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 H (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 16 February 2007 (→{{User|%}}). 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.

When contacting the user, {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} may be helpful, but feel free to paraphrase it or write your own original text if you prefer. Please try to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers, if possible: allow for the possibility of innocent error or other reasonable explanation.

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. Grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:AIV instead.

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.

Please inform all users reported here with {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}. If the RFC is closed as "Allow", please follow up by informing the user with {{subst:UsernameAllowed}}.

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


This page has an archive.

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

Diff (talk · contribs)

As a note, this discussion is basically an RFCN regarding a request for usurpation. All discussion should probably be centered at the talk page for CHU/U. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

% (talk · contribs)

Was already blocked for username, I found the user through an unblock request. Starting this here, and I am unblocking the user so he/she may participate here. I have yet to make an opinion about this name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Disallow per above possible abuse of "%". — MrDolomite • Talk 18:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So "possible abuse" is reason to disallow? I could possibly abuse your own username and get blocked for it -- "I'll bash your skull in pieces with this MrDolomite!" -- which doesn't make your username bad. "Possible abuse" may or may not ever happen. We're not crystal-ball-readers here. -- Ben 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree witih Ryan. Either we need to update the username policy to prevent all names with characters that need to be encoded or let this name be. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR: Strong Disallow on technical grounds. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still fail to see a technical issue here? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, try to get this URL to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:% --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your miscoding a URL doesn't disqualify a name. The same would happen if you coded a space in a username as a space in the URL. -- Ben 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... what's your point? The link works just fine; I get the same thing as User:%, except because it isn't a wikilink, the system doesn't know to redirect you to the "Edit this page" screen. Try it with an existing page, and you'll see the same thing: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula vs. User:EVula). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IE6 - type in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ckatz" - it goes to my page. Type in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benedict the Moor" - it goes to Ben's page (adding %20 for the spaces). Type in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%" and the browser retuns an error page - HTTP 400 Bad Request. Same occurs with "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:%". --Ckatzchatspy 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you add the %20 for the spaces? How different woould that be than the %25 that gives you the percent sign? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no - IE autoconverts the spaces into "%20"s. It does not do the same with the "%" character, nor is it reasonable to expect users to have to know that trick. --Ckatzchatspy 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    http:\\en.wikipedia.org\wiki\User:Benedict the Moor does not show up as a link on Wikipedia at all, due to the backslashes, and when cut-and-pasted into my (non-IE) browser it does not work as a link. Neither does http:\\en.wikipedia.org\wiki\User:Ckatz -- with backslashes, these are improperly formatted URLs, just like encoding a space as a space rather than %20 --- or a percent sign as a percent sign rather than %25 -- which doesn't make these usernames bad, it makes the URLs improperly formatted. -- Ben 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the above - the "\\" was a typo on my part, but if you check the (now correct) URLs you'll see the problem is exactly as I described. --Ckatzchatspy 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct URLs are //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benedict_the_Moor and //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%25 -- which I did not even have to hand-type, I used {{fullurl:User:Benedict the Moor}} and {{fullurl:User:%}} instead -- and if you simply click on a wikilink to a wikipage you'll see its correct URL with all punctuation properly encoded in the address field. If you want to hand-code a URL, it's up to you to hand-code it correctly. Don't blame the characters for your not knowing their codes. There are too many usernames and articles we'd have to delete or rename if this new proposed standard would be imposed across the board. But at present this is not a standard, it's not in WP:U. We can't demand a username abide by a rule that doesn't exist. -- Ben 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow There are other usernames with % in the name why should % alone be a problem?--BirgitteSB 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. With respect to those who disagree, our tendency to block "funny character" or even non-Latin usernames has been the subject of a godawful amount of strife, debate, and people taking all sorts of things very personally. We allow question marks and other percent-encoded characters to pass without question, in my experience; wikilinks to these pages work just fine. While technical issues are a concern, I'm not yet convinced that it's a serious threat in this case, not of the sort that would require blocking. That's my take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this isn't just another "percent-encoded" character. This is the percent character that is used to create those percent-encoded characters. Thus, I think, a special case. --Ckatzchatspy 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it's a special case. I don't personally think we should disallow it, but I can certainly understand why some of us want to. ;) Haven't seen a discussion this interesting in some time. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much the cutting edge of username policy, something we haven't gone over before. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, your comment gave me a mental picture of a bunch of "EXTREME!"-type Wikipedians, snowboarding while drinking Mountain Dew while discussing usernames, wrapping up each argument with "fuck yeah!" and high-fives all around. It... it isn't easy living in my head... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tame, EVula, tame. Not snowboarding; basejumping. -- Ben 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, now everyone will know that I'm not "hip" and/or "happenin'". The façade is destroyed... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Naaah, you just have to learn to wiki-edit on your laptop while in freefall. The real trick is making sure your wi-fi connection works all the way down. -- Ben 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A handheld (Blackberry, Palm Pilot, etc.) is okay too, but the graphics suffer. -- Ben 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Funny character is not a reason to block someone who may be a promising contributor to this open project. (jarbarf) 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no-one is considering blocking the user - this is a discussion about whether or not the user name needs to be changed. --Ckatzchatspy 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernames are not deleted. If this user name is disallowed, it will be indefblocked for WP:USERNAME and the user will be asked to register a new name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has already been blocked; see the opening dialogue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We should unblock this person and allow them to contribute. Wikipedia:Assume good faith should be a guiding check in everything we do. (jarbarf) 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the user was unblocked to participate here. Check the block log before you make statements like the above. pschemp | talk 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. You misinterpreted the meaning of my message, I apologize if I did not articulate it well enough. My point is that this person should not have ever been blocked. (jarbarf) 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really for this RFC. His reasons for choosing that user name don't matter here. What matters is whether or not the user name itself is in line with policy. I don't have an opinion since I don't understand the possible technical problem, but regardless, it is about the name. The Behnam 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you read? Read the brackets dude. Other people have mentioned all the things i've references. Jeez man — Deon555talkdesksign here! 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can read, "dude". You can see the brackets on those templates above because I nowiki'd them to make the codes visible and let you cut-and-paste them from the page. {{fullurl:User:%}} without the nowiki tags becomes //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%25 ; {{user|%}} without the nowiki tags becomes % (talk · contribs) ; etc. The templates, and the resulting links, all work fine. Anyone who "mentioned" otherwise can try explaining that away. -- Ben 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow - After reading over the arguments. I see the point raised by Ckatz regarding confusion to be quite pertinent here. --Kukini 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any arguments that are based on policy? You should know that when the closer judges consensus that will be taken into consideration. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the one that this issue seems relevant to is "Names with non-Latin characters." I have been presuming that the Latin alphabet were the characters to which this policy referred. Kukini 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that is what the policy had in mind. If that is what it meant then hyphens and spaces and commas would not be allowed.(or perhaps I am misinterpreting you) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That remains my read on the policy, as currently worded. It would seem that users with names like "&^*" and "#" are functioning outside the policy as currently worded. As for what the authors of the policy had in mind, I really cannot say. I figure we are here to work within the policy as it is currently drafted. Best, Kukini 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Does that mean spaces and numbers and hyphens are not allowed either? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then..if we do rule against this user name...we need to next discuss User:$. Kukini 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference, here's the WP:U policy section at issue:

