Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/User names: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:17, 30 September 2015 edit1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,314 edits 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR: User:1Wiki8 User talk:1Wiki8← Previous edit Revision as of 00:44, 30 September 2015 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators114,302 edits 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR: sheeshNext edit →
Line 158: Line 158:
*Meh, '''Allow''' we don't need to turn every subtle rise in the topography into a hill to die on --] &#124; ] 20:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC) *Meh, '''Allow''' we don't need to turn every subtle rise in the topography into a hill to die on --] &#124; ] 20:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
*'''Note''': Interesting suggestions in this thread. I created ] as an in-active alternative account, with ] redirecting to my 'real' talk page . -- ] (]) 00:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC) *'''Note''': Interesting suggestions in this thread. I created ] as an in-active alternative account, with ] redirecting to my 'real' talk page . -- ] (]) 00:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
::I have not and do not intend to read the long walls-of-text above, but personally I think this solution is close enough to assuage my concerns and I think we can all just back away and let it go now. ] (]) 00:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


===Terrorist96=== ===Terrorist96===

Revision as of 00:44, 30 September 2015

Shortcuts
Navigation: ArchivesInstructions for closing administratorsPurge 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:

Do NOT post here if:

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 list.

Coonic17

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: Allow Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Coonic17 (talk · contribs)

Contains the racial slur "coon". I have discussed this with the user, who responds that the username is an amalgamation of her last name and her husband's first name. However, I still see "coon" very prominently everytime I see this username. I believe many others will see it this way, causing a disharmonious editing environment. Belchior90 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Allow; there are dozens of innocuous words that contain the letters 'coon', and this pseudonym does not appear to use the letters in manner intended to be offensive. –xeno 22:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow - Good faith editor registered under a WikiEd University course. Just because a string in the username matches an offensive word or might be perceived as inappropriate to some users, we shouldn't forbid it. For eg., I see the string "belch" every time I come across your username, that does not mean the username is against policy. - 185.108.128.13 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I would also request you to be more lenient with leaving notes to new users based on their usernames being flagged by DeltaQuad's blacklist. For e.g.:
"Dalton spearman", may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because "spearman" is often used as a derogatory term towards African natives.
"Marcgriefer", may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because in gaming slang a "griefer" is an aggressive player that gets their kicks from disrupting others.
These are evidently names of people and posting these messages to their talk page in the absence of any bad faith edits might turn these new editors away from the project. - 185.108.128.13 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Provisionally allow but if the editor starts to regularly edit in topic areas that touch on racism in the United States or the history of race in the United States then caution her that her username may be considered offensive enough in that context that she may be asked or required to change her signature or even her username. Also, if there is good reason to stop "assuming good faith" (and I don't see any), then disallow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment My concern is that "coon" is at the very start of the username, making this slur very prominent. It will be the first syllable people see when reading this username. Also, I see that many argue that the user is in good faith. However, this discussion is about their username, not their edits. We would not allow a user called "Cuntic17", no matter how good-faith their edits were, and "coon" is equally offensive to blacks. The user could easily change name to e.g. "Cnic17", or even "Raccoonic17", which would keep the meaning, but avoid incorporating a racist slur. Belchior90 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow. If it was "coon" alone, there would probably be an issue, but we would be stretching to disallow the name on this basis in its current form. NTox · talk 04:47, 26 September 2015 (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.

1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR

1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk · contribs)

There has been discussions about my username (for example on Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Cryptocurrency_wallets and Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Proposal_to_set_a_limit_on_characters_in_a_user_name). However I see no clear consensus. I thus self-submit this request for wider community input to gain consensus. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Allow Not the most memorable name, but other than that, I don't think it's a violation. Widr (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would usually just ignore such a username. While I think it violates WP:UNCONF and I do not find linking to a crypto wallet (if it is one) to be in good taste, I support giving productive editors a large bit of leeway in the interpretation of the rules. However, I do not wish to help setting a precedent that a name like this is a good idea (if you really force me to say yea or nay, I will reluctantly vote disallow). Please consider changing your username to something shorter or more easily memorisable. —Kusma (t·c) 15:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. However I have chosen that this will be my last username, and I will not be changing it. The ability to securely sign messages via ones username is the main reason. Of course, I will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. If that means I am indefinately blocked, then my Misplaced Pages editing career will be at a close. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Special case If this username had been around for months or years I would say "at least grandfather". But it's only been around less than a month, so I'm going to echo Kusma's advice to change your name, if for no other reason that doing otherwise would seem to be disruptive/WP:POINTY, which isn't good for collaboration. Given the newness of the account, if forced to choose, I would choose "disallow" as well. Be a gentleman and realize that 1) your recent decision to use this username is causing problems, 2) even if you turn out to be technically correct, going out of your way to shut down/short-circuit disruption is a very good thing, and 3) you will be able to collaborate much easier if people aren't distracted by such usernames. By the way, I've "been there" - at one time I had a signature (not a username) which was considered disruptive to the point that administrators got involved and basically forced me to change it. Upon reflection, they were in the right and I was in the wrong. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Update: at the very least, change your signature to something much shorter. "1Wiki8" will do. If you use a shorter signature but don't change your username, I highly recommend registering the shorter-signature as a "non-editing/non-emailing" declared-alternative-account just so nobody else starts using the name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting idea in the update, I may be amenable to that. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an example of a username which is easily confused with related usernames and could be used to (not accusing - just devil's-advocating) obscure human discrimination of sockpuppets or damaging similar accounts. My concern is that "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" could not be readily distinguished from "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8hHdNYwDVstR" by inspection, though it would be readily apparent to be distinct by any reasonable comparison script. If that example was too easy, consider "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" vs. "lWiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR"; or "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" vs. "1Wiki8O5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not a relevant factor. Yes, it is possible that somebody might make a username which was visually similar, on inspection. Even without a registered account, it is easy to mis-use the wiki-syntax permitted by talkpage-technology, to "impersonate" another person, simply by cutting and pasting:

