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

Criminalshooting

Criminalshooting (talk · contribs)

The impression I get from this user name is that it refers to criminal shooting episodes, like school shootings. I therefore think that it violates the rule on usernames referring to real-world violence. The user has not responded to my concern after 4 days. Gandoman 20:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It could also say "criminals hooting." I say give it a pass.TortureIsWrong 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it says that, but I still don't think this is blatant enough to warrant a block. Might want to keep an eye on them, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's going to be often read as a name describing real-world violence. TortureIsWrong, it's not our job to make excuses for users. Leebo ^T/C 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not our "job" to nitpick, either. My own username was the target of a misguided ban attempt based on this "violence" nonsense. That one failed, and so should this one. TortureIsWrong 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm nitpicking, but you're right that's not what we're here to do. Leebo ^T/C 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

except that it's usually nitpicky cases that get referred here. Others are clear - ask for change, force change, or allow. Dan Beale 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Refers to a violent real-life action, block as it may be offensive to many- despite the fact there are no contribs. GDonato (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• The user should be strongly encouraged to chose a different name, (perhaps criminals_hooting?) and shown the username policy. criminalshooting -to me- refers to a real world violent action and is a blockable name. Dan Beale 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• While the creative interpretation of "criminals hooting" is quite a stretch, I'm not sure it's actually promoting or endorsing an action. By itself, would the user name "Murder" be blockable? —dgies^t_c 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Under the current policy; yes. GDonato (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Really? As of right now it reads "Usernames that promote or endorse real-world violent actions.". I seem to recall previously the words "refer to" were in there but may have been dropped over cases like TortureIsWrong. —dgies^t_c 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • My apologies, the policy has, indeed, changed since I last read it in full and I do not think that this name promotes or endorses the action so it should be allowed. GDonato (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could sound funny under certain contexts. No biggie. NikoSilver 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could be doesn't mean should be allowed. Unquestionable violation of Usernames that promote or endorse real-world violent actions. The Evil Spartan 00:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not even close to unquestionable, since several people are questioning it. You're so clearly mistaken it's not funny. Does naming something promote or endorse it? That's amazingly poor logic. TortureIsWrong 00:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would give this user name the thumbs up. It falls under the same logic as TIW's name. It might describe a form of violence, but under "Usernames that promote or endorse real-world violent actions," this user name is not promoting violence. I'd allow the name. T_{Talk to me} 02:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Except "tortureiswrong" includes the phrase "iswrong" and thus clearly doesn't promote torture. "criminalshooting" isn't quite as clear. Dan Beale 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• On further reflection, strong disallow. Between about March 30th and April 2nd, there was substantial rewording of the violence clauses of the username policy. These subtly altered the meaning so as to permit names which refer to violent real-world actions, and this substantive change doesn't seem to have gone through any consensus process on the talk page but just slipped in without notice. There were discussions about rewording things, but nobody said "let's make referring to violent real world actions permitted". Referring to violent real-world actions via user name has been prohibited for a long time and in the spirit of bold-revert-discuss I'd like to fall back on longstanding consensus. —dgies^t_c 04:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• If it is about criminals shooting, or criminals being shot, it is a reference to real world violence and should not be allowed per our policy. ^(H) 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Apparently, the policy has changed and it has to be a promotion or endorsement now, not just a reference. GDonato (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that change came in without discussion during a reformatting of the policy. Regardless I think the name is still in violation of the spirit of the rule. If the name was "Cop punching" it would not even be an issue, and frankly I think this one is just as bad. The undiscussed policy change was a mistake that needs to be fixed. ^(H) 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree; I also think this violates the spirit of the rule but not the letter. GDonato (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have returned the undiscussed removal of the rule. If this person is disallowed at all it should be done by the spirit of the rules his name was created under, not the letter of the rules that I just restored. ^(H) 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Based on that, there seems to be a general agreement that the original change was undiscussed and under "refer to", I would say speedy disallow GDonato (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dan Beale said the magic words. Indeed, this does not say "is wrong", but looks like it promotes either criminals to be shot or criminals to shoot. Both are real world violent actions and I fail to see any further hidden meaning that could serve as an excuse. I change my mind and find it disallowable for that reason. NikoSilver 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, it most certainly does not endorse or promote anything - at worst, it's neutral. A name like "WorldWar3" would be acceptable under the rule AS WRITTEN, and so is this one. TortureIsWrong 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Dan and Niko... I don't see how this could not refer to a real-world violent action. Criminal Shooting also sounds like a legal term to define the criminal act of discharging a weapon, again something that this project need not be associated with. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

이주헌

이주헌 (talk · contribs)

Are you allowed to use foreign characters for a name? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 04:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Before listing a user here, contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username." Please follow the procedure outlined above. Thanks, +A.0u 04:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they're just asking a policy question, not a discussion on that particular name. —dgies^t_c 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, I think the user has the right to know of this discussion. I'll contact the user. +A.0u 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There have been discussions on it and the rough consensus is that while some people find them hard to handle, they're generally allowed unless disruptive in some other way (example: non-english profanity). —dgies^t_c 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If I remember correctly, foreign characters were once discouraged on the English Wikipedia, but I think that policy has since changed. +A.0u 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• They're displaying OK for me, and that's unusual because this machine is fairly poor at foreign characters so I would be inclined to allow, but if someone sees it as ?θ♦ then a change will be needed, GDonato (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Foreign usernames are allowed and there's an effort going on for using one single username across multiple language wikipedias. Users are only requested to kindly tweak their signatures (only) accordingly so as to aid the readers of the respective other wikis. A user-redirect from the transliteration is also handy sometimes. I really don't know what this reads, but if it is acceptable in their language, then it is allowable here no matter how it looks. NikoSilver 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm only seeing ???, and I have no idea what the name is, or what language it is in. I'd install fonts, but I have no idea which ones are missing. Generally I wouldn't care about other character sets, but it's tricky for me to interact with someone called ???. Especially if someone else uses the same character set to call themselves a 3-character name which -to me- will show as ???. Dan Beale 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, that's why s/he has to tweak their sig. FWIW the chars look Korean to me. I'll check about the transwiki-username thing and post links for all (I had first seen it in some discussion here - it must be in the archives). NikoSilver 12:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Check Wikipedia:Username#Signatures for starters (explicitly mentions non-Latin names). NikoSilver 12:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Got it: Single login. Motion to close and ask user for transliterated signature and transliterated username redirect. NikoSilver 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see "???" for what it is worth. ^(H) 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the past, but I'm pretty sure the preferred way of handling it now is to transliterate the name in the signature. Google language tools transliterates "이주헌" as "Immigration it broke." Hmm... perhaps someone who reads Korean could tell us if this name sounds like a soapbox opinion? Leebo ^T/C 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as it is obviously not a slur or something then we must definitely allow it. I suggest the closing admin advises the user to tweak their signature to reflect the meaning or the transliteration of their username, and create a userpage (under the transliterated name or under the meaning of that name) that redirects to their original name. NikoSilver 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Transliteration is Lee Joo-Heon (family name + double given name), a 100% bog-standard Korean name. Deiz talk 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the transliteration. Sounds fine, as long as the user signs stuff as Lee Joo-Heon. Leebo ^T/C 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)