Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xeno (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 25 March 2011 (→‎NickPenguin: allow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

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:

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

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.

Place your report below this line.

NickPenguin

NickPenguin (talk · contribs)

may be for "The penguins of Madagascar" at Nick. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a name needs an explanation to make people see how it might be a violation, it usually isn't a problem. (Exceptions exist for names that might be insulting in foreign languages, but this is English.) Allow. —Soap— 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious allow. –xenotalk 12:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autobot

Hi everyone. I operate a bot account at User:RichardcavellBot. The bot framework is open sourced and now has contributions from other people. Accordingly, I'm hoping to rename the bot framework as something that doesn't include my own name. There is no Wikipedia bot called 'Autobot', and I'd like to use this name for my bot framework. It is a reference to the TV series Transformers, and might be trademarked for all I know. I notice that at least one person with the username 'Autobot 09' was blocked for a username violation. Please note that I will only ever run the bot under the account RichardcavellBot, and others can register their own bot accounts to run the framework from. I'd like to register the name Autobot, redirect User:Autobot to User:RichardcavellBot for now, and rename my SourceForge page 'Autobot'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend posting this on WP:CHU as it would save a step and might be watched by more people. Autobot 09 was probably blocked for being a human, rather than for a promotional username. —Soap— 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs

USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs (talk · contribs)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is considering editing Wikipedia content related to pesticide chemicals, U.S. pesticide law and regulations, and other pesticide-related issues. But it appears Wikipedia's user name guidelines generally prohibit monikers that reflect organizations. OPP feels that an exception should be made in its case.
Edits made under the proposed user name "USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs" will have prior approval from the Office Director. Content in the edits will have been vetted by Agency subject matter experts to ensure accuracy. Also, pesticides are sometimes contentious and staff occasionally move on, so it seems most appropriate for individual communication staff to use an account set up for the Office rather than create individual accounts using their real names.
Are there any objections to the user name "USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs"? Regards 161.80.10.21 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify one point: if an individual staff member was to create an account, they need not use their real names. They may use a pseudonym. In fact, we generally caution against the use of real names (see WP:REALNAME) . –xenotalk 21:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Perhaps I should have added that we're balancing Wikipedia's guidelines with an Agency public communication policy requiring us to make explicit the fact that it's EPA talking in Web 2.0 scenarios. Whether individual staff members create unique pseudonyms or OPP is allowed to create its own account for their use, explicit Agency affiliation is required on our end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.10.21 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there and welcome! First, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I'd love to see if we can get you guys connected with someone from the Foundation and/or experienced Wikipedia volunteers to be a point of contact for you and as a resource for advice with the community, especially as pesticide issues are, as you've noted, sometimes contentious. Do any other editors have thoughts on who would be good to talk to about this? It seems like your team is making an extra-careful effort to understand the Wikipedia community and our policies, which I certainly appreciate.
As for the username issue, I'm not speaking from any position of authority here, but my guess is going to be that there will be objection to editing under this username. Certainly, I understand your position, and I do support the aim of making the agency's identity explicit in its communications, but the prohibition against organizational usernames isn't just about the name, it's intended to prevent the sharing of accounts, which is prohibited by longstanding policy. There is an expectation here that one user account represents one individual human being; editors cannot maintain multiple identities for themselves (sockpuppetry) nor can multiple people share a single identity. This policy seeks to prevent the complexities that otherwise occur; it's difficult to impossible to participate in a discussion about an article with an account that represents an organization or department because you have no idea whether the person you are talking to now is the same person you were talking to earlier. Ultimately, one account=one person is a fairly fundamental community expectation here, and I suspect an exception would be pretty contentious.
