Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So earlier today I went over to Wikipedia and created an account partially because of the stuff futurebird posted today and partly because I keep seeing crazy shit on there that needs fixing. (Actual vandalism, not stuff I don't agree with.) Anyway, I go back there a minute ago to look up something about Alien Nation when I see I have a message, and the message is that my username is 'being discussed' on the Talk page about innappropriate usernames. And I'm like, what? I just made this name a few hours ago...

My username is: theangryblackwoman

So I travel on over to the page and I see this conversation:
</lj>What do we do about this one? Acalamari 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
em nothing? I take it you've asked the user about this name? --Fredrick day 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. If a female black user wishes people to know she is angry about something, that seems her business...Acalamari, I really don't think there's a need to go out looking for WP:UN violations... WJBscribe 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if the user is a black woman who is angry. It's just this could be a name that could cause problems. Even if it was something like "Theangrywhitewoman" or "Theangryasianpeople," I would still have reported it. Though I might have left it if it had been something like "Theangryorangewoman," as there aren't orange people. Acalamari 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • How is it confrontational? The name could be ironic and she could prove to most civil Wikipedian ever. She may be angry about third world debt, or deforestation. But we don't know because no one has asked her. The user has never had a single edit and may never make one. I don't see what use is served by blocking her pre-emptively. WJBscribe 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a message on her talk page. Acalamari 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - inherently confrontational.Proabivouac 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Disallow - from WP:UN - Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view and Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. - I think this user name could potentially fall into these. Though this user name would the vast majority of the time cause no problem, people will be distracted by this slightly aggressive username. Cheers Lethaniol 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow So, you want to change her name because she's 'angry'? So flippin what? What's she angry about? Is she angry about Wikipedia? Is she angry about George Bush? Is she angry about the weather? Is she angry at me? I don't know, but if I did maybe I'd feel she's being confrontational, but I don't feel confronted because I don't know what she's angry about, so I don't care. I'm angry because I got a parking ticket. I'm AngryAelffin. Am I being confrontational? No, I'm just being silly. Just like this nomination. It's just silly. Sorry. Aelffin 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak allow per WJBscribe. // PoeticDecay 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. I don't see the problem here; the only issue could be 'angry' and I would take that as a piece of mild self-deprecation. Sam Blacketer 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Not inherently offensive in any way. EVula // talk // // 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The main problem is having race and an extreme emotion in one username. It is likely to cause problems, and judging by the reaction here...it's already generated a lot of discussion. Acalamari 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    By your logic, "Thejollywhiteman" is an objectionable username. I think you're forseeing problems where they aren't likely to occur. EVula // talk // // 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If this username is so non-problem-causing, why is it creating a lot of heated discussion? Acalamari 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
From the comments (1.5 disallows, the remainder allows), it appears the "heat" is less over her name than over the idea of blocking it. Ben 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope other users realize that I don't report users here because "it's fun," or any reason like that. I report names that I think might cause problems. I did not add this one or the one below because it was funny. It's not funny to get someone blocked. Acalamari 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the usernames you have brought so far have been appropriate for discussion. Cheers Lethaniol 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be really, really nice if you would please first discuss your objections directly with the users on their talk pages, and only bring them here if those discussions fail to resolve the problem. Every time I see a redlinked "talk" after the username, I feel an important step's been skipped. Ben 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm worried that if I do that and the user then gets blocked, they'll resort to what I call "vengeance vandalism." I'm concerned that if I alert a user about their name and they get blocked, they'll decide to use their IP to vandalize the user pages of the users who decided to disallow their name. I'm not being a coward, I just don't want a bunch of users to get their pages vandalized because of me. If it was only my user page that was at risk, I would alert the user. Acalamari 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is likelier to make someone that angry? Approaching the user directly for a friendly and courteous discussion first, or skipping that step and going straight to other people to get a block placed without such a courtesy? I know how I'd like to be treated. I've asked people I've worked with, "If you ever have a problem with what I do or how I do it, please let be be the first to know, not the second or third or last. Tell me right away, and maybe I can fix whatever it is before things get too bad." It's just such simple directness that can short-circuit gossip and grapevines and stories distorted by multiple relay. Please, Acalamari, start by both assuming and acting in good faith, as though you're dealing with a reasonable person who may become a valued editor and even a friend. If you're proved wrong in that assumption, no blame to you. But avoiding such directness, for fear of "vengeance vandalism", seems to me far more likely to produce that feared result. Either approach may often turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ben 23:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's unimportant if they vandalized my user or talk page. I'd be more worried if they'd vandalized yours because of me. As for acting in good-faith, I do that, but I've noticed that users with problem-causing usernames are often not serious about editing Wikipedia Acalamari 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, may I remind you that no one told Anarcho-capitalism about their username being here, and that user is more active than all of the ones I've ever listed here. I assume that user used the "what links here" button on their userpage. Acalamari 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not a right make. EVula // talk // // 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that while Ben was going on about me for not alerting users, he hasn't said anything to the user who reported Anarcho-capitalist here. Acalamari 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there may be problems with any username that links emotions to race/creed/religion, for example if "Thejollywhiteman" edited the Holocaust suggesting it did not exist or if "Theangryblackwoman" POV warred over History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Their user names would then certainly cause offence. These are not the best examples - but you should get the idea. Cheers Lethaniol 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Looks fine to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. I can't see the problem. Even if the User is in fact a placid white man, I can't see the problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes kids, someone seriously claimed that I might go around being inflammatory and dangerous because of my username! angryblackwimmins are "inherently confrontational". And, of course it's obvious I would go around doing OHSOMEANTHINGS if anyone ever confronted me about my name. Just because, you know, I'm angry and black. Or maybe it's because I'm a woman. We wimmins, ya know, we're very emotional and irrational.

