Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FlightTime (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 23 July 2014 (→Hell in a Bucket: Archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:36, 23 July 2014 by FlightTime (talk | contribs) (→Hell in a Bucket: Archived)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcuts

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

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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"). 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.

FletcherNathan

FletcherNathan (talk · contribs) New user whose only edits have been to the existing article about the politician Nathan Fletcher. Edits are sourced, but all are positive material about the subject; I have tried to tone down some of the laudatory stuff or material with unreliable sourcing. User has been warned twice on their talk page, once about username, once about COI, with no response. Active ongoing editing as we speak. MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disallow under 'Misleading' username. The username implies that the user is the subject, to which I'm pretty sure they're not. However, if they are, that's clear conflict of interest editing. I would report this to the conflict of interest noticeboard while you're at it. They seem to be pushing all positive views despite being a new user. Tutelary (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have done that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow This report should be at WP:COIN, unless you believe this is the politician, then WP:IMPERSONATE is in order. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

BillMoyers

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Non-admin closure: User indefinitely blocked. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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, 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. Ansh6 6 6 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Revised; see below. Ansh6 6 6 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Restored, see below below. Ansh6 6 6 21:55, 19 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 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. Ansh6 6 6 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Ansh6 6 6 21:55, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

This guy? Someone needs to rewrite that article, then. Ansh6 6 6 01:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ansh666 Apparently: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

Dusanzarubica

The result was: procedural close. User was not notified before the discussion. Ansh6 6 6 18:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dusanzarubica (talk · contribs)

Conflict of interest or promotion. The user is or may be a politician (or a fan) that he has written an article about. Alex 12:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got the wrong policy. Real names are not violations. And when you do find a username issue, make sure to follow the directions -- this noticeboard requires that "the user in question has been notified and allowed time to discuss the concern on their talk page." NTox · talk 15:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Take it to WP:COIN. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Creative Concrete Products, LLC

The result was: procedural close. This user made one edit, three days before this process was opened nearly two months ago. There is no problem to solve so there is no need to evaluate what, if any, consensus was reached here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Creative Concrete Products, LLC (talk · contribs) I'm posting this username here because I do not agree with Daniel Case at WP:UAA, This is a blatant username policy violation IMO, comments please. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should invite the user themselves to take part, as they haven't been blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disallow. I was puzzled to see this username described as as "Not a blatant violation of the username policy." I think the problem might be the distinction between UAA-specific instructions and policy. I now understand that, for a username to be disallowed via UAA, there must be an editing history that links the user to the company. However, as far as I understand, the name does clearly violate username policy. If I'm wrong, correction is welcome. DoorsAjar (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This may be a factor my concerns are policy based, in my experience this username would have been denied at such places as WP:CHU or WP:ACC. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: "However, as far as I understand, the name does clearly violate username policy." Perhaps the problem isn't with the user ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Allow for now, but keep an eye on it. From WP:Username policy#Promotional names: "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." Ansh6 6 6 02:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- And by "allow" I mean disallow but don't necessarily block, especially since there's only been one edit and it's not in concrete-related areas. Ansh6 6 6 19:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
disallow I'm fine with allowing them the opportunity to just change their name since we're here, but this is an obvious violation of WP:ORGNAME regardless of whether they edit in the area of concrete products. If they continue to edit without changing it they should be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Allow as long as they don't edit anything about concrete products. There is really no other choice if WP:AGF is to mean anything at all. If we want the username policy enforced this mechanically, let's just leave it up to the bots and not bother with any of this at all. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit over the top , don't you think? AGF compels us to assume this person is simply ignorant of our policies such as ORGNAME and to give them a chance to bring their username into compliance with that policy. It does not compel us to ignore that violation, otherwise why do we even have policies? If a user mistakenly believes it is ok to edit an article to reflect their POV, we assume they just didn't know any better, but we don't just let them get away with it, we try to educate them as to our policies so that they are able to contribute constructively. The same principle applies here. ORGNAME is perfectly clear about this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they're up to good, we could certainly suggest that they change their name, but I don't think we should compel them to change it. I do distinguish this from Bronx Discount Liquor in that there is an actual business with that name. But can we assume that the account was created by the business when its sole edit has been to an article on poetry? Perhaps someone just created the username out of common words, completely in ignorance of the existence of a real business by that name? (See User talk:Bravogolfhotel, a lesson I have never forgotten).

In any event I don't consider this a valid RFC as the account under discussion has made only that one edit, four days ago, and while invited to this discussion has probably sensibly decided not to join a conversation about something over their heads in which most of the participants want his or her head. In fact, they have probably decided not to edit Misplaced Pages again, ever, and if I were them and had read the above remarks, I wouldn't blame them as it would be altogether too easy to come to the conclusion that the site is run by people whose noble principles are, like so many others, a convenient fig leaf for the maintenance of petty bureaucratic fiefdoms.

