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.
DO NOT post here if:
- the user has made no recent edits, as there is no need to take any action.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator. Generally, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking.
Before adding a name here YOU MUST ensure that:
- the user in question has been notified and allowed time to discuss the concern on their talk page. You may use the {{subst:uw-username}} template for this purpose. Only post the issue here if they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply.
- the user in question has not already been blocked prior to bringing their username here.
If, after having followed all the steps noted directly above, you still believe the user has chosen an inappropriate name under 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, possibly with the {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} template. You may also invite comment from others who have expressed concern on the name by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
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"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the page.
Sturmgewehr88
Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs)
- Combination of a Nazi-era term for "assault rifle" and "88" a term with Nazi associations. Blocked for that reason on the German Wikipedia. I blocked them here for that reason, but they have appealed their block, offering an alternative connotation for their username, and otherwise they appear to have been a good contributor. I've unblocked them for now, and am posting here for further discussion. The Anome (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
.
- Having read this, I comprehend the 88 neo-Nazi references. However, the 88mm was also a feared WWII German weapon that many believe should have been reverse-engineered by the Allies. Although the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) is one of the better-known Nazi-era assault rifles, there is no such thing (from what I can tell) as a Sturmgewehr 88 ... (there is a Gewehr 88 from 1888 though!)). Is this an intentional mix of two famous weapons by a weapons fan? Is this a mix of a weapon and the number of keys on a piano by a fan of antique guns and Baroque music?? Or is this an invocation to shoot non-whites in the streets and alleys by a neo-Nazi? For this, one would have to review the edits, which is not the goal of this board - the intent here is to discuss names that are obviously contrary to the username policy. To violate, it would have to obviously be offensive to others, which I unfortunately find it not to be. Again, this does not take into account edits combined with the username, which could lead to blocks in another board ES&L 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- For one, "sturmgewehr" is used to this day by German speakers as the word for "assault rifle", so I wouldn't call it a "Nazi-era term". To respond to User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, I don't understand why everyone automatically thinks I'm specifically referencing the StG44; I took the broader sense of the word, so "assault rifle" as opposed to "M-16". The 88mm gun was a very powerful weapon, mentioned numerously in books, documentaries, and Call of Duty, so growing up I associated the number with the German military. And if someone did look at my edits, all they'd find is "Ryūkyū". ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Allow, but... Whilst I don't think this violates the en-wiki username policy (I can see it might be a problem for de-wiki), and I accept SG88's rationale for its selection, I'd suggest that he consider a voluntary change of username purely out of consideration for those few (one, so far) other users who see it as offensive. Since there's no relationship between his signature and username anyway, this would go largely unnoticed in any case. I wouldn't view that as any more than a suggestion, though, and if SG88 is determined to keep his current username, I see no reason not to let him do so. Yunshui 雲水 11:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Allow but solely because the user has steered completely away from certain subjects. Were this name to show up on, say, Talk:Israel, it would be instantly inflammatory. Yes, I know the Gewehr88, the source of the numeration, long predates the modern neo-Nazi use of 88 as a code word, but the whole point of worrying about names that might cause offense seems to be that we don't want to even potentially offend any users. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Allow as above. This username would be a concern if coupled with questionable or problematic edits in particular subject areas. I can't see any evidence of that and if we AGF that his userboxes are accurate then we have even less to be concerned about. Stalwart111 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Agent al rușilor
Agent al rușilor (talk · contribs)
- User:Biruitorul reported the user to UAA, because it "Agent al rușilor" literally means, in Romanian, "agent of the Russians", or more loosely, "Russian agent", and mentioned that the previous username User:Serviciile secrete rusești ("Russian secret services") had been soft-blocked; I am not sure the new name is any better than the previous one, however it does imply a single person rather than a "group" so that's an improvement. I am not comfortable blocking right off the bat because I am not convinced it is a violation of our username policy and because the user has been using it for months; hence I am requesting input from the community at large. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say Allow. It's unlikely that either the Russian secret service or one of its agents would openly advertise their status (although, it might be a devilishly clever plot to make us think that they aren't...). They obviously haven't wrecked the place yet. Peridon (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Ming Bridges
BillMoyers
BillMoyers (talk · contribs)
