Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

[[:|WP:RFC/NAME
WP:RFCN]]

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.

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:

Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

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.

David r from meth productions (talk · contribs)

David r from meth productions (talk · contribs): Doesn't sound appropriate it sounds like he likes/makes meth. WikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak allow. I can just barely make a connection there, and methamphetamine does have some non-illicit uses. Looking through his contributions, though, I can't say I'd be all that sad to see him blocked. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User name doesn't contravene policy, "meth productions" could mean anything. The only problem I could see would be if there was a company or other trademarked entity of this name which the user was falsely claiming to represent, which doesn't appear to be the case. The editor does have a colourful mode of self-expression, and I've had a word about this, but I don't think there's a WP:U issue here. Deizio talk 08:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak allow Certainly not the best username out there, but it doesn't actually violate WP:U. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow I don't think we have a policy against drug related names, if this even is a drug related name. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Disallow~~ ~~Weak disallow~~ Neutral. When I see the word "meth", I immediately think of the illegal (in the U.S. at least) drug. Quoting WP:U, "Names that promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions" is considered inflammatory. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has been around a while and has been making more or less good faith contributions (if confrontational at times). I wouldn't just indef-block, but rather start with recommending a name change. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Meth is also used for legal medical purposes, including narcolepsy, attention deficit disorder, and for short-term use to cure obesity[1]. Alcohol is illegal in many countries, should names refering to vodka be disallowed as well?. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might be my personal bias, but "meth productions" suggests illegal and dangerous production, not legitimate medical use. I am changing to weak disallow, though, per user's history and discussions here. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I think it's just your personal bias. For all we know "David R" works for a brand-name pharmaceutical company. What do such companies do if not "produce" drugs? Drugs are their "product", meaning that the company and their employees are involved in drug "production". I don't see how "production" implies illegality or danger. —Psychonaut 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion related to this here: Wikipedia_talk:Username#Illegal, you may be interested in contributing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote yet again to "Neutral" per that discussion. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. There's nothing inherently offensive or illegal about this name, or about meth(amephetamine) itself for that matter. Nominator is overreacting IMHO. —Psychonaut 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow There is nothing wrong with this username. Kaldari 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joewigger (talk · contribs)

Joewigger (talk · contribs) "Wigger" is a blatantly offensive term. For those unfamiliar, it means "white nigger," and is a derogatory term for caucasian youth who participate in the hip-hop/rap scene. -- Kesh 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see Wigger for more info. Never heard of this term before - or how I hate PC stuff - no opinion. Cheers Lethaniol 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh May be offensive, but I cannot call forth too much enthusiasm for disallowing it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually pretty apathetic about this one as well. Given their first edit, though, [2] I wouldn't be too surprised if they were blocked for other reasons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak allow. Just doesn't seem clear that it is all that offensive... but perhaps comments from those more familiar with the hip-hop scene would be helpful here. Edits so far just look like tests. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow per Kesh - it is what he says it is. Reswobslc 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow, we can do without Wigger in usernames. Deizio talk 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. Wigger is a not-uncommon surname among English-speaking people. For all we know this could be Joe's real name. Unless the user name is being used in an offensive context, there's no reason to disallow it. Otherwise we should also categorically ban all names containing the words "Dick", "Johnson", "rod", "hose", "member", "organ", "Wang", and "wiener", simply because they are used (in certain contexts) as slang or euphemistic terms for the male genitalia. —Psychonaut 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I haven't come across Wigger as an English surname, and certainly not one that is "not uncommon". It also comes under racial epithets rather than genitalia, hence those examples are a bit off-topic in this particular debate. Absent of proof this is his real name, it still strikes me as "potentially offensive language". Deizio talk 02:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the assumption that sexually explicit names are also disallowed. If that's not the case, then I'm sure anyone could come up with a long list of terms which are both racial epithets and surnames (or which have other innocuous uses). Anyway, if you want evidence that Wigger is an English surname, simply do a web search using some appropriate keywords. For example, here's a Google search for "Mr Wigger" which returns several hundred hits, almost all of them (on the first page, at least) legitimate. I propose the nominator ask the user in question about his username so that context can be established. —Psychonaut 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad worked with a guy with the last name Wigger, the name predates the slang. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. We are not in the business of banning "potentially" offensive language, especially since it might be his actual name. Kaldari 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're in the business of building an encyclopedia, and I don't believe that racial epithets are entirely necessary to identify oneself while pursuing that purpose. Deizio talk 08:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the sandbox, the user has only one edit: to the Wikipedia article, which was a vandalism/experimentation addition of "[Wikipedia] is also gay." Assuming the user even logs back into Wikipedia under this account, it is pretty clear that wigger is being used in the derogatory sense, just like gay is, and isn't his last name. As for whether the name is offensive or intended to be offensive, to me it clearly is. But the discussion as to whether he should be blocked, at least besides for discussion's sake, seems practically moot since blocking only stops people from editing - something he isn't really even doing Reswobslc 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the name, not the person. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "clear" wigger is being used in a derogatory sense? Kaldari 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. I see a guy named Joe who wears a wig. I would never have even suspected it meant something different until you said it did. Should we ban User:Pussy cat now? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]