Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 22 April 2007 (→‎Offshoreholdingco: allow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
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:

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

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 page.

User has agreed to a rename and filed a request. WjBscribe 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony trademark vs dell trademark

Sony trademark vs dell trademark (talk · contribs)

I'm assuming good faith here, but I think that the username might violate username policy in terms of copyright and the fear of suspicion of spamming. I expect the user will be a good contributor (they've already started doing AfDs...) and is amenable to this discussion. --Valley2city₪‽ 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright? Spamming? I just don't see it. It's a very weird username, but I see no reason not to allow it. Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I don't think the name is really that appropriate. Since the user seems to be amiable, I would suggest a name change before he or she gets too far along. It is likely to come up again later, so saving a bit of effort then might be worth it now. The user seems responsive, and may willingly change his name if asked politely. Wouldn't something else be better? --Ali'i 20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't seen it already, there is a discussion going on at WT:U on trademarks that I didn't notice before proposing the username for comment. There are some interesting points being made on both sides that I suggest you read. This very case can perhaps serve as a precedent for what we decide on policy with trademarks. --Valley2city₪‽ 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion isn't that relevant. This isn't so borderline as the examples there; the trademarks clearly refer to the actual companies and their trademarked names, and are intended to. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I have my username revoked, do I get to choose my new name? --Sony trademark vs dell trademark 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC) And keep my old edits? --Sony trademark vs dell trademark 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Go to WP:RENAME. It's a simple process. --Valley2city₪‽ 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'll get to that tomorrow it's 10:31 PM and I have a test in trig. Tomorrow. 'Night. --Sony trademark vs dell trademark 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be disallowed. The rule against trademarks does not currently have consensus, in fact it's not even in the policy at all at the moment, and thus is inapplicable. The rule against names that match the name of a well-known company or group, from my interpretation, is intended for names that actually match the company names, not contain them. There is no company or group called Sony trademark vs dell trademark, so from my interpretation that rule is inapplicable as well. It is not misleading because the name does not imply official representation of either company. I don't see any reason why the companies would be harmed by it either. The only problem is the potential for the name to cause people to think he's going to spam, and to cause him problems with people in the future for that reason. From that standpoint I think it would be a good idea to recommend that he change it, but I do not think there is sufficient reason to require him to do so.--Dycedarg ж 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rule against trademarks keeps popping in and out of the policy, but in any case, it is discouraged. As this contains two trademarks, I think it might be double trouble. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind discouraging people from doing it in cases like this. What I do mind is enforcing nonexistent policy. Either the trademark rule is in effect, or it is not, and it has been absent from the policy since hours before he created his account. There isn't even anything official saying it's discouraged. So there is, in my opinion, absolutely no basis for forcing him to change his name against his will.--Dycedarg ж 08:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't close this just yet. I'd wait until he's gone through the procedure. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just made a request. Will this controversy follow me in the future? --Sony trademark vs dell trademark 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you'll be in the clear. --Ali'i 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Admin's you can change my name. --Sony trademark vs dell trademark 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the account name you chose is already taken. WjBscribe 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I own the account Kkrouni and I probably forgot to read some directions--Kkrouni 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've set up a usurpation request to try and solve the problem. Hopefully a crat will do it soon. WjBscribe 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

User was already blocked by Pschemp. Blocked usernames can only be taken here for discussion by the blocking admin. If you wish to appeal or question this block you should do so at User talk:Pschemp or, failing that, WP:ANI, but not here. Will (aka Wimt) 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia

Armenia (talk · contribs)

