Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RIU)
Jump to: navigation, search
 Usernames for administrator attention

Important! Please remember the following:

  1. This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked.
  2. Reports are assessed according to the username policy and the UAA instructions. Please read those pages first.
  3. Please discuss less-serious violations with the user so that they can rename or abandon their account in good faith.
  4. If, after discussion with a user, the problem still seems unresolved, a username request for comment may be in order.
  5. Please do not leave a username warning template on a user's talk page and then immediately report them here. Either discuss it with the user, or report it for admin action, but don't do both at the same time.
  6. Real names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not.
  7. Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined.


Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
This page was last updated at 18:03 on 29 July 2015 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.
Note: Patrollers are kindly asked to monitor usernames listed at Filter 102, Filter 148, Filter 149, Filter 354 (tags), WP:UAA/HP, and CAT:UAA.


Bot-reported[edit]

False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Anazing guy21 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
    Matched: nazi -- DQB (owner / report) 12:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
     Clerk note: Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view may be in violation of the username policy due to creating a hostile editing environment- but some real names contain the string "nazi" - especially names from the Middle East - be careful that this is not the case before blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 12:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User-reported[edit]

Wait until the user edits. Missvain (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Missvain (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Missvain (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Missvain (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a violation of the username policy. Real names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Missvain (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
User has requested a username change. Gparyani (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user, since they have edited constructively. Missvain (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Missvain (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You also really shouldn't report usernames here if they're "a bit of a reach"; discussion is always better in those cases. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a violation of the username policy. Real names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
But doesn't the above diff conclusively prove that the user is editing on behalf of the person for whom the account is named? Also, I think the statement of "I set the account up under a general login with his name because me and 2 others need to log in and make possible edits" is airtight proof of shared use. --Drm310 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Missvain: Actually, I think Drm310 is right. This person does explicitly claim that they are not Korey Coleman. Perhaps a warning would be sufficient, though. Awaiting further discussion. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Only edits are to AfC submission. Please discuss this with the user first and re-report if necessary. Missvain (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Only edits are to AfC submission. Please discuss this with the user first and re-report if necessary. Missvain (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That is inaccurate. The user was warned, and hours later started promoting companies for which it works. They ignored the warnings, and have refused to engage in discussion. To say it is "being discussed" implies the editor is working with us on a potential rename. This simply isn't true. If it were true, I'd withdraw the request. Blocking the account, perhaps with a soft block, is pro forma. The name violates our naming conventions as it does not identify a particular person at PepitaDesign (which is a real company; see http://pepitadesign.com). Despite warnings, they engaged in promotional conduct. This violates WP:CORPNAME. At a minimum, a soft block is appropriate and should be enacted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Missvain (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user, since they have edited constructively. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)