User:Eliz81/Policy5comments

Consolidating all the advice/discussion about this policy, for my own reference.

From WT:UAA

Policy 5?

A question about policy 5 of WP:U, which I have brought up on some users' talk pages. As I understand the policy, even straightforward, non-slangy non-'vulgar' references to such things as excretory functions are in violation. So wouldn't any mention of urination or defecation, even if relatively innocuously worded as 'pee', warrant a username block? I assure you I am no Puritan, but the policy seems fairly cut and dry here. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think, as is the case with many names, you have to look at context and intent. For instance, would you block the name Pee Wee Player? (Pee Wee baseball is a legitimate name). Should the name Pooper Scooper be blocked? (I'm not saying these are okay, or not okay, just examples of that line.) Granted, there are obvious violations, but there are others that ride that thin line between what the user intended, and being a violation. Of course, some of the time the user makes the decision easy for the admins by their contributions, either helpful or harmful, so that is always something to look at when wondering about names, too. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'll check their contribs more thoroughly before making a report.--Alasdair 07:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tonight, Alasdair was questioned by an admin for adding User:Peehahalol, whereas my report of User:Pee pee ramone resulted in a block. So I don't mean the word 'pee' as in 'pee wee', but as a straightforward term, there seems to be some disagreement. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As a straightforward term, I'd say block, until WP:U is changed. Simple. --DarkFalls ^talk 08:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No - policy isn't law - it's about the spirit of the policy, we don't take it as though it were code. If an interpretation of a policy is harmful we ignore it. Secretlondon 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That begs the of who gets to decide what is an isn't harmful and when to ignore it. Admins don't even agree on these things.Rlevse 10:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm. Well, I read the first name as "Pee haha lol". I'd think that would be a valid report. But, you could also read it as "Peeha Halol", which would be just another name, yes? (Okay, I think we all know the intent was probably the former, but just playing devil's advocate, lol) I dunno, when I'm in doubt, what I do is go to WP:RFCN first. I mean, there are most certainly obvious names that need blocks, but when it is something on that "fine line", I either drop the username concern note on the editor's page, or I take it to RFCN for discussion and other opinions (and I think it is guideline that if you take it to RFCN, you should drop that note on the page as well to allow them to participate in the discussion). A good example of that would be a "corporate" name that has made no edits. It is hard to know the intent without edits, and some users may have simply chosen a name that happens to also be the name of some company out there (granted, the majority of the time these names are used for promotional reasons). But if you feel the name, even without edits, has such undertones of promotion that it would be unharmonious or promotional simply by someone reading the name, go ahead and report it, that's okay too. I think you're doing fine! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Peeha... lol. Seriously, if you told me that was a tropical fruit, I'd believe you! :) This stuff seriously makes me giggle. Like when I fought to save Sit on My Face so valiantly from deletion. I brought this issue up mostly b/c I felt bad for poor Alasdair, who was put in a position of defending himself. It's ok that you're offended by the word pee!! Oops sorry I just said it! Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey I don't make this stuff up ya know! Peeha is real!. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Oh well, then that person has to state he's Polynesian on his user page, haha.--Alasdair 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, speaking of which, one of my reports on a username with the word polygamist has been rejected, because polygamy is not offensive. I mean, for some (or many) cultures in this world, it is. Anyway, I've created a shortcut to the "Inappropriate usernames" section of WP:U. It is WP:IU, it will certainly make it easily to cite the policy.--Alasdair 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that submission about the polygamy. And the thing is, it is a valid way of life for a lot of cultures, not the majority, but in history, and in indigenous cultures, it is part of anthropology. That's not to say I wouldn't have reported it as well, had I seen it, but just that I understand the rationale for not blocking it. And I think you're doing fine, no worries! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alasdair, I feel the need to make you aware of WP:RFCN. If you are unsure about whether there is a violation, or if you find a borderline username that could potentially be a vio, but not a blatant one, a report to RFCN can often be the way to go. there, the community can discuss the name at further length, and a decision can be made, based on the comments of the community. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take that in mind in the future.--Alasdair 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, even if the user meant peehah halo not pee haha lol I would still request a change, because most other people would read pee haha lol and be offended or amazed that such a username exists. Hence why I was always uncomfortable with this indian names that have the letters "shit" in them, yes it is not offensive to Indians and isn't meant to be offensive to anyone, but a lot of people are still going to see "shit". I've always wondered how WP:U stands on that kind of thing. In answer to Rlevse question about who decides what is offensive when admins don't agree with each other on the policy, at the moment it just comes down to individual admins. It is getting the job done at the moment though isn't it? I wonder sometimes if we are over-questioning the system? SGGH ^speak! 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think blocking newbies who haven't edited yet and haven't actually disrupted anything is "the job" that needs to be done, you have lost perspective on what Wikipedia is for. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm... that's not what I do nor what I was refering to so no I don't think that is what needs to be done and I have not lost perspective on anything :) SGGH ^speak! 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it takes a serious misreading of WP:U to think that every username matching one of the example reasons merits a block. Notice the text below that says that you should apply common sense, and that usernames are only violations if they match one of the five top-level reasons. To put it another way, you should not think that you can give "example 3 of policy 5" as a reason in a situation where "policy 5" itself does not apply.

