Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:38, 15 November 2009

• WP:RFC/NAME
• WP:RFCN

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

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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

Reports

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"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary. There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Place your report below this line.

Anti-Nationalist

Anti-Nationalist (talk · contribs)

disruptive username since the guy goes around and labels other editors on Misplaced Pages with "nationalist" tag.

, --Termer (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over the username were raised by uninvolved admins here and here . Extensive discussion at user's talk page ; quite a number of editors find the username offensive, disruptive and designed to create battlegrounds.radek (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the user in question was known as "PasswordUsername" until recently - a perfectly neutral name - until, according to him, he lost his password.radek (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The largest feature on the page User:Anti-Nationalist is an anti-axis themed poster including a picture of Adolf Hitler. Not all nationalists are Third Reich German. Please read Ulster Nationalism and Irish Nationalism. ~ R.T.G 11:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow as it is not a blatant violation of WP:U. If he has other tendentious issues, take them to the appropriate noticeboard. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• 'a blatant violation of WP:U' would be out of the scope of this notice board. Please address the concerns and the reasons the username was listed here. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The username itself does not violate the policy at all (blatantly or otherwise); Not even a little bit. As the username does not violate the username policy in the least (which is the entire scope of this page), this is not the appropriate place to be voicing a concern. You are correct in that this discussion is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Please take this to WP:ANI. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Allow. There is no direct violation of policy. As a side note, the reporter and the reportee are somewhat linked to opposite sides of the acrimonious Eastern European Mailing List Arbitration Committee case. This appears to be spillover from the ethnic bloc battlefield mentality showcased in that dispute. —Finn Casey * 06:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And the username is designed to amplify this battlefield mentality. Termer is not linked to any mailing list or ArbCom case.radek (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the reporter, meaning me has no links the "Eastern European Mailing List Arbitration Committee case" whatsoever other than the reportee "Anti-Nationalist" accuses me personally to be "an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists". which was the reason I brought this question to "Anti-Nationalist" talk page and then over here. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Change when I was 12 years old a 14 year old kid in a *strange* neigbourhood approached me in a quiet place and asked me what religion I was. I gave him an answer and I know it was the same religion as he was but he give me a good enough dig to break my nose anyway. We hadn't seen each other before that or since. His name was probably Jim or John, Peter or Paul. I know probably a whole lot of Jim, Johns, Peter and Pauls. None of them gave me that dig and I do not go around saying "Look out for those Jim guys!" and nor should I. It is okay for me to go around saying, "I am not a Jim", but it is not okay for me to go around saying, "I am against all Jims." All Jims welcome unless in exceptional circumstances. ~ R.T.G 11:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While this name probably isn't a violation of policy, as Radeksz and Termer point out, "Anti-Nationalist" happens to have a habit of claiming that Eastern European editors, who do not to push Soviet historiography are some how a rabid anti-Russian, ultra-nationalist cabal. While certainly I agree that opposing actual nationalists who come to lobby on Misplaced Pages is a good thing, in this case its perhaps contentious based on the frequency of which "Anti-Nationalist" levels the accusation. A more collegial one could perhaps be found. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The actual problem is not the username itself (that is no more offensive than "Anti-Vandal"), but the combination of his nick name and his habit to discuss persons, not a content. This username requires the bearer to shift a focus to a content, and if it will be done, the problem will be resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the username offensive to nationalists? ~ R.T.G 19:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who openly proclaimed that they are nationalists thereby declare that they cannot be neutral. Neutrality is one of WP's pillars, therefore being a nationalist is not compatible with being a Wikipedian. I mean, you may be a nationalist in your real life, however, as soon as you logged in into WP you must forget about that. In other words, although this name is offensive to nationalists, it is quite acceptable because nationalists are not supposed to be in Misplaced Pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming to be a nationalist and yet I found this username to be offensive. Should I go and sort out the nationalists for you before you agree to the guidelines, Siebert? Nationalists in my country are not Nazis you racist hateful ignorant fool. If you engage in foolishness you are a fool. Branding all unknown nationalists as Nazis is merely a Nazi trait and that is foolish, is it not? Are you trying to suppress Nazis or encourage them? Nationalists are welcome to Misplaced Pages so long as they abide the rules. So are Anarchists. ~ R.T.G 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it has much to do with anything here but how about users who have openly proclaimed they are communists, or even stalinists, or lets say mormons, can thy be neutral, are they suppose to be in wikipedia? The bottom line, Misplaced Pages is still an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, just that our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.--Termer (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Nationalists are welcome to Misplaced Pages so long as they abide the rules." If you read my post carefully, you probably noticed that I didn't say that a person who is a nationalist in real life cannot participate in WP. However, since one of WP's pillars in neutrality, direct expression of nationalistic ideas is per se a violation of WP rules. I believe the "Anti-Nationalist" nick should be understood in such a way that the nick's bearer opposes Nationalists in Misplaced Pages, not in real life.
Your passionate passage about Nazi and nationalists is absolutely correct, however, a direct comparison of this text with what I wrote demonstrates that your post is a pure straw man fallacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Not that it has much to do with anything here but how about users who have openly proclaimed they are communists, or even stalinists" For me, such a proclamation sounds as a disclaimer that this user refrains from editing the articles related to Communism, or Stalinism, accordingly. I am suspicious towards users openly proclaiming their political or religious views, because by doing so they a priori conceded they cannot be neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• The question here is can anybody proclaiming to be an "Anti-Nationalist" be neutral? For example Irish nationalism has been associated with a desire for political independence from Great Britain, and today implies support for a united Ireland. So how one is suppose to read this "Anti-Nationalist" does it mean it's a political statement in support for Irish dependency from Great Britain and disapproval of the idea of united Ireland? etc.--Termer (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee considered nationalism, along with Communism and Nazism, among key XX century's negative phenomenae. If you want to know my opinion, let me point out that, whereas every nation has a right to form its own state, the same is not valid for historical truth. No separate historical thuths exists for separate nations. Since WP's activity is knowledge, not politics, nationalists are not welcome here because they push their own national truth.
In other words, since I support the idea of Irish independence, I do not support the nationalistic point of view on the history of Anglo-Irish relations. (Of course, under "nationalists" in that case I mean both Irish nationalism and Orangism)--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

