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

This seems inappropriate to me, and I have concerns that it could be a multiple-user account (i.e. from the "fans" part). What do other users think of this name? Acalamari 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - The "fans" part gave me the same impression. // DecaimientoPoético 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, obvious violation. I was going to block, but as this user has made contributions, I would like to give a chance to request a name change. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow; could only refer to a trademark name, which violates WP:U. Sam Blacketer 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-trademark name. it also implies a multiple user account. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - fails WP:U for TMVio - Alison^☺ 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Trademark Violation...--Cometstyles 07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per Poetic Decay and Sam Blacketer. NikoSilver 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to AIV:

• EUW-Pro-Wrestling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Username of a company per these edits. Has created a page about itself which is up for speedy deletion, and will probably be deleted soon, if it hasn't already. Acalamari 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This username was there for several minutes before I decided to bring it here. What about it? Acalamari 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow clear violation of WP:U. Borisblue 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as violation of policy. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Same as above...--Cometstyles 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow TM vio. NikoSilver 13:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username may be inappropriate as religiously offensive. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - would certainly cause offense to christians Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 03:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Sounds like he loves the jesus. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In prior experience I've noticed that the term "Jesus freak" is used in a negative aspect to insult someone who is religious. Perhaps "Jesus fan" or something along those lines would be a more appropriate username if you're correct about their intentions and they were to request a username change. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record (and it is stated below), Jesus freka is a Christian song by the Christian rock band DC talk. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, religious offense. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow We've had "Jesus freak" users before, and we've blocked them too. Acalamari 04:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - potentially offensive - Alison^☺ 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Very Offensive..--Cometstyles 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - potentially offensive religious reference. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 08:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, can reasonably be considered offensive to Christian users, although the use of the words Jesus Freak is not necessarily meant to offend others. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, but how is this any different from User:MOHAMMAD NO we had the other day? NikoSilver 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  User:MOHAMMAD NO does not do anything wrong but shout. It's not overtly derogatory, as "NO" could stand for any number of things. "Jesus Freak" is something of a pejorative. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Strange... the OED disagrees when it comes to the entry on "NO". By the same reasoning we should allow here, since we could assume per WP:AGF that "freak" stands for eg. any type of acronym, or even a mistyped transliteration of a "real name" in the language of KooKoo. What we've been doing here the past few days is opening windows to WP:U for malicious usernames. Please think about that. NikoSilver 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate where you're coming from, but it's important to weigh the likelihood of the malicious intent. The possibility of "freak" meaning something other than its dictionary definition is unlikely, whereas the possibility that 2 letters could be an acronym is simply something that must be considered. Please note that I did not say allow or disallow to MOHAMMAD NO or Jesus freak. I'm simply pointing out that Jesus freak is a known pejorative, while MOHAMMAD NO is much less clear cut. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. For the record I'm not Muslim, and I can imagine many Christian users to be similarly offended with "JESUS NO", so I'd require a damn good explanation to allow it. All I'm saying is assuming those explanations exist has no end. We should require them and evaluate them to allow. NikoSilver 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - as unoffensive to many Christians. There is actually a popular christian rock band called DC talk who sings a song called Jesus Freak. I think that is where many of these names are coming from. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• allow If it's the name of a song [and the song is by a christian rock band rather than some death-metal band making fun of christians] I don't see the problem. Sometimes people on RFCN are too narrow-minded. --Random832 14:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. I've heard the term used negatively and positively, but more often negatively. Yes, it's a song, but the song is a reference to the term. Coemgenus 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - per the user name policy, offensive to Christians. --Dweller 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In this case, I realise the user has this name in good faith, if you'll pardon. The 316 is a reference to the famous John 3:16 of Biblical scripture and the number '7' is considered a good/auspicious number - Alison^☺ 15:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (not Christian, FWIW)[reply]
  • COmment - Actually, the number 7 has many positive biblilcal reference. I would be much more for opposing if it was 666 or something like that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as with many debates here, the user's intentions are not the issue (I'm happy to AGF here), rather how the name is perceived. --Dweller 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - For the record, the 777 and the 316 add to my positive perception of this name.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Example User (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) - Bad user name (commercial user name). -- Groupempty 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits appear non-commercial. I suggest this is taken to WP:RFCN. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copied from AIV to here for discussion. (Would someone please advise the user, and remind me which template we use for that?) Newyorkbrad 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Groupempty appears to be a little new to some of our standards and policies, re: self-nom for adminship after 1 day. Deiz talk 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Not really a good choice for a name...--Cometstyles 07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - I don't really see what's wrong with it - it could broadly be construed as a "commercial" username per WP:USERNAME, but I don't see it as problematic. "Ticket master" need not be interpreted as an attempt to sell tickets. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - not mashed together (I.E. TicketMaster) or a .com name. There are more than one type of tickets (Speeding tickets, raffle tickets, lottery tickets), any of which this editor could desire to be the master of. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, sorry but http://www.ticketmaster.com/ is what it is. Similarly, we should unblock "Wikipedia Joes", but we don't. IMO there can always be reasons to allow a username (e.g. there are quite a few "Hitlers" in the phonebook), but the applicability of those reasons should be much more than a WP:AGF assumption: It should be clearly stated by the users themselves on their userpage for further evaluation. Until then, I will always disallow unexplained breaches of WP:U. NikoSilver 14:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle mofo (talk · contribs) has a second name which is an abbreviated form of a highly offensive word. Whether accidental or not, I think it would be offensive to other users. Sam Blacketer 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - offensive - Alison^☺ 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Aye Aye..--Cometstyles 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow I assume that profanity in the username policy extends to commonly understood abbreviations of profane words. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow "potentially offensive". NikoSilver 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]