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. Please also read Wikipedia:Username before reporting here.
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 • |
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.
Discussion: archiving our RfCs
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)
MikeHunt35 (talk · contribs)
Fairly obvious if said out loud. User has previous made a clear point that e was born before the word meant anything [1] but, since Wiktionary says the first recorded use is 1880 this seems unlikely. I'd like to assume good faith but I fear too much protest about it [2]. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow with a smile on my face! clearly not appropriate because of what its meant to say RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow unless the person can demonstrate that this is his real name. I went to school with a Mike Hunt, and whenever his name came over the PA it got a good laugh, but they didn't strike him from the yearbook because of it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to !vote "disallow" on something that (a) can be a real name and (b) requires out-loud pronunciation (meaning that the likelihood of someone being offended by it is fairly low, unless perhaps an editor is using a screen reader when editing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - a. could be a real name b. even though it probably is not, does not appear to be hurting anybody beacuse anyboidy getting it will chuckle and anybody who does not will just think it is there name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow You have to be KIDDING if we'll block someone whose real name is "Christian", because some undescribable person somewhere might get offended, but we will allow "My Cunt". Hmmmm, NOT. Anyone who could ever have this as a real name was either a) unwanted as a child, and/or b) was already aware of the similarity by his first day of elementary school - and in that unlikely scenario, he should be "Michael Hunt". Reswobslc 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Despite your impression, people do go by the name Mike Hunt, I met one. Which is why I would allow only if it is his real name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And what do you know, Mike Hunt is so well known as a homophone for "my cunt" (yes, I too heard it in elementary school) that it has an article all its own. Reswobslc 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Surely you read past the top of the article to notice that Mike Hunt lists several people really named that (a sheriff, an artist, two football players, a physics lecturer, and a sports columnist), along with others using it as a stage name? Ben 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow There is nothing offensive about this name. "Mike Hunt" is a legitimate name. I do not find this name offensive to either women or vaginas. People who find this name offensive are obviously biased and prejudiced. Acalamari 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure it is possible for someone to be offended by this without being biased or prejudiced. Such things are based in motives, not feelings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- How can someone be offended over a person's name? It sounds like bias or prejudice to me. Acalamari 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Allow User page states "Hi, my name's Micheal Hunter, i'm 35, and i'm from Texas." Therefore we have to assume good faith, unless proven otherwise. Are we going to disallow everyon listed at Mike Hunt to ever register with their real name? --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow. If his name is Micheal [sic] Hunter then why isn't his user name "MikeHunter35"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just to address the "sic": this Google search for "Micheal Hunter" gets 653 hits; some are clearly misspellings, as for the bantamweight Michael Hunter (boxer); others are apparently for multiple people named with that exact spelling. I have met people with the given name "Micheal" (with ID to match); this appears to be a surprisingly common alternative spelling -- including by parents on birth certificates. Not proof that this particular user is authentic, but at least it's possible. (An online phonebook lists 61 "Mike" or "Michael" Hunters in Texas when I search for "Micheal Hunter", so it seems the software automatically "corrects" the spelling -- leaving in doubt how many of them might actually be "Micheals".) Ben 06:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Allow: It really is his name. "Mike Hunt" is a shortening of it. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong allow Randy Hugh Dick is my real name too, even though it sounds exactly like "Horny Enormous Penis" when read out loud. Who's to say I can't use my real name? We should allow real names like this. Randy Hugh Dick 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be more inclined to believe that if you hadn't very recently registered a new account: look here. Are you sure you didn't just sign in just to give an "allow" message? Acalamari 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POINT. Dekimasu 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow, as it is a legitimate name. We should assume good faith until we have valid reason not to. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow per Mel Etitis. If he created the name as a joke, then that breaks username policy for reproductive words. --wL<speak·check·chill> 05:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- "If", yes. But do we have basis to assert that "If"? "If England was what England seems.... But she ain't!" Ben 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Vandal alert Mike Hunt is subtlely vandalizing pages. Look at the number of RfA's he's contributing nonsense to. Look at this vandalism to an airport. He edited the length of two identical runways, shortening one by 10 feet, but didn't shorten it by a corresponding 3 meters. Obviously implausible. Reswobslc 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps "obviously implausible" but in fact verifiably correct: see the external link at article bottom, World Aero Data airport information for OIFM: the runway dimensions are 14425 x 148 feet, 4397 x 45 meters. This user corrected the previous "14,435 ft" to "14,425 ft" on one runway; his only error was not to correct the other as well (plus the metric)... which I'll do now. Before accusing this user of vandalism for this change, did you bother trying to find out whether it was right or wrong? Ben 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I... yeah, I really don't know enough about airports in general to know if you're correct or not. However, one potentially (to me, since I can't verify that you're right) questionable edit doesn't necessarily mean he's a vandal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know enough about feet and meters to know that something that just got 10 feet shorter had to also get about 3 meters shorter (at least to be mathematically consistent)? Check out this edit where he changed a link in an article about football to an unrelated article about a news anchor he frivolously nominated for AfD. Reswobslc 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Sorry, there was an edit conflict between when I wrote that and when I added it, but didn't note it in my response. The edit was your revision of your words.
That said, assuming good faith, it is entirely conceivable that he was making a legitimate change and simply overlooked the detail. Again, a single mildly questionable edit does not a vandal confirm. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Sorry, there was an edit conflict between when I wrote that and when I added it, but didn't note it in my response. The edit was your revision of your words.
- Do you know enough about feet and meters to know that something that just got 10 feet shorter had to also get about 3 meters shorter (at least to be mathematically consistent)? Check out this edit where he changed a link in an article about football to an unrelated article about a news anchor he frivolously nominated for AfD. Reswobslc 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BlockedWarned. I've checked recent contribs. Sneaky vandalism and changing wikilinks to senseless entries. --wL<speak·check·chill> 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)- Are you counting the user's edit to Isfahan International Airport, cited above as "vandalism" and "obviously implausible"? Because that was a valid correction. Ben 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Amen Reswobslc 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't anybody feel stupid for letting this guy yank their chains? First we have a guy who is familiar with Wikipedia jargon like "sockpuppets" and is voting in RfA's, make up a username that reads "My Cunt", and we take his word for it that that's his name. Then he vandalizes pages and we act like he's just made an innocent mistake. Yet we've got the intuition to see the obvious "Huge Dick" sockpuppet for what it is and block it on sight, because it clearly had no edits. Let me guess - if "huge dick" subtlely vandalized a few pages, and changed the atomic number for carbon from 6 to 7, we'd have assumed good faith and not blocked him? Sometimes I just don't get it. Reswobslc 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- His edit to Isfahan International Airport was not an innocent mistake. It was not a mistake at all. He corrected an incorrect figure. Follow the external link in the article to confirm this for yourself. You've accused him of vandalism for making a valid correction. Ben 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Might I suggest you take a bit of a chill pill? The "my cunt" bit is only noticeable if you verbalize the name (and is hardly comparable to "huge dick"), and your "we act like" statement in absolutely no way describes anyone's attitude but my own (extrapolating my opinion to be that of every other editor here is a fallacy). I'm not really sure what your beef is with the editor, but you seem to be getting inordinately worked up about this whole affair. (and, as an aside, might I suggest you use the preview button more often, so I'm not constantly hitting edit conflicts when responding to you?) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, I am getting worked up over nothing. That should probably my clue to stop watching a page. The only reason I watch this page is perhaps to pitch in and help with a little bit of the cleanup. I suppose it is just a waste of time. There doesn't seem to be any sort of logical consistency to any of it. Assume good faith, yeah, but assume common sense, apparently not. We worry about the hypotheticals that some anal-retentive Muslim might find a name divisive but we let a troll jerk us around because hypothetically, someone, somewhere, might turn his head when hears the word cunt. We block people who demonstrate good faith, and then we assume good faith for people who are obvious vandals, simply because he told us to. The consensus is so senseless we may as well flip a coin. Thanks for your input, no offense taken or intended, the problem is not anyone personal but just the psychological phenomenon of groupthink and this little bit of the project is obviously not for me. Reswobslc 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...your apology rings a bit hollow when dripping with so much sarcasm. I couldn't care less if you enjoy this section of Wikipedia less than others, but I'd prefer if you could bow out without trying to have the last word. Your commentary is especially inappropriate after reading Ben's comment that Mike was making a legitimate edit. I really think you owe him an apology, and need to re-read WP:AGF. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...I do owe him an apology... for that one minor detail. Perhaps if someone does the due diligence that I seem to have overlooked, they'll also find that this edit was made in good faith, and that Harris Faulkner is one of the Virgin Islands instead of not a FOX newscaster. The sarcasm wouldn't be meaningful if it weren't so bizarre that everyone's focusing on one edit that happened to be legitimate, while ignoring the other blatant vandalism and the fact that a "brand new user" is voting in RfA's and AfD's and another "brand new user" even came here to drop a likewise sarcastic comment about the username. If there weren't a WP:UCS (use common sense) policy, it's because defining common sense is like nailing water to a wall. It's either there or it's not. Maybe WP:IIWLADAQLADIPAD (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck). Reswobslc 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The "one edit that happened to be legitimate" was the one you first brought up as "vandalism" and "obviously implausible"; forgive us for "focusing on" the evidence you present here. I note that this user's last edit to the actual Harris Faulkner article was to add "Category:Stalking Victims" and "Category:People Who Have Survived Murder Attempts", which are both in keeping with the last paragraph of the article. This edit was reverted because the categories were undefined (redlinks), suggesting that MikeHunt35 isn't all that experienced in how Wikipedia works after all, or at least in how categories work -- but adding Harris Faulkner to List of stalked celebrities would be legitimate, and I'm doing that because of MikeHunt35's well-meant effort... and thanking him for bringing up the idea. A bit more honey and less vinegar, more carrot and less stick, more tea and less biting, please. Ben 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also considering that this user frivolously nominated Harris Faulkner for AfD just before naming her as a Virgin Island... it looks to me like someone clearly has a WP:POINT to make, if "Huge Dick" wasn't our first clue to that. Just too many coincidences. Reswobslc 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I gather he felt that merely reading the news from a script, even on TV, was not enough to make one "notable". This is an arguable point, and possibly incorrect as WP defines "notable", but I'd question "frivolous". Ben 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The point was that he edited another article to say that this person was one of the Virgin Islands, the nomination (incidentially being the person's 1st edit) being only an aggravating factor. You don't question that she's a person and not one of the Virgin Islands, do you? Reswobslc 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- He didn't exactly say that she was one of the Virgin Islands, he put her name in a spot where an island's (or its racing team's) name belonged. Strange, incorrect, and properly reverted, yes, but not defamatory or otherwise malicious. With what motive, I decline to guess. Ben 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The point was that he edited another article to say that this person was one of the Virgin Islands, the nomination (incidentially being the person's 1st edit) being only an aggravating factor. You don't question that she's a person and not one of the Virgin Islands, do you? Reswobslc 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I gather he felt that merely reading the news from a script, even on TV, was not enough to make one "notable". This is an arguable point, and possibly incorrect as WP defines "notable", but I'd question "frivolous". Ben 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...I do owe him an apology... for that one minor detail. Perhaps if someone does the due diligence that I seem to have overlooked, they'll also find that this edit was made in good faith, and that Harris Faulkner is one of the Virgin Islands instead of not a FOX newscaster. The sarcasm wouldn't be meaningful if it weren't so bizarre that everyone's focusing on one edit that happened to be legitimate, while ignoring the other blatant vandalism and the fact that a "brand new user" is voting in RfA's and AfD's and another "brand new user" even came here to drop a likewise sarcastic comment about the username. If there weren't a WP:UCS (use common sense) policy, it's because defining common sense is like nailing water to a wall. It's either there or it's not. Maybe WP:IIWLADAQLADIPAD (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck). Reswobslc 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...your apology rings a bit hollow when dripping with so much sarcasm. I couldn't care less if you enjoy this section of Wikipedia less than others, but I'd prefer if you could bow out without trying to have the last word. Your commentary is especially inappropriate after reading Ben's comment that Mike was making a legitimate edit. I really think you owe him an apology, and need to re-read WP:AGF. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, I am getting worked up over nothing. That should probably my clue to stop watching a page. The only reason I watch this page is perhaps to pitch in and help with a little bit of the cleanup. I suppose it is just a waste of time. There doesn't seem to be any sort of logical consistency to any of it. Assume good faith, yeah, but assume common sense, apparently not. We worry about the hypotheticals that some anal-retentive Muslim might find a name divisive but we let a troll jerk us around because hypothetically, someone, somewhere, might turn his head when hears the word cunt. We block people who demonstrate good faith, and then we assume good faith for people who are obvious vandals, simply because he told us to. The consensus is so senseless we may as well flip a coin. Thanks for your input, no offense taken or intended, the problem is not anyone personal but just the psychological phenomenon of groupthink and this little bit of the project is obviously not for me. Reswobslc 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't anybody feel stupid for letting this guy yank their chains? First we have a guy who is familiar with Wikipedia jargon like "sockpuppets" and is voting in RfA's, make up a username that reads "My Cunt", and we take his word for it that that's his name. Then he vandalizes pages and we act like he's just made an innocent mistake. Yet we've got the intuition to see the obvious "Huge Dick" sockpuppet for what it is and block it on sight, because it clearly had no edits. Let me guess - if "huge dick" subtlely vandalized a few pages, and changed the atomic number for carbon from 6 to 7, we'd have assumed good faith and not blocked him? Sometimes I just don't get it. Reswobslc 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, please watch closely for vandalism and/or sockpuppeting, particularly for starting to nominate AfDs and vote in RfAs as soon as the account was created. In the absence of other evidence this wouldn't strike me as inherently offensive, but within the context it seems like baiting. Dekimasu 07:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - Probable bad faith name, probable sockpuppet. User's main involvement has been in RfA's and AfD's.Proabivouac 08:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask what persuaded you that his name was not in fact "Micheal Hunter"? Enough different people actually have that name (exactly as spelled) that it's not inherently implausible; so why declare "probable bad faith name"? Ben 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why would an obvious sockpuppet use his real name? Which just happens to be "Mike Hunt"...please.Proabivouac 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would question "obvious sockpuppet", unless he has been tag-teaming with another ID -- something I haven't seen claimed here. If he had previously edited as an anon-IP and has now registered because anon-IP edits/votes are limited and deprecated, that would account for both his knowledge of Wikipedia's "inner workings" and his participation in issues where anon-IPs are generally less welcome -- but it wouldn't be sockpuppetry. I don't have any basis to exclude that possibility. If you do, please share it, so that I can consider it. Thanks! Otherwise, I'll just have to assume good faith. Ben 09:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why would an obvious sockpuppet use his real name? Which just happens to be "Mike Hunt"...please.Proabivouac 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - As per user above. --Asteriontalk 08:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then same question as to user above. Ben 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support asking the user to request name change to MichealHunter35, and helping him do so if he needs help. If he agrees, that addresses all the objections. If he disagrees, then there's something to be debated. But why not take the least confrontational option first? As WP:U says, start by asking the user directly; if that fails, then go to an RFC. Ben 09:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd be happy with MikeHunter35, as well, if that's his real name. I have no objection to someone shortening their first name to a well-known short for, but who shortens their last name too, to something that just happens to sound offensive? Geoffrey Spear 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow. I recognised the name but didn't realize the meaning when he opposed my RfA... :) ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. Is third-grade 'naughty' humor really that offensive? There are articles with far more offensive content. Aelffin 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow per Aelffin. Sorry but I just can't get worked up over a "naughty" joke. If the usename were "MyCunt" I might feel differently. Kaldari 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow unless it's his real name. His user page identifies him as "Michael Hunter", which would be a more appropriate username. If his edits are of questionable good faith, then he should be required to submit proof of identity to Wikimedia, or else choose a different user name.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If his edits are questionable, then I fully support banning him for his conduct, not his username. Either way, the name and the conduct are different issues and should be handled seperately. Aelffin 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. If someone says, "Yes, my name is Mike Hunt, that's what people call me," we either have to take his word for it or require him to prove it. I'd say that, if the user is otherwise a responsible member of the community, we take his word for it; but, if his behaviour is generally disruptive, then we require him to prove it.