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

Editingopera

Editingopera (talk · contribs)

1. Usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion.
2. Usernames that are similar to those used by known vandals. (User:Editingoprah) Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The user has made 1 good-faith contribution. Editing pattern doesn't look at all like Editingoprah, who isn't a "known vandal", although he/she has gotten into some trouble. The only issue here is whether the name will be confusing, and I think it won't. Mangojuice^talk 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• The spirit of the known vandal rule is to prevent "sleeping" sockpuppets which this is not. Confusing? Not confusing enough, I would say, so allow. GDonato (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow. One is allowed to edit opera. If they turn into a vandal then deal with it then. Secretlondon 12:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The name doesn't pose any problem from my POV, but if it makes any "vandal-like" edits, then it should be warned and not blocked because I don't think it's a vandal..----Cometstyles 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Infinitekiller

Infinitekiller (talk · contribs)

Having the word "killer" in his username I think would be a violation of policy. JetLover 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's possibly a vio of "Usernames that promote or endorse real-world violent actions." Has the user made any edits yet? When should a user be asked to consider changing their name, before it gets reported here, or after it gets reported here if there's a consensus for change? Dan Beale 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenjin

• Vladimir Lenjin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Offensive: promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view --Rrburke^(talk) 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is okay. Secretlondon 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your call. But Adolph Hitler would've been a no-no, so I presumed, mutatis mutandis.... --Rrburke^(talk) 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names Secretlondon 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this promoting? There's no Vladimir Lenjin, so you'll have to fill the rest of us in on what you're reading that we aren't. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• see Vladimir Lenin for background. GDonato (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case, my response is "oh please." Still don't think there's an issue here, but I don't care one way or the other. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 22 May 2007 (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.

No block. Mangojuice^talk 19:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ment4lbre4kdown

• Ment4lbre4kdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leetspeak; offensive: usernames that refer to a medical condition --Rrburke^(talk) 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Leetspeak on its own is fine. Transferring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names Secretlondon 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't feel this is blatant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i do not see anything blatantly wrong here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. Not really meant to imply a medical condition, I don't think. Coemgenus 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• No problem here- allow. GDonato (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the name :)..----Cometstyles 19:02, 22 May 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.

Müslümcük

Müslümcük (talk · contribs)

"Muslim kook"? Offensive (Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way)? --Rrburke^(talk) 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)