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

---

Reports

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary. There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Place your report below this line.

---

Wolfpussy

Wolfpussy (talk · contribs)

While the editor consistently maintains that the name is not intended to be offensive, I'm afraid that for many viewers in the wider community, it clearly is obscene. For current urban definitions, see [1]; for earlier meanings, cf. Green, Jonathon (2005) Cassell's Dictionary of Slang 2 ed., revised. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 0304366366 p. 1542 "wolf-pussy n. [1970s] (US Black) unpleasant vaginal odours." Several users have discussed the name at the user talk page, but as the contributor indicates firm belief that the name is not an issue ("YES. I'm very, very seriously maintaining and defending my position that the username I've chosen is 100% nonfreaky. (!)"), it seems that further conversation at the user page may not be productive. Best to determine community position on this one. I myself believe the name is a problem under our policy, almost to the point of immediate action. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

.

• First of all, I like the username and the funny interaction with bill the cat. But because of the urban definition, it is clearly a vulgar term. This usage was not the user's intention but unfortunately is all too true. Wolfpussy is freaky keeky. RJ (talk) the kitty cat (meow) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC).
• The user has announced his intention to drop his final "y". I've never heard of "wolfpuss" (but then I'd never heard of "wolfpussy"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• In my part of northern North America (where there are wolves), we also have "wood pussy". It's a local name for a skunk and the "pussy" is from the diminutive for a cat. Are we banning pussy willow, too? (Just noticed that the article Catkin is lacking this common name.) Bielle (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• It is my intention to contribute effectively and beneficially to all members, without undue distraction/upheaval...thus, if you'll have me, I'm happy to be Wolfpuss. (hugs) I'm rather bored with the redundant back and forth. -- Wolfpussy (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow due to very clear sexual connotations (despite the claims of purity of thought on the part of the editor on question). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• This user states that they have requested a name change. Have they? gonads³ 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, about an hour ago here. —Soap— 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  Commented there too, the requested name is Wolfpuss, not sure that's a lot better. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Allow especially based on namechange request. Her talk page clearly covers her thoughts on this. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow both When it comes to a username, it's not really the intentions or thoughts of the user that should govern the decision. Unfortunately, the user may have the best intentions in the world, and this will not prevent the potential for offence in other users viewing the name. They will, of course, be unaware of these intentions. I wasn't personally aware of the connotations prior to MRGs explanation above, but now I am, and I agree with her, and with Rlevse that the proposed change probably isn't enough to solve the issue  Begoon^talk 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow, albeit moot because of the username change request. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm giving all due consideration to your concerns, Rlevse • Talk, but as evidenced here and on my (talk) it seems as if no action I'm willing to enact on behalf of your objections will be deemed worthy. (!) Your initial post to me which I referenced as a direct challenge to my integrity was the first indication of your apathy towards me as a fellow user; now, even with my proposal to drop the 'y' from my name - you are still displeased.

  Pussy is a "dirty" suffix...and so is "puss" we are to gather? How so - when "pussy" as a term could be entrenched in disambiguation, sure; but where, ANYWHERE, is "puss" detailed to not mean cat? Puss In Boots

  I call foul. (!) Not an attack. Merely an observation, I assure you, my comrades...and most humbly so.

  A big thank you to all who are kindly offering much valued input, herein. You are appreciated! (howl/purr)

  *NOTE: I wonder if I was 'Wolfdick' if this would be a discussion. (?) Let us take a moment to view Gender Inequality in all fairness. Spotted Dick - Dick Nixon -- Wolfpussy (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow original and proposed variation on the same theme. It's very easy to choose a username that doesn't offend half of the planet. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is "very easy" but the discussion is inherently definition vs. connotation; to which, the spirit of Wiki space clearly makes all effort to define language by MEANING and not implication. (!)

The Wiki Project disambiguation is all about this sort of debate and as co-editors of each other within this community, I'm personally most saddened that my fellowship is not accepted wholeheartedly for virtue of intent, rather than a smattering of subjective heckles.

Also, "half the planet" is a gross exaggeration because along with several other users, I'd never been acquainted with the vulgarity of 'wolfpussy' slang before this incident - moreover, who in their right mind would want to be associated with the hyphenated term wolf-pussy (US Black) Unpleasant vaginal odors, really?

But I suppose that all language which urban youths choose to delineate improperly are now victim to indifference. (!) So much for Queen's English.

