Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:22, 14 August 2007

Shortcuts

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

Reports

Stfu1989

Stfu1989 (talk · contribs)

While technically not an egregious violation worth of UAA, the intention of the initials is my concern. I have left a notice on the user's page, encouraging them to create a new account (as well as a CSD notice for the article they created). My concern is that harmonious editing with this name would be difficult, as the name could be used to tell others to "shut up". ^Ariel♥Gold 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Feed The Dereks

Do Not Feed The Dereks (talk · contribs)

Seems to be a sock of:

The Good Word of Derek (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Ghost of Derek (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

He has admitted his identity on a couple administrator's pages: Riana and Melancholia. Would be hard to report this at UAA as the "name" is not offensive, and if there is a sock reporting page, my advanced apologies for not having that bookmarked. Hoping someone can help here or direct me to the proper place for the report. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP is the way to go. Viridae ^Talk 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks for the report though. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Defence Force

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 and invited to create a new account Viridae ^Talk 09:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Defence Force (talk · contribs)

Misleading usernames: Usernames that imply the user is an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia, or of the Wikimedia Foundation. User has reverted an instance of vandalism, which is good, but may be seen as an administrator, or other "official" within Wikipedia. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'administrator' is not mentioned. I don't consider this a vio. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policy doesn't specify that the word administrator needs to be in the name, only that the implication is they are an "official figure on Wikipedia", if someone with this name warned me as a newcomer, I'd surely think they were an official "Defense enforcer" ^Ariel♥Gold 11:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that...but its really the word defence...I guess it could...I see your point. I'm on the border. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just the British spelling of Defense, the meaning is the same, yes? I'm torn as well, which is why I brought it here, rather than put a notice on the fellow's talk page, or anything rash. Still and all, it would bother me as a newbie to see that name "admonishing" me, and possibly scare me away completely if I'd made a silly mistake, for fear of being banned or some such. Definitely a quandary, since he obviously has good intentions. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no - I use British english. I won't say anything more. It's clear you see my reasoning, and that I see yours. Lets just see what others think... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it violates policy. It might make some people think it is an official position in Wikipedia. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be misleading to new editors to the project, who may have little or no sense of how it is run. We are not a bureaucracy. Arky^¡Hablar! 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this, but it's not blatant enough to warrant a block. Someone should talk to the user about a name change with a suggestion that means something similar without violating policy, such as "Unofficial Wiki Defender". SamBC(talk) 14:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a violation, I don't see any people being confused by this. GDonato (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagine you are a newbie, and an edit of yours has been reverted by the "Wiki Defence Force". A newbie may think that it is some official position within Wikipedia that "defends" the wiki. While this is obviously not a violation of WP:U, it may still be a good idea to change the username to reduce confusion. Mel sa ran 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that it is a violation under general point 2, misleading usernames, as people have indicated (I'm just citing the general point). SamBC(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see my brain was in a muddle before - I kind of read this wrong. Thoughts of a Wikipedia army came into my head (=]), I sort of forgot about the inferred authority and adminness [sic] of such a name. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a name change to the user. SamBC(talk) 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is not a clear violation, but I would also recommend a name change. I would not force it though. Until (1 == 2) 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with it and wouldn't unblock if someone blocked it. Secretlondon 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too aggressive for my liking and does seem to imply some sort of official "role account". The concern about biting should edits be reverted by this user seems well-founded. Like Secretlondon I would have no objection to a block, but I agree that the name change route is preferable if that can be achieved. WjBscribe 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It 'feels' like an "official" wiki name, thus is a policy vio. It's also, IMO, a poor name that will attract trolling and vandalism. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd just shoot him a dirty look or two and grit my teeth, though I wouldn't call it severe enough for a forced change. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems potentially misleading to me. — The Storm Surfer 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to thank everyone who has given their thoughts on this, and just say that this is a perfect example of the usefulness of WP:RFCN, and in this case, extremely helpful. Thank you everyone. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems misleading to me, especially to a newbie. I know that I would look twice at any edit that was reverted by someone with this name. I'd even go so far as to force a change on this one. --Haemo 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely strikes me as an allusion to an official position within the Wikipedia power structure. Yes, there is hardly any such thing, but the last thing I want is someone with an official-sounding username running around scaring newbies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Www.funnyperson.uh

