Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Die4Dixie (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 5 October 2007 (→Wikitarded: Request ot answer concern there on talk page if user is the same.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
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:

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

Reports

Please remember that RFCN is not a vote. Bolded recommendations are not necessary, but may be appropriate for clarity.

Wikitarded

Wikitarded (talk · contribs)

This user was issued a username block by DragonflySixtyseven. Some complaints about the manner and substance of this block have been posted to WP:ANI#Gross misuse of blocking. This good-faith user has returned, and asks that they be allowed to contribute under their current username. I ask that they be allowed to do so. ➪HiDrNick! 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you review this person's contributions? Please take a look at this especially, and this. I'm sorry, but those edits, plus the name, all adds up to a valid block, from what I see. Their subsequent edits amount to unconstructive test edits (adding in the fact that the "Women's national football team" is made up of "all girls" seems a bit... redundant to me). Note that they had already found, and experimented in the sandbox, prior to making these other "test" edits, so they knew that they were editing article space, and that testing should be done in the sandbox. I agree they were not warned, and probably should have been, but they were welcomed, and they were given links to help them learn how to use the encyclopedia constructively. However, a username in violation does not need to be notified, or warned, prior to a block. This is clear from the policy, and there is a valid reason for that: There are some seriously offensive names that get created, and if those were editing, the name would appear in the history. If you've seen some of the really seriously bad names people come up with, you can understand the importance of blocking first, and asking questions later. This name, to me, is a violation. While some have argued it isn't, in my opinion, this is an amalgamation of "Wikipedia is Retarded". The name could prevent harmonious editing, as many will read this and automatically see the word "retarded", whether that is the intent, or not. They can create a new name, and if they wish to be productive, you're more than welcome to help them along the way, but I don't think this name should be unblocked. Ariel♥Gold 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy has changed because of this shoot first admin mentality. The correct way this should have been handled, since edits were already made, would be for the admin to initiate discussion on the user's talk page -- that didn't happen. Secondly, the user name "wikitarded", is, in fact, a username. So, taking the name into context (which I will help you by seperating the reality of the situation below):
1) An editor
2) An editor with an edit history
3) An editor who created valuable articles
4) An editor with a name wikitarded
When you arrange the sequence of how a normal individuals mind works, you realize that one who reads this name associated with an edit is going to automatically assume any connotation to "retarded" is clearly directed towards the editor with the name.
I'm sorry Ariel, but with as much respect as possible I have to disagree with the logic of your argument. This, coupled with the fact that the blocking, banning admins were neither helpful, apologetic, nor thinking of this person as a potential valuable contributer; and the username poses absolutely threat of attack or belittlement in anyway towards anything (except maybe the user themself), almost forces me to defend this editor. I'm subsequently appalled by the banning together of admins which IMHO is largely elitism with a denial to give up and do the right thing - for the encyclopedia. 68.143.88.2 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As this page exists to facilitate requests for comments about usernames, I hope that we all can confine our discussion to the username in question, and not the user's test edits. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the edits because that could have been the reason they were blocked initially, and only after seeing those, was the username identified as also being an issue. To know the reasons you'd need to ask the blocking administrator. Ariel♥Gold 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This block seems perfectly reasonable to me, based on the name alone. With enough force, WP:AGF can be stretched to the point where their edits would be considered useful instead of borderline vandalism, but the name is still inappropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely inappropriate how? inappropriate for you? Please state how you came to this conclusion.
  • STRONG allow there is no clear violation of the username policy here. It is not threatening, and is not "...belittling in any way". All we are doing is potentially running off a engineer who wants to contribute. 68.143.88.2 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No clear violation? The policy suggests "usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way" are inappropriate, which certainly seems to be the case here. No one is trying to run this user off, but the name is no good. --Bongwarrior 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that RFCN is not the place to dispute a block. You should try to come to agreement with the admin, and failing that take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI to get a greater consensus. If no consensus comes from that discussion then it should be left. RFCN is not here to override admin actions. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is already a post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request, this is a more appropriate forum for an unblock discussion than here. Suggest this is closed accordingly to defer to the noticeboard. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking at his talk page, the name appears to be self depreciating.I'm not sure if we should protect people from themselves. If the users contributions are interpreted as vandalism, there are appropriate mediums in which to confront that. If the name violates a specific policy in a concrete way, then block it. Any editor who is deeply or mortally offended upon the mere sighting of this username might be taking things waaaaaaay to seriously. I assume good faith in his choosing of his name, am satisfied that he is not claiming all wikipedians to be retarded, nor that the project is retarded. I say let him have the username of his choice, and if he becomes disruptive in some way , deal with that in the appropriate forum. If some one here is offended by the name, let them say so. If not, then all the conjecture about what someone , somewhere may possibly, but not likely, could conceivably find offensive in the name is purely academic. Just my humble opinion, likely not very important in the grand scheme of things.Die4Dixie 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're "humble opinion" is very appreciated, and your perception of the name is very logical IMHO. 68.143.88.2 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was posting at the same time as the preceding ones, and I merged before reading them. I would be inclined to think that if an editor had a family member with this disability, the reference would be hurtful, even if that was not the users intention. I will as him about the possibility on his user talk page, and see if he would concede the point and reserve my judgment until then.Die4Dixie 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is a possibility. However, I don't think using crystal ball arguments are the best resolution, but I do respectfully agree with your train of thought. My point is,unfortunately many things are offensive to many people. It is not possible for a person to never be offended at some point in time. That being said, the username policy generally refers to "blatantly inappropriate username...that is belittling." I fail to see how this is belittling. Also, take into account that an editor could have a wife named Dixie that just recently passed away. 68.143.88.2 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are Wikitarded, I would invite you to respond on your user talk page to my concerns so that I will know that this is the user in questions opinions.If you are not that user, I would take into account that you are merely supporting another user in his right to chose his user name. My crystal ball argument of course would carry little weight academically speaking, but was more an appeal to a humane rather than logical part of the user in considering a change of name voluntarily. Please respond on Wikitarded's talk page if you are that user.Die4Dixie 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious disallow "Self-deprecating" or no, a clear variation on a slur like retarded in unacceptable whatever the intent. The policy is clear on this, and there need be no demonstration of bad faith to disallow a profane username. If this was Wikinigger or Wikigook there would be no discussion. VanTucky Talk 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, if this were Wikinigger or Wikigook there wouldn't be a discussion...because those words are ONLY used to insult, belittle someone. I call my brother a retard all the time (especially when I kill him in Halo 3!), with zero malice. Additionally, wikitarded is a self-reference at best. You can't even compare words like retarded to that of nigger or gook. What are you thinking? 68.143.88.2 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, excuse me, that is his opinion of a "guideline", and he's entitled to have it. 68.143.88.2 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Van tucky is correct. This is not a vote, however a discussion in an attempt to reach a conesnsus. Arguments with support based on the dislike of a broad series of administrative actions or those administratirs ideal, instead of the topic at hand will most likley be discounted by the closing admin. You are right he is entitled to have whatever opinion he likes, however it will most likley carry little weight here.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I tend to agree with ^demon that admins are often too liberal in blocking usernames, I have to say that in this instance I think this name should be disallowed. Certainly where I come from at least, "tard" is used as slang for "retard" and is only used in an offensive nature. Far too offensive to allow in my opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until(1 == 2) is correct: This is not the place for this discussion. The user is blocked. This is for discussing names that have not been blocked and may be problematic. RFCN is also not a vote: Consensus is what determines most RFCN issues, because that shows the community feeling. If the majority of people discussing it have a problem with a name, then the chances are, the majority of other editors will feel the same. Because of the global nature of Wikipedia, this is important to be able to allow editors to work harmoniously. I understand the arguments that the name may be self-depreciative, but I also understand that there will be people out there that see it differently, and are offended by it. It is a fine line to balance, and not all issues are going to be 100% consensus, but it is not a difficult thing to simply create a new username that isn't problematic. That being said, I think this discussion should be taken to an appropriate forum, such as WP:ANI. Ariel♥Gold 18:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, perhaps User:Philippe is not the best person to give advise on username blocks. I am not trying to be incivil at all here, so please don't take it that way. I just have to challenge you when you say you are offended, since these two instances where you executed poor username judgement costs everyone time and we good contributors hard feelings. [1][2] 68.143.88.2 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow If the username is offensive to some people, which it is as some users have expressed above, the username is inappropriate. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should be closed. RFCN is not a forum for username block appeals. Like any other admin action they should be discussed with the admin in question and consensus sought at ANI if necessary. For what its worth this seems a valid block for an offensive username and the vandalism from this account confirms that this user wasn't here to do anything productive... WjBscribe 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disallow offensive to mentally impaired, refers to a medical condition, and poor edit history, but that's a separate issue. Rlevse 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if, by saying "he wasn't here to do anything productive", WJBscribe was talking about this edit? 68.143.88.2 18:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPSOS

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: close, consensus was ALLOW


IPSOS (talk · contribs)

This username is identical to the global market research company Ipsos and is therefore in breach of the Wikipedia naming policy. A request to discuss this with the user was met with deletion of the request from his or her talk page and a blanket refusal on my talk page on the grounds that Ipsos the company doesn't use all upper case letters! B1atv 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The business's name is "Ipsos" and not "IPSOS" - case being the important issue here. If the business was a lot better known in the general culture then I might agree with you here... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. The user has provided a perfectly good explanation for his user name and is not editing in a promotional way. As a response to B1atv above saying "We do not allow user names which match the name of a company.": You have misunderstood. We do not allow user names that are either confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive. Names matching the name of a company are listed as an example of names that might match the "promotional" category, but no name is disallowed unless they violate one of the five general rules. Is he back? 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Not a clear violation of WP:U. IPSOS could mean anything as a google seach shows and as a user above has suggested. The user also hasn't made any problematic COI edits regarding the company mentioned. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

DuranDuran

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: User requesting name change -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DuranDuran (talk · contribs)

This username violates the username policy because it matches the name of a company or group - in this case the pop group Duran Duran. The user is a regular contributor to the article on Duran Duran and other musical articles and the possibility to confuse is therefore great. The user has been asked to change his or her username on at least two occasions and does not appear to have responded (see his talk page archive [4] B1atv 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy of not not allowing groups or companies is to stop spam appearing in page histories so I don't really think that this is the case here. I have a slight concern that edits may appear to be from the band themselves however, especially with the articles they are editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow precisely, it appears to be the band, should be changed to DuranDuranFan, or similar.Rlevse 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band may definitely appear to be that of the band or associated with the band. Name change to, as Rlevse suggested, DuranDuranFan, ILoveDuranDuran, or a similar idea. нмŵוτнτ 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gives the impression of being a well known person. Change should be required. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As some one who has had a head ache about a user name recently, I feel qualified to offer a humble opinion. I think there is a strong natural resentment on the part of a user when someone "suggests" in good faith and with compassion what the user should change his username to. Usernames are deeply personal, and when some one loses something that they are attached to, they grieve. I agree that the name is not appropriate, but well wishing suggestions on what they ought to change it to...well , it should just be left up to the user. Very respectfullyDie4Dixie 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand where you're coming from, D4D (or is there a way you'd prefer to be abbreviated?). Sometimes the suggestions are appropriate though, perhaps only one per case, to show that the name change doesn't actually have to be huge. Generally, users won't have to completely abandon the name, just tweak it a bit, and it's important to make sure that people know that. Suggestions should probably be couched in those terms. SamBC(talk) 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • He doesn't have to use any of the names that we suggest, they're just helpful ideas to let him know that he can use a very similar name. Just being nice and offering some ideas, that's all. He in no way, shape, or form has to even consider names we suggest. нмŵוτнτ 02:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the name is confusing, I feel that name change would be appropriate. I don't think that the user can really be allowed to continue editing under that name, although no rush to block or anything. SamBC(talk) 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask for a change per Rlesve. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user name seems to be mildly disruptive. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support name change not disruptive, but certainly misleading. Cheers, ( arky ) 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I purely understand the situation and do wish to change my user name as this topic has been mentioned many times before and seems to cause much confusion. I am a dedicated user and would appreciate it if someone could please change my user name to NewWaveRomantics as that is my user name on Wiki Music Guide. I am terribly sorry for the misunderstanding and confusion made to fellow users. Best regards. DuranDuran 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Die4Dixie

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: No violation, so allowed. Some suggested a username change, but that is purely up to Die4Dixie. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs)