Anyway, since they have shown no continuing interest in being a member of this community, I don't see why a bunch of people with no dog in the fight should continue to waste their time deciding whether they want to let them be part of that community. Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you that an RFC is premature and/or an overreaction. Normally a good faith effort is made to discuss such an issue with a user first, and we come here only if that discussion fails to resolve the issue and the user in question continues to edit. But if they did continue to edit the name is clearly a reference to a company, the "LLC" at the end leaves no doubt on that point. You and I have been in the trenches at UAA for a long time andI know we have both seen sometimes over-eager reporting and blocking, but at the end of the day it is not up to us to dictate policy to our liking and I think it is pretty well established that the community does not support using a business name. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, with a bit more knowledge and/or wiki-trawling, you (Daniel) would likely have noticed that "Bravogolfhotel" is merely BGH in the NATO phonetic alphabet, not an overt reference to any sort of company (even though apparently there exists one in the Philippines, which is often a source of problematic editors). I do agree, though, that this account that we're discussing here is probably abandoned already. Is there anything in WP:Username policy that says what we do with stale accounts that don't have any problem edits? I notice that in the section below (Explus.tw), you (Beeblebrox) imply that stale accounts aren't always blocked, although that account was unlike this one engaging in disruptive promotional behaviour. Ansh6 6 6 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, for cases like this, to be honest, it depends on who is patrolling UAA at that exact moment. As a semi-regular admin there I have noticed that it is an area where admins are often stepping on each other's toes, whether they are aware of it or not. So, since Daniel got it and he is probably the most tolerant regular there it just got declined. Another admin might have blocked it or said

Being discussed with the user. or

Wait until the user edits. just to see if they ever edited again. In either of those last two cases the report would go to WP:UAA/HP for at least a week, unless the user became active again. If they didn't return the report would be deleted during the nest time the holding pen was cleared out. If they did they might agree to a name change, and only if they did not agree to one would we find ourselves here. So, it's normally a longer road from there to here and now that I think about it it may have been more appropriate for me to just close this than to go ahead and participate in it as it seems the normal preconditions have not really been met. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disallow per no shared accounts because it confusingly implies that more than one person is now or at some point in the future will edit with the account. Even if this editor never edits anything related to his company, the implication is that the account is an official corporate account whose editor may change over time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion and experience a corporate name by itself does not imply shared use. Many corporations are basically one person in their early days, or someone gets tasked with promoting the company on social media (and then sends me an email asking to unblock the account). However, I'd have blocked it on sight if it were "Creative Concrete Products Marketing and Communications Department"—that's more clearly the sort of name that implies not only shared use but shared use for explicitly promotional purposes.

Perhaps we should have asked him if he has any connection to the company before we started this—as it is, I think he's been good and scared from ever editing again, certainly from that account and probably from any account. Usually in cases where I think there might be potential promotional use, I mark it with an "e" for "keep an eye on". However, most of those accounts start with either tentative user space edits or not-apparent-yet-how-they're-related mainspace edits to some sort of business-related article. Starting out with an edit to an article on a poem is very atypical, and made me think that hey, maybe this person is just using their corporate name while they plan to edit other poetry articles. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use (as of 13 September 2013): "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted...." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As has been noted, this is slightly at odds with "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked" (emphasis mine) in WP:CORPNAME just above it. I consider assuming good faith to be more important.

We have to ask ourselves, what are we protecting by doing this? The username policy, or the encyclopedia? We must remember that the purpose of the policy is to protect the interests of the encyclopedia. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a username appearing promotional and actually being promotional. We block for being, not appearing. "Creative Concrete Products, LLC" appears promotional; we all agree on that. But is it actually? The answer is probably, but we don't know for sure. It is promotional if the user created the name after an actual company called Creative Concrete Products, LLC. That is certainly the most likely scenario here. But it is also possible that the user was trying to think of a username outside the box, and completely made it up. I've seen folks do it before. Somebody makes a name like "NTox, LLC" to represent themself... there's no actual company involved; it's just an avatar. (Similar example: "User:Department of Redundancy Department"). Until we know for sure, we talk it out with the user and proceed from there. That's what should have happened here. There should have been no UAA report, no RFCN, just a message to the user inquiring about their name. NTox · talk 06:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Unquestionable disallow Flat out violation of pretty much every aspect of the username policy. Indeed, every time they SIGN something, they're promoting their business ES&L 08:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- But, as NTox says, how do we know that they're actually affiliated with the company and didn't just try to come up with something clever? Their only edit is to a poetry article. CU can't be used to associate this account to the company in Mount Vernon, Washington, USA. I don't know, I do tend to take WP:AGF to a bit of an extreme. Honestly, I doubt this is even necessary, though, since I believe either 1) the user has been scared away from editing altogether or 2) they have created another account to edit from without the name of the company. I repeat my question, not to ESL/Bwilkins but to anyone reading this: is there anything in WP:Username policy or anywhere else in written form (basically other than general consensus by admins at WP:UAA) on how to treat stale accounts? Ansh6 6 6 09:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a written rule anywhere, but in practice we usually don't bother blocking accounts that are not actively editing. If, as is the case here, the username is the only problem, a block does not serve a legitimate preventative purpose if the account is not even being used. However, this is again something that varies depending on who is reviewing reports. Some of the more hard line regulars at UAA will block any account, stale or no, promotional edits or not. It has been my observation that UAA is not consistent and the regulars there, myself included, have more or less just accepted that that's how it is. We often see a report come in, get declined, and then the user is blocked anyway. There seems to be little interest there in discussing these inconsistencies and sorting them out. Earlier this year I opened several threads on the talk page there hoping to smooth some of this out and while that did produce some discussion most of the regular admins there did not particpate at all. it may time for a broader discussion of these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's stale, you're right that it doesn't need to be blocked. However, affiliated or not, it's the appearance of affiliation that would be problematic. ES &L 18:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please "allow"

