Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names: Difference between revisions

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

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

Note. On past precedent, this discussion is taking place at WT:CHU/U. A user has requested to usurp this username but there is a concern that it violates username policy because it is a username "mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Please comment there. WjBscribe 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Moved comment there.) -- Ben 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further comment moved to WT:CHU/U WjBscribe 00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we expected to comment on this here or can it be removed? Deiz talk 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say leave the notice up here until the discussion there has closed. Which might be any time now. -- Ben 07:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last April, several admins agreed that country names ought not to be used as user names (here). Mac. was asked to change his username right after by admin Pschemp (here - as he also asked all other existing country usernames that agreed or were forced to rename), and later in December'06 by me (here), after especially having noticed the extreme nationalistic content of his userpage (even transwikied - now mostly deleted). The user's contributions are limited to nationalistic issues, plus numerous uploads of nationalistic pictures with false licenses. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Macedonia for more information on user conduct related to the username.

• Does the username "Macedonia" imply the official position of a contemporary region/country/province/ministry (not to mention a past thema/provincia/diocese/kingdom)?

• Is the fact that the userpage has been repeatedly and persistently used as a transwikied article for "Macedonia" a significant reason?

• Is the precedent of April applicable, especially since all others were renamed, and since most other non-existent country/usernames were opened and their passwords scrambled?[1]

• Is the username "inflammatory" since its use is a controversial issue? (see United Macedonia, Macedonia naming dispute, Macedonia (terminology))

• All other countries are blocked or scrambled on the grounds of WP:U. E.g. check User:China [2], User:France,[3] User:Italy, [4], User:Germany [5]

User:Japan [6], User:Mexico [7], User:Canada [8], User:Armenia [9], User:Egypt [10]... Should this (of all!) be an exception?

As a Greek, I am too biased to answer those questions, so I look forward for your input. NikoSilver 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow There is nothing in the policy against country names, and we are not ran by precedent. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. The only policy this could possibly violate is "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view," and I don't think that applies here. If he was called User:Macedonia is Greek or User:Macedonia is Slavic, then there might be a problem. But the name of the country/region itself is not inflammatory. Coemgenus 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually his former user page pretty much said "Macedonia is Slavic", as well as his POV pushing was generally in that direction.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing is a separate issue. This forum only discusses usernames. Coemgenus 17:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, (and in that of most Greek/Bulgarian and other users) the name is "inflammatory". Still, if you don't think so, if we narrow our vision to policy says/doesn't-say arguments, I think we're missing the points. The points are that the particular user uses it in the most inflammatory ways possible, that the user has made his userpage look like an article repeatedly, that "a bunch of admins" agreed that use of country/usernames is inflammatory and asked/renamed/blocked/scrambled all others, and that's the only one around, so "it would be worthless to change WP:U just for one guy".[11] That's why I brought it here, because that one user has to be forced to rename by us, rather than the explicit content of the policy itself. NikoSilver 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if User:Macedonia is doing something inflammatory in his edits, that is a subject for another forum. One of the ones listed at WP:ANI, perhaps. I don't really know. The only topic for discussion here is whether the username violates WP:U. Coemgenus 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It is "inflammatory", and so were User:Iran, User:France and all others that were blocked, plus User:Switzerland (of all!) and all others that were renamed. A "bunch of admins" says so.[12] NikoSilver 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - I see no violation of the official username policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Controversial names should not be allowed. --   Avg    17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a country name controversial? It is not making any claims. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It claims in every edit of his that it was done by Macedonia (take your pick which one from the dab article). "A bunch of admins" argues that all country-usernames are "inflammatory" [to add, especially countries over which there are controversial issues]. Therefore we have explicit WP:U violation. NikoSilver 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess that is a good one to come here because i dont find it inflamatory making it an explicit non violation of WP:U. This is a situation where inflamatory is not cut and dry and I personally see absolutley no issue with a country as a name. whats next, cities, states, continents, places? I think it is a stretch personally. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although my position is that countries should not be used as usernames, this is a different issue. Macedonia is not a country, it is a geographic area which a country has controversially adopted as its name. This is why this username is controversial in the first place. Please refer to Macedonia (terminology) for further insight on the subject.--   Avg    18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Avg, your name could be considered controversial. "AVG" is the name of an anti-virus software. I know this because I use it. Acalamari 18:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now, what if if found that to be controversial because I prefferd norton? While i dont really care, i think it is a good demonstration of how this scope of "inflamatory" or "controversial" has the capability to bhecome large. There are very few names out there that may not offend somebody. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, this seems as controversial as I am pretty. Also, it does not appear to violate WP:U. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to go to a beauty contest then :-) or just go ahead and unblock e.g. User:Iran (and all others) who has the same reason for indef block in his block log:

 07:55, April 13, 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Iran (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)

