Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 15 April 2019

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:

Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia: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 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"). 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.

Queeridescent

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: allowed I suppose we can refrain from chargrilling Blade for the moment... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queeridescent (talk · contribs)

This user showed up, edited the article on performance artist Chris Burden to include descriptions of 7 of Burden's pieces from the 1970s, and was reverted and blocked. The revert (by @Freshacconci:) was done on the grounds that the edits were unsourced; the block (by @The Blade of the Northern Lights:) on the grounds that the edits were unhelpful and also the username is clearly making fun of @Iridescent:. Firstly, two of the descriptions were based on content in sources that were already cited in the article, while the other five were, though unsourced, factually accurate (well, the user slightly mis-described what happened in "Fire Roll", and conflated "TV Hijack" with "TV Ad", but those are good-faith errors). I've filled in sources.

Secondly, the notion that the name "Queeridescent" can only be intended to insult Iridescent seems completely out of nowhere to me. The word "iridescent" is a perfectly common one, and "Queeridescent" is a fairly obvious portmanteau (several people on Twitter use it; it's the annual drag show at University of Wisconsin–Stout; there was a drag ball in Richmond called "Queeridescence"), and TBotNL's assertion (on the user's talk page) that "but it makes no sense as a portmanteau" itself makes no sense (even if you don't pronounce the first syllable in "iridescent" to rhyme exactly with "Queer", it's still reasonably close). Since the edits were not unhelpful, the only remaining basis for a block is whether the username is a bad one. I feel that I have demonstrated that this is not the case. Thoughts? DS (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that the editor was aware of User:Iridescent or trying to make fun of them. That said, even if the name was chosen inadvertently, it may be better to have a username that doesn't sound quite as much as that of another well-established editor. Huon (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huon's comment regarding evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that this username was an attack against Iridescent. That thought aside, I don't see the username as a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I'm aware of this, I can say more if needed but I figure it's best to get fresh perspectives. Certainly I've been wrong before, and while I've definitely never heard of anything event or organization using that name it's just as likely (if not more so) that I missed it. No comment on the edit, I know nothing about the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close -- The user in question is currently indefinitely blocked, unless The Blade of the Northern Lights is willing to unblock for the purpose of discussion. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking care of that now, that was my fault. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow unless there is any evidence that the user behind the account is intending to troll Iridescent (talk · contribs). Although for us Wikipedia insiders the resemblance to Iridescent's username may seem like an obvious jump, the term "Queeridiscent" has an established existence outside Wikipedia (as any Google search easily demonstrates) and "iridescent" is really just some English-language adjective, not a unique identity... barring any evidence of ill-intent, coincidence in usernames-having-similar-etymology seems to be a far more likely and reasonable conclusion here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that this person has ever heard of me, let alone that their username is intended as an attack on me; given the connection between iridescence and rainbows, the portmanteau is a fairly obvious pun. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 10 April 2019 (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.

Itchyjunk

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: general consensus to allow. While some feel it's not in the best of taste, it sounds like the user has been productive and it's not an overtly offensive name. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Itchyjunk (talk · contribs)[reply]

