Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Jezusfreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Closed as disallow, with both consensus here and over and over again for this same name in the past

 [view]

[edit] Jezusfreak (talk · contribs)

In the past, "Jesus freak" names have been continuously disallowed by consensus. I don't think the alternative spelling of "Jesus" makes this name any different than those. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Disallow. I don't have strong feelings on this but this forum has blocked at least 6 or 7 Jesusfreaks according to the archives, so we should attempt to have some consistency. I'm open to good arguments for disregarding precedent, though. RJASE1 Talk 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Neutral. Wikihermit's argument has put me on the fence, unless the user becomes disruptive (if this is an expression of faith). However, it could also be an attack username with a religious slur, intent is impossible to judge here. RJASE1 Talk 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should watch the user and if he becomes disruptive, then the name should be forbidden. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow If you are going to allow Mohamad ali then this one has to be ok as well. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, different policy. But like I said, I'm open-minded on this, just think we should attempt to strive for some consistency. RJASE1 Talk 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If Ali meant "freak," and in combination with Muhammad denoted a religious fanatic, and wasn't somebody's actual name, you'd have a point.Proabivouac 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow Religious figure- despite the mispelling, this is still against the religious figure rule in my opinion. G Donato (talk to me...) 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive." Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I quoted exactly the same sentence from WP:U to support an allow vote not long ago. The difference this time is that this one actually mentions a religious figure and is therefore in violation of that part of the policy. G Donato (talk to me...) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Discouraged doesn't mean prohibited. The name should be allowed, as it is not disruptive. If the name was IHATEJEZUSFREAK then it should be prohibited because that is disruptive. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that discouraged=prohibited, please read my comment. I am saying that this violates the religious figure part of WP:U G Donato (talk to me...) 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per nom.Proabivouac 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - Not offensive, spelled differntly than Jesus, same as mohamad ali argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow Totally different type of argument from the Mohamad Ali situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How is it different? They both are based off of the spelling of a user name. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The mohamad ali name was reported as being too similar to a living boxer, not as a religious figure. From the religious figure side of the coin, Muhammad have been allowed before because it is also a common name. With this name, the user is undoubtedly referring to a religious figure. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You're allowed to refer to religious figures. If the name was Jezus, then it should be disallowed. However, "Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive." Discouraged, not prohibited. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My reasons (edit conflicted):
  1. "Jesus" is a name, while "Freak" is not. Both "Mohamad" and "Ali" are names.
  2. Both "Ali" and "Mohmad" (and variant spellings) are common name: "Mohamad Ali" articles, "Mohammed Ali" articles, Muhammad Ali (disambiguation), Ali (disambiguation), Muhammad (name).
  3. "Jesus Freak" is an obvious religious-affiliation allusion; "Mohmad Ali" is not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. The name is not disruptive. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it is obviously not disruptive if blocked (:D), I still don't think it is a good idea (though I will go on record as saying that self-pejorative terms are okay in my book). "Jezusfreak" is, effectively, a declaration of religious allegiance, which I don't feel should be made in a username; userboxen, yes, but not usernames. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - Obvious reference to a religious figure, in flagrant violation of WP:U. Let's practice common sense here, rather than hairsplitting - how is it logically going to be interpreted by most readers? Walton Vivat Regina! 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hows is in violation? If the user name Mohamad Ali is allowed, even though it is clearly referring to a living person, then why can't Jezusfreak be allowed. It isn't Jesus but Jezus, as Mohamad isn't Mohammad. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I voted Disallow on Mohamad Ali as well. I don't think that a minor variation in spelling is an acceptable way to get around WP:U. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - At least 6 variations on "JesusFreak" have been banned this year. Shall I start thinking about a name change to MoeLarryAndJezus? TortureIsWrong 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Jezus is an alternative spelling for Jesus, a religious figure. Jezusfreak is expressing a view point. Read "Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive." Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - WP:U prohibits the use of religious figures. Misspelling is an intentional attempt at a way to locate the borderline of the WP:U policy. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (EC)
Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow per Cascadia. Haven't we already had this discussion? Coemgenus 18:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikihermit, stop yelling the same thing over and over, it doesn't help the discussion (especially when you make it bold). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow religious figure. Wooyi 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The user name is not a religious figure!! Read (actually read it): Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. The user is possibly expressing his faith in Jesus, which is discouraged, but not prohibited! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wikihermit tries to rebuke every disallow vote here, seemingly he is open-minded on usernames, but he is also the same guy who pushed for the disallowing of a "pothead" username. There is nothing bad about drug usernames. This led me to question this inconsistency. Wooyi 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Drugs are "illegal." Their is a huge difference between "pothead" and "Jezusfreak." The first is illegal and the second is a matter of opinion. With that logic, would you allow the user name "Ishootupheroin" because you believe their is nothing bad about drug usernames? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Drugs are illegal, yes, but illegal doesn't mean it's necessarily "bad" for a username. And there is a large amount of Wikipedians here think drug should be legalized. For religious figures, impersonating a religious figure (I would vote disallow for the Heavybuddha one too) would offend people who revere the religious figure. Wooyi 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's worth noting that pot is not illegal everywhere. Coemgenus 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If drugs don't mean bad, then how is saying Jezusfreak bad? The user isn't impersonating a religious figure. The user means he is a freak for Jesus. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.