The alternative I would suggest would be for each staff member involved to create an account of the form "USEPA XX" where XX are the user's initials. Less confusing to other editors here would be something like "USEPA John," (easier to distinguish different names) or you could do something more pseudonymous like "USEPA Glyphosate Guy" or "USEPA NakedMoleRat." Virtually anything would be alright that doesn't imply that multiple people are sharing an account. You could then add text to each account's user page to explain that the account's owner is a representative of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs and provide any further information you wish. That way, any interested person clicking on the username to find out more would be able to see an explicit disclosure of the user's agency affiliation that expands on the USEPA tag in the username. You could also use that space to clarify that staffers are editing as individuals and that they are not directly speaking on behalf of the US Government. Conflict of interest disclosures on user pages like this are a standard convention on Wikipedia as described in WP:COI. For example, see User:Mark at Alcoa, which came up here last month. If an individual staff member moves on, they can simply leave a note to that effect on their user page and/or stop using the account.
I hope this helps. Feel free to let me know (you can leave a note on my user talk page) if there's anything I can help you with and I'll do my best to either help or point you to someone better suited for the task. Zachlipton (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the usage of a group user name. If we were to allow you, then we would be creating a precedent that would go against current policy. Unless our username policy is changed by taking Wikipedia community consensus, simply getting consensus on this specific forum to allow your name would be considered wrong, without basis, and will be overruled quite easily. Kindly consider some of the alternatives that the editor Zachplipton has given above. Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't mind the organisational-account too much in this case , but I think others in the community would - understandably - object to a shared account. I think the other common concerns about an organisational username (IE. spamming) can be set aside for now. Zachlipton had some really good suggestions on usernames for "individual" accounts which are still clearly tied to the organisation. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, it can be difficult for newcomers to get a grip on some of wikipedia's many norms & policies (which are there for good reasons; they're not rules for the sake of rules). Others in the community would like to help well-intentioned newcomers, but if several different people shared one account it's very difficult to provide that help. In the unlikely event that somebody at the OPP went beyond the realms of "I'm not sure how to update X" and started making disruptive edits, then it can be difficult for the community to stop the disruption without also causing problems for other people at OPP.
    I'm quite keen to help organisations and officials engage with wikipedia; an expert contributor is worth a dozen passers-by. If you need a hand with anything, feel free to use my talkpage; or there are lots of different places to get help, in particular the helpdesk. bobrayner (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the delay in responding. Thanks to all of you for the input. I understand the concerns about a shared account. At Zachlipton's suggestion, I read through the issues related to User:Mark at Alcoa. I see that other users are still objecting to the "at Alcoa" part of the user name in spite of an Admin review and decision. In any event, I will run this past my management and see if they want to dive in. Thanks all. 161.80.10.21 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries about the delay, and I still think it would be great for everyone to have your experts contributing. I hope that can still be possible. If you'd like, it might be helpful to your team to talk to someone from the Foundation or a volunteer who is specifically involved with working as a liaison to institutions interested in contributing to Wikipedia. We've done this formally with the British Museum (Wikipedia:GLAM/BM) and are now working with several cultural institutions. It would seem that working with the EPA to improve articles in these areas would be a natural extension of that effort. If you are interested in talking with this team, just let me know and I'll see who would be the best person for you to talk to. Let me know if there's anything else I can help answer too. Cheers, Zachlipton (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justice and Arbitration

