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

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary. There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

IReceivedDeathThreats

IReceivedDeathThreats (talk · contribs)

Has been discussed already at AN/I; this is the best forum for this. A little too in-your-face? Some think so, even if there's nothing in it that could otherwise violate the policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy violation comes in its disruptiveness, regardless of intent. With the myriad possibilities available, there's no reason that a user name that includes "death threats", even if it is not intended to be disruptive by the user, needs to be allowed. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually quite lenient when it comes to usernames, I really am - but after looking at the userpage and then staring at the username, I've come to the conclusion that it can be quite disharmonious for editing. I can't foresee all of the possible ramifications, but I think many editors would be mystified, and even a little concerned. Obviously they are if it's been brought to ANI. The name should be changed. There are other ways to achieve anonymity on wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Metroprep

Metroprep (talk · contribs)

Promotional Username, SPA editing only a single article Metropolitan_Preparatory_Academy, also possible meatpuppet account Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this username as a problem. SPA accounts are discouraged, but are not violations of WP:U, especially since I don't get a feeling that the account is spamming. There is no proof of a meatpuppet account. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• SPA != promotional. Company name != promotional. COI != promotional. When are we going to (collectively) get it in our heads, that "having the same name as" != "promotional of" ?? I don't mean to snap at the OP, so please don't take it as such, but it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to report these sorts of names as promotional when the account isn't doing any promotion. Is User:Metroprep spamming Wikipedia in an attempt to drum up some sales? Are they trying to use our bandwidth as free advertising? Are they harming the encyclopedia? No? Then what's the issue? Shereth 19:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the User name Metroprep is only editing the article stated, and once the it was mentioned to the user that Role accounts are not permissible, changed the story from "We are editing" to "I am editing". I think this a bit suspicious. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well a role account is a role account and should be blocked accordingly, and if that's the case you should have brought up that concern rather than just calling it "promotional" ... Shereth 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of figured that came under meatpuppetry (One person editing on behalf of a group). My apologies. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant question is "is this a username concern". Given the nature of the edits, it is not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the others. This is a COI issue more than a username issue. Recommend you report it on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard instead. Also, this user has not been notified of this discussion. This is required. (self-edit: I'm not actually finding the rule where this is required) -kotra (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A note about the RFCN filing isn't required, but some kind of discussion is. The OP did use the {{uw-username}} as suggested. However, in that vein, the instructions here state "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply". The user in question in fact indicated they might be willing to change their user name on their talk page but has not been responded to. Shereth 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user on their talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The only reason I signed up as Metroprep is because this is my first time submitting an article to Wikipedia, and it will likely be the only article I submit. I never realized this was looked down upon. I also said "we" out of error. I'm most definitely the only person using this account. Thank you for your comments. Metroprep (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Ok, so we have a user who hasn't spammed and declares they are not using a role account. They also have not edited since. I am going to assume good faith here. Does anybody object to this discussion being archived? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:16, 28 September 2008 (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 action; There is rough consensus that the username isn't offensive on its face, and given that no trolling has taken place in COS-related articles there is no justification for further action. — Coren ^(talk) 12:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Message From Xenu

Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)

it may be offensive and disharmonious to editing, and while I'm not a fan of Scientology, User:Message From God, User:Message From Allah, and User:Message From Jesus would be blocked due to being equally problematic. --slakr^\ talk / 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

see, that's where I think you are wrong. Scientology do not openly accept the existence of "Xenu", whilst Christianity and the other religions, do. "Xenu" is not a "God" to scientologists, either. Message from XENU^{u, t} 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrators should take a look at the Xenu page, and note that "Members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story.", before coming to a conclusion. Message from XENU^{u, t} 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

