Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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

Username contains the name of a company. Aecis^Brievenbus 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow by the spirit of the law. Reason: It's Comcast, not JoeBlowHifiAudio.com. Anyone with common sense would not consider this spam, anymore than User:Boy Scout Steve would be spam promoting Boy Scouts of America. (The spam rule refers to both companies and groups, and the key operative word is spam). I'd assume this guy worked for Comcast, or has Comcast as his ISP. Reswobslc 03:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list this here because of spam issues, I listed it because this username contains a trademarked company name. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow per above --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. It's not only potential spam, but is a "unique trademarked name". I don't buy the User:Boy Scout Steve comparison; "Boy Scout" has come to be generalized and not necessarily refer to the organization. If it was User:Boy Scouts of America Steve, I'd lean towards disallowing it as well. I'm not sure how it's useful in any way for him to have the company name in is username, even if he works for them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per Consumed Crustacean. I'd disallow User:Boy Scouts of America Steve too. WP must start taking seriously the copyright issue. NikoSilver 11:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trademark ... a single word is non-creative and thus not a copyright problem. In both the case of Comcast or the BSA, the issue isn't using a "word", it's that the individual could be confused as being in some capacity connected with the company/organization in question.--BigDT 03:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True single words can't be copyrighted, but that's not the issue. Trademarks are a whole other beast, but the effect is the same, you can't use it. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow per Consumed Crustacean.--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per Consumed Crustacean. // DecaimientoPoético 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow unfortunately theres a trademark issue here RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - Clear trademark violation. Philippe Beaudette 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow trademark violation, clear cut. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually at first I was confused at the concerns, having done a 'xerox' on 'comcast' and indeed assuming that was his ISP or something. And that you were freaking out about ericross.com, a winery. But now I notice that there is an article on an Eric Ross. Which makes me ask the question: if this editor's name is "Eric Ross", how could he have any username that includes that? Or would "AnotherEricRoss" or something be 'okay'? Basically I'm asking, what will you be recommending for him to do? Shenme 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear cut allow That a username "contains the name of a company" is not trademark infringement, and the name is not confusing. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I always thought that the name was a derivative of the e-mail address "ericross@comcast.com". E-mail addresses are discouraged and the @ sign disallowed. But I don't believe e-mail addresses are prohibited, and e-mail addresses containing comcast.com can't be any worse. Further, those who argue that such a username is a trademark violation are not lawyers and are likely in error, since for someone to violate a trademark, they have to be in a similar business and using the mark in a manner that confuses customers as to the origin of the products or services, not simply using the word as a username. Whether it runs afoul of the Wikipedia policy about not allowing "unique trademarked names" as a username is another issue entirely. Reswobslc 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames, item E-mail addresses for specifics -- Ben 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The justification given for the "unique trademarked names" rule is copyright and trademark issues. That rule as it stands is quite simply in error. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's half-right. The other justification is that it'd look bad to Comcast if we let someone represent themselves as a member of their organization, and then go around doing potentially offensive things (like slandering competitors, or posting Holocaust denial pages, or whatever). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same as a company name, Olive Branch Media. mattbr³⁰ 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow due to spam potential, company names are disallowed by WP:U RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as company name. User was notified of username issues on February 14, and has uploaded an image since but has not addressed the username issues. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow and what's that image in his/her only contrib? NikoSilver 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per above. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow -company name. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, as with all company/organization names. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - clear cut. Philippe Beaudette 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a name of a religious figure, and as such, should probably be blocked for violating the section of WP:U prohibiting "usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs." -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow any user name that has the potential to offend other religions. To non believers of buddha it suggests that the major god is Buddha RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reporting to AIV-Religious figure. Vio of WP:U.--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - religious figure. Philippe Beaudette 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Obvious religious reference; should have been reported straight to WP:AIV. // DecaimientoPoético 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Religious reference, and btw, Buddha is not a "god." (I'm starting to study it, he's not really a god) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Obviously inappropriate-Someone must have removed it from AIV without blocking it for some reason, someone should set them straight on that. I'm reposting it there.--Dycedarg ж 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving from AIV. Username created to disparage Philip Gronowski (talk · contribs)on the Don Murphy page. --Onorem 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Gronowski is editing an item regarding an upcoming films about HIMSELF. This is conflicted interest and he must not do so- please review his most recent edit PhilPhague 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]