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If his edits are questionable, then I fully support banning him for his conduct, not his username. Either way, the name and the conduct are different issues and should be handled seperately. Aelffin 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is another user that is simply a self-promotion account. I originally reported this to AIV earlier but it was ignored. The last several users I've reported to AIV have been ignored, and I'm concerned if the administrators who deal with AIV have decided to ignore any user I report. Acalamari 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- They tend to dismiss all but the most blatant of usernames. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with igoring you! As HignInBC says, (and as far as i know it, the way it is suppsoed to be), only extremly blatnat usernames should be reports to WP:AIV -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the heading of AIV to add a comment that usernames should be reported here, not there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Acalamari, please don't assign motives to other people's actions. Sarah 08:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was worried in case the people there had seen my name come up so many times that they thought I was playing a game of "user-reporting." Obviously that is not the case. Acalamari 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with igoring you! As HignInBC says, (and as far as i know it, the way it is suppsoed to be), only extremly blatnat usernames should be reports to WP:AIV -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Dissallow - Looks like it might have been a mistake per [3] which was later blanked by the same user. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)- Allow - i looked into it further and I am tending to go along with the allows below. I probably need to assume good faith here (also, does not look like there is intent to spam or promote). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow I'm not so sure that a "self promotion" account promoting a government entity really falls under the umbrella of "self promotion". If I were to suggest blocking this one, it would have to be for representing oneself as the library, not for promoting it. Reswobslc 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Sorry, but not everyone in the world was given a politically correct name. Somewhere there is a "Hugh Jass" and an "Anita Kak." Lie with it, as long as we have a fine editor styled "Yuckfoo." Edison 05:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Was that meant for a different name perhaps? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming Edison meant to post that for Mike Hunt; I pity the child named "Playford library". ShadowHalo 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ohhh, what a cute little baby, lets name him Playford library! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Was that meant for a different name perhaps? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. Looking at this person's contribs, I think they're a good faith editor who mistakenly posted an article intended for the mainspace to their userpage. I don't think this is a spamming account because we're talking about a public library, not a business or commercial enterprise. I also don't see how a local public library falls under "self-promotion". I think it would be nicer if we invited the user to consider a name change themselves before RfCing them. The top of this page says, "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." I would like to encourage to nominator to consider doing this in future. I think good faith newbies deserve to be treated with some respect and consideration. Sarah 08:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Per peer pressure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Abstain: I'm not quite sure about this, but I don't think this falls under the perview of self-promotion. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow Apparently the user has attempted to upload the images "Elizabeth library.jpg" and "Playford corp" (see user talk page). It seems like self-promotion, even if it is by a government organization. Aelffin 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Unsuitable as it is reccomended to avoid "names of /../ movements". The name is both ambiguous and inappropriate. I added a username disambiguation (hope it stays). It may also be violate the policy of "Inflammatory usernames" as it "promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view". The content may also be inappropiate according to Wikipedia:User_page#What can I not have on my user page?, but that's another issue. // Liftarn 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Disallow - looks like they are using their userpage to push a point or something. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)- Allow an editor that has been here for a while. As of now, as long as the username is not causing any major trouble (which I cannot find that it is), I am inclined to let them kepe the name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow, but why did you not try to just resolve it with him first? -Amark moo! 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow There absolutely nothing inflammatory about my usernname. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. A guy can't label himself according to his philosophy? I don't understand how the word "anarcho-capitalism" is "inflammatory." Unless you're saying that anarchism is incompatible with capitalism and therefore it upset people? I don't get it.Anarcho-capitalism 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It promotes a controversial point of view, which I hope you realize anarcho-capitalism is. And yes, it does upset people to have that as a username. Besides, it's the name of an ideological movement, which you aren't supposed to have as a username anyway. -Amark moo! 