Wolfpussy (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Many, many users choose usernames for the sole reason that they are offensive. Some users choose usernames that are unintentionally offensive. While the latter cases are certainly given more lenience on Wikipedia, they are also usually disallowed. This is because intent, while relevant in determining if a user is editing Wikipedia in good faith to help build an encyclopedia, is usually not relevant in assessing actual disruption and offense caused to other editors and the general public. While "wolfpussy" may have an entirely innocuous meaning to you, it does not to others, and that is important. Definition and disambiguation are of course two of Wikipedia's great strengths, but until you can clarify the intent of your username in every place it appears (edit histories, talk pages, watchlists, etc), there are bound to be people thinking you're just being lewd or purposely offensive. Wikipedia is great at defining and disambiguating terms that a person enters into the search box, but not so great at defining and disambiguating usernames. So perhaps you can see the dilemma. The Queen's English, though highly esteemed, is regardless just one of the many variants of English (US Black being another), and the English Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia that is intended for all speakers of English.
• And yes, "Wolfdick" would likely also be disallowed. -kotra (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow - As Vir has said, the original and the proposed 'new version' are pretty much the same. Deleting a single letter doesn't change that. If the user does mean well, perhaps they would have no problem with Wolfcat (talk · contribs).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Dissallow Wolfpussy as vulgar, offensive and, to some, obscene per both the urban definitions of the term and the sexual connotation of "pussy". Allow Wolfpuss. I see nothing wrong with that- such a name is in no way disruptive and nobody would have batted an eyelid had she created her account under this name originally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow Wolfpussy, allow Wolfpuss per HJ Mitchell. The slang meaning of "wolf-pussy" is enough to disallow "Wolfpussy", but is probably unrecognizable enough from "Wolfpuss" to really matter. Some who are familiar with "wolf-pussy" might get a chuckle out of the name "Wolfpuss" but would likely view it as an unintentional coincidence, and wouldn't be offended. -kotra (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I tend to disagree with the previous 2 rationales for allowing Wolfpuss. As I mentioned above, I was previously unaware of the connotations of Wolfpussy, but now that I am, I feel that if I was in the group of users we accept would be offended by it, I would be no less likely to be offended by the variant, with one less letter. As Kotra points out, some may recognize, and connect the terms. Where I differ is that I don't believe we should rely on the assumption that they will just "chuckle". To my mind, the potential for offence is therefore not removed along with the single letter "y". Likdik was disallowed below, as I'm sure have been many other names differing from an offensive term by just a letter, but still arguably suggestive of it. I'm not trying to be prudish, or obstructive here - just objective.  Begoon^talk 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow both, as they are both unconducive to effective collaboration. Wolfpuss(y), your original username is offensive to some people, and your new username, even if you did not intend it to do so (and I believe you did not intend it to do so), looks like gaming the system. Also, your statement about gender inequality is a red herring. User:Wolfdick would be blocked, as would, in all likelihood, User:Niggardly Dastard. The standard here is that if you genuinely wish to contribute to the community, you pick a username that doesn't get in the way of working with others. Please think of this in terms of "what name can I choose that will not prejudice other users with respect to me in discussions?", not "what name can I choose that's as close to my previous one as possible without getting banned?" --erachima talk 02:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow both, as the new choice is not different enough to get rid of the connotations suggested by Wolfpussy. I am sure you chose the name innocently enough but now that you know better you should do better. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of the self-righteous, puritanical comments from many above, I'm going to have to insist you remove that picture of a pussy on the computer from your user page. It's too suggestive of what you use your computer for. LOL!!!!

• Allow the name. Come on people. Isn't there something better to spend our time on? Is Richard Head, Pussy, and Pussy Galore also banned? Maybe their articles should be deleted in case someone is offended. And if anyone is so distracted by Wolfpussy that they let it interfere with Wikipedia edits, then it is those people who have maturity/mental problems. I mean, "pussy" has dual meanings, so if anyone has a problem with one of those meanings and not the other, then chose to relate to that person in terms of the other "non-offensive" meaning. Jeez!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  You are conflating our standards with respect to article content and project content. Article-wise, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Project-wise, we seek to be a professional and harmonious community, and forbid behavior that is inconducive to a healthy editing environment. This is why it is appropriate to have the article fuck, but not for me to call editors I disagree with "fuckers". --erachima talk 04:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Allow. Pointy request, no evidence of conflict of interest in edit history. Please pursue dispute resolution in the appropriate venues. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel

SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs)

SHEFFIELDSTEEL is a user name violation per WP:CORPNAME, [2].

Sheffield Steel Corporation

220 N Jefferson St

Sand Springs, OK 74063- 6554

[3]

[4]

[5]

Sheffield Steel Corp

1 Industry Ave

Joliet, IL, 60435-2653

[6]
--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) .

