Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
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, or if it needs to be reported at all:

  • For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
  • For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
  • If the username is NOT blatantly inappropriate, and the user has made no edits, do not post as there is no need to take any action.
  • If you wish to contest or question the blocking of a user by an administrator, please do not post the issue here. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator or with other administrators.
  • Make sure that the user in question has not already been blocked prior to bringing their username here.
  • The user in question should first be notified on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here.

You may wish to use {{subst:uw-username}} for this purpose. Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply. If after that you still 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.

Contents

Instructions for closing administrators

This page has Archives:

  1. To May 1, 2007
  2. Alphabetical (current)

Tools: Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

List requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}

[edit] Reports

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary. There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

[edit] IFLA-nls-en

The Standing Committee of IFLA’s National Libraries Section chose Wikipedia as its directory of national libraries after an internal discussion and out of eight different potential solutions. Its aim is to complete, and afterwards maintain, the List of national libraries and, occasionally or on request, its 'daughter' articles. When conceiving the project, I planned the creation of a depersonalised username that could be handed over from person to person, according to who is in charge within the section, after elections (I would use it myself for the duration of my mandate). One idea behind this choice was that the section’s representative, with its explicit username, would have some legitimacy in updating the list. On the other hand, that would also mean that the section commits itself about the accuracy of the list. Before registering, I saw in the Naming conventions that usernames explicitly referring to organisations or groups were normally not recommended. For this reason, instead of an automatic ‘create account’ procedure, I chose an assisted account creation, stating the above in the comment field and requesting there a dispensation from the ‘company/group names’ rule. The requested account was created, but without further comment, i.e. formal dispensation. Now, after two days of reading help pages, I see that sharing accounts is prohibited. The statement does not specify whether this concerns simultaneous sharing only (which I also think would be bad), or sharing over time (i.e. one single person handing over account control to another single person – which I would find acceptable as long as the user’s page documents control transmissions), a point that I think the Wikipedia:Username policy should explicit/differentiate. I feel uneasy about this and would like either a formal validation of the username I registered including its planned later use, or an advice to change that username (that I would most probably use for the purpose of this project only and definitely keep for myself).

Many thanks for your appreciation and help

See also: Talk:List of national libraries and User:IFLA-nls-en.

IFLA-nls-en (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are: 1) Yes shared user names are prohibited. The reasons are too long to list but legal and accountability reasons should be evident. 2) Your user name should not be associated with the organization. Editors spend a lot of time and effort verifying facts and sources in articles. It is not feasible to verify the identity of the editors (except in some cases where real names are used). You might not work for that organization next week (or for that matter you could be a 14 yo student using that name right now). There are often problems that arise from using corp or organizational names and it is best to stay away from them. My recommendation is that you change your name to User:LibraryMan (or User:LibraryWomen) something that does not directly connect you to the organization. Just my 2 cents GtstrickyTalk or C 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I believe the policy on shared accounts is referring to simultaneous sharing of accounts. The legal issues with sharing accounts serially/non-simultaneously I believe can be addressed, as explained in my separate comment below, and accountability is only a concern for those who use the account, as we will still block the entire account (just as we do for single-user accounts) when someone using the account is disruptive enough. For these reasons, if the username policy is actually referring to all sharing, including serial sharing, I would invoke WP:IAR in this particular case.
2)If this user restricts his/her contributions to neutral, non-promotional edits, and doesn't point to his/her relation to the organization to claim expertness or authority on a subject, I don't see a problem. Association and company names are discouraged to prevent promotion or detraction from the association or company, but they aren't prohibited if the user does neither. So I think it should be ok in this case, and if there turn out to be problems in the future then they can be dealt with at that time. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only one person will operate the account at a time, but that person may change at any time, correct? If I understood correctly, this account would be operated similarly to NERIC-Security, whose account is approved (and extremely helpful, I should add). I don't see any problems with this account (or, somewhat more relevant to this discussion, its name). I'd say allow, for the time being at least. · AndonicO Engage. 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'll clarify what I meant by "for the time being," since I realize it wasn't particularly well explained. I meant the username and account should be allowed, unless any problems or complications occur in the future (which I view as unlikely, but should be kept in mind as a possibility). · AndonicO Engage. 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In terms of legality, NERIC-Security is slightly different from the proposed username here. NERIC-Security doesn't seem to contribute any new content, just revert vandalism. So I would consider it exempt from Wikipedia's default license, the GFDL, which requires the author of the content be attributed. Since NERIC-Security isn't actually authoring content, it's exempt. IFLA-nls-en, on the other hand, would be authoring content, so those who edit under its name might need to be attributed somehow. I would suggest that each individual using the account is named on the userpage, along with what time period they used the account for. That way the author of content could be extrapolated by the edit date. This may not be important though; if those who edit under IFLA-nls-en don't care about attribution, they can bypass the whole issue by release their edits into the public domain instead (like I have done on my userpage, with Template:User_pd, or with Template:Public_domain_release -kotra (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. They are somewhat contradictory, showing that my question was worth to be asked.

To Gtstricky: I understand your points and it is actually why I put up the question in the first place. Your suggested username seems however worse to me than the initial one: there are thousands of qualified and/or competent librarians in the world and don't see why I could 'monopolize' such a username for myself. It's nearly like an ordinary Roman Catholic registering as 'ThePope'... The initial username, on the contrary, has a clear focus and would not compete with anyone else.

