont have a problem with the other disallows, i just think it could have been stated much worse and we need to assume good faith here and assume that it is not a childish joke. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith where good faith assumption is due. When it is clear to me that someone's making a childish joke, good faith goes out the window. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Clearly intended to be a "your mom" insult. Borisblue 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow; in my assessment this user's innocent intent could be taken the wrong way by others. Sam Blacketer 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - It isn't harmful, and is probably an oddly worded compliment. Ry Guy 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow I'm suspicious of the user's intentions. However, this RfC board isn't for intentions, it's for usernames; as it stands, the username isn't a violation of WP:U. Feel free to watch their edits to see if they become a vandal, but until they do something blockable, we should just leave them alone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although WP:U doesn't clearly define this username as a separate bullet point, it does state that Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. This username is a common insult / inflamatory comment, which would have it fall under WP:U. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A compliment isn't an insult, nor is it a mockery. You're reading far too much into it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your mom has a nice bossom" technically is a complement that would be answered by a slap. But, "it's a complement" won't help. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, saying your mom is attractive, last I checked would seem to be a compliment? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, dispite the fact that such a 'complement' is used as an insult and inflamatory remark, it's okay because you see it as a complement. Okay, I'll remember that. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it is not obviously an insult. This is a page for interpretation. If it was an obvious violation, it would have already been disallowed. However you look at it, insult is subjective. You cant call me wrong for not viewing it as offensive, just like I cant (and wont) call you wrong for finding it offensive. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Allow - A funny name, and despite what Cascadia says, there's no insult in the name at all. "Your Mom Is A Whore" would be an insult. Nothing wrong with a respectful attraction. TortureIsWrong 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... so I guess that phrases that are commonly used as an underhanded insult are okay on Wikipedia. Why do we have WP:U again? </sarcasm> Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We" have it to deal with actual insults. I have NEVER heard anyone use this "common" "underhanded insult" in my life. Nor has anyone else, apparently. I see your sarcasm and raise it. Now if only I could stop my eyes from rolling up in my head. TortureIsWrong 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not know it because you don't spend much time with the younger crowd. May not be a insult commonly used in the mature crowd, but those college age and younger seem to find such comments and insults hillarious to use against people. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. It's so "common" that a google of "i'm attracted to your mom" came up with ZERO hits. Is this "younger crowd" still in utero? TortureIsWrong 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your defintiion of commonly should be revised. THis discussion is for possible violation and to get a second opinion. A handfull of editors, as well as myself DO NOT view this as an insult. It has nothing to do with our disregard of Wp:U, however our interpretation of the username. I am sure if we felt offended or likley to be offended by this we would go the otherway. However, as it stands, several of us do not view this as an insult. Making sarcastic statements such as above is not going to help this conversation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. It's vaguely insulting, I guess, but it's hard to see how it could be offensive. More silly than anything. Coemgenus 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow per Coemgenus; if even someone who says "Allow" admits it's "vaguely insulting", well, "vaguely insulting" is sufficient reason to disallow. It's a "Yo Mama" remark, and one can start a fight by saying no more than "Yo Mama". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see "yo mamma" anywhere in the said username? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "your mom". That works too. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - Inflammatory. The Behnam 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow common sense says that this username, though relatively mild, is likely designed to elicit a mild inflammation of one's sensibilities (at least here in the States). If a username must be interpreted in some "right way" to be non-inflammatory, it's just not a good idea. -- Scientizzle 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - I know he's not talking about my mom, so no reason for me or anyone else to take offense. Milto LOL pia 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - I don't see how this can possibly be insulting or offensive in any way. It simply means that you have an attractive mother and your father has a good taste in women. Would you consider "I'm attracted to your girlfriend/boyfriend" to be insulting? I doubt it. // DecaimientoPoético 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a stranger - that would definitely be creepy and inappropriate. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it was coming from a stranger, then yeah, it would be kinda creepy. But I still don't see how it would be insulting. // DecaimientoPoético 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know anything in the username policy against creepy. There are a bunch of things that could be creepy but not offensive. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow _ I cannot find this username offensive. It was earlier suggested that you try to imagine your reaction if someone said this to you on the street or in a conversation. the only reaction I could come up with was confusion. Unless of course we were discussing the pulchritude of my mother or mothers in general. --DSRH |talk 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow if the users attracted to my mom then so be it, many people find her attractive, especially my dad. This is a complementary username, it isn't meant to cause offence Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Disallow-the phrase "your mom" is considered rude, and I'm pretty sure that's what the user is intending it to mean. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd also object to names like "Word to your mother" or "Where's Your Mom"? Sorry, but your objection is not especially cogent. TortureIsWrong 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow. This doesn't literally violate policy, true. But where I live, at least, the unspoken implication of more than attraction is implied. And I'm not sure why anyone who didn't have that in mind would think of this name. -Amarkov moo! 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - Not a blatant attack, but clearly intended to provoke a negative reaction. —dgies^t_c 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In law school it's often said that lawyers use 'clearly' when they know the argument is anything but clear. TortureIsWrong 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow as a yo momma insult. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now being considered attractive is an insult? Is this Backwards Day? TortureIsWrong 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow as too long for a name of marginal taste. -- TedFrank 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow as seems to be designed off of "yo momma" insults or "sex w/ your mom" insults, and in addition it is borderline too long. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Highin BC says it best. No normal person says this to someone else without meaning to provoke. IronDuke 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Son to Father: Dad, who are you attracted to?
