Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 18 February 2007 (→{{User|Qazxswedcvfrtgb}}). 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. This is not the place to discuss the behavior of a user unless it is directly related to their 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.

Wikipediasteve (talk · contribs)

Further to Betacommands blocking of the above userame, this userame has also been blocked by him for being inappropriate and I don't feel it is inflammatory, hence why I've brought it here RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reblocked - Usernames with the word wikipedia in them are not allowed, as the word wikipedia is a trademark of the foundation. It has always been this way. Derivatives, such as wiki steve are fine. But there is no arguing about cases with this word in it. This is the same case as people making logos using the foundation's trademark wikipedia logo. It isn't allowed, and never has been. pschemp | talk 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WikiRegulator (disallowed), versus Wikipediatrix (allowed), on the same archive page. Even though the first had just "Wiki-", and the second had a full "Wikipedia-" -- but the first seemed to claim authority, while the second did not. -- Ben 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WikiRegulator (disallowed), versus Wikipediatrix (allowed). -- Ben 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The policy says nothing about the word Wikipedia being banned, perhaps the policy is lacking in this, but perhaps it is not disallowed. If the name implies a position of special authority then that is not allowed, but that is something for consensus to determine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Allow - but only because a strict constructionist reading of the policy doesn't technically ban it. I think it should, but it doesn't currently. Philippe Beaudette 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not something for consesnus to determine, this was a directive from Jimbo. Consensus was not used to determine the policy about the use of the Wikimedia foundation logo either. It was declared a trademark infringement. Yes, there probably are other names with wikipedia in them, but they should be blocked. Since it is humans working here, not bots, things slip through. Sorry, but consensus does not trump legal issues. pschemp | talk 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me this directive from Jimbo? Why isn't this mentioned in the policy? How is a new user to know? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From meta, it is quite clear the word "wikipedia" is a trademark. [1]:This policy affects all trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, including the names and logos used for its various projects, i.e. Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikiversity. Some of these trademarks have already been registered, but please note that a registration is not necessary to own a trademark.

The goal of this policy is to ensure that the names and logos are used in a way coherent to the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. It needs to be impossible, for example, for someone to release a product called 'Wikipedia' that consists of non-free content. On the other hand we have to ensure that community members or partners don't get into legal problems when using the trademarks in our sense.

Any rights granted in this policy fall under an over-arching requirement that the use of the trademarks has to be

  • non-confusing - people should always know who they are dealing with. Websites and products which are not published by the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't imply, either directly or by omission, that they are - and
  • non-disparaging - you can't use our trademarks to be rude about us (outside the bounds of fair use).

