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

---

Extended enough repitition for banning? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Disallow, it may fall under extended repititon, but I'm personally not 100% sure. Although, I really wish people would come up with better / unique usernames. All this one does is remind me of a line from Stephen Kings The Stand. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - Not too confusing, not too long a repetition. i think 6 n's is the longest repitition. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - not too much of a repetition, I've seen worse--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow I would say that 5m's and 6n's is extended, surely the user could just change to something less extended such as User:Mmmoonnn and have the same effect? GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. The repetition is enough that it's blurring together in my head. Admittedly "is it confusing" is a subjective issue, but that's all we've got here. User is probably going to be indef blocked as a vandal-only account anyway though, so it's somewhat moot. — coelacan — 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Disallow-A little too long. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. No offence to the user, but if I want to send a message to someone who hasn't appeared very recently on my watchlist and hasn't posted on a page I'm looking at, I'd like to be able to type User:whateveritis into the searchbox without worrying about the spelling. It would be more considerate of the user to agree to a change. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, repeating characters. This is somewhat borderline but the use of multiple repeating characters is confusing. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contains the name of a religion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow It also seems like ghali is a loaded term as it is. Leebo ^T/C 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - controverially loaded name due to religious references. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Disallow - religious reference--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow-Religion name is vio of WP:U. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:U states "Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive." Does this fall under this category? GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow the username is an expression of the user's faith (as per WP:U quote above) and not disrespectful or disruptive. Canthusus 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does the ghali article make it seem like a term one gives to him or herself though? It sounds like a term other muslims use to refer to ones with certain beliefs. Leebo ^T/C 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow per above--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per my above comment- seems an expression of faith. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. It's an insulting term. One does not declare onesself an "exaggerator". — coelacan — 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Hey, if MoeLarryAndJesus isn't allowed, this one shouldn't be, either. If I read it correctly it implies the superiority of one flavor of Islam. TortureIsWrong 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as assertion of religious dominance by a sect. 'Islam' is a fairly common surname and I would not support blocks for all names which have 'Islam' in them. Sam Blacketer 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow pending further information. Both "Islam" and "Ghali" are common names in many parts of the world (e.g., Yusuf Islam, Boutros Ghali), just as "Christian" is in the West. Do we have any evidence that this isn't, in fact, the user's given name? —Psychonaut 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment isn't this the perfect example of why users should be contacted regarding their usernames before being listed here? (as per the instructions at the very top of this page). Using the username concern template would allow the editor to confirm if this is his or her real name and save us the trouble of speculating about what the name means here. ~CS 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Per Psychonaut. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Psychonaut. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow As a likely promotional user name, but in the future, it might be best to see if these users act first. If they're not promoting anything, you could ask them to change their name. Leebo ^T/C 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as promotional see Google search GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• changed to neutral based on evidence below. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• GDon4t0, your own google search showed that there is a company, a bank, known simply as "Central Bank". Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow -Promotional name. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - not necessarily promotional, see Central bank , Governor of Central Bank in Seychelles, and other uses available around the world--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Allow per Ed . BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Ed. Xdenizen 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. There are heaps of Central Banks. Nothing wrong with a username this generic. It's probably a good idea to watch the user for COI though. — coelacan — 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Why would a central bank want to promote itself? Especially a generic central bank... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Generic name. Please stop looking for trouble where there is none. —Psychonaut 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Per Mel Etitis. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Far too generic to be labeled as promotional. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, first google hit brings up www.centralbank.com. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Google hit for "EVula" brings up www.evula.com; should I be blocked? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CentralBank is clearly a company, a Bank. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow unless user starts promoting a particular Central Bank. Spammers generally don't use names this generic when they have promotional usernames in mind, because their particular product can't be differentiated from others. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as I've stated before, Central Bank is the name of an actual bank Central Bank. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak allow There are many "central banks" in the world; the usage is too broad to actually solidly confirm whether there is a deliberate intent to promote a company/organization. User has not edited yet, so it's best to assume good faith and wait to see what the user does. If necessary, ask the user to change usernames before considering a block. +A.0u 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I take it few read my comments. An ACTUAL bank exists by the name "CENTRAL BANK". It is not generic, as much as calling oneself PepsiCola is generic. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another religious one - I believe this goes against WP:U where it frowns on usernames that "promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others (e.g. "ChristOnly", etc.).". Canthusus 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow per nom. Seems obvious. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, per nom. Explicitly promoting monotheism, with an implied contrast to a- and poly-. — coelacan — 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - My sky fairy can beat up your sky fairy. TortureIsWrong 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - per TortureIsWrong. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - promotes a belief--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per Ed. // DecaimientoPoético 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-Name of religious figure. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. User names should not be confrontational or promote a belief. I'd have no problem with the user putting "I believe that God is good" on his user page. In fact, I'd agree with him. :) ElinorD (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, offensive to polytheists and Pagans. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Allow Why does it have to be the God of Christianity. Maybe they are talking about Buddha or Allah. Ed said it promotes a belief. It might promote monotheism, but its doesn't promote a religion. The rules say "promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others (e.g. "ChristOnly", etc.)." This isn't promoting an religion, just a belief. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Saying "1GodisGood" is stating that Monotheism is good, atheist(no god) is bad, polytheism / paganism is bad. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as clearly advocating superiority of monotheism. (Oh, and because of this vote, my fifth grade teacher, Sister Sylvester, is going to come out of her grave to get me, with a ruler gripped in her undead hand.)RJASE1 ^Talk 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too extended repitition of one character? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Disallow. — coelacan — 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disalloooooow Like this vote; excessively extended. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow -----------------------------------EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDD21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Ten Os is a bit extensive and completely unnecessary. // DecaimientoPoético 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-Shorten the ooooo's. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disalloooooooooooow, repeating character. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implies that two people are using the same account. Sharing accounts itself isn't allowed except in rare circumstances. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow; sharing an account isn't allowed; having an account name like this is. If it's in fact an account used by more than one person (and asking would have been better than bringing it here first), then it should be dealt with, but the name isn't a problem. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per above, there is no actual problem with the name. See Special:Listusers starting at "Boband" there are many names like this that have not caused a problem in the past. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• allow looks okay--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow-per Mel. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, can't forget about multiple personalities, although I'm not assuming, just suggesting. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I though it was Bo Band Steve. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Shared accounts aren't allowed, but there's nothing in WP:U that states the usernames that suggest a shared account are disallowed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - Hey, if it was AdamandSteve, would it be banned because it might offend fundamentalists? TortureIsWrong 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, not a username policy violation. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strings of random characters aren't allowed. Is this short enough to not seem too random, or is it too random? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow 0 my fucking goodness of righteous zeal --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow almost anything that has OMFG or variations. Almost certain to be taken as insulting phrase. Sam Blacketer 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. The substitution of "0" for "O" does not make something random. —Psychonaut 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, teh 3dit0r can sp33k teh 1337 and violate WP:U at the same time. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-Leet and profanity. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow More for the "fuck" in the leet-speak than the actual wording itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disallow. Not for the profanity, but for the annoying 1337. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too random? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - leet for ZLEUZUQ ([1]) Zebras leave Earth until Zagreb ultimately quivers. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. One can hardly make a claim for randomness with a sample size of six. The username is easy enough to remember or reproduce. —Psychonaut 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow-Easy enough to remember. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, username is short enough that randomness is not a problem. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate usernames include ... "Usernames that give the impression that you intend to cause trouble, such as "Vandal", "Hacker", "H4X0E", "Spammer", "Troll", or "on Wheels". This includes names that may refer to malware, such as "Virus" or "Trojan horse"." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - vio of WP:U--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - this is not a reference to computer hacking. See Hack writer. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Moreschi. A 'hack' is a deprecatory term for a writer who turns out unexceptional prose, but it's not a seriously derogatory one and quite a lot of people are happy to jokingly apply it to themselves. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. I've never seen "hack author" refer to computer hacking; it's alwatys a reference to hack writing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Clearly a harmless author reference. Please consult a dictionary before reporting next time. —Psychonaut 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Moreschi. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Moreschi. Also, computer hackers aren't always bad. I think it sways that in the Wikipedia article. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Per above. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Moreschi. It's pretty clearly about self-deprecational humor, not illicit access to a computer. ~CS 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, no policy violation as far as I can see. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow "Hack" does have uses outside just "hacker". EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - Despite the fact that it might offend Tom Clancy fans. TortureIsWrong 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Moreschi. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound like it implies authority? Or does the misspelling negate any impression of authority it otherwise may have implied? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Notice sent asking for explanation. Also, it's not a misspelling, it's British spelling, --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a British spelling. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, I didn't see your notice until after I started this RFC. Are those notices normally supposed to be on the user page? I've been putting them on the user talk page. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - Does not imply role, see User:Editor at Large--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is saying master editor. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, everyone here is an editor, but a "master" editor seems like something official. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow I don't really see any problems here. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Username is inherently ironic. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, no policy violation. Does not imply role, etc., yadda-yadda yakity-schmackity. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too random? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - leet for ZERONLNE : Zapfino emulates Rove on neurological lightheadedness not esteemed --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Ed - how many people do you think will see Z3r0n1ne and think "Zapfino emulates Rove on neurological lightheadedness not esteemed"? Sam Blacketer 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow-Leet. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Afraid I can't even see how this could be thought to violate username policy. There is no policy against names in leet. Sam Blacketer 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow No policy violation, no policy against 1337, and how in the world would anyone other than scholars of 1337 even come up with that definition?? Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow; no violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Ed was joking, it's 1337 for zeronine and we have no policy against leet except when used to impersonate others or otherwise break existing rules. --tjstrf talk 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotes a particular religious viewpoint? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow - encourages violation of a prinipal role of a Christian, therefore endorses a viewpoint--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. No, "Skip" is a common first name (or nickname) and "Church" is a common last name. —Psychonaut 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, because to "skip" something you have to have been intending to do it in the first place. Missing going to church occasionally does not amount to a religious viewpoint, never going to it ever might, but one can be a good believer despite never attending services. Sam Blacketer 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Come on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per Pyschonaut. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow, NO violation could be found of this username. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reformatting my PC, I'm not thinking correctly, make that Uber Strong Allow. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow certainly "DestroyAllChurches" or "StopAttendingChurch" might be seen as advocating a particular viewpoint or attacking churchgoers, this is just a whimsical-sounding name that's pretty clearly from the point of view of someone who already goes to church. ~CS 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, no policy violation here. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow; no violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - But GoToChurch would have to be banned as promotional. TortureIsWrong 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too extended repitition? Also, this might be an insult (isn't "Goob" a substitute for "Dweeb"?). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow on condition of repitition (what is it with the o's today!), and not insult. Goob, or goober, is a phrase frequently used amongst friends and loved ones... my fiance and I exchange it daily, at least. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Allow I don't think it is particularly excessive (the reason this is Weak), but I really have no problem with someone insulting themselves. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - Goob can mean lots of things. I used to say it a lot in preschool!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak allow - Yeah, having five Os is a tad bit unnecessary, but it isn't what I'd call extensive. Maybe he should be asked to shorten it to two or three, but I won't care either way. He'll probably never make more than two edits in his life, like most of the other users with nonsense names. // DecaimientoPoético 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak allow per Poetic Decay. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based around "ass" as a profanity? Or is it "badass" used in a noninsulting way? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow - I googled suhass. It appears to be a name. TortureIsWrong 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, WP:AGF. 'Suhass' is a common Hindi first name, and 'Badre' is a surname. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per TortureIsWrong. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Badre is clearly a name, probably a surname, per Google. Suhass didn't pull up much, but it looks like a non-western name as well. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict x3)[reply]
• Allow-name of person. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I think you're looking for problems and, because of that, finding them where others are not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Please stop looking for problems where none exist. —Psychonaut 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has chosen a name which is morbid and vaguely threatening. (Zyklon B was what came in my mind, and I am not Jewish). I asked him to consider changing the name but he has refused, so I have brought it here. Sam Blacketer 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow. Morbid yes, but not threatening. The fact that you thought about Zyklon B says more about you than it does about this user. —Psychonaut 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I did watch Schindler's List again a few days ago. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow, when I see the term I do think of things such as Mustard Gas (comes in canisters, causes death), gas chambers, etc. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. Editor's thought-associations shouldn't be used to decide this sort of question. There's no violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak allow. I don't like it but I don't think it quite crosses the "implying violence" line. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow, and I request that the submitter refrain from projecting, especially with RFCN, something that directly affects new users and may chase people away from the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sam has every right to bring to RFCN a username he finds that may violate WP:U. Under what authority do you have to ask that a user, under good faith, to refrain bringing a name that in his opinion violates WP:U to RFCN after following process? Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do with user names like this? // DecaimientoPoético 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow. Non-roman usernames are allowed but they should be encouraged to transliterate their sig. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the policy. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Per RJASE1 Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Token disallow because I can't figure out why non-Roman usernames should be allowed. -Amarkov moo! 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, read the policy link provided by RJASE1 above. Knowledge is power, as they say. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "token disallow" is absolutely inappropriate, especially in the context of having the relevant policy linked above. With respect, participation in RFCN while unfamiliar with the username policies is improper. There are two self evident solutions to this problem. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see that the User has again not been approached before bringing this here. As, however, the only surviving contributions have been to Talk pages (ecept for vandalism to a User page), the remainder having been speedily deleted as being copied directly (untranslated) from the Japanese Wiki, the question is probably moot. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow non latin character usernames are allowed, unless this translates to something offensive, there's nothing wrong with it, any chinese people around to translate? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)Comment. I believe the policy's intention is to allow users to keep the same name across multiple wikis. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]