From the article, "The Church avoids making mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality...." Now, as much as I think that's not "right," when it comes to editing, I think that a username like User:Message From Xenu would, given that statement, likely be much more inflammatory than harmonious to editing. --slakr^\ talk / 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've had an account for about a month, and nobody has complained the username was not "harmonious to editing". I really don't see the problem with it. Message from XENU^{u, t} 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't strike me as being particularly problematic. Nothing in the contribution history to suggest the user intends to seriously imply s/he is or has a "message from Xenu". The off chance that one or two folks might find it offensive is not a compelling reason to me to force a name change. For the record, I personally would not have a problem with a hypothetical User:Message From God either, so long as they weren't being disruptive about it. My sense here is to allow the user name. Shereth 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Clearly a problematic username, even if it did get by under the radar for a month (not the best defense, quite frankly). I don't know much about that religion, but picking a significant entity from any religion and prefacing it with "Message from..." seems more disruptive than creative. The account should be given the opportunity to select another username; if he or she chooses to not avail themselves of the opportunity, they should be blocked.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with J. While no one has complained yet, that does not mean they have not been offended. I see that you are active in vandal patrol and newbies might not know our policies or even how to complain. If all you were doing was editing articles on Disney movies or your favorite X-men character I would probably lean towards being OK with it, but with that type of exposure you get with vandal patrol I think it is best to change it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't find anything particularly offensive about the name, and I kinda' doubt many people would. However, chances are pretty good that if the Church of Scientology finds out about this, Message, you're gonna' be getting hell for it from them. So I highly suggest you voluntarily change your name before you get noticed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have to echo much of the above. In practice we don't conventionally block usernames that mention Jesus, God or any other figurehead that is important to the Abrahamic faiths. I see nothing offensive about this whatsoever. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like User:GodDelusion, User:God doesn't exist, User:Jesustrashcan, User:Mylordjesus, User:Jesusinmysock, User:Satan xtreme, or User:Satan? Because they were all blocked for being disruptive religious usernames...   user:j    (aka justen)   22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Small thing, but User:God doesn't exist was actually blocked as a sockpuppet. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kinda.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Allah. -kotra (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to qualify my statement, we shouldn't be blocking such names. In fact, I have a major problem with administrators that hardblock usernames simply because they mention a religious/spiritual figure. The practice, while not all that prolific or rampant, seriously needs to stop. I will reiterate though, it isn't conventional, and I see absolutely no problem with this particular username. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89, if you couldn't tell by the usernames I listed above, the blocking of disruptive religious usernames is by precedent and convention. The username policy specifically states that usernames which are disruptive or offensive can and should be blocked. For this person to have picked the name of an entity or force which a religion considers to be some sort of evil is clearly disruptive, intentionally or otherwise. Your opinion here doesn't override years of precedent for disallowing disruptive religious usernames.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The usernames you listed above are vastly different than the one we are discussing here. If the username is meant/intended to be offensive (God does not exist or some other variation etc.), then it's likely a blockable offense. Simply mentioning venerable names is not. If you feel it is, I suggest we all grow thicker skin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The others, e.g "Satan" or "MyLordJesus", you mentioned absolutely should not have been blocked, and it's a rather poor precedent to set. Regardless, that's not really the point. This reminds me of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in a different incarnation. Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. Just because those names were erroneously blocked does not mean this one should be as well. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such precedent. So you found some examples of names that were blocked (for what I consider quite flimsy reasons). But your data collection is just a bit one-sided -- how about all the religious names that weren't blocked? Besides that, blocking names for religious reasons is a bad idea. It enables people to say "I don't like your religion (or lack of it), so I'm going to get you blocked on UAA". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No significant username concern on my part, and my thinking is along the same lines as Shereth's above. It does not strike me as disruptive, and while there may be a few people who might take offense, that's true for a lot of names. It's clearly different from something like User:DownWithScientology or whatever. --MCB (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no negative connotation whatsoever. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No negative connotation whatsoever? That's entirely your opinion, but I think somebody of that faith would feel quite differently. Based on the editor's comments above, it regrettably seems as though that was, in fact, their intention: to pick a username which practicers of that faith would feel uncomfortable with (due to their apparent lack of public acknowledgement of this "entity"). This User:Message From Xenu is no different from a wouldbe User:Message from Satan. The former should not be allowed, and I have no doubt the latter would not be.   user:j    (aka justen)   05:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I wouldn't disallow User:Message from Satan, either, unless it was used in a disruptive manner. It does not ridicule or disparage Christians, and is merely the name of a mythical figure with various cultural connotations. --MCB (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't block anyone just because some religion or cult would take issue with their username. The list of names that would offend someone with some belief system is ginormous, so you couldn't reliably enforce such a rule if it existed. Instead, it would be selectively enforced (and it has, unfortunately, several times in the past). This means that anyone can boot a user professing an ideology they disagree with by shouting "I'm offended!" at UAA. We should not allow ourselves to be used as a tool in religious battles. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We were "used" as a "tool" the second User:Message From Xenu created his username. Based on what he's said above, it looks like he selected this specific username with a complete understanding that it could or would be inflammatory to a particular group of people. The difference isn't that this is a username with a incidental, innocent, or casual reference to mythology or religion; it is a username that specifically invokes (and based on the account's comments above, it appears to have been intended to invoke) a controversial and sinister "entity" that this group of people apparently find reprehensible.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: Wikipedia wasn't "used" as a "tool". I just wanted to create a user account, and I noted that my original choices were already chosen. I got this username from my imagination, on the most part. Message from XENU^{u, t} 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't Block Regardless of the precedent in the past, no user thus far has complained about the edits made by the user in question, the user is contributing to WP. Would we block "Message from The Flying Spaghetti Monster" because it would offend Fundamentalist Christians? The Church of Scientology claims it's fiction (The Whole Xenu story), and "Not Recognizable" (From the mouth of the PR rep for the Church). So, it's completely denied by them, therefore not a religious figure, therefore can't be offensive to them. Blocking based the use of a religious figure is a moot point anyways, if one were to read anything contrary to their religious views, they would be offended (To include my FSM example). So, it's not policy to block user names like this, but purely precedent, and a bad one at that. Groupsisxty (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment, quite frankly, is about as ridiculous as they come. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not an evil spiritual being in any religion, as far as I know. According to the article on Xenu, their religion does not usually discuss the matter with outsiders, that doesn't mean they consider it to be fictional.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate, the PR REP (Tommy Davis) stated in regards to Xenu on CNN, "That just sounds silly. Does it sound silly to you?" Not much of a point when official PR for the church states it's silly, rather than offensive. And the FSM is the antithesis to "Intelligent Design" and therefore according to many Judeo Christian theist offensive. So, regardless of what WP's article states about Xenu, the Church of Scientology has stated that the Xenu story is "silly" not offensive. Groupsisxty (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. According to the article, many followers of Scientology believe "Xenu" is some sort of evil spiritual being. The creator of the username appears to have been aware of that fact, and appears to have chosen the username specifically to exploit the lack of transparency from Scientology on the matter. Now, you believe that, as best as I can tell, that the existence of a religious parody "Flying Spaghetti Monster", eliminates the username policy's non-offensive, non-disruptive requirement because someone could create User:Message From FSM. A parody username of a parody religion is not what we're talking about here.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're re-arranging my argument. The username can't possibly be considered when the followers in questions have deemed it "silly" not offensive. And no, I am not arguing the "No Offensive Username" policy, I am arguing the precedent set by deeming usernames with religious figures as offensive, by default. Have user's complained about it being offensive? How many users? Seems the only complaint is not due it being offensive, but based on a precedent and not on a policy it should be banned outright.Groupsisxty (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't really seem to be a problem here. Per WP:IU, there is no evidence shown that this name will cause disruption to the Wikipedia population at large, as it is neither promoting nor denigrating a particular belief or religion. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see an issue here. If the editor was trolling Scientology-related articles with this kind of username, I'd be more concerned, but I don't see that occurring. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think Wisdom89 has said pretty much everything I'm about to say but here come my 2 cents anyways. If the name is not specifically intended to be offensive, then we shouldn't worry too much about who gets offended. There are immeasurably more followers of Islam in this world who would and do take offense to the images of Muhammad on this site (as evidenced by the template warnings on Talk:Muhammad and the numerous discussions at Talk:Muhammad/images) yet those images will not be removed because their benefit to the project outweighs the hurt feelings of those complaining about them. Similarly, Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology#Christianity gives some insight into why certain sects of Christianity consider the Wolf as a metaphor for Satan or evil in general. There are a few users on WP:WBE with the word wolf contained in their username which could, potentially, be seen as offensive to the religious beliefs of certain Christians but whose names are not disallowed because the intent to offend wasn't a factor in choosing that username. The most prolific non-bot editor on the entire Wikipedia is User:Bearcat who professes his sexual orientation within his username. There are countless religions and their offshoots whose followers are likely more than slightly offened by his username. This username was also not chosen with the intent to offend. Bottom line is this: there may be many, many possibilities why an editor chose a reference to Xenu in their username and most of those reasons are not meant to offend. This editor might just be a fan of L. Ron Hubbard works of fiction or he could be a fan of the Scottish band The Truth Rockets whose most famous song is called Message from Xenu. If we go out and look for reasons why someone might be offended by a username, we will inevitably find a reason. In this case, I'm unconvinced that there is a good reason to block/disallow/force to rename. I say leave him be. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Don't Block According to WP:IU, Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible. I don't see how this user name could possibly make editing difficult or impossible. Additionally, since the scientologists have disclaimed it, banning it would lead to the principle, Ban usernames that we think other people may find offensive, regardless of what they themselves say, which just seems ridiculous. lk (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't strike me as offensive - it's neither derisory nor blasphemous. Orderinchaos 17:50, 17 September 2008 (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.

