User talk:Saddam Hussein

Discussion of the name change from "Saddam Hussein" to SH" follows. See user talk:SH for other Talk

Thank you for improving the entries for Palestinian views of the peace process and Circumcision. Please keep up the good work. --Zippy 09:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of whether SH is a vandal or not below

[problem user] User:Saddam Hussein copied the Saddam Hussein page into his user page. He still haven't edited anything for now. At18 16:55, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

since this time, user has made a number of helpful minor corrections to Palestinian views of the peace process, circumcision, weapons of mass destruction, and about a dozen other articles. --Zippy 06:00, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If it turns out that this person is not infact Saddam Hussein, and the user does some serious vandalism, there is a possibility that Saddam Hussein might have grounds for complaint. I think we should at least require that she/he provide a real mailing address or phone-number. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:14, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

GPS coordinates perhaps?Ark30inf 07:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

O. A celebrity. Wee. --Menchi 08:41, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

You know, famous people do not have a monolopy on their name! There are probably at least tens of Saddam Husseins in the world. Before WW2 I'm sure there were numerous Adolf Hitlers. Don't jump on this guy for offensive user name or whatever before you know for sure. CGS 11:26, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Not to mention a bunch of Jesuses running around in Spain. - Sigg3.net 15:23, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ahem. Just as a small hint, why not check his userpage at User:Saddam Hussein? I know that Saddam Hussein is kind of like George Adams in the relative commonness department. But the full name given on the userpage is the whole rigamarole including the al-tikriti etc. stuff. And there is a pretty unmistakable photograph. In fact it is the article from wikipedia, with even the other-language links intact. While I am not sure that the users name is not Saddam Hussein; I am convinced that anyone really named Saddam Hussein would not fault us for being pointedly sceptical. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Yeah, ok. I didn't look at the edit history. But still, keep it in mind for the future. CGS 15:09, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Someone wrote on this user page:

Note: this user is probably not Saddam Hussein

It must be the funniest thing I read on Wikipedia for a long time :-) At18 18:21, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. :) Martin 19:31, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think this is User:Paektu. { MB | マイカル } 21:21, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Saddam. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! We just have a few questions to ask you. If you wouldn't mind, please drop by your local American military base for a quick chat, ok? We have many offices in your local to serve you better! Thanks! ;-) "Uncle Sam"

Your corrections are appriciated. { MB | マイカル } 22:28, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

We have at present no policy on use of real or famous people's names as userids. There is one I believe against overtly politically motivated or inflammatory names. I think there's no issue though legally, as, no one believes that User:Saddam_Hussein is actually the Saddam Hussein on the news. Do they? If they did, it could become grounds for a defamation action. Who knows who could actually go to a court room though pretending to represent Saddam? At least without a bomb landing on it, or getting their face added to a deck of playing cards. EofT

Dear Saddam, as a tyrant and dictator (I am assuming you are Mr. S. Hussein, former CIA guy, totalitarian leader, etc., etc., if I am wrong then please ignore any comments that might be directed to your namesake) you are perhaps not familiar with the terminology used in Canadian constitutional history. There is in fact a word called patriation that we Canadians use to talk about the time when our constitution was given to us by the Queen, similar to what George W. Bush did for the Iraqi people when he deposed you, eh? Alex756

Users should be able to do what they want with their personal user pages. Reverting this page because "an encyclopedia is not a joke" is misguided - a user page is not an encyclopedia entry. It's a place for the user to describe themselves or their interests, or even to experiment with editing wiki pages. It is not, in my opinion, a place for strong editor attention. --Zippy 08:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It has been established that there are limits to what an editor can do with their own pages. The issue here, however, is mostly the offending account name, not the page itself. Daniel Quinlan 01:30, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, there was an edit war over the content of Saddam Hussein's user page. My comment was directed at that edit war. --Zippy 18:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Offensive username