Reproductive or excretory functions, for example, are examples listed under offensive usernames. A username involving the word "pee" out of context is not offensive. Juvenile, perhaps, but we don't insta-block people for being juvenile. Even if "pee" somehow offends you, it is certainly not so blatant that you need to skip all the more reasonable steps and put it on UAA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I think that taking the examples as actual categorical breaches is one of the most common misapplications of WP:U, but there's been recent improvement. SamBC(talk) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Snakepoop2 is a user that was flagged up a bit ago. I'm getting confused by all this discussion of policy. What would people do with this one? SGGH ^speak! 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Snakepoop2 is a clear violation in my view. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's just on the "blatant" side of the line between blatant/handle at UAA and dubious/handle at RFCN. It has the distinct feel, the flavour, the je ne sai quois, of an intent to be offensive and likelihood of causing offence. SamBC(talk) 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying it's okay to block someone for what you presume their "intent" to be, based on "je ne sai quois"? If you want to block someone for vandalism, wait until they vandalize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is reasonable for someone to be offended by the crap of any animal. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't, and I certainly don't think anything is so offensive about "snakepoop" that blocking is the appropriate remedy instead of warning. This is why RFCN exists. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you have not had much contact with snake poop. It is just as bad as other types of poop. Even if it does not offend you I think it is reasonable to think it has a high likely hood of offending. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone else took care of it in the end when I wasn't around, I can't find it in the history at the moment so am not sure what happened. Will check RFCN. SGGH ^speak! 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(e/c):::It says under the policy, references to excretory functions, not curse words or slurs. So if it's not ambiguous like 'poopedout' (which could of course mean 'tired'), I think blocking a UAA reported 'snakepoop' is fine. The problem is, having 'offensive' as the core policy is subjective and difficult to achieve consensus on. For example, I might be completely offended by the name 'Brobdingnag' because among my group of friends, it's an unforgivable insult. But somehow I think no one would accept the blocking of that user if I reported it to UAA, despite my complete and utter offense at the name. By the same token, I could just really not care about racial and sexist slurs, and refuse to report or block such usernames because I simply wasn't affected by them. But again, I doubt I would receive support in overturning a block on a slur-containing name by insisting on my personal lack of offense at the term. The subcategories of the 'offensive' policy are an attempt to qualify and categorize what can reasonably be constituted as an unacceptable username right off the bat. I don't think the word 'pee' or 'poop' is offensive in the sense of making us avert our eyes in horror from the screen, but in that it has no place in a username and is justified in blocking on sight by an admin when unambiguous. What terminology is fair game for inclusion in Wikipedia's mainspace and other areas is a different matter all together. Ultimately it will be up to the discretion of the individual admin whether a user gets blocked or not, but an editor can hardly be faulted for bringing a name to UAA that violates any of the subcategories of the offensive category. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course an editor can be faulted for bringing a borderline name to UAA, because the instructions say not to do that. When you file a report on UAA as the first step, you're skipping over several potential remedies, such as warning the user and discussing the name on RFCN. When you post on UAA, you are saying "I am certain that this username needs to be blocked immediately". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. 'Pee' is a reference to an excretory function. Other admins *do* block reports to UAA for the inclusion of this word and others in the username. Please take into account that your interpretation of the policy is not the only one among administrators. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And you were hoping one of those admins would get to the report first? I am fully aware that this is controversial, as are you, but you're the one who posted it on UAA as if it wasn't. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IF I were to go to the local swimming pool and announced my intention as above I doubt they'd let me in. Similarly the above username suggests an intent to introduce unsavourary content to wikipedia. Agathoclea 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intent" is not a reason to block. You can't block users for something you think they're going to do in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now posted the name on RFCN, where it should have been in the first place. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While I still hold a different interpretation of policy 5, the discussion on this page alone indicates that RFCN is the appropriate forum right now for the pee-type names. I apologize for bringing the pool-peeing guy to UAA since this matter was already up for discussion. I encourage the administrators to come to a consensus on this: to pee or not to pee, that is the question. (someone had to say it.) ~Eliz81^(C) 09:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Something meeting any of the examples of one of the five possible violations is not, simply be meeting the example, a violation. This is made clear below the five violation categories. The examples give guidance, but care must be taken that the username objectively meets one of the 5 criteria, not simply the examples. Thus, references to excretory functions are not violations unless they are offensive. The policy does not say that all references to excretory functions are offensive, it gives them as an example of something that may well be offensive. Does anyone disagree with this interpretation of the policy? SamBC(talk) 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, in the spirit of this discussion, including User:Snakepoop above, I brought User:Pooopy to WP:RFCN, where I was promptly told it belonged at WP:UAA. Are we saying that the poop usernames are not up for debate, but the pee ones are?? This is getting quite frustrating and confusing. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be in part because different people, including different admins, disagree as to the nature of this. That said, I can't imagine User:Pooopy ever not getting blocked - it seems that plenty of people find it offensive, strange as that seems to me, and feel that the very existence of it would prevent reasonable discussion and editing. SamBC(talk) 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rspeer

