Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erachima (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 31 March 2007 (→{{user|I Dont Like Child Molesters}}: disallow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
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:

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

Centralbank (talk · contribs)

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

Comment I wonder... hmmm... why would a company promote itself? I don't know. There cannot be any reason why a bank would be involved in promoting itself. I mean they wouldn't want to gain name recognition or get more business. And they aren't interested in money. You must be right. Seriously though, we don't have to provide a rationale for someone violating WP:U.

Comment I didn't say "generic". I said that the "usage" is "broad". +A.0u 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z135256 (talk · contribs)

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

Canister of Death (talk · contribs)

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]

  • 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]
      • You appear to have misread my text. I wrote, and I quote: "I request that". Please let me know if I can help out in any other way. BTW, the submitter didn't mention that he felt it violated WP:U, unless I missed something. "Vaguely menacing" or "morbid" usernames are not addressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that all contributors to this page do this sort of 'projecting', to try to ascertain whether a username is likely to be perceived as insulting or offensive by other users. In my view this one is likely to be. I may, of course, be wrong. However I think this name implies violence in a way which WP:U recommends against; I wish no harm to the user and have told him so. Sam Blacketer 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Does not seem to be against policy to me. Kukini hablame aqui 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A google search of "zyklon b" and "canister" shows 1480 hits. I suspect, as Sam does, that the reference is intentional. I don't see how "kevinkillsfosho" is banned and this one is not. TortureIsWrong 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because, like many other things, gas comes in canisters. The Google search is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I don't think the user chose his name intentionally to make that reference; I just think that enough people who see the username will make the connection. Also if you go to Zyklon B you'll see a picture of a large pile of Canisters of Death. Sam Blacketer 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the average person would see a sinister meaning behind this username. I believe it implies real world violence (genocide, mass murder, etc), and that is the connection many average users will make. It is the first that came to mind when I saw it. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Many things come in canisters. Some canisters can cause death without the means of cyanide! Examples include: carbon dioxide canisters, oxygen canisters, and cans of soup. A rat placed in a CO canister would die. A plant placed in an oxygen canister would die as well. A can of soup, once placed into a bowl, could result in the drowning of a little kid who doesn't have enough manners to know that one shouldn't drink their soup without a spoon......The point is: stop using the Nazi reference. This username could mean many things--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow. When faced with "what's a good name?" too many people come up with something "that'd be a great name for a band!" I don't doubt there's a band named "Tracks of Death". Reading the WP:U, I see as general guidance
... it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with.
... take care to avoid anything that might cause offence ...
What is not strictly mentioned are names designed to cause disquiet or unease. If I chose a name "IKnowHowYou'llDie", that is not strictly inflammatory or hateful. Indeed, it is probably unfounded personal opinion. And I'd likely laugh it off. But others will see it quite differently, and as threatening, if vaguely. Where do these two names 'fit' into the guidelines? Shenme 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer would be the two lines you've quoted. It may be hard to explain, but editing and collaborating with "Canister of Death" just doesn't feel right, and although some my cry foul, but I have to wonder at one's motivation for wanting to be referred to online as a "Canister of Death". Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1technologies (talk · contribs)

Name of a business. RJASE1 Talk 15:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominoelectronics (talk · contribs)

Another business/company name. RJASE1 Talk 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fartymcgee (talk · contribs)

