Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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.

[edit] Hail the Dark Lord Satan

The result was blocked by Prodego (talk · contribs) per the AN/I discussion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk · contribs)

This username violates the username policy as it is both disruptive and offensive. The user claims to be under a cleanstart and I was therefore advised to bring the username up here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow. While one may be tempted to call this a free speech issue, it remains reasonable that this username has the potential of offending a good number of Wikipedians. I myself am not in any way offended, but since we are here to build an encyclopedia-writing community, I would strongly advise disallowing such divisive usernames. If Bodhislutva (see below) is not allowed, then neither should this one. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow - I've been pondering this since seeing it on WP:UAA yesterday. My thoughts are that this is a violation of username policy which is likely to give offence to other editors and cause them to view the individual's contributions with deep suspicion. High potential for disruption even if the individual edits solely in good faith. Common-sense dictates that an individual pursuing a clean start should not choose a username likely to be controversial (and that this username is controversial, is itself common-sense). That the individual's userpage is soapbox-esque, gives me additional cause for concern. I wish to point out that I take no personal offence to LaVeyen Satanism, I'm looking at this solely from a policy basis. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Allow - User states it is his religious belief. Definitely doesn't meet the definition of disruptive as it is defined on WP:USERNAME. Does it how a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia? No. Who is it offensive to? Christians? Should we disallow all usernames that include Christian messages on the basis that they offend Muslims? It's not blatantly offensive in my opinion. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  For the record, I myself believe in neither God nor Satan. Yet the fact that Satanism is an incredibly controversial religious sect and has the great potential of offending even moderate Christians should be common sense. Remember, we are not here to brag about freedom of speech for everyone (that's what Uncyclopedia is for, in my opinion). We are here to write an encyclopedia. Soapboxing about a delicate issue as this one is not conductive to that purpose, no matter what you and I may think about said issue. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  I, for one, choose to assume good faith here. If some percentage of Christians find it offensive, then they are perhaps oversensitive. Type in Allah in the search box and see how many usernames come up with the same type of religious username; I know that's not an argument, but disallowing this one just seems like a double standard to me. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Tbe name is as likely to cause offence to Muslims. See: Shaitan. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Whatever Abrahamic religion. Should we disallow User:Jesussaves too? (I'm aware of the other stuff exists thing). Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Once again, Satanism is not equal to Islam. Islam as a religion goes back a long way, and I think it is safe to say that moderate Christians and moderate Islams today can understand each other and coexist in peace. Satanism, however, was founded purely as a counterculture sect with the intent to directly oppose Christian teachings, and as a result it should be clear as day that it is a touchy issue to even moderate Christians, and those who can accept this sect would perhaps be the preciously few very liberal Christians. Again, I do believe that we should avoid these highly controversial and divisive issues in editing Wikipedia, and if it so happens that we must treat one religious sect with double standard, then we sadly have to do so. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  So we should disallow usernames expressing faith in one religion, and yet allow others? I don't think that we should avoid these highly controversial and divisive issues in editing Wikipedia is a good argument to disallow this username. We keep pictures of Muhammad on the relevant article despite the depictions causing great offense to a great deal of Muslims. I'm sorry, but he's not calling for the death of Jesus or something, but a simple statement of his faith. Again, should we disallow User:Jesussaves because Satanists find it offensive? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  You are confusing encyclopedic content with community participatory content. We do not censor encyclopedic content. We will censor community participatory content within reason, however, to ensure that the encyclopedic content can be top quality. And yes, I know there is a double standard. The world isn't fair, and if we wanted to promote free speech instead of writing a top quality encyclopedia, we'd all be on Uncyclopedia this instant. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  If he had chosen Hail the Great Adolf Hitler for a username, claiming that he is a neo-nazi, and merely expressing his beliefs, I highly doubt you would buy it. This username is just as disruptive. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Allow The name does not attack anyone, and it is not profane. Either we allow it or we disallow all usernames with any religious mesage in them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  WP:ALLORNOTHING, then? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong disallow I hate to say it, but God, no. Absolutely offensive to many faiths, even if intended in humour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Allow This username is a product of my sincerely held religious beliefs. Should my sincerely held religious beliefs be subjected to censorship and be curtailed? As for those who say it is offensive please be aware that the Right Hand Path of the Abrahamic religions is incredibly offensive to me. Should any Abrahamic-based username be similarly censored? Furthermore, this username in no way disrupts Wikipedia. The functions of Wikipedia will not be damaged or disturbed in any way, shape or form by allowing me to use a username that reflects my sincerely held religious beliefs. The username is not something like WikipediaIsLeftist or ArbComIsBiased! or AdminsAreEvil. Those would be disruptive since they are here to make a point and disturb Wikipedia. My username does none of those things. The only disruption that is happening is my sincerely held religious beliefs are being threatened and the time that I would do vandalism patrol and new page patrolling is instead being spent at an internal squabble, which is very disruptive. I respectfully request that my username not be censored or in any other way curtailed. Thank you. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a private website: you have no freedom or rights; especially when it comes to religious beliefs when it is disruptive, offensive to many and clearly contrary to our username policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. To the user in question: Trust me, if your government is trying to censor your religious belief and persecute you for it, I will be the first to stand up and defend you. But Wikipedia is not the government, and we are not here to assert our freedom of speech. If you want your freedom of speech, you'll wanna go next door. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you're intending to go on vandalism patrol, I foresee disruption. Doubtless, a lengthy list could be produced of similar-themed usernames which have been blocked for vandalism. This means that other patrollers are likely to waste time double-checking your edits to make sure you're not a vandal yourself. I would myself, if I came across your username randomly. Obviously, WP:AGF arguments can be made here but the fact of the matter is that when names like Satan, 666 and satan10 vandalise Wikipedia it makes people naturally wary. I don't think anyone is questioning your desire to positively contribute or trying to condemn your personal beliefs. Wouldn't it be possible for you to choose a name that's less controversial? It doesn't seem unfair to request that, especially given that you've asked for a clean slate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a double standard. That's how it is. We are not Wiki-freedom-of-religion. Your name offends a great majority of Wikipedians, so I don't agree with you using it. It is that simple an issue. If Satanism has become the mainstream, and the Abrahamic religions become a fringe sect that is universally abhorred, I will not allow the opposite. However, the world is not like that, so at least in this world, I don't agree with allowing your name. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This account is obviously a troll, whether approved by Satan or not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow Pointy. Nobody Ent 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Disallow As per User:Zzarch. I'm sure this username is offensive to the majority of Wikipedians. May also cause problems with other users to assume good faith. Gsingh (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow A name clearly chosen to cause trouble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow This looks like an attempt to test the limits of what is acceptable on Wikipedia by choosing a deliberately provocative name. The argument that it is an expression of religious intolerance to disallow the name is understandable, but common sense should apply here. Frankly, we do treat different religions differently. If someone had a username expressing their commitment to the Creativity movement, an explicitly and self-avowedly racist religion, what then? We wouldn't disallow a user name for expressing Christian or Islamic views, but that's on the basis that such views are widely held and aren't in themselves deemed socially unacceptable, but a religion with self-declared racist views would be considered socially unacceptable, off Wikipedia or on it. Satanism - since it's associated in many people's minds with all kinds of undesirable and unacceptable activities - is socially unacceptable for similar reasons. So yes, we should discriminate against expressions of belief in Satanism, and be honest with ourselves that that is what we are doing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• {And let me add to that that even usernames expressing Christian or Islamic belief would be acceptable only within certain limits. If someone had a name like, Convert to Christianity, or Worship Allah, we shouldn't allow it. It is OK to say that you are a Christian or a Muslim in your user name, but definitely NOT to use a username that implies that other people should convert to your religion. Hail the Dark Lord Satan implies that people ought to hail Satan, and that is tantamount to saying that they should worship Satan or become Satanists themselves. If having a username that suggests that people should convert to Christianity or Islam is unacceptable, then having a username that suggests they should convert to Satanism is still less so). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow per WP:POINT / WP:SOAP.  7  00:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow as offensive, self indulgent and soapboxing ----Snowded ^TALK 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Allow Disallow - if User:Jesussaves is permitted, then this must be permitted, as it implies an encouragement to a religious belief. If this is disallowed, then User:Jesussaves needs to be also disallowed on the same basis. The fact that people have suspicions about who is behind this are irrelevant, we are here to solely discuss the acceptability of a name. Manning (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  User:Jesussaves has not edited in over 5 years. Accounts are not blocked as username violations unless they have recently edited. In addition, the username is not disruptive. HtDLS is disruptive and offensive on social grounds, as satan is generally associated with immorality. And hail can have the meaning of to praise, which is the problem here. Hail the Dark Lord Satan is equivalent to having a username of User:Heil Hitler (which is blocked). Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough on the editing front. However I don't see HtDLS as disruptive, more of a ludicrous joke, as Satanism does not strike me as a relevant force of evil. On the other hand I find both Jesus saves and Heil Hitler quite offensive, as they both represent social agencies which I regard as responsible for enormous social evils. If Jesus saves returned and I was allowed to protest that user name, then I'm happy to oppose HtDLS. Manning (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Manning has misunderstood the issue seriously. Jesussaves and Hail the Dark Lord Satan are not equivalent. The former is, in itself, simply a statement of religious belief. It could certainly be taken as an implied attempt to convert other editors to Christianity, but it is not the equivalent of a direct statement like Convert to Christianity or the like, which emphatically should be disallowed, for obvious reasons (we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to convert other editors to our religious beliefs, which is disruptive and offensive). In contrast, Hail the Dark Lord Satan reads like a direct statement to other editors to worship Satan, and as such is emphatically unacceptable. As I noted, it's the equivalent of something like, Worship Allah. I suppose these distinctions may seem over-subtle to other editors, but they are important. We should allow people to simply say what their religious beliefs are, but not to engage in overt, direct proselytising, no matter on behalf of what religion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2012 (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.