historical truth? I have no idea what that means and haven't come across such thing in any published sources . considering that nationalism, along with Communism and Nazism are the 3 evils of the XX century, does it mean that usernames Anti-Communist and Anti-Nazi would be equally valid usernames like "Anti-Nationalist" for wikipedia purposes?--Termer (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

History is a science, therefore it deals with such a category as truth. In this concrete case truth is what happened in actuality. Since only one version of certain event takes place (e.g. it is impossible to state that in 1940 the Red Army unlawfully occupied Estonia against the Estonian's will, and simultaneously the same Red Army liberated Estonians from bourgeois dictatorship according to their will), it is impossible to expect that two opposite points of view on the same event are both valid. Obviously, in majority cases the best way to establish truth is a dialogue between historians belonging to different national historical schools. Nationalists, as a rule, oppose to such a dialogue, therefore their contribution in historical science is hardly positive. With regards to the second part of your question, I am not sure it to belong to this page, so, if you really interested to discuss it, feel free to re-post this question on my talk page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that's relevant to this discussion here: are usernames like "Anti-Nationalist", "Anti-Communist" and "Anti-Nazi" appropriate for wikipedia purposes?--Termer (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It is not a place for a general discussion. The only thing that's relevant to this discussion is if the username "Anti-Nationalist" is appropriate for wikipedia purposes?
With regards to other three (in actuality, Toynbee naimed four negative trends), the question is more complex than you try to represent. As I already wrote, I am ready to continue this discussion in more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

this place is for discussing usernames which may be inappropriate under Misplaced Pages's username policy. If you have an opinion, please spell it out; if you don't, there is no reason to post here. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The section is devoted to the (in)appropriateness of the concrete username, namely, Anti-Nationalist. You yourself outlined the issue in such a way. With regards to my opinion, I already presented it above. If you have additional arguments on that account, feel free to present it here. If you want to discuss more general question, please, either create another section (e.g. "Are the usernames starting with "Anti-" appropriate for WP?"), or move the discussion somewhere else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

respectfully disagree. Once "Anti-Nationalist" as a political statement would be considered an appropriate username, so would be "Anti-Communsit" and "Anti-Nazi" etc. It's a question of the principles, are politically charged usenames appropriate for wikipedia purposes, so its not just any "general discussion".--Termer (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue you proposed to discuss is directly relevant to the WP policy, I propose to move it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow Not a blatant violation of WP:U, and per Finney Casey. Triplestop x3 17:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that someone is offended by it. In my country nationalism is one of the main traits and these nationalists are anti-racist, in fact some anti-nationalist groups where I am from have been based directly on Nazi values, see British National Front. They claim today to be anything but neo-Nazi but if you go back a few years their young followers in my region were "Skinhead" (signifigant reference in this topic), strictly racist, strictly anti-nationalist and known as a load of youths going around and hospitalising suspected nationalists, something to which I am myself a witness. See in your wish to promote focus upon Nazi Germany you promote racism. This is a fine example of why ignorance is counter-productive. ~ R.T.G 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And its not possible to please everyone now, is it? You said it yourself, this RFCN is based on political motives. Triplestop x3 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