I'm unsure about this one myself, and left a message on their userpage, but it seems to have blown out of control, so I am bringing it here. Could be a Southern Pride thing, but could also be violent in nature. Jmlk17 10:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this user's talk page, and have seen the rather strong opinion the user has about this name. The name, in conjunction with the subjects the editor is focusing on, could cause issues, as can be seen by the talk page. (And I realize that contributions should not normally have bearing on username issues, but I think in this specific case, they may shed light on why this username is being viewed the way it is by some editors.) I'm a bit on the fence with this, I'll be interested to see how others perceive this name issue. Ariel♥Gold 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the assertion is that it's violent (as it is on his talk page, but not by Jmlk17), I don't think I would agree with that. It could be Die4Chocolate and no one would bat an eye. I would be more concerned that it was somehow inherently racist. It doesn't strike me as that either. It can be seen as particularly partisan though, I'd imagine. And given that StormFront and Martin Luther King were among the first articles they chose to edit, I would think it might be troubling. My personal recommendation to him would be to change it, but only for his own credibility. Into The Fray T/C 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Into the Fray. SGGH speak! 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree w/ Into the Fray, as well. And I'm also on the fence. I'd highly recommend a change, to prevent a potential WP:COI. hmwith talk 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good faith user name that has been seen by others as bad faith. What's to be done? Should those people be told to AGF, or should this user be asked to change his name? IMO his name has already caused concern and some people will find it hard to interact with this editor, but then many people don't have any clue what Dixie is or what it means. strongly suggest change - explaining why some people find it hard to interact with that username, but be prepared for a refusal. :-/ Dan Beale-Cocks 10:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with all of Into the Fray's points except that we require the user to change his name for "his own credibility". The user's credibility is his own concern/responsibility and will be borne out in his edits, regardless of his choice of user name. I think his pattern of edits makes it clear where his biases (and we all have them) are. This will not change if his username changes. It seems that everybody here agrees that the name itself is not offensive, and since we cannot find fault with the name, but nonetheless don't like it, we should force him to change it "for his own good". Seems very un-democratic, almost Stalinist to me. Let him keep his name and watch his edits...I'm sure that, given enough rope, he will hang himself eventually if his intention is to be disruptive.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been ambiguous in my comments, but I was not and am not advocating requiring anything of this user. Purely a recommendation, as I said above. Into The Fray T/C 18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a problem with the name. It's a call to a violent rebellion... a secession, if you will. It's a divisive political statement as a user-name... and for those who equate the modern Confederate movement with racism, it is even more problematic. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note: "Dixie" was/is an unofficial themee song for the Confederate States of America. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly suggest a change per the obvious COI and disruptive potential of this name. It's in the user's best interest to enact a change. VanTucky Talk 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much like others, I'd strongly recommend a change for this user. I wouldn't require it, but I think it'll be for his own good and the good of the project. GlassCobra (Review) 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I previously recommended that this user consider a name change. I was rebuffed and my suggestion was taken as a personal attack. In my experience, this editor has a very rigid point of view. With that in mind, (and as her username is not inherently racist or offensive) I concur with the suggestion that we leave this user to her own devices and her own actions will make or break her. Ursasapien (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is the case,("and as her username is not inherently racist or offensive") then why did you make the bad faith report in the first place? You could have saved us all a lot of trouble if you had not tried to game the system to cause me grief.Die4Dixie 01:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am grateful that Into the Fray saw fit to direct me to this page. I honestly believe that this report was made in bad faith to cause me wikigrief by user Ursasapiens. On the MLK page we reached a consensus after much debate, and the editors there have agreed that on careful examination, my edits have been in good faith, and have incorporated the idea , by consensus, into the article the issue that I first raised. The testiness on my page was due to the aforementioned user having reported me, then waiting until an admin appeared on my page, to then attack me relentlessly on my user page and the Hannity page accusing me of racism towards Irish Americans( which is laughable, as I am of Irish descent) The edit on the Stormfront page was something that some other user should have corrected long ago. In fact, my edit there still stands, and is a testament to NPOV. The fact that the user in the talk on the MLK did not raise this concern ,although the discussion became quite heated, would tend to lend credence to my belief of the ulterior motives of this user. His passive aggressive wikifying of my user page at the same time as reporting me, and casting aspersions on my character on the Hannity page , and my user page when he could no longer intellectually claim WP:BUTIDIDNTHEARTHAT,while wikistalking