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.

I'm floating the idea of archiving the RfCs that pass thru here. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Archiving username discussion. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's name clearly mirrors that of notable musician Frank Zappa; I'm just unsure as to whether Zappa, who died in 1993, still qualifies as "recently deceased" or not. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say allow, taking into account the 14 years since his death. yandman 15:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow He is not recently dead, and he had a sense of humor too(so his ghost won't mind). No real chance of mistaking this person for Frank. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow 14 years isn't recently dead RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow User HighInBC puts it well. IronDuke 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow 14 years isn't a recent death. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, good enough for me. I didn't have a strong opinion either way, so I brought it here. Just for discussion purposes, what would you consider to be "recent", for the purposes of the guideline? A month? A year? Five years? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deceased = Steve Irwin. pschemp | talk 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein is even more recently deceased, though I doubt anyone would use his name as a username. If anyone did, it would cause conflicts. Acalamari 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side not User:Saddam Hussein has already been created, althought the user changed his name to User:SH RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

• Recently deceased = Twenty years divided by Wikipedia's patented Notability Factor, plus the departed's sensitivity as published in a reliable independant medium (such as John Edward, who by the way sees the letter F... F... some kind of cancer maybe ...) Or: recently deceased = name causes confusion or serious offense. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus 3, minus the day of the week, and you have your answer. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't forget the user called James Brown. Don't forget the singer himself either. :) Acalamari 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This name is completely in caps lock. It could be interpreted as someone shouting. Acalamari 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Annoying - but not blockable. pschemp | talk 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought that caps locked names were to be blocked. Acalamari 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, please go read WP:U and really learn it then. It doesn't mention all caps names anywhere. I don't meant to be mean here, but if it doesn't say it in the policy, why would you assume it is blockable? pschemp | talk 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen caps locked names get blocked before, not because of their content, but simply because of the caps lock. Acalamari 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Are you sure it wasn't because of their content? What ones are you thinking of? Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could tell you. It happened months ago, and wasn't really paying much attention to them. At the time, I wasn't familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policies. Acalamari 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yes Annoying but looks like a brand new editor - who's two edits seems to be entirely in good faith. If the name really bothers people, maybe old fashion conversation is the way with this one? --Fredrick day 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Allow. Its pretty annoying but doesn't violate policy. I will welcome them and point out that a non-capitalised choice might be a better idea. WJBscribe 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That is exactly what should be done. pschemp | talk 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Suggest switching to lowercase, but I don't think a block is warranted. ShadowHalo 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a bit lengthy in my opinion...I know it isn't excessive or anything, though it looks more so because he used all caps.Hbdragon88 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I see nothing wrong with it. Nothing in policy either. If the user wants to, he can request a name change or change his sig, and we can suggest it. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>}
• Allow Doesn't upset WP:U, just sensibilities. Trust me, if I could block people just for upsetting my sensibilities... oh man, good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly coincidental, so not blocked on sight. --Ginkgo100^talk 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot Point Considering his edits, I think this one is going to be gone soon enough on grounds completely unrelated to his username (if his edits were valid, though, I'd say "Allow" as a good-faith assumption of mere coincidence). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name is offensive to Christians. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It should be noted that the user claims his first name is Christian here. WJBscribe 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's relevant - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 04:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I do. I'd be pretty pissed if I was disallowed use of "Dirrtyeric". How do we know this isn't a nickname that his girlfriend gave him? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disallow. Although the user apparently chose the name in good faith, most users not familiar with him would perceive it as a sort of slur against Christians. --Ginkgo100^talk 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. Seems to have been done innocently, but it is offensive nonetheless. --Mus Musculus 04:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional allow - I would say that he keeps the name as long as he states on his user and talk pages that it is his actual name and it has nothing to do with Christianity. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 04:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow This could only possibly offend a person who's just looking to get offended. Of course, such a person would be able to come up with a reason why my username would be equally offensive, and yours too. Forget them. The policy is about blatantly inflammatory names, not ones that might offend Aunt Mildred in Arkansas who has a seizure each time she sees a dust bunny. Reswobslc 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional allow - you don't have to be looking for anything to realize this is the opposite of the very common slur, "dirty jew." So, as long as this guy makes it clear it is a reference to his name, its ok. But barely. pschemp | talk 05:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]