Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 20 March 2007

• WP:RFC/NAME
• WP:RFCN

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

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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

SlaveOFchrist (talk · contribs)

Usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review. Christ is not mentioned but I thought this would be a good discussion. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• disallow Slave is a negative term and implies that christ forced people to follow him Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow per WP:U. I don't care whether he's claiming to be him or whether is saying to be a helper of him, it's still a religious figure in the username. --TeckWiz Contribs_@ 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak disallow - "Slave of Christ"? I can certainly see where they're getting at, and while being a "slave of Christ" isn't necssarily a bad thing, it can still be seen as offensive to other users. I'd say that we disallow this user name out of good faith and give him/her the chance to change it. // DecaimientoPoético 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak allow On the other hand in some languages and cultures the difference between slave and servant is a matter of nuance. It could just imply blind obediance to. However, this may be a single purpose/link spam account. All contributions to date have been to add links to www.kingdomready.org or one of its sub-pages to articles. --DSRH |talk 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow could easily be taken negatively as slave is a negative word. Per WP:U#Religious. _InBC 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow Why should this be disallowed when ASERVANTOFCHRIST was allowed? Acalamari 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because slave is a bit more negative than servant, it implies forced servitude. _InBC 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, you may want to go through the list of users and block everyone with slave in their name; assuming this name is disallowed. Acalamari 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • User:Wikislave wouldn't be disallowed, I'm saying disallow with this one because of the negative term being used with christ, not because of the word slave Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, per WP:U#Religious, we hold names with religious figures to a higher standard. _InBC 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • • Change to Disallow. Acalamari 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow per HighInBC's comment GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak disallow. While he obviously isn't intending to offend people, it will reasonably be offensive to those who don't understand the background behind the name. It's also not going to help him any since it seems to imply POV-based editing. --tjstrf talk 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Allow I really do not see the issue here. I don't see how it would imply POV-based editing much more than "HighInBC", (not trying to pick on ya), which could be deemed by some as not acceptable. Lots of people here nitpicking things that don't really need to be nitpicked. Cascadia 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This issue is not that the name indicates POV editing, it is that the negative word slave, meaning forced servitude, being combined with a religious figure is a violation of WP:U#Religious. _InBC 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue here for me is that A)The policy does not state that it is out and out prohibited, but may be reivewed. B)Everyone here is worried about someone being offended, when really, anything can be offensive to anyone. C)Why are we debating his username if he's running on thin-ice for linkspamming anyway? I'm not trying to cause a fight, but just bringing a different POV to the table. Cascadia 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Read the policy again, and retract my point A statement, but keeping comment. Cascadia 20:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow - Policy says so. --w 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• AllowIf ASERVANTOFCHRIST was allowed then this should be also; the english-translated Bible uses "slave" interchangably with servant in this context, for instance, here. Whatever hypothetical entity this username is supposed to offend, it certainly isn't christians. Borisblue 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that because User:ASERVANTOFCHRIST has been 'allowed', a precedent has been set that nullifies a disallow judgment here unless we also disallow other users, such as the example provided. What is good for one, is good for all... regardless of 'slave', etc, since the reall issue here is the use of the term 'christ'. Cascadia 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow - Policy doesn't ban the use of religious references in usernames, except where it is inflammatory. This person wants to describe themselves as a slave of Christ - doesn't strike me as inflammatory; their edits indicate it isn't intended blasphemously, but just a reflection of their values. Canthusus 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow - Policy reads as follows: "Usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." Kukini 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also please refer to this archive from this rfc where "Jesus" was reviewed. Kukini 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal Also please refer to this archive from this rfc where "ASERVANTOFCHRIST] was reviewed.Borisblue 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The guidance on religious names is in the context of a list of examples of types of names that could be inflammatory. Fair enough if you call yourself God that would upset some people. But ServantOfGod certainly wouldn't upset a christian. Is SlaveOFChrist any different? Canthusus 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As Ryanpostlethwaite said above: "Slave is a negative term and implies that christ forced people to follow him." So, in a sense, it is different. // DecaimientoPoético 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that's the issue. Personally, I don't read that meaning - I think of this person volunteering to be a slave of Christ (yes, I know that doesn't make sense!). It's obvious from the edits that they are a Christian, so they presumably don't see the negative connotation either. But maybe others do... Canthusus 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Disallow - per HighInBC's comment and per WP:U - Alison 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow as per comment by HighInBC AND WP:U Xdenizen 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow since nobody actually offended can be bothered to comment. User:Novalis 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• The policy does not require somebody to already have been offended. _InBC

