Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:RFC/NAME
WP:RFCN

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere:

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates. Before listing a user here, contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username.

This page has an archive.

Tools: Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

To request comments about a problematic username:

Discussions are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names.
To do so, add the username into the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix.
Replace only the word USERNAME, leaving the rest as is.

Example: if your concern was about User:John Doe, the new discussion would be titled:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John Doe

Then click "Start a discussion". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request.
After you've saved the request, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.


You must list your request (after it has been saved) by adding
{{Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}}
as the last entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ←(click this link).
Please include the username to be discussed in the edit summary.

Contents


 [view]

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 the discussion's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and speedily closed. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottie Too Hottie7 (talk • contribs)

I believe it is insulting to people who don't like Scotties. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Allow this nomination is preposterous...name is in no way offensive. Nardman1 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close NO VIOLATION OF WP:U in spirit OR letter. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very speedy close unless I am missing something. GDonato (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (ec)
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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Name is confusing similar to a wiki syntax, per WP:U. Nardman1 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment User does not exist (no creation in log), I think. GDonato (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Name does exist, it was created prior to the existence of the current logs. There is, for example, no creation log of the account User:Jimbo Wales. Nardman1 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment OK. I have learnt something. But if the account was created that long ago (and has no contribs) then why have this?GDonato (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This page has been protected since 28 March. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • INDEF BLOCKED {{username}}. — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User_talk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Name is confusing similar to a wiki syntax, per WP:U. Nardman1 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, but the acct hasn't contributed since July 2006. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Close Block if you want but the user seems unlikely to contribute again. GDonato (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • INDEF BLOCKED {{username}}. — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 [view]

[edit] Compassrecords (talk • contribs)

Obvious spam username, in violation of WP:U. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This user was already blocked for spamming. RJASE1 Talk 03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 [view]

[edit] Sdfghjkp (talk • contribs)

The username is a collection of letters that spell nothing. It's the middle row of keys on a QWERTY keyboard. (except for the end letter keys) and the letter p. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • A classic random 'blah' name that violates WP:U. The Behnam 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 [view]

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 the discussion's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Allow, no violation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moonlit nightmare (talk • contribs)

Username is a violation of the username policy. It's unnecessarily confusing, too. Saturation2 Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me. 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Allow. No plausible objection to this name. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - Is it supposed to be objected to by Moonies? TortureIsWrong 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Could the nominator specify how this username violates WP:U? I don't see any violation. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've posted to the nominator's talkpage asking for a clarification, because I still don't see it either. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, this user has not been notified of this discussion. As is instructed at WP:RFCN, users should be notified by the nominator that they are bringing a discussion here. This can be done with a personal message or by using {{UsernameDiscussion}}. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In general that is true. But this nomination is, on its face, so baseless that if this is closed as allow in the very near future, it might be better not to bother the user at all. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. That is why I didn't leave a notification myself (the template is general enough that it can be left by anyone, not just the nominator). It should be mentioned for the nominator, however, that it is good practice to notify users prior to requesting comments on their usernames. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - seriously, come on, no violation. The Behnam 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. I fail to see any objections. bibliomaniac15 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. The nominator has also had some problems with obviously incorrect RFPP reports (1 month full protection for sporadic vandalism), so maybe someone could try to guide him? -Amarkov moo! 03:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_User_names_6c05.html"