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"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.

---

NotAnOmbudsman

NotAnOmbudsman (talk · contribs)

The username contains "Ombudsman" which could imply a relationship to the Ombudsman commission. The issue has been discussed with the user, and xeno renamed from Wikiombudsman (talk · contribs). — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Allow - I don't think this is a problem. "Wikiombudsman" likely was, but I don't think every use of the term "ombudsman" is, especially when it's "NotAnOmbudsman". Plus, the username change was approved by a Bureaucrat, after all. NTox · talk 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• My processing the request should not be seen as an explicit approval of the destination name; merely a recognition that "NotAnOmbudsman" is better than "Wikiombudsman" and the other requested names. –xeno^talk 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Allow I raised the issue with the original username and I'm glad it was changed, even if to something debatable, because doing things like cleanup and speedy tagging with the original name really is a problem. I don't understand why 'ombudsman' was a seemingly non-negotiable part of this user's username but I don't think it's a policy violation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - I think it is pretty unambiguous and not likely to cause confusion. Into The Fray ^T/C 05:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloudteninfo

Cloudteninfo (talk · contribs)

The name seems rather similar to that of Cloud Ten Pictures, the name of a film company. The user had made edits to that company's article as well as to Paul LaLonde, founder of the company. I've written a polite message on the user's talk page, but I'm hoping an admin can take over from here. Themightyquill (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

.

LoLROFLWTFOMFG

LoLROFLWTFOMFG (talk · contribs)

This user was originally blocked by Diannaa because some of the words in the acronyms in the username are profanities. I handled the user's unblock request and disagreed that it's offensive enough to warrant an immediate block, so we agreed to take the matter here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

LoLROFLWTFOMFG stands for "laugh our loud rolling on the floor laughing what the fuck oh my fucking god", which many people might find objectionable. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow The username itself is typically trollish. Since their contributions seem constructive, renaming should resolve the problem, and I see that it's already in progress. Widr (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Allow I think we are being a bit prudish if block for names that imply "naughty words" without even using them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow - I agree, trollish and disruptive. I think the users tenure would be more pleasant with a re-name. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Disallow Disruptive and pointless. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See, I agree that it is the sort of name a troll might pick. I agree it is "pointless" as well and may cause somse users not to take this person seriously. However, our usernames are not required to have a point. As a matter of fact it is better if they don't. And their editing has not been trolling that I can see. (although I note that is often the case with these proceedings it seems to have had a chilling effect as they have not edited since this was filed, having already been blocked without warning and then unblocked just before it started) I don't see how the mere existence of a name that conatains initialisms that (if you know what they are) contains some "naughty words" is inherently disruptive to the point where the user faces either being blocked or being forced to choose a new name. It seems like an overreaction, and rahter WP:BITEy to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow. This is potentially disruptive. SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Undecided on the merits of the name, but blocking a good-faith editor without warning doesn't seem right even if the username is bad -- shouldn't someone have left them a {{uw-username}}? ekips39 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. While some of the words that the acronym stands for are bad words, they are not fully spelled out in the username, and acronyms like WTF and OMFG are widely used on the Internet without being seen as offensive. I find the username silly, but not offensive or disruptive to the point that it should be disallowed. Belchior90 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Disalow Sounds trollish to me, and slang for profanities should not be in a username. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 23:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• DisallowAgree with rr47, syss, mlpearc, widr and freerange. ―Pikachu2568 ^{/user /pika} 09:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• It saddens me to see so many users willing to block somebody for what everyone agrees is a username that implies four letter words but doesn't actually use them. Are we really this thin-skinned around here now?

Also, this user has not edited since this proceeding was opened eighteen days ago. For such a marginal case with an editor that was apparently scared off permananetly by this (and the premature block that preceeded it) I can't see how a block can possibly be justified at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disallow. Prudishness is not the issue. Implied profanities like this are still deliberate implied profanities, and this, from long experience, suggests with high confidence that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. Changing their username would be a good start for them to change that impression. -- The Anome (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with every word you said, except the first one. Users with names like this are almost always disruptive. This one hasn't been though. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• It has now been 30 days since this user made an edit. I think this can just be closed as moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Beeblebrox -- I don't think this person is coming back, so this is probably best closed. On the off-chance, however, I say we allow the name -- it's childish, but I don't think the profanity implied is really all that sufficiently conscious to people to be a practical problem. NTox · talk 00:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)