Wikipedia talk:Offensive username proposal

Discussion of the proposal

 * Many of these usernames have no contributions. Can they still not be deleted? --131.215.6.125 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, a username once created can never be deleted (I could be wrong, but know I've seen it said before). bd2412  T 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If we move it, the username would be open to recreation again by the troll/vandal. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but am not worried about it for two reasons.
 * First, any troll or vandal can already just as easily create a username that is identical but for an extra exclamation point at the beginning, or substituting a special character for a similar letter, or some other minor variation. There is no practical limit to the number of ways that a username could be crafted to insult, offend, or attack someone, but that does not mean we should allow such insults to remain in the public view.
 * Second, vandals often make dozens of these at a time likely forgetting that they exist as soon as the account gots blocked - indeed, they probably expect the account to get blocked right away, and create it solely for the purpose of creating this annoyance in a way that to this point remains a permanent fixture on the list of usernames and on Wikipedia. That is the evil I seek to do away with. bd2412  T 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What would be a good addition would be if the devs could give us a function (like a checkbox) to prevent the username from being recreated in the future once we chage a username. The old username would be autoblocked from creation and would not appear in the special:listuser. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would indeed be a Good ThingTM, but I would move these names irrespective of such a function just to keep them from showing up presently. Actually, we should have something in place (like certain email address generators do) that prevents the creation of names using certain character strings such as curse words and terms like "pedophile", "paedophile", "is gay", "on wheels", etc. Perhaps widely known usernames could be added to that list, so that no one could create a new account incorporating the name of that user. I believe our software should also be smart enough to know that, for example, é or ě can be used to stand in for "e", or that ¢ and © can substitute for "c"... bd2412  T 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a technical question here. If somebody registers an offensive username like "So-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots", and it gets blocked on sight, then renamed weeks later to "Nulluser00005446" or whatever, and somebody re-registers the old name, which account is blocked from editing? the old one, the new one, both, or neither? As far as I know, this has never been tested, as we generally only offer the service of username change to editors in good standing. — Jun. 9, '06  [14:59] < [ freak]|[ talk] >
 * My understanding is that the block would follow the username; ergo "So-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots" would no longer be blocked, while "Nulluser00005446" (or as I would prefer "￥-00005446") would be blocked. I honestly don't think it matters - once the vandal has made his point and the account has been permablocked, he will almost certainly never bother attempting to log in under that name again (and if he really wanted to, could just make a new account at "$o-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots" or "So-and-so has sexual relations with tátor tots" or "!!!!!!!!!!!So-and-so has sexual relations with tátor tots". My problem is chiefly with those old vandal-created offensive usernames that are there right now, and can be dispatched. bd2412  T 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a couple of cases where someone was blocked for having an inappropriate username (inappropriate does not necessarily mean "Offensive and full of obscenities"), and then asked to have it changed. What ended up happening was that the block did carry over, but remained listed under the old name, creating a serious problem when trying to unblock. We eventually had to go back and unblock the old username by hand in order for the new username to be created.


 * With that said, I don't think there is a need for this; there was a problem some months ago with obscene usernames appearing on the first page of Listusers, but that was solved by the creation of a number of accounts that now fill that page. Anyone clicking alphebetically though a list of one million usernames should expect to eventually find something they don't agree with; I don't honestly believe anyone in their right mind is using listusers without filtering either for the name of the person they're looking for, or the class of users (i.e. "sysop"). It strikes me that this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist, and that the time needed to rename thousands (and yes, in a list of a million usernames, there are going to be thousands that need to be renamed) of accounts could be better spent solving a problem we know needs to be fixed (like, say, copyright infringements or vandalism of the featured article with goatse, which is likely to be seen by far more people).


