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:
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 ~~~~}}.
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 list.
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 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: vau blocked. Sure, give them the benefit of the doubt, AGF and all, and give them time to respond here. They chose to ignore that and intentionally tripped the edit filter a number of times after being notified . Obvious is as obvious does. Vaublocked per Deepfriedokra's suggestion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of discussion of this at UAA so I decided to bring it here. Personally I think that this is a violation as a clear sexual reference, but there seems to be disagreement about that. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name is childish and stupid and I seriously doubt the person operating it has any intent to stick around and actually help build an encyclopedia, I just don't think the name, on its own, is sufficiently explicit to warrant a no-warning block, which is why I declined to do so. If we decide here to disallow it or block for other reasons and move on that's fine by me. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 17:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how someone might not recognize this a blatant violation of the username policy, especially if they do not know about the sexual meaning of "69". Nevertheless, it is obvious to those who do know that this is indeed a violation of the username policy, and considering their only edit, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEAT\C 17:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the "69", but what "eat my banana" refers to. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it means in this context, but it sounds innocent enough that it might not be considered problematic by the average person if it weren’t for the “69”... or maybe I’m just ignorant of common sexual slang. - ZLEAT\C 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Block The name evokes certain explicit mental images, at least for me, and I cannot imagine it not being disruptive to see it around. It is childish and stupid, yes. And disruptive. It is not going to be a no warning block as I informed them of the name's disruptive nature, and the user has been made aware of this discussion. Certainly a Uw-vaublock seems reasonable.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2024 (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.
As per their user page they are a group of individuals and the strongest group in the world. In February I had notified them of the shared use policy and asked for change in username. I didn't follow up, but they logged in today and replied on my talk page with YOU CAN'T GET RID OF US - MWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA. Jay 💬 14:04, 1 May 2024 (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.
