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

Promotes a company or product, see this. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another company already? Disallow. Acalamari 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Company name-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This one seems iffy to me. It's the name of a company, but also a common phrase, and there aren't any edits to provide an indication one way or the other. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow in lieu of any evidence that the name is intended to be a business. With no edit history, it's hard to see how the assumption was immediately reached that this must be a business name. A business can be created to sell any noun, forbidding all usernames that contain nouns for this reason doesn't follow. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Not clear. If there was an "Inc" for this phrase, it would be completely obvious. We should just wait until the promotional editing begins (if it does). The Behnam 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - trying a new tactic to head off spammers before they create a bunch of spam that we have to clean up. If their username is blocked right off the bat, maybe they'll get the point before polluting Wikipedia with their spam. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow I cannot assume that a user seriously suggests anything else than the company linked by RJASE1. Who would call themselves "Environmental protective coating" and for what other reason? There is a logical limit to WP:AGF. NikoSilver 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - company name. *sigh* - Alison^☺ 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow -Company name. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another religious figure name for review. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Give option to rename - There is strong precedent disallowing this username. Even though the name of a popular song by the christian rock band DC talk, previous discussion has always yelded a disallow consensus. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - there is nothing in this username which detracts from the value of the encyclopedia. Are we to disallow someone to speak their religion, but allow usernames which clear sexual references like Hentai Jeff (talk · contribs). I just don't get it. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I dont remeber that in the policies? Yes, it may seem conterproductive however here is where we judge a username on its appropriateness in relation to WP:U. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. Is there something unclear about this one? For some reason, we disallow this name (which doesn't violate WP:U whatsoever, how I'm reading it), whereas the latter one did. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have recently decided that "Jesusfreak" is not good, although there is definitely some evidence that it is used in a positive way by Christians. It wouldn't make much sense now to go against that. As far as Hentai Jeff goes, well, I agree that it was a travesty. You will find that one of the weaknesses of this board is the tendency for people to insist upon far-fetched apologetic alternatives instead of the obvious offensive references this board is supposed to halt. The Behnam 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't agree more. I'm rather of the impression that people on this board have an anti-religious bias (I would not think as much, except that they allow clearly offensive usernames like Hentai Jeff). Patstuart^talk·edits 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Guess what, Pat. I voted to allow Hentai Jeff (talk · contribs) and Dvoted2christ (talk · contribs). Yesterday, I voted to disallow Gutjesus (talk · contribs) so there goes that theory - Alison^☺ 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (religious but not Christian)[reply]
            • I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about users who allowed Hentai but disallowed Dvoted2christ. Please, I wasn't attacking you personally. Patstuart^talk·edits 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. Names expressing a religious/sexual preference (of whatever nature) are unnecessarily controversial, and likely to cause problems. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:U does not say that at all. It says religious usernames are open to interpretation. What it says is if they're offensive (i.e., User:ChristWasABastard) or a clear godhead (i.e., confusing, WP:Allah), don't allow it. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also note that other similar names, including "Jesusfreak" (an established contributor) and "Jesusfreak 07" have been username blocked in the past. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow Religious-based username: past "Jesusfreaks" have been blocked, so this user, if nothing else, should be blocked for having a name too similar to a ton of other users. Acalamari 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, unlike Dvoted2Christ above, this one can be misinterpreted or sound offensive to some. NikoSilver 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow not offensive, to me anyway. Nardman1 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per all above.Proabivouac 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow just like the last 5 times, come on guys. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said below very well, precedent is not a good argument when they were based on questionable thinking. Hope that clears things up. :) Patstuart^talk·edits 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I personally don't see much of a problem with this username, as I indicated when the previous Jesusfreak was brought up here. But we can't disallow Jesusfreak12 (talk · contribs), Jesusfreak (talk · contribs), Jesusfreek2 (talk · contribs), Jesus freak 2334 (talk · contribs) and Jesus freak 777 316 (talk · contribs), and allow this one. Precedents can be a pain in the arse, but arbitrariness and inconsistency are even worse. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow on the basis that the usage here is not offensive (to me), and does not violate WP:U, "Usernames of religious figures .... Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." [emphasis added]. User:Jesus is a freak would be offensive. And bringing Hentai Jeff into this argument/discussion is irrelevant. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow precedent is not a good argument when they were based on questionable thinking. I went to school with someone who quite proudly declaimed he was a Jesus Freak, and was studying to be a minister. Policy says "Wikipedia recommends that users avoid ..." and "... so take care to avoid anything that might cause offence ...", but how broadly are we to draw the border around 'might'? User:Jesusfrkgurl is not okay, but User:Muhammed is? When reviewing a list of questionable names, that are still unblocked, I was struck by one distinguishing characteristic of those 'questionable' users - they hadn't done anything wrong. User:Jesusfanatic60 and User:Jesusforlife7 aren't blocked. User:Shia-in-ny isn't blocked and surely that is just as controversial. I'm just seeing this more and more as arbitrary. Shenme 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak allow. I'm a Christian and it doesn't offend me; I know some Christians who are happy to describe themselves as "Jesus freaks" as a sort of mildly self-deprecatory statement. Is there anybody who states they themselves were offended by this sort of name? I am disturbed by the precedent; perhaps previous users who have been blocked should be unblocked and allowed to rename, although that discussion shouldn't happen here. By the way, Muhammed is a very common first name and not necessarily a reference to the Prophet. Sam Blacketer 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, indeed, who says this isn't some girl smitten with her boyfriend, Jesus? Shenme 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In religious issues personally I tend to side with those who may be "offended". I understand you may not, but the possibility that some may, is IMO not worth the risk. NikoSilver 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Jesus freak: originally pejorative: However, some Christians now consider it a reclaimed word, as some Christians, especially Christian youth, occasionally use it as a positive term to let others know that they are not ashamed of their beliefs. See especially Jesus Freak (disambiguation), where all the senses are positive. Now, if the editor starts to edit with an anti-Christian bias, that's one thing, but if not, it's probably positive. Patstuart^talk·edits 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I had read it. The problem IMO is that it still may be perceived offensive (by another ..."Jesus freak" who simply doesn't know the recent terminology). I find this number of people more important than the user's right to keep that name. I also believe that the community certainly doesn't need the possible negative reactions. "Probably positive" IMO is not enough. Finally, I respect precedents, as I feel that they save the community's time and effort. NikoSilver 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow as has been done with so many others. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, religious-based username. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For review - contains the name of 1 1/2 religious figures. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - clever though, had never noticed the possible spoonerism. NikoSilver 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow quite a comical name and unlikely to offend (except maybe santa of course) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...or satan! NikoSilver 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it could offend, oh I don't know, Christians? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a christian and it certainly doesn't offend me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither me. IMO it may offend some others, since it combines a Saint (children's favorite too) with the Satan. I cannot safely assume that we are not better off without it. NikoSilver 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - uh oh - Satan gets through but Jesus gets blocked. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Trivialization of Satan, a figure important to Abrahamic religions. The Behnam 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow If Jesus and God get blocked, so should Satan; and vice versa. Acalamari 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow or get cracking, a few hundred unblocked users right here that start with Satan. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - Nothing patently offensive about it. Perhaps a reference to that movie where Satan was... well... evil. Patstuart^talk·edits 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - The day we block Jesus and allow Satan is the day we'll all burn in Hell. // DecaimientoPoético 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that. Double standards is an evil practice. NikoSilver 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify, are you stating that Wikipedia shall make policy respecting a religious establishment? The WP:U policies regarding religious names have to do with avoiding usernames "which may offend other people's belief", specifically a muslim would be offended by a user named AllahSucks or a Christian would be offended by JesusFreak (apparently). Is there an assertion that satanists would be offended by SatanSanta? Otherwise, you're saying that christian users have an authority over others and that their wishes should be reflected by official policy. Ridiculous. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who, me? // DecaimientoPoético 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you seem to be suggesting that your religious prerogative should overcome policy. If that's not accurate, please clarify. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment was just to lighten the mood a bit (I guess that didn't turn out so well). Let me rephrase it then: If we block JesusFreak on the grounds that it includes the name of a religious figure (at least, I think that's why they were blocked), then SatanSanta should be blocked for the same reason. And for future reference, I'm Athiest. // DecaimientoPoético 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hafta say - I laughed here when I read that comment :) - Alison^☺ 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Chairboy, we disallow things in usernames that we would allow anywhere, a username the will clearly offend a group can be disallowed on that basis. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the use of computers by females is prohibited in many Islamic countries and considered offensive, the corollary to your specific assertion above is to disallow all Wikipedia usernames that sound female or are identified as such. I don't think that's an appropriate response to the high target of offending any group, and I suspect you don't either. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chairboy, let's avoid using straw men, shall we? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you take any simple idea and reduce it to the absurd, it will be absurd, but that does not make it a compelling argument. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like further clarification by Chairboy for his original post. How can "double standards" compare to favoritism for one particular religious group? NikoSilver 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - although I don't fear burning anywhere except on the beach. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow No brainer, Satan is a religious figure, a very controversial one at that, likely to offend. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-Religious figure. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. I'm really confused why there is even debate on a clear-cut name of a religious figure. It's only specifically in the policy... -Amarkov moo! 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive length. Has not responded to username concern in a week. Possible one-of account. UnfriendlyFire 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow and I'll block now if everyones ok with that? Seas very very clear to me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't have a problem with that. This user hasn't made any contributions in a week since account creation so it's probably a joke account. UnfriendlyFire 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Block. Obvious violation. Could have been reported at AIV. WjBscribe 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Block per WJBscribe - Alison^☺ 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]