Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
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
I believe the username is problematic as per WP:USERNAME, much like how User:Administrator is blocked. -- Cat chi? 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Allow doesn't imply that the user is the wikipedia web master, User:Wikipedia webmaster would be blocked, but this is more general Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)- Abstain Whilst I do believe the user isn't trying to pass themselves off as an on wiki role, the term seams to imply the user has an official role on the wiki (although I'm not completely sure hence the abstain). Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - legit editor, and I simply cannot see how the username implies a position of authority here at Wikipedia. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - It is common for the webmaster of a domain to have such a name (especially for an email). While i must assume good faith, I can see how a new wikipedian would view this user as the webmaster of wikipedia due to the common usage of the word. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. It doesn't violate policy, there's no-one to impersonate, and this editor is in good standing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Our article on Webmaster states, "The webmaster of a Web site may also be called a system administrator, the author of a site, or the Web site administrator." I respect the editor, however I feel the name may be confusing to people who do not know the wiki way. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- But is there any reason to suppose either that this was intended or (more importantly) that anyone has actially been confused or misled? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to assume it was not intended to mislead, and I hope that I have not made that assertion that the name is in bad faith. If an editor chose a name with sysop or administrator in it, even if in good faith it would not be allowed. I would not be opposed to awebmaster namewebmaster but webmaster in and of itself signifies the owner of master of the domain it is registered to. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would also not be adverse to webmaster prefixed or suffixed with numbers or letters. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'd not claim that it was absolutely clear cut either way (and I don't blame Cool Cat for bringing it here — in fact I suggested it when he raised the issue at WP:AN/I), but I still feel that this one's OK. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to assume it was not intended to mislead, and I hope that I have not made that assertion that the name is in bad faith. If an editor chose a name with sysop or administrator in it, even if in good faith it would not be allowed. I would not be opposed to awebmaster namewebmaster but webmaster in and of itself signifies the owner of master of the domain it is registered to. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- But is there any reason to suppose either that this was intended or (more importantly) that anyone has actially been confused or misled? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think we may be putting the cart before the horse here. Per username policy the user is supposed to be aksed to change their name before being brought here. This was not done. I think this discussion should be closed and the user asked to change their name before we proceed. --DSRH |talk 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This is not a clear cut case. Why would we ask somebody to stop doing something because we dont know that it is wrong. If it was obvious, asking would be appropriate. I however do not want to ask the user to change there username when there is the chance of a clearcut allow consenus? That seems kind of backwards to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are a few reasons: 1. Not that it is all about the process, but, that is what the policy says to do. If we are going to beat people with the policy we should at least follow it ourselves. 2. It gives the user an opportunity to allay your concerns without a public discussion which could be intimidating to a new comer. 3. Please do not be offended, but, if you do not think it is a violation of policy why is it here? If you are uncertain I believe it would be better to wait until someone complains. --DSRH |talk 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is ok, I dont get offended easily. I regularly bring names here that I dont know and want a second opinion on. that is what the request for comment is. There have been many names brought here that get a unanimous allow, and were just brought to "make sure" before asking/forcing a user to change there name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are a few reasons: 1. Not that it is all about the process, but, that is what the policy says to do. If we are going to beat people with the policy we should at least follow it ourselves. 2. It gives the user an opportunity to allay your concerns without a public discussion which could be intimidating to a new comer. 3. Please do not be offended, but, if you do not think it is a violation of policy why is it here? If you are uncertain I believe it would be better to wait until someone complains. --DSRH |talk 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This is not a clear cut case. Why would we ask somebody to stop doing something because we dont know that it is wrong. If it was obvious, asking would be appropriate. I however do not want to ask the user to change there username when there is the chance of a clearcut allow consenus? That seems kind of backwards to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow I believe this was created in good faith simply to refer to their profession, but the potential for confusion with an official role at Wikipedia is too great. —dgiestc 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: I considered whether the grandfather clause should apply, but the username policy at the time they created the account prohibited this. —dgiestc 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow, account name suggests that (s)he is a webmaster of Wikipedia. MaxSem 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. This is a profession, there's no clear-cut authority in the title, and it's a user in good standing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow per Chrislk02 --24fan24 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow, it unfortunately seems to imply an official position, regardless of it being in good faith or not. The webmasters of websites often have e-mail addresses or usernames reflecting the role, and that's what this could very well look like. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Nuttysucker (talk · contribs)
The username may imply lewd or lascivious acts.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - Nutty-blahblah would be ok, so would blah-blah-sucker. —dgiestc 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. Dirty minds shouldn't dictate User-name choice... (Sucker; "duck you sucker"; "never give a sucker an even break") --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - I'm not sure how "nut sucker" could be anything other than dirty (does one normally suck walnuts?). Patstuarttalk·edits 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow That sucker over there is truly nutty but I think he will be ok. --DSRH |talk 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Not a fan of blocking users for imagined sexual references. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow EVula and Mel sum my position up accurately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - too vague an issue - Alison☺ 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This user just vandalized the userpage of Eternal Pink. I think it might be intended to be confused with another editor's username... -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)