Inappropriate usernames

Hi Rspeer, over at WP:UAA I saw that you had removed User:Peehahalol and User:1hitk1ller as not warranting username blocks. I think the first user qualifies under policy 5, subcategory 'Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions', and the second under policy 5, 'Usernames that refer to real-world violent actions'. Any chance you might reconsider? Thanks! All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, with reference to your message on my talk page, I checked WP:U again, and on criterion 5 it mentions "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions". So, that was why I considered it offensive. Cheers.--Alasdair 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes... the way I understand it, the word "reference" implies you could refer to excretory functions in a purely clinical manner, and it would still be an inappropriate username, even if not a curse word. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

and... I created a discussion on the talk page of UAA here if you'd like to weigh in, since there seems to be disagreement on this issue. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'Pee' and such in usernames

Hi Rspeer, since we had an ongoing discussion on this matter on the talkpage about the 'offensive' category, I would appreciate you not templating me on this matter, seeing as I'm an established user. Thank you. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The {{uw-uaa}} template is meant for regulars. Newbies don't use UAA. I have been told by pro-blocking users that the only thing I can do to prevent UAA creep is to warn everyone I think is misusing it, and this takes a lot of time, but at least the template makes it easier.

Your report was exactly the reason the {{uw-uaa}} warning exists: you are acknowledging here that you knew it would be controversial, but you posted it on UAA instead of RFCN anyway. The good-faith assumption is that you were unaware of the purpose of RFCN, so I followed the simple directions for informing you of it. Sorry if you don't like the template; maybe you should start a discussion about whether that instruction should change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Pee pee ramone, User:Uknowpee, User:I need to pee REAL BAD!, and User:Mypeepee (albeit the last one with vandalism too) were blocked for offensive usernames. I'm presuming you disagree with these blocks? If you do disagree, should anything be done about these blocks now? I'm more trying to understand than anything. If other admins interpret 'pee' as blocking on sight, this matter is quite confusing to good faith contributors to UAA. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that UAA has been seriously misused in the past, but it's too late to do anything about previous misuses. The appropriate thing to do now is to use RFCN for its intended purpose, so that we can come to a consensus decision. That's far better than posting it on UAA and hoping the first admin who shows up agrees with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I understand your point. I brought it up on the UAA talk page was to try to establish what exactly was going on with this offensive category. I encourage you to discuss the issue with admins who make borderline blocks, since they set a confusing precedent for the rest of us. Consistency and consensus is much better for everyone involved, and appropriate reports will be much easier to make, since we're all just trying to make the encyclopedia better. I assure you that I have never made a contribution to UAA lightly, but the ensuing discussion has inspired me to start weighing my options more for RFCU and templating talkpages, and thank you for that. That being said, I think you and I should receive some special Wiki award for the longest ever discussion referring to urine. Although sadly, there may be a thread that's worse. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, in the spirit of trying to be more careful about excretory functions per the WT:UAA discussion which included 'Snakepoop', I reported User:Pooopy at WP:RFCN, where I was promptly told it belonged at WP:UAA. This is getting incredibly frustrating, since I'm trying my best to be as conscientious as possible. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's terrible -- you shouldn't be criticized for using RFCN. I fail to understand what's the big hurry among the RFCN and UAA crowd. Wikipedia will not collapse if a few people get to make a few edits using a slightly unsavory username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Anonymous Dissident

RFCN/UAA advice?

