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}} or {{subst:uncon|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}} or {{subst:und}}. If the RFC is closed as "Allow", please follow up by informing the user with {{subst:UsernameAllowed}} or {{subst:una}}. Admins who impose username blocks, please detail the specific reason with {{UsernameBlocked|reason for block}} or {{unb|reason for block}} (not just "Violates WP:U", please).
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
If a discussion becomes lengthy, it may be moved to a subpage. See existing subpages.
This page has an archive.
New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.
Blocked by Betacommand for username violation. I'm having difficulty seeing how the first 6 keys of most keyboards followed by 3 digits constitute a random or apparently random sequence of letter and numbers. Seem valid to me so brought it here for discussion. WjBscribe 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow subject to a potential explanation by the blocking admin of something that I, too, am missing. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. There is nothing random about it, QWERTY even has its own article. This has been asked before, and I'll ask again; is Betacommand going to be held accountable for blocking these people? How many more potential contributors do we have to lose before something is done? (jarbarf) 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can drop him a polite note about it if you like, that may help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My note was archived, even though we are still in the month of February. There was a "requests for comment" (not this one) as well, but it was closed before I could comment. I am at a loss what to do about this, but with all due respect, I feel that Betacommand should take a break from these type of blocks. (jarbarf) 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked Betacommand to comment here. Over the past few days, some of his blocks have been quite legitimate, others have been more questionable. Bear in mind that every day hundreds of usernames are created that are blatantly unacceptable ("Newyorkbradisreallyboring" was one of my favorites). Someone needs to be going through and blocking them and it's good that Betacommand and pschemp and a couple of other admins are doing so. But clearly some tweaking of the criteria being used for these blocks may be needed. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- No one would argue that "Newyorkbradisreallyboring" shouldn't be blocked, since that would be a borderline attack account. This, on the other hand, is about as innocuous as can be. (jarbarf) 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Without commenting directly on whether a bot should be blocking based on usernames, any regex that catches a name like this clearly needs to be adjusted or removed. Assuming this is a bot, that is (issue for another day). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- No one would argue that "Newyorkbradisreallyboring" shouldn't be blocked, since that would be a borderline attack account. This, on the other hand, is about as innocuous as can be. (jarbarf) 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked Betacommand to comment here. Over the past few days, some of his blocks have been quite legitimate, others have been more questionable. Bear in mind that every day hundreds of usernames are created that are blatantly unacceptable ("Newyorkbradisreallyboring" was one of my favorites). Someone needs to be going through and blocking them and it's good that Betacommand and pschemp and a couple of other admins are doing so. But clearly some tweaking of the criteria being used for these blocks may be needed. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My note was archived, even though we are still in the month of February. There was a "requests for comment" (not this one) as well, but it was closed before I could comment. I am at a loss what to do about this, but with all due respect, I feel that Betacommand should take a break from these type of blocks. (jarbarf) 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can drop him a polite note about it if you like, that may help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Short sequence of pronounceable, patterned letters, and 3 numbers looks fine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow, was going to bring this up here myself but thought it best to ask betacommand first. Can someone unblock the user? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow per HighInBC. ShadowHalo 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - Nothing wrong with the name. // DecaimientoPoético 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This seams like a unanimous allow, but can we leave this up for a while as its only fair that betacommand is given time to comment RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - Easy to type and memorize. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - as above Cheers Lethaniol 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Motion to close - Allow I think this is an obvious one with as yet no disallows Cheers Lethaniol 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Second motion to close — Allow — should never have been blocked. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not close this discussion until Betacommand has had the opportunity to participate. (jarbarf) 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded to not close, there must be an underlying reason here, let betacommand comment RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, though I would welcome any comment by Betacommand, this really does seem obvious, and better to unblock and let the user have back the account. If Betacommand comes along and says "you forgot this issue", and we say "oh yes we did we will disallow now" - the block can be replaced in as civil way as possible. Also a question - how long should we wait on one user to make a statement, when the consensus is clear, especially on issues where time is paramount?
- Motion to close. No reason to think Betacommand will necessarily wish to comment here. If he does, he can reopen the discussion. WjBscribe 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)