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.

Fūkkenwulf

Fūkkenwulf (talk · contribs)

User's own talk page claims the name "refers to the act mammals of the order carnivora copulating in German", and gives an obscenity as a guide to its pronunciation. User made a short run of minor edits (not labeled as such) on October 6, and has been inactive since. Has not replied to my username query on his talk page. Zephyrad (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Newjunkees

Newjunkees (talk · contribs)

User active in March and April of this year; made some edits to New Monkees and other articles. Has not been active since my username query to him in April, which he also never answered. "Junkie" is not something appropriate to base one's username on, IMO. Zephyrad (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Junkee doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation - it could simply refer to someone who is passionate about something, - or obsessed with a pop culture fad. Also, if they are not active, then it's really not an issue, especially since they aren't going to be able to participate in this discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GodLovesTheIrish

GodLovesTheIrish (talk · contribs)

Possibly disruptive. Editor is apparently here to correct some perceived bias in the use of the word Anglo-Irish and other general cultural issues, judging by his user page [1], comments made on my talk page, and comments to Ireland based users [2]. I requested a change of name on his talk page [3], which has been ignored [4]. The discussion might become moot because he might get banned for trolling soon anyway, he doesn't seem interested in actually editting any articles as yet. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the username is a problem, we just have to see what he does with it. He hasn't edited an article yet, so if all he's going to do is bring things up on a talk page, I don't like it's much of a problem. Grsz^Review! 14:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't see any potential for disruption if User:GodLovesTheIrish is in a heated discussion with User:GodHatesTheIrish on an Irish related talk page? MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is no such account as User:GodHatesTheIrish? No, I don't see the potential for disruption. Shereth 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I must echo Shereth. Anybody can conjure up potentially disruptive scenarios, but given that said user does not even exist, it's a stretch to apply it to this situation. The name, as it stands, is not disruptive. Also, the user should be notified of this discussion if they have not been already. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:24, 23 October 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.

The result was: blocked; see last comment.

---

--MCB (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary O'Connor

Mary O'Connor (talk · contribs)

Editor's only contributions have been to add false information to Hugh Hefner, primarily claiming that he was dead (and to remove citations from that article). This is a username problem because "Mary O'Connor" is also the name of Hugh Hefner's secretary, as seen on the television show The Girls Next Door. After I posted a message to the editor's talk page about their username, the editor went on to make the same claim of Hefner's death again without making any response to the username issue. Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Mary O'Connor at IMDb for the person that this editor appears to be impersonating. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• The edits themselves qualify as vandalism and should be treated as such. As far as impersonation goes .. this one is a bit iffy. Primarily I am unconvinced that Ms. O'Connor is insufficiently "well known" and all else being equal, I would likely suggest allowing the use of the name, but this case is a bit different due to the subject of the edits. It isn't a username issue per se although I have a feeling that the user either will never edit again, or if they do return, it will only be to make unconstructive edits. Shereth 13:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• If no explanation is given soon by the user, I suggest a block as a precautionary measure, for both vandalism (the guy was alive as of yesterday) and a probably inappropriate username. Given the nature of their edits, it seems highly likely that the name is being used to impersonate the specific Mary O'Connor associated with Playboy (who, though perhaps not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, still appears to be a well-known figure among those who watch The Girls Next Door). This does seem like a sort of borderline case, but in the interests of protecting the real Mary O'Connor (and preventing confusion among editors) a precautionary block seems to be in order. -kotra (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Whether the person is well known or not is a matter of subjective debate. However, I feel that in this particular instance it bears little relevance since the user in question has made edits that imply, or would otherwise confuse others into thinking, that they are indeed this individual. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Blocked. We routinely softblock in a case like this, pending OTRS verification of the identity of the user. This is a relatively mandatory policy action related to WP:BLP. If someone uses a real-name type username of a public or semi-public figure, and edits articles related to the subject of the figure's field of activities, the chance of impersonation is very high. So if they're an impersonator they will remain blocked. And if they are the person in question, and using their account to post violations of WP:BLP, they will also remain blocked. --MCB (talk) 20:46, 23 October 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.

---

Cabrasucker

Cabrasucker (talk · contribs) Result - No action. Consensus points to non-violation of WP:U. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"sucker" is often meant in a suggestive way; this name has been questioned at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't possibly see how this name would be an issue - disruptive or offensive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, it's an obvious reference to the chupacabra, which literally means "Goat (cabra) sucker". Without any evidence to demonstrate disruptive intent, I can't in good faith call this user name disruptive or offensive, either. I say allow it. Shereth 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is not offensive and does not violate WP:USERNAME - allow Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "sucker" is often meant in a suggestive way, so this must mean every use of the word must be exactly that? Shereth has already, kindly explained the meaning of my username, so I'll not both repeating what's already been said. Thank you all for your contributions. Cabrasucker (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be easy to make sure that's assumed by putting some sort of note to the effect on your userpage. I suggest something clever, but I'm at a loss to come up with a good one. The name isn't an issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

With apologies to Shereth who identified the reference for sure, it is also a redirect Goat sucker. Next they'll haul away poor users Tootsiesucker and Thumbsucker (the latter of which has made user Thumbsucker-UK cry). Shenme (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks lifebaka, I've used your idea and my userpage now contains an explanation. This includes the redirect mentioned by Shenme (thanks for the heads up). Cabrasucker (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that explanation, it helps even though it probably isn't needed. If any administrator wants to close/archive this discussion, I think the consensus is established that the name is fine. -kotra (talk) 18:11, 15 October 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.