 * Finally, renames can only be performed at the request of the user, or with community consensus. A specific policy for renaming inappropriate usernames would need to be proposed in the projectspace, discussed extensively, and adopted, before it would be acceptible for them to take place. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I will take this proposal to the community. I will note, however, that on the first page that comes up from the User pages link, I see 66 fairly nasty attacks on admins (mostly aimed at Linuxbeak, and many of which are invasions of privacy), plus a handful of generalized attacks aimed at political or religious leanings. Now, my biggest concern is the results that show up on that first page, and doubtless the vandals who made those accounts knew that they could get their attacks to appear there (hence all those exclamation points). If no 'crat wants to do this (and I do appreciate your desire to attend to more pressing and public matters), I'll ask to be given the 'crat powers for one week just for this purpose, and I'll warhouse the worst cases. bd2412  T 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your display looks like, but when I look at Special:Listusers, the default is 50 listings, and they are almost all nothing but exclamation points. Nothing obscene appears at all. I'll upload a screenshot shortly. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what shows when you look at Special:Listusers as an anon, or a new user. I don't see any inappropriate usernames. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see. I have my default return set to 500. Well, it's not as big a problem as I thought then, but I would still argue that, at the very least, the attack usernames that reveal personal information about an admin (or any other user) should be changed. bd2412  T 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see a need for this at first, as I have seen quite a few names based on mine (alone or in combination with other users) and it never really bothered me that much. I had never really seen the ones that were used to convey personal information though. I think we should seriously think about the proposal when it comes to these names, also to convey the message that making usernames like those have no effect (as I believe that some of these username makers are 'regulars' - vandals with some experience). --JoanneB 06:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, regarding Essjay's comments about the unblocking: I think the class of usernames that I'm talking about would never need to be unblocked for any reason, as they would be very clearly made in bad faith, as for instance "JoanneB's telephone number is ####" would never be a valid user name anyway. --JoanneB 07:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've copied the following over from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion:

U2: Permabanned user

I have added U2: Permabanned user. User pages created by users who are now permanently banned.

User pages are for the use of individual users; they are not maintained for community benefit. If a user has been permanently banned, then his pages are not likely to be of any use to him -- and are certainly not of use to us. We might want to retain talk pages that demonstrate the need for permabanning; others can simply go. See User:Germaine Hitler. John Reid 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy? Definitely not.  Anyway, isn't current practice to slap the "banned" tag on it anyway?  Why speedy them when they're going to get slapped with a tag and protected anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have the ability to remove article edits which are defamatory or an invasion of privacy via the oversight bit, why not allow the same people who hold these privileges be able to hide or delete offending usernames of the same ilk? Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds the most logical solution. Agathoclea 08:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This should be really easy. See Username. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 03:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Another idea
What if we ask the devs to impliment a "banned" flag? This flag would exclude a user from the user list and could be set by bureaucrats. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! That would maintain the block and save the server strain of username changes as well - no wonder the vandals say all those nasty things about you. bd2412  T 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a wonderful idea, why didn't I thi&mdash; oh, wait. ;-)  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * shush! -- Agathoclea 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was focused on your use of the word "delete" (which, so far as I know, is not possible for user accounts)... but hiding, yes! Now, what we need is a way to keep the page blank and a redlink and still protect it against recreation (or can we just delete and watch)? bd2412  T 23:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea; perhaps give the ability to oversight-access people, who can hide the vandal account and their edits. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, users in the oversight group already have the ability to hide edits when necessary; if this can be somehow extended to allow those same people to hide user accounts of a similar nature then our problem is solved. Extend, embrace, extinguish.  8-)  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just do it. Werdna (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had this idea midway through reading the page. :) Good, good. (And OMG fair use image outside of article space!) æ² ✆ 2006-06-16t22:53z
 * Note that Linuxbeak's proposal has been reported as Bug #6397. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Character?
Is that character you propose putting in front of those user-names just a box, or is it omething?

What I mean is, you said "if we put the usernames as BOX-001" or something like that. But what was the character I represent as BOX? I really want to know. Thanks, ~  Flame  -  viper  12 (22:24, 21.06.06 UTC)  22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's ¥, the symbol for the Japanese yen and the Chinese yuan, which is near the end of the characters laid out in the Wiki alphabetization scheme. bd2412  T 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a unicode character, and it appears as a Y with a double strikethrough. See also here. Kevin_b_er 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...
When was this proposed? What happened? It obviously has not been implemented so, wtf? S o  a  P  16:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, while I was working on this I got caught up in a related proposal at WP:DUU90. I'll put in a bug for this. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity...
that vandalising on wikipedia isn't a crime. Just think of the reduced ammount of vandalism here, if we could just report the IP's of numptys(like the one that has posted above me), to their ISP's, and get their internet access(atleast with their current ISP) stopped. dbalsdon 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