Jesus. Futurebird's problems don't seem like such a mystery to me now. If my freaking username can cause this much "controvery", think what black folk's opinions must do!


( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
Feb. 3rd, 2007 02:28 am (UTC)
Feb. 3rd, 2007 02:41 am (UTC)
Yeah, I did see that :) He spends WAY too much time on Wikipedia, it seems. It's his whole life or something. See how be brags about all the wrong things he catches and all he's contributed?
Feb. 3rd, 2007 07:52 am (UTC)

... it's a long story.
Feb. 3rd, 2007 01:51 pm (UTC)
bwahahahaha - I wondered about that. It seemed weird to have all this fan flag waving on.... an encyclopedia.
(Deleted comment)
Feb. 3rd, 2007 02:28 am (UTC)
i just created theangryblackpolitician.
Feb. 3rd, 2007 02:41 am (UTC)
wikipedia, meet blackfolk!
Feb. 3rd, 2007 02:52 am (UTC)
Is this everyone's first time knowing wiki? Everything is nearly dictated by popular opinion there so you better get used to it when they start nominating your stuff for deletion.

I'll come over and help if I can gather up some sockpuppets with proxies if you need some political sway.

I'm kidding. Is the angryblackman signed up yet?
Feb. 3rd, 2007 05:04 am (UTC)
Hahahahaha. I am now angryblackrebel. Just wait until I start schooling the fools in five different languages!
Feb. 3rd, 2007 05:09 am (UTC)
I'm on there as angrydyke and I'm doing fine.
(Deleted comment)
Feb. 3rd, 2007 01:52 pm (UTC)
Indeed. It seems that most of the people who pay attention to the evil username thread felt that the squid guy called me out unecessarily. so score one for the darkies, I guess ;)
Feb. 3rd, 2007 07:55 am (UTC)
... and this is why it makes me sad sometimes that my husband's a mod on Wikipedia -- people there are just fucked in the head. At least it's free, I guess.
Feb. 3rd, 2007 12:04 pm (UTC)
Hey, I know MUCH better than to name myself anything Angry & Black (which, in the minds of whitefolk, is redundant anyway.) With a name like that, you already know.

Why not just call yourself LaQuackazulu Johnson? *smh*
Feb. 3rd, 2007 02:02 pm (UTC)
LMAO! at LaQuackazulu.
Feb. 3rd, 2007 05:35 pm (UTC)
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )