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

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.

Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by visiting admins. If a matter turns out to be controversial, a subpage may be created here to discuss it.

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.

Not sure whether this is a reference to the U.S. Senator or to the sex-related slang term, but I think either one qualifies it as an improper username. Powers 12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, let's inform the user that their name may not be appropriate. They might not be aware of that, and may happily change it. --Gray Porpoise 01:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course; I should have done that. We've had conflict on the Santorum disambiguation page, though, and I was afraid the user might take it the wrong way. I also kind of wanted to get at least one more opinion on whether it really was an inappropriate username or not. =) Powers 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santorummm has not responded to my query, despite two attempts. What's the next step? Powers ^T 13:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response here; Santorummm has declined to change his username and told me to get a life. Anyone here? Powers ^T 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the username itself is a problem, no one is going to confuse it for the senator, it is a pretty obscure slang term, and someone looking at the username cannot necessarily think it would be about the slang term, if they knew about it anyway. The user's almost exclusive focus on various articles related to "Santorum", however, is strange. If the user is being a problem in other respects, such as making personal attacks, then other noticeboards, etc. would result in a swifter response. —Centrx→talk • 06:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the user in question would disagree that it's an obscure slang term, given how often he's tried to list it first on the disambiguation page. I'm just saying that a username like "Semennn" or "Jismmm" or "Annnal seeeepage" would not likely be allowed, and I don't see this as much different. Powers ^T 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant if others saw the username, they wouldn't think it was anything obscene. The particular user can think whatever he wants. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I looked at it and thought it was obscene. Powers ^T 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked at the meaning of the slang term, & at the content of this user's page, I don't see how its offensive nature hasn't occured to him -- either before or after it's creation. Or am I allowing my (admittedly) dirty mind see something that's not there? -- llywrch 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it seems fairly obscene to me...Locriani 08:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's obbbscene. --tjstrf 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The slang term was created because of the senator. They're linked. That may muddle the waters a bit. -M^ask 21:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Its pretty obvious then. Username says the name is prohibited if it can be offensive. This can be offensive. It should be blocked. I have gone ahead and done this.pschemp | talk 19:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggests insult against user when used in discussion; hard to scan threads where user participates thereby. LotLE×talk

Disallow, but allow user to change name. Confusing, but not bad enough for a usernameblock. --Gray Porpoise 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow, but allow user to change name. The name is disruptive and confusing, and attracts more attention than the user's edits. Captainktainer * Talk 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I smell yet another usernameblock here - his nonsensical and offensive user page says it all. Scobell302 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no administrator, so perhaps my opinion is not so relevant here (only a veteran of this page!). It seems like you have a problem with the obscenities and silliness on his/her talk:user page and not the name. Unless I'm wrong the name is practically meaningless, as most permitted names here are. If the user can keep their egocentricities out of their edits, then perhaps just a "your user page might offend many, please tame down" would do. MotherFunctor 21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The username isn't problematic. It's the content of his userspace that's a problem. Recommend closing this one and creating an RfC on the content of his userspace. Captainktainer * Talk 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow username, but as Captainktainer said, create another RfC on the userspace. --Gray Porpoise 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on the meaning or lack of the name: I read it as The Pwner, and a reference to "you have been pwned!" and similar comments found on defaced webpages. (pwned was said to be originally a typo for owned which was subsequently adopted as a deliberate typo). Our pwn article suggests that the meaning has moved on a bit, but it's still in the same general area. So I think the RFC may be in the right place here. Telsa (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a bit suggestive of dominating edit wars. --Gray Porpoise 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username could be considered offensive to some. What do others think? -- Longhair 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Others think it's a done block.  Daniel_123  ►  11:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite disallow. --Gray Porpoise 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the name either, but I see nobody has asked the user if they would consider changing it. --Guinnog 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is so offensive about the name? It is simply a reference to either a state of intoxication or annoyence. As it stands there exists a page in wikipedia for piss, pissed as well as any other objectionable word you might think about. The name isn't hurting anyone, I would vote to allow. Pissedpat 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User is not a "bot". I'm willing to accept it the name was created innocently, and he is a newcomer, so please don't bite him. — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow a common username one other online games and programs. He acknowledges that he is not a bot.  Daniel_123  ►  11:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow I think we should consider "-bot" to be reserved for actual bots, simply to reduce confusion. User's name is not offensive and presumably chosen in good faith, but let's nip this in the bud. --MCB 06:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per bot suffix, it's a widely upheld precedent. And am I the only one who noticed I'm willing to accept it the name was created innocently? WP:AGF decress you must, not that you are taking a break from your hectic day and deign to assume good faith.... Despite your warning to others, thats the sort of attitude that WP:BITE's most of all. -M^ask 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've alerted the user to this problem, and invited him to comment here if he disagrees, or otherwise change his username. --Gray Porpoise 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word bot is specifically prohbited from non-bot accounts according to WP:USERNAME. blocked. pschemp | talk 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a frequent and longstanding contributor to SourceWatch, as well as an administrator there. User:Neoconned of SourceWatch has created his/her account solely for the purpose of impersonating me. As well as the misleading name, he/she has copied material from my SourceWatch userpage to his/her userpage in order to generate the impression that the account belongs to me.