Been blocked. Needs a discussion as to whether the application of the username policy was proper. -- Y not? 02:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I can understand at least two points of reservation.
    First, the possibility for offense. The recent history of Armenia is fraught with conflict, including the Armenian Genocide. As an aggrieved people (ouch, like my ancestors weren't?) there is often a pull towards reaffirming the original harms and such. There is certainly going to be an obvious potential for certain others to see the identification as a certain indication of bias. Thus the name is likely to be inflammatory in this world. Stupid, unfortunate, regrettable and unfair, but there it is.
    And... to show that this is a valid worry but one that could be negotiated, reviewing the existing users:
    User:ArmenianJoe, User:ArmenianNY, User:ArmenianPatriot, User:Armenian Art Girl, User:Armenian Democratic Liberal Party, User:Armenian Fury, User:Armenianweirdo
    we find users that contribute just fine, users that have done nothing wrong, and two users that have become problems.
    Second, what are the rules for such a large identification? I find no guidance here. There are several users American..., including User:AmeriCan, so it would seem no big deal. But then again, there isn't a User:America. Can a user have the name of a whole country? Oh my, there's a User:North Americas.
    I'm afraid on the whole I can't see a problem - yet. It will, as it should, depend on the user's conduct. Shenme 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no nation named "NorthAmericas", so that username won't be taken as implying the user is an official representative of a nation. Geographical usernames like "Asia" and "Africa" are fine. Nation-names like "France" and "Germany", as with company-names like "Microsoft" and "IBM", are no-go. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any conflict with using a well established geographic name as one's username (while looking at myself in the mirror). If the user isn't pushing POV, making disruptions, etc., I see no reason for a block... especially on the grounds of a username. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the top of the page before posting here. And I quote: "If you wish to contest or question the blocking of a user by an admin, please do not post the issue here. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator or with other administrators." There is a discussion pertaining to this block on the talk page of the blocking admin, which is where it belongs.--Dycedarg ж 04:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Copied my comments to User_talk:Pschemp#Username_block. As I admitted, User:Armenia will have to take some comfort in that User:TURKEY is blocked by same admin. Shenme 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, back when WP:U was far more specific, taking the name of any sovereign state was off-limits for the same reason as taking the name of a company: it implies you're speaking as an official representative. Thus "Armenia" or "Sweden" or "United Arab Emirates" would not be acceptable usernames. However, "Armenian" or "Swede" or "Arab" -- like "ArmenianPatriot" or "SwedishLiberal" or "ArabScholar" -- would meet no objection. The current WP:U format was supposed to be shorter and simpler but not actually change the substance of policy. Apparently a number of significant details should have stayed spelled out, because the simplified version seems to have left a lot of "loopholes" open. Regardless, nation-names shouldn't be taken as usernames, under the "Misleading usernames" rationale. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its also possible that this name could be construed as meaning to speak for Armenia, which is different than it actually being thought that way. No, people aren't that stupid. The end effect could easily be the same. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarify, Mermaid. I have no idea what you're trying to say. TortureIsWrong 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • People may not think the user actually is an official representative of Armenia, but may think the user is pretending to be such. Keep in mind that another user, claiming to be an official representative of the Palestinian government, recently caused a ruckus by deleting text purportedly to carry out her government's policy. A username implying any kind of official role is very thin ice to stray onto. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ben, by that definition, my username would be disallowed because someone MIGHT think I'm an official representative of Cascadia (region of the Pacific Northwest USA)... I really think that stretching that a username that is derived from a well known geographic entity, including nations, is implying any sort of official role. We do have a user here who uses "USA" in repetition several times in his/her username. Assuming that someone adopting a geographic term, including that of a region or country, is pretending to be such without actually editing to that fact, is literally fishing from the pier... a username of "AmbassadorfromArmenia" or "USStateDepartment" implies an official stance, but the name of the locality itself? Please, could we all not look for problems where there are none. If this user violates other policy by asserting some sort of official role in his edits, then that person should be blocked based on THAT policy. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 07:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see an archived dicussion of country names, Countries et al. The admin discusses at least a little, so it might help understanding. (My head hurts too much right now to understand anything - paracetamol and bed for me) Shenme 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very important note. RFCN isn't for overturning username blocks or even for discussing usernames that are blocked, except with the express permission of the blocking admin. This kind of discussion should occur at their talk page or at WP:ANI. Now I can't find any comment at User_talk:Pschemp#Username_block that indicates he wanted it taken here. Does anyone want to clarify this point or point out something I have missed before I close this discussion? Also note that Pschemp says this user is now editing under a different name anyway. Will (aka Wimt) 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