The use of a username by a person not working for the foundation is confusing and is implying that they are representing the foundation. Now, I don't know why that isn't written into the username policy, probably because until now, the people who know what they are doing weren't questioned at every little turn. And jimbo discussed this off wiki, so it isn't recorded. If these were so common, you would have been able to think of one off the top of your head, but notice you couldn't. pschemp | talk 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear Disallow I wouldn't allow Micosoftsteve or any other trademark in this way. Wikipedia is the same.--BirgitteSB 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For people looking for applicable areas on WP:UN, wouldn't the section Inappropriate usernames / Wikipedia terms apply easily? If a user name of "SysopSteve" would be obviously disallowed, why is "Wikipediasteve" that much more difficult to see? Shenme 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't to me. That part clearly states it isn't limited to the words listed. Since its covered, perhaps that's why this was never written explicitly. pschemp | talk 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given a choice between a mass blocking, or a bit of tolerance, I would support tolerance. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sarah Ewart, I am glad you were able to list some users with "Wikipedia" in their names. Acalamari 03:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Contains "Wikipedia". // PoeticDecay 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames has three specifications that already forbid using Wikipedia project names as usernames: (1) "Wikipedia terms. This includes commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or names implying an official position on Wikipedia"; (2) "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups,...."; (3) "Unique trademarked names". We don't need a fourth rule to forbid the same category of usernames. If the above three weren't clear enough, nothing else ever could be. But "Wikipediasteve" is not a project name; it conveys "Steve on Wikipedia", just as "Wikipedian____" conveys a ____ who's a Wikipedian like you or me. These do not connote any official standing of any kind, whether admin, steward, director, or founder. Unless and until the WMF create a "Wikipediasteve" project, this isn't a problem. -- Ben 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Benedict, you just said yourself Unique trademarked names is a rule, Wikipedia is. The policy was lacking this clarification, but now has it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy forbade "User:George Carlin" but would have permitted "George Carlin Fan"; likewise for sports team names with "Fan" added. Adding a word that doesn't imply an official role (unlike "Manager", "Admin", etc.) changes the situation. And if I were this user, I'd be indignant about having a rule thumped at me when it was created after the start of the discussion, for the purpose of thumping it at me, by a talk-page consensus of two (count 'em, two) users, in such haste that -- not only did a wider selection of the community have no chance to participate -- but the rule forbids using trademarks of the nonexistent "wikipedia foundation" (lowercase in original text). Since there is no such organization, there are no such trademarks. -- Ben 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia policy bars the use of Wikipedia terms ("Revert", "Edit war", "POV") as usernames, not necessarily in usernames. "User:I don't get angry if reverted", "User:No more edit wars please", and "User:Trying for NPOV", would all be fine. Likewise, "User:All Quiet on the Wikipedia Front", "User:The Wiktionary Witch of the West", and "User:I Love WikiMedia" should be non-objectionable. -- Ben 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - The username policy states not to use names which may suggest one holds an official position at Wikipedia. If it were something like WikiLeon which means a person named Leon who edits Wikis, then that's a different case. --wL<speak·check·chill> 07:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WikiRegulator (disallowed), versus Wikipediatrix (allowed). -- Ben 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipediasteve" doesn't suggest an official position, any more than "Wikisteve" or "WikiLeon". Nor does "Wikipediauser", "Wikipediafan", "Wikipediaisgreat", etc. -- Ben 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The username seems to represent two things: #1 Wikipedia, #2 The person's name. It may show that #2 has something to do with #1, what would that something be? I read about a person named Steve, and Wikipedia. Could it be that Steve is of Wikipedia. Would it be the same if it were "WikipediaDanny" or "WikipediaJimbo"? We must look into the whole meaning of the username Even if it were WikipediaEditorSteve, then it may be an allow. --wL<speak·check·chill> 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Disallow "Wikipedia" can be accused for commonality, not for copyright violation. "steve" is fine for dab. NikoSilver 16:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Previous vote stricken. In the broad interpretation of the rule Brigite, pschemp and others are right. No copyright titles on usernames. Someone may need to make a sweap in my "commonality" link above too. NikoSilver 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "copyright title"; titles can't be copyrighted. There are trademarks, which are forbidden as usernames -- "User:IBM" or "User:Wikipedia" would cross the line -- but once you modify the word, it is no longer the trademark: "User:ICBM" or "User:Mickeypedia" would not cross the line, unless Disney has trademarked the latter. Using a trademark inside a name, in a way that does not imply an official role -- "User:I love my IBM PC" or "User:Wikipediaholic" -- should not be a problem. -- Ben 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your interpretation is logical. Turning back to allow. NikoSilver 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow If we are to disallow this name, we need to create a bot or something to go and hunt out all accounts like this one [3] for "WikipediaMan." Consistency in policy enforcement is crucial. Kukini 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow unless someone wants to go through the userlist and block all the accounts that contain "Wikipedia". It's not right to apply this to one person but ignore a whole bunch of people in the same boat. Sarah 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow i've seen the list of usernames with wikipedia in it. and also, the username: Wikipedian has the word wikipedia in it. --RebSkii 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't undestand the comments about "blocking all the users" . Why would we block people when we simply point out the policy and direct them to WP:CHU? Why assume people are going to unreasonable and jump to block thm before you have even spoken to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 17:57, February 17, 2007 (UTC)
    • I suppose the fact that this user was blocked, then unblocked to participate in this discussion then blocked again[4] before it was over could cause people to assume that the others would be blocked. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somehow I can grudingly accept the blocking of a problamatic username with no edits and asking them to pick another name as making sense. However the "block first; direct to WP:CHU second" practice is unsupportable.--BirgitteSB 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow For pete's sake, he hasn't done anything yet. 'Sides, WP:U is a little ambiguous... "they're more like guidelines than actual rules." Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Wikisteve-Pretty sure this doesn't violate the trademark. --TeckWizParlateContribs@ 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what violation? does the Wikimedia foundation has exclusive copyrights to the term Wikipediasteve? --RebSkii 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They own the trademark "Wikipedia", and derivative terms like "Wikipediasteve" count as infringement too. —Dgiest c 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if we do delete or change this username, we need to go back and do the same for many other similar usernames. Kukini 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Here for starters. NikoSilver 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative comment This has actually been written into WP:U now RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because the word wikipedia is in it doesn't mean it violates trademark. Otherwise most of the newspapers here would be in trouble with Sun Microsystems as their trademark is "Sun". - Fosnez 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But those newspapers are not online organizations with policies about what you can or cannot have in a username. // PoeticDecay 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy to which you refer was barely added today on WP:U. It is not clear that it will hold up, and if it does, as admins, we may need to go to all the usernames that are inappropriate based on this policy and close all those accounts. Kukini 05:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long long ago, there was a desktop-publishing program called "PublishIt", whose users sometimes found that they literally could not discuss or even mention it on bulletin-board systems devoted to software discussions -- because the BBS automatic-censorship feature would block their posts, or at least mangle the program name into "Publi****". (The feature was simple-minded enough that changing "i" to "!", or "t" to "+", would evade such blocking, so those who actually intended obscenity were not impeded until the "banned-words" list was updated -- which encouraged continually innovative spellings, but that's another story.)

    My point is that the auto-block feature wasn't "stupid", it was merely mechanical, as befits a simple string-searching subroutine -- but such behavior would have been stupid in a human being.

    Jimbo and the WMF have always had the option to automatically prevent certain characters or strings from ever appearing in usernames, from the moment accounts are created. Not very long ago they chose to exercise that option against email-ID usernames (containing "@"). But mostly they prefer to trust human judgment rather than a mechanical process. When we behave mechanically, we betray that trust.

    There is a rational and consistent reason some usernames containing "Wikipedia" have been blocked, while others have not: the blocked names gave the false impression of official authority (or contained other offensive or obscene terms, etc.), while the never-blocked names did not. We should continue to apply that rational and consistent reasoning to current and future cases, not turn our minds off and behave like one line of a subroutine ("if CONTAINS-WIKIPEDIA then DO BLOCK"). -- Ben 16:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow if the regulations are clear, then there should not be need for a discussion. On that note, may I request the following names be disallowed:

Plus many more that appear to have either misspelled wikipedia by mistake or in a hostile manner attempting to spoof admin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&username=Wikipedia was used to find these names. This list was posted in response to the request that was made from other users that names containing wikipedia be posted, although I must make a point that a number of the names I have listed usewikipedia AND attempt to spoof as admin, those names should be dealt with before anything is done about wikipediasteve.Pissedpat 09:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of the names on that list have been blocked already, with good reasons (like obscenity or claims of admin status) that aren't simply "contains the word 'Wikipedia'". What's interesting is that there are names on that list, some even with edit histories starting two or three years back, that have never been blocked, even though they contain the word "Wikipedia" (but do not contain obscenity or claims of admin status). To the extent that "policy describes what we do", clearly "contains the word 'Wikipedia'" has not been sufficient reason to disallow. The recent addition of that rule does not have the "wide acceptance among editors" that the box atop WP:U speaks of, witness the rule's deletion by multiple editors and its repeated restoration by only one. See also the discussion at WT:U#Policy addition to disallow Wikipedia references from usernames. "No such consensus" should be the epitaph of that policy addition and this RFC/NAME entry. Move to close as "no consensus to disallow". -- Ben 13:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and you'd think the developers would have saved everyone all that trouble by making it impossible to create accounts containing the word "Wikipedia" -- if that were truly the will of the Wikimedia Foundation -- the same way they did prevent any more email-ID usernames (containing the character "@") from being created, once that policy change was handed down. -- Ben 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were is this "will of the Wikimedia Foundation" coming from? Perhaps you should look into how the disallowing of email names came about. They were not always impossible to register. The same with mixing of character sets. These things were not allowed by policy of en.WP before the developers made it imposssible to register. I don't think this is some special rule about the Wikimedia Foundation at all, but the longstanding rule against trademarks. We would not allow "Microsoftsteve" we should not allow "Wikipediasteve".--BirgitteSB 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As with Wikipediatrix, allowed by RFC/NAME in June last year. Makes hash of the claim up top that "It has always been this way" (names containing "Wikipedia" have always been disallowed), except perhaps in the sense of "We have always been at war with Eurasia." Such a pity that WP:RFCN/Archive didn't go down the Memory Hole, eh? -- Ben 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it is such a pity that i am unware of that discussion, such a pity that i did not search for it and such a pity that i registered and started editing here on September of 2006. --RebSkii 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where is this 'will of the Wikimedia Foundation' coming from?"   From pschemp's argument, along with "this is not something for consensus to determine, this was a directive from Jimbo". No link to that directive has been provided, nor has it been announced that Jimbo and the WMF have lost the ability to speak for themselves and that pschemp has been appointed their spokesperson. Since verifiability (not merely the claim of "truth") is such an important principle of this project, you might think a source could and would be cited, but no: pschemp says above, "jimbo discussed this off wiki, so it isn't recorded." (Place, date, and context all unprovided.) Rather a careless way for Jimbo to issue a "directive", wouldn't it be, considering how much else he's been perfectly able to put on the record, online, on-Wiki, and linkable -- and considering how hard he's insisted we should not rely on any factual claim that can't be verified, not take any editor's unsupported word for it? Suddenly he's issuing unrecorded "directives" by word-of-mouth? And we're supposed to change written policy on the basis of such an unsupported claim? -- Ben 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blahblah321 (talk · contribs)