This user was initially blocked by L235 for being NOTHERE and their username; the NOTHERE seemed mostly tied to their username. Two admins(me and Anna Frodesiak) said we would not unblock unless they agreed to change their username, which they specifically declined to do. Kevin(L235) removed his block and gave the option of either voluntarily changing their username on the grounds that it would be less burdensome to the community or coming here for a community discussion. Itchyjunk has opted for a discussion. "Junk" is often slang for either genitalia or one's behind; as I told him, I don't feel most people want to know anything about his 'junk' when editing. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo names are not out of bound, this username is not explicitly inciting offence. It is cartoonish and innapropriate at most, and while you can informally request the user to change it, it is up to them. This is not generally offensive. NK (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Wikipedia is not censored. You're violating one of the basic 5 pillars by assuming that their username is referring to genitalia and, to be honest, if it is - so what? Why are we focusing on a person's username instead of their overall editing abilities? We're all volunteers here, and we need to keep this in mind. If we're allowing usernames like User:Damn Sexy, User:Fuck Femenazi's, User:Fuck You Boi, User:Fuck US, User:Bitchesandhos, User:TheCircumcisionExpert, or even User:Dickhooker. Let's move along and get back to the point of this project. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is listing a bunch of accounts that have 0 edits or are blocked supposed to support your case? It doesn't. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you must've really dug deep for some of these, without noticing tha most of them are in fact blocked. Of the two that are not blocked, neither have any edits, one was created about a year and the other a decade ago. I don't know how you even found it to be an example but it isn't proof of anything really. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user AFAIK has never denied that their name wasn't referencing that. I would frankly block usernames with "Fuck" as it is a vulgarity(aside from the sexual meaning); I believe most of those that you cite are not being "allowed" so much as they haven't yet edited. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia not being censored does not mean that there is not certain standards of decorum in this public forum. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are certain standards of decorum, however, WP:CENSOR lays out that some things may be objective or offensive. It's all about perception and how we look and deal with things. We're taking up space here because someone's username contains the word junk in it, and it could refer to genitalia. The username policy essentially states usernames are not permitted if they are ...making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g., by containing profanities or referencing controversies. Are you telling me that we cannot allow this user to have this username because we're not adult enough to get past the word junk? I'm not trying to be rude, abrasive, or inconsiderate here - but I've long believed in the policy of WP:CENSOR and the 5 pillars and think that maybe this is just being a little too picky. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 331dot. This is not a middle school locker room. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't offensive enough to block is one of the more subjective areas of dealing with usernames, I find this one in poor taste and it would be great if the user just changed it to something less infantile. I feel like if this were "itchywiener" we wouldn't even be discussing it, they'd blocked and that would be that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow I feel like "cartoonish" is a good way to put it. I find this username funny and as long as the user isn't editing with it in some way that would otherwise make it offensive (i.e. all penis-related articles in order to make some sort of joke point) I don't have a problem with it. Jessamyn (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if t hey edited penis related articles etc that still would not be a reason to block them. Unless they do crappy editing or get into edit wars, the editor can edit whereever they like.Resnjari (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just meant if they were using the sound of their username combined with the flavor of their edits to make some sort of meta-point, that would be less cool and more stuntish. Jessamyn (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - There's a difference between cartoonishly crude and offensive. While of course the ideal outcome is for the user to choose to change it to something a bit more... "serious", I can't resolve to find "ItchyJunk" offensive enough to block on that basis alone. User:Lowblow, User:BigBum, User:HairyJewels or User:DroopingSack would be be a bit crude but not against policy. User:HardDick, User:Cumonyourtits, User:Lickmyasshole or User:FingerbangingYourStepmother are offensive and blockable. Yeah, it's a bit subjective and culturally-dependent I guess, but I think, in the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, we must lean decisions more towards leniency for inoffensive crudeness and less towards an excess of prudishness. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: As noted below, this is not a NOTCENSORED issue as we are not talking about page content. It also does not mean that there are not certain standards of decorum in this public forum. If I were at work talking about my itchy private parts to co workers, even using euphemisms, I would be disciplined and potentially fired/sacked. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know NOTCENSORED is a content policy, which is why I didn't invoke it as directly applicable, but the spirit of our core content policies can still be useful to inform our decisions regarding more backstore stuff like usernames. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow - its funny and probably a joke by the editor, but its not offensive. If the editor has used direct slurs and inappropriate words (like Fuck etc) in their username, or had their username been "itchydick", "itchycock", "itchypussy", "itchyvag" or something like that then it would not be ok. Plus guys what happens when someone has a username with the word "dick" in it? It can be innocent as Dick is a name or nickname or it can be crude if there are other words side by side it and referring to genitalia. So it depends on the context. Such are the peculiarities of English.Resnjari (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Meh, why not. It'd be nice if they change their username, but it seems as though they use it in a few areas (it's been registered on Freenode for two years). Further, I don't understand the NOTHERE block; their edits have been constructive. It should have been a simple username block, if anything. Vermont (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow Using crude language on Wikipedia, even regularly, is not a problem as long as it is done in a civil manner; the idea is that editors who object to that sort of language can simply not use it. The problem I have here is that usernames must be used by other users, including potential profanity-objectors (if you need to ping etc.). That is the difference between writing letters to a nun with a penis-shaped pen, to which they can answer with a regular pen, and forcing her to write letters with said pen.