Ask me) 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right, but the absence of offended people indicates that the username isn't actually offensive to anyone. That is, absence of evidence (after a search) *is* evidence of absence. Novalis 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to whom precisely is this supposed to be taken negatively? Christians? The BIBLE itself describes christians as "slaves of christ" See the link in my comment above. Borisblue 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Allow - My own name 'MoeLarryAndJesus' was disallowed, but I'm supposed to be subjected to religious proselytizing? What a load of unfair crap. The initial objection to 'MoeLarryAndJesus' was that names with religious content were not allowed - then some said Christians might be offended. Well, "SlaveOFChrist" is offensive to human dignity. By the way, when 'MoeLarryAndJesus' was banned, not ONE SINGLE PERSON actually claimed to have been offended by the name. However, since I'm not a hypocrite, I vote to allow. Unlike far too many here, I value freedom of expression. TortureIsWrong 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• HighInBC already said above that no one has to be offended in order for a name to be reported here. As for your comment about freedom of expression, Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy. Acalamari 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone had to be offended, of course, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor did I say Misplaced Pages was a democracy, although it is supposed to be a place where consensus matters, and consensus is best achieved when expression is free. You can disagree with that if you will. After all, I value your freedom of expression even if you do not. TortureIsWrong 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• allow Are you all completely ignorant of Christianity who are objecting to 'slave'? You're getting offended on behalf of Christians but know nothing of the Bible? Have a read of . Slave is indicative of religious devotion. Nssdfdsfds 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow I'm a Christian, and I can't think of any reason why this would be offensive to a Christian, any more than ASERVANTOFCHRIST is. Slave has negative connotations, yes, but not in this context. Saying that all negative terms + Christ = bad makes no sense to me. These things should be judged in context, not disallowed out of hand.--Dycedarg ж 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow - this is silly. We don't religious usernames here. Paul calls himself a servant (or slave, or bondservant) of Christ. I, myself, and a born again Christian and thus servant of Christ. It's not an offensive term, but that's beside the point. We don't allow names that mention religious figures. This isn't a vote to determine whether or not we like it. --BigDT 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow. The name should not be inflammatory in itself - it really does just express an 'association'. Shenme 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While interesting, that isn't policy. Such names aren't allowed. It's one thing if Christian, Mohammed, or Godwin is somebody's first name. Beyond that, names of religious figures aren't allowed. Consensus can't overrule that. --BigDT 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You sure? You might want to see this discussion from 7 days ago, where SERVANTOFCHRIST was allowed. Such names are allowed, you're wrong. Nssdfdsfds 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, that was the wrong decision. We need to get out of the business of treating RFCN like a vote. Its sole purpose is to assist admins in determining the correct decision according to policy. --BigDT 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Could you please read the policy? It does not say that religious names are banned, at all. Please read it. Nssdfdsfds 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) This is a misintepretation of policy. Names like this ARE allowed. The similar name ASERVANTOFCHRIST was recently allowed. Read WP:U again: Usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review. Borisblue 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That's talking about names like Godwin and Christian. In other words, use common sense and don't block someone because their parents named them Christian or Mohammed. It's not free reign to use a religious name for WP:ILIKEIT reasons. --BigDT 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Please cite the part of policy that states that these are the only exceptions. Borisblue 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If it meant that, it would say that, and it would use words such as Christian and Muhammad as examples (people are often called by these names), not Allah or Buddha, which are never people's names at all. It's very notable that none of the terms referred to double as people's names - Jesus, Christian, or Muhammad, which are also people's names, are not mentioned - it is blindinly obvious that these would be allowed. This policy refers to references to god, which will sometimes be allowed. Nssdfdsfds 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Where in the world did WP:ILIKEIT come from in this discussion? Little past left field. BigDT, the issue is 1)A precedent has been set by ASERVANTOFCHRIST being allowed. 2)WP:U does not say that usernames that consist partially of a religious icon are automatically allowed denied, but are up for discussion. Which is exactly what we're doing here, is discussing this. Cascadia 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • We don't set precedents on wikipedia, and certainly not when servant and slave are 2 completely different terms Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • In this context they aren't. Christians describe themselves as both servants of christ and slaves of christ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
            • Yeah ... slave and servant are both translated from the same Greek word. Some translations use slave, others servant. Offending Christians isn't really an issue with this name - it isn't offensive. --BigDT 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • But slave of Christ also has a potential different reason, some christians may descibe themselves as a slave of christ, but the use of this term, in this context has a large possibility to have an offensive meaning Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Some Christians? The Bible itself describes Christians as slaves of Christ. Borisblue 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Some Christians might object to being called slaves of Christ. But I can't see any reason why someone would object to someone else calling themselves a slave of Christ, and so far you haven't given a reason.--Dycedarg ж 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The language in question has only been on WP:UN for two months (partially added in this diff) . It was added soley for the purpose of preventing every username with Godwin or Godfrey or whatever from coming here. If the wording doesn't make that clear, we need to change it. Names of religious figures are not allowed. --BigDT 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Why should it be changed? Clearly there is no consensus for a blanket ban on religious mention; look at this RFC page for evidence! Also, note that ASERVANTOFCHRIST allowed when it came up for discussion- as in, not a "no consensus" but an explicit SNOW allow. That particular piece of policy reflects consensus as is; if anything, it should be made more lenient. Borisblue 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • You can argue that the policy only means that all you want. It does not however state that. We are here to interpret the policy as it is written, regardless of what it was meant to mean. If we're going to argue over what the person who wrote it meant then we'll be here all day because no one has any proof on the matter. If you want the wording changed to reflect what you think it means than the place to seek consensus for such a change is the talk page of the policy in question.--Dycedarg ж 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow While that may be so, slave of Christ has the possibility of offending some. This is the reason for a ban on names consisting solely of the names of religious figures and by the same logic this name should be disallowed. --Nick—/_Contribs 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be no positive definition nor connotation of the term slavery in our current[REDACTED] page. If the one being argued for above is considered valid by many (although I personally have a problem with any positive connotation of the term), perhaps that article should be updated. Kukini 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to fit it in- maybe a trivia bullet noting the Apostle Paul's frequent use of this metaphor. Though I'm pretty sure this isn't unique to christianity- the common Muslim name "Abdullah" for instance, means slave of Allah Borisblue 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, they are voluntarilly submitting to serve Him. It's a voluntary "slavery". At any rate, the concept of slavery in biblical times is unrelated to slavery in American history. I am not ashamed to be called a slave of Jesus Christ. But the only question here is whether the name meets our policies, not whether I like it. --BigDT 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, this is an English encyclopedia, reflecting culture and history of the US, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and so forth. The history of slavery is quite relevant here, in my opinion. Kukini 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please also note, I believe we really need to become more consistent on this...for example, User:JesusIsOurSaviour was blocked on 3/16/07 and User:Jesus was blocked on 3/05/2007 for policy violation. Kukini 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Yet User:ASERVANTOFCHRIST was allowed on 3/13/07. Kukini 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think it's reasonably consistent: User:JesusIsOurSaviour applies a statement of faith to other people, User:ASERVANTOFCHRIST implies only affiliation, while User:Jesus is impersonation. —dgies_c 03:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • FYI, Jesus is a very popular name for those from Latin America. I worked with a guy whose name was Jesus. As a joke we called him "Jesus" (jees-us) instead of "Jesus" (Hey-soos)Cascadia 03:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)