      Names with non-Latin characters
      Some editors on this Wikipedia will be unable to read a username written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hebrew, or other scripts, and for some editors names in these scripts may be displayed only as question marks ("??? ??"), white squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("��� ��") or mojibake ("文字化け"). If your username is written in a non-Latin script, you are strongly urged (but not required) to provide a transliteration in your signature (which you can set in your preferences) either instead of or side by side your username, and a link to your userpage (and preferably your talk page) in your signature to allow other editors to contact you easily and to facilitate communication.

      As you see, this doesn't refer to standard English-language keyboard characters, which English-language computers and browsers can display; nor is it due to limitations of Wikipedia's software. Some users' home computers can't display foreign characters because they don't have the fonts installed. That's not the case with "%". (It might be the case with "$" or "£" or "¥" because these are national currency symbols; or with the new kid on the block, "€".) Also note the "strongly urged (but not required)"; such non-Latin names are not forbidden. -- Ben 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow -After discovering User:@, and seeing that we are no longer allowed to use @ to make a user name...I relent/back off/give in. Thus, I change to Allow.Kukini 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been several points raised in favour of allowing the name based on policy, and that technical considerations should be left for a different body. However, I would ask this questions: is RFC/NAME's role to interpret the letter or the spirit of the law (or guideline, as the case might be)? Based on past decisions, there seems to be a fair degree of latitude to interpret the policy in what consensus feels is the best interests of Wikipedia. If a user's name fits within the wording of the guideline, yet may reasonably be shown to have the possibility of creating confusion - is it not our responsibility to prevent this? (Think of another guideline - 3RR - wherein a user can be considered to be in violation of the rule even if they are not actually making 4+ reverts.) --Ckatzchatspy 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that $ (talk · contribs) made a number of edits, yet I saw no complaint that the username was confusing. I've seen no reason to believe % (talk · contribs) would fare worse in actual conversation. Frankly, the "problems" presented here seem pretty far-fetched ("stretching it") to me. -- Ben 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow-There is no convincing reason not to. Of all the technical things raised, the only one that holds the slightest bit of water is the fact that it is slightly more difficult to type in the URL, and why on Earth would people be typing in the full URL anyway when there is a nice box to the side where you just type User:% and hit Go? The faint possibility that someone in the distant future could conceivably want to type in the full URL to this person's user page for no apparent reason is an entirely insufficient reason to disallow. As for bots, I run a bot, and it and any bot written by a decent programmer (which I would hope all the bots for this site are) is perfectly capable of processing this user page the same as any other. And even if it confused one bot, it's not like it would kill it or convince it to go on a vandalism rampage, it would simply prevent it from doing whatever routine maintenance it was attempting to do. Again, an insufficient reason for disallowing the user name. I don't think it would confuse me overly much on a talk page to have a user named % contributing either. There has been no reason to disallow put forward, policy based or otherwise, that I've felt provides sufficient impetus to warrant disallowing it.--Dycedarg ж 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, no problem with this username. Kusma (討論) 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest closing There does not seem to be a consensus to dis-allow this name, may I suggest someone less involved than me close this debate? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saberscorpx (talk · contribs)

His name doesn't directly clash with any Wiki policies. But his sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to create and defend the article Saber's Beads which is a vanity neologism he created. He recreated it after a first AfD and I listed it for AfD a second time[1]. I've also tried to get the image associated with the article deleted. Since then he's been spamming my talk page with minor edits to the comments he's made on it, causing me to get the new messages link, sometimes several times a day [2]. I asked him to stop and his response was an odd accusation that I had deleted his comments. I have done no such thing. He's been at his game of adding nonsense to Wikipedia for months now as seen here. His user name isn't an advertisement for a commercial product (as much as I can tell) but given his obvious COI I think the time has come to do something about him (especially since he's annoyed me with a nonsense edit to my talk page for what I hope is the last time) Nardman1 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean [3]. But how is his name inappropriate? Isn't he named Steven Saber? It is fine that he have his own name in his user name. I think you may have to go through the normal block procedures. Considering what he has been up to, it shouldn't be too difficult. The Behnam 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - First of all, I certainly sympathize with your issues with him, but - this isn't a mechanism to fix that, I think the block method would be better. However, we have a policy that says Usernames that promote a company or website: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked. Since his name includes the work "corp", I think it's deceptively similar to "Saber Corp." (which is a leading company in the travel industry, and makes the software that several major airlines (plus Travelocity) use) and inappropriately resembles the name of the company. I think Disallow on that basis, irrespective of any other issues you may or may not be having with him. Philippe Beaudette 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought the scorpx could have referred to that constellation stuff; I didn't read all of it but the user appeared to be interested in astrology. The Behnam 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatfairy (talk · contribs)

Reported this one at WP:AIV but Viridae didn't think it was as obvious as I did. In my view it contravene's WP:U but I'm not as sure of my ground as I was. 'Meat' is slang for a penis and 'fairy' for a homosexual. I can't think of any inoccent explanations for the name. Only edit was to Elephant (yeah, it was Colbert-related vandalism). What do others think? WjBscribe 06:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely, it is a throw away colbert vandalism account. Nuke it for that. The username is not obviously offensive though. pschemp | talk 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you live; it's pretty obvious from here.Proabivouac 07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is about possible offense, not possible innocence. Even if he had "good" or neutral reasons behind his name, this does not change the fact that some reasonable concerns have been brought up here. It is best that we take the 'anti-benefit' of the doubt, since the user name itself is of concern, not his reasons for choosing it. AGF is irrelevant to this kind of situation. The Behnam 09:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To every other username here we try and assume good faith so I don't know whats different with this one. It can have many other uses than the sexually inflammatory one. Its not blatant, I didn't have a clue why it had been nominated until I read this thread RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't applied this whole irrelevant "good faith user names are fine, even if the user name itself suggests something unacceptable" attitude. Unfortunately, it seems rather prevalent at this RFC. One of the reasons I contribute here is to make a futile attempt to counter this attitude. Obviously, I haven't succeeded most of the time. The Behnam 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Innocent explanations don't matter. This isn't about generating far-fetched speculative ideas about how this could be innocent, but rather it is about tackling the possible not-innocence. It seems a number of users have found the negative meaning a reasonable possibility. The Behnam 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was more referring to the... er... nominator's (?) assertion that he couldn't think of any innocent explanations. Besides, almost anything that has a concrete meaning (as opposed to real names or semi-nonsense words, like my username) can be made sexual if you try hard enough. Remember middle school?  :-) Milto LOL pia 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that sort of thing, but the issue here is that there isn't much trying involved. For this situation, the people who are "trying" are those creating various "innocent" versions. Seriously, a fairy who delivers meat? That and others like it are definitely more preposterous than the threatening slang version. The name lends itself more strongly to the bad meaning. The Behnam 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - come on! could be like the snack fairy in the popular commercials, the tooth fairy. He could desire to be the fairy of the inanminate object meat. And, in the context i have seen, fairy in relation to homosecuality is often spelled faerie. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. If the name was Penisfairy, then I'd agree that it clearly ran afoul of WP:U, but the words "meat" and "fairy" have other connotations. If we ban every user name with a slang word for "penis," this page will be a mile long. When I first saw the name, I thought of a delightful sprite that left barbeque ribs under my pillow. Coemgenus 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PrisonBreak - Wentworth Miller (talk · contribs)

Name of a show, editing article about said show. Milto LOL pia 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=108604004"