and there are plenty of problems with the poster above me's suggestion
Many people share AOL IPs, the Cabal could just report anyone whose views didn't agree with theirs and put them in political prison, we would be no better off than China or Soviet Russia. 205.188.117.69 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * TINC :P Viridae Talk 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I must concur with Viridae. There is no cabal. Nor has they ever been. Nor will there ever be. No matter what Daniel Brandt and his ilk say. » c <font color="#78abea">tails!«  =hello?=  05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is good!
I would like to add that this is a good policy. We should ban offencive usernames. It is a shame that this place IS bombarded with people who are just wanting to ruin a great website, when is shoulden't in the first place. Aquaspoon 06:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorized
I have categorized this page for easier navigation. If anyone can find a better category for this page, please feel free to change it. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  11:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - good thought. bd2412  T 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not good in present form
While there are some blatantly obvious examples given, this proposal is really too vague and subjective to implement. What may or may not be offensive is a personal matter, and varies from place to place and culture to culture. Even the US Supreme Court was unable to do much better than "I know it when I see it". It might be possible to create a definition for the most blatant examples, but there is too much grey at present. Agent 86 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just found an example of the difficulty in developing an enforcable proposal and the personal nature of the issue on this Administrators Noticeboard archived discussion. Agent 86 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We already allow username blocks; this could simply be made standard action after a username block (with a 'crat being a second level of security). Not sure how much extra work this would give the 'crats, though... --ais523 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust the 'crats to make the judgment call over what is a username that should never be. As noted above, there are "some blatantly obvious examples" - several thousand of them, in fact. bd2412  T 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that the need for this proposal is obviated by the present consensus at Delete unused username after 90 days, which is presently under discussion with the Devs.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * DUU90 only applies to usernames from which no edits have ever been made (even if the edit was three years ago); this proposal would apply to offensive usernames even if they have been used to make edits. It would not delete the account (which would violate GFDL if edits had been made therefrom) but merely effect a namechange to an inoffensive name. With respect to the above comment about personal taste playing into it, admins are empowered to permablock offensive usernames, so those decisions are already being made. This proposal would merely take the additional step of changing the username itself to something reasonably incapable of offense. bd2412  T 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum note: despite the overwhelming support for DUU90, it was deemed unimplementable by the techies; back to the drawing board. bd2412  T 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Double Checking
I'm fairly neutral on the proposal, but obviously one needs to be aware of both names which may contain offensive characters while being entirely innocent (such as if someone from Scunthorpe wished to use the name of their town in a username, or someone named Cockburn. Equally there may be accidental collisions - I'm sure most people have heard about the troubles faced by [www.PenIsland.net Pen Island.net] and [PowergenItalia.com Powergen Italia] to name but a few...

So basically my conclusion here is that this never should become an automated process - otherwise poor old Gayle Bush might be deleted if she's normally known as Gay. --Neo (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want it automated in the first place - this can be done by hand by any 'crat. Perhaps some automation could bring up a list of likely suspects, but the actual warehousing would be done by hand, and would not cover the above examples (we trust the judgment of our 'crats in many other circumstances, we can trust it here as well). bd2412  T 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 discussion (moved from proposal page)
Why is this an issue? --Jayron32| talk | contribs 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the existence of a directory of usernames full of stuff like the above an issue? Because it is a public directory full of stuff like the above. bd2412  T 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Copied and pasted my own comments from WP:VP) As a radical supporter of free speech, I have to oppose this. "Offensive" is an arbitrary concept that generally boils down to "something you don't like." Most people don't like racism. It's true racism is nonsense. Should racist names be removed from Wikipedia? It seems like a common sense thing to do but if you have a blanket policy of removing "offensive" names, you're going to inevitably end up with silly controversies, like whether mocking Christianity or Islam or certain political beliefs is "offensive". Overall, it will tend to reflect the biases of western editors and names which are only offensive to obscure groups aren't going to be removed, though there would be huge flame-wars over whether they should be removed. Meanwhile, Wikipedia would essentially be censored.