User has changed their name on request to User:Feelthenoise [1]. Will (aka Wimt) 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jjimbo

Jjimbo (talk · contribs)

I previously blocked this username as being too close to User:Jimbo et al. Wider input is requested. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Umm, good block, way to close to User:Jimbo. I understand the name was a good faith choice, but in essence that name is already taken(all names very similar to an existing users are taken for all intents and purposes). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block it again ;-)..--Cometstyles 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This appears to be a genuine editor, and in a gesture of good faith, I would like his input here. I am of the opinion that the username should remain blocked. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a genuine editor, and that this is a good faith choice of names. That does not alleviate the potential for people confusing him with the only guy around that does not need consensus to act. Good faith/bad faith is not the issue at hand. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apprise them of how often User:Jimbo is vandalized, abused, and how many strange talk page messages are received, and the user will thank you for saving them from so much trouble. How 'bout User:JJamesbo? :-) Shenme 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Probs, I'll ask for a change. It was just a bit unnerving after I'd just started. :-) Jjimbo 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal my friend. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: User applied at WP:CHU. I suggest early closing. NikoSilver 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The result was: blocked for personal attacks by zzuuzz. GDonato (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dra til helvete din jævel

Dra til helvete din jævel (talk · contribs)

Seems to mean "Go to hell you ... " in a Scandinavian language. And offensive language on his user page User talk:Dra til helvete din jævel. Anthony Appleyard 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported him to AIV already and seems to be a sockpuppet...--Cometstyles 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has been Blocked for Vandalism so it would be best to remove him...--Cometstyles 17:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

The way, the truth, and the light

The result was Concencus seems to be that this doesn't violate the actual word of policy. It does not refer to a religion in a negative way and does not specifically claim to be a religious figure (however much that phrase is associated with one). Furhtermore, this is a good faith editor so good faith is assumed by the community. Lastly, as a point of order - please do not !vote on usernames. We appear to be heading down the same road that sparked the mfd. ViridaeTalk 07:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC) The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs)[reply]

