Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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

Fenian Swine (talk · contribs)

Due to the length of discussion, it has been moved to a separate subpage which can be found here.

Brine Pepaz (talk · contribs)

User:Brine Pepaz has been editing since mid-March or so. Is his name in violation of anything? It is obviously a reference to Brian Peppers, so I just thought I'd get more feedback. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This user took the opportunity to protest his innocence to me on 19 March. Which was strange as he had not been accused of anything at the time. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which leads me to think User:Ramadanadingdong may be a (another?) sock of his. --Ali'i 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Ramadanadingdong as a name is pretty offensive in and of itself, no? - Alison^☺ 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. The reason I reported neither was that I remembered WP:DENY and WP:BEANS - clearly one user had decided to trollishly create borderline objectionable names, then to bring them to my attention in the hope that I would report them. I guessed if ignored, he would probably go away. This approach worked. Sam Blacketer 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Disallow as vandal sockpuppet per WP:U#Vandal. This is what convinced me. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If he's a vandal, shouldn't he be dealt with on that basis? Changing his name won't deal with that problem. The name itself seems like an obscure play on an in-joke to me.TortureIsWrong 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a little more complex than that - here is a place to start. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. If he should be blocked, it's not because of his name. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow - passed WP:U, whatever about the editor's actions - Alison^☺ 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow - far enough from the Brian Peppers name, but deal with the sock as a vandal. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block- inappropriate username, and given the edit cited by RJASE1, it's clear that his username is in reference to the deleted article. It's a quite clear reference to a living person, and there are very sensitive BLP issues around the deleted article. This should be a clear block. Ral315 » 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow as potential troublemaker per WP:U#Trouble. (change from earlier - sorry) RJASE1 ^Talk 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ban and Ban or we should tolerate "Giorg Bouss", "Bil Klindon", "Stephen Spielburg" etc etc making edits in the respective articles. (The second ban is for being a vandal in the first place). Niko Silver 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another gratutious reference to usage and eventual blockage: BLP/N Daz Sampson. But they've been inactive lately. Oops, nevermind, dragon slain. Shenme 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow - per Mel Etitis. TortureIsWrong 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't believe some editors are recommending "allow." Do we really need to add a special Brian Peppers clause to WP:U? This is just obvious. Leave the guy alone already. No Breien Pfeffers, Prian Beppers, BRyan Pipars, etc. Strongest possible disallow.Proabivouac 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice BEANS ya got there. Now this might be the pia talking, but this user is already blocked... so what is the point of still commenting? --Ali'i 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow - Sigh... more ridiculous allows, all from the same crowd. This is an obvious violation. Thanks for blocking him. The Behnam 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - And they say I'M uncivil! TortureIsWrong 00:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow & Comment User was blocked indefinitely. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow in strong terms and unblock this appears to me like an April Fool joke. The alleged "Brian Peppers" doesn't even exist as an article, so impersonating a non-existent person? I can have a username called "Jay Randolph Lewis IV" or something like that, a made up firstname-lastname combination violates no policy, unless it's a real person. Change to Weak disallow after finding out he actually is a real person. Wooyi 00:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow and Unblock - Brine is an actual word--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Peppers article eventually got SALTed after an RfD and much re-creation [1] - Alison^☺ 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the links - its worse than you can imagine, real person, unreal people wanting to make fun of him. "Brian Peppers" as an ex-article here is infamous. However, just imagine the worst to save yourself the trouble. Shenme 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~No one outside of Wiki insiders know who Brian Peppers is, he is as real as "John Lewis Randolph Robertson III" some sort like that.~~ Wooyi 00:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciations of both names aren't even close. This username is pronounced as "BRYN PEE-pass" There is not even a vague relationship between the two. (keep in mind, that's spoken with an American-Midwestern accent)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Not sure why this is even a question (to people who know anything about Brian Peppers). IronDuke 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and additional information I found this, an outside source that documented the whole Brian Peppers event happened on Wikipedia. If this is Jimbo's decision to delete the article, some of us may disagree (editors decided twice to keep), but I defer to Jimbo's decision to delete, since he is the founder. Wooyi 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]