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.

[edit] Bingcrosby Enterprises

The result was: Disallow - already blocked by TNXMan307 for Spam.  7  00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingcrosby Enterprises (talk · contribs)

The name violates WP:CORPNAME. User was notified four months ago but did not reply, and has not changed the name. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow Bingcrosby Enterprises violates WP:CORPNAME further here the user has been editing Bing Crosby article and those related to him and these are its only edits.His own enterprise is called Bing crosby Enterprises through do not know whether this editor has any conenction with them.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow - why are we even discussing this, it's a clear violation and I have reported it to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow per WP:CORPNAME. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (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.

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: Disallow. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bodhislutva

Bodhislutva (talk · contribs)

Originally posted to WP:UAA by Yworo with the comment of 'offensive corruption of Buddhist term bodhisattva.'  7  00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note There have been a few discussions taking place on the users talk page that further elaborate on the nature of the concern, including associating a Boddhisatva with sexual promiscuity is quite unacceptable from a Buddhist standpoint. It would be the equivalent, in Christian terms, of calling the Virgin Mary a prostitute.  7  00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning toward Disallow - as the admin who reviewed this at UAA I decided (mostly based on the fact that this is a 6+ year old account with no significant problems) that it was not worthy of blocking immediately at UAA, but I cannot ignore the comments of the users who have voiced their concerns as I can see how this could be offensive to some people. Bringing it here for further community input.  7  01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow. Bodhislutva is an attempt to combine Boddhisatva with slut. Please let's not decide that this is OK simply because it offends Buddhist sensibilities rather than Christian ones. Imagine if someone had a username slyly implying that the Virgin Mary was a hooker or that Jesus Christ was a wanker. This is the exact equivalent. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Allow Firstly, the characterisation of bodhisattva above is inaccurate. As the Wiki entry itself notes, the term has both general and specific usages regarding enlightened persons, a very broad concept. In this sense it is invalid to liken it to a specific individual like the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ. Secondly, a slut and prostitute/hooker are not comparable. One is simply a promiscuous woman, the other is a paid sex-worker. Prostitution is frequently illegal even in developed nations with robust civil liberties, whilst promiscuity has no legal barriers for consenting adult women (which I am). In turn some Buddhist sects, admittedly ones influenced by contact with West norms, take an enlightened view on sexuality, including promiscuity. Sexuality can be a vehicle of enlightenment for some, thus logically connecting slut and bodhisattva within the context of Buddhism. While I acknowledge some do not share this view, it is not appropriate to validate one doctrinal stance over another.

-

The very need to use inflammatory examples from a markedly different religion when criticising my username shows that my username is not offensive, prima facie. I would further note that misogynistic sexual norms are a frequent prejudice and not ones that should be enforced on Wiki users, even if some do find female sexuality offensive. A user should have a right to express the nature of her sexuality in non-explicit terms as much as a person has a right to express other personal attributes like religious identity or favourite football club. In short my name in no way harms or belittles others. It is merely a playful reflection of myself.