 * Also, your own list itself demonstrates the arbitrariness with which this policy would be upheld. "FireFox blocked the US Congress on Wheels" is silly, but NOT "offensive." Zenwhat (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to Willy on Wheels, a notorious vandal. The association is offensive. In any event, there is no free speech concern here at all. The user list is supposed to be useful, allowing people to search for available usernames and identify the status of other users, for example. Garbage names hinder its utility. We are, after all, here for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. bd2412  T 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know about Willy. How is that name "offensive"? As I said on WP:VP, if the issue is clutter, you can propose tagging offensive names as such and allowing people the ability to filter them out in searches. Zenwhat (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there some part of WP:NOTCENSORED that I am misunderstanding here? If you don't wish to look at the names, don't look at them.  While technically publicly viewable, its an esoteric page that only those quite familiar with Wikipedia is likely to find; and even more so simply opening the list user does not automatically display user names with swear words in them.  You have to not only find the page but specifically search for them.  If you are looking for them, it is hard to claim you are offended by accidentally finding them.  Wikipedia is filled with other pages which would meet your particular definition of "offensive", say anal-oral contact, which is an article of rather prurient interest, or even fuck itself.  Wikipedia is not censored, and what that means is that Wikipedia is not censored.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some usernames go beyond censorship questions into real legal questions - defamation and invasion of privacy. Those really must be removed. As for non-censorship, that applies to article substance, but posting any of the above in a discussion, for example, would rightly result in a swift block. bd2412  T 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The foundation employs a lawyer whose job it is to deal with exactly these kind of legal issues. If you have a question about potential for lawsuits relating to individual usernames existing on said list, then you would do well to contact him directly with your question.  However, simply because a user name contains the word "fuck" I see no reason to take any action beyond blocking the name.  Attempting to deal with a legal issue by editor derived policies and guidelines like this is patently a bad idea.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does WP:NOTCENSORED outweigh WP:NPA? WP:POINT? bd2412  T 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why these usernames were blocked. What more do you want?  Should we hunt them down and kill them?  We don't, for example, erase personal attacks from talk page histories.  They are still there.  I still don't see any compelling reason for this action beyond "I don't want to see this".  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Does WP:NOTCENSORED outweigh WP:NPA? WP:POINT?" Yes. For a good discussion on the matter of why free speech is valuable everywhere and "offensive" is a crime not worth enforcing, see Chapter 2 of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Zenwhat (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Free speech means speech uncensored by the government. Wikipedia is a private organization with the goal of building an encyclopedia. How does the maintenance of usernames containing vulgar attacks against contributers promote the building of an encyclopedia? bd2412  T 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not being "maintained" in the sense that there is no energy spent on keeping them around. That is the default, and requires no action.  The proposal YOU make YOURSELF would require not only a change in the MediaWiki software, but constant maintenance by editors to keep up with, and that time is time NOT SPENT improving encyclopedia articles.  Which would you rather have people spending their time doing: bringing an article to FA standards, or removing usernames from an esoteric list that only a handful of users ever sees and to date only one user has expressed any "offense" at.  Building an encyclopedia indeed! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "continued hosting" would be a better verb, but I am not proposing any change to the MediaWiki software. I am proposing to have 'crats having the authority (since they already have the technical ability) to change those names to something innocuous. My primary concern (and I am certainly willing to trim my proposal to this extent) is usernames which defame (e.g. User:So-and-so is a pedophile with AIDS), which give out private information (e.g. User:So-and-so's real name is Frank Smith and he works at NYU), and those which attack (e.g. User:So-and-so is a fucking asshole). Of course, if we're going to do that, we may as well take out the rest of the garbage. bd2412  T 21:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could support your second example fully, and probably live with your first as well. Any further removals (such as the fucking asshole example) or simply vulgarity (like User:Shithead) is probably not worth the time.  I think the second example is a clear case where a 'crat should do something, the first is a maybe, and any further cases are so numerous and actually so innocuous as to not be a problem.  WP:UAA and WP:RFCN get enough hits in a day with blatant username violations that contain swear words that the entire purpose of the proposal would be bogged down censoring every blocked name that contained the word "fuck" or "shit" or a racial slur.  The first and second examples are rare enough that it would take a few users a day or two to bring the old ones to the attention of a 'crat to fix, and from then on it could be part of the UAA blocking procedure that usernames that "out" other users personal information, or blatantly defame (of the "is a pedophile" type, not just insult like "is an asshole" type).  To propose to rename every blocked account with a vulgarity or an insult seems excessive and pointless, but I could see in VERY limited cases where it would be useful... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this; would you agree that a 'crat ought to rename where the username reveals personal info or is defamatory (note that the subject of the outing or defamation may not come across it, but it's still out there), and should have the discretion (although not the obligation) to rename where the username is a non-defamatory attack on an existing user, or is pointless vulgarity? I mean, if you saw someone randomly post "HELLO ASSFUCK" on a talk page outside the context of any discussion, would you oppose someone's decision to delete it as silly vandalism? I don't see this as being much different. bd2412  T 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, 'crats have the discretion to do whatever they want; but I would be OK with a guideline that requests specifically that personal info revelation or defamatory statements SHOULD be renamed or redacted so as to disappear completely. Per avoiding instruction creep, we don't need a seperate page on this, as far as I am concerned this can best be dealt with by including an extra instruction on WP:UAA and WP:UN, and NOT by creating a completely separate policy page. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, needs community consensus to add that statement to those pages. Why not a separate page to discuss the issue and reach that consensus? How else would we do it? bd2412  T 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal revised accordingly. bd2412  T 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just give bureaucrats the ability to delete and salt usernames that have zero edits? <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these objectionable usernames do have edits. Deleting usernames with no edits is not a bad idea at all, but after having won wide praise from the community, one proposal to do exactly that was deemed unworkable by the techies (see WP:DUU90). bd2412  T 05:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)