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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I would also not be adverse to webmaster prefixed or suffixed with numbers or letters. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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. —dgies^t_c 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I considered whether the grandfather clause should apply, but the username policy at the time they created the account prohibited this. —dgies^t_c 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, account name suggests that (s)he is a webmaster of Wikipedia. MaxSem 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Disallow per Chrislk02 --24fan24 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Allow provided that this user places a clear message on his userpage denouncing that he/she is the webmaster of Wikipedia. This solution has worked for other user names that were somewhat official looking. --24fan24 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not adverse to that solution. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Allow - this is not a term used on Wikipedia, no one has ever been actually confused, and the user has been editing, albeit sporadically, for more than two years. Newyorkbrad 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow although Wikipedia does not have an official role with this name, it is easy to see how someone could be confused. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Allow I suppose it's possible that people with IQs under 60 would be confused by the name, but should this site really be governed by that standard? TortureIsWrong 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you implying, that if i assumed somebody titled webmaster served an official role i would have an IQ under 60? Lets face it, we do things a little differently here on wikipedia and I wont lie, if i did not have the experience I have here, i would easly assume webmaster (being only 1 person can have the name webmster) was a webmaster of this specific site. Does that mean I have an IQ under 60? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. Do you? And if you do, are you saying Wikipedia must cater to you rather than to consensus? TortureIsWrong 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize you may be frustrated that your original name was denied here, but that's no reason to act disruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I am saying is that comments such as that server little or no purpose in these arguments and gave a counter argument as to why. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And for the record, I dont know what my IQ is, but I know it is greater than 60. I serve as the webmaster of a site, have done extensive web development, and have graduated with a 4 year degree in information science. I work as a software developer. My argument is that anybody with extensive computer background, not knowing the wiki way, would assume that the webmaster was an official title. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what your IQ is, either, and I don't care. You're the one who asked. I notice, though, that you yourself are NOT confused by the Webmaster name. You only imagine that if you had no experience you might think it had some official meaning. So could hundreds of names - Mentor, NewbieGuide, ScoutLeader, QuoteMaster, etc. The capacity of some people to be fooled is limitless. Is that really the standard you think is necessary to follow? By the way, Consumed Crustacean, I'm taking part in a discussion, not being "disruptive." Like several other people here, I think the name should be allowed. TortureIsWrong 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of those other names, in a technical sense, would ever be confused as the person to go to when in need of help at a website. When i am at a website and have a problem, I, as well as many other I am sure, dont think, "lets email the scout master for help." Even the article we have here on wikipedia about webmaster likens them to administrors of sysops. It is not a stretch of the mind at all to see somebody confusing User:Webmaster as the person in charge of this established site. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow I agree with Chrislk02, as a web master, that if I didn't know about how things are done on wikipedia, that I would believe that someone named webmaster would be in charge. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow implies an official wikipedia function. Nardman1 20:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very pained Disallow. Policy now says no to "imply an official role or a position". Policy then "No deliberately confusing usernames" with "Do not choose names such as recent changes, Administrator, ..." It was not fully spelled out, but times change and sensitivities sharpen. Yes, a good editor since Sept 2004, and not a native English speaker. Sometimes people just grab a name when they start. Now they get a second start? Shenme 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. The problem isn't with experienced users who will know this isn't an official position, but with newbies who are likely to be misled- 'Webmaster' is a position of authority on most websites. WjBscribe 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow- implies position of authority. Borisblue 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of order: If you notice someone whose username is inappropriate, please ask them on their talk page to change their username. ... If they don't seem to respond, list them at WP:RFC/NAME.... -- Wikipedia:Username policy#How to report an inappropriate username. This case should not have been brought here without first being brought up directly to the user, giving him or her time to respond. This proceeding is out of order. Please hold off further discussion until the requestor follows step #1. Thank you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unfortunately that point is still being discussed - we really need a full discussion of this, and some guidelines when prior notice is precluded. Shenme 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How was prior notice "precluded" here? This isn't a case of an obscene username being preserved in page edit histories. Unless the user is giving orders or otherwise actively pretending to be an authority here, what kept anyone from following policy? Where's the emergency? Ask the user; wait a day. By then the user may decide to request a change of username; if not, bring it back here. We can argue the merits then, and not have blindsided anyone. How would you want to be treated? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This isn't about some new user. I don't think it's appropriate to have an RFCN on them, especially when they weren't even asked. It's the same principle as not templating the regulars. The user should have been left a personalized message (not one of those pre-made ones, asking them to respectfully change their name. We're not talking to a newbie. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I too agree with Ben, the policy is very clear on the order in which things need to be done. This discussion should be tabled until the proper procedure is followed. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we need a process whereby names CAN be discussed without it being out of order. I believe that should be here, but it appears to be disallowed by policy currently. The very title of this page is "Requests for comment" - I think there should be comment - but I think the user should be encouraged to comment here as well - before being asked to change their name. Anyway, that's a side issue. I'm kind of torn on the issue at hand, however - it's not a job description we have here - somewhat similar to having someone named "Meteorologist" working in a grade school - would people be confused? Probably not, because it's not a relevant title - but the difference is, it's a title that realistically COULD be used on a site like this, if you weren't familiar with wiki and didn't realize that, well, we don't have one. In this case, I think the fact that this editor has been around for a couple of years should be taken into consideration. I believe it should be Allowed, but would request that the editor post a clarification to their user page. Philippe Beaudette 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow No brainier, clear violation of WP:U#Official. Good faith, bad faith, does not matter. The fact that we don't have such a position means nothing, because new users will not know that and think he has an official role. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, let him change his name to "VancouverBongmaster" instead. That'll give new users a more friendly introduction. Names like that are okay, apparently. (Note: They're okay with me, too.) TortureIsWrong 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that name would be within the username policy. I don't see any reason to suggest that particular name though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The username may imply lewd or lascivious acts.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - Nutty-blahblah would be ok, so would blah-blah-sucker. —dgies^t_c 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  I should just explain that I didn't mean to accuse anyone, including Persian Poet Gal, of having a dirty mind; it was meant merely to be a humorous expression of my view. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - I'm not sure how "nut sucker" could be anything other than dirty (does one normally suck walnuts?). Patstuart^talk·edits 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There can be peanut-butter-flavored ice cream, and hazelnut-flavored coffee; why not such flavors in lollypops and such "sucker" candies? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow That sucker over there is truly nutty but I think he will be ok. --DSRH |talk 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Not a fan of blocking users for imagined sexual references. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow EVula and Mel sum my position up accurately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - too vague an issue - Alison^☺ 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I can't think of a single rational reason to ban it. TortureIsWrong 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I don't see any serious issue with this username. Unlikely to cause any offense. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. It is 'nutty', not 'nut', 'sucker' not 'suck'. It is not a problem name. Shenme 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of order: If you notice someone whose username is inappropriate, please ask them on their talk page to change their username. ... If they don't seem to respond, list them at WP:RFC/NAME.... -- Wikipedia:Username policy#How to report an inappropriate username. This case should not have been brought here without first being brought up directly to the user, giving him or her time to respond. This proceeding is out of order. Please hold off further discussion until the requestor follows step #1. Thank you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Allow-Per above. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Motion to table, please follow the processes as noted by Ben and outlined at the top of the page. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Implying lewd acts? Dear me! Xdenizen 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This username seams to be too similar to the admin User:Kukini, the user has actually had there original username blocked which was User:Kuakini (See User talk:Kuakini for more information). In my opinion, this user name is basically the same as the original Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow, too similar. And thank you, Ryanpostlethwaite, for posting a concern on the 19th, THEN bringing it to RfCN on the 22nd. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Allow The macron seems to discriminate strongly enough, but I'm concerned about cases where people won't be able to see it due to technical reasons--perhaps someone with more technical savvy than I could let me know whether this would be a widespread occurence?--Xnuala (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I claim no technical knowledge, but my understanding is that if the macron doesn't exist in the reader's font, the letter will appear as a blank box □ or something similar, rather than an "a". Bencherlite 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. There are plenty of names and words that are similar and only one letter off. Unless this user is trying to inpersonate or imply they are Kukini, I really fail to see the problem. Vassyana 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:U states that Usernames that can be confused with other contributors are inappropriate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Vassyana. User talk:Kuakini is worth reading for his explanations as to why he wants Kuākini if he can't have Kuakini. Also, User:Kukini has a distinctive and colourful signature (including the words "hablame aqui", check his talk page for an example) which reduces risk of confusion - allow with a clear message that he should not imitate this signature? Bencherlite 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Allow - I mean, come on. You really want to open this can of worms? I'll bet I can find all sorts of "similar names." TortureIsWrong 01:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]