Violation of user name policy for ""real names". Bill Moyers is a prominent television personality on PBS. If this editor does not share the same name then he should not use it. If he does, policy requires him to prove it. I directed this editor to the policy,[1] but have received no response. TFD (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I concur that this name is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Disallow per WP:IMPERSONATE unless they are able to prove their identity. Ansh666 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Bill responds here. While I did originally report this username, I don't believe that the editor is attempting to impersonate a well-known person. I'm inclined to believe it is his real name but I think there could be confusion among readers (I was surprised to see the name) and it would be preferable if he changed it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, this part of the page I linked to above needs to be followed: "If you are using such a name because it is your real name, you should make clear on your userpage that you are not (or are not related to) the well-known person of that name." After that is done, there should be no more problems. Pinging User:BillMoyers so he can hopefully see this. Ansh666 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- He has not said it is his real name. TFD (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- He has also been generally obtuse, demonstrating WP:IDHT on article and user talk, and since he edits medical articles, the name *is* misleading. He has demonstrated varying levels of understanding of Wikipedia processes, and doesn't seem to respond to either pings or direct posts to his talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I misread (which was possibly his intent, eh?). The famous Moyers doesn't have anything explicit to do with medical (or psychology) matters, does he? At least a quick perusal of his page didn't ring any warning bells for me compared to this editor's contribution areas. Since as of right now he can't or won't prove that his name really is Bill Moyers or that he is not actually the famous Bill Moyers, I'm restoring my disallow above. Ansh666 21:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- He has also been generally obtuse, demonstrating WP:IDHT on article and user talk, and since he edits medical articles, the name *is* misleading. He has demonstrated varying levels of understanding of Wikipedia processes, and doesn't seem to respond to either pings or direct posts to his talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- He has not said it is his real name. TFD (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Another editor has questioned the use of the name on the user's talk page (User talk:BillMoyers#Question about User Name/ID). Again he evades saying that his real name is Bill Moyers and the implication is that it is not. Also, he has failed to post to this discussion page despite my request. I suggest therefore that the account be blocked until and unless he states that he is using his real name or agrees to a name change. TFD (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
-
- I don't know why no action has been taken on this; of course the real Bill Moyers is involved in health (look up his books on amazon.com). And I would post the claims Moyers has made about me all over Wikipedia, but I don't want to give them more attention than warranted. There is some apparent deliberate obtuseness here, and this fellow is getting traction via the use of this name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Ansh666 Apparently: [2] On the general apparent obtuseness, I encourage perusal of Talk:Schizophrenia where (among other places) he has decided that I don't know the difference between a doctor and a nurse, I'm not qualified to work on the article since I don't own the DSM5, and I'm not qualified to work on the article because I'm not a Dr. Work on that article has ground to a halt, partly as a result of the IDHT on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
-
He doesn't appear to have claimed that this is his real name. He says it is a common name, but isn't explicit. Maybe I am being overly pedantic, but I am inclined to block unless he claims it is his real name. -- John Reaves 05:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I had not realized that Bill Moyers had edited a bestseller, Healing and the Mind (1993) as a companion to his PBS TV series. It makes the chance of confusion even greater. Ansh, he has not edited anything related to Bill Moyers AFAIK. TFD (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Blocked. The situation seems rather ambiguous, since he's not precisely saying whether he's the famous guy, or whether he's someone else with the same name, or neither. I've blocked because of the ambiguity, and I've left him a set of simple instructions for resolving the situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- You know, that section of the policy needs a minor re-write to allow for the possibility that the editor actually is "the well-known person of that name". There are no instructions about what a notable person editing under his or her real name should do. (And given WP:OUTING, can we really require that a person publicly post "Hi, I'm actually this famous person"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I also noticed that a sentence the first paragraph seemed to assume that a famous person would not use a real name; I've changed that sentence so it doesn't make that assumption. The second through fourth paragraphs give instructions that famous people can follow if they want to edit under their own names. A page on the person's Web site saying "on Wikipedia I use the account Foo" doesn't seem like a serious outing problem, if someone has decided to use a real name. —rybec 21:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeh, it's a bit hard to 'out' someone who is using their real name. I would think that, because of possible COI issues, someone famous enough for an article editing under their own name ought to declare the fact. Especially if they are editing the article - and I can't really see many doing any other unrelated editing. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I also noticed that a sentence the first paragraph seemed to assume that a famous person would not use a real name; I've changed that sentence so it doesn't make that assumption. The second through fourth paragraphs give instructions that famous people can follow if they want to edit under their own names. A page on the person's Web site saying "on Wikipedia I use the account Foo" doesn't seem like a serious outing problem, if someone has decided to use a real name. —rybec 21:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)