I don't know Sheffield Steel's nationality, but if he's from the UK his username will refer not to the modern US companies you quote but to the generic Sheffield Steel industry of Sheffield, England that operated from 1770 onwards, and as a result of which 'Sheffield Steel' became a byword throughout the world for superior quality steel products from the eighteenth century onwards. Look on virtually any piece of cutlery (silverware in USian) in any kitchen drawer in the UK and it'll be stamped 'Sheffield Steel'. I'd wager your US companies took their name from the great UK Sheffield Steel industry. So no, chances are it's not a username violation. 81.129.135.102 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Allow - Shef explains on his userpage that it's a lyric from This Is England (song). As long as people pay attention to that, there should be no confusion. -kotra (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm noticing just now that the user does not appear to have been allowed time to discuss before this was posted here for wider community input. This is an important step required by the instructions on this page. I recommend someone close this early, giving SheffieldSteel some time to respond to any concerns one-on-one before being brought again to this forum. I'd close it myself but I already !voted to allow, and I don't want to give a sense of closing early in favor of my views. -kotra (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm posting here because it seems easier to have the discussion formally here, and I'd prefer to resolve the issue sooner rather than later. Yesterday I informed Duchamps_comb on WP:AN that they are unlikely to have their Obama-related topic ban lifted for at least a month, hence some degree of residual ill feeling is understandable, and productive one-on-one discussions may be difficult. As far as our username policies go, I have always intended my username to represent me rather than the company that I work for (which I am not going to comment on, per WP:OUTING). Indeed, while Duchamps_comb has posted the names of two companies above, they have not stated which of these companies they believe I represent. I would go so far as to say that it would be impossible for them to do so, based on any on-wiki information. That is because I have avoided editing steel- or Sheffield-related articles, since there is the possibility that other editors might believe that my username represented some assertion of authority in the subject area. Having said that, if the consensus here is that SheffieldSteel isn't or may not be an appropriate username, I will of course request renaming. It would be a shame if, after all these years and making WP:100, this account were to be indefinitely blocked :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Allow, speedily if possible - Based on the lack of discussion before filing the report and on this thread at WP:AN, I think this username complaint was made in a WP:POINTy fashion. Also, as Kotra notes above, there is a valid explanation for the username, and there are no edits that suggest a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Blocked. Fine by me. – B.hotep •talk• 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OfficialRollingStone

OfficialRollingStone (talk · contribs)

The main thing is, the edits are helpful because all of the Rolling Stone review urls have changed. On the other hand, there are links being added which weren't there before - again, could be helpful, but what do we think? Normally, I would block names with "OfficialCompanyName" on sight, along with adding links to their own site, but they say they have been in conversation with someone (not overly interested in who). If this name is OK, maybe we should put something on the user page pointing to some sort of discussion so they don't keep getting asked. I haven't notified them until we get this straight. – B.hotep •talk• 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If the rationale for their behavior and/or name is a previous conversation, need a link to see the basis for that consensus. Quite possibly valid, but also possibly taking some statement of support out of a mixed/no-consensus context, or based on something other than standard wikipedia guidelines. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow as misleading unless they can prove they are associated with the Rolling Stones. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow with caveat This discussion is now moot as the user has been indefinitely blocked.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: disallow, blocked. -kotra (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

LikDik

LikDik (talk · contribs)

Username appears to me to be offensive, as a variation of "lick dick". There may be a reasonable explanation, but none has been offered by the user after leaving a {{uw-username}} note on their talk page. The user has only made one contribution so far, which may explain why the note I left on the talk page has not been answered, but I've left it a couple of days before bringing it here, and would like to see what others' take on this username is. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow. If there were a reasonable explanation, the user would have responded to your entreaties. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow. No reason to believe the user meant anything else than "lick dick," and the contributions list so far fits the pattern. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow. Obvious offensive name, not sure why there was any question about it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow If I had drawn the UAA report, I would have just blocked, the "lick dick" is so obvious to me. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow as offensive.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: blocked for unrelated reason, discussion moot. -kotra (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nutput7777777

Nutput7777777 (talk · contribs)

This username triggers the edit filter for repeated characters every time a signature is placed on a talk page. User was advised of the issue and suggested to change the name, but he refuses to change his name. Is this repeated triggering of the filter severe enough to warrant a block? I'm looking for a second opinion, as I feel a username-block might be BITEy here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FIne I will change the name.....Nutput7777777 (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)YEAH YEAH NUTTY (talk)