-

I would like to end by noting that the very use of such a spurious and inflammatory example elucidates the thinly veiled nuisance attack being engaged in by Yworo and Polisher of Cobwebs. Please look at the sequence of events as I describe on my talk page. In particular I noted the delay of many months between Polisher of Cobwebs becoming aware of my username and this complaint. Flagging my name is a pretty blatant attempt to harass me for again introducing points of criticism on the page for author Richard Webster where both the users mentioned are actively involved. Details can be found on the talk page). I apologiseeif bring up that side issue is considered inappropriate, but given the easily verifiable sequence of events, it is hard to not see them an inextricably linked and intentional. --Bodhislutva (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the complaints about the precise significance of Boddhisatva (eg, that it's a term for a special category of people rather than a specific personage such as the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ) are beside the point. Making that objection is just an attempt to wriggle out of the central issue: this is a term that's considered sacred in Buddhism, and it profanes it by combining it with slut. If you like, compare it instead to calling Christian saints or angels masturbators or prostitutes - either way, it's still unacceptable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

...it profanes it by combining it with 'slut'. That is your opinion. The concept of something being profane is one of the most wildly subjective there is. Buddhist views on acceptable sexuality vary in the extreme. Also as evidence of my point about Polisher of Cobwebs and Yworo, being engaged in concerted, deliberate personal vendetta, just look how quickly and in unison they respond when I try and defend myself. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The pointlessness of this discussion is rather clear. Mainstream Buddhist views simply do not see sexual promiscuity as acceptable, let alone compatible with sacredness or exalted status. Buddhism in this respect is no different from any other major world religion. Most Buddhists would take offense at Bodhislutva; that a tiny minority of people who define themselves as Buddhists might not is not relevant. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but I have a right to defend my user name of many years. I thought it was a cute play on words then and I still do when challenged on it. The fact you dismiss a good-faith effort as pointlessness speaks volumes. Besides it is not the philosophy of WIkipedia to prioritise Mainstream views the last time I check. I stand by my claim that any offense given by name is based solely on misogynistic prejudices from certain quarters that should not be validated. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A Buddhist would feel compassion for those it offended, realize that the fact that it offended or raised negative passions in others clearly indicates that it is not a form of right speech, and would voluntarily change it for the sake of all sentient beings. If you actually know anything about Buddhism, you would have to admit that this is how a Bodhisattva would view the situation. Yworo (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That is stunningly hypocritical coming from someone who has belittled and mocked me in numerous post, both here and on my talk page. Now you have taken it from insults like offended feminist or sneering at me about the Cabal to attacking me based on religious views. You have no place to lecture anyone about right speech given your own constant string of personal attacks. And again, it is not Wikipedia's role to enforce specific religious doctrine. --Bodhislutva (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made no attacks. I'm sorry you don't appreciate my humor, it's meant to lighten things up. And you've reacted precisely the same way to every argument that every editor here has made, not just me. That's your conscience that's bothering you. Your reactions are those of a person that knows in their heart that they are in the wrong. And it is Wikipedia's role to prohibit offensive user names. Yworo (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So now you feel qualified to speak as to what is in my heart and conscience. About as personal and attack-like as you can get. --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've told you elsewhere, feel free to report me at the appropriate noticeboard if you truly believe this is a personal attack. This, however, is not the appropriate venue for a discussion about me. We are discussing your choice of username, anything else is offtopic here. Yworo (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow - I need make no comparison to definitively state that it is offensive to Buddhists. The Bodhisattva vows include:

  A disciple of the Buddha must not engage in licentious acts or encourage others to do so. [As a monk] he should not have sexual relations with any female -- be she a human, animal, deity or spirit -- nor create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of such misconduct. Indeed, he must not engage in improper sexual conduct with anyone. (27) A Buddha's disciple ought to have a mind of filial piety -- rescuing all sentient beings and instructing them in the Dharma of purity and chastity. If instead, he lacks compassion and encourages others to engage in sexual relations promiscuously, including with animals and even their mothers, daughters, sisters, or other close relatives, he commits a Parajika offense.

  Yworo (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  So you cite an openly male-centric text from one specific doctrine with a very narrow view on acceptable sexuality to decry female sexuality in Buddhism? If I had a name that identified me as a lesbian, would you be citing homophobic Buddhist texts? --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  It's a core Buddhist text. Buddhism is rather ascetic. I didn't invent it. If you have an authentic alternative text to present in your defense, by all means do so. But the offended feminist routine is getting a bit boring as a (non)-defense. Yworo (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  offended feminist - I think that personal barb reveals the political agenda behind your entire complaint. If I cite a pro-sexuality or pro-LGBT Buddhist text, you would just dispute it being authentic, so I am not going to be drawn into that game. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Just as well, there aren't any such texts. Even Tantric Buddhism rarely uses sexual intercourse as a tantric technique, and when it does, it requires years of training on the part of both partners. Sexual practices in the Vajrayana context are very different from ordinary sexual activity. In particular, it does not accept or promote sexual promiscuity any more than more mainstream Buddhism does. Any arguments you may have about Buddhism and sexual orientation are irrelevant. Even sects that are tolerant toward homosexuality refer to loving partnerships, not promiscuity. Yworo (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  there aren't any such texts Just as I predicted you summarily dismiss even the possibility of the existence of something that disagrees with your world view. --Bodhislutva (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Oh dear, you didn't know I was Buddhist so you thought you could bluff. And are still bluffing. I call your bluff, name one such text that supports your username. Yworo (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  I already said I am not going to play that game with someone who has closed their mind a priori and announced [j]ust as well, there aren't any such texts. --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Then I can reasonably conclude that you were bluffing in the first place. Since I am a Buddhist, I've studied a fair, though nowhere near complete, range of Buddhist texts, including overviews thereof. My opinion that you are bluffing is a fairly educated one. Yworo (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow -- seems like an obvious source of friction. Usernames are nyms, not a forum for personal statements. User's justifications for why they consider this a free-speech issue are rather thin by comparison. -- The Anome (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Calling my argument thin is not a substantive comment. Please explain why offence rooted in misogynistic concepts of female sexuality and specific religious doctrine should be validated by forcing me to change my username – a name no one objected for years until I contributed to an article about a writer who argued for restricting free speech based on religious sensitivity. Also most usernames include an element of personal statement, a creative name like yours being a perfect example thereof.--Bodhislutva (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow. Agree with The Anome. Regulars at UAA know I am the last one on the offensive username bandwagon, pretty much nothing offends me. Actually this doesn't offend me one bit. That being said, it is offensive to Buddhists and despite the users rapid tap-dancing on the subject I believe that to be deliberate, but whether it is or not it is obviously is offensive to deeply people with deeply held beliefs, which is not something we generally allow in usernames, with good reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  My tap dancing presents an argument you could attempt to respond to in a substantive fashion, rather than dismissing it with an insult. Instead you rely on a blanket statement that it is offensive to Buddhists, when no one has identified themselves as a Buddhist here and I point out that there is no one correct way to be a Buddhist (it is not the Catholic Church with an explicit hierarchy and uniform doctrinal statement).

  Oh, didn't I say, I'm a Buddhist. One of Native American descent, but I've taken refuge. Are you a Buddhist? Yworo (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  My what an extraordinarily convenient time to make that claim. Then again people can see above that you took to attacking me in purely religious terms, something you also did on my personal talk page. You filed the initial complaint and as your personal attacks on me have escalated, it really proves my point that your protest over my username comes from personal dislike rather principle. --Bodhislutva (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've made no personal attacks whatsoever. My argument about your username stands alone, regardless as to whether I reveal that I am Buddhist. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that I reveal personal information if I do not wish to. Also, I was quite sure you would dig yourself a much deeper hole not knowing I was Buddhist so I decided to wait until you brought it up. I see you have not answered the question as to whether you are Buddhist or not, so it is now clear that you are a non-Buddhist making sport with other people's religion, not a Buddhist of some obscure sect that such a username doesn't offend. That's simply not cool, here or anywhere else. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  I invite people to make note of your claim on my talk page: And your implication than I'm neither Buddhist nor offended is a personal attack. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC) So let me get this straight, your stating flat-out that I am not a Buddhist is not a personal attack for some reason, despite my not providing an answer by your own admission. But, my questioning the convenience of you claiming to be a Buddhist after a dozen or so posts with no mention of that fact is a personal attack? --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've given you multiple opportunities to say that you are by directly asking you. All you have to do is answer the question rather than evade it by attacking the questioner. Yworo (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow I am not a Buddhist and have never played one on TV. However, it's clear that this could be easily fixed by a name change, and the creative reluctance to take that step speaks as to the intent. There's no doubt it could offend, so it should be changed. Begoon ^talk 04:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  creative reluctance Yet another flip remark in place of an actual argument that addresses my concerns. --Bodhislutva (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You could see my first sentence as flip if you like. I thought a little gentle humour might be nice here, but maybe that was a misjudgement. As to the rest of it: Flip? No - very serious. I have no intention of dragging this out by repeating all that has been said. My rationale is in my comment - it's quite clear. There's nothing else I feel the need to address here. Begoon ^talk 08:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Now which clear rationale would that be? Your deliberately vague insinuations as to my intent, which avoids any discussion of my actual intent as stated. Or were you referring to the rationale that I should be forced to change my username of many years because it might offend someone? Is this the same Wikipedia that stood up to demands for from conservative Muslims and certain religious apologists that all images of Mohammed be removed? Is this the same WIkipedia that allows countless content that no doubt...could offend a conservative religious person? And did you even bother to notice how my username suddenly became offensive to Polisher of Cobwebs and Yworo in the aftermath of an editing dispute? --Bodhislutva (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhislutva's user name became offensive to me (not because I'm a Buddhist - I'm not - but simply because it's disruptive) several months ago. As noted on the user's talk page, I did nothing about it at the time because she wasn't editing regularly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Allow The username has been around since 2005 firstly WP:AGF to the user that this is not intentional and looking at his contributions he has not edited Buddhism related articles.Usernames are dealt with as per the time when they were created if it was not offensive in 2005 feel it should not be raised now.Email address could be usernames earlier on not now and hence old usernames are not blocked.Usernames created in the early days of Wikipedia should not blocked as per current norms.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) is allowed as per this WP:ANI discussion .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an email address. There has been no policy change with respect to the use of offensive user names. Further, our username policy is not based on whether there is an intent to offend. It's based on whether the name does offend a specific population of editors. We are not talking about blocking or banning this user, only about whether it would be better for Wikipedia for her to change it. I think that has been clearly established. Yworo (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If a username is offensive, it remains offensive however long someone has been using it. It's not true that usernames are always dealt with at the time they were created - as it happens, there is a user by the name of Paedophile (just check). User:Paedophile remained unblocked for many months (that account was created in December 2010, and only finally blocked in May 2011). Should they, by your logic, have remained unblocked just because their user name was not dealt with immediately when the account was created? Bodhislutva is not nearly as bad as Paedophile, but it is still offensive. As to the intent behind Bodhislutva, the fact that the user has utterly dismissed the concerns raised by other editors and in effect said that they have the right to be offensive (because people are only offended due to misogyny or negative views of sexuality) speaks volumes. Bodhislutva could start editing Buddhist-related articles tomorrow for all anyone knows, but we don't have to wait for her to do that, since her name has already been a source of offense and disruption. She should be told to change it, or (as a last resort only) blocked. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disallow per the disallows above. The name has the word slut in it, I don't understand why we're even discussing this. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I am a woman, women have right to express their sexuality without it being held to the lowest common denominator of misogyny, religious entitlement and offence, and the word slut is not as simple an issue as you imagine. Please read Slutwalk. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have no rights here, Wikipedia is not the place for feminist soapboxing. Slut is generally considered an offensive word. Your sexuality and how proud you are about it is completely irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. (I was very familiar with Slutwalks, I see no relevance to Wikipedia's username policy.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your initial comment states you do not even feel I should be given the benefit of defending myself (i.e. the logical consequence of having no discussion), yet you now claim to be very familiar with slutwalks, meaning you were very aware of attempts to uses of the word in a positive/affirmative sense. At the same time you label my actions as feminist soapboxing, when I have never claimed to be a feminist. I notice you take no exception to several obvious examples of what could be described as 'religious soapboxing' in this discussion. The confirmation bias of siding with religion in matters of offence is one WIkipedia has dealt with in favour of free expression in matters far weightier than my username. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have the mistaken impression that Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to use their own brains or state the obvious. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to defend since your intention in choosing that username is not important, the only thing that matters is what the username itself looks like without any excuses or explanations. We also don't allow usernames with faggot or n***er in them even though some people regularly use the words to positively refer to themselves. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how you censor the racial term but write the homophobic term with no such concern. That really speaks volumes about the double-standards and power hierarchies that go into defining a subjective concept like offence. Also slut is almost always used to describe individual behaviour. It is rarely, if ever, used to describe ALL women. In contrast the terms you mention have been regularly used to target minority groups in their entirety. As in the original posts, I note the need to resort to inflammatory examples to make a point. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to defend since your intention in choosing that username is not important, the only thing that matters is what the username itself looks like without any excuses or explanations. - Indeed, and that's what it is so easy to lose sight of in debates like this. Begoon ^talk 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't feel comfortable with using the n-word, I don't have the same feelings about faggot. That's all, that's why I censored it in my own writing. I really don't see what volumes or hierarchies it speaks of when I'm telling you that all of the three words are disallowed in usernames here. Yes, offense is subjective, but there exist words that are considered generally offensive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:38, 9 January 2012 (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.