Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here. However, before listing the user here, please consider contacting the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by admins.

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

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.

GodPreist54 I've been looking through the New User List (I do more than this on Wikipedia actually), and found this one: uses "God" in Username. Should this one be allowed or not? Acalamari 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I would say no in this case, but I wonder if it's relevant. I can't seem to find any account creation record for this username, or for GodPriest54 for that matter?Crimsone 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? I was looking at this User a few minutes ago. Let me check again. Acalamari 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here: User:Godpreist54. Acalamari 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant creation log. Disallow, btw. --tjstrf talk 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that seems to have been an error in capitalisation shown here I shall correct the sectione header now. Crimsone 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallow The combination of god and priest implies a reference to a capital God, and (perhaps) official position of "preist". Alternatively, it may pertain to a position as a missionary. Alternatively of course, the editor may well be a priest. Either way, I feel it to contravene WP:U on grounds of the religious name, and on potential for divisiveness/offence. Crimsone 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. From WP:UN: Wikipedia recommends that users avoid: names of politicians, military or religious figures (emphasis mine) and, under "Inappropriate usernames" Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah". I'd consider this a violation of both of those bullet points, even though the user is not blatantly saying, "I am God" or "I am a Priest" (i.e. User:God or User:Priest). Srose (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. It violates the Username rules. Acalamari 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow - Srose explained it perfectly. --Matthew 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow as above Cheers Lethaniol 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow this could be considered bigotry against discordians as every discordian is a priest. I see nothing wrong with Godpriest54. He is not claiming to be a priest of any 1 god... nor is he claiming to be a god. Taking that line from WP:UN so overbroadly makes ME very worried.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another one of these compound words... given the double religious whammy i'm inclined to disallow, I don't agree that this requires an overbroad interpretation of the rules, nor one that should make anyone worried. Deizio talk 08:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yuske Uramishi (talk · contribs)
• Heie Austin (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Austin (talk · contribs)
• Bully Austin (talk · contribs)

Not certain that this is the place for this, as I dont find the usernames offensive, but it seems that these user's userpages are being used as faux articles for small time wrestlers. I'm not sure what should be done, but I hardly think that this constitutes appropriate use. —damnreds (☠|☠) 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More an issue for MfD, or possibly {{db-nouser}}. Crimsone 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{db-nouser}} wouldn't work, as these are real accounts. Hbdragon88 01:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt them all. All three accounts have only made edits on their own user pages; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. There are precedents for indef blocking such accounts; I remember Kimberly Ashton (talk · contribs · count) being blocked for this reason. Hbdragon88 01:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To anybody who understands 1337 this should be obvious to them what is wrong with the username, also the user's only edit was vandalism which I've since reverted. Mathmo ^Talk 07:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to enlighten us? Speaking leet is not a prerequisite for contributing to this page. Deizio talk 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jews suck"? —ShadowHalo 08:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite. And 0rz? I want to know if there's a leet in-joke or something less obvious. Deizio talk 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In leet, 0rz is a meaningless suffix (e.g. hax0rz, sux0rz, etc.) —ShadowHalo 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]