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Controversial point of view? It's a username. It's not an article! Are you telling me someone is not allowed to have the username "Athiest" because that's controversial philosophy too? Where is the rule that you're talking about so I can see it? This is starting to look to me like an anti-capitalist witch-burning.Anarcho-capitalism 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Username; specifically, the Inappropriate usernames section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, now give me one quote from that set of rules that says I'm not allowed to use this as a username. It doesn't apply to any of the criteria. The name "anarcho-captitalism" does not "harrass" anybody at all. It's a real and very popular philosophy!Anarcho-capitalism 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Username; specifically, the Inappropriate usernames section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Controversial point of view? It's a username. It's not an article! Are you telling me someone is not allowed to have the username "Athiest" because that's controversial philosophy too? Where is the rule that you're talking about so I can see it? This is starting to look to me like an anti-capitalist witch-burning.Anarcho-capitalism 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It promotes a controversial point of view, which I hope you realize anarcho-capitalism is. And yes, it does upset people to have that as a username. Besides, it's the name of an ideological movement, which you aren't supposed to have as a username anyway. -Amark moo! 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
←"Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. "-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh god. You're taking that WAY out of context. My username does not "promote" a conversial of potentiall inflammtory point of view. It's doesn't promote anything. It's just the name of the philosophy itself. It's not saying, in the name itself, that it's a good or bad philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is the same concept as theoretical username such as somecoolsite.com (where somecoolsite was an actual website) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that as being equivalent at all. I feel I'm being singled out here simply. Lots of people have usernames representing their philosophy. How about the user:Capitalist (Don't go harrassing him now, please). Lots of people hate capitalism. Is he promoting an inflammatory POV by his username? If not, why not?Anarcho-capitalism 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is the same concept as theoretical username such as somecoolsite.com (where somecoolsite was an actual website) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh god. You're taking that WAY out of context. My username does not "promote" a conversial of potentiall inflammtory point of view. It's doesn't promote anything. It's just the name of the philosophy itself. It's not saying, in the name itself, that it's a good or bad philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Apathetic Perhaps in violation of policy, but I am far from affected in any way by it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I can see your point. You have been around for a while and it is just now coming to light. I personally am beginning to see there is probably very little harm in the username (but, fyi, the info on your userpage does not help with your point that it is not a controversial point) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. I can't really see the problem (and it's not a movement, as he points out). The issue of his User page is independent of this issue. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good point about the userpage. I think some may be confusing the POV on the userpage with the name. It's a different issue. And as far as I know, one is allowed to express his POV on his userpage.Anarcho-capitalism 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow The usernamed is heavily political. Also, the user page has categories at the bottom that should not be on the user page. The categories there are for articles only. Acalamari 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, those categories are specifically for userpages. Take a closer look.Anarcho-capitalism 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, so they are. Sorry. Acalamari 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem.Anarcho-capitalism 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, so they are. Sorry. Acalamari 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow This user has a history of posting arguments in which they claim to speak for all "anarcho-capitalists" and all individualists. It might be more approriate to have a user name of "Anarcho-capitalist as that means one person. Chuck0 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here we go. Here come the anti-capitalists who have a personal history of debating with me.Anarcho-capitalism 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Imagining a cabal isn't a particularly good argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an argument. It's just something to take into account. There are some people on Wikipedia who hate me because I'm an unabashed capitalist. It would be highly surprising if any of them would vote to "allow."Anarcho-capitalism 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Imagining a cabal isn't a particularly good argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here we go. Here come the anti-capitalists who have a personal history of debating with me.Anarcho-capitalism 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow, but... "ism" suggests a movement, but a name change to "ist" would be totally different (in my opinion) and would be perfectly acceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, you mean like "scepticism", "recidivism", "liberalism", "solecism", etc.? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You forgot astigmatism, embolism, and anyurism. Aelffin 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that all "-ism" words suggest movements, I'm pointing out that there's a difference, as far as usernames go, between "fooism" and "fooist" (namely, that the former is more objectionable than the latter). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed your userpage EVula. You think my username is inappropriate, but your userpage is full of profanity. It's very offensive to me. My name and my userpage is just good clean philosophy. I'm appalled and offended that you would try to prevent me from having this username that I've lived under for quite awhile now. If anyone should be rallying for free speech, I would think it would be you because of you're userpage.Anarcho-capitalism 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, you mean like "scepticism", "recidivism", "liberalism", "solecism", etc.? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. Although it gives me no joy to defend an anarcho-capitalist, it seems to me that the policies are meant to discourage using your user name as a vehicle for hate speech and other *truly* controversial stuff. Anarcho-capitalism is a minor political movement, so perhaps it fails on those grounds, but it's not significant enough to be considered controversial IMHO. I'm sure there are a lot more controversial user names on Wikipedia. Aelffin 17:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment... I agree we should encourage them to change it to '-ist'. Aelffin 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow but encourage the user to change it to "Anarcho-capitalist". There's nothing particularly controversial about this name in my eyes. That seems to be the only criterion on which this can be judged under the Username policy. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. Doesn't seem especially controversial or inflammatory to me and it's certainly not a coherent political "movement". Kaldari 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak allow It is dispreferable that users use usernames of this sort, and WP:UN specifically advises against it. However, since this user has been quite active under this name for some time, and it does not seem to be causing any particular problems, I think it would be inappropriate to require him to change it. I might suggest that he voluntarily seek a user name change, but he is free to continue with the current one.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - Usernames which refer to politics or religion should be disallowed.Proabivouac 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Should be disallowed" is another matter, and you have a right to that opinion. But, usernames that refer to politics or religion are not disallowed by policy. So, you're trying to create your own law here, or subvert it, when you should be basing your vote on the existing law. Isn't this what people mean when they oppose "judicial activism"?Anarcho-capitalism 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Up until recently, virtually all English names referred to Christianity in some way or another. Would you support banning all username including the word "Christian" even if that was their actual name? Kaldari 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I know this user is going to be blocked (easily). I wanted to post it here instead of AIV due to how funny it is. Acalamari 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I can die happy now... I've blocked K.Fed. Ohmygodohmygodohmygod.... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance of letting me in on the joke? Who is this supposed to be? I looked, but there's no article on him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- This joker Kevin Federline. Britney Spears was his wife. Acalamari 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Politically-charged username. Acalamari 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Come on. Let people express themselves. I understand not allowing absolute free speech, but don't restrict free speech to the point where it's ridiculous. People are individuals and should be allowed to express their identity.Anarcho-capitalism 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - I see no harmful pattern here. I personally have no issue with the name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow I've said many times before that political names should be blocked. After all, NazismIsntCool was blocked. Acalamari 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow: The part which makes political names controversial is not the political name itself (usually), but rather the other components of the name. Obviously, some political parties are inherently controversial (The Nazi Party/National Socialists), but other than that, it usually comes from the other half of the name (The "Isn't Cool" part in your example.) Dissent is not a charged word at all, and is actually rather tame. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Right, it's the "Isn't cool" part that isn't cool, because that's asserting a value judgement over Nazism.Anarcho-capitalism 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow per Acalamari. Userames which declare partisanship undermine WP:AGF, encourage and facilitate factionalization and poison the well of discussion.Proabivouac 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. WP:UN does not yet ban all political usernames. This one doesn't seem very inflammatory to me. WJBscribe 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)