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

---

Ebola (talk · contribs) (at WT:CHU/U)

Note. On past precedent, this discussion is taking place at WT:CHU/U. A user has requested to usurp this username but there is a concern that it violates username policy because it is a username "mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Please comment there. WjBscribe 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• (Moved comment there.) -- Ben 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

further comment moved to WT:CHU/U WjBscribe 00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Authorised Hijacker (talk · contribs)

This username has terrorist connotations, and to some, may be viewed as offensive. --sunstar net^talk 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Allow The offended parties, "Some", do not appear to be represented here and thus shouldn't be spoken for in absentia. Regarding the name, seems fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not an "are you offended poll". Policy should be taken into account. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The specific policy being violated? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • From WP:U: "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)" are prohibited. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect, WP:U is a policy document that should serve as a guideline to provide structure to the process of exercising good judgment. Strict compliance with WP:U would lead to the following examples:
      • HighInBC would be disallowed due to "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view." as a user might suggest that it promotes illegal drug use.
      • Gingko100 would be disallowed because "Usernames that can be confused with other contributors." (User:Gingko registered a year before Gingko100)
    • Neither of these would be appropriate blocks, of course, but strict application of WP:U would lead to the above blocks. Judgment must be applied. 'Hijacker' has a connotation of being connected with terrorism right now because of the 9/11 attacks, but it remains the appropriate phrase to describe someone who criminally commandeers, say, a boat to go to Cuba instead of Florida, or an airplane to make a political statement (as has happened a few times in Africa recently). The phrase is not inherently a terrorist 'threat of violence', an assumption of good faith seems in order. My viewpoint may not be the majority here, but I hope that it's considered in future applications of username blocks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, Hijack as only one meaning, and it is violent. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Also my name does not promote any point of view, rather it is a statement of fact. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow Name promotes violent real world action, specifically prohibited by policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow, not on the basis of "might be offensive", but both because it promotes violence and because it suggests disruption of Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow per above comments. This name sounds like a threat. PeaceNT 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow as per above comments on violence. Cheers Lethaniol 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow - it refers to a real-world violent act, which means is violates username policy. I thought about other connotations of "hijack" (hijacking a discussion, etc) and just couldn't make the argument. Philippe Beaudette 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow per above RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow. The examples of hijacking given by Chairboy above are violent real-world actions just as much. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow: With respect to HighInBC, "Hijacker" does not have "only one meaning, and it is violent"; it also can refer to the non-violent (but often criminal) takeover of a computer system, e.g. through "Backdoor" or "Trojan" software. In that sense, this name falls afoul of 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". The other word, "Authorised", seems to imply having been authorised by Wikipedia, another no-no. The two words together push this name past the grey area even for me (and you know how wide I like to keep the grey area). -- Ben 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong allow - no effort was made to ask the user to change his name prior to this RFC. For the love of God, please read WP:U. Proto ► 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs)

Almost blocked on sight, but decided to get second opinions based on WP:U, which reads "Usernames partly comprised of these terms (religious figures) are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." --Ginkgo100^talk 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)