Hi AD! ArielGold recommended I talk to you about username reporting concerns. In a nutshell, the poo/pee names and what should be done with them has me all confused. User:Rspeer admonished me for reporting a user 'pee in the pool' at UAA, saying I should know better b/c it's controversial. Also on WT:UAA he said that 'snakepoop2' was for RFCN not UAA. Thus I reported User:Pooopy to RFCN where I was promptly informed that this was the incorrect venue and belonged at UAA. I just wish to make reports correctly. Any advice or thoughts on this is most appreciated. Just a confused user trying to do the right thing! ;) ~Eliz81^(C) 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be some minor disagreements and differences in opinions in what should be reported to UAA, and what should go to RFCN, in regards to these poo/pee etc. names; for example, User:Until(1 == 2) closed the RFCN for 'Pee in the pool' with the comment 'should have been blocked on sight': obviously, this contradicts Rspeer's interpretation of the relative policies, as Rspeer felt RFCN was the proper venue, if any. As has become apparent, people have varying views on the policy. I would advise that most names involving poop/pee etc. are much of the time borderline, but there are obviously blatant cases where a report to UAA will be for the best. Take things on a case by case basis; poopy was probably for UAA, and snakepoop2 probably was for RFCN, but the fact of the matter is that whether usernames like these are violations is a subject talked on quite a bit at the moment, as interpretations vary. The only trend I can advise that you could perhaps work on is trying to evaluate how offensive a name is likely to be. Snakepoop, for example, is not entirely offensive, so RFCN would have been for the best. Poopy, however, very clearly refers to excretory functions, so UAA would have been for the best. I wouldn't worry on it too much, because, as I say - interpretations in this little niche are being discussed at the moment, so it is likely that you will be wrong in one person's book, but perfectly in the right in someone else's. I hope I have helped you out in some way. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice AD, I really do appreciate it. I'm not too surprised that there is some disagreement, because the policy is open to some interpretation. As long as admins who deal with usernames are aware of the different interpretations of the policy, perhaps there will be less criticism of the users who bring these names to either RFCN or UAA. I'll try not too worry about it too much, and take everyone's perspective into account with the overarching goal of running the encyclopedia effectively, but it was hard for me not to take some of it personally and feel frustrated and even a tad hurt. I know not every editor is going to be a huge proponent of Wikilove, but I do wish some had been a tad more agreeable. However I don't question anyone's motives or actions who are involved in the debate, I think everyone has abided by the guidelines and kept the discussions appropriate and on-topic. I just expected maybe a little bit more compassion. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? I never realised that you had been in any way offended by the issues going on. Please do not feel this way; I am sure that this was not the intent of those who have frustrated you. As you say, admins and editors should be aware of the varying interpretations, and be less criticising of people who bring usernames to what is, in their view, the wrong venue, out of two that often intersect. I do hope you do not take things too harshly in future; just remember that what you are doing is trying, and probably succeeding, to better the encyclopedia. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat relieved you weren't aware of my feelings. I check my emotions at the door when I'm on here, and always carefully rewrite to say what I mean and stay on topic. I try not to let on about any personal opinions or views that I have, in the spirit of fairness and impartiality here. Also you saying this confirmed my hunch that no one had stepped over any line, and I was just feeling sensitive, so I'm sure glad I reacted to comments that hurt me the way I did, without addressing it at all. And thanks for the words of encouragement and the vote of confidence. That means a lot to me. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Eliz, I will just confirm that nothing you wrote ever gave the impression that you were upset by anything. I will also just say that there are some editors who simply write in a style that is "succinct", coming to the point quickly, and, sometimes the comments can come across rather harshly, and I can understand how feelings can be hurt. But ultimately, you did the right thing, voicing your concerns in a clam, rational manner, with proper deference to policy and guidelines. Surprising, isn't it, the sheer variances people can come up with to skate that "thin line" of breaking WP:U? Even those with lots of experience, like AD, will sometimes get stumped by a username, lol. So my dear, no worries, you're doing fine, and if someone's "short reply" comes across as "bite-y", I just encourage you to not take it personally, and assume it was not meant that way. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Flyguy649

The 'p' usernames

Hi Flyguy! ArielGold recommended you personally as a go-to guy for some insight into the whole poop/pee username reporting debate (which I think you've been a part of at least a little). Basically, I've been told I made incorrect reports at both UAA and RFCN (see user talk pages of secretlondon and rspeer for the opposing views, and of course WT:UAA for the lengthy discussion). As a good faith contributor, it distresses me that I'm being told I'm doing the wrong thing, and I'd like to do the right thing. I have no desire to place reports incorrectly, but as Rspeer said directly that I was misusing UAA, you can imagine my hesitance at reporting User:Pooopy there: no doubt he'd say it was borderline. However RFCN said that was wrong. Any advice of any kind? Poems, songs and dances to cheer me up? I'll take whatever ya got! :P ~Eliz81^(C) 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I was a bit surprised to see Poopy at RFCN, but reading through everything, I see where you're coming from. And obviously you're reporting in good faith. You seem to be caught in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. As you can see from your various conversations at WT:UAA, and Rspers' talk page, there is some variation in opinion on which usernames are allowed, which are blatant, and which need discussion. There's no argument at the blatant and acceptable ends, but the middle is somewhat variable. As you know, there's more room at RFCN for discussion. But then you run into different editors and how verbose they are. Some will give you a couple of sentences whether they think it's blatant or not. Others will give a terse opinion, which comes across as being harsh even if that's not what's meant. (It's a problem with the on-line written medium.)

My take is that while it is possible that not all Poo and Pee names are UAA types, most are disruptive and will need to be blocked at some point. I guess this is where Rspeer argues that if the account is not yet contributing, then you can go with {{usernameconcern}} or a custom note on their talk page, or RFCN. I'd say that if they are contributing, then they should go to to UAA. If you think the name may fall into the grey area, take it to RFCN.

