Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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 consider contacting the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by admins.

Be aware that usernames are subject to specific criteria which differ from controls and guidelines regarding other forms of self-expression on Wikipedia. Please ensure you are familiar with the username policy before commenting on a username.

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

---

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

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

---

Through a typo, I discovered that this username is one character different than User:Kralizec!, which is a much older, much more active account. I would be less concerned about why this name was able to be created in April 2006 (software glitch; less screening then?) if the first edit hadn't been to an AfD, an edit in which WP:BITE was cited. In other words, despite WP:AGF, I remain unconvinced that this is a normal account.

The account admittedly has not been used to vandalize, nor (as best as I can tell) has there been any confusion between the two usernames. But the potential still exists.

With only a total of 9 edits (six to the aforementioned AfD, two to the user's own talk page, and one to an article talk page), I think the user has not established a high degree of commitment to this particular username. I'm listing it here to get the opinions of others. (No, I've not asked the user to change his/her username.) John Broughton | ♫♫ 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• sketchtastic - This username is not very common, (Google it) the top hits all seem to deal with the original Kralizec!, hence the plain Kralizec seems to be sketchy. --Matthew 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming good faith, I think it's probably a coincidence rather than deliberate impostiture, but a change would still be a good idea to avoid confusion (and not excessively onerous, given the account's level of activity). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow as per WP:U Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames: Names that can be confused with other contributors., this is a clear case of this Cheers Lethaniol 15:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Politely disallow, I don't think this was a bad faith choice in names, but it is too similar. Unless they are the same person(maybe he forgot his password for the first account). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a note at the user's talk page asking him/her to either change his/her username or comment here. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhhohchrist: I wasn't sure about this Username, so I posted it here. Should it be allowed or now? We might be able to convince this User to change their Username. Acalamari 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say Weak disallow per policy. Also, you should notify the user of this discussion so she can participate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? (Sorry if I sound stupid by that question)Acalamari 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you should drop a note at User talk:Ahhhohchrist so that user can participate in the discussion going on here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean we have to keep the dicussion here for a couple of days for when/if the User comes to this page? Acalamari 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion will go on until a consensus is reached, my opinion above is just one opinion, more will follow. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Disallow - The user name is iffy (much like that "GhGurGod" that caused so much fuss). The only contributions by this user are to their userpage, which might also make it possible to ban under WP:NOT. --Matthew 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I allowed OhOurGod is that God is a generic term whereas Christ refers to a specific religious figure. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting reasoning, I'm not sure I agree with it, but its better than my gut feeling+contributions reasoning. --Matthew 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow, specific religious reference. --tjstrf talk 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - I can see this being offensive to some people, and I don't think there is any particularly good argument in favor of it (of course, the user hasn't chimed in yet). -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're waiting for the User to do that. If not, it seems like the User will just get blocked. Acalamari 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the personal information she posted on her user page (and then blanked), it would probably be doing her a favor to remove the entire history of her edits and let her (yes, "her") start over. She last edited some 13 hours after the notes on her page, so presumably she's aware of this discussion. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She blanked her User Page, and I told User:HighInBC about it. I know she's aware of the discussion, as she would have seen the "You have new messages" alert come up when she logged in. I say that we keep her edits, though; for the moment anyway. However, this is not the place to discuss that. Acalamari 04:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow, as names with specific religious references are in conflict with WP:U. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username is too similar to the company name of Rip Curl. -- Longhair\^talk 23:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Which just so happens to have been founded in '69. --tjstrf talk 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. The chance that it was created as a cool name is much higher than being corporate spam for an old company. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow — have you looked at the contributions? Nothing but edit-warring at Rip Curl. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a reason for a general block, not a username block. Username blocks are not meant to stop the user from editing, just to force them to pick a new name. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've posted a notice about the need to follow WP:COI. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• disallow for this particular instance, but in general differentiating names with numbers at the end is good practice. DGG 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• disallow per DGG --Matthew 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. The editing pattern is really the clincher here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bzzzt - Editing pattern makes this username tantamount to advertising. Disallow. pschemp | talk 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per consensus. pschemp | talk 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might take a wikilawyer to decide if this username is a gross or technical or minorly infringing violation of policy, but since this account has been used only for vandalism, I recommend it be blocked. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a registered username. Did you spell or capitalize it wrong? pschemp | talk 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion; it's User:I am lord rather than User:For I am lord (copy and paste picked up an extra, leading word.) -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - clear cut case of divisiveness. Even if the editor did not intend to suggest "God" by the word Lord, it's fairly clear that it would easily be taken in such a way. Crimsone 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert non-formatted text here

Reported at WP:AN/I: The user previously impersonating User:Hamsacharya dan as User:Hamsacharya duh is back, this time as Senior Hamsacharya.

The account is also marked as a possible sockpuppet (see edit history for evidence), and appears to be busy causing mischief with spurious AfDs. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I'd be inclined to warn for disruption and block on the next "offence". It's less likely to be confused with another account unless the editor actively impersonates it with this name. Even so, it's walking a very very thin line on WP:U in my opinion. The disruption though is another story entirely. Crimsone 02:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user name is obviously a drug reference. I am listing it here for discussion because WP:U does not specifically mention drug references as a reason to disallow a user name, however I looked through some old history of this page and I noticed a few times in which consensus was reached to disallow a user name which is obviously a drug reference. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow. All three edits so far are vandalism about cannabis. I know my little sister is a user of wiki, and I know that she stays away from the more adult articles as a responsible 12 year old might - even so, though Wiki is not censored I see no reason that such names should be allowed. It's not hard to pick a more reasonable name than this. The curent name is divisive by it's nature, and the edit history doesn't suggest it was picked in good faith. Crimsone 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow The vandalism may be a reason for a block, but the username is not. I also see nothing divisive about the name. The burden of proof is on disallowing a name, not allowing it, so "seeing no reason" it should be allowed isn't a criteria for disallowing it. Further, what's a drug in one place is legal in another - in Muslim countries, alcohol is illegal, yet we don't block for references to "Jack and Coke". Reswobslc 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The divisive nature of this username is in the fact that it's very likely to be seen in bad taste by a great many people (or to put it another way, many are likely to find it a little offensive - the rationale of the policy accounts for this). Given the users vandalism is drug related also, it would appear that the name may have been deliberately chosen for this very reason. Crimsone 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Whether the user needs a block is not relevant, the username itself is not grounds for a block. I see no policy violation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Many legitimate editors have drug references in or as their user names. If this particular editor is vandalizing pages, then let him be blocked for that, not because you happen to find recreational drugs objectionable. —Psychonaut 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, I guess we all have to be out on a limb at some point. This seems to be my turn lol. It's worth mentioning though that Crack-cocaine is not a particularly recreational drug. It's a hard drug that's highly addictive, with an extremely bad (and deserved usually) reputation for serious crime and death, and is highly illegal in most if not all english speaking nations. Cannabis is a recreational drug which I don't find objectionable in the least. However, given the serious nature and connotations/associations of crack-cocaine, I feel it to be highly objectionable as a username and likely to be seen the same way by a number of other people too - this is something the username policy recomments against (offensive usernames). It used to also declare names that pertain to or promote illegal activities were a bad idea untill it was removed due to an issue of deciding where something was illegal - Crack cocaine is illegal pretty much everywhere in the english speaking world. Yes, I'm certainly out on a limb here, but I just wanted to explain my reasoning to demonstrate that I am thinking about the good of Wikipedia and the username policy itself rather than any personal interest. Consensus will be whatever it is, but I can only reason my own opinion based on what I think is right for the encylopedia on the basis of policy. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - nobody can be right all the time. I can only have the integrity to offer my true opinion, admit when I appear to be out on a limb or the "odd one out", and accept that I may have an opinion that goes against concensus and act accordingly (ie, accepting that my opinion, though valid, may not be in agreement with everybody elses, and thus bow to concensus) :) Crimsone 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree it is a dangerous drug, something to be avoided. I just don't see why that should make the username unacceptable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - this *will* certainly offend some people. pschemp | talk 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]