my previous edits because of a peculiar and personal definition of nationality also leads me to believe that this was an effort to censor me. I made the edit on Hannity in good faith, my position was substantially and factually correct, and I left a note on the talk page to explain why I did it. Instead of discussing his claims of Sean Hannity's nationality on the talk page and trying to build a consensus he reverted my edit to reflect his asinine assertion that Hannity's nationality, as depicted in a info box, was Irish American.Please review my edits, bearing in mind the relative immaturity as an editor, and see if the spirit of each of the edits, and the consensus built upon the issues that I raised are the things that you want here, and if the disagreement with the user rather than my username was the real underlining issue in this report. Please feel free to talk with me, but I feel strongly enough that the report was made in bad faith, especially given his passive aggressive "helpful" offers of the names that he would like me to use( "Dixie Pride" or " Southern and Proud") to be disinclined to change it to satisfy the only user who has complained. If the admin who was involved on the MLK page, who has had no problem pointing out inappropriate users, didn't see fit to challenge my name, then I am satisfied that my name is within the accepted policy on names.Die4Dixie 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's be clear. Your name was not reported here by Ursasapiens, but by Jmlk17, who I am positive did so in only the utmost good faith. This is not the forum for you to air grievances and content disputes with Ursasapiens, but simply a discussion regarding your user name. Please limit your comments to that. My intention in directing your attention here was so that you could comment, ideally with brevity, on your position regarding your user name, or perhaps read some of the concerns that other users have about it. Into The Fray T/C 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to be very clear. This report came from this user before the fine, good faith intervention by Jmlk17.#
  1. 04:41, 1 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention‎ (→User-reported) is cut from Ursasapiens log of contributions , and predates any report here by Jmlk17. Please take a look at that, and the context of the reporting.Die4Dixie 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me if I'm out of line commenting here, but User talk:Die4Dixie is on my Watchlist and I saw that the discussion of his/her Username is still the subject of discussion. First, can I ask what the "potential" or "obvious" COI problems are? Does an editor named for a Black nationalist have similar COI issues when he edits articles about slavery, racism, and other African-American topics? Do editors with Hebrew and Yiddish names whose meanings are unknown to most non-Jewish editors have COIs when they edit articles about antisemitism, Judaism, Zionism, or Israel? So what's the problem here? Is there a double standard at work here?
Second, the fact that many of Die4Dixie's edits have been at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. should not be interpreted as an obsession with King. Die4Dixie made an edit to the article, which I reverted with a nasty edit summary, and — displaying a maturity that is, unfortunately, often lacking among experienced editors — Die4Dixie didn't start an edit war but instead wrote a calm message on the article's Talk page explaining why he/she felt the edit was appropriate and asking other editors to comment. A healthy discussion followed, and in the end we made a change to the article similar to the one originally made by Die4Dixie. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dixie, please note that Jmlk is an administrator here, and if he did not feel the name was concerning, he would not have reported it here (and it should be noted that Jmlk was the one who let you know on your talk page that the name was potentially an issue a few days ago). If your name causes disharmony, even unintentionally because others view it differently than you do, then changing the name would cause all of those concerns to be eased, and a Bureaucrat can do this without you losing your contribution history. I hope you can realize that there are many users who may see your name as not appropriate, or inflammatory, especially considering the specific (and possibly controversial) nature of the area you've chosen to contribute to. I realize your reasons for choosing the name, which are quite honorable, but I do not believe this is a bad faith report at all, and I too, would suggest you change it to something else. Ariel♥Gold 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Violation of username policy because: could be seen as offensive/disruptive, particularly when joined with edits of white supremacy groups and Martin Luther King, Jr. Ursasapien (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)." I agree that he (Jmlk17)is an admin. and based on the report posted here he is well within his privilege and duty to bring this here. If you look at this report(above by Ursasapiens which prompted Jmlk17's investigation) , coupled with this admission:".... With that in mind, (and as her username is not inherently racist or offensive) I concur with the suggestion that we leave this user to her own devices and her own actions will make or break her. Ursasapien" then I think I have just cause to say that the original reporting was in bad faith. He can't have it both ways. With all due respect, I see that the consensus here is that I should be encouraged to change my user name. I am disinclined to do so because of the bad faith reporting( see above). A frank declaration that my name violates policy or not would be appreciated so that we can all move on.Again , I say this with the greatest respect for your positions as admins. here, if there is an appropriate venue to air my grievance on that users reporting and susequent attacks, I would be happy to take my complaint there.Die4Dixie 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, this is getting unnecessarily protracted and isn't the place for user disputes, so I have responded to Dixie on the user's talk page. Further comments here should be limited to the appropriateness of the user name if at all possible, please. Into The Fray T/C 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud to be descended from a Tennessee family that opposed the secessionists, and indeed lost two sons fighting them; but I must say that the entire tone of this discussion reeks of the assumption that it is unacceptable to be fiercely proud of being a Southerner. Why is regional pride to be condemned in Southerners, but not in New Englanders or Californians? No wonder Die4 got defensive.