'a blatant violation of WP:U' would be out of the scope of this discussion board and therefore is not a reasonable argument for allowing to keep such a username. please read the header for further details and bring forward arguments against the reasons the username has been listed here, thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A blatant violation is the only reason one would block or take other action, which is what you are seeking. Triplestop x3 01:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption. This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate under Misplaced Pages's username policy.--Termer (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Then if you aren't asking for action on this user then why does this discussion need to continue? Triplestop x3 04:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's possible to please everyone who would be happy with neutrality, in this case. Would that be good enough? ~ R.T.G 01:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Per Paul Sibert's comment above. Triplestop x3 01:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Indyboy4productions

Indyboy4productions (talk · contribs)

The user has a username that is possible a company. User has been informed about this on their user talk-page. User has edited four times since I informed him, so it seems like user is not going to change the username.  Ilyushka88  talk  07:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a company, it's a kid's YouTube channel. That doesn't strike me as something to username block over. Give the kid a chance and maybe he'll grow up as a fan of Misplaced Pages; block him over this non-issue and he'll probably hate us. I will, however, let him know that Misplaced Pages is not a free web-host. rspεεr (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up for me and informing the user that Misplaced Pages is not a web-host. On a first look the name looked like a company name, so I decided to come here.  Ilyushka88  talk  08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the kid isn't exactly making my defense of him worthwhile. I think his entire purpose on Misplaced Pages is to host an episode list related to his YouTube channel. The list doesn't make any promotional sense from this end, but I bet he's posting elsewhere saying "hey check out my Misplaced Pages page for a list of upcoming episodes". Anyway, since I hold my usual opinion that the username is beside the point, I'm giving him a stronger warning that he may end up blocked for promotion. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow - Youtubs handle. If he spams his youtube channel, then that's a different issue.--Unionhawk 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Allow, though pointing them to WP:CHU might be good so they can perhaps choose a username which doesn't appear to break policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As a note, this user recently attempted to announce his candidacy in the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections here. This was reverted (since he didn't have any mainspace edits, much less 1000), but he may need some assistance to understand the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Anyway, best wishes to all! —Finn Casey * 06:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I saw that when looking at his talk page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jakarta Drum School

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: blocked as an unambiguous violation of policy Shereth 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jakarta Drum School (talk · contribs)

Username is promotional and matches a music school in Jakarta, Indonesia. --_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Block Obvious spam username; The user created a page on the entity they represent. Triplestop x3 03:37, 12 November 2009 (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.

Hellno2

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Hell no, to, er, disallowing this. Username deemed acceptable. ÷seresin 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hellno2 (talk · contribs)

Profanity in the username; disrupts the following parts of WP:USERNAME: "Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors... Disruptive usernames... include profanities." I mentioned to the user that his name may be considered offensive, and he noted that because I am the first person to raise a concern, he will continue to edit under the same name. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow. As the user in question has stated on their talk page, they have been editing for nearly 3 years and have thousands of contributions under thier belt. That this is the first complaint in that span of time and edits is sufficient indication that this username is not offensive to the point of disruption and does not warrant a block/forced rename. Shereth 22:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Allow - this is very mild profanity, and if no other editors have raised the issue before (and my search through the user's talk page history says they haven't), I see no evidence that it's demonstrably disruptive or offensive. -kotra (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Allow - Mildest of profanity, user is in good standing otherwise.=, with years of experience with thousands of contributions.--Unionhawk 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Allow A word that can be used with the utmost of propriety even from the pulpit is hardly an offensive profanity that could disrupt the project. --NellieBly (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Allow with prejudice against renomination. Recommend editing WP:USERNAME to specifically allow "hell" and save future editors from nonsense like this. The only "disruption" here is from the nominator, User:Killervogel5. --MySuperiorInEveryWay (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate your intimation. I apologize if I misread or misunderstood the policy, which states that profanity isn't allowed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is your... rather puritan definition of "Profanity". --King Öomie 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let's try to refrain from making this personal. There is no disruption here. There is only a slightly too literal reading of policy, which most of us have probably done at some time. -kotra (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are still some people in the world who view "hell" as a more taboo word than "fuck" and will be offended by it, but theyre a dwindling few. I agree this should be allowed, but understand why a rule forbidding profanity could be interpreted to disallow this name ... that's really what profanity is defined as , after all ... words that insult religious beliefs, not words that merely "unclean". -- Soap /_{Contributions} 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow. That may be taking it a little far, MSIEW- it may have been prudish to bring this name here, but I doubt the nominator was being intentionally disruptive. --King Öomie 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow per all the same reasons already given. This isn't even close to violating WP:U. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:35, 4 November 2009 (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.