Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) at 21:20, 2 February 2007 ({{user|Liberaldissent}}: allow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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.


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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please read WP:POINT. Dekimasu 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked Warned. I've checked recent contribs. Sneaky vandalism and changing wikilinks to senseless entries. --wL<speak·check·chill> 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen Reswobslc 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • [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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • ...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)[reply]
              • ...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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Why would an obvious sockpuppet use his real name? Which just happens to be "Mike Hunt"...please.Proabivouac 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They tend to dismiss all but the most blatant of usernames. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Acalamari, please don't assign motives to other people's actions. Sarah 08:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Was that meant for a different name perhaps? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ohhh, what a cute little baby, lets name him Playford library! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Allow Per peer pressure. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

←"Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. "-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, so they are. Sorry. Acalamari 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.Anarcho-capitalism 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This joker Kevin Federline. Britney Spears was his wife. Acalamari 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Politically-charged username. Acalamari 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]