User:Saddam Hussein is an offensive user name and violates Wikipedia:No offensive usernames. There is no need an editor to operate under the name of a man who gassed his own people and sent tens of thousands of people into mass graves. I originally thought it would be sufficient to just note this on the user page, but, in retrospect, it's not really an issue of truth (whether or not the editor is Saddam, which is clearly not the case), but of the offending user name itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for offending people, regardless of whether or not Saddam thinks he is funny, it's offensive and distracting to the task of creating an encyclopedia. The account name should be forcibly changed, it really serves no purpose other than to offend. Daniel Quinlan 01:21, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth worrying about. I kind of find the username "Harry Potter" offensive, but I'm not complaining. Someone might just as well complain that my username is offensive because it reminds them of a particularly obnoxious character in a Monty Python skit. I think that policy is in place so we don't have users with swear words or whatever as their usernames. -- Wapcaplet 01:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A name doesn't have to be offensive to everyone or even most people to require changing. I also think there's a vast difference between a fictional character (which would probably run awry of trademark issues) and a brutal dictator. Just like we don't allow user names based on offensive words, we shouldn't allow user names based on offensive historical or contemporary persons. It's hard to think of a worse person's name to pick. Maybe User:Adolf Hitler or User:Jeffrey Dahmer would be equally offensive to other people. A direct victim of one of these persons in real life would probably be even more offended. — Daniel Quinlan 01:50, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

The names User:George W. Bush or User:Ariel Sharon would be offensive to several Wikipedians from the Middle East. Should those usernames be banned as well, based on your standard? -- Kaijan 02:10, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course they should be prohibited as well. As another matter, Wikipedia may not want to allow names of famous (or notorious or infamous) people to be used unless someone is stuck with the same name as someone famous, in which case I have less of an objection to them using their real name. Daniel Quinlan 02:22, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. I've only been here less that a month and it is quite evident that there are (at least) two kinds of people at Wikipedia: those who are sereious about the dream of creating a free online encyclopedia and those who are here mostly to blow their horn (personal or political). I cannot determine if both types reside in some people. The point is, I'm sure I'm more opionated than most (at least my wife tells me so), but also old enough to know that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. The question is, how badly do you really want to poke yours in other peoples faces (a sure sign of immaturity IMHO). - Marshman 02:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would like to voice my opposition to any policy that would make my username prohibited. Perhaps a waiver for famous people who have been dead for more than 500 years? No chance for confusion then. ;) --Dante Alighieri 04:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that and agree. I think there are a few other examples. I think 250 years should be enough removal from present-day. Offensive historical names should still be off-limits, like uhh... "Jack the Ripper". If you go back far enough, though, it gets harder to offend, I think. We should also probably grandfather in any existing account names for famous people that have been deceased for say 100 years. Daniel Quinlan 04:42, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

I think such names should be allowed as long as the user does not claim to be this famous/controversial person. If User:Saddam Hussein removes those pictures of the famous Saddam and replaces it with his personal info, then I think it is acceptable. That way, we know he is not glorifying Saddam and should no longer be offended.

If the existence of such a name offended someone, then this person is just too easily offended. While it is understandable to be offended by obscenities, I think it is ridiculous to be offended by a couple words in a news article. A user should be judged by his/her contributions. User:Saddam Hussein is not a vandal.

However, we should advise people to avoid such names in order to be taken seriously, but I don't think we should be making it the policy. It would be quite obvious what my screenname is alluding to if you encountered me on my regular trolling sprees on certain internet message boards. --Jiang 09:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I concur with Daniel. No offensive usernames.

Or, as that page used to put it, your username is not a forum to tweak other people's noses. ;-) Martin

This username is only offensive becuase the user purports to be the real former president of Iraq. --Jiang

I agree with you too. :)

What I've not heard user:Saddam Hussein say is why sie chose this name - if there was a genuine reason, I'd be sympathetic, but I fear it was simple trolling. Still, it is good to see hir making useful contributions. Martin

A pop-quiz!

Okay. which of these usernames--if any--should be allowed?