I've politely asked him/her to rename the account, and have been flatly refused. As I noted in my request, both my wikipedia and sourcewatch accounts predate this impersonating account by a considerable period, in the case of my Wikipedia account by almost a year [1], and in the case of my SourceWatch account by well over a year [2]. I have added a note about this to my SourceWatch userpage. I think this is a clear case of impersonation and as such i'd like to request that this account be renamed or blocked. --Neoconned 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may state my case. I have not impersonated anyone. It's actually a little difficult to do that when 'Neoconned' and I are both using alias. So I don't see how I can be imitating him. If you look at my page it is actually different from his page on wikipedia and SourceWatch. Secondly, my page has been active since September 2005. 'Neoconned' has after one year, that’s one year, taken issue with my name which is ridiculous. I have not vandalised any name and made no edits pretending to be him. I do have an account with SourceWatch that I use often including yesterday. If you look at my interests they do differ to his, although there may be some similarities, people often do have similar interests. Thirdly if you look at his user talk page, people have accused him of all kinds of disturbing things like paedophilia. [3]. They also very politely tried to help him with his problem and he subsequently banned them. It appears people that know him have made these observations. I don't think we need someone like this on wikipedia giving advise. Furthermore, he has accused me of harassing him, which is ridiculous as I have never even spoken to him. Ironically people have accused him of harassment [4]. This person is quite unstable. I repeat I have not vandalised any page nor harassed anyone and I think I'm owed an apology. Neoconned of SourceWatch 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That people have accused him of something is pretty meaningless. I mean, I can accuse you right here of being an undercover agent for both Opus Dei and the CIA, and it's as credible as the accusations you point to. However, since you've made no edits other than to your user pages and this page, it would be sensible to ask you to change your name to avoid any confusion, especially since you're acting in good faith. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'm the editor of SourceWatch and agree that a namechange by 'Neoconned of SourceWatch' is necessary. The real Neconned is a longstanding and valued contributor to SourceWatch. Some of Neconned's work attracted a user to resort to smears, which has been repeated above by 'Neoconned of SourceWatch'. The bans imposed on the user(s) referred to above were precisely because they resorted to repeatedly smearing a contributor rather than identifying specific points in the content of the article. The block on the user(s) were supported by all at SourceWatch. As jpgordon notes above, it is no big deal for a good faith Wikipedia contributor to adopt another name to avoid any possible confusion. --Bob Burton 04:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the founder of SourceWatch, I agree completely with Bob Burton in supporting Neoconned's request. "User:Neoconned of SourceWatch" is an obvious impersonator whose sole purpose seems to be harassment. He appears to be the same individual who has used several sock puppet accounts on SourceWatch to make accusations against Neoconned. --Sheldon Rampton 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I indented Neoconned of SourceWatch's reply to distinguish between the two Andjam 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have blocked the account. He is free to create a new one with an appropriate username. As his old account has no contributions outside userspace <edit> and this page </edit> there is no reason why he would especially need to preserve its contribution history. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel, many thanks for blocking that impersonator account. Unfortunately, a new one has since been created, called User:Neoconned.. I'd imagine this is a sock puppet for the same individual. The new account has been used to vandalize my user page. I'm not going to bother with asking this new user to rename the account, as it so clearly is malicious impersonation and a retaliation for the previous block. Hence I'm coming straight here. I'd very much appreciate it if this one could be blocked too. Hopefully the individual concerned will get bored after a few blocks and give up! Cheers, --Neoconned 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive language. exolon 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked [5]. -- Longhair 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user, has already edited User:Dave (as first edit!), and other edits are removing an AfD tag and discussing the AfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=User+Dave. Very confusing and I think clearly done in bad faith. Rather urgent, so I have come straight to here instead of taking the slow route via talk pages and so on. Fram 15:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User created only to create an attack page. exolon 16:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked. Usernames this obviously inappropriate can be reported at WP:AIV for a faster response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the user Louis Shum, and I feel I have been unfairly treated here on Wikipedia! Firstly, I created this username and made a user page which, honestly, was a little parody of myself. I think I may have broken the rule that the user page should not be like myspace (although many user page I see has a degree of information about that user). Over time I see people are modifying my user page, blanking out and vandalising and such. I get sick of this so I add to talk page "please stop vandalising" but it keeps happening. Last week I add vprotection tag hoping it would deter the person blanking my page, but it did not. Instead, the editor Doc Glasgow deleted my user space, claiming libel, and blocked my username from editing, claiming it was a "libel account" and I had made "no useful edits". Actually, I didn't know you could only have an account here on Wikipedia if you made useful edits. I just used the account to browse.