Blahblah321 (talk · contribs) has been blocked by User:Betacommand, citing an inappropriate username. How does this user name fail WP:U? 88.91.96.246 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediawonder (talk · contribs)

User:Wikipediawonder THis user has made some good contribs but as I have seen the name Wikipediasteve was not allowed is it reportable at ANI or here?  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on their talk page. Personally I would wait for them to respond and see if they will agree to change their name on their own. I would only ask for comments here if they disgreed with the intial reasoning that their name is not compliant with WP:U. This is just IMHO.--BirgitteSB 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:U Inappropriate usernames ninth section down

WP:U no longer says that. That line had been added without consensus, and has been replaced after discussion with a 24-hour wait for comments from every time zone. The current restriction (to which even the original author of that controversial addition has agreed) is --
  • Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator"; or consisting of a project name such as "Wikipedia", "WikiMedia", "Wiktionary", or "Wikinews". (This does not forbid clearly non-official names such as User:John Doe on Wikipedia or User:I read Wikinews.)
Please reconsider this username accordingly. Thanks! -- Ben 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on this matter is still on. i don't know what to do next, if the user requested for change of username, that's fine with me, if you want to ask the user to hold off, that's fine with me. i guess if i'm the user, i just want to go out of this mess. --RebSkii 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True,I would to but the policy needs to be set one way or another. there are users with Wikipedia in them that are Admin hopefuls. I just don't want to be the blame for some one having to change their user name if it's not going to be binding policy.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Precedent doesn't support this reading of policy. Look at WikiRegulator (disallowed), versus Wikipediatrix (allowed), on the same archive page. Even though the first had just "Wiki-", and the second had a full "Wikipedia-" -- but the first seemed to claim authority, while the second did not. -- Ben 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchmuckyTheCat

Please block SchmuckyTheCat for having an inappropriate username. He has cat in his name but hates animals. Wikipedia rules disallow usernames that refer to genitalia, profanity and religious figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.196.208.21 (talk) 18:41, February 18, 2007 (UTC)

  • Allow Am I missing something? Users are allowed to hate animals so long as they're not posting inappropriate POV material, and so far as I can tell, the name doesn't refer to genitalia, profanity, or religious figures. ShadowHalo 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow to me, the username simply refers to the name of a cat. --RebSkii 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - this is a long-time user well-known to the community, and I think the timing of this request is retaliatory given the user's current involvement in an unrelated dispute. To those bewildered by the listing here, schmuck is also used as a Yiddish slang word for part of the genitals, but its primary meaning is simply "fool" or "silly person" and the username is simply self-deprecating. Newyorkbrad 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qazxswedcvfrtgb (talk · contribs)

User:Qazxswedcvfrtgb is random text,may be a user that will vandle.I have left a notice on it's page.No contribs.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=109130439"