Justice and Arbitration (talk · contribs)

Misleading username because it can be read to imply a position of authority in the WP:Arbitration process. See discussion at User talk:Justice and Arbitration#February 2011.  Sandstein  19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user should necessarily change his/her name. Quite misleading, especially to editors who're not in the know of the user ids. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Not at all misleading. I did a double take when I saw this in CAT:UAA and another when I saw the template had been left by an experienced editor. Arbitration a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. It's astronomically unlikely that any particular use of the term has anything do with the Arbitration Committee on a single website. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: There is a difference between "Justice and Arbitration" and something more clearly in violation such as "WikiArbitration" or "WikipediaArb." Most casual users of Wikipedia probably haven't even heard about the Arbitration Committee to begin with, while experienced editors should be able to tell that this username is not the same as ArbCom. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow, per Sgt. R.K. Blue. I think there's not much potential for misleading people. If subsequent edits appeared to deliberately mislead people that would be another matter. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - user appears to be interested in contributing in good faith and I can't see any indication that he intends to deliberately mislead anyone. If that happens, we can take care of it, but this really seems like a non-issue to me. Zachlipton (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow this editor has been making good faith edits since 2009. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Name changed Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HkFnsNGA

HkFnsNGA (talk · contribs)

  • Note User has just indicated they are reading the username policy and may be willing to suggest amn alternate name, so we may not need to do this after all. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it, so now NGA refers to Non-Governmental Agency for anyone who sees it (unless they have read Huck Finn, in which case they will think it is complimentary, not offensive), since that is what comes up in a google search using acronym finder. HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work for me as you have already made it clear what it really stands for and now you are trying to play a shell game to disguise that meaning but I will leave it to others to comment here so that a consensus may be found on this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It only really stands for something to me and my friends. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy block Completely inappropriate user name. And given the pov response the user maintains on his talk page (where the user refuses to accept the inordinateness of NGA), and his slanted deportment here, I'm given to suggesting an immediate block by Beeblebrox or by any other admin - instead of extended discussions here. It's completely unacceptable for a user to be allowed to keep a user name that is undoubtedly demeaning (for) a specific community. Even though my current intent is myself blocking the user in question rather than just comment here, I respect Beeblebrox' initial intent to discuss - and therefore should request him to not be quite lenient in this particular case. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow name change This user has edited for over a year and has started several articles. It is a bit late to outright block them. A username change would allow them to edit under the same account just with a different name that isn't offensive to a group of people. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added in a legthy response above. If consensus after reading my response I just indented in above, and consensus is that my argument is not reasonable, then change my name to just "N" (I don't know how), that's what my friends and family use. (I think I am experiencing culture shock.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"N" was the suggestion of User:Ocaasi in a parallel discussion of this topic here, but I would like a reasoned response to my argument I recently indented in above, before anything drastic is done. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The response is that it's difficult to expect understanding of a complex racial satire in your abbreviated public handle in a diverse community. You're not wrong for liking the name, and you're definitely not racist because of it. It might just clash with the policy. Does HkFnsN sound better to others? I see the single letter as significantly different than the consonant abbreviation, which is not so subtle. Ocaasi (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The username N (talk · contribs) (and all other single letter names) is already in use here and/or on another wiki and thus can't be usurped. Sorry. Or did you mean you wanted HkFnsN (talk · contribs) ? —Soap— 14:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)::::::I still don't understand the problem.[reply]
  • (1) Peeling three consonants out of of a complete abbreviation changes the referent. It is like taking one symbol, offensive by itself, out of Chinese script, which has a completely diffrent meaning as a whole that is in no way offensive.
  • (2) My intention in chosing my nick was to refer to a heroic fictional character that was my role model growing up. If anything, I should be accused of being self centeredly presumptive, not offensive. No one could possibly figure out what my nick means without reading the book, and anyone who reads the book would know that the nick is one of respect, not offense.
  • (3) It would be like if I chose the nick "NWA", then complaining about that I have an "N" in it by peeling that one letter off. NWA would be an acceptable nick, and in no way refers (in my opininion) to a hip hop group of higher moral stature than Jim in Huck. A string of consonants has to be read as a whole, not in part.
  • (4) I really do not understand the problem, but in no way want to offend anyone, and do not think I have. But I am still listening for a response to this argument, and if the only choice is a block or name change, I will change it and think that a big mistake was made.HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "NWA", or "HkFnsNWA"? HkFnsNGA (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Pan and Daffy Duck were also my childhood role models when I was "never growing up" (they really were), but this comes out to "PPdd". I am willing to change to that. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name change requested with link to this discussion. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: Promosoft blocked (already done by HJ Mitchell) Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bluewaterprod

Bluewaterprod (talk · contribs)

The user continues to edit articles pertaining to themselves and their company, Bluewater Productions. They have been warned on their talk page and have perpetuated the activity consistently, if irregularly. Most recent edits include here, where documented criticism of their company was listed yet continues to be reverted by this user as being "slanderous," regardless of the fact that the statement of criticism is sourced, along with a rebuttal from the company's owner showing that they do not actively edit with WP:NPOV. I recommend another warning from an administrative level at the very least, presuming that the user is not already in violation of having a business user name which I understand is not normally permitted. Ganthet2814 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be blocked immediately as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, any admins want to weigh in please? Ganthet2814 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw this earlier, but didn't bother to block them because they haven't edited in about three months. I would say that if they return we should leave them a message kindly asking them to go to WP:CHU (which Amatulić has already done) but I don't see any reason to block if they aren't being uncooperative. —Soap— 18:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promosofter block after the close of this discussion, not waiting for them to return - agree with all the above statements that there is no urgent need for this block to happen now (prior to letting others see this discussion), but there is no need to wait for the editor to return to editing to only have to dig up this conversation again. What is clear to me is that their username represents a company, and therefore potentially represents a group account, and is in violation of WP:U. The no recent edits factor on their account only reduces the need to act immediately, but does not diminsh the fact that the username is a violation.  7  22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with 7 Gigs (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: withdrawn by nominator.

CaptainFugu

CaptainFugu (talk · contribs)

The username can be too easily interpreted as "Captain Fuck you". Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem with me if it's not a problem here. Binksternet (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: In the absence of edits related to Lenovo, the result is allow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo09

Lenovo09 (talk · contribs)

Username is very similar to that of Lenovo. While user's edits don't indicate promotional intent, I don't think it's appropriate to let him continue editing with that username. Thought about going to UAA, but since he hasn't attempted to edit any articles relating to Lenovo, I figured it best to come here. Blueboy96 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: In the absence of promotional edits for the corporation Lenovo, there's no way this can be blocked. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: no edits connecting user to the company. I don't see many concluding they are here to promote Lenovo. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • n User was only given 49 minutes to discuss before the issue was brought here. Theis101 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:UN#Product name as username. –xenotalk 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: hasn't been discussed with the user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perseus, Son of Zeus

Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs)

Same name as God. Is this allowed? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of Wikipedia:Username policy does this run afoul of? - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean is it? It's the name as the name of Perseus Jackson, the hero of the book Perseus Jackson and the Olympians. Also there is a god name by Perseus. SO I guess user names that are named after famous gods/dieties are allowed? So User:Athena is allowed? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. --Conti|✉ 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, for user:Jesus, who got {comments redacted; Wifione ....... Leave a message} blocked for the name, despite it being a not uncommon name. user:Allah too, though at least that's not a real name. Do we maybe have a double standard in regards to western monotheistic religions vs. everyone else's belief system? Just saying. Buddy431 (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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: Allow - a username indicating that you are an individual who works for a company is permissible and is a useful voluntary self disclosure of a potential COI..  7  22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark at Alcoa

Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs)

Previous discussions: User talk:Mark at Alcoa & Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive80#Alcoa → Alcoa Editor
I think this user is violating Username policies because of a. of possible WP:COI vio and is used for promotional purposes (editing a company article of the same name). For example, would Mike from Symantec be banned if he is editing the Norton Internet Security article? I think he should. (see also Wikipedia talk:Username policy#User names that have known companies in them) Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: The username policy and coi policies are two different policies, and names which indicate a conflict of interest are not a violation; the name was specifically changed so that it no longer violated WP:ORGNAME, and represents a single individual. The user has explained that they intend to abide by our rules on conflicts of interest, neutrality, advertising, etc. and indeed that they chose the username for the sake of making their conflict of interest transparent. I don't see a username policy violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block "Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. A username that is the name of a company or group implies the intent to promote this group. Accordingly, such usernames may be indefinitely blocked. Even if the name is ambiguous, accounts with a company or group name as a username may be indefinitely blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional." (copied and paste from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username_policy&oldid=404623475) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've mentioned above, however, the user has explained that his motives are exactly the opposite, and has no intention of promoting the company. The use of their name as well makes it clear that the username represents one person, so I don't see how this can be said to be violating WP:ORGNAME as either promoting a company or representing that company. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing it to just User:Mark or User:MarkA --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the user is willing to change it then problem solved, but I don't see a compelling reason to make such a change obligatory. Note that both cases would require usurpation, making them less than ideal, but I take your point. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is User:MarkA a registered user? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says above "DO NOT post here if the user has made no recent edits, as there is no need to take any action." User has not edited since August 2nd. No need to block. 216.67.76.20 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was bounced here from WP:UAA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=405209592) :/ --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Tyw, your own argument reads better as a reason for allowing the name than disallowing it. Where is the evidence he's editing promotionally? It certainly is not a group account, as it identifies him as one person. Hes been through this before, let's not do it again please. —Soap— 22:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user is editing an article called Arcoa and is obvious that s/he is from that company, --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But "Arcoa" is. Why is Bill from Microsoft would get a uninomous vote to block while Mark at Marcous is getting a unimous vote to allow? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the bureaucrat who renamed the user from "Alcoa" (which was a violation) to Mark at Alcoa, I obviously felt the new name was permissible per our username policy and accorded with relevant guidelines on declaring a conflict of interest.
    Tyw7, you seem to be implying the conflict of interest would go away if the individual was renamed to MarkA - it wouldn't. The user has a COI with respect to the Alcoa article for as long as they are employed at Alcoa - but COI editing is not prohibited, it is merely strongly discouraged.
    In this instance, I see no need for further action. –xenotalk 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: allow. My best guess is that "ved" stands for "virtual environment display". While the editor has some issues related to promotion and conflict of interest, I don't see a huge problem with the username (especially given that the user seems to have stopped editing). –xenotalk 15:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyingved

Flyingved (talk · contribs)