Btw, I'm actually singing and dancing while I'm writing this! ;) Try not to feel stressed over everything. You're trying to help the project, after all! Anyway, let me know where you'd like clarification. It's late here, and I'm afraid this isn't as coherent as I'd like it to be. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

~*~Ariel's ears are burning!!~*~ "But then you run into different editors and how verbose they are" (~*~Cough~*~) ^Ariel♥Gold 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was including myself in that! ;) And it's not a bad thing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, most of the time it is great. It is especially helpful, as you mentioned, because the medium of text is hard to "hear" intentions, so it helps with clarification. But, the downside is, sometimes people won't read "long posts", and just skip them, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:ArielGold

Bangs....head....on....wall

Dearest Ariel!! Since you have weighed in at UAA and RFCN, you must understand my predicament. I have now been admonished by both UAA and RFCN admins for incorrect reports. I have no idea what to do anymore. I'm trying to ensure that inappropriate usernames get reported appropriately (ha, ha), trying to ensure Rspeer's concerns are heard, and all I can do is throw up my hands. :( Advice, thoughts, happy unrelated thoughts to share? ~Eliz81^(C) 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration, and as little as my opinion is worth, here are my suggestions. There will be names that are just heinously, obvious, egregious violations. Report those to UAA. For those (non-advertisement) names that you stop and think, "hrmmmm", I'd take to RFCN. You have good sense, and I believe you know what would be a huge obvious violation. For business type names that have not edited at all, place the {{usernameconcern}} template on the page, (be sure to subst: it: {{subst:usernameconcern}} ) and wait. If they contribute in an advertisement sort of way, their behavior will be considered along with the name. If they have contributed, created an obvious advertisement, report to UAA. If they contribute with non-advertisement edits, request opinions at RFCN. The bottom line that you've just happened to run into, is that everyone has varied opinions about what is, and what is not blatantly offensive, and it may just be that others see some things differently. Don't let it get you down, if they're rejected at UAA, take to RFCN, that's what it is there for! But don't stress over it, dear one, you're doing fine! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sound advice and encouragement, dearest Ariel (and the reminder to subst: is a good one: I totally forgot!). I found it quite disheartening that in effect, both Rspeer and Secretlondon were telling me I was makes incorrect reports (i.e., placing a report where it doesn't belong), and giving me directly contradicting information. I take this stuff very seriously since I'm quite conscientious, it is so important to me to do the right thing. I don't care if the debated 'p' usernames belong at UAA or RFCN, so long as I know the appropriate place to them. Le sigh! :) Hugs, ~Eliz81^(C) 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

With a large community such as this, you're bound to run into conflicting issues and opinions, and you just have to weigh in common sense with your own instincts, and then if still in doubt, ask others their opinions. That is the wonderful thing about WP:RFCN, because while should place the usernameconcern template on the user's page prior to reporting it there, in some cases (such as the last one you submitted) it wasn't needed. I try to assume good faith on most of the "advertising" sounding names, unless they have .com, .net, etc., in their names (those, by the name alone, can be considered promotional) and wait until they contribute to judge. There are many company names out there, and it is feasible that someone created a name without knowing there was a company with the same name. But again, this is just how I do things, and not in any way intended to tell you how to do things. Also having experienced admins who participate regularly in RFCN to go to with questions is really helpful, and I'd recommend Flyguy (hopefully soon to be an admin) and AD as two of the best with username concerns. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the advice. Here's a new one that was just created: User:Buttwipe123. Which venue do you think is more appropriate for this one, UAA, or RFCN? I'm afraid whatever decision I make will be wrong. ~Eliz81^(C) 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I reported to UAA for you ^Ariel♥Gold 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(Empty. rm Buttwipe123 (blocked indef by Secretlondon (ABD)). 1 comment(s) removed.) - Done! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for report the user for me :) ~Eliz81^(C) 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reports to WP:RFCN

Pooopy

The result was: Blocked by User:Secretlondon. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pooopy (talk · contribs)

Reference to excretory function as covered under policy 5. Brought here because of of WT:UAA debate over this category. Disruptive and prevents harmonious editing. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with everything you said. How can someone with that username contribute harmoniously? It may be silly, still isn't appropriate. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• (EC) I don't think there is any doubt, I'd go ahead and send it to WP:UAA. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked - clear cut and should have gone to WP:UAA Secretlondon 21:04, 8 September 2007 (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.