• Note that all Nutput7777777 (talk · contribs) has done is change the text that appears in his signature. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, this didn't solve the issue, as the history for this page shows. -kotra (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, is triggering this edit filter a big enough problem that we must require the editor to change their username when they don't want to? Edit filters should conform to us, the editors, not the other way around. Other than the edit filter triggering, there's no problem with this username... so I think we should allow it, even if the filter keeps getting triggered. Secondly, if I understand the edit filter correctly, it will stop happening once they've become autoconfirmed (which will be less than 3 days, I believe). Thirdly, if this is a persistent problem, maybe we could adjust the filter so it ignores repeating characters that are in the same text as the contributor's username. I am pretty sure it is possible if all text that matches the "user_name" variable is ignored by the filter. -kotra (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment: It isn't possible to do what you're thinking. If we tell the filter to ignore strings that are the same as an editor's username, it will ignore the entire edit, because it sees the added lines as an indivisible string ... it's not like a true programming language where you can do add/subtract operations on the text and then check conditions against that result. It would be possible to have the filter ignore all talk pages, though, because that's where most signatures are going to appear. —Soap— 10:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I won't pretend to be aware of how the filters are organised, but are they not regex filters? Surely it can simply check that the repeating characters are not part of the username by having the filter match if the change matches a regex similar to: /(^[({{{username}}})]*.{5,})+$/ If this is impossible, perhaps it's time to consider a change in the way the filters operate; granted that's a big change, but it'll allow greatly improved control of the operation of the filters. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to bring that up on Wikipedia talk:edit filter, actually, because you might be right. With my knowledge though I can't see a way for the filter to be able to know whether the repeating characters are part of the username or not. I suppose you could look for the text "user" before the characters, though, which would be a decent approximation. If by {{{username}}} you mean to ask the filter to use a variable that is set to the username of the editor making the edit, though, I don't believe that is possible because the filter code doesn't have access to variables. (again, unless I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any filters written that way). —Soap— 20:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well my post is making certain assumptions, since I haven't seen the filters and don't know what features they actually have; the regex I provided was sort of pseudocode which could be adapted, but obviously if the filter can't find out the username it can't find out if the repeating characters are part of that username either. Again though, perhaps this is a feature which should be considered in future; it may be a big change, but it could be worth it in the end. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

*Disallow: just knock off a couple of the 7s: having every edit the user makes is a serious annoyance for those of us who use the tagged edits list to revert vandalism, and will likely start causing problems for the user for the same reason. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Changing to allow per Kotra's autoconfirmed comment above and theis'/courcelles' comment about filters being for our benefit below. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Allow: Agree with Kotra above. If an edit filter triggers on an innocent user's signature, then it is the filter that needs to be changed, not the username. Theis101 (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Allow The filter needs to accommodate editors, not editors the filter. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow. The issue is not the filter. It is that people are going to go nuts trying to remember how many 7's to type. That is why we're so suspicious of multiply repeating characters. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Allow. While I feel Daniel's pain about counting the seven 7's, I agree that the filter needs to be changed. There are lots of really long usernames (especially those by people who don't live in the USA or England, or this quality editor) and it's hard to type those... I would even say I "go nuts" trying to type them. But that's no reason to disallow the name. — Timneu22 · talk 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Allow per Courcelles' reasoning.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: allow (additionally, user voluntarily added a clarifying note on their userpage). -kotra (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Niabot

Niabot (talk · contribs)