• • ...and User:France,[13] User:Italy, [14], User:Germany [15], Romania, Montenegro, Mongolia (note name of a region), China (note name of a region), Ireland (note name of a region) (added by   /FunkyFly.talk_ ), and all others. NikoSilver 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To wheel is far from divine. Better to discuss. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mongolia and China are names of countries as well as regions. The banning seemed only to affect the names of countries, not regions. I think the name of the country in question here is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, isn't it? Coemgenus 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. They are "part" of names of countries, and there exist greater regions under those names.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Isn't this situation already being addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Macedonia? Has that process ended? If not, shouldn't we wait on that result before deciding something here? Coemgenus 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and four (all) users there have agreed that he should "preferably change his username" too. However, I posted it here because that particular RfC is stalled due to the user being continually blocked for keeping to violate other policies. I suppose he won't ever answer there... NikoSilver 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. The user name is inappropriate, selected and used especially for propagandistic POV contributions, used to present a greatly distorted impression of the region.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If the user does something bad, they should be blocked for that. This discussion revolves around the username choice, not their actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see that this username is a springboard for propaganda, and IS definitely part of a larger problem.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the user will be blocked for the propaganda/bad edits or whatnot. This page is solely for discussing the propriety of a username as relates to WP:U. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is does it violate username policies? Where do you draw the line at what are acceptable and unacceptable, countries, regions etc etc. I see NO POV pushing in the name, just the name of a place. my name could POV pushing that chris is a good name. You can argue that any name is POV pushing, the question is it inflamatory. To me, and several editors it is apparently not.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate, as it can and definitely is, used for malicious purposes. Whether or not the policy does not explicitly prohibit a name of a region is irrelevant. Remember - the spirit of the law.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is used for malicious purposes, that is not the purpose of this venue. This venus purpose is to comment on the appropriatness of a username, based on username policy, especially in situations where the policy is unclear or open to interpretation. We dont username block based on malicious intent here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say the same: you fail to see that this username is a springboard for propaganda, and IS definitely part of a larger problem.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced it is. And, if we want to be technical, i dont see anything about that in the username policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you also fail to see the spirit of this policy - to prevent usage of names which are likely to be used in a malicious way.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the spirit of the policy as preventing use of names that are themselves malicious. But that's the trouble you have when you follow the spirit of the laws instead of the words. Coemgenus 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that interpretation of the policy before, "to prevent usage of names which are likely to be used in a malicious way." The username policy has to do with the username in itself, now how it is used, how they are using it, what it is being used for. While sometimes it is brought up to indicate WP:COI, but this does not seem to apply. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are mistaken. Names of companies and trademarks are not malicious themselves, but have a potential to be used in a malicious way.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the company name issue has nothing to do with malice, but rather with misrepresentation and spam. Coemgenus 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all, in ourselves have the capaibility to be malicious. My name has the capability of being a WP:COI to any articles with Chris in the name and there malicious? I am not buying it. Let them be malicious and get them blocked through another venue. This is not a place for preventitive blocks based on flimsy arguments that the name might be used malciiously. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow How is this provoking such a response? There is absolutely nothing in WP:U that states that country names are disallowed. It is simply stating a name, there is nothing provocative about it, it doesn't hurt anyones beliefs, its not going to upset anyone. User:macedonia is a horrible place would be banned because it could hurt people from Macedonia, User:Macedonia supports war on the US would be banned as a political view, but User:Macedonia isn't stating anything, its merely a name, no copyright issues, no spam issues , if they are editing macedonia related pages, who cares? Its probably because their from there. There is absolutely no reason to disallow this name RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow considering this user's POV pushing, the username is inflammatory. For those with admin access please do me a favour and check out some of the past versions of his userpage where he had published propagandistic text in wiki-article style which could give people the impression that his userpage is a Wikipedia article on Macedonia.--Domitius 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, his content does not affect the username. yes, he may make problematic edits but I do not find that a reason to block him for an innapropriate username. If he expressed the views in his username, then it would be innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Again, not a problem for WP:RFCN, maybye a problem with his user page which can be deleted. This IS NOT THE FORUM to get somebody blockedc for innapropriate content. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about inflammatory?--Domitius 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does affect his username. When his userpage is masquerading as a wiki-article on Macedonia, I consider that a problem.--Domitius 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I previoulsy closed this discussion as Allow. Anither concered editor has disagreed with my decision and re-opened it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: I have reverted early closing due to valid argumentation presented above, applicable for the policy (namely "precedent" of dozens other country-usernames, and "inflammatory" given the decision of multiple different admins and users -both linked above). Please let this evolve normally, and avoid pushing your way through with WP:ROUGEness. NikoSilver 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:RFCN is NOT run by precedent. Please provide me a good disallow argument based on anything other than the WP:COI this editor may have with there controversial edits (neither of which is an appropriate reason to disallow a username). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm seconding Chris closing this, theres nothing wrong with the name, regarding the other countries that have been mentioned - unblock them too, but I very much doubt it matters as they were all blocked a long time ago. The username clearly does not infringe on the guidlines RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree or disagree, "inflammatory" is a valid WP:U violation argument. Please give this the time it deserves. NikoSilver 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]