George Adamski
Tammy Faye Bakker
Nicolae Caucescu
Cohen The Barbarian
Jeffrey Dahmer
Albert Einstein
Albert Fish
Myra Hindley
Jammu
Carl Lewis
Simon Magus

John Paul II
Mrs. Robinson
Mrs. Rose
Jeffrey Sinfield
Joseph Smith
Socrates Jr.
Mother Theresa
Jesus Xavier
Ari Valjakkala

(There are no correct answers BTW, but I would definitely be intersted to hear opinions...) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

---

"Nicolae Caucescu" should be allowed, as this is not a famous person. The spelling of the Romanian president is "Ceausescu." BTW, leave this guy alone. He hasn't vandalized a page. 172 19:17, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think we should allow users to pick names of known or suspected murders. This would include "Saddam Hussein", "Ariel Sharon", "Nicolae Ceaucescu", "Jeffrey Dahmer", "Albert Fish", and "Myra Hindley". Varients such as "Saddam Husayn" or "Nicolae Caucescu" shouldn't be allowed either. Using names of people considered sacred by some people might be offensive as well. User names like "Jesus Christ", "Prophet Mohammed", "John Paul II", "Joseph Smith", and "Mother Theresa" would probably not be a good idea. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with "Jesus Xavier", "Mohammed Kumar", or "John Paul Murphy II". - Efghij 19:51, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

You should study this user's edits. He is doing a wonderful service. If you noticed how many incorrect spellings he has corrected, you'd realize the scope of the spelling and grammar problem on this site and why a copyeditor like this user should not be harassed for nothing. 172 19:23, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Why are we even worrying about this? It's a waste of time. -- Wapcaplet 19:26, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In fact, if he/she keeps up this good work and starts writing articles, I think that he/she will deserve a sysop nomination. 172 19:25, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Who cares about names. All that is required is a policy that cedes a [[User:]] name to the actual famous person, or their lawyer, should they object in writing formally to the m:Wikimedia board - as is done with domain name disputes. If the real Saddam Hussein does that, then, presumably, Wikipedia can hand over the user name, but also, conveniently, hand the letter to G. W. Bush and collect a nice US$30M reward. That ought to buy a few new servers. EofT

It's odd that Saddam means "on who confronts" in Arabic, but the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is attacked without provocation and Wikipedia's Saddam is also attacked without provocation. Maybe the name should be "one who is confronted." So far this user has only confronted the problem of bad spelling on Wikipedia. 172 19:34, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

cf. user:RachelCorrie. However, I'll give way to 172 here. Martin

I think the offensive username is completely orthogonal to the value of the user's edits. I don't care whether or not the user is a vandal or a valued copyeditor. Being a vandal doesn't result in renaming the account, it results in being banned. Likewise, having an offensive user name, only results in renaming the account. I'm surprised that experienced editors seem confused by this. So, I thank "Saddam" for his efforts to improve Wikipedia and I will continue to argue that the account needs to be renamed, nevertheless. The whole "is the user a vandal" argument is a straw man. — Daniel Quinlan 23:07, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

He certainly didn't help the french fries article much. He capitalized all the occurences of french in the article... despite the fact that the article itself says that that isn't the normal practice. --Dante Alighieri 03:18, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it is in the user's own benefit to change his name. Using this name with colour (or for you yanks you there, color) people's perspective on him and his contributions. As a community we do have to be sensitive to many other users to many other cultures. Badly chosen names can offend, however unintentionally; to some Saddam is a hero. To most he was a late twentieth century Adolf Hitler. In addition it may make people presume that this user's contributions are meant as a joke and not serious. Recently I had to revert vandalism to the Saddam Hussein article, and the rollback produced the immortal line of Saddam Hussein reverted to last edit by Saddam Hussein. It was funny, but it hardly wiki look credible to a new user who came on at that time, raising potential worries as to just how credible is an encyclopædia with entries like that. Dante's name is OK; many people have only a shaky grasp of who the real Dante is. But Saddam, like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, etc is just too touchy a topic to be treated flippantly as a user name. FearÉIREANN 04:11, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, can an administrator look into taking care of this? Note that this editor's user page is now back to being the Saddam Hussein article which seems to be a claim that the user is Saddam or at least acting as a proxy for him. This is very offensive to me and makes Wikipedia look like a joke. Daniel Quinlan 01:01, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

No, I will not change the name. I like the user name and I am keeping it. Saddam Hussein 01:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We have a policy against offensive usernames. Using the name of a some one considered autocratic despot, responsible for the torture and murder of many of his own people, could be considered offensive. If you continue to use this name it could be forcibly changed. - Efghij 02:07, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are enough people offended by this name to warrant forcible changing. Does forcible name-changing have to be approved by Jimbo, or can a random developer decide the case? -- Tim Starling 02:58, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Random developers should. You can deal with the complaints later.