---

Qwerspam

Qwerspam (talk · contribs)

Currently usernameblocked and requests unblock; see talk. Please review. As for me, I can't see how this username violates policy.  Sandstein  22:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion on the user's talk page, currently. I'm not sure if it's preferable to continue here or there; guess I'll go wherever the talking is or moves to. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no violation here, myself. Shereth 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those borderline usernames that, to me, aggravates disruptive behavior but is not a problem if the user edits constructively. I'd be inclined to let it go. Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Daniel - on the surface, there is a tinge of disruptive potential, but certainly not enough to warrant a block, and especially not if the user is acting in good faith. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to me to block a user just because they have 'spam' embedded in their username. I suggest immediate unblocking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Martin Hogbin. Should be unblocked, sooner rather than later. -kotra (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now looked around a bit - background rather than reasons to block? Did you know QW could be QuakeWorld, and that players could refer to themselves as QWers? Or that, yes, this is the English Wikipedia, but we don't have to blatantly antagonize others, such as Mark Qwers from Ukraine. Or somebody from Turkey whose userid is 'qwers' (and no, I have no idea why). How about a guy who may or may not have a band named qwer, but has a MySpace music profile since 2006. Oh, he shouldn't talk to qwer from Japan as she's not a fan of anybody. Or this guy from Czech Republic.

So what am I going on about? Well just that if you can get past the possibility that Qwer is 'queer' (apparently a recent slang that I suppose a goodly portion of users just might not know about), the idea that this just might be Qwer's Pam should really have crossed someone's mind. Oh, look, it could and did, just not soon enough.

This was a bad block. Look to a user's contributions and not to a too-vivid imagination. Do you doubt that a bad editor will 'out' themselves? Shenme (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Above rant was 'somewhat' unneeded, as user had already been unblocked 02:03, 11 October 2008 by User:Ioeth. Close RFCN? Shenme (talk) 23:23, 12 October 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.

---

Thaksin

No action per Thaksin Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an editor under the wikipedia username "Thaksin". However, there is comment on my username that is in repetitive with Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand. The comment also doubt whether my username is in conflict with the wikipedia's policy on username.

I may suggest that the word "Thaksin" is a common word in Thai language, which has 2 meanings. According to the Official Thai Dictonary of 1999 compiled by the Royal Institute of Thailand, the word can mean "the south direction" or "southern". The other meaning is "the right hand side." Nevertheless the word "Thaksin" is the first name of many Thai people; It is very common in Thailand to find a person with his first name of "Thaksin". The word "Thaksin" is also a prefix in Thai language: you can add Thaksin- in front of certian words to make new words.

Please notice that using the word "Thaksin" alone (without his surname) did not resemble such person. If there exist a wikipedia user under the name of "Shinawatra", such action actually resemble such person and also his family. I deny the doubt on the ground that I use the name with good faith, as you can see in my edit history (contribution page). There is no political conviction to be found there, you can found only economics contents however contained a little relatedness with politic and/or political situation in Thailand. No intention to defame nor exaggerate such person nor provoke misleading to anyone, as I edit only on economic issues.

I don't think that using of the name will result in the breach of the username policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaksin (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be easily rectified if the user simply indicates on his/her userpage that they are not said real person - this should alleviate any concerns. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, I can't see this as being a "disruptive" username... It would be like User:Joe coming up because of Joe Biden. We wouldn't ask Joe to even add a statement of disambiguation to his page. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No username concern. Thaksin is a word in Thai, and a given name. I can't imagine any reasonable confusion with the notable figure. Paranormal Skeptic's "Joe" example is a good analogy. --MCB (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Paranormal Skeptic and MCB, no need to change username. I don't think the user needs to indicate that he is not Thaksin Shinawatra, unless other users get confused. -kotra (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - if there is future confusion, then a disclaimer may be needed. At the moment, it's not necessary. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally disagree that any disclaimer is needed. It is a very common Thai username , apparently, so I find any confusion very improbable. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AD, I concede that it is a commonly used Thai name, however, this is the English language Wikipedia, and such distinctions aren't as obvious - which is why, I am assuming, this was brought up on the user's talk page to begin with. Nevertheless, unless there was growing concern, disclaimer completely unnecessary. In fact, I think this discussion could probably be closed : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a common name in Thailand and therefore it's not disruptive. The idea that a disclaimer should be placed on the editor's userpage is overly fussy and unnecessary. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close as allow. We talked about this before. Thaksin. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:24, 7 October 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.