Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson

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 the discussion's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was disallow. I'm closing this debate. The reason here is that the name is a pseudonym of Johnny the Vandal, not an impersonation of a real person. I'm actually pretty shocked this user was unblocked without anyone ever hearing a response from the admin that blocked in the first place. WP:RFCN should absolutely NOT be used as a quick appeals process for username blocks. Mango juice^talk 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[view]

John A. Robinson (talk · contribs)

Indefblocked as a username. John Robinson is ambigious. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should not be happening if the user is blocked and the user has not been informed.G Donato (talk to me...) 21:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the user should not be indefblocked, especially we haven't reached a consensus to disallow yet. Wooyi 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can block a person for a username violation without a RFCN. An RFCN can be used to review the username block. That being said, I offer no opinion on this name. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was an RFCN should not be started if the user has been username blocked. G Donato (talk to me...) 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment John Robinson is a very common name, but John A. Robinson seems close to J. Alan Robinson. Or the user's name might be really John A. Robinson? Ask him. Wooyi 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow and unblock - clearly no violation of WP:U. I have asked the blocking admin about this. Sam Blacketer 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already asked the admin (comment above)- I should have mentioned this here. I think it is safe to unblock now in this situation, if you ask me. G Donato (talk to me...) 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - J. Alan Robinson is about as famous as my cat. John Robinson, former football coach, is much more generally known, and I wouldn't disallow this name on that basis, either. TortureIsWrong 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow - Very likely that this is the user's real name. G Donato (talk to me...) 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow — but it's probably too late; the ridiculous block, followed by this, has probably puit him off Wikipedia for life, and who can blame him? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow the consensus suggest it's very possible that it is his real name. Wooyi 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow there's something wrong when a person tries to be unambiguous and gets slammed for it. Both names are very common - the user obviously is trying to be acceptable. Well, this proves a more specific outlining of guidelines is needed. I've seen people use "John Smith Chicago" and that's fraught with problems too. What else must a person do to be acceptable, and is it noted anywhere? Shenme 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Allow, motion to close. John's common, Robinson's common, A as an initial's not rare.--Wizardman 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. I strongly object to the unblocking of a user before there are any comments from the blocking admin. Username blocks could be for sockpuppets or vandal memes recognised by the blocking admin. Misza13 is a competent and reliable admin who I expect will have had a good reason for blocking this name. I think he should respond before action is taken. WjBscribe 01:24, 5 April 2007 (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.