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 No such user (talk | contribs) at 08:54, 21 July 2011 (No blinking please.). 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. Please put new reports on the top of the 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: Allowed Usernames containing "bot" were clearly prohibited in 2006 when the account was created; current policy is not as clear as it uses the words "should not contain"; however, the intent of that language is not clear to the community and requires further discussion at WT:UN. This RFC applies only to the name under discussion. Consensus, after 23 days of discussion, is clearly to forbear from strictly applying the rule to the case of "I Jethrobot" because 1) the the account name was not designed to deceive and is a clear play on the title of a famous work and 2) the user has agreed to modify his signature, user page, and user talk page, to clarify that he is not a bot. It was also noted that the name contains a space that is unknown to actual bot accounts. Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Jethrobot

I Jethrobot (talk · contribs)

I am the username in question. User Curbchain wrote on my userpage after noticing my username (most likely in the AfD disscussions I have been involved in lately) resembled a bot. I created my account in August 2006 when this policy did not exist, as far I am aware. As for my record in editing, I have recently been working in Articles for Deletion, and have previously helped out with the Nintendo Video Games WikiProject. My editing history is by no means extensive for a five-year account, but I believe my work has always been in good faith and have not tried to vandalize articles or otherwise. I was honestly unaware of this particular username policy prior to it being brought to my attention, and I have never tried to impersonate a bot or make changes that would resemble a bot's behavior. Based on this, I would like to retain my username under the grandfather clause mentioned here, though I understand if I am asked to change my username. Thank you for your time. --I Jethrobot (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I see the user name "LespasBot" I would assume this was a bot operated by User:Lespas. If I see the user name "I Jethrobot" I would assume this is a humanoid Asimov fan. Very occasionally being confused for a bot is mostly a disadvantage for I Jethrobot himself, not anyone else. Having him require to change his user name after so many years seems very unreasonable (why wasn't he informed sooner? why isn't this prevented by the account creation form? you can't expect any new user to be aware of the user name policy, etc.) Having bot owners rename their bots. for having chosen such an ambiguous suffix than can occur in many valid user names, seems much more reasonable. I wonder how many potential contributors have already been scared away for being blocked after having chosen an entirely reasonable user name that happened to end in "bot". —Ruud 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Three reasons. First, it is borderline, based on it being "I [something]bot", versus just "[something]bot", indicating a play on Asimov's works. Borderline cases could go either way. Second, the policy was apparantly not in effect at the time the account was created - some deference should be allowed for grandfathering in such accounts - especially when it is borderline. Finally, the user's edits, while not in extensive, go back a number of years. It may create confusion to have an editor suddenly switch usernames after so many years. So given that is a borderline case, and given the second two factors, I support allowing the username. However, it should not be taken as a precedent, and each person claiming a "borderline" situation should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I misread the username policy from August 2006. It actually uses the word "prohibit" in relation to the component "bot". As much as I am sympathetic to I Jethrobot's situation, that's pretty strong language for a policy. Singularity42 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would take a developer probably less than an hour to modify the AntiSpoof extension to prevent the creation of accounts with names ending in "bot". If we don't want to go to the trouble of doing this, we shouldn't hold users accidentally violating a policy they can't possible be aware of at the time they create their accountable for it. —Ruud 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But then how would we create accounts for approved bots? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I have always thought the prohibition on "bot" usernames is incredibly silly and accomplishes nothing of value. Technically even the name "Notabot" would be unacceptable. This is a rule we have crafted strictly for the convenience of uses who are too lazy to click on a username and see if they are in fact a bot or not. Unfortunately I seem to be in the minority in that regard and this name does seem to have violated this ridiculous policy as it existed on the day the account was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Beeblebrox, I do not think issues like this one necessarily justify junking this aspect of the name policy. First, I think the confusion issue is valid ... if you allowed regular users to use "-bot" names, you have no justification then for limiting bots to "bot" names, and I think the consequences of allowing bot accounts to have regular names would be much worse then the current policy's ill effects.

Consider, for one thing, that were this not the policy vandals might choose "-bot" usernames to better avoid being identified as such.

