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

Note. On past precedent, this discussion is taking place at WT:CHU/U. A user has requested to usurp this username but there is a concern that it violates username policy because it is a username "mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Please comment there. WjBscribe 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Moved comment there.) -- Ben 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement."
Name of a UK think tank. See Policy Network. All most contribs by this editor relate to this think tank. Verging on spam. WjBscribe 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow Although some of their edits were unconnected with the organisation, still a company/group name. Bubba hotep 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow politely. User has other contribs too. NikoSilver 12:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow even (especially!) if, as could be suspected, they're an official at the organisation. --Dweller 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as official sounding Cheers Lethaniol 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This username probably refers to the penis, but there's a slim chance, as indicated on AIV, that this is the user's surname. I've decided to move the discussion here. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow assuming good faith that it is his real name RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, disruptive. That it might be a surname is irrelevant; we don't allow Dick (talk · contribs) either, even though that's a legitimate given name. —Cryptic 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The block of Dick (talk · contribs) appears to have been mainly for being a vandal. The username was never discussed. I think this a bad example to make a precedent out of. WjBscribe 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow real names aren't the issue - I could change my name by deed poll to Murderoldpeoplewithknives but it's still abhorrent. Without context, can be offensive, and context is usually going to be absent. Usernames need not be offensive - get the user to change it. --Dweller 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow and probably get the man to change his surname too, if that's it, which I doubt. :-) NikoSilver 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are apparently over 200 usernames starting with cock... Are some Wikipedians suffering from a penile obsession? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humans you mean. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting reading indeed. My personal favourite is User:This account will be blocked forever. (Also, cocks) - almost an afterthought! Bubba hotep 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC) And time to get reporting, by the looks. Bubba hotep 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per WP:AGF. It is an established English surname and shouldn't cause offence. Sam Blacketer 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, and I'm disturbed by a sentiment expressed above to the effect of "it doesn't matter if it's his real name, someone might still misunderstand". This is reminiscent of people being fired for using the word Niggardly because even though it has no relation whatsoever with the phonetically similar pejorative, it offended someone. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. "Cocksedge" is a reasonably common surname as are "Trebblecock", "Cockburn" etc. I think names such as these must be an exception to the general policy. People should be able to use surnames in their usernames. WjBscribe 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per "Dick" example. Milto LOL pia 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Does your endorsement continue after WJBscribe's clarification above that the User:Dick precedent was not blocked for WP:U violation? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So everyone is completely clear the block log entry for User:Dick was:

  • 04:32, February 14, 2007 Academic Challenger (talk · contribs) blocked "Dick (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (bad name, vandal)

  I meant that the username had not been discussed with others. It is mentioned as a reason for the block but this should be seen in context of vandalism (including the Dick Cheney page). WjBscribe 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As no-one (to the best of my knowledge) is advocating a block on the user, perhaps this is a bit of a red herring anyway. --Dweller 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  At the moment there are 4 allow opinions and 4 disallow opinions, 2 of which are based explicitly on the User:Dick precedent. Looking into that block therefore seems important. WjBscribe 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow a quick google search picks up its use as a surname not as anything else. I think we should AGF and let this user be. Note if it really is their name imagine the trouble they already have had with it. If it is a vandalism only account it will be blocked quick enough anyway. Cheers Lethaniol 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - I am not offended and assume good faith. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

repeated use of the same charater Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]