It's being discussed, so may as well settle this. I am not expressing an opinion at this time. Not to say I don't have one. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with that? NikoSilver 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. WjBscribe 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I feel it is inappropriate because it violates the Username Policy The policy states that Names should not resemble Religious Figures. The way, the truth and the light resembles Jesus. That is my opinion.
--Random Say it here! 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Way, The Truth and The Light" is a term used to refer to Jesus Christ. I guess it would be comparable to a name like Ar-Rasheed (one of the 99 Names of God in the Qur'an). Would we allow a user to use any of those names (or their English equivalents, e.g. "The Guide, Infallible Teacher and Knower")??? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitionary states the definition of "allude" is "To refer to something indirectly or by suggestion; to have reference to a subject not specifically and plainly mentioned." IMHO, "The way, the truth, and the life" alludes to Jesus--Random Say it here! 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see... Indeed, it is a religious reference which alludes to Christ, not to mention that the user edits religious subjects ([2]). This may also imply authority. The religious beliefs of users are a very sensitive issue, so I also think that the username may be unnecessarily provocative for many. NikoSilver 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I don't see a problem with this one. I think it's reaching. Policy says: "Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive." I think this is a clear expression of faith.Philippe 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen, He told me on his talk page that is was not to express his point of view. The way, the truth, and the life is another name for Jesus. To say the least, he calls himself "The way, the truth, and the light." Policy states and I quote, "Offensive usernames include those that refer or allude to The names of religions or religious figures." There is my point.
--Random Say it here! 22:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ahem... if you quote, why is the actual verbatim quote: "The names of religions or religious figures; in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion are prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intolerance, are disrespectful of the religion, or promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others. Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed." CASCADIAHowl/Trail 01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow Jesus (can't remember where) said "I am the way, the truth, and the life", so it's similar to God saying "I am" to Moses. Don't think it's appropriate, and may be considered offensive. Also, I think it's too long (but that's just me...). I suggest changing it to "The way to the light", but it would still be slightly long... could also be "The Truth". · AO Talk 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow- Can't see this offending anybody. Also, only a cryptic reference to deity, if at all (isn't is the way the truth and the life though?)Borisblue 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you go to WP:U you will find under a under inappropriate usernames, the section for Offensive Usernames. The heading to the section says "Offensive usernames include those that refer or allude to." It names several cases, the first being Religious Figures. At least that is what happens when I go to WP:U.
    --Random Say it here! 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even taking that into account, this username does not violate the spirit of the policy. As an aside, I find it remarkably hilarious and ironic that I, a pagan, am defending the use of a Christian passage as a username. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have people lapsed back into voting? The are quite a few opinions above that aren't adding much to this discussion other than lovely bold typed words. To clarify are we suggesting that any string of words from the bible are banned? In any of the many versions of that book - given the myriad different phrasings? I don't see why Christians should have a monopoly over the phrase "The way, the truth, and the light". It could come up in a number of contexts and I don't see it as (a) exclusively a religious comment or (b) inflammatory in any way. WjBscribe 02:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put yourself in the place of a devout Christian opposing an RFA or supporting a ban on this user, and having to consider the spiritual implications of saying "I oppose The way, the truth, and the light" or "Ban The way, the truth, and the light". That just isn't right. Please, user, change your username. -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I defer (as always) to those who know more about the issue than I do. The reaction seems overly sensitive to me, but I accept that I may be not be aware enough of how this username will be received. If likely to upset, it should be discouraged.... WjBscribe 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow This is a beautiful username. We are being overly sensitive here. We should encourage such inspirational names. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What do you guys think about User:Fish? The Fish is as clear a reference to Jesus Christ as this user's name is. "The way the truth and the light" is a really vague allusion, and will not offend anybody. Borisblue 04:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Bad habit, but I keep wondering what's been written in our book of names before. User:The Way, User:Iamthatiam, User:GodsDead. User:I am Jesus christ was usernameblocked. My concern is that religious quotes are still a bone of contention, and can be misused. I don't 'see' it here, but I still hear it wrong, that is, as an allusion to Jesus Christ. Even if not 'meant' to be that quote, it will be read as that (and probably bannable in Turkey). And if not meant to be that quote, then the user should want to change it, as an unwanted coincidence. Given the other names we have, and in consideration of "... however considered allowed unless disruptive ...", allow it, even if I have misgivings. Hey, they're not claiming to be User:God's Webmaster.   Shenme 04:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment** - Ben writes - "This isn't "any string of words from the Bible", WjB, this will be read (and has already) by some people as a claim to be Jesus Christ." So would you ban a username like "IAmAnElf" on the basis that it could be viewed as a claim to be an elf? TortureIsWrong 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Elf-worship were a major religion and elves were considered to be deities by a substantial portion of the world's population, then yes. --BigDT (416) 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so you're only concerned about major religions. Got it. The official BigDT position is that it's okay to be potentially offensive to minor religions. Sorry, but that's just your own bias (as a conservative Christian) showing. TortureIsWrong 06:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I please inquire as to why we have bolded !voting comments here? —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I also redirect the question... does this or does it not violate WP:U as it currently stands. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant entry, in full: (WP:U#Religion) "Offensive usernames include those that refer or allude to ... The names of religions or religious figures; in addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion are prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intolerance, are disrespectful of the religion, or promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others. Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed." -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so the question is "is this phrase a part of a religion?", if so "is this phrase disruptive, distasteful, provoke, promote intolerance or promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others?". That is the question that needs to be looked at here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I can possibly see here is: Is the name distasteful, provokes, or disruptive? if so why? The other parts of the policy don't seem to apply, it does not elavate one religion over another, or promote intolerance. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of blasphemy includes: "the act of claiming the attributes of a deity", or as Thomas Aquinas phrased it in the Summa Theologica, "when something proper to God is ascribed to a creature". Whether you consult the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on blasphemy or Wikipedia's own Blasphemy article or some other source, I think you'll see that at the very least it does provoke strong feelings. -- Ben TALK/HIST 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Grampiantelevision