COI/SPA and possible user name policy vio. (May also be 178.94.130.125) Other editors already issued warning on User talk:Flyingved but that was December 15 - 17. On December 20 they created CTLS Flight Design. See also User:Flyingved/Flight Design aircraft LSA which is now a redirect to the mainspace. On December 21 they created Flight Design aircraft LSA as a redirect to CTLS Flight Design. Today, December 23, they created MC Flight Design with their user page a redirect to that article (I have removed the redirect). They also, today, created Flight Design aircraft as a redirect to CTLS Flight Design. Also on December 20 they uploaded one image (File:CTLS in flight.jpg) sourced to flightdesignusa and licensed it {{cc-by-3.0}}, however I don't see any such license listed at the source. December 21 they upped two more (File:Aircraft's look.jpg and File:LSA plane.jpg), with no source listed, but with a company watermark. These are also license via {{cc-by-3.0}}. See also Flight Design and Flight Design CTSW, both article they have contributed too. EDIT: See also User:Managerved who created Mc Flight Design as well as the first "CTLS Flight Design" article which was speedied December 14. More information on their talk page, including the same SPA/COI warnings. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow - User is trying to promote his company through Wikipedia. It appears he's trying to continue to do so after Managerved was blocked. T3h 1337 b0y 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally Managerved (talk · contribs), the previous account, is not blocked. January (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who actually communicated with this user I can add that he makes it clear on his user talk page once I asked him, that he works for this company, Flight Design. He had agreed to stop posting COI/spam/copyright violation articles because five of them had already been speedily deleted. So I was shocked to find out hear that he has done it again at CTLS Flight Design. As in his past efforts that article is a copyright violation from the company website although this time he seems to have changed a few words. As you can tell from our conversation on his talk page he clearly understands that he is in a COI and that he is spamming, but he keeps doing it even after being warned multiple times. Because he keeps creating new spam articles on his user and talk pages and then moving them into mainspace his warning record is all over Mainspace instead of on his talk page, so the history of the multiple warnings is a bit hard to follow. From his behaviour it is also very likely that he is a sockpuppet of Managerved. At this point I would recommend banning him and CSDing the article. I will nominate it for CSD as spam. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that the user is editing with a COI, but I can't see a violation of WP:ORGNAME. I think this board is the wrong venue, WP:COIN would be more appropriate. January (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the user name either, I agree this should be moved to WP:COIN. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ineligible for posting here as username concern was not discussed with user prior to posting here.216.67.77.18 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall comment/reply: Note I did say "possible" user name policy vio and this is the correct venue for posting "where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username." I have no real clear idea if "ved" is related to the company or not but it must mean something as they also used another "ved" name to promote it. I have no issues with this going to another venue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see Before adding a name here YOU MUST ensure that: above.216.67.77.18 (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the notice on the page? Also, fair question here - as you have only made two contributions to Wikipedia and both of them are too this discussion, is there anything you wish to disclose? Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect a user probably just forgot to log in; however, they're correct. You need to discuss it with the user and give them opportunity to reply before taking a username issue to RFCN. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh* Since it must be too difficult for the I.P or you to look anywhere else here: Hello, Flyingved. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Soundvisions1 That is a vlear message teleling the user to come and discuss the issue. Unless the I.P is the user they have not done it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posting that message to the users talk page one minute after posting here is not notifying and allowing time to discuss the concern on their talk page.216.67.77.18 (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest actually reading the comments, Sound, rather than accusing me of not checking for discussion with the user, which I did. You cannot bring a report here until after attempting to discuss it with the user, and giving the user sufficient opportunity to reply. You left a templated message with the user immediately after filing this RFCN; there's no point in speedy-closing this now since the user has now continued to edit without acknowledging the message, but in future discuss with the user first. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. There may well be problematic editing, but that is not a username problem. I'd support any attempt to engage with the editor about problematic editing, or sanctions if the problem continues despite engagement, but it already appears that the problematic editing would occur regardless of what the username is. bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: Allow.  7  22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nissae Isen's Man

Nissae Isen's Man (talk · contribs)

  • Posting for comment. I worked with an IP editor to resolve confusion over who was editing using their IP address/computer and advised them to go the ACC route due to limitations on their ability to use the interface. At the time I thought the name was iffy but OK. [2] The editor has since created a related article (CSD). Although I'm quite certain there's no COI issue, having looked again at a search engine, I'm now thinking this usernamer is unacceptable from a BLP standpoint. I've begun discussion with the editor and thinking within a day or two resolving it and working back through talk pages to move previous sig's as necessary until searches no longer reveal this name. If I'm over-reacting, I'd like to know. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Usually this forum is for clear violations only. I would suggest you look into the oft-neglected option of WP:RFCN. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, we really do have a page for everything. :) Thanks, will do tomorrow. I probably already knew that too. :( Franamax (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from UAA GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 15:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow The username isn't disruptive or harassing anyone, nor is it being used to impersonate anyone. I see nothing to object to here. —me_and 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nissae Isen is an actress [3]. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow as not violating WP:U at all. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow and Speedy close. No violation. Alluding to being the man of an actress is perfectly alright. This would have been different if the user's name were simple Nissae Isen. I would have blocked the name immediately, pending confirmation from the user. Please read our Username policy for how well known people's usernames are dealt with. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=420649604"