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 Ukip93 (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 6 September 2010 (→‎Ukip93). 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

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.

Place your report below this line.

Ukip93

Ukip93 (talk · contribs)

Username implies association with or representation of UKIP, and edits have continued in areas where such an affiliation may provide a conflict of interest. me_and 01:01, 6 September 2010.

I will not be changing my username at all (UTC)


SchuminWeb

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs)

I believe this user's name is in violation of the user name policy regarding promotion of products or websites on Wikipedia. http://www.schuminweb.com/ ,where

"The Schumin Web ©" is created by "Schumin Web Design", and the online store sells various articles bearing the copyrighted brand name "The Schumin Web". It should be noted that when attempting to contact this user on his unprotected talk page regarding this issue, instead of a response, he deleted his talk page that day,so I would have to assume that I have fulfilled the initial criteria of notifying the user in question and allowing time to discuss the concern on their talk page. 205.250.213.45 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the notification on said talk page was made after this request was posted. I checked the logs on his unprotected talk page also and saw no such deleted edits. That said, I don't see where this username is problematic. If it were problematic, it would be from conflict of interest, but I don't see any edits to promote his website (other than the one link in his user page, which is reasonable—and actually good from the standpoint of declaring the non-independence). No action should be taken. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My use of "SchuminWeb" as an online handle predates the Web site's using a similar name by about two years. I've been using "SchuminWeb" as an online handle since 1996, so using it here seemed a logical extension of that. Seriously, I'm "SchuminWeb" everywhere online. Nothing promotional intended. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Intent on Wikipedia bears little weight, every article or edit was created with an intent in mind, yet if it fails to meet certain criteria, consequences result. Wikipedia's Username policy is very clear on promotional usernames, and I would appreciate comments that could argue one way or the other that this username is or is not in violation. 205.250.213.45 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I could refer you to the "view history" of User_talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected_talk_page , I raised the issue at 2:53 on August 18,2010 under the subject "Meagher Geer". At 14:31 of the same day the page was cleared by SchuminWeb, with no response.205.250.213.45 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 205.250.213.45 is correct, they did ask for clarification on the username, which was apparently read with no response, so I see no issue with the discussion being brought here. That said, the editor in question is a longstanding and very active contributor, so I would imagine they have encountered this concern before. If so, it may be helpful to review how the concern was resolved in the past. -kotra (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User has a very large number of edits, so renaming would likely be problematic even if the result here is disallow. I think the name is not very promotional: I doubt they sell many (if any) T-shirts as a result of their username sharing the name of a website. –xenotalk 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea the name had anything to do with a website or online store. This is news to me, and likely will be to everyone else. Anon was right to bring it up though, but I believe SchuminWeb when he says his online handle predates the website and nothing promotional was intended. œ™ 10:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it curious that on two pages SchuminWeb edits on an extremely regular basis: Washington Metro, and Today's Special, there are external links on those subjects to ad supported sites under the umbrella of The Schumin Web. 205.250.213.45 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links were added in June 2005 and March 2004 (or prior, the history only goes back that far). While adding these links by the author themselves would today be considered somewhat problematic, I'm not sure if we had any sort of policy or guideline addressing it back then (WP:COI was only about vanity pages back then). So I don't think it is any evidence for SchuminWeb's current use of his particular username being promotional. That said, it might be helpful for him to proactively remove those two external links (if he added them) to the talk page, where some other editor could re-add them if they are deemed useful and appropriate (as we normally handle COI nowadays). Definitely not required, though; if other editors considered the links inappropriate or not useful, they would probably be gone by now. -kotra (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the person posting the RfC raises a valid point, and if it were someone else I'd look askance at it, at the least. But it's SchuminWeb. SchuminWeb is practically Ben Schumin's name. I don't see him as causing a problem with it, and I personally would give him a pass. Herostratus (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow This username does not entice the casual user to shop at his store, which I suspect pulls in less than it costs to host his website anyway. (It's just one page of the site, and mostly just has T-shirts). An average user seeing the name SchuminWeb isnt going to be immediately led to wonder "hey, that name sounds like it might be an online store. I wonder what he's got good deals on?" It's not like, say "SchuminWebDesign", which (if he were a web designer) would be a problem. —Soap— 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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: no action taken, premature. User not notified of concerns or allowed time to discuss on their talk page, as per instructions above.

Hypocritepedia

Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs)

I'm not completely sure on this one. I think this might be making fun of Wikipedia, but again, I'm not sure. Can I get some comments on this, please? Endofskull (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Does not appear to violate any rules, nor does it appear to be from any other wiki bearing a similar name. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow I think we should go down the AGF route for this one, it doesn't necessarily mean he'll be disruptive. Even if he is mocking wikipedia, it's not really an issue as far as I'm concerned unless his edits reflect the username, in which case a block is probably warranted. · Andonic Contact 23:16, 21 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=383301502"