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.

---

VoA-blocked. That is all. WODUP 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin08

Palin08 (talk · contribs)

Username misleadingly implies connection to Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election. The one edit remaining in the user's visible edit history is a disparagement of the candidate. Other "User: Palin" names have been taken over by the project. The contributor should be required to change their username and this name be taken over by the project.-- Suntag (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty obvious WP:U vio here. I don't see how it could be construed to be even remotely non-promotional. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This should probably go to WP:UAA. - Icewedge (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be the last word. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2008 (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.

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.

---

Blocked by User:Exploding Boy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

SunshineriotAdmin

SunshineriotAdmin (talk · contribs)

It contains the "Admin" string, which makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia, and it created a page, Sunshine riot, which was quickly speedied, so violates promotional clause too . No further contribs. My username query has been in place on their talk page for over a week without response. I don't like biting newcomers, and they are doing no harm at present, but technically they are in violation of policy. Time for WP:UAA now, or leave it until they edit again without responding? Karenjc 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about this name. They have no contributions beyond what was speedied. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Further review may be warranted pending further edits. We'll see. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that all names containing "Admin" are unsuitable, only where there is potential for confusion--this name seems to claim that they are an admin on Sunshine Riot, not at WP. And to take an extreme example, User:badmintonhist. Ma^t_chups 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Under Choosing a username, the policy states: "Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts." Seems pretty clear to me, and this name seems very likely to create the impression that the user is an admin. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now that the user has continued to edit, and another editor has inquired about the name, this discussion should remain open. They should also be notified of this RfC. As it stands, if they refuse to change it, I'm afraid that the name isn't suitable any longer as it definitely can imply authority on Wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wisdom: new editors would think that admins have a tag in their username, mistaking Sunshineriot for one. · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Notified user about this discussion on their talk page. Karenjc 15:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear cut violation, we don't allow usernames with the word admin in them. Chillum 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding of policy, hence my original question - I just wanted to know at what point it would be fair to list it at UAA. If the user doesn't respond to the notification of this discussion within a reasonable time, I guess I'll just go ahead and do it anyway. Karenjc 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote above says "should not," rather than "may not." Should User:Badmintonhist be asked to change ter name as well? If we really didn't allow that at all, wouldn't it be on the username blacklist with "fuck," etc.? Also, the user has no nondeleted contributions, making this entire discussion somewhat superfluous. Ma^t_chups 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is technically not that it contains the string "admin", it's that it contains the string "admin" and it's easily interpreted to mean "Admin" or "Administrator". I doubt any who looks at "Badmintonhist" will think it means "B Admin Tonhist" or whatever. -kotra (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, check out my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Accidental_irrelevant_violations. If that's accepted, I will drop my objections to citing this username as a violation. Ma^t_chups 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked it out, it seems good (I've commented there). I don't know if you need to wait for a change from "should not" to "must not", because "should not" is sort of open to interpretation. -kotra (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the user begins editing again, they should be asked to change their name. In fact we had a far more borderline case here "Adminster" which also resulted in a request for the user to change their name. –xeno (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Matchups, do you not think this is already obvious, as explained above? Nobody's going to see the username "BadmintoFan" and think that person's an admin, simply because that string of letters is in the name. SunshineriotAdmin should have been usernameblocked a long time ago as a clear violation; they can pick a new name if they return. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This may well be a good faith username, but it is still a clear violation, and should be usernameblocked unless the user is prepared to change his name immediately. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why there's a discussion. The name implied the person is an admin, when they aren't. Should usernameblock and pick a new name if they wish. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The user had 3 edits to his name: all inappropriate page creations, all deleted. I've usernameblocked him as should have been done immediately. If he wants to return and edit usefully, which looks doubtful at this point anyway, he can easily pick a new user name. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Close template added. Please remember to do this if you intend to bring finality to discussions in future. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 7 September 2008 (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.