This very sentence was not written by 1Wiki8, and this 'signature' is a forgery that in fact links to 75.108's userspace, not to 1Wiki8's userpage. (not)1Wiki8...........................

More importantly, it is just as possible to mis-use the unicode support[REDACTED] provides, so that it can have multiple-language-wikis, to perform visual-impersonation of normal useranmes. Compare this bluelink:
User_talk:Ceyockey ... the real one
with this redlink:
User_talk:Ceyοckey ... hypothetical impersonator
The difference is that one of the usernames is ASCII and one of the usernames contains the greek glyph for the greek letter omicron. Anybody can create the latter account, and visually-impersonate you, just as anybody could create a similar username to 1Wiki8, and impersonate them with a similar-sig-styling. If such occurs, the impersonating human will be blocked, not the victim of the impersonation. As for the potential confusion, actual in-the-wild experience with machine-generated IP6 'usernames' in political articles has proven that similar-but-not-that-similar machine-generated but not-mathematically-randomized 'usernames' are not ACTUALLY confusing. Sure, I can see that the potential for confusion exists, but the exact same potential for confusion and impersonation also applies to existing username and anon conventions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow It is certainly confusing as it is just a stream of nonsense. While confusing names aren't prohibited they are discouraged, and this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen. It also seems it is advertising this user's identity so that you can give them money, which is another borderline policy violation. That's enough for me to believe that it should be changed. It would be nice if you could voluntarily do that and not threaten to take your ball and go home if the name is disallowed, but if that's how you feel about it, so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see my reply to your expanded commentary, below in the McGeddon section. It is not nonsense, nor in practice is it confusing. True, it is 'linked' (not hyperlinked) to an off-wiki psuedonym but that is perfectly within policy and plenty of usernames do exactly that: by including the company-name-as-a-suffix, or by using their facebook-username here on-wiki, or simply by choosing User:ThisIsMyFullLegalNameInRealLife for their wiki-uid. I have good reasons to think that what 1Wiki8 is attempting here, could be extremely valuable for[REDACTED] in the long-term, if the bugs and kinks can be worked out; don't block it as WP:BADIDEA, unless you really do understand the idea, please. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow as WP:UNCONF. (I'd actually raised this issue unrelatedly on the user's talk page earlier today after encountering their username somewhere, and chanced across this thread while brushing up on username policy.) The user explained that having the public key in their username (rather than their user page or signature) made their edits more secure and authenticable and allowed "verifiable messaging", but seemed unwilling or unable to explain what any of that actually meant. I can't see that it's achieving anything beyond being a cute Bitcoin address with the word "wiki" in it, and slightly inconveniencing any editors who encounter it in edit histories, or who want to make a direct reference to the username. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
User:McGeddon, if you'd like a more verbose explanation, that expands on the correct-but-terse explanation that 1Wiki8 already gave you, I am happy to expound upon my usertalk with you, about the intricacies and benefits, in terms of "security" of the various parties involved. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: actually I was very explicit that it was only in context of secure signing of messages, nothing about "edits more secure". -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You were actually very vague and evasive and I still don't understand what "messages" you're talking about. If this username somehow makes it easier for you to communicate with other Bitcoin users (if that's what you mean), then that should be balanced against how much more difficult it makes it for other Misplaced Pages users to communicate with you. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I still think the best suggestion is to add a section about message signing to Draft:Bitcoin address, so everyone can understand and there is no misinformation being bandied about. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
How will that make your username and signature more comprehensible to the community at large? Will everyone be expected to read that page before responding to any message from you? Can you honestly not see how changing your username to something that isn't a string of random gibberish might be a better solution? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That was for McGeddon, so he/she can learn about message signing and then we can have a more level and understandable conversation. As for 'random gibberish', I absolutely refute that statement from you. It's already well established my username is a public key and not random, and not gibberish. Thanks and happy editing! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that 13-word placeholder article section doesn't help me understand anything. Could you try to write a simple comment here saying why you want this particular 33-character username, and how you feel its benefits outweigh the WP:UNCONF inconvenience to other editors? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to come down off the ledge. It may be already established that you claim your username is a public key, but it is still a string of random gibberish in that it was randomly generated and has absolutely no coherent meaning to a human being. I don't see how it's even possible to "absolutely refute" that. Your name is terrible. It is impossible for normal human to remember, it is excessively long, and it is arguably spam for your activities on other websites. It's not the end of the world, and actually it would reflect very well on you if you agreed to change it to something that at least vaguely resembles words of some sort instead of a string of nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Beeblebrox, part of the trouble is linguistic; you are using 'random' in the everyday sense, but 1Wiki8 is interpreting that terminology you are using in the mathematically-random sense. It is not mathematically-random, it is excruciatingly-non-random. Agree that it appears everyday-random, at least, to people that are not familiar with computerized crypto. Personally, being familiar with such things, I immediately recognized the username for what it was: a crypto-hash. I even suspected it was bitcoin, due to the context, but that was just a guess, it could have been any 'random' MD5-like hash. Consider this string which appears to be everyday-random gibberish, to the non-initiated:
Sure, there are words in there, but it is mostly gibberish, until you understand (or are at least somewhat familiar with) the idea of the world wide web and the address-bar. If you have a detailed understanding of querystrings and the HTTP(S) protocol and DNS-based domain names and PHP programming, then the gibberish is 100% recognizable as a URL intended to invoke some server-side processing, and as a programmer, I can guess with reasonable exactness the specifics of that server-side code, just from the parameterized URL. Point being, just because some people recognize only gibberish, does not imply that actual gibberish is all there is.
  As for your blunt assertions, that the username is 'terrible' and probably intended as spam, which if true *would* be serious policy-violation of WP:NOTSTUPID and WP:NOTPROMOTION respectively, I'll be equally blunt: you don't know what you are talking about. If you did know, you would not say such things, because the things you are saying are not even wrong. The relevant snippet of the policy-page is this:

In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

As it happens, what 1Wiki8 is attempting, turns out not to be a terrible idea. The 'reasons' being presented, for why it is a terrible idea, mostly stem from Not Understanding The Idea At All.
  Sure sure, we have a policy that usernames cannot be simply the name of a company, partly because those tend to be promotional SPA's, but primarily because those tend to be edited by multiple people, which is a (theoretical) violation of the copyright legalese in the clickwrap. (By their nature bitcoin addresses tend to be unique-per-human; if there is evidence this specific bitcoin address is one of the rare multiple-person-ones, then it ought to be changed, but those are so rare I've never seen one, merely heard they are theoretically possible.) In any case, it is perfectly within policy, for a person named John Smith who owns the Smith Plumbing & GutterCleaning Service with the facebook homepage of SmithPlumbing123 and the website www.SPGC.com to have the username User:jsmith_spgc or even User:jsmith_SmithPlumbing123. These may indirectly "link" the motivated reader to an external URL, the domain name and/or their facebook-page respectively, of the human John Smith... but it is a very weak linkage, and does not count as WP:SPAM, nor as WP:SPIP. There are plenty of people with User:alyssaHacker_(WMF) usernames, right? Those are not spammer-usernames, either, but perfectly legit ones.
  I've personally dealt with two BLP-articles in the past month, where the COI-encumbered human that was the topic of the article, created a wikipedia-username that was their full legal name... both of whom were indef-blocked by admins on 'procedural' grounds! They've since managed to get themselves unblocked, but with a sour taste in their mouths, that[REDACTED] lies when it says WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I'm getting that same taste in my mouth, here at this 'discussion' of usernames, as I got at the other you-must-be-a-spammer-because-you-are-using-a-name-that-is-also-used-outside-wikipedia blocking incidents. If you're gonna block 1wiki8 for climbing the reichstag, please go ahead, but that would be far better than forcing them to change their apparently-quite-potentially-useful-for-wikipedia-to-those-who-understand-the-ramifications-of-strong-crypto username, because you personally think it is 'terrible'. Not to put too fina a point on it, but I must say, it would reflect very well on you, ahem, dear Beeblebrox, if you were to accept my absolutely conclusive refutation of your incorrect assertions, and decide not block 1Wiki8 aka User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. Also please don't block me either.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow It is effectively gibberish. While it is a public key, it is a public key for a bitcoin account and essentially a donation link. We generally don't allow people to put up links where you can send them money, and that is what your name is. While bitcoin public keys can be used for signature, this one is receiving at least a little money. HighInBC 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is completely incorrect. WP:TOS literally requires people that are editing[REDACTED] articles for money, to disclose their employer. It is disclosed on their userpage, and on the talkpage-templates of every article they edit for pay. Furthermore, even for editors that ARE NOT editing articles as wiki-consultants, it is perfectly allowed to have a link to your external homepage, from your[REDACTED] page. See also my comment above to beeblebrox, about using an on-wiki username that could conceivably be 'linked' to an off-wiki identity like your full legal name, or an off-wiki homepage like your facebook-uid. The use of a bitcoin-address, in a username, is not "generally disallowed" because theoretically somebody could find 1Wiki8 and figure out how to send them money. Sheesh. If there is evidence, or even suspicion, that 1Wiki8 is getting paid money for editing some article, then just add their username to the {{connected_contributor_(paid)}} template on the article-talkpage. If there is evidence, or even suspicion, that 1Wiki8 has a close connection, then instead use {{connected_contributor}}. This reminds me of AfD discussions where deleting the article because one of the contributors to the article is suspected of COI; blocking the human because theoretically somebody could figure out their real-life identity and contact them off-wiki and MAYBE EVEN give them money... and who knows whether some of that hypothetical moolah MIGHT JUST BE SUBVERTING all that is pure and good here on the 'pedia... well, such a block would be, sub-optimal, to put it mildly. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am hesitant to argue that we should go so far as to block this name (per WP:UNCONF, we try to reserve admin actions for 'more serious' violations, if you will), but I definitely think the editor should pursue a rename. This username is very confusing and impossible to remember without study. I think any name that takes substantial effort to remember should be discouraged. NTox · talk 04:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow, maybe even strong allow, as identical-level-of-apparently-but-not-actually-"gibberish" to editing as anon via IPv6. See WP:IP and WP:ANYONE. My own present 'username' of 75.108.94.227 is not easy to remember... but nobody has trouble conversing with me via talkpages. Note that my IP4 dotted-quad 'username' is actually relatively simple and easy to remember, compared to the increasingly-common IP6 usernames that many internet providers are giving there customers.
extremely detailed analysis of why User:2602:306:3ba6:9ca0:848c:c415:1215:31d2 aka '2602:306' and User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR aka '1Wiki8' are both just-peachy
Both IP4 and IP6 anons are very common, all across wikipedia. Here is a high-traffic current event page, I have worked on recently, which has useful examples of 'username' complexity over just the past few days: USPE, 2016. [[
10 alphanum == 03:00, 29 Sep Stabila711 (-100) Reverted good faith edits by 2602:306:3BA6:9CA0:848C:C415:1215:31D2: Candidates listed here must meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. (TW)
38 ipSix == 02:47, 29 Sep 2602:306:3ba6:9ca0:848c:c415:1215:31d2 (+100)
10 alphanum == 22:28, 28 Sep Stabila711 (-157) Reverted 1 edit by 68.8.35.1 (talk): Removing WP:SPAM. (TW)
9 ipFour == 22:22, 28 Sep 68.8.35.1 (+157) Tag: adding email address
17 spaced == 19:22, 28 Sep I dream of horses (-11) Reverted edits by 198.41.70.106 (talk) (HG) (3.1.16)
13 ipFour == 19:22, 28 Sep 198.41.70.106 (+11)
13 camel == 19:06, 28 Sep JJARichardson (+4)‎ ‎Candidates featured in major polls
10 title == 18:05, 28 Sep Newbreeder (-27) new source Johnson
13 ipFour == 18:31, 27 Sep 108.89.97.117 (+1)‎
13 title == 16:38, 27 Sep Non-dropframe (-59) Reverted edits by 2604:2000:2B44:3800:D1E5:FA22:F72E:8608 (talk) (HG) (3.1.16)
39 ipSix == 16:38, 27 Sep 2604:2000:2b44:3800:d1e5:fa22:f72e:8608 (+4) Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit
39 ipSix == 16:35, 27 Sep 2604:2000:2b44:3800:d1e5:fa22:f72e:8608 (+55) Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit
8 alphanum == 06:12, 27 Sep Jdavi333 (-15) presidential election debates
14 alphanum == 12:09, 26 Sep Vote 4 DJH2036 (-182) Undid, doesn't meet notability requirements
16 camel == 09:28, 26 Sep DerrickMichaelReid (+182) notification of declared candidacy for US President. Tag: VisualEditor
14 ipFour == 05:32, 26 Sep 169.231.20.233 (-239) Largely unnecessary in relation to the 2016 election, and most of that statement isn't supported by the source
8 camel == 01:44, 26 Sep HighInBC (-4) Removing Nathan Norman per AfD
17 title == 00:53, 26 Sep Kingbigotthegreat (+94)
I list the edit-history sample, to show that in practice there is no confusion betwixt all manner of machine-generated 'usernames'. 2604:2000 on the 27th is obviously responsible for both the IP6 edits that day. By contrast, 2602:306 on the 29th is almost certainly a different human, because they geolocate to a new place, and because they disdain the visual editor. However, what matters considerably more methinks, is not the raw edit-history, but the edit-history sorted by bytecount. Direct comparison of username complexity-slash-memorability-slash-typeability, people commenting here on this BanTheUsername drama-board, versus people editing USPE, 2016:
4 title == Widr
4 camel == NTox
5 title == Kusma
6 title == 1Wiki8
7 lower == davidwr
7 ipTwo == 75.108
8 title == 'Ceyockey
8 camel == HighInBC fka Chillum
8 camel == McGeddon
10 title == Beeblebrox
13 ipFour == 75.108.94.227
33 pubkey == 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR

39 ipSix == 2604:2000:2b44:3800:d1e5:fa22:f72e:8608
38 ipSix == 2602:306:3ba6:9ca0:848c:c415:1215:31d2
17 title == Kingbigotthegreat
17 spaced == I dream of horses
16 camel == DerrickMichaelReid
14 ipFour == 169.231.20.233
14 alphanum == Vote 4 DJH2036
13 ipFour == 198.41.70.106
13 ipFour == 108.89.97.117
13 camel == JJARichardson
13 title == Non-dropframe
10 alphanum == Stabila711 (-100) Reverted good faith edits by 2602:306:3BA6:9CA0:848C:C415:1215:31D2: Candidates listed here must meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. (TW)
10 alphanum == Stabila711 (-157) Reverted 1 edit by 68.8.35.1 (talk): Removing WP:SPAM. (TW)
10 title == Newbreeder
9 ipFour == 68.8.35.1
9 ipTwo == 2604:2000
8 ipTwo == 2602:306
8 alphanum == Jdavi333
8 camel == HighInBC
7 ipTwo == 169.231
6 ipTwo == 198.41
4 ipTwo == 68.8
Several take-home points can be gleaned here. First, 1Wiki8's carefully-chosen username is less complex than 2604:2000:2b44:3800:d1e5:fa22:f72e:8608's machine-related 'username'. There are advantages to the carefully-chosen username, such as the ability to have a custom sig-styling so that it displays like this, "1Wiki8..........................." which automagically suggests an appropriate 6-alphanum nickname. And indeed, in talkspace most people would refer to the two-letter "nickname" of simply IP rather than the fully-unique 2604:2000:2b44:3800:d1e5:fa22:f72e:8608, or if they are especially polite and/or need to distinguish amongst multiple anons, would abbreviate and say 2604:2000 as a nine-byte shorthand for the 39-byte actual username. Conclusion: User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR is neither more not less complex/memorable/confusing/whatever, compared to anons which happen to receive an IP6 address from their ISP, and is arguably less-confusing due to sig-styling-tricks available to those with registered usernames.
  Point#2, we can glean a couple of things from these two samplings: in the wild at a popular article, the average-username-byte-count is roughly 15.8 bytes (or 12.6 excluding anons with machine-generated 'usernames'). Here on this noticeboard thread, the average-username-byte-count is exactly 9.2 bytes (or 6.7 bytes excluding myself and 1Wiki8 as the machine-generated-albeit-purposely-selected-pseudonyms). There are two conclusions we can derive here: the first is that, a noticeboard which exists to disallow usernames, tends to attract bangDisallow comments from people who have chosen usernames that are 6 bytes long, which is twice as short as the average 12-byte-long username seen in the wild. I would hesitate to call out the long-haul wikipedians here, as bangvoting purely on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis... but the cherrypicked statistics don't lie, eh?  :-)     By luck, there was one person who commented here that also edited the article in the wild... and that person tied (in the wild) for having the shortest-byte-count-username, and tied (here at this thread) for having the longest-byte-count-username that was not machine-generated. Just saying. Now, the elephant in the room out of the way, my second conclusion from these sampling-averages is more subtle, but also crucial: in terms of nicknames, which is to say, in terms of what people will actually be typing manually in talkspace, the 6-byte-nickname 1Wiki8 is of merely-average-complexity, even by the strict standards of this noticeboard. There are some especially-terse 4-byte-names here, and some especially-long-for-this-location-8-byte-names here, but the average length is 6 bytes, and asking people to type 1Wiki8 in talkspace is not an imposition, nor disruptive, et cetera.
  For those of you that prefer wiki-policy-alphabet-soup, as a decision-making crutch-of-precedent, please feast your wiki-eyes upon WP:ANYONECANEDIT... which is such a core policy for the WMF that it doesn't even have an actual textual-wiki-policy-page... and somewhat along the same lines, the https://wikimediafoundation.org/Privacy_policy which is 'unofficially' summarized as quote "Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account register for an account without providing an email address or real name."
  Here on enWiki, with our byzantine WP:PAG, methinks the relevant brass-tacks policies are just WP:USERNAME. The use of "1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR" does not violate our username policy: it is not offensive to any moral system, it is not misleading nor impersonation of any sort, it is not disruptive any more than IP6 'usernames' are disruptive (and considerably less given that actual IPv6 anons are 39 bytes not 33 bytes long and tend to be vandalism rather than long-haul-wikipedians like 1Wiki8), and finally it is not promotional any more than re-using your facebook-handle as your on-wiki username and linking to your wordpress homepage from your userpage (which *are* allowed).
  Most people here are raising Misplaced Pages:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames as relevant, but the text of the policy is clear: "Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. Confusing usernames can often be a red flag...." In this case, the confusion is in the eye of the beholder; if you understand crypto-hash-stuff, the username is not confusing in the slightest, though it does stick out as 'interesting' that someone would pick such a username. It is not disruptive to have such a username, as the many IP6 anons prove; the red flag, is thus also in the eye of the beholder. Appearances can be deceiving, in other words; this is a policy-compliant username, and I have hope it could actually solve a wide number of on-wiki problems related to various types of vandalism and mis-uses of the 'pedia, should it become a widely-utilized convention. At the moment that is years in the future, if ever, o'course.
