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.

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}}.

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

• the user in question has made no recent edits.
• you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

• has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
• has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
• is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

---

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

This page has an archive.

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

---

Blocked by Bbatsell (talk · contribs) as an imposter of his friend, Can't sleep clown will eat me. Except for the prefix, the names are not related. Does the clown user own the "Can't sleep" prefix?

Jimbo meets Willy? --BigDT 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow. Why Not? Zbl 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very very weak allow. The words Jimbo and Willy in one username should set all alarm bells ringing. But the chance that this user is simply called Jim Bob Bowilly is, however small, too big to block. Allow for now, but indefblock immediately if this turns out to be a vandal. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is 'Bowilly' a real surname? "Mr Bowilly" get no ghits [1] and neither does combining Bowilly with common first names... WjBscribe 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I come across Al Bowilly often, but that is probably a typo for singer Al Bowlly. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. Using the name of Jimbo and that of a notorious vandal in one username is just too much. Asking for a rename is not that big a deal. WjBscribe 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's right, I forgot about WoW... I'm removing my vote for now. // DecaimientoPoético 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow per WJBscribe. NikoSilver 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - at least ask first. If they claim it is meant that way then it should be diasllowed. However, the extra b's in the middle concern me. COuld be read as jimbob bo willy, or some other name. I think we jumped the gun because it starts with jimbo. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How recently deceased is too recent? --BigDT 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - 5-10 years, maybe? Whatever the case, Nixon died over 10 years ago, so it should be fine. // DecaimientoPoético 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nixon died in 1994. Still, I'd say allow. Coemgenus 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow "Richard" and "Nixon" are both fairly common names, and he died long enough ago to avoid any confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be harsh, but I would disallow because the historical personality is so famous and controversial. WP:U says "Wikipedia recommends that users avoid .. names of politicians" (and it doesn't say that only applies to living ones). Although there is a Richard Nixon (talk · contribs) with no edits who has not been blocked. Sam Blacketer 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Could be his name.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My name could be George W Bush. --BigDT 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow from WP:U: "Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of politicians, military or religious figures, movements, or events" This is no better than the name of a political party. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Disallow, and "weak" only because I really really hate to disallow. Not only a name of a politician, but one about whom feelings still run very hot, either side. -- Ben 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per HighInBC and Ben. Names of politicians are problematic and there are still very stong feelings around about Nixon. WjBscribe 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Jesus could be the first name of a Spaniard as well but as per WJBscribe, it can be prolematic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Last check, this was a politician. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, unless proven beyond any doubt that it is the user's real name. NikoSilver 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - unless it can be proven that it is his real name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocked by Betacommand. I do not see how the user name is inappropriate, although the username might indicate a sockpuppet. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly less flabbergasted allow A bit on the lengthy side, but other than that, fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - extremely lengthy names are not permitted. --BigDT 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's "extremely lengthy"? My mother's maiden name is longer than that! -- Ben 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow. Per WP:U.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:U? -- Ben 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow, no particular WP:U violation either apparent or specified by the blocking admin. -- Ben 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per this part of WP:U: "Extremely lengthy usernames" are inappropriate. Coemgenus 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short declarative sentence, short enough to be easy to remember, and certainly gives a memorable image. I don't think 36 characters (including spaces) is "extremely long". Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch might be, but the village exists and so does the Wikipedia article. "My foot is caught in the shoe washer" is short and easy by comparison. -- Ben 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's not extremely long. I'll change to allow. Coemgenus 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow. This is just on the side of not being excessively long. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs) has two characters more in his name and has not been blocked. Sam Blacketer 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I am pretty sure we have an admin named after a harry potter character with a longer name. Though the user should pick a shorter signature. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So let's not act headlessly heedlessly, nor nearly so. -- Ben 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has 4 characters less, I still think it is short enough. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Now don't talk about Nick being shorter, it's rude to discuss semidecapitations infirmities. -- Ben 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I blocked for the length. if 32+ isnt enough what is that point? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is certainly an understandable block on your part. To answer you question, the WP:U policy does not specify the length, so consensus must decide. I think Ben makes a good point above. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  wen need to set a length to that th length issue will not come up again. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow This one reminds me of a rather humorous username of someone with clown-fears. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - as previously stated, there is an admin with a name just as long. I dont see a wp:username violation here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Reminds me of the annoying emo songs with long titles. On any account, it's easy enough to remember, unlike a random string of symbols of the same length or the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. ShadowHalo 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow and don't press "wash now". NikoSilver 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this qualifies as confusing. Zbl 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - It seems fine to me. // DecaimientoPoético 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - No rule that says user names can't be confusing, what about foreign names, made up names or ones that seem to just be random charaters. Ben W Bell talk 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, names made up of random or seemingly random characters are a violation of WP:U. But I'm not sure that applies here. WjBscribe 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Only eight characters, easy enough to remember. ShadowHalo 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow nothing major. NikoSilver 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XxMiss WikipediaxX (talk · contribs) seems to claim some sort of official status (winner of the Wikipedia beauty pageant?). Sam Blacketer 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have already blocked but with the RFC issues.... Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - User name contains "Wikipedia." // DecaimientoPoético 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Now written into policy per Jimbo - Disallow. Good work Betacommand RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Good work"... Is that sarcasm? // DecaimientoPoético 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, I think he's taken an active step to address everyones concerns RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my interpretation of the comment. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]