To AndonicO: thank you for your support; and yes, the plan is(/was) that only one person at a time would use that username and that, after my own tenure in this project, my followers would be elected by the Standing Committee, one at a time every 2-4 years. I also pledge to make the history of the account's control displayed on its user page, maybe without real names but with enough information for IFLA's authorities to trace the account's 'owner' at any time.

To –kotra: most of the above already replies to your requests and/or concerns. About promotion, it is clear that the NL section, having a limited potential membership and also a small number of members in its Standing Committee, is highly unlikely to use Wikipedia for its promotion. I'm outside of it myself but I know it mainly works through networking.

It remains that I'm sort of trying to introduce a kind of 'corporate user', cooperating to a restricted set of articles pertaining to its area of competence and over which it would claim some authority, and accept accountability too, contrary to the general philosophy where anyone may contribute to anything without any guarantee that others will accept/keep the input. I'd be happy to read general statements from some Wikipedia's caciques as well... IFLA-nls-en (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are actually intending for you or IFLA to claim authority over articles, you are correct, that is certainly against Wikipedia policy. This is explicitly described in the official policy Ownership of articles. Editing Wikipedia requires the understanding that one's contributions may be removed, reverted, etc. That said, editors often do keep articles on their watchlist and monitor them closely, reverting vandalism and making sure only improvements are made. But these editors do not own the articles or have any more authority over them than anyone else. As for 'caciques', AndonicO is an administrator, though we tend to have a decentralized structure on Wikipedia. Our ultimate authorities are the policies. -kotra (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Further comment: Wikipedia values experts, but does not make any practical distinction between editors based on their expertise. Facts must still be referenced with outside reliable sources, regardless of how knowledgeable the author is. See also WP:No original research. -kotra (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your complements. I'll abandon that username and my idea of transmitting it after the end of my involvement. Best regards IFLA-nls-en (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TimHowardII

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.

The result was: Non-admin closure. Lacking further discussion, name is okay since clarification on user's page. --Ali'i 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


TimHowardII  (talk · contribs)

see below Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to get this reason to appear in the template despite trying several times so have placed it here. Sorry. Tim Howard is the name of a US player for Everton FC and the US soccer team. This user has edited the Tim Howard page or items related to him on several occasions. e.g. some recent ones. [1],[2][3][4][5][6] In fact his first edit (in Sept 2006) was to the Tim Howard page [7]. I have twice asked him to clarify on his userpage [8] [9] that he is not Tim Howard the soccer player, per Username Policy [10] and the chance for confusion given his username and editing interests. I have had no response, though the account has edited since.[11]. I'd be glad for some feedback from other editors about what to in such situation, especially as this name includes the II. Does this make a significant difference? Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He has now added his real name to his userpage, so I presume that is adequate to close this? --Slp1 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say so. -kotra (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (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.

[edit] AspergersGamer

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.
I closed this as allow, since there seems to be consensus. · AndonicO Engage. 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)



AspergersGamer (talk · contribs)

Was originally reported and username concerned. User gave the following reason for his username: Quite frankly i do have diagnosed aspergers, and i take pride in showing it, unlike most others that would try too hide it, and if i dont speak or dont make much sence with somthing, A : They will wiki it, B : It makes sence then. Sorry if this may break the rule's but quite frankly i'm not willing too change it. I personally find this quite a respectful reason, however other users, particularly those who may suffer from aspergers, may still find it offensive, and the username policy states that usernames that may offend are still against guidelines even if it's not intentional. Decided I would bring it here for discussion. SGGH speak! 07:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


I don't think the name would be offensive to anyone. The name doesn't make any negative claims against people with Asperger's, so I sincerely doubt anyone with Asperger's would find it offensive. But if anyone finds this name to be potentially offensive, User:Deafgeek should probably be discussed as well. -kotra (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There doesn't seem to be any malice involved here. Choose another example; if a user decided to create a name that spelled out ADHD or read "manic depressive", I don't think it would cause much disruption on Wikipedia. However, with that said, if it does (by some chance) become a problem, it can be further discussed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with this name at all. If the word Aspergers was combined with a disparaging word, then that would be offensive, but with "Gamer", this is fine.--BelovedFreak 11:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This name is not a breach. It does not mention the syndrome in any negative way, so there really isn't a problem with it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation, in my eyes at least. Leaving up until [07:27 June 9 (UTC)] to meet criteria for closing administrators. Rudget (Help?) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow. I've AS, and am not offended in the least. · AndonicO Engage. 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks okay to me. GlassCobra 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow It's really not that offensive. It just says he has Asperger's Syndrome,and he plays video games. There's really nothing wrong with it. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This one looks absolutely fine to me - Alex Muller 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow - no negative connotations, just descriptive, looks fine. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:37, June 8, 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow Not really disparaging, I don't think the mere mention alone is enough to be offensive. 1 != 2 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow I may have Asperger's but I do not find it offensive. Judging by the name, the user may be an avid video game player who has Asperger's Syndrome. Johnny Au (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow. not sufficient for block. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (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.