Discussion on WP:UAA led to this RFC. T3h 1337 b0y 20:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Niabot has pointed out that he's had the username for a while without issue, and I understand the reluctance to change it on that basis. Given that the sole issue with the username is that it is easily confused with a bot, might I suggest that a notice be added to the top of the user's user and user talk pages, informing all who read it that the user is an editor, not a bot? Comments welcome. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow - our username policy is clear on this: usernames may not end with "bot" unless they are approved bots. German Wikipedia may have different practices, but German Wikipedia isn't English Wikipedia... this user hasn't been very active on English Wikipedia (only 40 edits) so we can't really say there won't be problems here from their past experience. -kotra (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Im just wondering why i often see bots that aren't having the appendix "bot". If my name is confusing, how to handle the opposite direction? Such an typical *head -> desk* situation, or as a german would call it: Schema F or Permit A 38. --Niabot (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you give an example? I haven't personally ever seen a bot lacking the "Bot" suffix. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At least in WP:DE we have some. [7] [8] [9] [10]... but also on EN: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]... PS: The Other way around we have much more users in WP:DE that have "bot" as an suffix or appendix to their names. --Niabot (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of the 632 approved bots exactly 100 do NOT have the bot suffix (I can send you the list), and the following 22 bots do not contain the string "BOT" anywhere within the name: BoxCrawler, CanisRufus, Chem-awb, Collabsearch, Comics-awb, CommonsDelinker, D6, Fettgesicht, Jumbuck, Kl4m-AWB, MediaWiki default, Nomenclaturebrowser, Pearle, PoccilScript, PsychAWB, Purbo T, R. Hillgentleman, RFC posting script, RoboMaxCyberSem, RoboServien, Thadius856AWB, Wikipedia Signpost.  7  13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the logic... just because some bot owners choose not to make use of the "bot" suffix doesn't change that the "bot" suffix is reserved for only bots. Not all fruits are bananas, but bananas are definitely fruits. -kotra (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not include any logic, only facts. An editor above asked for examples, of which there are plenty.  7  21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Niabot (sorry if my indenting is confusing). -kotra (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - your indenting was spot on, but I wasn't paying attention.  7  23:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Allow / Grandfather - the BOT provisions in WP:U are part of the "misleading username" section. I don't detect any attempt on this users behalf to mislead anyone. User has 20,000+ edits on de.wp and 800+ on commons. Would not be appropriate to make them change their SUL or create a separate EN.WP account. I would however encourage them to leave a small note on their talkpage/userpage indicating that they are NOT a BOT.  7  07:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow Whether there is "any attempt on this user's behalf to mislead anyone" is irrelevant. Users are likely to be misled into thinking that this is a bot, and the fact that this is unintended does not diminish that fact. A note on the user's user page would not be seen by the majority of users seeing his/her edits, and so the misunderstanding would not be averted. We use the suffix "bot" on bot accounts so that users can immediately tell whether or not an account is a bot, and this purpose would be undermined by allowing exceptions as long as we feel the editor is well intentioned. The minor inconvenience to the user of having to open a separate account for English WP is not sufficient grounds for allowing an exception to the policy, leading people to be misled. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, its completely relevant. Intent is always relevant here. Even the bot that tags usernames created with bot warns that there may be naturally arising occurrences of the suffix, and that the accounts don't need to be blocked on site. We use a crat assigned bot flag to identify bots, and all watch lists are easily filtered by this bot flag (not by anything in the users name). Additionally, bots usually have (but are not required) to include bot at the beginning or end of their names. The final point about breaking SUL being a minor inconvenience only indicates to me that you either don't edit on other WP sites, or you have a fully uninterupted SUL yourself, because it absolutely is an inconvenience.  7  13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Intent is relevant, but the actual effect on editing is vastly more relevant. If the effect is that people have trouble identifying at a glance what is a bot and what is a human, that overrides the user's intentions, no matter how good they are. With filtering watchlists, what if you want to see both bot and human edits? Then, the only way to identify a bot at a glance is their name (unless there's a script or mediawiki "gadget" that can do this...). I can't tell you how many times I've scanned my watchlist and found it efficient to ignore the edits from users ending with "bot"... yet I have no desire to filter them out completely. The reason the bot warns of naturally arising occurrences of the suffix is because of words like "abbot". "Niabot" is not one of those situations; it may mean something in German but most English-speaking editors will not recognize it. Yes, an interrupted SUL is an inconvenience. Countless users deal with this inconvenience every day. It's not worth making an exception to a valuable policy over. -kotra (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  To your question about filtering watchlists - if you want to see both bots and regular users the bots are clearly identifiable by a b flag (similar to m for minor edits). Again, this is a flag set by a crat - not driven off of username. If this user was a new editor we wouldn't be having this conversation - they would be immediately blocked. We are here because they are an established editor on multiple other wikis, including on commons. To be completely honest, I don't think that anyone who is familiar enough with WP to know what a bot is would ever actually be confused when seeing this users edits.  7  21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Agh, I can't believe I forgot about the b flag... So yeah, you are right about watchlists. Still, there are other situations when the "bot" suffix clues us in to the type of account, situations when that b flag isn't there. You may be right that this account won't be mistaken as a bot. We can only guess. But if we want to loosen our username policy to allow humans the "bot" suffix, we need to discuss it at WT:U before we start making exemptions just because a user has been using the name on other wikis for a long time (I don't understand how this is a legitimate reason, English Wikipedia is not other wikis, even Commons or German Wikipedia, but maybe I'm just clueless here...). -kotra (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Good point - I have cross posted on WT:U referring users here.  7  00:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Allow Established editor, clearly not a bot. If they put a note on their userspace that's up to them, but they shouldn't be compelled. Verbal chat 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow, per JamesBWatson. Whatever the intent is, the likely consequence is that many users will be misled into thinking that the user in question is a bot. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow per user name policy in effect when EN account was established [16]. If allowed we open the door for any user to create accounts in de or any sister wiki in an attempt to circumvent the user name policy. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In reading my comment it does seem to suggest that the result here has some future ramifications which it does not. However, WP:U seems clear on the issue. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Allow The username policy also says that the line between allowed and disallowed can be drawn by a consensus in a discussion, which is what we're doing here. I personally think that lowercase 'bot' should be treated more leniently than capitalized 'Bot' or 'bot' as a separate word. After all if someone was named Cabot or Talbot we wouldn't bring them here. I imagine Niabot is not this user's real life name, but it doesn't suggest to me that he's a bot either. —Soap— 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Allow. Quoting the frequently-invoked section of the username policy, 'Thus it may not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator". Also, unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.'^{[emphasis added]} There's a difference in the auxiliary verbs there. May not indicates that it is never permissible, while should not indicates that it is discouraged but permissible. If we have a unified account (which, as I understand, is the case here), I don't see a reason to force them to change username on their main account to have a unified login here. This is a good time to invoke the exception allowed in the wording—or just ignore that provision entirely for this case with this username. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Allow I think the confusion here results in the spirit of the law coming in to conflict with the letter of law. If I ask myself "Self, why are usernames ending in "bot" discouraged?", the answer arises "Self, it is because we want to avoid confusion with actual bots".
  • "In that case, Self, is there confusion as to Niabot's human/bot nature?"
  • "No! It is clear that Niabot is an actual person."
  • "Will Niabot's edits be marked as bot edits in my watchlist?"
  • "No, those edits will be marked the same as any other human editor."
  • "Will Niabot begin the machine uprising, welcoming our technologic overlords?"
  • "Let's hope not."
  • "Self, I pronounce my concerns settled."