  p.s. I found this thread, because 1Wiki8 helped save an article from AfD, and so I came to their usertalk to congratulate them on their fascinating choice of username, which combines cryptographically-strong verifiability whilst still retaining pseudonymity, and permits direct contact without being in any way promotional (and without reliance on the buggy on-wiki kludges for hooking mediawiki-events into one's email and/or fiddling with the dark janitorial corridors of WP:IRC). There is hope, to my wiki-eyes at least, that the username-scheme being pioneered by 1Wiki8 could, someday (after iterative improvements to overcome these early-adopter bumps), satisfy 99% of the perennial proposals to force everybody to login and force editors to use their full legal name and foce wikipedians to give the WMF a confirmed email address... which I've seen *twice* this month in the form of 'procedural' blocks... and even truly bizarre schemes to require every editor to give their credit card number to the WMF before they are allowed to edit.
  Most people here are seeing the bitcoin-username as a potential way to enable payments... I'm seeing the bitcoin-username as a potential way to enable cryptographically secure pseudonymous editing, by piggybacking on a payment-transfer-network, which unlike the amazon-real-name crap backed by 1970s-era magstripe technology at the regional banking level via ATMs, is in fact an identification-network designed to permit pseudonymous global highly-auditable connections across the internet *as the default* supported behavior. Whether this glimmer of potential is realized, remains to be seen. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it won't be possible to piggyback on the bitcoin infrastructure, and re-purpose it as a secure auditable communications-slash-wikipedia-editing web-of-trust network, as opposed to a secure auditable payment-transfer web-of-trust network. But blocking this username, and/or forcing this username to be bangDisallow, would definitely make the decision for us, eh? Nipping this potential username-innovation in the bud is Not The Right Thing.
  p.p.s. As a practical/pragmatic matter, which will improve the usability/readability/friendliness of User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, perhaps avoiding cut-n-paste mishaps that other wikipedians (and 1Wiki8 themselves) might encounter in talkspace, I do strongly urge 1Wiki8 to keep as their primary user-account the cryptographically-strong 1Wiki8........................... wiki-pseudonym... which is no worse than an IP6 anon after all... but to please register a bi-directionally-linked WP:DOPPELGÄNGER user-name that will prevent impersonation of the "1Wiki8" nickname. In particular, User:1Wiki8 is available, an should be created, after which the userpage thereof (User:1Wiki8), can become a redirect (soft or hard) to User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. Similarly, once the doppleganger-username is created, User_talk:1Wiki8 doppleganger-talkpage can be hard-redirected to User_talk:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR.
  This linked-alt-account will not reduce the cryptographic strength of the primary username, so edits will still be signed with the full pubkey, and thus verifiable on-wiki or off. However, it will permit use of @1Wiki8: and use of User:1Wiki8 in talkspace, which will send echo-notifications to the doppleganger, and it will permit editors who see only your yellow-highlighted-sig-styling 1Wiki8........................... to easily find you, for instance by typing "1wiki8 userpage on wikipedia" into their favorite search engine. (Hit#1 for 'beeblebrox userpage on wikipedia' is https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Beeblebrox , whereas right now, '1wiki8 userpage on wikipedia' has your actual userpage as hit#4 in at least one search engine, after some unrelated policy-pages about usernames in general.)
  As a bonus, theoretically if 1Wiki8 was ever unfortunate enough to be involved in some kind of wilson-the-volleyball-esque situation in real life, where they lose most of their physical possessions and forget the memorized version of their long pubkey, they can remind themselves of their wiki-primary-account-username by first visiting the easy-to-remember doppleganger-username. (I've seen this in practice, kinda, for folks that have non-ASCII glyphs in their primary usernames... Chinese or Polish or whatever... they register a doppleganger-username with a pure ascii-nickname that is easy to type on any computer with any nationality of keyboard-hardware installed.)
  I don't see this doppleganger-suggestion as much of an imposition, since 1Wiki8 will still -- not counting redirects -- have one (1) talkpage and one (1) userpage and one (1) username-they-actually-edit-from. It is somewhat annoying to be forced into creating the doppleganger-username associated with one's wiki-nickname, though, and per WP:CHOICE and also WP:BURO there is no way I would change my vote to bangDisallow, should 1Wiki8 prefer to not create the suggested doppleganger-username. That said, I believe creating the doppleganger would satisfy many of the commenters here, such as User:davidwr who suggested something along those lines already. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not and do not intend to read the long walls-of-text above, but personally I think this solution is close enough to assuage my concerns and I think we can all just back away and let it go now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96

