Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

the user in question has made no recent edits.
you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

(discussiontools-topicsubscription-button-subscribe-label)[(discussiontools-topicsubscription-button-subscribe)]Reports
(discussiontools-topicheader-latestcomment: 1611353940)(discussiontools-topicheader-commentcount: 20)(discussiontools-topicheader-authorcount: 13)

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.

Threesom666

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: allow; already overturned by The Bushranger. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

Threesom666 (talk · contribs)

So this is actually a weird semi-backdoor unblock request. User was blocked for their username, but after coming in to IRC asking why they were blocked it occurred to me (and a few other helpers) that the name isn't that provocative. Basically, I think the block was a little excessive but I don't want to wheel-war with 331dot over the matter. I figure since the block was entirely username-related that it would be reasonable to discuss the issue here. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

I blocked in response to a UAA request. I also note that the user's unblock request without a username change was declined by Yamla. The name references Threesome and Number of the beast(666). 331dot (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
Right, which is why I'm somewhat on the fence. I get the 666 issue, but "threesome" to me is, well, not really that much of an issue in this day and age. I guess I just don't see 666 as enough of a problem to block; maybe I'm just weird. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
I guess at the time I felt that if one person was offended enough to report it that it was probably offensive, but if the community feels differently, I can live with that. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
The sexual reference is mild. "666" on its own is not offensive at all. I suppose it the combination of the two that is the issue? Personally I don't see it rising to the level of making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
I personally wouldn't have blocked for the username on its own. If I'd seen the username and just looked at this edit though, and seen the signature, I might have blocked as not being here for the right reasons. I wouldn't however have a problem with someone of that username gnoming around in American football articles, which seems to be their primary interest. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

Primefac, I'm not saying we should dilute the potency of certain usernames (obviously, to a point), but I think it still needs to be tasteful in so far as what the username depicts. Like with a Threesome-this or an Orgy-that or whatever. I don't think it reflects well on the project to have usernames like those around. I don't want kids to see that. While the more intellectually potent usernames will just go over their heads, the more direct crass sex stuff has little if any utility. We gotta use common sense when weighing WP:CENSOR against WP:NOTFREESPEECH. I think both 331dot, who applied the soft block, and Yamla, who declined the unblock request, made the right call. Significantly, the blocked user reacted by saying: My screen name is my name and represents me. I dont care of contributing anymore if it’s going to block because of my name. ~~Sorry, but to me, that comes across as a bit immature. Oh well. Hope they reconsider.~~ El_C 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Added: not sure why I thought this was a brand new account, but obviously I was in error. Struck. El_C 17:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

Reasonable argument (and most of those were things I tried to discuss with them as reasons why they were blocked). For what it's worth I'm willing to be convinced in either direction. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

Primefac, I guess what I'm getting at is that we should be wary of anything too explicit: like really ghoulish or of a sexual nature or about bodily fluids or whatever. I realize many kids are exposed to much worse, but there are still many kids whose internet is closely regulated by their parents and who may have safeguards to prevent their kids from reading the actual Wikipedia article on these subjects. We should not betray the trust of those parents who allow their kids to be "gnoming around in American football articles," which ought to be an innocent enough affair. Wikipedia is, ultimately, a scholarly pursuit (serious bizness!

), but why not be welcoming of everyone? The tradeoff looks intuitive to me and it falls squarely on the side of being respectful (of the sensibilities of kids — as for adults, fuck'em). El_C 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

I wouldn't have blocked this username myself, had I noticed it first. That said, I don't think the block was inappropriate. This is a judgment call, and the username is certainly skirting the edges. I declined the unblock request because it wasn't a request to be unblocked, as far as I can see, but rather a declaration that they don't plan to edit further. Totally unrelated, I found Threesome (1994 film) rather entertaining. --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

I think what I'm talking about here is probably a more amorphous principle, because, like Yamla, I don't know if I would have blocked that username, either (as 331dot says, absent a complaint). Because as far as sex stuff usernames go, it is indeed rather tame. El_C 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

We should not betray the trust of those parents who allow their kids to be "gnoming around in American football articles," which ought to be an innocent enough affair. While fair as far as it goes, Wikipedia is not censored and we are also not the morality police. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

I don't see the name as that much of a problem. Slightly risqué but no more than that. If it were up to me, I'd unblock. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

True enough. On second thought, something like User:The Illustrious Roman Orgy, for example, is actually a pretty cool username (I just invented). El_C 17:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

Agree with many people above, I don't see this username as any big deal. Jessamyn (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
Unblock -- The first thing I thought of when I saw the username was a golf threesome. The editor has edited off-and-on for 13+ years. I don't see any problem with the username. Great ... now I'm wishing it wasn't 8 degrees F. out and I could get a round of golf in. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
Bad block for a user registered in 2005 with a questionable-at-worst username and no attempt at discussion. Sure, there are dubious edits, but nothing I would immediately block for; the unblock reason is poor, but they are probably upset. The Horned God edit is not clearly in bad faith to me: the edit summary is joke-y and the image should have been a thumbnail, but is not inappropriate for the article. — The Earwig ^talk 17:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]
Unblock - that name is PG. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

After considering and looking over the above, I have unblocked the editor. I believe the block was good faith but also should not have been made, and in the future long-term accounts like this, unless the name is truly out there, should be given a "hey, your username might be questionable, would you like to change it?" ping first if at all. Remember that there's lots of "questionable" usernames from long-term users here, and some of them are even admins. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)(discussiontools-replybutton)[(discussiontools-replylink)]

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.

(discussiontools-topicsubscription-button-subscribe-label)[(discussiontools-topicsubscription-button-subscribe)]Reports(discussiontools-topicheader-latestcomment: 1611353940)(discussiontools-topicheader-commentcount: 20)(discussiontools-topicheader-authorcount: 13)

Threesom666

(discussiontools-topicsubscription-button-subscribe-label)[(discussiontools-topicsubscription-button-subscribe)]Reports
(discussiontools-topicheader-latestcomment: 1611353940)(discussiontools-topicheader-commentcount: 20)(discussiontools-topicheader-authorcount: 13)