Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 31 January 2007 (→{{user|WeTube}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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.

Shortcuts
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:

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.

Jesusfreek2 (talk · contribs)

I recently came across this User. I know very well that Users with religious figures in their names are to be reported to AIV, but this one is "reasonably" active and wanted to post it here instead. Acalamari 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow, but contact the user and allow him to change it, of course. ST47Talk 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per name of religous figure, it could also be thought of as "Jesus is a freak", which is another bad thing. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah. "Jesus freak" is a well known expression, and means exactly not that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm tempted to put weak keep for that reason, because jesus freak is not meant to mean anything bad. Rather in the christian community (the people most likely to be offended by this kind of username) a jesus freak means a person who is very strongly a support of jesus. Or in other words, the complete opposite of what could offend a Christian. Mathmo Talk 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah ... but keep in mind that we disallow religious names whether positive or negative. It's just a direction that we steer clear of so that it isn't a distraction to building an encyclopedia. (I say this as someone who is a born again Christian and has been called a Jesus freak plenty of times.) --BigDT 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly, this person might well have jesus freak as their de facto name (such as dman is often my de facto name, and to a lesser extent mathmo/runnerman). He have allowed in the past Jesus in people's username, with the most common reason being that it is actually a name they use. Likewise Jesus Freak is name that is used to refer to some people. And add onto this that it is non-offensive means it ought to be kept, so lets just leave him/her alone from now on. Mathmo Talk 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - I have left a message on the user's page asking him/her to change it. Jesus Freak is actually a well-known song by DC Talk. It was originally a derogatory term, but has been somewhat adopted by many younger Christians. As Jpgordon said, this is no doubt a good faith name (not one meant to insult Christians), but it does not meet our policies. --BigDT 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Usernames referring to politics or religion should be disallowed.Proabivouac 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is merely your own personal opinion, which is outside what we are discussing. The basis on which this user should change their username is if and only if their username is inflammatory, which from this discussion we have resolved it is not. Mathmo Talk 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it says "Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review". Oddly enough I was in half a mind to include exactly what you just said in my previous message to you, " I suggest you go read WP:U. IF you don't like it, ask for it to be changed.". But then I decided not to, while it is not uncivil to say that it is hovering around on the gray edges. Mathmo Talk 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.Proabivouac 03:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reasons? Spell them out for us. As for reasons to disallow, look at the username policy. While it does not say such names are bound to be blocked, it does indicate that consensus should be referred to, the comments here seem to be valid reasoning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. ok, I'll touch on what I said earlier. But I felt like I'd done enough typing for what this deserves, anyway.... first of all for a username to be banned for it's name then it needs to go against the username policies. I've read through them myself and failed to find any that it is clearly breaking such that it should be automatically blocked. The other half I need to consider is what have others brought up as reasons for blocking? The only one that could fall under username policy is that it is offensive, and as I and others have pointed out that if anything at all it is the opposite of offensive. That is my summary of the logical process I went through in my decision, if there are other points regarding what I said I'm sure you will feel free to bring them up. . Mathmo Talk 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus that names involving religious figures could be offensive. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but notice how it is could be. I fail to see how anybody here has shown the username is specifically offensive, rather it appears the opposite has been proven. Mathmo Talk
Some believing Christians may well be offended by Jesusfreek, as this is a derogatory name for a certain brand of believer. And is offending someone truly the only criterion we should apply? It undermines WP:AGF when users involved in discussions end every post with the partisan sentiments in their usernames.Proabivouac 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything partisan enough to matter is going to offend someone. I've changed it per the below comment, though. -Amark moo! 05:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WeTube (talk · contribs)

Is this a permitted username? Has made no contributions except to welcome himself through his talk page, and upload Image:Wetube567.jpg for his userpage. Carson 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based solely on the username, I'd have been uncertain, but taking into account the image: block and delete, clearly a joker. yandman 08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block Disallow and delete userpage - close to a copyright infiringement of youtube, also fails wikipedia is not a soapbox RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Per Postlethwaite. --Matthew 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC) --Matthew 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow but i don't see why s/he should be blocked! -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong allow This isn't a copyright infringement at all. First, copyright law applies to works of art, not to trademarks like the word "YouTube". Second, to the extent that copyright law applies to the doctored "WeTube" image, in the United States there is an explicit allowance for a parody, which this is. The United States is the home of both the owners of YouTube and Wikipedia. Third, as far as trademarks go, this person is not engaged in commerce solely by using "WeTube" as a username, or by putting the doctored logo on his userpage. If "WeTube" were a competitor of the YouTube service there would be a basis for blocking it for being an advertising reference. But WeTube.com doesn't exist except as a generic unused-URL advertising page. There is absolutely no reason why this person should be blocked, either on the basis of the image or the name. Reswobslc 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the userpage and picture should still go on the grounds that wikipedia is not Myspace RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the comparison has any merit. His user page consists of one image and tells us nothing about him. That's far less "MySpacey" than a typical user page containing a photo, a dozen user boxes, and a list of accomplishments, which is generally acceptable here. His expression is no more unacceptable than the drunken photo of yourself or the Christian userbox on your user page. Reswobslc 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly regarding the christian userbox on my user page, it acts with a dual purpose; Firstly, it adds me to Category:Christian Wikipedians and secondally, links to Christian, therefore it has a purpose. The picture of me is there to show other editors who I am, guess its not really necessary, but it allows people to see the man behind the computer.WeTube's userpage with the picture, has absolutely no use to wikipeda, it is simply a logo that he has created, with no information about him. The reason why I expressed about wikipedia not being myspace is because of his contributions, he has created an account and the only contributions he's made are to upload his picture for his userpage, put that on his userpage and set up his talk page, His only edits have been soley on his personal space RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the userpage a candidate for a WP:AFD, but not for a discussion about blocking his username as this page is for. It does no good to block someone from contributing because they aren't contributing. Reswobslc 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be better to discuss on Mfd (probably better there than Afd), I'll take it there after this debate is finished RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd leave it. Starting an AfD (or MfD as the case may be) on it would be tantamount to WP:BITEing a newbie to free up 42 kilobytes of disk space on the Wikimedia servers only to fill it back up with an archived xfD about the deletion. I'd assume good faith and let it stay. Or, if you change the image's copyright status to "fair use due to parody" (I think it's {{parody}}) instead of "he created it himself", the image will get deleted by a bot in a week or two for not being used in any articles. Reswobslc 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that seems like a sneaky way to get rid of the image. --EarthPerson 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — someone else has already nominated the image for deletion. Carson 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusfreak (talk · contribs)

I'll post this one here, though we know what'll probably happen to it. Acalamari 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusfreak12 (talk · contribs)

I did report this user to AIV yesterday, but for some reason, an administrator thought this name "wasn't offensive," and removed it from AIV. Acalamari 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Urlacher (talk · contribs)

Use of the name of a well-known living person is forbidden. (Brian Urlacher is a superstar linebacker for the Chicago Bears.) Should this name be blocked on site or wait until he makes edits in the off chance that this user really is Brian Urlacher? --BigDT 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow, use of the name of a well-known living person is forbidden whether or not you are that person. Except for WMF officials, because they're cool like that. -Amark moo! 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so that's incorrect. I could have sworn it was policy, but... oh well. I would still say Disallow, and he can appeal if he truly is the person, but with less confidence. It should be forbidden to use famous people's names, no matter who you are. -Amark moo! 05:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't you ask nicely on the talk page to see that its not the Brian Urlacher or some one with the same name? Ex:User:James Brown which passed through this page a couple of weeks ago. EnsRedShirt 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=104554746"