Grampiantelevision (talk · contribs)

Spam username, in violation of WP:U. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to get out more ;-) User has definitely been editing scot/brit TV articles. No separation of concerns here. Don't know if fan or worker, but this name is a problem (CoI also?) Oh my! [3] Shenme 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a usernamediscussion on their tale page so they can see the problem. (insert grump about no notification here) Shenme 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, have you guys actually tried talking to him before bringing it here? All I see is a message saying I took your name to this noticeboard, in any case, if he is not activly promoting a product or service, and the name does not have any other issues, I would leave it be. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the message there, because I do believe user's should be notified, and I also believe in discussing with them first.
Notwithstanding the prior steps not taken, there are grounds for concern that there is a conflict of interest, perhaps represented by this "Screenshot taken by myself during an edition of North Tonight. Grampiantelevision". He's editing articles about the show he's possibly part of, North Tonight, the network he's possibly part of, BBC Two Scotland, and of course has done other worthwhile edits, [4], but still surrounding the industry he seems to be an active part of.
There is quite a lot here to be nervous about. For instance, does he have the ability to source these images, apart from his workplace? Looks iffy.
Clarification is certainly in order.
One important note I'd like to make in the user's favor. The Grampian Television article makes note of the fact that the (stoopid) network decided to drop the name Grampian Television in March 2006, implemented May 2006. The user Grampiantelevision did not start contributing until September 2006. It may be a case of pining for the old days, and feeling/thinking/knowing that the owners no longer cared for the previous name. I'm sure the name is still trademarked, but the transgression may be (cough) in name only. So what do you do in the case of defunct company names? Shenme 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even though the name is now defunct, the name still represents the same company, STV, just under a different trademarked name. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially promotional username + COI edits = username block, is my formula. The fact that the user edits UK TV articles means that they should have to change username. GDonato (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "screenshot taken by myself" - anyone can take a screenshot of a tv programme. It's a copyright violation, but it doesn't need to be an industry insider copyvio. I don't understand that COI concerns. BBC Two Scotland is part of the BBC, and thus has no connection with anything on the ITV network. Dan Beale 18:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was a percieved COI. Some newcomers may believe the user is officially representing the TV company. GDonato (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow obvious COI editing as above. Cheers Lethaniol 12:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offshoreholdingco

Offshoreholdingco (talk · contribs)

Spam username Cool BlueLight my Fire! 12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that the actual name of his/her company? I wouldn't think that "off shore holding company" would be a proper noun, but, rather, a general description like "fast food place" or "software company". --BigDT (416) 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - As BigDT suggests, it's a generic term. Ironically "Cool Blue" is used as the name for many companies and products and is a much stronger case for a "spam username." TortureIsWrong 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen that name being used in a lot of movies so it doesnt actually relate to one certain company and so it should be allowed...--Cometstyles 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, have we actually contacted the user before bringing them up on here? There is even a template for this ({{usernameconcern}}), though I think actually typing out your concern is better. In any case the user needs to be notified and given an opertunity to respond before being taken here. If it is that urgent/blatant of a violation then use WP:AIV and or WP:ANI (in cases where it is a bit more complex). In addition we don't vote. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow — this isn't the name of a company, so far as anyone has shown, and Cool Blue's reason "Spam username" doesn't really make sense. (Oh, and bolding the operational part of my opinion isn't voting; it's bolding the operational part of my opinion.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow per BigDT. Off shore is a general name.


SandyToksvig

SandyToksvig (talk · contribs)

User name is the same as a well known figure (at least among anyone who listens to Radio 4), whom the user claims to be. However, the fact that all edits are questionable, and there is a subtle spelling difference (Sandy vs. Sandi), leads me to have concerns that this is a hoaxer. Sam Blacketer 11:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=124869021"