The policy seems to indicate any developer can change it with sufficient cause. I would have done it myself except that (a) I have been involved in this debate, so it is at least non-optimal for me to do it, if not completely against guidelines, and (b) more significantly, I'm not an administrator. Perhaps we could give User:Saddam Hussein the opportunity to pick a non-offensive username. Daniel Quinlan 03:51, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Here is an interesting thought experiment for you. Imagine there is an Arab collaborative 'opedia. One of the users chooses George Bush as a user id. Several other users complain about the use of such an offensive name. Are the administrators justified in changing that name? Consider your answer carefully because it speaks to your motivations. If you feel that one encyclopedia should delete but the other one should not, your actions are being generated from personal biases and you have no business making any deletions. If you agree that the Arab Wikopedia administrators are justified in deleting George Bush, and the American Wikipedia is also justified in deleting Saddam, your actions are likely based on the principles of political correctness (minimizing offensive occurances) and being applied consistantly. mydogategodshat 07:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I try my best to be consistent. I try to avoid excessive political correctness.

I've already answered this exact question above. I stated that "George W. Bush" could be offensive. And it's not just potentially offensive to critics of Bush (no need to select Arabs to find Bush critics), but also to supporters of Bush (who might not want someone "impersonating" him or acting "in his name") and even people who are ambivalent about Bush (who might be offended by the distraction, the appearance to readers, or who respect the office if not the office holder).
Similarly, I also stated that the names of famous/infamous/notorious persons who are alive or who were recently alive (last 250 years) should generally be off-limits.
We are talking about forced renaming, not deletion. Get it right.
Finally, my offense is not limited to my personal dislike of Saddam Hussein, but also extends to the offense I take as a Wikipedia editor when people treat Wikipedia as a joke and tarnish the image by injecting 100% unnecessary controversy. This editor's improvements could have been just as easily made under a username that was would not provoke or offend.

I'm a little disappointed that you chimed into the debate, but could not even be bothered to read my earlier comments. To respond to the remaining part of your "thought experiment", it's not so much political correctness (which is a bit of a straw man, even when I'm opposed to it), but my desire for Wikipedia to function well and to have a good reputation. Offensive usernames get in the way of that. It's not like I'm ninetenth century prude that faints or blushes upon hearing a naughty word, but I'm still going to object to people editing with various swear words in their user names, adding profanity to articles, picking controversial famous people for user names, etc. After all, Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. Daniel Quinlan 08:38, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

I did read the debate from the beginning. I was merely offering a way for all those involved to examine their position and decide whether they were acting from personal bias or from morally consistent principles such as reducing offensive behaviour (also called political correctness) so that the 'pedia will function well. I am sorry that this disappointed and offended you. You are right about one thing though : I should not have "chimed into the debate". I will know better in the future. (By the way, what is the difference between deleting an old name and and forcing someone to change their name? In both cases the end result will be a new name.I hope this question does not disappoint or offend you.) mydogategodshat 09:47, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think "deletion" implies banning a user, telling them to go away, etc. Daniel Quinlan 11:59, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, what name would you like, Saddam? How about User:Brice Lundi? (courtesy of [1] (http://www.kleimo.com/random/name.cfm)) -- Tim Starling 00:26, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like the user name User:Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein

I'm aware of that, but it's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you have any particular preference for a name other than "Saddam Hussein". If you don't, I guess a random name would have to do. Would you prefer an Arabic name, such as User:Mukarram or User:Diyaeddin? -- Tim Starling 04:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. Tell me when a replacement has been chosen, and I'll go fix the sigs. Martin 13:52, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How about his new username have some relation to Saddam Hussien? Saddam's full name is "Saddam Hussein (or Husayn) 'Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti"

So based on his full name we could have lots of different variations:

Just a thought. { MB | マイカル } 15:03, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Incidently, "User:al-Majid" would not be acceptible either, since al-Majid ("The Exalted") is one of the 99 names of God in the Quran. "User:'Abd al-Majid" would be fine, since 'Abd al-Majid means "Servant of the Exalted". "User:'Abd" wouldn't be offensive, but it would be wierd grammaticly; the correct form would be Abdel ("Servant"). - Efghij 23:31, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

