I'd like to request the above user be unblocked. Whatever way you want to interpret the phrase, "I'm not stupid!", "I'm not homosexual!", this name is not at all inappropriate. "I'm not" phrases are used all the time; this certainly doesn't make the use of those words inappropriate. This phrase is no more inappropriate than saying "I'm not a Jagex Moderator" or "I'm not a RuneScape player", and I'm sure we wouldn't block people for making names like that. Clearly, this block is completely inappropriate and I can't see any reason that can be justified to block this user (no one has provided me with any valid one). This block is a clear violation of freedom of expression, and there is nothing apart from weak personal reasons to justify the block. Smithing (talk | contribs) 17:26, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The user has no edits. There's no need for us to get into this situation or stir up an unnecessary drama; he's completely free to come back with a different name if he wants to. Ronan Talk 17:31, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
- So you're saying a block for no reason is justified if the user has no edits? Smithing (talk | contribs) 17:32, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't believe this block is unjustified. The nature of the username, with the lack of spaces, no apostrophe in I'm, and three exclamation points, suggests that this user intended for to use the name to troll and/or be disruptive. These factors, in conjunction with the content of the name, lead me to the conclusion that the user can be blocked for an inappropriate username. --LiquidTalk 17:35, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
- And the name just screams homophobic. 17:37, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that is not a major portion of my opposition. I'm more interested in blocking inappropriate usernames containing things like sexually explicit material or malicious impersonation of, say, a Jagex moderator; I don't care too much about usernames that are perceived as controversial, simply because there are two sides to those debates, and blocking someone who has a stake in that debate will inevitably piss people off. However, slightly controversial usernames have to be presented in an erudite fashion, or else they can easily be interpreted as a underhanded attack on a particular group of individuals. In this case, the username is quite slovenly, which is why I support keeping it blocked.
- To clarify, allow me to use an example. For the sake of argument, let us assume that having pink hair is controversial. We cannot block everyone whose username pertains to that topic due to controversy, as then both sides would be blocked. For example, "PinkHairSucks" would be offensive to those who like pink hair; on the flip side, "PinkHairIsAwesome" would offend those who hate pink hair. It would be unfair for the wiki to mandate that usernames cannot pertain to a controversial subject. I mean, where would it stop? Would Cook Me Plox be blocked because it could suggest cannibalism? Would I be blocked because someone hates chemistry? Would CastingFishies be banned because of some silly PETA argument?
- However, the wiki does have a general interest in maintaining peace in the populace, and therefore, I posit that usernames pertaining to a subject generally recognized as controversial can be limited. A username of "I'm not homosexual" should be fine, as it opens intelligent debate. However, something like "Imnotgay!!!" gives off an air of immaturity, and would likely denigrate a discussion on the topic into personal attacks, not substantive talk. That's why I oppose unblocking. --LiquidTalk 18:05, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The name could quite easily be mistaken as being homophobic, also they have made no attempt to appeal their block that I can see17:40, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
- That is because eiting their talk page is disabled, as with all other users with unacceptable usernames. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 17:42, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Liquid's text wall has a point in there somewhere, and I agree with it. The guy's username was just screaming for some attention & controversy. It's no different than naming yourself something else controversial, like Liquid said. If someone named themselves "Imnotblack!!!" we'd see it as being racist/prejudiced, would we not? It's as if the user is taking pride in the fact that they are not gay as if it is a bad thing. 18:09, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd still oppose this if the name were Imnotnoodles!!!. Reason; regardless of the controversy, if you are affected, at this point it would be easier for the user to create an account with a new name than having this one unblocked. This will also prevent anyone from using this name in the future, be them a troll or not, be this one a troll or not. Also, +1 for Cook being a cannibal.19:18, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - If someone sees the name "Imnotgay!!!" in the recent activity module on the sidebar, what will happen to their respect for our wiki? I suspect a fair number of people will be wondering why such a name is allowed on the wiki, and our prestige will fall. There's no reason for that kind of name on here. ʞooɔ 19:51, May 5, 2012 (UTC)