~~Father to Son: I'm attracted to your mom.~~
~~According to High and the Duke, the father in my example is abnormal. TortureIsWrong 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's true, sons frequently ask their fathers who they're attracted to. I believe this is a worldwide phenomenon. That aside, this user's name is a greeting or comment of sorts to us all, not merely to the user's father. IronDuke 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kids say the darndest things. Of course who uses the phrase in question as an insult? Please provide an example. TortureIsWrong 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~TortureIsWrong, usually I don't take offense at stuff like this, but maybe I left my sense of humor on your mom's nightstand...no offense intended. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Allow No clear rule violation. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, this is a bit of the dozens "Yo momma" mother insult thing which amongst friends who participate in that sort of thing can be hilarious but on a collaborative project where folks are working with others they don't know then it is probably best not to allow it. (→Netscott) 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - you must be kidding me. The fact that we would even consider this screenname, which is meant to be blatantly offensive, shows that there is something wrong with this board. Have people never heard of the yo mama joke? WP:U says usernames that might be considered offensive, and that rule is clearly in play here, as this more than might be offensive. Patstuart^talk·edits 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~=SebWill= (talk · contribs)~~
have we outlawed the use of equal signs? If so, I have no problem retracting this. By the way, this user has already been blocked by betacommand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) No; there was a short-lived addition to WP:U which didn't survive, lacking consensus. The debate is still visible in the WT:U history. (2) I've put a {{subst:UsernameNotice|1==SebWill=}} on User talk:Betacommand; this is a courtesy notice to a blocking admin that the username block is being discussed. Please do likewise in future. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow - Equal signs are misleading/confusing. The Behnam 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but I cannot locate the reference to such a ban, but I do recall seeing it... somewhere. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remeber it being a discussion but what I remeber, we agreed that they were OK and should not be outright blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case... I don't recall 100%, but at least you recall seeing something about this topic... reassures my assumption that I am not insane... yet. :-) Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - equal signs should not force an editor to hace to change there name. As it is shown with this, equal signs are compatiable with many templates etc etc. If this is unblocked, there are sevearl other = sign editrs that should probably be unblocked too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow: the header itself demonstrates that templates can handle the name without breaking, and template-breaking was the only reason even Betacommand offered when he proposed banning names that contain equal signs -- a proposal that does not have consensus and is not at present part of policy, so cannot justify a username block. E=MC^2 (talk · contribs) has been a Wikipedia editor since February 2005 and never been blocked, so precedent exists to allow such names. Unblock this user, if that was the only reason. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Can't really see a problem with it; if the character "=" doesn't break anything, I can't imagine why they would be blocked (aside from the fact that it was done by betacommand). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were several others that I chose not to list to prevent clogging up this page. I figured this would be a good decider and the outcome of this I would block or unblock the others. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these users were blocked before the 1= variable was added to user templates to avoid breaking them. But I blocked = usernames due to the fact that they broke templates Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, using "1=" in templates has always worked. --Conti|✉ 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "1= variable" was not added to templates, it's an inherent part of template syntax. I only added (and documented) a named variable "User=" for those who find words easier to remember than numbers, at the excellent suggestion of VectorPotential, who also pointed out that using "1=" was already documented as the standard way to handle values containing equal signs: see Help:Template#Equals sign in parameter value. You blocked who-knows-how-many usernames for having equal signs, when the only problem was that you hadn't Read The Fantastic Manual. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Keep it cool, ladies and gents. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it is still a misleading/confusing use of characters, so block all of the = people. The Behnam 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how did either "=SebWill=" or "E=MC^2" mislead or confuse you or anyone else? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow per the precedent set by =fjf6756. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, that name was mostly disallowed because of it's randomness, not because of the "=" character. --Conti|✉ 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name was also disallowed because of the technical confusion caused by the equal sign. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was, I'd disagree with the block; seven characters is hardly long enough to establish a random pattern when four of them form a very common name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my !vote: with "per =fjf6756", I referred to the technical confusion caused by the equal sign, not to an apparently random sequence of characters, because =SebWill= is definitely not random. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow per Aecis. // DecaimientoPoético 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow although I fully understand the concerns raised above, there's a couple of points I'd like to make. 1) We don't set precedents, each name that comes here starts afresh. 2)It has already been shown that the = sign can easily be worked around by adding 1= to templates, laziness of established editors should not be a reason to disallow a name Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in another RFCN, precedents can be a pain in the arse, but randomness and arbitrariness are imo a lot worse. Either we block all users with equal signs, or we block none. We don't allow some and disallow others depending on the input of the discussion. And regarding your second point: how many established editors does Wikipedia have? And how many occasional viewers/readers/editors does Wikipedia have? The key question is whether the equal sign can cause technical confusion among reasonable editors, not among established editors. The latter should perhaps know better, the former cannot always be blamed for confusion. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow-It seems it only looks strange in the address bar. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - While it can be worked around, is likely to cause problems if less technically-skilled editors need to deal with this person. If they want equals signs, they can just use a fancy signature. —dgies^t_c 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - Between the inconvenience of requiring an equal-sign-loving editor to use a signature template and the inconvenience of requiring everyone else in the project to futz with workarounds to accommodate the software's dislike of equal-signs in usernames, the cost-benefit analysis seems straightforward. Just as a matter of WP:CIVIL, one shouldn't have an equal-sign in the username. -- TedFrank 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow, since there's no real technical problem here. It also isn't a "workaround" to use "1=" in such cases, it's the way it's supposed to be done in the first place. Anyways, these templates aren't vital or anything, oldskool stuff like wikilinking works, too. User talk:=SebWill=! See? --Conti|✉ 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are we discussing this? He's been blocked for a month. There is very little chance that the user hasn't registered a different username by now if he still wanted to edit, and all around there is even less of a chance that he'll ever notice that this took place or that the name was unblocked. If the editor cared at all he would have posted on his talk page by now. Are we going to review the block of everyone ever blocked under a particular part of the username policy every single time we change it or our interpretation of it? This seems like a complete waste of time.--Dycedarg ж 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's being discussed for principal, whether or not the users coming back, why should an accound stay blocked if it shouldn't have been? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no users have been blocked for this reason in a month, than it's not a current problem and thus a discussion about the principal is not necessary. If a user gets blocked for this in the future we can discuss it then. As for whether or not an account blocked for an invalid reason should remain blocked: There is no reason why it should. Conversely, there is no reason why it shouldn't. The user has almost without question either created an account or decided not to join Wikipedia at all by now. And if he has a new account, he'd have to usurp this one anyway to keep his contributions, and a block doesn't prevent that.--Dycedarg ж 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So by your principal it's ok for an invalid block to remain? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a month old username block:Absolutely. There's a reason we have unblock templates and usurpation. If a user is blocked for having an improper username, and later discovers that the reasoning behind the block was flawed or has been superseded by a new policy, than he can request an unblock or can usurp if he's already made a new account. But very few random people who've had an old username blocked within minutes of making it for a username violation are going to assume there's the slightest possibility that it will be unblocked; they aren't going to check back and unblocking them accomplishes nothing. If anyone wants to go through Betacommand's block logs searching for more usernames containing an "=" to unblock than by all means do so, I just don't see any compelling reason to do so. And I see absolutely no reason why we should be reviewing this particular block. If you want to have a discussion about principle, there are talkpages for doing so, but I see no purpose for cluttering up this page for this kind of a discussion if there is no foreseeable benefit to be had.--Dycedarg ж 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we obviously differ on opinions then Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-This account was blocked in February. The user probably already created a new account, and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't even know about this and if he gets unblocked because he doesn't have e-mail enabled. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Messssssssa (talk · contribs)~~
Rejected at WP:AIV, but seems a pretty straightforward application of the Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character rule -- TedFrank 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow as an extended repetition of a particular character. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow not too extended. Viridae ^Talk 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow not too extended is right. TortureIsWrong 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not too extended? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong allow Not too extended, and the characters certainly aren't random. However, this is going to be hard for users to remember in the future, and if this user sticks around, he/she will have to eventually change it. Maybe someone should suggest to him/her to do that now. BlackBear 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just for future reference, what is "too extended"? Messsssssssa? Messsssssssssa? Messsssssssssa? My rule of thumb would be anything that isn't immediately apparent to the eye and requires taking a few seconds to count, so I'd draw the line as anything longer than Messsssa. -- TedFrank 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this username "is going to be hard for users to remember in the future", as you say it is, this is a confusing use of characters, which is not allowed per WP:U. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Allow~~ Disallow-Maybe shorten to 2 or 3 s'. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow extended repetition and so not allowed - is it 6, is it 7, is it 8, is it 9 letter "s"s? Not sure I understand logic of "strong allow but he/she will have to change it eventually". Bencherlite 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment-This account was blocked in February. The user probably already created a new account, and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't even know about this and if he gets unblocked because he doesn't have e-mail enabled. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This account was only created about an hour ago. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Commenting about wrong username. Copied to appropriate one.

Disallow too repetitive, no clear difference between User:Messssssssa, User:Messsssssa and Messsssssssa? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow It's an extended repetition. No one has denied this. Where does this "not too extended" business come from? It says extended repetition, not "too extended" repetition. There is no variance in the wording of the policy, and it makes sense because no one is going to remember how many letters there are in a username like this. That rule is there so that people can communicate effectively with each other, and this name is clearly not in line with that.--Dycedarg ж 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more of an impediment to communication than, oh, putting your name in a black box and making it less readable. TortureIsWrong 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~For Dycedarg, this is a time for WP:DNFT. The Behnam 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
See WP:SIG for that, not WP:U, and by the way, it looks fine to me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disalllllllllllllllllllllllllllow The Behnam 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Extended repetittttttttttion. IronDuke 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Too much repetition. You can't look at it and think "I know what they mean." Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallllllllllllllllow. How many S's are there there? (→Netscott) 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow I'd hate to give a warning to Messsssssa that was intended for Messssssssa instead. KrakatoaKatie 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disalllllllllllllllow per Netscott. Again, no reason user can't find an easier screenname. Patstuart^talk·edits 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Police Bastard (talk · contribs)~~
~~Sounds inflammatory and "bastard" is probably a sexual reference. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~How is "bastard" sexual? John Reaves (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~See Bastard. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Disallow - clearly violates no Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults. Bastard is undoubtably a slur, in the same vein as faggot or nigger (though not necessarily sexual). Patstuart^talk·edits 02:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - insult. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Disallow Not because of sexual reference, but it is inflammatory. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 :::Ouch. Keep it cool, ladies and gents. [[User:Cascadia|'''Cascadia''']]<sup> <font color="#2F4F2F">[[User talk:cascadia|'''TALK''']]</font>| <font color="#2F4F2F">[[Special:Contributions/Cascadia|'''HISTORY''']]</font></sup> 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 ::::Ah, it is still a misleading/confusing use of characters, so block all of the = people.  [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
+:::::Exactly how did either "=SebWill=" or "E=MC^2" ''mislead'' or ''confuse'' you or anyone else? -- [[User:Ben|<span title="Formerly ''Benedict the Moor''">'''''Ben'''''</span>]]&ensp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Ben|'''TALK''']]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ben|'''HIST''']]</sub></small> 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Disallow''' per the precedent set by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=114678709 =fjf6756]. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 **As far as I can see, that name was mostly disallowed because of it's randomness, not because of the "=" character. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)