Terrorist96 (talk · contribs)

Is Terrorist allowed in usernames? Discussed at UAA and discussion removed with pointer to post here. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This user is harassing me about a username I created 8 years ago that I haven't had a problem with once in those 8 years. I have done nothing wrong and have only helped to improve Misplaced Pages as a whole. I would appreciate it if 1Wiki8 would stop harassing me and for him to mind his own business. On the other hand, I question 1Wiki8's username as promotional for his bitcoin address in order to solicit donations. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is a non-issue. Without behavior to match, the username is just that: a username. clpo13(talk) 20:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow I should think that if this was a blatant violation, someone would have noticed before now. It's not a name I would use, but I wouldn't use the string of gibberish the filing party has in their sig either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Allow because the name hasn't raised any eyebrows until now, and because the user is here to improve the project. Widr (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow. Inherently confrontational. Belchior90 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, please explain how it's "inherently confrontational". Who am I confronting and what am I confronting them with? Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Being a terrorist inherently involves behaving confrontationally towards other people. Belchior90 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not a terrorist though. It's just a name. A combination of letters and numbers. Nothing more. Terrorist96 (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Re: "It's just a name. A combination of letters and numbers. Nothing more." - Any combination of numbers and letters that has meaning, intended or not, is more than a combination of letters and numbers. To most people who read English, the combination of letters and numbers that looks like "Terrorist" is filled with meaning. While it may not be your intent cause people to think of destructive acts, I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive that you are not aware of the meaning your nickname causes. If I'm wrong, and you really are that naive, hopefully this discussion will enlighten you. Still, doesn't change my opinion of whether you should be allowed to keep using the name or not (see elsewhere). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Grandfather or Allow - I am not going to make a judgment on whether a new editor should be allowed to have a username which is, at the least, somewhat provocative and non-neutral, especially if that editor edits in some of the subject areas that this editor edits in. However given that it hasn't been a problem until now, AND he has been editing in those topic areas for years, it would be WP:POINTY and disruptive to require him to change his username now, and that disruption would be greater than the minor disruption/distraction of allowing him to continue to edit in those same topic areas with his present username. Having said that, now that Terrorist96 has been told by multiple editors, including at least one experienced editor, that his username is at least mildly distracting in a way that could interfere with collaboration, he should at least consider changing it. On the other hand, if he has developed a collaborative relationship with other editors under his present name, then changing it may harm the collaborations more than keeping it. He'll have to make that call himself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your well thought out comment. Not only have I used this name for 8 years here, I also use it on many other sites, so I see it as an identity, not just a random name. I have sentimental attachment to it. Because of this, I am disinclined to change it. Thank you for your understanding. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • That is not something I had considered. It is something that should be considered on a case-by-cases basis when the issues is raised by the editor with the name in question. Such past use outside Misplaced Pages wouldn't trump all objections but it should be given serious consideration. I see a similar potential issue with editors who have real names which run up against our username policy and who prefer to edit using their real names. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow. I am an advocate of free speech. But Misplaced Pages is neither a democracy nor a venue for free expression. This username, taken in context, says "I am here to distort and destroy what you have spent years working on. Muahahahah." I am looking at this from a Wikimedia context and not a geopolitical one. Please disallow on that basis. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You are entitled to your view, but over the 8+ years of using this name, especially during an era that 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind, I have rarely run into issues with it. Heck, a national cable station didn't see a problem with broadcasting this username on several separate occasions. And they have legal teams and S&P to worry about. (I'm referring to ) http://www.bumpworthy.com/bumps/all?keywords=Terrorist96
    Terrorist96 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow. I don't think most people are/would be offended enough by the use of the word "terrorist" in this editor's username for us to take formal action. NTox · talk 05:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow. Actions speak louder than words, and since this editor has worked harmoniously for eight-ish years, I think that this username should be allowed to remain. I might rule differently on a new user who was being disharmonious and disruptive, but for this user and this username, I'm okay with it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow The username policy when this account was created has a relevant section: Old username policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames. The standard then was does the name make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, intended to provoke an emotional reaction, or show a clear intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Given this user has been here 8 years and has never been blocked here I don't think any of these have been an issue. HighInBC 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow. I'm convinced by User:HighInBC's reasoning. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow as perfectly within policy. Though I do doubt that this person was editing[REDACTED] in 1996. Furthermore, I doubt they are a terrorist, isn't there some wiki-policy about truth in usernames? I shall ask one of the various user-gandalfs about this question of mine, and return here later if my worries about falsehood prove to be the case; no doubt the ancient magic of Gandalf, shall reveal whether User:Terrorist96 wears a mask of faux-ness! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Shared Accounts

PROCEDURAL CLOSE, WRONG PLACE This is a forum for discussing specifc user names, please see the directions at the top of the page. If you want to alter the WP:NOSHARE policy, you may open a discussion at its talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There's one question that hasn't been answered, the use of a "shared" account where two people know the account's credentials because one of them has to use the other to enter material. While software for the blind is very good it can be expensive, but getting a friend or relative or caregiver to enter edits for them could probably be free. And there are people who can't read but might want to post information or changes, and are simply having the other person read the article then post changes they propose on their behalf. Or where their computer is broken and are passing information by phone or in writing to the other person. To me, I think that should count as an exception to the no sharing rule. In fact, it's arguable that if someone was doing this due to a handicap and their account was revoked because it was found out, denying them the ability to have access would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. And someone wanting to make this clear and open to explain that they have to technically violate the no sharing policy to contribute at all would not be able to do so, there apparently being no means for someone to offer this in good faith. Is there any ruling on this sort of situation where for technical reasons person "A" has to enter person "B"'s edits on person B's account? (I'm presuming "A" has their own account for their own edits if they do.) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ

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: Allow. I'm closing this despite the fact that I particpated for two reasons: one is that the reason being cited by the filer is eplicitly not a username violation and literally nobody agrees with them that the user should be forced to change their name. The other is that, all too predictably, they simply stopped editing when this procedure opened, so it's more or less moot anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk · contribs)

WP:UNCONF. This username seems to consist entirely of random gibberish, which essentially requires that users always copy and paste rather than retyping it, and seems to be confusing for no real reason. Note that contrary to statements that suggest otherwise on the user's talk page, the username does not appear to mean anything in any other language. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My official position is meh. Per WP:UNCONF, somewhat confusing usernames are highly discouraged but (...) are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. Since the user seems serious in defending their choice of username, I'd say leave it be. If it turns out to be a troll or anything of the sort, the behaviour can be dealt with regardless of username.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow The policy subsection being cited explicitly says that such usernames are not in and of themselves a problem and I fully agree with that premise. It doesn't matter if their comments about it are consistent, or honest. Nobody is obligated to explain the meaning of their username. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Not disruptive in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Harmless username, constructive edits. Widr (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (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.


NotAnOmbudsman

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: NotAnOmbudsman CU-blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NotAnOmbudsman (talk · contribs)

The username contains "Ombudsman" which could imply a relationship to the Ombudsman commission. The issue has been discussed with the user, and xeno renamed from Wikiombudsman (talk · contribs). — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow - I don't think this is a problem. "Wikiombudsman" likely was, but I don't think every use of the term "ombudsman" is, especially when it's "NotAnOmbudsman". Plus, the username change was approved by a Bureaucrat, after all. NTox · talk 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My processing the request should not be seen as an explicit approval of the destination name; merely a recognition that "NotAnOmbudsman" is better than "Wikiombudsman" and the other requested names. –xeno 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow I raised the issue with the original username and I'm glad it was changed, even if to something debatable, because doing things like cleanup and speedy tagging with the original name really is a problem. I don't understand why 'ombudsman' was a seemingly non-negotiable part of this user's username but I don't think it's a policy violation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow - I think it is pretty unambiguous and not likely to cause confusion. Into The Fray /C 05:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Bizarre maybe but hey, nothing strange there. It's unambiguous about status, which imo is what matters.TheLongTone (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I had initially declined the rename request to "UnofficialWikiOmbudsman" because the term "ombudsman" concerned me, and the "Unofficial" part seemed more like "something added on to sway with the policy." The username "UnauthorizedWikiOmbudsman" was worse, imo, since it gave the impression that the user was doing something illegal (or otherwise not permitted by policy with the term "unauthorized"). "NotAnOmbudsman" was only approved because it was better than the previous requested names, but I still have some concerns with the continuous use of the term "ombudsman", appearing in every request the user made. --I am k6ka See what I have done 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow After thinking over this for a time, I believe that the new username is clear enough. Altamel (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Whille it is almost certain that any self-appointed guardian with a name like this is going to end up causing trouble and getting blocked, the name itself is not a vilation as it makes it clear they are not really an ombudsman. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Previous name was inappropriate, this is fine. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 6 July 2015 (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.


Cloudteninfo

Cloudteninfo (talk · contribs)

The name seems rather similar to that of Cloud Ten Pictures, the name of a film company. The user had made edits to that company's article as well as to Paul LaLonde, founder of the company. I've written a polite message on the user's talk page, but I'm hoping an admin can take over from here. Themightyquill (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

. Disallow - Combined with the two edits made by the account, it seems pretty promotional in nature. Into The Fray /C 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked WP:ISU softblock (given edits) and pointed to COI guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Really? I was just about to close this as "no action taken" because they have made no edits since the reporting user dropped them a note ten days ago and they were never informed of this disucssion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: The combination of name + edits is enough for a soft block, the COI is fairly obvious (or is implied by the username, the "CompanyName" + "info" pattern is common in social media marketing), they can simply create another account and follow the COI guidelines if they wish. I didn't realize that they had not been informed, but if I had ran into the account on my own and saw them editing "Cloud Ten Pictures" I would have done the same thing: soft block, point to COI. §FreeRangeFrog 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LoLROFLWTFOMFG

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: Procedural close User has not edited in 60 days. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LoLROFLWTFOMFG (talk · contribs)

This user was originally blocked by Diannaa because some of the words in the acronyms in the username are profanities. I handled the user's unblock request and disagreed that it's offensive enough to warrant an immediate block, so we agreed to take the matter here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
LoLROFLWTFOMFG stands for "laugh our loud rolling on the floor laughing what the fuck oh my fucking god", which many people might find objectionable. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow The username itself is typically trollish. Since their contributions seem constructive, renaming should resolve the problem, and I see that it's already in progress. Widr (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
See, I agree that it is the sort of name a troll might pick. I agree it is "pointless" as well and may cause somse users not to take this person seriously. However, our usernames are not required to have a point. As a matter of fact it is better if they don't. And their editing has not been trolling that I can see. (although I note that is often the case with these proceedings it seems to have had a chilling effect as they have not edited since this was filed, having already been blocked without warning and then unblocked just before it started) I don't see how the mere existence of a name that conatains initialisms that (if you know what they are) contains some "naughty words" is inherently disruptive to the point where the user faces either being blocked or being forced to choose a new name. It seems like an overreaction, and rahter WP:BITEy to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It saddens me to see so many users willing to block somebody for what everyone agrees is a username that implies four letter words but doesn't actually use them. Are we really this thin-skinned around here now?
Also, this user has not edited since this proceeding was opened eighteen days ago. For such a marginal case with an editor that was apparently scared off permananetly by this (and the premature block that preceeded it) I can't see how a block can possibly be justified at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disallow. Prudishness is not the issue. Implied profanities like this are still deliberate implied profanities, and this, from long experience, suggests with high confidence that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. Changing their username would be a good start for them to change that impression. -- The Anome (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with every word you said, except the first one. Users with names like this are almost always disruptive. This one hasn't been though. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It has now been 30 days since this user made an edit. I think this can just be closed as moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Beeblebrox -- I don't think this person is coming back, so this is probably best closed. On the off-chance, however, I say we allow the name -- it's childish, but I don't think the profanity implied is really all that sufficiently conscious to people to be a practical problem. NTox · talk 00:03, 8 June 2015 (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.
Category:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names: Difference between revisions Add topic