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, but with no limits on asking them nicely if they would mind changing their account. Viridae ^Talk 09:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.funnyperson.uh (talk · contribs) Someone reported this username on WP:UAA, but it was removed because the website doesn't actually exist, so it couldn't be "promotional". However, I think that URLs in usernames in general are confusing, and we should avoid them, regardless of promotional intent. Thoughts? Mel sa ran 14:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that might be logical, it isn't supported by policy. I'm copying below my points from Melsaran's talk page for wider attention (rather than waste time drafting the same points again in different words):

Hi, I removed this username again because it isn't a violation of policy; the policy states that all removals must be based on one of the (5) general criteria. Promotional usernames are a general case, but the example of web addresses says they are only likely to be promotional. A non-existent address is clearly not promotional, so the general case does not apply.

Also, it could never be a web address, as .uh is a non-existent TLD. WP:U says "Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies", with one general reason being "Promotional usernames that attempt to promote a group or company on Wikipedia", and one example being "web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional" (emphasis added). This is why one of the bots does a check on the domain to see if it gives a valid HTTP response, or even exists. SamBC(talk) 14:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really rewrite policy here, the only thing there is against web addresses is the possibility they might be promotional. You can try to start a discussion at WT:U to gauge if there is a consensus to add this case to the policy (even if I don't think there will be). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the URL doesn't exist, it still seems promotional. However, it isn't a blatant violation, so the user should just change their name. Arky^¡Hablar! 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This reduces confusion. Mel sa ran 14:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would (and will) recommend a name change, but seeming promotional isn't a violation of policy. I shall point out to the user that the easy misinterpretation may lead to difficulties. If they want to keep it, though, I can't see how the policy can forbid it. SamBC(talk) 15:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site can come up and down at the owners behest. This is promotional even if there is no website there right now. It almost seems like an overly literal interpretation of policy to let this one pass. What about 2 months from now when there is a website there, do we then consider him an established user? Until (1 == 2) 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, that would seem unlikely, as .uh isn't a valid TLD :-) Mel sa ran 15:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if .uh is not a TLD, then I say... it is not technically in violation of policy. Just remember be don't just ban advertising so that companies don't get promoted, we also do it because it looks ugly to have ads all over. This looks like spam, even if it is not and will have the same negative effect. Perhaps policy needs to be reworded. Until (1 == 2) 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way you feel, then perhaps you should try to get policy reworded so that "promotional usernames" becomes "promotional usernames, or ones that seem so". That would be a bad change to my mind, though. SamBC(talk) 15:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference anywhere, including wikipedia's list of TLDs and IANA's list, to any .uh TLD. In that case, the site can't exist. SamBC(talk) 15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I have recommended to the user that they change username, but made clear that it's just to avoid possible confusion. SamBC(talk) 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of policy, clear and simple. Website. Jmlk 1 7 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a website, and can't be unless .uh is ever adopted as a TLD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one, though. And that may be confusing. Mel sa ran 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence suggesting to them that a change of username might be wise, but no actual sanctions, as it hasn't actually violated policy. Jmlk17 was obviously confused as well. You agreed with this earlier - are you changing your position, or restating the concern? SamBC(talk) 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with you :-) but I just restated the reason why it would be helpful if he changed his name. Shouldn't force it, though, as it's not technically a policy violation. Mel sa ran 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of what policy, Jmlk17? WP:U only mentions websites as an example of "promotional usernames", and this is neither a website nor promoting anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a valid website, ever, so there's no true violation to deal with here. We can recommend the user change their name, but that's all we should do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably recommend him changing, but I don't really see a big deal with this username, unless its starts spamming or something. --Haemo 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 He has admitted his identity on a couple administrator's pages: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Riana&diff=prev&oldid=151082678 Riana] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melancholia&diff=prev&oldid=151082809 Melancholia]. Would be hard to report this at UAA as the "name" is not offensive, and if there is a sock reporting page, my advanced apologies for not having that bookmarked. Hoping someone can help here or direct me to the proper place for the report. Thanks! <sup>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="CC66FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]]<font color="FF0000">♥</font>[[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="0066CC">'''Gold'''</font>]]</sup> 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 :[[WP:SSP]] is the way to go. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
+::Yep. Thanks for the report though. :) -- <strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 03:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 ===Wiki Defence Force===