I am amenable to making clear, for instance, that numeric suffixes of a high enough value are sufficient to distinguish the user as a human where there are no bots with that name, but I do not think the policy is so bad in and of itself. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow If nearly five years of active editing can pass before a single comment is made, clearly the potential for confusion predicted in the policy is not at issue in this specific case. - Dravecky (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: When making my comment above, I was unaware that there was a gap in editing from September 24, 2006, to June 3, 2011. That's not "five years of active editing" as my initial browse through his editing history suggested. As such, I withdraw my !vote. - Dravecky (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unenthusiastic allow - unusual case, sound editor; nothing offensive, unlike others we are discussing. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, barely. The fact that the username has existed for five years is balanced by the fact that the account was essentially dormant for most of the last five years, until a week or so ago. This, to me, would barely squeak by under the "arises naturally" rule of thumb mentioned above, but I don't know that encouraging "near misses" is a good idea. I'd like to see an even clearer distinction made (keeping the current limits on names but requiring bot accounts to end in BOT, say), but that's not for this discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I first saw the name I thought it was a bot but then I learned otherwise. And the user is one of the nicer contributors I've come across. Is it difficult to switch usernames? My guess would be to let the user determine what's best but I don't think it's much of an issue in the wider scheme of things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, as the user who encouraged him to take it here. First, it was created at a time when we hadn't publicized the issue extensively. Second, I think this is a little less likely to be confused for an actual bot because of the space contained in it ... as far as I know no actual bot has one. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. I'm willing to go with the consensus here, which (at this point) appears to be allow. Seems like a pretty small issue in the scheme of things, I don't see much room for abuse or evidence of abuse, and am not concerned (certainly in this case) by any significant risk of confusion leading to earth-shattering negative consequences.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow: Regretfully, as I Jethrobot appears to be a good-faith editor, but I do not feel it right to suspend our following of a no-bot user name policy. While this account could be interpreted as just a play on I, Robot and operated by a human, it could also be interpreted as a bot account whose operator happens to be an I, Robot fan. Since "bot" appears in the name, there will always be the potential for confusion. I think the only time I could be swayed to not recommend disallowing a "bot" user name would be if someone's last name ended in "bot" (as Soap mentions several comments above), as I would not think it proper to deny someone the right to use their real name if they so wish. In response to those who state that new accounts should be blocked from being created if they have "bot" in the desired user name, I certainly support their opinion, though I think that doing so might make it more difficult for legitimate, bureaucrat-approved bot accounts to be created. To avoid situations like this in the future, new users should be made more familiar with our user name policies (and other policies) before registering. Perhaps something like a check box asking new registrants "Do you agree to abide by Wikipedia's user policies?" would be appropriate. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Given that there is a space in the name and no visible bot flag (b) in the contribution history, the chance that an experienced editor would confuse this user with a bot would seems quite small.
    2. What harm would actually be done if a less experienced editor accidentally confuses this user for a bot? Unlike names containing the words "Administrator" or "Wikimedia", I see no potential for harm or abuse.
    3. On the other hand there clearly is harm being caused by potential new being scared away after they getting blocked for unintentionally and without any bad intentions violating one of our obscure (and rather silly) policies.
    4. Your suggestion to have new users check a "Do you agree to abide by Wikipedia's user policies?" box is naive. Have you ever actually read an EULA (thoroughly and fully understood it) before checking such a box yourself? I certainly have never.
    5. Given these facts the only reasonable course of action would be to abandon the policy in it's current form or require bot operators to use a less ambiguous presuffix. The policy solves no real problem and causes actual harm.
    —Ruud 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I think this name should be allowed as it is exceptional enough, I do not extend this point of view to the policy itself. It has been implemented for far too long ... making it a prefix requirement instead would require some major renamings given all the bots we have (and have had). A prefix requirement would just shift the problem to the other end of the names, where I daresay it might be even more of an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant less ambiguous suffix, sorry for that. —Ruud 14:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow as the user has had the username for almost five years and it has only come to light now. That signals to me that if it has not been disruptive in five years, it certainly won't be for five or so more years.--v/r - TP 14:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For the record, I just receieved a message on my talk page from Edison stating his confusion with my username, and requested that it be changed. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: If it was just "Jethrobot" I'd say change it, but I consider this name to have arisin naturally enough, and I don't think there's a ton of risk of people mistaking this for a Bot. Buddy431 (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, reluctantly. May cause some confusion, but does no harm. Preferring freedom over rigidity, I'd say this is an IAR case. However, I should note that while his user page makes it quite clear that he's not a bot, the talk page gives no direct clue. Perhaps something like "NOTE: I am not a bot, nor do I own one like Susan Calvin." Cheers, theFace 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I have made such changes to both my talk and user page. Thanks for the great / hilarious suggestion! I, Jethrobot drop me a line 07:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow The name ending in "bot" was prohibited when the user adopted it. The problem was not addressed for the the several-year gap in which the editor did not edit under the -bot name, then he once again started using it. Was he not editing in the interim, or was he using a different logon? Absence from the project argues against any "grandfathering." The editor seems very nice and all, but it is disruptive to have this username ending. I saw an apparent "bot" !voting in an AFD and had to go look at the "bot's" user page or talk page to see what was up. This will be a continuing waste of time for editors who think they see a "bot" in odd places or activities, and that time could be better spent improving the encyclopedia. If he gets to keep the inappropriate user name, his signature should state he is not a bot, rather than requiring unnecessary trips to his user page. Edison (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't provide ample evidence for this following claim as my IP address has since changed and I am unable to find the relevant contributions, but I had made only occasional edits (perhaps around 50 each year) as an anonymous IP address because I had forgotten my login information for this account during that time. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have made changes to my signature as per Edison's suggestions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - With the changes to the user page, talk page, and signature; the space in the name; and the good faith editing, it seems this is a worthy exception to the rule. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: If the drafter/s of the policy wanted to make it an outright prohibition, the words "cannot" or "must not" ought to have been used in favor of "should not." That being said, let's just assume that I left my Clue Helmet at home and mistake this editor for a bot. So what? I reject any of the flimsy premises why this would damage the project, and I completely reject the nonsensical premise that people will freak out at AfD and so waste valuable time checking out a user page; exactly how many otherwise productive edits does Edison (for example) believe the average user would make in the four freaking seconds it takes a slow reader to figure it out? Force someone to change a user name for serious damage, not because a handful of editors might feel themselves slightly annoyed.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow per ignore all rules. If this were the real world, usage before a rule change is generally "grandfathered". We should be courteous and not try to apply a rule that didn't exist when this user created their account. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatically ALLOW. I am active on WP:UAA and I have blocked -bot suffix usernames in the past. When I encountered User:I Jethrobot today while responding to this UAA report, it didn't occur to me even once that this name was a policy violation. It's clearly a play on an Asimov novel and so obviously not a bot account that I think this discussion shouldn't even be necessary. What the Wikipedia:Username policy said or didn't say 5 years ago is irrelevant; what matters is that now the policy states that usernames should not (not must not) end in "bot". There is no prohibition, and no attempt to masquerade as anything but a live editor. This is an excellent exception under WP:IAR. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow with a bow to Asimov and per WP:IAR and thus looking at the intent of this established editor instead of the letter of a policy. --DeVerm (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Allow as long as their sig has the "not a bot" disclaimer to it to avoid any possible confusion. The editor started editing on August 13th 2006 and stopped on September 24th 2006. They then appeared at June 3rd 2011, and started editing again. This account was not made to deceive people though, and it now has a "(note: not a bot!)" attached to everywhere he signs, thus avoiding all possible confusion. And if there is no confusion, no reason to change it. Remember, Wikipedia is about following the spirit of the rule(the reason for it) not the letter of the rule. It is made to prevent confusion, and if all possible confusion has been eliminated, then there no reason to concern ourselves further with this. Dream Focus 01:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow with the sensible suggestion that the uses sig retains a notice that he is not a bot. Mtking (edits) 02:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - The username is neither misleading - esp. with the "not a bot" addendum - nor disruptive. I agree with Ruud, the name is a clear reference to Asimov, not an attempt to impersonate a bot. I received a notice of this discussion from I Jethrobot on my talk page, presumably because I occasionally, including today, participate at WP:UAA. To my knowledge, I've had no other interaction with the editor in question. LadyofShalott 03:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - The name ends in 'bot'. So what? He's not pretending to be a bot, and the name is clearly an amalgamation of two famous things. Restricting usernames like this serves no purpose whatsoever. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I don't think the user should be forced to change name, I recommend that they do. I don't think it would really be a huge hardship to simply choose a different user name. There's a policy for good reason. Not everyone knows the film. Even though I do know the film, I'd still think it was a bot account - the "I" makes it moreso, because we have so many like e.g. "EarwigBot I", "EarwigBot II", etc. Not knowing the policy isn't a good defence. I'm sure this is not deliberately disruptive, but I think the easy answer would be if the user simply voluntarily chose a new name - and if you really really don't want to...fine, it's probably not worth worrying about (unless, at some point, it does cause actual disruption).  Chzz  ►  11:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow It either violates WP:U or it doesn't ... usage means little (and it does violate). Indeed, inexperienced users (and even experienced ones) may see the name end in bot and assume it's indeed a bot. There's no grey area with this one, it's a flat out block and disallow. This should have been a block the moment it was created, and I see not valid reason to have spent this much effort on this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Some rules are more flexible than others. This username violates what WP:U says, but when the name was created in 2006 Wikipedia was a lot less maneuverable and it was more difficult to conform to policy. Based on the length of time this user has had this account, and because he has a "not a bot" notice in his signature, and because he seems to know his way around Wikipedia, and especially because I have trouble conceiving how this user could cause problems with this name, I say allow this username. Thanks I Jethrobot for taking the initiative to be an early adopter of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this user keeps the name ending "robot," how would he explain to the next editor who selects a -robot or -bot name that theirs is unacceptable while his is ok? I would really like to read that hypothetical message from User I Jethrobot to newbie goodfaith editor User:I Edisonbot sometime in the future. Or do we just have to abandon the notion that -bot names are limited to actual bots? The "Allow" votes here make it seem like "Rules apply unless someone doesn't want them to." Edison (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to make a similar point ... thanks for making it, and User:I, Frobot (should they ever exist) probably agrees :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, "Rules apply unless the community doesn't want them to" IS a policy: WP:Ignore all rules. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Blindly following policy without allowing for rare exceptions is not something I want to do. If someone complains about not being allowed to have the word "bot" even though Jethro is allowed, well, tough. That's an argument that a 6-year-old uses when her friend has permissive parents. I am swayed by the well-reasoned argument by a good-faith editor. Couldn't hurt to have your signature read something like this though: I, Jethrobotnot actually a bot drop me a line -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my signature has been like that since Edison made such a suggestion above. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow This is clearly a Upol violation. Adding "warning signs" to a username is not a way around policy. Mlpearc powwow 10:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, no evidence that this has caused any problems. Userpage and sig make it absolutely clear that this is not a bot. Plus, he asked nicely, and this isn't a bureaucracy where the rules need to be followed no matter what. —Kusma (t·c) 13:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Plus, he asked nicely ?. Please, Please, Please can I delete the Main Page ? My apologizes for being sarcastic but... . The question here is, is this username within policy ? and was the policy in effect in August of 2006 ? and as Xeno points out above it was, and still is. I also agree this user has nothing but good intentions but, that is not whats in question. Mlpearc powwow 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. That we are having this discussion now, and not in 2007, strongly suggests that this has not been a problem. The only effect of forcing a name change now would be to make it slightly more difficult to attribute his contributions. For those who insist on the letter of the law, the elements the policy prohibited were "Bot", "Robot", "Admin" and so on, and it does discuss capitalization.
It also says that accounts which might be misunderstood as claiming authority may be blocked anyway, but has I Jethrobot been so understood? User:Wikiadmincleaner was blocked long ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sure would be a dangerous precendent to set by allowing the username. Good thing this is WP:NOTAVOTE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see any substantial discussion of whether this discussion will set any particular precedent about the username policy, and what "danger" might come of it as a result. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't run by precedent; that's policy. If we did, we would follow the (much more dubious) decision to allow User:Justice and Arbitration at the bottom of this page; instead, it's been forgotten, as this will be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 20 July 2011 (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.

