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

---

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 the discussion's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

User has been blocked by HighInBC. Will (aka Wimt) 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammyou

Spammyou (talk · contribs)

The username policy does not allow names that seem to threaten unpleasant activities such as spam. "Spammyou" has no other meaning; I checked Google. YechielMan 07:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say this is not blockable but a change should be encouraged, since this user has ade some useful contributions, again giving the a chance to explain would be good. I see no actual spamming. GDonato (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow. Usernames should not promote illegal or otherwise harmful activities. Since this user hasn't done any actual spamming, asking them to change it instead of outright blocking is probably a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• In light of the new tendency to discuss the opinion rather than simply expressing and then discussing it, I tend to recognize that this is one of the apparently not-so-rare borderline cases where there is a conflict of policies that needs input by multiple users. WP:U#Trouble, explicitly prohibits the use of the apparent first component of the username ("spam"). On the other hand, WP:AGF suggests that since the user has some constructive contributions, we shouldn't WP:BITE them. Nevertheless, the user is encouraged to change their name, and if they don't then that would create an awkward precedent, so I am compelled to express my concern. The user should take this as a positive suggestion that will help them interact in the future with other users in Wikipedia, without the negative connotations of the name they have picked. I sincerely hope that the closing admin will manage to understand what on earth I'm talking about, and classify my comment in the intended side of this discussion (which is not a vote). I'll be happy to summarize the above in 3 words if requested, but that would be in violation of the interpretation of the spirit of the MfD that this page recently went through (which was not a vote either). I also hope that the users commenting below will manage to neither refer to my comment ("per NikoSilver"), nor repeat the rationale of my comment with different wording (flooding), nor fall in the trap of interpreting my comment with the 3 words that could summarize it. NikoSilver 09:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, very funny. As far as this username is concerned, I do see your reasoning that WP:U#Trouble states that alluding to spamming is inappropriate. However, spam can have a variety of meanings in different contexts so this is not entirely clear cut in my opinion. Also, the user's contributions have been positive thus far with certainly no evidence of any spam. So altogether I think I agree with GDonato in that I don't favour a block but I think encouraging the user to change their name would be advisable, given that it could certainly be misleading. Will (aka Wimt) 10:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, that's what we're doing here. As I said, I would express my concern if they failed to indulge in this encouragement. Otherwise I am afraid that we are faced with the dilemma of falling in the Skylla of modifying the explicit wording in our policy (WP:U#Trouble) -or- the Charybdis of initiating a whole new era of tolerance and twisting of this and other policies, in light of our abundant WP:AGF, which may be abused by numerous not-so-well-intended users in the future. NikoSilver 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well yes I do take your point that we shouldn't use WP:AGF as a defense against usernames that are in obvious violation of WP:U. However, what we have to discuss here is whether the username is indeed in violation of this. In this case, we need to decide whether the name alludes to hacking, spamming, trolling, or computer viruses. Now my point above was that it is possible that this name actually alludes to another meaning of spam and as such might not be in violation. As I have said though, whatever the case, this username is misleading so probably ought to be changed. But for users who are making productive edits I always favour trying to persuade them to change their username rather than blocking them which could scare them off from the whole project. Will (aka Wimt) 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse my bluntness, but I seriously doubt that your interpretation of policy is correct, especially given the wording "[g]ive the impression" and "by alluding to". Of course there are numerous ways we can interpret even obvious profanity, but that is beside the point. Naturally, voluntary renaming is the preferred solution, but here we're discussing what will happen if such an outcome is not reached. IMO, we can't open the Pandora's box for multiple trolls in favor of avoiding the risk that one well-intended user will not take the decision here as constructive, but rather as harassment. "Spam" in this context is explicitly forbidden, period. NikoSilver 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well alright I agree with the fact that this username could give the impression that it is here to cause trouble. I also think Mel Etitis makes a good point below that in this case it is being used as a verb. I don't agree that "spam" is expressly forbidden period as I think that there are certainly contexts in which it could be used without giving the impression of causing trouble or alluding to the act of spamming (e.g. Iliketoeatspam or something along those lines). However, that