Please let me address all of your concerns over my chosen username. Personally I like it, although I never intended on choosing it to violate policy nor to promote myself or company. I notice your own usernames can be used in novels, product names or companies if so fancied by an individual or group of individuals. I suppose EatShootsAndLeaves could become a popular video game title, then what? Will all of you ban them? I am one that sees the future of Misplaced Pages taking extra steps in the future to do more to simply watch a particular user's actions and call foul if and when they ever violate policies. Perhaps Misplaced Pages already has measures in place to prevent such violations. So I ask, please do not ban me nor ask me to change my username because I can and am willing to help contribute in making Misplaced Pages better.

By the way, you're not blocked anymore, so you can log in and edit from that account. Ansh6 6 6 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:EatShootsAndLeaves would be covered in a "Grandfathered" clause. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Related to this: . Perhaps allowing them to edit under this name would be sufficient disclosure of WP:COI - is that inherently harmful to the encyclopedia? Yes, I know that I'm more or less proposing to rid WP:Username policy of "promotional usernames", but IMO it's a valid point. Ansh6 6 6 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

How would you propose dealing with the issue of shared-, could-be-shared-in-the-future-, and reasonable-readers-would-assume-it-is-shared- and reasonable-readers-would-assume-it-is-the-company-not-the-person-behind-the-words- issues? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

How many normal Misplaced Pages readers (not editors) actually go look at contributions and page history?... Ansh6 6 6 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Barring some kind of study, it would be hazardous to guess. But even assuming it's a low percent, a lot of people read Misplaced Pages. Let's assume conservatively that 10M people read Misplaced Pages in a year, and assume (I think) conservatively that 0.1% of non-editing readers check contributions at least once a year. That's still going to be 10,000 people, which in raw numbers is not small. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Obvious disallow. This is not an "business-y sounding username" as Daniel Case suggested in his comment. This isn't a fictional organization. It's a real organization, with its own website, Facebook page, etc. This is such a blatantly clear violation of Misplaced Pages:Username policy that I am amazed it's even being discussed. Considering that the user has made no move to change the user name, and has stated an intention on his talk page to write an article about his company, I have re-blocked the account with a softerblock. Enough time and discussion has passed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ZajednoZaŠumadiju

blocked. in the future please report blatant violations at WP:UAA or follow the prerequisite procedures outlined at the top of this page before posting here. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ZajednoZaŠumadiju (talk · contribs), the username violates WP:SPAMNAME, as it represents political party Together for Šumadija, user's edits are mostly questionable as well. Alex 18:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Explus.tw (reopened)

User blocked despite being stale, by Alexf. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Explus.tw (talk · contribs) I consider this name being inappropriate under the policy WP:SPAMNAME (as equal to shortened address of commercial web page, still clearly referring to commercial company). Used for promotion of commercial company at several language sections of Misplaced Pages within several days: English (nominated for deletion), Russian (posted trice; speedy deleted twice as ExPlus, reposted as Explus under IP, nominated for deletion again) and Chinese - without any proof of notability in any of versions. Tatewaki (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC) The nomination is reopened (above archived procedural close, not sure if I had to "dearchivate" it instead) since the user in question was notified about two weeks ago, without any reaction whatsoever from him, and his only contributed article was about the Taiwanese company ExPlus (deleted a week ago), thus it's reasonable to qualify the case as promotional-only account. Tatewaki (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Question - User hasn't edited in two weeks, and the promotional article has been removed. Is it worth going through the trouble? Ansh6 6 6 19:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Russian Misplaced Pages rules do strongly consider such promotional-only accounts to be hardblocked as soon as such use becomes obvious (and, honestly speaking, it was evident almost immediately, including such activity in 3 Wikipedias at the same time); I believe that English Misplaced Pages rules also consider them unappropriate and it's quite unlikely to expect useful/nonpromotional contribution from this account — but of course it's for local admins to decide (just as opinion: policy against spamnames might be pretty useless, if it such cases are generally considered "not worthy going through the trouble" — obviously, such user is likely not to do any more edits if he must be "given enough time before being nominated" and he did not have any intentions within Misplaced Pages except promotion).

Just in case: I would also recommend admins to monitor contributions from user YT2013 if such appears (from more recent request of the same user for a new name in Chinese section where the same article does not have any more proof of notability but is not deleted yet). Tatewaki (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Explus.tw

The result was: procedural close Per the notice at the top of the page, you have given the user no time whatsoever to respond to your concerns and you have not informed them of this discussion. Feel free to repost or re-open when those conditions are met. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Explus.tw (talk · contribs)

I consider this name being inappropriate under the policy WP:SPAMNAME (as equal to shortened address of commercial web page, still clearly referring to commercial company). Used for promotion of commercial company at several language sections of Misplaced Pages within several days: English (nominated for deletion), Russian (posted trice; speedy deleted twice as ExPlus, reposted as Explus under IP, nominated for deletion again) and Chinese - without any proof of notability in any of versions. Tatewaki (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dalermehndi123

The result was: Disallow Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dalermehndi123 (talk · contribs)

The username implies the user is Daler Mehndi, a well-known Indian musician; this may be a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE. The user's only edits are to Daler Mehndi–related articles. I notified the user with {{uw-username}} a few days ago but they have not replied. Psychonaut (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

Question: Has the user been advised of the option within WP:IMPERSONATE to contact OTRS for instructions to provide verification of their identity if they claim to be the popular person ? Mlpearc (powwow) 01:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

{{uw-username}} links to Misplaced Pages:Username policy, of which WP:IMPERSONATE is one section, so yes, they have been so advised. —Psychonaut (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

But they had not edited for a month before this discussion was opened and have not returned while it was underway, so they may not even be aware of this RFC yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As WP:IMPERSONATION states, it's not unusual for accounts which imply the user is a specific celebrity to be pre-emptively blocked to prevent damaging impersonation. In this case there's a very clear connection between the username and the user's editing interests, and also some clearly disruptive edits (unexplained removal of templates and content, promotional edits, etc.), so it would be safer to block now and continue this discussion if/when the user resumes editing. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but normally this forum is intended to discuss the matter with the user in question, not just report them for blocking as is done at UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

He's edited Tunak Tunak Tun, a song by Daler Mehndi, and Daler Mehndi. Both were good-faith attempts. The edits to the song were a bit puffy, and the edits to Daler Mehndi were his struggling (and failing) to master the wiki code involved in replacing the existing external links with a new link. This is a good-faith, early days newbie. This is not damaging impersonation. So a preemptive block would be assuming bad faith and over-reaching. We certainly shouldn't assume this is not Daler Mehndi. I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining what he needs to do if his name is not "Daler Mehndi", if his name is "Daler Mehndi", and if he is Daler Mehndi. 122.109.100.224 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Has anyone noticed that his user page has been cut down twice as G11? It seems like an abandoned account that someone came back to. Nevertheless I would say Disallow: simply because of the case for user:Ceydaates below which was of a WP:IMPERSONATE case and that was closed pretty quickly as a softerblock. MM (Report findings) 15:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Disallow - The Dalermehndi123 user page was deleted for promoting Tunak Tunak. Dalermehndi123 additionally has edited under a name that is likely to imply that Dalermehndi123 is (or is related to) Daler Mehndi. The topic Daler Mehndi is an area where other editors, such as User:Dalermehndi (blocked), User:Daler123 (blocked), and User:Daler1234, have edited. Dalermehndi123 stopped editing 7 May 2013, but returned to edit the Daler Mehndi page 1 September 2013 to 4 September 2013, so Dalermehndi123 should be aware of this discussion from the posts on Dalermehndi123's talk page. To protect Daler Mehndi, I think the Dalermehndi123 account should be blocked until proof of identity is provided that Dalermehndi123 has authority from Daler Mehndi to make posts that imply that Dalermehndi123 is, or is connected to, Daler Mehndi. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Disallow (as nominator). The account has resumed activity with a number of problematic edits, including promotional language and copyright violations. They have been uncommunicative with respect to the problematic edits and potentially problematic username. This doesn't reflect well upon Daler Mehndi, so it needs to be established whether the account is operated by or on behalf of the musician. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Disallow and close per Psychonaut. The fact that communication about clarifying their name has been attempted with the user without any response, along with problematic edits, indicates they are not really here in a collaborative spirit, whether it is their real name or not. Also, this has been open for 3 months, and really ought to be closed by now. I, JethroBT 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages requests for comment