Cranialsodomy

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: Allow, leaning No Consensus. The majority of the disallow arguments were largely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, claiming vulgarity, but failing to provide any evidence as to why such a username is non-compliant with our current username guidelines and why such a username would make editing difficult or impossible. Given the number of objections however, it is advisable to Cranialsodomy to change his/her username at WP:CHU. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cranialsodomy (talk · contribs)

User was blocked by User:Orangemike for a username violation, despite being around for 6 years. I felt that this was inappropriate, but reached an agreement with the blocking admin to unblock Cranialsodomy and bring the issue here for further discussion in lieu of the block Orangemike placed. I personally have no objections to the username, but recognize some may see this as objectionable, so wanted to find the general consensus. Jayron32 12:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody could have simply asked me to change the user name and given me reasons as to why, rather than blocking me. Cranialsodomy (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • People are doing that now. That is what this discussion is about. If you wish to avoid the drama, you yourself can go to WP:CHU and request that your usename be changed to something less likely to draw attention. Its up to you how you wish to handle this. I still don't care one way or the other, but so far at least three people (the two above and the admin who blocked you initially) do. --Jayron32 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - nonetheless, CS is right; this was done a trifle over-hastily, and I do apologize (somewhat belatedly). He/she and I had not run into each other before, and my reaction was, I fear, a trifle reflexive. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. I agree that if this were a new user they probably would not be allowed to use this name under today's absurdly prudish username standards, but all this hand-wringing about bringing Wikipedia into disrepute is complete nonsense. User has been here longer than most, if their name were damaging to the project wouldn't we have some shred of evidence to support that by now? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow: The user name may not be "damaging to the project," as Beeblebrox notes above, but it is not particularly becoming either. Deviant user names serve as a distraction and should not be encouraged. If this user name were uncontroversial and appropriate from the start, we could all be spending our time editing the encyclopedia instead of having to have this discussion. The fact that the user in question has been around Wikipedia since 2005 (albeit with 200 edits to date) is a positive, but not a valid argument for grandfathering in obscenity. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow, largely per Beeblebrox; although I grant it's essentially impossible to offend me, I also don't see what harm this will do. This name reads something like Anal Cunt; it's two words that, if one thinks about it, don't really make sense. I mean really, how exactly would "Cranial sodomy" work; do we have assholes on our heads or skulls on our asses now? Leave the guy alone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Cranialsodomy, so that has nothing to do with love. Cranial sodomy. It has to do with Oral sex or skull fucking. The fact the word might mean something else at times, is irrelevant, since its obvious what it means here. Its not "I love the shape of your skull" but instead refers to the act of sodomizing someone's skull. Dream Focus 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Dream Focus, your previous "Disallow" rationale was that "Any username with the word sodomy in it, isn't appropriate." That, to me, sounds like you're disagreeing with the use of the word "sodomy", not the implication of the username as a whole. For the record, I agree with Blue Rasberry , mostly: I wouldn't agree that this username is entirely in good taste, but the concept of "sodomy" is not inherently offensive, and it follows that "Cranialsodomy" is thus not an offensive term. Yunshui (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - I came here to close this discussion but after half-an-hour or more, I couldn't do it. Above me there are 22 (including Jayron and Orangemike) very experienced contributor and they are evenly split. Few if any are discussing policy, most are giving "I don't like it" type !votes that are completely unhelpful as there is obviously quite a difference of opinion on what is obscene. Policy prohibits inter alia usernames that are:
      • Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
      • Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
    • Although several editors stated that the name was offensive, none gave any evidence that it make[s] harmonious editing difficult or impossible. Although no one went so far as to say it was profanity, several suggested as much but none gave any reason to think the name "disruptive" let alone that the user intended disruption. I am amazed that this user has only 200 edits because I have actually run into the editor before, though I have no idea where. I found the name humorous and possibly having a double entendre, a certain undefinable, but not offensive. I am astounded that some editors say that any name with "sodomy" in it is inappropriate, not to mention failing to point to where appropriateness is in the username policy; likewise with the suggestion that it is "the sort of thing that gets Wikipedia bad attention in the mainstream media"; I can't find the "bad press" restriction either. Finally, I'm confused by User:Edison's comment that it is offensive for suggesting "head up butt"; I, like others, am not really sure that is what is being suggested, but I strain to find a way that this interpretation would be offensive.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - I am commenting here per the request at WP:AN. It seems to me this username violates two Upol conditions, the obvious one "Offensive usernames" and the second "Disruptive usernames" since the username violates two conditions, it seems to be a "No Brain-er". Mlpearc powwow 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have cited the bullets but not discussed the language of those rules. With respect to disruption, can you give an example of when this has been disruptive or indicate how we can tell that the user intended disruption? With respect to offensiveness, can you describe how this username makes harmonious editing difficult or impossible?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (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.


LespasBot

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: disallow. User has been softblocked and templated. Jayron32 12:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LespasBot (talk · contribs)

WP:UN states explicitly: unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with bot. I have raised the issue with the user here and here but she has removed my comments without responding on both occasions. User may feel under attack from me as I have raised AfD's on two articles she created (Quintain(5lines) and Quintain (poetry), where, incidentally, she has been blanking). gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} to user Talk page but she says she removed it, saying she is too busy to participate in any discussion. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2011 (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.


JosipOnDeck

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: allow, as there is no username violation, but possible WP:PROMO; non-admin closure. Rcsprinter (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JosipOnDeck (talk · contribs)

Uses same name as the article he has created, possible real name or company. RcsprinterGimme a message 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Using the name of an organization is prohibited, using your real name is specifically allowed, a "stage name" is no different see WP:REALNAME. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I think he is the person in the article Josip on deck, which is obviously promo, if he wrote it himself, not encyclopedic, and it seems rushed, as in it's not Josip on Deck. Also see WP:Articles for deletion/Josip on deck. RcsprinterGimme a message 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've identified problems with the article they wrote and a probable conflict of interest, not a username violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2011 (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.

Yomamamofo

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: User blocked as per vandalism policy; non-admin closure. Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yomamamofo (talk · contribs)

Offensive Rjwilmsi 18:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow and close: I agree that the name can be considered offensive and should not be permitted. However, the account in question has now been indefinitely blocked after only two edits as a vandalism-only account, so this discussion can probably be considered a closed matter. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (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.


$1LENCE D00600D

Not a problem.

The code in the username disrupts the contribution display,[2] and perhaps other reports as well. Is that allowable?   Will Beback  talk  08:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two things: First, I am not seeing any sign of disruption in the user's contribution history. What, specifically, is the nature of the disruption? If possible, consider posting a screenshot indicating what you may see as disruption, as it's possible that the disruption may only be affecting certain browsers and not all. Second, was the user in question notified that their username might be of issue before this RfC was started? I noticed that you informed them that you had begun this discussion, but I can't see any notice that you attempted to discuss the issue with $1LENCE D00600D before bringing this matter to RfC, which seems to be a prerequisite (based on my analysis of the top of this page, though I'm no expert). --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry - I'm a bit tired and hadn't seen that. I agree that the user's contributions themselves look fine. It was just the report that was affected. If it looks fine to you then I'll gladly treat this as resolved.   Will Beback  talk  09:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed the contributions report looks normal to me, just like any other contributions page appears to me. The username code has no effect, at least none that I am seeing through Internet Explorer 8.0. If you want to wait and see if anyone else notices a disruption, feel free. But if you think this is resolved, I don't think there would be any objection to you closing this discussion yourself. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2011 (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.

Fountainviewkid

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 Allow. No username violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs)

The username is contentiious because the user edits primarily in articles related to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and there happens to be a Adventist High School with the name Fountain View Academy in Canada. At first, I was concerned with the possibility of a conflict of interest so I asked about it here, to which he responded and tucked away my message. Because of my further concern, I asked him to consider changing his username, to which he responded by simply removing my message. I left it a second time and he again ignored it, this time tucking it away instead of outright deleting it. Thus, I am bringing it here for comment. BelloWello (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had this username for many years and use it for other websites and groups as well. There has previously never been a problem with it. I do not do edits that only relate to the Seventh-day Adventist church. I also edit articles on Politics, History, and biographies. I do not work for the organization Fountain View Academy nor am I currently connected to them. As I have noted I did graduate high school from there a few years ago, but I don't really see this as a conflict of interest since my edits are on a variety of topics many of which do not relate to the academy. Additionally I do not edit the links connected to the page. Fountainviewkid (talk) 4:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You are editing the Southern Adventist University article, which is one of the colleges FVA feeds to, although not a conflict of interest, it is confusing. The other websites and groups are irrelevant to Wikpedia. BelloWello (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it confusing? He doesn't appear to be labeling himself as any kind of authority figure from the school. It seems similar to me to someone using their hometown or favorite sports team in their username. Dayewalker (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he is pushing very hard to marginalize any fair criticism of things related to his school, such as his insistance that Raymond Cottrell be labelled a "progressive adventist" (bad connotations through much of the denomination..) when he criticized Southern despite the fact that the only source he could give for the WP:LABEL was a book which in turn cited the statement to an old version of his wikipedia page (see citation 575 on the book). I don't want to bring a content dispute here, but this editor is pushing his point of view (which also happens to be FVA's POV) in his editing while using a username that connects him with that school. BelloWello (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BelloWello (talk) are you accusing me of having associations to Southern now? Why the phrase "his school"? FYI I don't go to Southern and probably never will. I am working to contextualize a very biased quote on ideology which is the only statement on that issue. Any time the phrase "ultra-fundamentalist" is used by a person that is very negative towards an institution, I feel the reader must be led to understand the background of the person being quoted. The book I used did more than cite the wikipedia article. Yes it did cite wikipedia, but it also provided a description of what a Progressive Adventist is, and then categorized Cottrell under that description. I am sorry but it is BelloWello (talk) who is pushing a POV, as the user has already admitted that they are in full agreement with the Cottrell statement, one that has already been acknowledged by other users to be extremely biased. As for FVA's POV, I'm sorry but such a thing does not exist. The Academy itself is not monolithic and has individuals there with a multitude of opinions. To take one person who graduated from there 4 years ago and then accuse him of "representing" the organization is outright dishonesty, falsehood, and "wiki-abuse". My username as I said is only connected to the school because I graduated from there, the same as Dayewalker (talk) already noted, using my favorite sports team or hometown. Fountainviewkid (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow the username. Whether the edits are okay, I can't tell, but it is not the username that is a problem. Maybe go to WP:NPOVN or WP:RFC if there is a content problem. —

Кузьма討論 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Not really a promotional username from what I can see. We have had other editors use their high schools as part of their usernames. —Soap— 21:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, don't see anything wrong with this username. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - why is okay to have a username integrating a high school name, and yet one representing a place name is not? BelloWello (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Place names in usernames are OK. There are probably hundreds of them. That user was blocked because their username was the exact same as the website they were trying to promote.—Soap— 22:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has nowedited the article adding promotional material back into the article of the school his username promotes. BelloWello (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And indeed he's currently blocked for it, but that still doesn't mean the username is a problem. —Soap— 02:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, based on my opinion that the user in question is not attempting to appear as any type of authoritative representative of the school or as the voice of the institution itself. While a username of "Fountainview" might be a gray area worthwhile of further examination and discussion, the addition of "kid" to this seems like nothing more than a user adding a little bit of innocent scholastic pride into their choice of username. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User has edited the article for Fountainview Academy [3]. I believe this is a conflict of interest and possibly misleading. May I ask for a reevaluation based on this factor? BelloWello (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow There is no prohibition on editing a school you attended, so COI is not an issue. Due to the trailing "kid" on the username, I don't see the username as misleading.Lionel (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Username is not misleading by implying official status (though it could be a different situation if "kids" or "goats" were the mascot of the school). As far as the COI, if anything, this username draws attention to the conflict, so other editors know to consider any major edits he makes accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2011 (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.

Monte Melkonian

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.

Procedural close.

Result: User indefinitely blocked for another matter. This may be re-opened if an appeal of that block should prove successful. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Monte Melkonian (talk · contribs)

Identical to Monte Melkonian, an Armenian military commander (deceased 1993 or thereabouts). I do not see any strict prohibition on assuming the names of deceased famous people but at the same time there seems to be something awry about it. I am supposing, for example, that User:Marilyn Monroe or User:Claudette Colbert would be politely asked to rethink their names. (Ah, indeed, I see history of renaming in the case of the latter.) Discussions at the user's Talk page, here, were not productive. JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it appears that he was being facetious about the name change, as agreeable as it would have been. I think it's also worth noting that User:Monte Melkonian has taken to extensively editing the article Monte Melkonian. See the article history here. I think this exacerbates the problem of potential confusion. JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, if someone died a few hundred years ago that's one thing but 1993 is a bit too recent. If I was a friend or relative of this person I'm sure I would find this offensive and insulting to their memory. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He claims here that the real Monte asked that this Monte use his name. For what it's worth. JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth. I would say it is worth nothing. This remark "He is presumed dead. It may have some frightening affects on Azeris and some Americans may whimper like frightened school girls, but, who cares about them?Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)" tells me all I need to know. That does not sound like a user acting in good faith to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to pile on, but a review of his edits reveal quite a few comments of that nature. He's not an easy fellow to work with. JohnInDC (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean he's an overt racist and nationalist whose POV influences his editing. Username is gong to be the least of their problems but the idea that he was asked by the real Monte Melkonian to use his name to edit Wikipedia is grade A hogwash. The man has been dead since 1993. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now for a week. JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is rapidly going to become a moot point. He is now making threats towards those who have been discussing matters with him. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now he's indefinitely hard blocked with no talk page for making those threats. We're done here unless and until ha manages to successfully appeal that block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (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.

NickPenguin

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: Allow —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NickPenguin (talk · contribs)

may be for "The penguins of Madagascar" at Nick. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a name needs an explanation to make people see how it might be a violation, it usually isn't a problem. (Exceptions exist for names that might be insulting in foreign languages, but this is English.) Allow. —Soap— 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google it - it's a TV show. (I had never heard of it either.) According to IMDB, the show came out in 2008. NickPenguin has had this name since 2005. So either he's psychic or it has nothing to do with the show. Nick, if you're psychic, could you give me tonight's MegaMillions numbers? --B (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious allow. –xenotalk 12:37, 25 March 2011 (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.


Autobot

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.
Moved to WP:CHU
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I operate a bot account at User:RichardcavellBot. The bot framework is open sourced and now has contributions from other people. Accordingly, I'm hoping to rename the bot framework as something that doesn't include my own name. There is no Wikipedia bot called 'Autobot', and I'd like to use this name for my bot framework. It is a reference to the TV series Transformers, and might be trademarked for all I know. I notice that at least one person with the username 'Autobot 09' was blocked for a username violation. Please note that I will only ever run the bot under the account RichardcavellBot, and others can register their own bot accounts to run the framework from. I'd like to register the name Autobot, redirect User:Autobot to User:RichardcavellBot for now, and rename my SourceForge page 'Autobot'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend posting this on WP:CHU as it would save a step and might be watched by more people. Autobot 09 was probably blocked for being a human, rather than for a promotional username. —Soap— 12:31, 25 March 2011 (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.

USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs

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.