is not relevent in this case and I do agree with the arguments here that this name should be changed (which I have always stated, but I was trying to be devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion). Will (aka Wimt) 11:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed and refactoring my own comment (for a change) to reflect that. NikoSilver 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, whatever the outcome of this discussion, we would not risk opening a Pandora's box for multiple trolls. This page is for discussing usernames on a case by case basis, taking into account the edits of a user. Decisions made here should not set precedents for future decisions over different usernames. If a name came along with spam in it and they had made two spam edits, then it should be blocked clearly. That does not infringe on the fact that if a well intentioned user is being debated upon, we have a duty to try to act constructively. In this case, I very much hope that the user will agree to a name change so that blocking would not be required. Will (aka Wimt) 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Adherence to precedent, although not compulsory, is certainly not discouraged. This is a debatable issue, since users have appealed on precedent multiple times for multiple issues in the past.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] to show a few recent ones...} Also, I find that precedent, depending on the case and always within reason, actually saves time from the community, since it helps avoidance of extensive circular conversations and debates. It spares us all time and effort if we use it wisely. NikoSilver 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes you're right - precedent can be useful if used wisely. I should have said that this decision does not necessarily need to set a precedent and, even if it does, it would only set one for borderline cases in which the user's edits appear to be in good faith. It need not leave us in a position in which we are in any way more lenient towards trolls, because we can still consider those cases on their merits, taking into account the contributions of the users. Will (aka Wimt) 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disallow — "spam" might have different meanings in different contexts, but not when used as a verb, as here. If the User has made constructive edits (and they don't look too hot to me; see, e.g., the reverting of this one, and the edit summary [which Spammyou never uses), then he should be happy to change his name. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  Well, you are correct on one thing, at least. Spam can mean different things. Try to ban Spam in Hawaiʻi and see where you'd get... --Ali'i 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam as a verb has only one meaning. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the broader use of English, could we possibly interpret "to spam"[you] to mean that "I will cast spam on you"? Like we use the verb "to water" for the flowers for instance? Seriously, this WP:AGF thing is non-exhaustive when it comes to excuses... NikoSilver 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disallow, the proliferation of the use of the word spam to mean unwanted email or other communication has essentially put a black mark on it's use when not standing in the grocery store in the Canned Foods aisle. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oversensitivity. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked this username for violation of WP:U#Trouble. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  A note, the policy you linked to covers usernames that give the impression you will cause trouble by spamming. It does not equal a blanket ban on names that just contain the word. Also, blocking a borderline case like this (check out the discussion, it's hardly unanimous) without allowing the RfC to complete seems a bit premature. I urge you to unblock the user and allow this conversation to continue. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Allow - As I mention in my response to HiBC immediately above, the policy covers a situation a bit different from this, and the user has not, in fact, caused trouble. The policy was pretty clearly designed to target names like "User:3RRWarrior" or "User:IWillVandalizeTheFuckOutOfWikipedia" - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Chairboy, as you even state above that the policy covers usernames that give the impression you will cause trouble by spamming. Spammyou definately gives that impression. The name itself gives the suggestion that the user will "Spam You". CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Allow but warn - There isnt any problem with the name but someone who deletes sections from an article without indicating why should be warned for vandalism....--Cometstyles 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - At first sight, I didn't see "Spam You", but "Spammy OU" - the double-m made it "Spammy" which seems less like a threat and more like a nickname. I have no idea whether this was the intent or not, but my point is that because the username contains the substring "spam", this doesn't necessarily mean it contains the verb to spam. Canthusus 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The term 'Spam' is so well known that even the use of it to mean a luncheon meat product has taken a back seat. Say the word spam (without any context, such as "I like me a good spam burger") in any group of people and I would venture to say that the first definition would be "Junk Mail". CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 15:23, 16 April 2007 (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.