Also, there is little doubt about the meaning of the username. I find it just as vulgar as derivatives proposed above as instant-blocks (ItchyPussy, HardDick, etc.).

FTR, I think profanity objectors are a bunch of fly-fucking wimps. But they exist and should benefit from modest accomodations. Also, I do not see how WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant here (we are not talking about page content). And of course that should have been a username block. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this username is permitted, I would at least like the user to be strongly advised to change it. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion in and of itself constitutes a strong advisory. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be an explicit advisory. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my input has been requested here. I have been following this talk but have refrained from saying anything here as I've made my point in my talk page already and did not want to repeat it here. My nick was not picked to insult anyone else. A joke at my own expense might be self deprecating but should not be considered malicious. I have made no bad edits on purpose and I have always double checked with #wikipedia-en on freenode about my edits outside of my talk/user pages. The advice I always get is to be bold with my edits yet I have been timid about it. Since different people get offended by different things at different degrees, I think it's more productive to pass judgement based on contributions rather than judging the book by it's cover. I might not be that good of an editor and me being banned might not mean much, but I hope other good editors in future with questionable nick's get judged for their contributions and not the offense taken. Itchyjunk (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting here, your input is appreciated. As you've discovered, Wikipedia has tighter rules than many other websites for what can and cannot be in a username. The username policy has evolved over time in response to various types of objectionable usernames that have been used in the past. It is very often the case that any person who make any sort of reference to genitalia in their username is up to no good, and that is probably why an admin kind of jumped the gun and blocked you. I think at this point it looks like consensus is leaning towards allowing your name, but you should be aware that it comes across as a rather infantile "gross out" username and as a result it may effect how other users interact with you. In short, we'd all be happier, and you probably would too, if you just changed it, but if you insist on keeping it then so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (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.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 === Itchyjunk ===
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: Moccasin; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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.  ''
+<!--Template:Rfcn top-->
+The result was: '''general consensus to allow'''. While some feel it's not in the best of taste, it sounds like the user has been productive and it's not an ''overtly'' offensive name. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 {{user|Itchyjunk}}
 :This user was initially blocked by {{u|L235}} for being NOTHERE and their username; the NOTHERE seemed mostly tied to their username.  Two admins(me and {{u|Anna Frodesiak}}) said we would not unblock unless they agreed to change their username, which they specifically declined to do.  Kevin(L235) removed his block and gave the option of either voluntarily changing their username on the grounds that it would be less burdensome to the community or coming here for a community discussion.  Itchyjunk has opted for a discussion.  "Junk" is often slang for either genitalia or one's behind; as I told him, I don't feel most people want to know anything about his 'junk' when editing. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@@ Line 71: / Line 75: @@
 Hello, my input has been requested here. I have been following this talk but have refrained from saying anything here as I've made my point in my talk page already and did not want to repeat it here. My nick was not picked to insult anyone else. A joke at my own expense might be self deprecating but should not be considered malicious. I have made no bad edits on purpose and I have always double checked with #wikipedia-en on freenode about my edits outside of my talk/user pages. The advice I always get is to be bold with my edits yet I have been timid about it. Since different people get offended by different things at different degrees, I think it's more productive to pass judgement based on contributions rather than judging the book by it's cover. I might not be that good of an editor and me being banned might not mean much, but I hope other good editors in future with questionable nick's get judged for their contributions and not the offense taken. [[User:Itchyjunk|Itchyjunk]] ([[User talk:Itchyjunk|talk]]) 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 :Thank you for posting here, your input is appreciated. As you've discovered, Wikipedia has tighter rules than many other websites for what can and cannot be in a username. The [[WP:UPOL|username policy]] has evolved over time in response to various types of objectionable usernames that have been used in the past. It is ''very'' often the case that any person who make any sort of reference to genitalia in their username is up to no good, and that is probably why an admin kind of jumped the gun and blocked you. I think at this point it looks like consensus is leaning towards allowing your name, but you should be aware that it comes across as a rather infantile "gross out" username and as a result it may effect how other users interact with you. In short, we'd all be happier, and you probably would too, if you just changed it, but if you insist on keeping it then so be it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:Red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.'' <!--Template:RFCNbottom-->
+</div>