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
Note. On past precedent, this discussion is taking place at WT:CHU/U. A user has requested to usurp this username but there is a concern that it violates username policy because it is a username "mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Please comment there. WjBscribe 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
DeveloperDan (talk · contribs)
DeveloperDan (talk · contribs), undoubtedly through no intent to deceive, has chosen a name which might be taken as implying he is a Wikimedia developer. Sam Blacketer 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow The only implication I perceive from that is that he is a developer. That term is not exclusive to the realms of Wikimedia software. Bubba hotep 11:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Disallow per policy clarification. Bubba hotep 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)- Disallow. Developer is indeed not exclusive to MediaWiki, but nor is 'bot', 'admin', 'sysop' etc, which are all explicitly disallowed by the username policy, and this clearly falls under the same category. If you disagree with that policy, Bubba, then you should seek to change it at WT:U. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow. WP:U states that "usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user" are not allowed. It doesn't say anywhere that these have to be exclusive to Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
AllowIMO "developer" is indeed much more harmless than "bot", "admin", "sysop" etc. I wasn't struck with doubt as to whether Dan works for WP when I saw it. Furthermore, I think the spirit of WP:U is clear: IMO a "Developer" does not "imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user". Nobody is going to feel inferior to Dan because he happens to be a developer. Signed: EntrepreneurNiko :-) 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)- Developer is equal to bot, admin, sysop, arbitrator, steward, etcetera. Calling yourself a "developer" does imply that the user has "an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user", regardless of whether that was intended. Developer is an official position within Wikipedia as well, see Wikipedia:Administrators#Developers. AecisBrievenbus 13:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow It implies an official role on wikipedia, regardless as to whether or not a developer has special tools RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow misleading and policy violation. Sorry. --Dweller 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow, unless there's someone with a name that's similar to this who works for the project, then this is an unreasonable username restriction. The guy is a software developer, 'DeveleperDan' is his handle. This RFC/U shows poor judgment and should be removed appropriately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- 'AdministratorDan' may well be an adminitrator in real life, but the username still implies an official role and would be banned RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- There may not be an administrator called Peter, but the username AdminPeter would be blocked. It doesn't matter if there's noone else with the name Dan, the word Developer implies an official position within Wikipedia. And that is explicitly disallowed. AecisBrievenbus 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow It implies an official role, thus is explicitly prohibited by policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow - could be his common handle, and only people who have some experience even know what a developer is and would probably tell that he was not one by his name, in fact. Milto LOL pia 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if it's a common handle. Developer is an official position within Wikipedia, and the use of that word in a username implies an official position within Wikipedia, which is explicitly disallowed. It doesn't say anywhere that the word (admin, sysop, bot, developer) has to be exclusive to Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- (editconflict) allow I think that whether a name implies an official position should be judged on whether someone who would think that having a username with a given word in it means the user has an official position would be aware that "developer" is the name of an official position. --Random832 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- How is that relevant? Not every user may be aware that bots are operated on this project, yet usernames containing the word bot are disallowed. How is developer any different? AecisBrievenbus 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Policynetwork (talk · contribs)
"Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement."
Name of a UK think tank. See Policy Network. All most contribs by this editor relate to this think tank. Verging on spam. WjBscribe 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow Although some of their edits were unconnected with the organisation, still a company/group name. Bubba hotep 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow politely. User has other contribs too. NikoSilver 12:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow even (especially!) if, as could be suspected, they're an official at the organisation. --Dweller 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This username probably refers to the penis, but there's a slim chance, as indicated on AIV, that this is the user's surname. I've decided to move the discussion here. AecisBrievenbus 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow assuming good faith that it is his real name RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow, disruptive. That it might be a surname is irrelevant; we don't allow Dick (talk · contribs) either, even though that's a legitimate given name. —Cryptic 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow real names aren't the issue - I could change my name by deed poll to Murderoldpeoplewithknives but it's still abhorrent. Without context, can be offensive, and context is usually going to be absent. Usernames need not be offensive - get the user to change it. --Dweller 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow and probably get the man to change his surname too, if that's it, which I doubt. :-) NikoSilver 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are apparently over 200 usernames starting with cock... Are some Wikipedians suffering from a penile obsession? AecisBrievenbus 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Humans you mean. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting reading indeed. My personal favourite is User:This account will be blocked forever. (Also, cocks) - almost an afterthought! Bubba hotep 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC) And time to get reporting, by the looks. Bubba hotep 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Humans you mean. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow per WP:AGF. It is an established English surname and shouldn't cause offence. Sam Blacketer 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow, and I'm disturbed by a sentiment expressed above to the effect of "it doesn't matter if it's his real name, someone might still misunderstand". This is reminiscent of people being fired for using the word Niggardly because even though it has no relation whatsoever with the phonetically similar pejorative, it offended someone. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Allow. "Cocksedge" is a reasonably common surname as are "Trebblecock", "Cockburn" etc. I think names such as these must be an exception to the general policy. People should be able to use surnames in their usernames. WjBscribe 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow per "Dick" example. Milto LOL pia 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)