TNXMan 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Allow. To put the above more bluntly: People have a brain, and by using it are able to determine whether User:Niabot is a bot, especially if the user in question would be so nice to add a notice at the top of his user page indicating that he is not, in fact, a bot. --Conti|✉ 10:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Allow it's clear enough. Gigs (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: allow. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gonads3

Gonads3 (talk · contribs)

I've blocked this username as {{usernamehardblock}}, but another admin has questioned this, making me think the username is not as obviously inappropriate as I thought. My rationale for blocking was that we wouldn't allow cock, balls, bollocks or any other name for any other human reproductive organ, but perhaps I was a little quick to the block button? I'd like to hear some more opinions on this, so here I am. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it shouldn't have been hardblocked and treated like a vandal. There are also better procedures than softblocking without advance notice or advice. Hard username blocks should only be used — not even for grossly inappropriate names — but only for bad faith usernames. This applies to several other hardblocks I see you've made, such as 3P!Cp0wNaGE (talk · contribs). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with zzuuzz that a hardblock was overkill here, the editor seems to be contributing in good faith. I say let him keep his silly name if he wants to; gonads is too technical a term to be a vulgar word.  Sandstein  21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• A hardblock is a bit much as this appears to be a good faith user. I'm undecided if this username should be disallowed (with a softblock). On the one hand, "gonads" is an unobjectionable scientific term ("cock", "bollocks", etc are different in that they're more 'vulgar'); on the other hand, the user is probably not going to be taken seriously named Gonads3, and consequently it might be slightly disruptive to editing. If others think it should be allowed, I would still encourage the user to voluntarily change their name, since a name like "Gonads3" isn't going to make editing any easier for him/her. -kotra (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the others that a hardblock was more than was needed, and the user probably should have been given an opportunity to choose another username. If this were a regular RFCU, I'd also be inclined to disallow the username, as it refers to genitalia. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll take the criticism of my action- in hindsight, I suppose a hardblock was equivalent to using a bazooka to kill a fly, but I'd like to hear peoples' disallow/allow !votes as if this were a "regular" RFCN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• (Copied from user talk page per the user's request) Thanks for the swift feedback. Although I wouldn't put this username in quite the same class as the words you use, I do see the point you make. If indeed others agree that it is a violation of the username policy, please suggest a way forward. Perhaps Template:Uw-ublock has the answer, but I feel this would remove something from me, something akin to having my birth name forcibly changed. The outcome of this introduction as a non-anonymous user will indeed aid me in understanding the differences of interpretation. Thanks again for your time. I hope we can move on just as swiftly. Gonads3 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