MB, this kind of misses the point. Similarly, changing a user name of Adolf Hitler to Führer would fail to make it less offensive. Maybe less obvious. — Daniel Quinlan 23:48, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Saddam is no good, but Hussein, Abdel, and 'Abd al-Majid are fairly common Arab names, so they wouldn't be a problem. al-Tikriti just means "Person from Tikrit", and few people know that that's his last name, anyway. - Efghij 00:36, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Is User:Iraqi Information Minister taken? --Zippy 15:13, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How about user:SH? We'll all know it's you Saddam? — Here is a message I posted on the mailing list. What do you think of this point SH? If you do not respond, I will assume you do not contest my point:

Any user name is a copyright pseudonym if it is not a real user's name. The user name (or IP address) is the only way to trace the attribution rights (this is especially inportant in droit d'auteur countries such as Canada where an author's moral rights must be respected, and if someone has questions about the validity of the copyright of the underlying text submitted to Wikipedia the only way to check that is to contact the contributor from Wikipedia (they usually call that 'due diligence' in the copyright chain of title review industry).

The GFDL requires that ~~the last~~ at least five authors of a document released be listed (see section 4(B) of the license). Thus, five contributors to a page may technically have to be listed by any GFDL republisher of that page. (para edited by Martin to correct typo, as shown)

Imagine someone who wants to publish a page and finds that one of the authors has an offensive name; they may decide that they cannot morally accept to use such a page because of the offensive character of the author's name which they must acknowledge.

If there is an offense username, a controversial name, or one which involves profanity, then this would tend to discourage the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Thus IMHO using an offensive user name is in violation of the spirit of the licensing scheme that we use in order to encourage redistribution of our work. That should be enough reason to prohibit the use of such names.

— Alex756 18:08, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Alex's key point. Martin 18:19, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) (self-edited)

You are right Martin, ~~it was just a typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. In any case~~ using an offensive user name is not in the spirit of the purpose of adopting the GFDL; those who do not submit under the GFDL should either have their work removed or they should be banned, No? ~~(Don't worry SH, that is not like the kind of banning that you are known for — it does not involve torture or murder at Wikipedia)~~. Alex756 18:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) [172's deletion changed to strikethrough by T.S.] [Comment about typo striked out as it is reply to self-edit made by Martin — Alex756]

Removing insults posted by Alex756. User:Saddam Hussein is a valued copyeditor. Don't you have anything better to do than to harass this person who hasn't done a damn thing to warrant a banning or any kind of hostility? 172 20:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Insults? I read it as a joke. This user is clearly upsetting a lot of people, so I think the hasn't done a damn thing to warrant a banning isn't strictly true. Angela

Yes, it was a joke, similar to my earlier joke that user:172 did not remove regarding SH (I refuse to write out that name, using initials are sufficient in my opinion) he changed the word patriation on a page I was editing to partition, a totally inappropriate edit. Also, you note that my earlier posting that has been here for a week or so states that if SH is not his namesake that any comments made regarding his name sake should be ignored. I had not changed that statement when I added the comment about "the" Saddam Hussein who is a dictator who is on par with Stalin, Hilter and other evil totalitarian figures. Obviously my comment was directed to the real McCoy, so unless SH is the "evil" dictator I have already asked him to ignore such comments. I can't imagine why 172 is so angry. Alex756 20:22, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

discussion of talk page refactoring to wikipedia talk:talk page

Unless there are any other objections, I'm going to change User:Saddam Hussein to User:SH within a day or two. I have temporarily created the account User:SH, to prevent someone from stalling the process by creating that account and pretending to be a real user. I don't personally find the name offensive: I'm doing this out of respect for other Wikipedians, in accordance with policy. -- Tim Starling 05:42, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Okay, it has been done. User:Saddam Hussein has been changed to User:SH. The same password may be used to log on. The old name is now an account with a random password, and it is blocked (just for accountability). I didn't invalidate the cache, so some pages may still display the old name for a while. Signatures still point to User:Saddam Hussein, for now. -- Tim Starling 10:15, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Saddam_Hussein"

User talk:Saddam Hussein

Offensive username

A pop-quiz!

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools