Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 2 February 2007 (→{{user|MikeHunt35}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here. However, before listing the user here, please consider contacting the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by admins.

Be aware that usernames are subject to specific criteria which differ from controls and guidelines regarding other forms of self-expression on Wikipedia. Please ensure you are familiar with the username policy before commenting on a username.

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

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.

Discussion: archiving our RfCs

I'm floating the idea of archiving the RfCs that pass thru here. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Archiving username discussion. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wesleywillis (talk · contribs)

The notable Chicago musician Wesley Willis is deceased, but still, it seems that folks shouldn't have usernames based on the real names of notable people. TheQuandry 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Too soon. This person only just died in 2003. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow - agree. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MikeHunt35 (talk · contribs)

Fairly obvious if said out loud. User has previous made a clear point that e was born before the word meant anything [1] but, since Wiktionary says the first recorded use is 1880 this seems unlikely. I'd like to assume good faith but I fear too much protest about it [2]. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow with a smile on my face! clearly not appropriate because of what its meant to say RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow unless the person can demonstrate that this is his real name. I went to school with a Mike Hunt, and whenever his name came over the PA it got a good laugh, but they didn't strike him from the yearbook because of it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to !vote "disallow" on something that (a) can be a real name and (b) requires out-loud pronunciation (meaning that the likelihood of someone being offended by it is fairly low, unless perhaps an editor is using a screen reader when editing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - a. could be a real name b. even though it probably is not, does not appear to be hurting anybody beacuse anyboidy getting it will chuckle and anybody who does not will just think it is there name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow You have to be KIDDING if we'll block someone whose real name is "Christian", because some undescribable person somewhere might get offended, but we will allow "My Cunt". Hmmmm, NOT. Anyone who could ever have this as a real name was either a) unwanted as a child, and/or b) was already aware of the similarity by his first day of elementary school - and in that unlikely scenario, he should be "Michael Hunt". Reswobslc 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And what do you know, Mike Hunt is so well known as a homophone for "my cunt" (yes, I too heard it in elementary school) that it has an article all its own. Reswobslc 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you read past the top of the article to notice that Mike Hunt lists several people really named that (a sheriff, a football player, a professor, and a newspaper columnist), along with others using it as a stage name? Ben 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow There is nothing offensive about this name. "Mike Hunt" is a legitimate name. I do not find this name offensive to either women or vaginas. People who find this name offensive are obviously biased and prejudiced. Acalamari 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone be offended over a person's name? It sounds like bias or prejudice to me. Acalamari 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more inclined to believe that if you hadn't very recently registered a new account: look here. Are you sure you didn't just sign in just to give an "allow" message? Acalamari 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POINT. Dekimasu 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I... yeah, I really don't know enough about airports in general to know if you're correct or not. However, one potentially (to me, since I can't verify that you're right) questionable edit doesn't necessarily mean he's a vandal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know enough about feet and meters to know that something that just got 10 feet shorter had to also get about 3 meters shorter (at least to be mathematically consistent)? Check out this edit where he changed a link in an article about football to an unrelated article about a news anchor he frivolously nominated for AfD. Reswobslc 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] Sorry, there was an edit conflict between when I wrote that and when I added it, but didn't note it in my response. The edit was your revision of your words.
    That said, assuming good faith, it is entirely conceivable that he was making a legitimate change and simply overlooked the detail. Again, a single mildly questionable edit does not a vandal confirm. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked Warned. I've checked recent contribs. Sneaky vandalism and changing wikilinks to senseless entries. --wL<speak·check·chill> 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen Reswobslc 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Doesn't anybody feel stupid for letting this guy yank their chains? First we have a guy who is familiar with Wikipedia jargon like "sockpuppets" and is voting in RfA's, make up a username that reads "My Cunt", and we take his word for it that that's his name. Then he vandalizes pages and we act like he's just made an innocent mistake. Yet we've got the intuition to see the obvious "Huge Dick" sockpuppet for what it is and block it on sight, because it clearly had no edits. Let me guess - if "huge dick" subtlely vandalized a few pages, and changed the atomic number for carbon from 6 to 7, we'd have assumed good faith and not blocked him? Sometimes I just don't get it. Reswobslc 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • [edit conflict] Might I suggest you take a bit of a chill pill? The "my cunt" bit is only noticeable if you verbalize the name (and is hardly comparable to "huge dick"), and your "we act like" statement in absolutely no way describes anyone's attitude but my own (extrapolating my opinion to be that of every other editor here is a fallacy). I'm not really sure what your beef is with the editor, but you seem to be getting inordinately worked up about this whole affair. (and, as an aside, might I suggest you use the preview button more often, so I'm not constantly hitting edit conflicts when responding to you?) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right, I am getting worked up over nothing. That should probably my clue to stop watching a page. The only reason I watch this page is perhaps to pitch in and help with a little bit of the cleanup. I suppose it is just a waste of time. There doesn't seem to be any sort of logical consistency to any of it. Assume good faith, yeah, but assume common sense, apparently not. We worry about the hypotheticals that some anal-retentive Muslim might find a name divisive but we let a troll jerk us around because hypothetically, someone, somewhere, might turn his head when hears the word cunt. We block people who demonstrate good faith, and then we assume good faith for people who are obvious vandals, simply because he told us to. The consensus is so senseless we may as well flip a coin. Thanks for your input, no offense taken or intended, the problem is not anyone personal but just the psychological phenomenon of groupthink and this little bit of the project is obviously not for me. Reswobslc 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please watch closely for vandalism and/or sockpuppeting, particularly for starting to nominate AfDs and vote in RfAs as soon as the account was created. In the absence of other evidence this wouldn't strike me as inherently offensive, but within the context it seems like baiting. Dekimasu 07:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow - Probable bad faith name, probable sockpuppet. User's main involvement has been in RfA's and AfD's.Proabivouac 08:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playford library (talk · contribs)

This is another user that is simply a self-promotion account. I originally reported this to AIV earlier but it was ignored. The last several users I've reported to AIV have been ignored, and I'm concerned if the administrators who deal with AIV have decided to ignore any user I report. Acalamari 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They tend to dismiss all but the most blatant of usernames. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with igoring you! As HignInBC says, (and as far as i know it, the way it is suppsoed to be), only extremly blatnat usernames should be reports to WP:AIV -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the heading of AIV to add a comment that usernames should be reported here, not there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was that meant for a different name perhaps? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming Edison meant to post that for Mike Hunt; I pity the child named "Playford library". ShadowHalo 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=105046014"