!Votes

• Disallow. Evades a SoxBot regexp. RussianReversal (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Allow. Acceptable names are not dictated by regexps. The name is not vulgar, just silly.  Sandstein  07:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• leaning towards allow - however it seems there might be some that would be offended by it. I would suggest they look at WP:CHU if they are serious about being an active contributor to avoid future issues. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Allow Don't really see the problem with this one. Courcelles (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: username blocked by User:Nihonjoe. -kotra (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The McChicken costs $1

Pointed the new user, The McChicken costs $1 (talk), to the policy about not using promotional names, but they continue using it. --Modocc (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think it should be allowed. I can't imagine this username will really cause many people to go out and eat at McDonalds. —Soap— 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Leaning toward disallow - WP:U says you cannot have your username = a product. Clearly, this username does not = a product, but contains the name of a product as part of a statement of fact which could be viewed as promotional. While this users main namespace edits don't appear problematic, the user's own userpage could easily be viewed as promotional — even if s/he is just a fan of the product.  7  01:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  It's just fine — it's a clever play on consumerism and American pop culture, one of the coolest names I've seen in a long time, and is not at all promoting a product or service. It's comparable, say, to "My Camaro does 125" or "Dunkin Donut Lover". I don't think this is what the username policy was trying to prevent. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Please clarify then what this policy is "trying to prevent"? Consumerism at this level or any level on wikipedia? Does a user only need to add an adjective or two to any product or company name (and they include the appropriate disclaimers, e.g. I'm only joking, I'm not with the company, its only a dollar folks.. etc)? If the community allows this then we should consider tossing the policy on no promotional usernames to the historical bin. Also, simply repeating or parroting commercials is commercialism and not "a clever play" on it. --Modocc (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't a problem. The policy disallows usernames used for promotion; this is not so. ÷seresin 05:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How so?--Modocc (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Allow. The rule says, "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia." I do not see the name as promotional. This is a guy apparently unconnected to McDonalds. He is not "promoting" anything. Besides, excuse the pun, but a McDonald representative would not use such a cheesy name. The name is apparently intended as a joke, a satire, if you will. I am certain satire is acceptable. I once had to change my name because it was the name of my blog. But "The McChicken costs $1" is just a guy who was having fun and picked a funny name. Let's not discourage him or his contributions to Wikipedia with messages that may be scary to newbies. I say he should keep the satirical name. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the user is not promoting the McChicken? He is not promoting the fact it is only one dollar? Lets ignore the reality of the username and insert far-fetched denials such as the McChicken is too commonplace or cheesy to be promoted? Lets be serious folks, a promotion is a promotion, no matter who is involved. It does not have to be company approved. --Modocc (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. He is being silly, not promotional. The rule is designed to stop people from promoting things. He's not promoting anything, he's just being silly. And I do not see in the slightest how his name actually promotes McDonalds in any way. Nobody's going to read his name and run out to McDonalds. Yes, I joked about that, but precisely because it's a joke. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Accept, I don't get the "joke", other than its not proper username? I'm rolling on the floor. Perhaps, then, you can explain the difference between the names "The McChicken costs $1" and "Walmart sells for less"? Should I or anyone else have to put up with such patent nonsense on account of this line of reasoning? --Modocc (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Walmart name results in over 6000 hits. The McDonalds name results in none, other than 3 in Wikipedia. The Walmart phrase is a phrase used in advertising. The McDonalds name is not used in advertising. The Walmart name is promotional. The McDonalds name is not promotional.

And we are talking about a name here. There is no reason to mock me. I do not appreciate it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the overrated hamburger joint does a lot of adverts promoting its McChicken along with its dollar menu and any "new" variant version of these would still apply to the policy here. --Modocc (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, at least not in my opinion. $1--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disallow. For someone familiar with American culture it may be apparent that the username is intended to be satirical, but it is really just a promotional statement about a product unless you read more into it. I do not buy the argument that promotion is allowed as long as it is "cheesy". That would set a very bad precedent. decltype (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be in bad taste if it were "cheesy". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Allow, clearly. I'm baffled that anyone would think that this user is actually trying to promote something. The entire point of "No promotional user names" is that we prevent companies(!) from using Wikipedia for their own interest, not that we should forbid silly user names. --Conti|✉ 07:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Promotions are in themselves often satirical or humorous and the policy does not exclude only self-promotions of companies or even just paid-promotions. But would it matter? No, absolutely not. As written, the policy is clearly about having no promotions of products, companies, etc. regardless of who just happens to use the promotional name. Quote: "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia." It does not say only exact company names or the like are disallowed. The part of the policy about company names is only just an example of possible promotional usernames (and other potential problems with their use as well). The McChicken costs $1, on the other hand is very explicit, such that even if it was only intended by the new user to be simply silly or satirical and not promote the product per se, it nevertheless does promote the McChicken and its been plastered all over high-profile article talkpages. Its tasteless to say the least. --Modocc (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the McChicken is kinda tasty. :) Anyhow, you got it just right: "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia." This user name, on the other hand, is not used to promote anything. Unless you are implying that the mere existance of it is promotion. Which would imply that we should block bloody everything. Take me, for example. "Conti" is quite often used in the news when they talk about Continental AG, so much that my user name is synonymous with the company in Germany. My point is that taking the policy to such an absurd level really isn't going to help anyone. We scare away the newbies who think they got a clever name for no benefit whatsoever. Congratulations. --Conti|✉ 11:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please..., blocking everything would be extreme, but that is not implied, nor is it true that newbies are going to be scared away by learning the ropes. "Conti" is generic enough to not be a problem, but if you changed your name to "Conti costs less", "Conti saves $" or worse yet "Fly Conti" or more subtly "Conti will get u there" these would be block-able promotional names I would think. Even if its a really cool username though, "I just like it" is not a very good argument that is slippery trap. Letting this burger promotional name slip through because its too cool too block is simply the rave of favoritism, pure and simple. Otherwise, if most promotional compound names are to be given a free pass to merely exist as you put it, that would certainly allow disruptive spamming nonsense on the Wikipedia because there are usually real dollars involved with positioning brand names at stake. The key to advertising is branding, getting the name such Dr Pepper splattered everywhere. For instance, "I like Dr.Pepper", "I love Dr. Pepper" and "I really love Dr. Pepper" are all hip and cool due to branding, and it wouldn't take very long to spam pages with them. I suppose that user Wikidemon and others that followed the coolness approach would approve these anyway and there would be no point bringing them here if this board is nothing more than a welcoming mat for the branding of commercial trademarks that are culturally favored. "I love Gold Bond" or "CureMaxPads cost $1" splatter everywhere by a "newbie", complete with pics of the product on the user page, would serve the company's interest in such cases. The McChicken username and his user's page are no exception to this, at all. --Modocc (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Conti, Wikidemon, LAEC (me), and others, including Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, are all stacking up in favor of keeping the name, and we outnumber those opposed. Someone went and blocked the guy without awaiting the results here, which so far are consensus to keep. That block should be reversed forthwith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, I just completely disagree with it. First of all, yes, we are scaring away newbies with this (and it used to be much worse). Sure, he can just ask for his account to be renamed, but not everyone is going to bother with that. You come here with a witty user name, edit for a few days.. and suddenly you get a big box telling you that your name is bad and that you're probably just here to promote McDonald's products, anyhow. That's not leaving a happy thought in your mind, I would imagine. Secondly, no one (I hope) has argued not to block because the name is "cool". The argument was that the name isn't trying to be promotional at all. That the name is a bad one nonetheless is the point we disagree on, I suppose. But where should we draw the line? If "I love Pepsi" is bad, what about "I love HBO"? Or "I love The Sopranos"? If a user is improving the encyclopaedia and clearly not here to promote anything, let them praise their favourite product on their user page and in their user name, I couldn't care less. --Conti|✉ 15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with your sediments, but editing here does entail policies and interactions such as box templates that tend to be more complete and respectful than what I might write. You are essentially now arguing against the policy of not promoting products in usernames, which is reasonable, but an argument that may be more appropriate on the policy page. I would say that as far as drawing the line, on one hand, company names, trademarks and brand names shouldn't be promoted by slogans and sales pitches, or disparaged, such as "Toyota's are lemons". On the other hand, I have seen too the borderline cases. "My Mustang is red." and even "My Hot Wheels are HOT" might be allowed as compliant, and this is why I brought the matter here even though from my perspective "The McChicken costs $1" is clearly parroting the corporate chain's sales pitch and therefore should be blocked per policy. --Modocc (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• This username has been blocked as a clear violation of WP:U because it is a promotional username promoting a specific product. It is not similar to "Dunkin Donut Lover" or "My Camaro Does 125" as those are more fan usernames which have been allowed in the past. This one is clearly promotional, giving the name of the product and the price of the product. There is no ambiguity here. If he wants to change it to "McChicken Lover", that would be fine, but the current username is not acceptable in the least. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.