Yesterday I was poking around on Wikipedia fixing crazy shit in some posts when I decided to go ahead and make an account so I could stop getting the “We’re recording your IP addess for all time!” message. For my username I chose theangryblackwoman because, well, I could. Plus, I was in ABW mode at the time. Anyway, I go away, I come back a few hours later to look something else up and the system tells me I have a message. The message was “There is a discussion over your username here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. You may wish to participate.”

WTF?

You mean the username I created 3 hours ago? There’s a discussion about it somewhere? So I click the link and I see this:

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)

I thank you for your well-meaning attempt to protect my userpage; but if you are really determined to act on my behalf I would much rather you did so by talking one-to-one with the user first than by getting the rest of us to hold an “in absentia” discussion of the user’s name without the user getting to hear about it (let alone comment) until after the fact — or after the block. I wouldn’t want to be treated that way, I don’t want to treat anyone else that way, and I don’t want anyone else to be treated that way on my behalf… even for the sake of defending my dearly beloved and infinitely precious userpage. Much as I appreciate your kind intentions toward me, I would appreciate even more your displaying this same earnest kindness toward the users whose names you feel need amendment. Really, I think they may need that kindness more than I, considering the position they’re in. Please, talk to them about it before you bring it here. Thanks! Ben 03:10, 3 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)

No, Amarkov notified him and he soon responded to that notice, about 1.5 hours after Liftarn created the entry. Note Amarkov’s question to Liftarn in that RFC, “why did you not try to just resolve it with him first?”, immediately before Amarkov notified the user. You are being asked the same sort of question; there’s no double standard in that. Ben 02:44, 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)

Because Amarkov had already done so. Why pile on? Ben 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No Amarkov didn’t: apart from a welcome message, that talk page is clear. However, I am not getting into an argument about this. I’ll leave a note on Theangryblackwoman’s talk page with an apology about the username. Acalamari 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted the diff of “Amarkov notified him and he soon responded to that notice” above, and here it is again; please click the blue text. With regard to “Amarkov had already done so” (said something to the user who reported Anarcho-capitalist here), I quoted Amarkov’s “why did you not try to just resolve it with him first?” from his first response on that RFC itself, higher on this page. Ben 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) … And I think you’ve done well with your note on this user’s talk page. Ben 03:44, 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.(says the happy white guy) 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 (??? ??????) 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Um… I see I was notified after much, much discussion. Thanks, I guess? I don’t understand why anyone would find my username threatening or inflammatory. ABW Theangryblackwoman

• Allow – I see nothing threatening or inflamatory here. — Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Allow — The Angry White Woman, Sarah 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Allow — The word “Angry” in a name does not constitute or even promise angry behavior, just as “Laughing” in a name does not guarantee joviality. — The Insidious Vicious Evil Maniacal Ben 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Closing as allow per clear consensus HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, people?? Not only is there someone who has the time to look at every new account created and get upset about their usernames, but he’s actually defending his knee-jerk-ness with extremely inflammatory and, need I say, racially charged language. Simply because of my username I am likely to be a vandal and to cause problems. Others mark me as inflammatory and confrontational and “needlessly discouraging to other users” as well as disruptive.

I say again: What. The. Hell.

A few hours after the drama began, it was over. You can see the final discussion here and how many people came forth to say “Allow the name and quit being a jerk” to the OP. I clicked his name and discovered that he’s a HUGE Christina Aguilera fan and is very, very, very proud to be one of the most prolific correctors on Wikipedia In fact, he claims that “I have better contributions” than… others? It seems like some people are deeply involved in Wikipedia. And some of those people are freaks.

Anyway, I can keep my angry black name. I will now scourge the ‘pedia with my angry black editing.