Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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

Reports

3253253254325

3253253254325 (talk · contribs)

User name is confusing and seems to consist of a random sequence of characters Ga rr ie 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note User been here since Oct, 2006. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User was first contacted regarding their user name by Riana on 29 April. They have continued to contribute, but do not seem to have discussed Riana's concerns anywhere. I am adding comments to their talk page to make sure they are aware of what's happening.Ga rr ie 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This to me looks open and shut, it is clearly random numbers. Due to the fact that the users been here so long, I would suggest leaving it open for a while to see if they have any input. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find it hard to use, and I'd get confused if other people had similar user names, and I agree that it should probably be changed, but some might say that it's not that hard to remember - 325 repeated four times, with a digit 4 before the fourth repetition. 325 325 325 4 325. Perhaps this is an example of 'systematic bias' against people who have stronger numerical communication skills than me? 11:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not that random- it is 325 4 times with a 4 be4 the 4th repition. (all 325s and 4s) It is not hard to remember- encourage but don't force a change, in my opinion. GDonato (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a new user it would have been blocked there and then at UAA. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may use one of User:WJBscribe's username blocks as an example of what I mean: User:Ffsfdfdfdfdfd was just blocked at UAA, correctly might I add, how is this any different to the username we're discussing here? The only difference is that the username here is repeating 3 characters instead of 2. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference is the fact that "Ffsfdfdfdfdfd" contains five repitions plus a random string of three at the start and is far more confusing to the eye- I would indeed support a block on that name. GDonato (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ffsfdfdfdfdfd is a string from 'the home keys' of a qwerty keyboard, so it's easier to think that it's a pseudo-random mashing of the left hand typing. Any similar left hand mashing will give similar, confusing results, (eg dsfsas, sdfsdfsdfsd, fdffsdfs, etc) so these should be blocked. A number may have significance that isn't immediately obvious to many WP editors. I'm not sure whether that means a change should be forced. Some people just have much better ability with numbers than others. Dan Beale 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is apparently random. That much is evident. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this "apparently random"? Just because I don't understand it doesn't make it random. It may be a hilarious volleyball joke for all I know. Dan Beale 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That precise statement does - if users don't get what these random numbers mean, then it's apparently random. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of users have names that don't make any sense, but because they're pronounceable words they get allowed. This name a:doesn't look random, it has a pattern. b:hasn't (as far as I can tell) been involved in nonsense edits and c:seems to have been created before the 'random name' policy was created. Dan Beale 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one registered to create a category. He or she doesn't do much communicating, and doesn't need to, and is probably not a strong english speaker anyway. All in all, a decent, semi-regular contributor to his or her area, and a good example of why we shouldn't go out of our way to look for "random" names. It's also interesting to note that at the time this account was created, the line in the username policy against random names was absent. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not there when the username was registered? Well that certainly gives credence to the idea of allowing the name despite appearing random. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing disallowed at the time was lengthy names- no mention of confusing (except the subheader) or hard-to-type. GDonato (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we'd gain by blocking this user or forcing them to change names is to alienate a potentially useful contributor. The rule about random letters and numbers (1) wasn't even there when this user registered their account, and (2) is somewhat disputed anyway; see Wikipedia talk:Username/Archive 2 for lots of discussion. The main (good) argument for this rule, btw, is that this is the type of username vandals pick when they know they won't be sticking around. Yes, it's also slightly hard to get right without double-checking, but so are a lot of names, but that's not a good reason to block someone when it's not extremely bad (and btw, if this was really a good reason, why did the non-latin character restriction go away)? I just can't see any good argument why we should block a good contributor for some technicality that really isn't inconveniencing anyone. Mango juice^talk 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JBAK88

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.

speedy closed - 88 is too generic, if it is a behaviour problem, take it to WP:AN/I or WP:AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) JBAK88 (talk · contribs)[reply]

88 in this user's name appears to mean Heil Hitler. Normally I'd assume 88 referred to a birth year or who-knows-what-else, but this exchange and this series of diffs make me think otherwise: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I raised the issue on his talk page, and he has not responded, although the account is active. Fireplace 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is a username block the actual correct answer here? Or is it merely easier than pursuing a block based on the user's behavior? RFCN should not be used as an "easy banhammer". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I came across his behavior after reading the exchange about his username, not vice versa. I'm not suggesting a block or ban, but a name change. Fireplace 22:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a behavioral problem then deal with it that way, but I really don't think we should be blacklisting numbers. 666, 616, 13, 88, the list can get long real quick. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As HighInBC said, blacklisting numbers is dangerous- especially those that could refer to a DOB- I think it is unlikely in this case but we can not afford this to become a precedent for future number-related issues which arise. GDonato (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate GDonato's point, but this seems to straightforwardly fall under "Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, sexual orientation, et cetera" given the edit history. Fireplace 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a number, and you yourself keep mentioning the edit history, so I tend to feel this should be addressed behaviorally. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:41, 16 May 2007 (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.