Pee in the pool

The result was: Blocked Clear cut violation, this should be blocked on sight. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pee in the pool (talk · contribs)

This was posted to UAA by Eliz81, which I think was a bad idea because names like this are the subject of an ongoing debate. I'm bringing it here so it can be debated properly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Warn but don't block. Of the five ways that a username can violate WP:U, this name only barely and questionably meets #5. I don't think any real person is offended by the phrase "pee in the pool". The name is minorly disruptive, though, so it makes sense to ask the user to change it. I see no reason for an immediate block unless the user starts vandalizing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• User has not responded to comment on talk page. As this phrase represents a reference to an excretory function, I endorse a user block. ~Eliz81^(C) 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Excretory function" is not one of the reasons on WP:U, it's just an example. Are you endorsing a block under reason 5, "offensive usernames"? If so, who do you expect would be offended? And is it really such a blatant violation that it requires a block with no warning? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Because there is disagreement on the term's offensiveness, as established at WT:UAA, I agree that this is the appropriate venue for this discussion, where I am stating my opinion that this applies to policy 5. ~Eliz81^(C) 10:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Block user - I really don't feel this is appropriate. Think about the name for a minute. It really is quite disgusting, if not entirely offensive... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Block name - a quick re-read of #5 of WP:U rules out "Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to .. references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions." The key word is "including" - the list is not optional examples so much as a non-exhaustive list of definitely unacceptable names. In addition there's the common-sense test that Anonymous Dissident raises. The only obvious meaning of the name is an offensive one. If this was User:Please swim in my urine we would probably not be needing to have this debate. And that, essentially, is what this name says. Euryalus 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you read beneath the five block reasons, it states that satisfying the examples is not sufficient in itself: "Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies: use common sense. In borderline cases, ask for other opinions before blocking the username. For instance, not every name that includes "Jimbo" is a misleading reference to Jimmy Wales or impersonating him; there are many people named Jimbo, and new users may not even know who Jimbo Wales is." (bolding and linking verbatim from source). SamBC(talk) 12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, we agree on that point. As some may consider this borderline rather than outright offensive, I support the action taken by User:Rspeer in bringing it here to seek other opinions rather than going straight to WP:UAA. In my opinion, this username fails the letter of WP:U general reason #5 (an offensive username, defined as including but not limited to names based on excretory functions). I think it also fails in spirit in that it is a crude reference to urinating on/near other people and is surely not something that a genuine editor really wants to be known as in the longer term. For these reasons I think the name should be disallowed. Euryalus 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, but if we block poop (which we do every time it appears) then we have to block pee. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should ask if we should do so; policy doesn't tell us to block it every time it appears, certainly, only if it's offensive. If every appearance people can recall was offensive, then that still doesn't mean that every possible use is offensive. Would anything involving "crap" be blockable by extension? SamBC(talk) 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Just to clarify (given my principled points above), I believe this should be blocked as it is clearly offensive. It could be taken to represent the pee itself, that has been released in the pool, or it could be taken as an instruction; either is offensive. SamBC(talk) 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Block Username While there are some instances where use of the word "pee" as part of a name may be acceptable, the context here is clearly offensive. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Block As Anthony points out, in this context it is offensive.--Sandahl 14:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Although pee is a mild reference to excretory function, the username is disruptive to harmonious editing. I'm pretty sure User:Fart in the wind and User:Dirty diaper would be blocked as well. This account doesn't have any edits, though. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)