Result=no consensus/moot There is not a consensus to allow or disallow the name after over two months, the account has no contributions anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs (talk · contribs)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is considering editing Wikipedia content related to pesticide chemicals, U.S. pesticide law and regulations, and other pesticide-related issues. But it appears Wikipedia's user name guidelines generally prohibit monikers that reflect organizations. OPP feels that an exception should be made in its case.
Edits made under the proposed user name "USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs" will have prior approval from the Office Director. Content in the edits will have been vetted by Agency subject matter experts to ensure accuracy. Also, pesticides are sometimes contentious and staff occasionally move on, so it seems most appropriate for individual communication staff to use an account set up for the Office rather than create individual accounts using their real names.
Are there any objections to the user name "USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs"? Regards 161.80.10.21 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify one point: if an individual staff member was to create an account, they need not use their real names. They may use a pseudonym. In fact, we generally caution against the use of real names (see WP:REALNAME) . –xenotalk 21:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Perhaps I should have added that we're balancing Wikipedia's guidelines with an Agency public communication policy requiring us to make explicit the fact that it's EPA talking in Web 2.0 scenarios. Whether individual staff members create unique pseudonyms or OPP is allowed to create its own account for their use, explicit Agency affiliation is required on our end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.10.21 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there and welcome! First, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I'd love to see if we can get you guys connected with someone from the Foundation and/or experienced Wikipedia volunteers to be a point of contact for you and as a resource for advice with the community, especially as pesticide issues are, as you've noted, sometimes contentious. Do any other editors have thoughts on who would be good to talk to about this? It seems like your team is making an extra-careful effort to understand the Wikipedia community and our policies, which I certainly appreciate.
As for the username issue, I'm not speaking from any position of authority here, but my guess is going to be that there will be objection to editing under this username. Certainly, I understand your position, and I do support the aim of making the agency's identity explicit in its communications, but the prohibition against organizational usernames isn't just about the name, it's intended to prevent the sharing of accounts, which is prohibited by longstanding policy. There is an expectation here that one user account represents one individual human being; editors cannot maintain multiple identities for themselves (sockpuppetry) nor can multiple people share a single identity. This policy seeks to prevent the complexities that otherwise occur; it's difficult to impossible to participate in a discussion about an article with an account that represents an organization or department because you have no idea whether the person you are talking to now is the same person you were talking to earlier. Ultimately, one account=one person is a fairly fundamental community expectation here, and I suspect an exception would be pretty contentious.
The alternative I would suggest would be for each staff member involved to create an account of the form "USEPA XX" where XX are the user's initials. Less confusing to other editors here would be something like "USEPA John," (easier to distinguish different names) or you could do something more pseudonymous like "USEPA Glyphosate Guy" or "USEPA NakedMoleRat." Virtually anything would be alright that doesn't imply that multiple people are sharing an account. You could then add text to each account's user page to explain that the account's owner is a representative of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs and provide any further information you wish. That way, any interested person clicking on the username to find out more would be able to see an explicit disclosure of the user's agency affiliation that expands on the USEPA tag in the username. You could also use that space to clarify that staffers are editing as individuals and that they are not directly speaking on behalf of the US Government. Conflict of interest disclosures on user pages like this are a standard convention on Wikipedia as described in WP:COI. For example, see User:Mark at Alcoa, which came up here last month. If an individual staff member moves on, they can simply leave a note to that effect on their user page and/or stop using the account.
I hope this helps. Feel free to let me know (you can leave a note on my user talk page) if there's anything I can help you with and I'll do my best to either help or point you to someone better suited for the task. Zachlipton (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the usage of a group user name. If we were to allow you, then we would be creating a precedent that would go against current policy. Unless our username policy is changed by taking Wikipedia community consensus, simply getting consensus on this specific forum to allow your name would be considered wrong, without basis, and will be overruled quite easily. Kindly consider some of the alternatives that the editor Zachplipton has given above. Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't mind the organisational-account too much in this case , but I think others in the community would - understandably - object to a shared account. I think the other common concerns about an organisational username (IE. spamming) can be set aside for now. Zachlipton had some really good suggestions on usernames for "individual" accounts which are still clearly tied to the organisation. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, it can be difficult for newcomers to get a grip on some of wikipedia's many norms & policies (which are there for good reasons; they're not rules for the sake of rules). Others in the community would like to help well-intentioned newcomers, but if several different people shared one account it's very difficult to provide that help. In the unlikely event that somebody at the OPP went beyond the realms of "I'm not sure how to update X" and started making disruptive edits, then it can be difficult for the community to stop the disruption without also causing problems for other people at OPP.
    I'm quite keen to help organisations and officials engage with wikipedia; an expert contributor is worth a dozen passers-by. If you need a hand with anything, feel free to use my talkpage; or there are lots of different places to get help, in particular the helpdesk. bobrayner (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the delay in responding. Thanks to all of you for the input. I understand the concerns about a shared account. At Zachlipton's suggestion, I read through the issues related to User:Mark at Alcoa. I see that other users are still objecting to the "at Alcoa" part of the user name in spite of an Admin review and decision. In any event, I will run this past my management and see if they want to dive in. Thanks all. 161.80.10.21 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries about the delay, and I still think it would be great for everyone to have your experts contributing. I hope that can still be possible. If you'd like, it might be helpful to your team to talk to someone from the Foundation or a volunteer who is specifically involved with working as a liaison to institutions interested in contributing to Wikipedia. We've done this formally with the British Museum (Wikipedia:GLAM/BM) and are now working with several cultural institutions. It would seem that working with the EPA to improve articles in these areas would be a natural extension of that effort. If you are interested in talking with this team, just let me know and I'll see who would be the best person for you to talk to. Let me know if there's anything else I can help answer too. Cheers, Zachlipton (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wikimedia foundation has approved these before, why not in this case? I think it should be allowed pending approval by the Foundation. BelloWello (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose shared accounts, and oppose involving the foundation. We don't need "official" accounts, to avoid giving the impression that these have any special rights whatsoever. The usernames suggested by Zachlipton are fine, though. They just must not carry any more authority than any other random user. —Кузьма討論 18:14, 26 April 2011 (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.

Justice and Arbitration

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: Accepted User continues to edit without username causing problems, as they have for nearly two years. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justice and Arbitration (talk · contribs)

Misleading username because it can be read to imply a position of authority in the WP:Arbitration process. See discussion at User talk:Justice and Arbitration#February 2011.  Sandstein  19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Not at all misleading. I did a double take when I saw this in CAT:UAA and another when I saw the template had been left by an experienced editor. Arbitration a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. It's astronomically unlikely that any particular use of the term has anything do with the Arbitration Committee on a single website. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: There is a difference between "Justice and Arbitration" and something more clearly in violation such as "WikiArbitration" or "WikipediaArb." Most casual users of Wikipedia probably haven't even heard about the Arbitration Committee to begin with, while experienced editors should be able to tell that this username is not the same as ArbCom. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, per Sgt. R.K. Blue. I think there's not much potential for misleading people. If subsequent edits appeared to deliberately mislead people that would be another matter. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - user appears to be interested in contributing in good faith and I can't see any indication that he intends to deliberately mislead anyone. If that happens, we can take care of it, but this really seems like a non-issue to me. Zachlipton (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow this editor has been making good faith edits since 2009. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disapprove - the name could lead other users, especially newbies, to believe that the person posting it has more than the usual amount of authority. Names like "Wikipediafanboy" or "NiceguyStewart" carry no suggestion of authority. This one does. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not misleading because everyone knows there's no justice on Wikipedia. :-) If this was a recently created account, I would strongly suggest a different username because it might mislead newbies and because it has an air of superior judgment which might be detrimental to cooperation. But it's been used for two years now, so it's not worth the hassle. Pichpich (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Well, as mentioned above, the user hasn't used the account for two years, so I doubt they'll even respond if asked to changed their name. The user, after a brief study of their edits, has done nothing that makes them undeserving of the name. The user obviously didn't pick the name to mislead new users that they have a higher power on Wikipedia's Arbitration process, and their good faith edits further prove this. --Another Type of Zombie talk 09:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the user is still using the account. Their last edit was two days ago. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, not misleading (to the general public). For Wikipedians, who may believe "arbitration" means "government" or other positions of power, a simple check of userpage or contributions shows that this user has no superpowers. —Кузьма討論 12:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disapprove - It is not correct that this user has not used this profile recently. In fact, just in the past 2 weeks he/she/it has made 15 contributions to various pages relating to the 1992-1995 war between Serbia and Croatia, and to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague. Frequently, these contributions involve simply undoing the contributions of others, to reinstate unhelpful and inaccurate nationalistic phrases like "the war ended with total Croatian victory." (See pages on "Croatian War of Independence" or "Operation Storm.") Some of the contributions have been overly nationalistic in favor of a pro-Croatian perspective, and should not have been made at all. But in addition, I believe there is no reason for the misleading name "Justice and Arbitration," which makes it appear that many of the rejections of other edits are being done by some sort of Wikipedia entity. Of course research can disclose that this is not the case, but why should the reader be misled in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlew9 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (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.

RfC- user:organization name

Unresolved

Hey - I have no username to review yet. I want to ask about setting up accounts which are named for an organization, and this is in violation of WP:ORGNAME. I want to ask about precedent and maybe WP:IAR.

I work in medical technology and I have been talking with the public relations departments of some major international health organizations. A lot of these organizations have specific departments for promoting health education.

Officials in these departments are interested in exploring the possibility of releasing large numbers of their company-owned photographs into the public domain, or GNU or CC:0, or whatever else is best for Wikimedia Commons. These photographs would be depictions of health issues and health devices of broad general interest to the public and in my opinion, especially valuable for an encyclopedia.

Here is the issue - I know that Wikipedia has a release form for requesting a third party to allow someone like me to upload media content into Commons on behalf of someone else. I could bring this up, but I think it is not best. What I think is best is a companyname useraccount which uploads the media content and provides proof of its affiliation with the company, as right now, the huge number of pictures (hundreds, if not thousands) to be uploaded are all property of these non-profit health orgs. The company itself is going to have to make some kind of declaration that yes, the pictures were taken and rights are owned by the company, and yes, now it wants to transfer those rights to a free license and make available to the public so that the public can use them for any purpose by Wikimedia Commons standards.

Is this the way to go? Surely the company PR person should not open a personal account in their own name for the purpose of uploading pictures on behalf of their employer, as that person does not actually own the rights to the pictures - the company does. However, this seems to be the advice given by current guidelines.

What is the precedent in this case? How does a science organization with lots of technical pictures get them into Commons, and keep a record that they were the originators of the pictures (not to keep rights, but only to prove that they were legitimately granted)? Can company usernames be created in this case for this purpose? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this concerned potential Wikipedia contributors, it would probably belong at WT:Username policy. That being said, it looks like you are mostly asking about Commons usernames, so perhaps this is best posted at commons:Commons talk:Username policy. From Commons:Username policy#Company/group names it appears that "a username such as 'Microsoft' will be blocked unless the contributor can show they are official representatives of that company or group, via e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org". –xenotalk 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just moved this talk to this board at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Username_policy. For the purposes of this board, the issue is
Resolved
Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, actually it seems
Unresolved
due to lack of userbase discussing username issues on Commons. If anyone here is interested in the topic of usernames and has an interest in Wikimedia Commons issues, could you weigh in on the Commons username talk page? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=440621913"