User talk:Itchyjunk

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Itchyjunk! Here are some links to help you along:
 * The Wikipedia Adventure
 * Wikipedia Manual of Style
 * Reliable sources
 * Your First Article
 * Article Wizard
 * How to sign your talk page posts
 * The pillars of Wikipedia
 * Edit warring
 * Vandalism
 * Articles for Creation

If you need help, then feel free to. Have a great Wiki-Day. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 12:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Itchyjunk! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:58, Thursday, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for gaming autoconfirmed status and having a username which indicates that you are clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to change your username? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I would not. I also take it that this block is strictly about my username then and not "clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia". I don't think think my username is generally used by people to be profane. Googling points to pages where they talk about the medical condition and ways to treat it as well. And a joke at my own expense might be self deprecating but not malicious. Cheers.
 * Understood. By Wikipedia community standards, it is offensive, and would likely be objected to, and is therefore disruptive. Whether you are blocked solely because of your username, or because of other reasons too, is not such an important issue. The username, and now the fact that you are arguing to keep it (something that is telling, and admins have seen for years), are the issues. I doubt you will be unblocked then.  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've been convinced that I should extend good faith and unblock you, as it's clear you've had good intentions in editing here. I would still strongly urge you to change your username, not as a concession that you were being profane or disruptive, but as a way of saving the community a lot of time and trouble over something that doesn't really mean that much to your ability to contribute; if you keep editing after I unblock you without changing your username, I think I have to submit a WP:RFC/NAME and that would really take a lot of the community's scarce time and likely lead to your being re-blocked (judging by the two other admins above who agree that the name is a violation of the username policy). Again, a username change isn't a concession that you were wrong or disruptive; it's simply a good way of reducing the burden on other Wikimedians. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good faith and unblock. But I still seem to be in a bit of a predicament as I won't be able to edit without the constant risk of another ban as mentioned above. Although my intentions are not to drain resources of a non-profit organization, maybe it is best if I get reported to that aforementioned WP:RFC/NAME so this can properly be settled. Sincerely, Itchyjunk (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Itchyjunk. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your input at the discusion of your name would be helpful, again it is at WP:RFCN. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome
If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Despite getting off on a bad foot, we are friendly and welcoming here. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will! Sincerely, Itchyjunk (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"ItchyJunk" as a username
Following a ban on my account most likely due to my (understandably) offensive{CN} user name, I asked for a RFC which seems to be a tribunal way to deal with issues. Although the whole process was slightly bureaucratic, I was happy at how reasonable most admins and other contributors were. I have decided to leave a copy of this discussion on my talk page for a few different reasons.

Itchyjunk

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names).  No further edits should be made to this section.  

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


 * This user was initially blocked by for being NOTHERE and their username; the NOTHERE seemed mostly tied to their username.  Two admins(me and ) said we would not unblock unless they agreed to change their username, which they specifically declined to do.  Kevin(L235) removed his block and gave the option of either voluntarily changing their username on the grounds that it would be less burdensome to the community or coming here for a community discussion.  Itchyjunk has opted for a discussion.  "Junk" is often slang for either genitalia or one's behind; as I told him, I don't feel most people want to know anything about his 'junk' when editing. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Innuendo names are not out of bound, this username is not explicitly inciting offence. It is cartoonish and innapropriate at most, and while you can informally request the user to change it, it is up to them. This is not generally offensive. NK (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Allow Wikipedia is not censored. You're violating one of the basic 5 pillars by assuming that their username is referring to genitalia and, to be honest, if it is - so what? Why are we focusing on a person's username instead of their overall editing abilities? We're all volunteers here, and we need to keep this in mind. If we're allowing usernames like User:Damn Sexy, User:Fuck Femenazi's, User:Fuck You Boi, User:Fuck US, User:Bitchesandhos, User:TheCircumcisionExpert, or even User:Dickhooker. Let's move along and get back to the point of this project. Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is listing a bunch of accounts that have 0 edits or are blocked supposed to support your case? It doesn't. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you must've really dug deep for some of these, without noticing tha most of them are in fact blocked. Of the two that are not blocked, neither have any edits, one was created about a year and the other a decade ago. I don't know how you even found it to be an example but it isn't proof of anything really. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The user AFAIK has never denied that their name wasn't referencing that. I would frankly block usernames with "Fuck" as it is a vulgarity(aside from the sexual meaning); I believe most of those that you cite are not being "allowed" so much as they haven't yet edited. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia not being censored does not mean that there is not certain standards of decorum in this public forum. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are certain standards of decorum, however, WP:CENSOR lays out that some things may be objective or offensive. It's all about perception and how we look and deal with things. We're taking up space here because someone's username contains the word junk in it, and it could refer to genitalia. The username policy essentially states usernames are not permitted if they are ...making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g., by containing profanities or referencing controversies. Are you telling me that we cannot allow this user to have this username because we're not adult enough to get past the word junk? I'm not trying to be rude, abrasive, or inconsiderate here - but I've long believed in the policy of WP:CENSOR and the 5 pillars and think that maybe this is just being a little too picky. Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with 331dot. This is not a middle school locker room. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Allow I feel like "cartoonish" is a good way to put it. I find this username funny and as long as the user isn't editing with it in some way that would otherwise make it offensive (i.e. all penis-related articles in order to make some sort of joke point) I don't have a problem with it. Jessamyn (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if t hey edited penis related articles etc that still would not be a reason to block them. Unless they do crappy editing or get into edit wars, the editor can edit whereever they like.Resnjari (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just meant if they were using the sound of their username combined with the flavor of their edits to make some sort of meta-point, that would be less cool and more stuntish. Jessamyn (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Allow - There's a difference between cartoonishly crude and offensive. While of course the ideal outcome is for the user to choose to change it to something a bit more... "serious", I can't resolve to find "ItchyJunk" offensive enough to block on that basis alone. User:Lowblow, User:BigBum, User:HairyJewels or User:DroopingSack would be be a bit crude but not against policy. User:HardDick, User:Cumonyourtits, User:Lickmyasshole or User:FingerbangingYourStepmother are offensive and blockable. Yeah, it's a bit subjective and culturally-dependent I guess, but I think, in the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, we must lean decisions more towards leniency for inoffensive crudeness and less towards an excess of prudishness. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  19:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted below, this is not a NOTCENSORED issue as we are not talking about page content. It also does not mean that there are not certain standards of decorum in this public forum. If I were at work talking about my itchy private parts to co workers, even using euphemisms, I would be disciplined and potentially fired/sacked. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know NOTCENSORED is a content policy, which is why I didn't invoke it as directly applicable, but the spirit of our core content policies can still be useful to inform our decisions regarding more backstore stuff like usernames. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