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.

MixnetARN

MixnetARN (talk · contribs)

An Wiki Admin seems to think that the username isn't promotional which the username is clearly inappropriate promotional username which is a violation, since it seems that editor could work for ARN (Australian Radio Network) which owns a number of stations branded as Mix. Some of those who may think the the user name is ok it's not as net stands for network (IE: Mix Network ARN) Bidgee (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the administrator referred to above. It is my opinion that the user name is not promotional - the username policy does not forbid the user of company/organization names as a user name. The user's edit pattern is indicative of potential conflict of interest issues, but are not overtly promotional or spammy. Lastly, the editor has been semi-active and making edits for over 4 months without a complaint regarding either spamming or username issues. I don't see how an account making largely constructive edits for 4 months without complaint is suddenly a username issues that needs blocking. Shereth 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded that this is not UAA material. No opinion on whether or not a name-change is necessary yet. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what this is? Clearly spamming. Just becuase the account has been missed in the last four months means that we don't take action. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that spamming. The user just added the radio station's schedule. It may not be notable enough for inclusion, but it's not spamming. -kotra (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should first be attempted with the user. I see nothing on their talk page that anyone has raised any concerns with them. Please read the last bullet point and the paragraph that follows in the instructions above. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a WP:COI issue moreso than a username violation. The diff provided above does not convince me that the user's intent is to spam. There is no restriction that a user cannot pick a company/entity name for their alias, as long as it isn't being used maliciously (with the intent to spam or advertise in this case). Besides, the user should have been asked to change their name before creating this request. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The user was given a COI warning twice (April 2008 and August 2008) and I'll guarantee you that even if the user is requested to change their name that they will continue to edit without changing their user name. Many others who have done the same as this user have been blocked in the past. Bidgee (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The August one is from you yesterday. So you took the time to warn them about COI but not to tell them you have a beef with their user name? There will be no action taken on this RFC without the user being given the chance to comment and make a voluntary change if needed. This should be closed until the proper process is utilized. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, this user should probably change usernames. Actually, I feel the reverse from Wisdom: in this case, while there is a conflict of interest, it seems that the edits the user is actually making are all reasonable: they are making uncontroversial changes to existing articles only. But the username is a problem... I don't think it's too promotional, but it does have all the other problems: it suggests a role account, and it sounds like an official representative account. However, that said, I say allow. This listing is inappropriate because the problem hasn't been discussed with the user at all. They deserve a fair chance to be told about the problem and to address it. Mangojuice^talk 05:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the direct above. A username change should be strongly encouraged here, to prevent these COI concerns from growing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The user should choose a less promotional name, not just encouraged but required. Chillum 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled, so I motion that it be archived. If the user starts to edit again, and they are either opposed to a name change or just unresponsive to the comments on his/her talk page, then the issue can then be raised again. Sound ok? -kotra (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been two weeks since the last time the user edited. If it continues in the same vein, this can be reopened or a block administered. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:31, 9 September 2008 (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.