Reference to excretory function. RJASE1 Talk 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow, WP:U bodily function. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Nothing is excreted except air, are usernames that reference burping disallowed too? C'mon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Aside from the fact that this username is hilarious, I really don't think that this is a terribly offensive username. When I read "excretory functions of the body", I certainly consider it to be talking about stuff like shit and piss, not gas. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - per EVula TortureIsWrong 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - this may be against the spirit of WP:U, but it isn't against the letter. Passing gas isn't an excretory function. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow The Behnam 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What element of WP:U is violated here? A review of Flatulence shows that the only thing "excreted" is gas, mostly nitrogen (and in some rare cases, methane from bacteria in the colon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one should be obvious. First of all, it is offensive to some people, as any English speaker should now. Fart specifies "conservative circles." Also, a fart is certainly part of the excretory system, while breathing out is part of perspiration. The Behnam 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - clear violation of WP:U bodily function. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Is 'Breathe' also verbotten? It's also a bodily function. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fart jokes and Poop jokes follow the same path. Laughter by something that comes out of one's ass. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but as I stated, this is still not a violation of WP:U as it's written. The relevant policy is, "Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." [emphasis only to relevant part] Passing gas is not an excretory function of the body. If we don't want such user names to be used in the future, then we have to change policy. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Excretion: The elimination by an organism of waste products that result from metabolic processes. In plants, waste is minimal and is eliminated primarily by diffusion to the outside environment. Animals have specific organs of excretion. In vertebrates, the kidney filters blood, conserving water and producing urea and other waste products in the form of urine. The urine is then passed through the ureters to the bladder and discharged through the urethra. The skin and lungs, which eliminate carbon dioxide, are also excretory organs." -American Heritage Science Dictionary as accessed from Dictonary.com, one of many definitions of Excretion. Flatulence is excretion of gasses from the anus, sometimes accompanied by a bowel movement. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just quoting a dictionary entry on the definition of excretion. Read into it any additonal meanings that you want. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflicts) And now we have to ban User:SweatyMcGee and User:BreathingMcGee? Excretory functions are normally considered defacation and urination. I don't like FartyMcGee (and I only see a couple of people thinking that it's hilarious and tasteful), but it ain't against the rules as I see it. However, this is why we have these discussions. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What does common sense tell you? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No one is inventing new ones. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You provided a definition that didn't describe flatulence as excretion, but asserted that it did. If you can provide a reliable source that accurately demonstrates what you unsuccesfully attempted to earlier with the dictionary def, it'll help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the risk of sounding increadibly rude and insensitive, I'm going to ask that you read the first line of the definition again, and perhaps a third time. Just incase that can't happen, here is it in bold: "The elimination by an organism of waste products that result from metabolic processes." What is flatuence? A waste product as a result of the metabolic process. Is that good enough for you? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • CO2 is a waste product of metabolic processes that is expelled by breathing. Please explain again why this doesn't meet your criteria? Also, no need to be rude, this should be about keeping a level head. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we'll deal with breathing when we come to that bridge. Right now the discussion is about flatulence. Why do you feel the need to dwell on something other than what we're discussing right now? On top of that, using common sense, breathing, as stated once already, is not a function that people would obect to. Flatuence is. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Specifically, you and a couple other folks object to flatulence in usernames, please be careful to avoid making globally inclusive statements like that. The history of RFCN shows that there are many, MANY names that a small group of people object to that the community at large is ok with. Please be civil, we're having a discussion here, and accusing me of "dwelling" on this really doesn't move the goal of finding consensus forward. We may disagree on an item, but that doesn't mean the person we disagree with is has ill intent. While you see this as a 'common sense' decision, I note that the end result of a "disallow" judgment is that a user will be told he isn't welcome here under his chosen name, and an expected result of that in many cases is that the person simply leaves the project rather than contributing. A "disallow" is, to use technical terminology, "pretty big voodoo" in that it has a MUCH larger effect on the target than it does on the person casually dispensing it. I urge perspective on the matter, and feel it is out responsibility to err on the side of Allow, and to save the ubiquitous "disallow" for things far more egregious than "Farty McGee". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chairboy, I understand you wanting to be conservative in disallows, but let me ask you this. How many times is the term fart used around you in a non-vulgar way, or not referring to expelling gas. 1/10? 2/10? You would prefer to err on the side of Allow, but I see no need to err. You say that we need to save 'disallows' for things much worse than this, because we may put off an editor. I would have to ask what the editor was thinking when they chose a bodily function for a username? This is a situation where I must say that the editor has chosen his boat. If that boat springs a leak and sinks, it's nobody's fault but his own. Policy isn't there to be dictated by "Oh, that's not THAT bad" vs. "Oh my!", but "The policy states X, you violated it. You could gladly come up with a new username, or we'll put it to the community." Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow per policy. Kukini hablame aqui 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROOF [2] specifically cites farting as an excretory function. Please reconsider your votes accordingly. The Behnam 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - it's kinda hilarious and borderline WP:U - Alison☺ 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not borderline. Please read the link I provided above; this clearly is about a excretory function. Thanks. The Behnam 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HolyCowProductions (talk · contribs)

Promotional username. RJASE1 Talk 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgent Inc (talk · contribs)

Username is either promotional or a trademark violation (or both). RJASE1 Talk 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krishangallery (talk · contribs)

Promotional username. RJASE1 Talk 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksantennasolutions (talk · contribs)

Promotional username. RJASE1 Talk 16:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAWeekly (talk · contribs)

Promotional username/trademark vio (see contribs and LA Weekly). RJASE1 Talk 17:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punkbitch (talk · contribs)

Nominating to disallow as insulting username (both Punk and Bitch). I understand this nomination will probably be contentious because 'Punk' has other meanings and 'Bitch' has been partially reclaimed, but I've only ever seen these two words combined in an insulting context. There is no clear precedent here so far as I can see - according to the archive, "Skankbitch" was disallowed but "Cuddlebitch" was allowed. RJASE1 Talk 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bitches (talk · contribs)

Insulting username. RJASE1 Talk 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the connection between the two words. The N word has a clear insult racist meaning, whereas Bitch can mean "Female dog", "bad tempered", or "strong willed", no comparison. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I can think of a certain 'C'-word that's way worse - Alison☺ 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that the name only applied to females, I have heard men and women use it in a positive fashion towards both men and women. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also heard it used in a strongly derogatory fashion toward males and females, far more often than in a positive fashion. I definitely believe it's potentially offensive per WP:U. RJASE1 Talk 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont Like Child Molesters (talk · contribs)

Ran across this name. My response is "well, duh.." and a Disallow because it's such a touchy subject.Hi There, Im Ron 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Comment - How is this 'touchy'? Most people don't like child molesters. This isn't a controversial position. The Behnam 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow This name refers to or implies a sexual act. We would not allow "I don't like anal sex", so lets just keep the whole can of worms out of the usernames. A name should not even mention a sexual act, much less one so depraved, regardless of the stance it takes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - While non controversial, this name is likely to cause disruption because it is such an emotional topic. It also excessively long. —dgiestc 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow. If the user goes on to edit pedophilia-related articles it could be quite potentially disruptive, and if they don't, then... they have a really weird name? --tjstrf talk 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=119331588"