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


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


 * Disallow Using crude language on Wikipedia, even regularly, is not a problem as long as it is done in a civil manner; the idea is that editors who object to that sort of language can simply not use it. The problem I have here is that usernames must be used by other users, including potential profanity-objectors (if you need to ping etc.). That is the difference between writing letters to a nun with a penis-shaped pen, to which they can answer with a regular pen, and forcing her to write letters with said pen.
 * Also, there is little doubt about the meaning of the username. I find it just as vulgar as derivatives proposed above as instant-blocks (ItchyPussy, HardDick, etc.).
 * FTR, I think profanity objectors are a bunch of fly-fucking wimps. But they exist and should benefit from modest accomodations. Also, I do not see how WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant here (we are not talking about page content). And of course that should have been a username block. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this username is permitted, I would at least like the user to be strongly advised to change it. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this discussion in and of itself constitutes a strong advisory. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My preference would be an explicit advisory. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, my input has been requested here. I have been following this talk but have refrained from saying anything here as I've made my point in my talk page already and did not want to repeat it here. My nick was not picked to insult anyone else. A joke at my own expense might be self deprecating but should not be considered malicious. I have made no bad edits on purpose and I have always double checked with #wikipedia-en on freenode about my edits outside of my talk/user pages. The advice I always get is to be bold with my edits yet I have been timid about it. Since different people get offended by different things at different degrees, I think it's more productive to pass judgement based on contributions rather than judging the book by it's cover. I might not be that good of an editor and me being banned might not mean much, but I hope other good editors in future with questionable nick's get judged for their contributions and not the offense taken. Itchyjunk (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting here, your input is appreciated. As you've discovered, Wikipedia has tighter rules than many other websites for what can and cannot be in a username. The username policy has evolved over time in response to various types of objectionable usernames that have been used in the past. It is very often the case that any person who make any sort of reference to genitalia in their username is up to no good, and that is probably why an admin kind of jumped the gun and blocked you. I think at this point it looks like consensus is leaning towards allowing your name, but you should be aware that it comes across as a rather infantile "gross out" username and as a result it may effect how other users interact with you. In short, we'd all be happier, and you probably would too, if you just changed it, but if you insist on keeping it then so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated misuse of undo accusations by an IP. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Deusexmechanicus (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Some Advice
Hi, I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! There is a lot to do around here and vandalism is important to remove. However, I encourage you to read these pages: WP:VANDALISM and Help:Reverting. You identified goodfaith edits as vandalism, and this is discouraged. In reading the vandalism page, you'll see that vandalism has a very specific meaning: "...editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."

If you're looking to get familiar with reverting vandalism, I encourage you to take a look at WP:Recent changes patrol for advice on looking for vandalism on the recent changes feed, or Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy.

An editor has raised concerns for your edits at ANI and I think it would be good for you to head over there and respond to their comments.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you stay! Feel free to ask me any questions. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just read up on the issue. I am sorry about the bad undo. I had randomly googled an episode and the description I saw there did not match the "Episode summary" being added and I decided to undo it. It was also a single undo using twinkle. I never undid it again as far as I know. If you still need me to comment on the ANI, let me know. Itchyjunk (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)