I did not know why he blocked me and deleted my space, so I contact him on his talk page. Here is the exchange. He has now stopped replying as I suspect he cannot come up with an answer. I have read through the rules concerning usernames and do not believe I am breaking any rule. I have also read through the rules concerning userspaces and also do not believe I am breaking a rule such that it should be deleted. I would like some extra opinion on this because I do not think this is fair. I would just like to have my username back so that I may continue to use it. Thankyou --130.216.191.184 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most English language keyboards do not contain the characters used in this username, and a majority of English speaking users may become confused. User was blocked, then unblocked by myself to contribute to current edits in progress. Edits appear to be responsible. -- Longhair 09:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can copy and paste Ñểẅ ựşễŗ, and I usually copy and paste names rather than type them out, though I guess some people may not be able to copy and paste. I'd suggest leaving it for a few weeks and see how it goes. If the user misbehaves, or additional complaints are raised about the name, then raise the issue again. I wonder if he/she will contribute to Heavy metal umlaut? Andjam 10:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This username needs to be changed. Sometimes I can copy and paste Japanese too, but the point is that it can't be typed easily. The characters used are not even standard to other common languages (e with a grave and a tilde?) and are messy and confusing. Additionally, "new user" in any form is misleading when the user is not a new one (minor point but it just adds up). The net effect of this username is a signiture that looks as bad as ones with crazy html formatting (which we prohibit). pschemp | talk 14:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the editor be for now. Later, if the name is that much of a problem, we can request the name be changed. This user is editing responsibly and is contributing to the wiki. I can learn to copy-paste for that. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All they've done is add ethnic slurs to that List, which is not particularly useful and which is something they can do from a different username. This is not a discussion to ban the person, it is to prohibit the username. —Centrx→talk • 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right... In ligt of that, lets block and request that the user changes his name to something we can all type. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting can be somewhat problematic and it's difficult to type. I would recommend disallowing the name, though we need to be careful not to drive away a useful editor. Captainktainer * Talk 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the name per nom. Naconkantari 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And advising an IP how to edit war is certainly not productive. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change user name as per nom and User:pschemp --Golden Wattle ^talk 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked and the user requested to change the name. pschemp | talk 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]