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.
When contacting the user, {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} or {{subst:uncon|reason for objection}} may be helpful, but feel free to paraphrase it or write your own original text if you prefer. Please try to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers, if possible: allow for the possibility of innocent error or other reasonable explanation.
Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by admins. Please also read Wikipedia:Username before reporting here. Grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:AIV instead.
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. This is not the place to discuss the behavior of a user unless it is directly related to their username.
Please inform all users reported here with {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} or {{subst:und}}. If the RFC is closed as "Allow", please follow up by informing the user with {{subst:UsernameAllowed}} or {{subst:una}}. Admins who impose username blocks, please detail the specific reason with {{UsernameBlocked|reason for block}} or {{unb|reason for block}} (not just "Violates WP:U", please).
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
If a discussion becomes lengthy, it may be moved to a subpage. See existing subpages.
This page has an archive.
New listings below this line, at the bottom, please.
Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk · contribs)
Appears to violate user name policy for disallowed names: "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character." Metros232 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
*Disallow per nom. Coemgenus 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - The userpage explains what the name is. While seeming random, it is actually a pattern. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see the "note from Padawer" on the subject's userpage before implementing any action. Newyorkbrad 15:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow: It is a pattern. On a standard QWERTY keyboard, Q is the first letter, M is the last, W is the second, N is the second to last, and so on. This should be allowed due to this non-random pattern. It is clearly not rendom. -- Ryan 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it appears random to the naked eye. And considering the explanation is buried in there under layers of other randomness and user boxes, most users will never notice this explanation. Metros232 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that is based on perception. I looked at it and instantly knew what the pattern was. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, perception, as in how appearance is perceived, as in apparently random. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase that. Something being apparently random is a function of perception. I look at and see nothing random at all where you look at it and see randomness. I was just trying to clarify that apparently random can differ from person to person. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as for instance a boustrophedon pattern on the keyboard (qazxswedc...) did not look random to me but did to others. Would "AzByCxDwEvFuGt" look as random, using the alphabet rather than the keyboard as the matrix? -- Ben 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase that. Something being apparently random is a function of perception. I look at and see nothing random at all where you look at it and see randomness. I was just trying to clarify that apparently random can differ from person to person. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, perception, as in how appearance is perceived, as in apparently random. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that is based on perception. I looked at it and instantly knew what the pattern was. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it appears random to the naked eye. And considering the explanation is buried in there under layers of other randomness and user boxes, most users will never notice this explanation. Metros232 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I did not see that explanation of the username when I looked at his page - the userpage is a little cluttered. Still, just because there is a pattern, doesn't the name still violate the rule? I mean, we can find a pattern to anything if we work hard enough. I think the point of the rule is to require intellegible usernames. Coemgenus 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It appears to be random to most people. And I agree, I couldn't find that explanation under the layers of stuff on there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metros232 (talk • contribs)
- User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz#Qmwnebrvtcyxuz_and_qwerty it is explaiend right there on the page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It appears to be random to most people. And I agree, I couldn't find that explanation under the layers of stuff on there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metros232 (talk • contribs)
- Allow My Username is not random. it is the first letter of the keyboard, then the last, then the one after first, then the one before last, then the one 2 after first, then the one 2 before first, then the one 3 after first etc. ending at z Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but even for a pattern that's pretty random. Just looking at your user name, no one realizes that. Everyone has to read the explanation on your user page. Metros232 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. I knew what the pattern was when I first saw it. I however could not explain it as well as it was explaine don the userpage. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll retract my disallow vote on this one, since the non-randomness has become evident. But we should consider how far we can stretch the idea of a pattern. I could call myself User:BCDGJOPQRSU and say there's a pattern -- which there is -- but it still appears random to the average user. Coemgenus 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. I knew what the pattern was when I first saw it. I however could not explain it as well as it was explaine don the userpage. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but even for a pattern that's pretty random. Just looking at your user name, no one realizes that. Everyone has to read the explanation on your user page. Metros232 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The policy says random or apparently random. This is seems apparently random to me, and will to many other people. Just because you can see the pattern does not mean it does not have the appearance of being random. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow. "Random or apparently random sequences of letters." WjBscribe 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow I agree with HighInBC. While I do wonder about the rationale for this policy, if it's policy, it's policy. --Dweller 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The policy is to prevent names that are hard to remember and type. If we allowed apparently random names, then we would have multiple users with names difficult to distinguish from each other. In short, our brain is bad at remembering, and discerning, things we cannot see a pattern in. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. Not random. PeaceNT 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read the rest of the discussion? Nobody is claiming it is random, the problem is the apparent randomness. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Still, not apparently random. I realised at first glance how this user name had been created. PeaceNT 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read the rest of the discussion? Nobody is claiming it is random, the problem is the apparent randomness. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow I could make a user name of the first fifteen perfect squares modulus 26. That's not random. It still doesn't make sense to anyone trying to read it. ShadowHalo 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow Do we have a rule against "apparently random" usernames? --Kukini hablame aqui 16:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow Although I did read the above, I found it hard to believe that we would include the word "apparently" and consider that valid. I bet money that this wording doesn't last as we continue to grow: "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character." --Kukini hablame aqui 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, yes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow after reading the explanation on the user page, I can't see how this name is causing any harm to the project. (jarbarf) 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - it is all there, explained on the user page. Rarelibra 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- How many people are going to go to the user page to figure out how to type the name? I can use the first fourteen multiples of five, modulus 26, and explain it on my user page. That doesn't make it any less difficult or apparently random to others. ShadowHalo 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- As many times as it takes. Wikipedia isn't a rule of common thumb with user names - just because you don't know the name reason or being doesn't mean it isn't valid. If you want to use the first fourteen multiples of five, mod 26, then DO IT. I will support your name as well. There are no rules about difficulty or randomness explanation within reason, and the user page spells it all out. Do you know what OKOCA is? Do you know what METT-T is? Do you know what SMESC is? To you, those would be 'random' and 'difficult' - yet to others they would be instantly reconizable and make much sense. That is the way it is. Rarelibra 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what any of those, but unlike this username, I can easily remember them upon seeing them. ShadowHalo 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- As many times as it takes. Wikipedia isn't a rule of common thumb with user names - just because you don't know the name reason or being doesn't mean it isn't valid. If you want to use the first fourteen multiples of five, mod 26, then DO IT. I will support your name as well. There are no rules about difficulty or randomness explanation within reason, and the user page spells it all out. Do you know what OKOCA is? Do you know what METT-T is? Do you know what SMESC is? To you, those would be 'random' and 'difficult' - yet to others they would be instantly reconizable and make much sense. That is the way it is. Rarelibra 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- How many people are going to go to the user page to figure out how to type the name? I can use the first fourteen multiples of five, modulus 26, and explain it on my user page. That doesn't make it any less difficult or apparently random to others. ShadowHalo 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow as non-random... and if this case is resolved as "allow" (as appears likely), may I ask that the closed case on Qazxswedcvfrtgb (talk · contribs) be reconsidered, since that was also a simple and non-random (boustrophedon) keyboard pattern? -- Ben 17:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow This username may not be random, but it will still get on other user's nerves when typing it. This is another name which would have to be copied and pasted when addressing the user. Acalamari 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow - Apparently random, confusing nonsense. Pattern? Seriously. There are all sorts of nonsensical confusing patterns out there, many oughtn't be user names. The Behnam 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow usernames were meant to quickly and easily identify users even IF there is a pattern Like :User:azbycxdwevfugthsirjqkplomn yes there is a pattern there but it is still a confusing username. per WP:U The primary purpose of usernames is to identify and distinguish contributors random or near random appearance is confusing. Also may I quote No one has a right to any particular username Thus the near random appearance of this username goes against WP:U when it states that usernames Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames are not allowed. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow per nom and betacommand, way to random RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow May not truly be random, but definitely "apparently random". Certainly violates the spirit of this part of the policy, to wit, it's nearly impossible for the average user (such as myself) to apprehend, let alone type. --Ginkgo100talk 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. It took me less than 2 seconds to figure out what the pattern was from my watchlist without reading any of the accompanying discussion here. Let's not assume people are dense, it's an obvious pattern and shouldn't be troublesome for those working with him to remember at all. --tjstrf talk 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're fooling ourselves if we expect users to be able to notice a pattern like this. ShadowHalo 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Howso? As I said, it took me less than 2 seconds. I can understand someone who used a dvorak or alphabetical keyboard being confused, but if you use the qwerty layout it's really obvious. He contributes constructively and even points out what the pattern is on his userpage. Though his userpage itself could certainly use some organization. --tjstrf talk 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I have previousley stated multiple times. I instantly knew what the pattern was when I saw it, and am capable of recreating it here, qmwnebrvtcyxuz, with little effort and not re-checking the top to see how it was done (youll have to take my word on it though). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I had no idea until it was explained here. Not everyone processes things the same, and lots of people aren't going to pick up on it. We're not here to say, "But I knew." We're supposed to determine whether or not other people as a whole will be able to and whether or not it may be a problem. ShadowHalo 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Like I have stated WP:U says that this username is not allowed AS IT IS CONFUSING. Please review WP:USERNAME just because you dont see it that way doesnt mean a majority of others agree. I did not see the pattern, and I see a confusing username. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I have also previoulsy stated, confusing is subjective. To me, a rubiks cube is confusing. to a speed cuber, it is not. I am clarifying that, in my perception of the username in question, it is not confusing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is, by your analogy, users should not have to know how to solve a Rubik's cube to type a username. ShadowHalo 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not arguing about the ease or difficulty of solving a rubiks cube. I am saying that, according to the policy, i do not find this name confusing. Confusing is subjective, and i personally very easily remeber the pattern that this name is composed of. If it ended with x, or some other random letter i would be much more concerned. Therefore, my argument for keeping is not against the confusing comment in the policy because i believe it to not be confusing, along with several other editors who have stated this above. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is several orders of magnitude easier for me to type qmwnebrvtcyxuz than it is to solve a Rubik's Cube. I find the user's explanation to be adequate to anyone who is "confused" by this username, and believe that we should continue to allow them to use it in good faith. (jarbarf) 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not arguing about the ease or difficulty of solving a rubiks cube. I am saying that, according to the policy, i do not find this name confusing. Confusing is subjective, and i personally very easily remeber the pattern that this name is composed of. If it ended with x, or some other random letter i would be much more concerned. Therefore, my argument for keeping is not against the confusing comment in the policy because i believe it to not be confusing, along with several other editors who have stated this above. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I have previousley stated multiple times. I instantly knew what the pattern was when I saw it, and am capable of recreating it here, qmwnebrvtcyxuz, with little effort and not re-checking the top to see how it was done (youll have to take my word on it though). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Howso? As I said, it took me less than 2 seconds. I can understand someone who used a dvorak or alphabetical keyboard being confused, but if you use the qwerty layout it's really obvious. He contributes constructively and even points out what the pattern is on his userpage. Though his userpage itself could certainly use some organization. --tjstrf talk 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're fooling ourselves if we expect users to be able to notice a pattern like this. ShadowHalo 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely marginal and conditional allow on the condition that the explanation/instructions on how to reproduce the username stay permanently on that userpage. NikoSilver 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely Allow. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has been a very good math contributor, as an example he created an article about Bellard's formula. Blocking or banning him won't be gently, he's been an editor since August 2006, and surely won't like to be kicked out from wikipedia at this time of his "wikilife". (explain your username meaning on your userpage though)--Walter Humala - King one! 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that if his username is disallowed, he will still have the option to change it and maintain his edit history or, if he decides, register with a completely new name. He certainly won't be kicked out of Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The underlying point, as I read it, is that this person has been a positive contributor going on 18 months now. To block this person so late in the game citing a silly rule would be wrong and heavy handed. (jarbarf) 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can check out kate's tool to see what this user has been up to. Mostly making his user page dazzling to the senses. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The underlying point, as I read it, is that this person has been a positive contributor going on 18 months now. To block this person so late in the game citing a silly rule would be wrong and heavy handed. (jarbarf) 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that if his username is disallowed, he will still have the option to change it and maintain his edit history or, if he decides, register with a completely new name. He certainly won't be kicked out of Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please note that Walter Humala voted to allow only after Qmwnebrvtcyxuz voted on Walter Humala's Miscellay for Deletion process as a result of Humala's canvassing. Humala was blocked for this. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz actually told Humala "I did something for you, now please do something for me" and directed him to this page. [1] --Descendall 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know we shouldn't comment on other RFCN decisions, but User:Qazxswedcvfrtgb was blocked a few days ago for the same reason. Try typing his name out on the keyboard and you will also notice a pattern - but to me, this still seams it could be taken as random. This username is not obvious as to the pattern, and many editors will be confused. I agree some of his contribs are good, but this is a request for comment on usernames, not contribs RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- (repeated from above) Comment: Please see the "note from Padawer" on the subject's userpage before implementing any action. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weldone newyorkbrad and highInBC for commenting on padawers talkpage to clarify matters RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is it worth sending an email to Padawer? He hasn't edited since 28th Jan RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Technically, it's not random; it follows a specific pattern (I had fun and learned something new from his username :) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not get into technicalities. The first fourteen perfect squares modulus 26 aren't random; WP:U still says it's inappropriate to have that as a username. ShadowHalo 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Woah, chill! I've read WP:U, but I stand by my decision. not random! ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not get into technicalities. The first fourteen perfect squares modulus 26 aren't random; WP:U still says it's inappropriate to have that as a username. ShadowHalo 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief, allow. This user has been round since July of last year. There is no sense in making him change it this long after the fact. If this were a new user, ok, but he's had this name for too long to force him to change it. --BigDT 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow not just not random but actually meaningful unlike most names which are by definition "nominal". He knows pi to 230 digits past the decimal point. I'm just glade he took it easy on us. Edivorce 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Off-topic comment: I never thought someone could have a userpage more hideous than that of SPUI. I was wrong. AecisBrievenbus 01:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow Been here for a while, no point in forcing him to change. This seems to be a case of people enforcing the guidlines to the letter, rather then enforcing the spirit of the guidlines.Darkcraft 09:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow. Despite the fact the name has a pattern to it, it violates the most basic goal usernames were created for. It still doesn't make it easy to identify and address the user in question. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- If for some reason this user is allowed to keep this name, I would seriously request them to put the explanation in a more visible place (preferably at the top of their userpage). - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The underlying criterion is "easy", eh? I await with resignation the day that names like Einojuhani Rautavaara, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde; Parekura Horomia, Kōmihana Tirotiro Whanonga Pirihimana, and Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi; Simeonie Keenainak, Irene Avaalaaqiaq Tiktaalaaq, and Kenojuak Ashevak; are all blocked as "apparently random sequences of letters or of extended repetitions of particular characters, some of unwieldy length (>36), and all of them hard to read, remember, track, and type." -- Ben 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)