--Orange Mike 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the username is two fold: first of all, in many eyes racism and "southern pride" are inseparable. (Yes, I know, I have "souther pride" friends, I know thats often not the case.) Also, "Dixie" was a particularly racist song that was used during the civil war as an unofficial theme song. In the same viegn I would have a problem with someone using the name "Swastika" in their name even tho it's a religious symbol for the Hindu faith. I realize I'm a loan voice here and the username will be permitted, but I feel it's important to state my opinion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring Godwin's Law here.SYSS Mouse 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know what lyric in particular you find to be "particularly racist". I would like to see a valid third party cite that shows that the song is inherently racist or that Dixie as a euphemism for the South is racist.If you can convince me that it is racist not based on your original research or personal partisan feelings about a secession that occurred almost 150 years ago I would be inclined to change it. I invite you to my user talk page to allow you to defend your assertion. I am certain that you have no such cite or you would have brought it here to prop up this at best lukewarm discussion about maybe asking me to change my username because someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended. That some other masked man user who hasn't come forward ( please see why I assume bad faith on the original reporters part)still hasn't presented. The swastika argument is a Irrelevant Conclusion and also a transparent appeal to emotion( which is a second logical fallacy) so I'm going to ask that this page be closed, the witch hunt declared over, and this to be archived. Die4Dixie 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not your decision Dixie, the swastika argument is not irrelevant, merely another example of how a term with two meanings, one offensive, can still be called upon if the user is intended to represent the non-offensive version. I don't think other users are straw-manning you either by overblowing the issue with your username, I think you need to be more receptive to the idea that some people could find your username very offensive. Perhaps a more suitable example would be for me to choose the username "British Empire for life!" if you ignore the length issue, could you see how that may be offensive to a number of what were once colonial nations? I'm not taking sides (being British I don't understand the Dixie reference beyond what has been explained here) but I hope to illustrate that this is not a witch hunt, but an airing of genuine concerns. Let's not start attacking each other and stick to the issue at hand. SGGH speak! 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you don't see the false analogy, but I'm certain that you can see the appeal to emotion. Of course it is not my choice. I merely asked that it be closed. Were it my choice, it would have been closed along, long ,long time ago. The attributing of racism to my user name seems to be an attack.Bandying around baseless allegations of inherent racism based on his original research should be challenged. AS you have said, you do not understand the issue, so how can you possibly know what analogy would fit my username situation? If an African American who was involved with editing a controversial topic with me ( who I would venture would be in a better position than any Caucasian who might be here to judge) cannot see the problem, then what is the problem? That is a rhetorical question, because as you have said, you do not understand the issue. Please do not view this as an attack. It is not. But I do see his attributing racism to a name which I personally chose to be one. The invitation to discuss his claims is not an attack. It is the request for a carefully thought out defense of the assertion that he has made. Pointing out the logical fallacy in an argument is not an attack either. Now I invite you to show where I have ever said that it was my decision to close this farcical debate. Unless you are telling me that it is not my decision to ask that the debate be closed( which is what I did. If you misunderstood what I was asking then I humbly apologize). If my request was couched in ambiguous terms, I hope that I have clarified that it was merely a request. If that was not what you meant in your previous post, then I also apologize.In the later case then you have misstated what you meant or mis read my comment.Die4Dixie 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dixie, I do understand and sympathise with how this all seems to you. Please conisder that Ursasapien may have changed their mind, rather than making a bad faith report in the first place. Also, the report to UAA is distinct to any report here, and if there's been more than one report here (I haven't checked) then they are seperate. Please consider that people may have legitimate concerns about your name that in now way represent an assumption of bad faith on your part. As the username policy makes clear, we try to avoid names that will cause friction or make people uncomfortable, even if they shouldn't, because having a specific username isn't generally critical, and the friction generated can make it very difficult to edit the encyclopedia cooperatively - as this discussion actually demonstrates somewhat. I believe this is the main concern expressed. SamBC(talk) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone generally, why assume this is a reference to a song? Isn't "dixie" primarily just a reference to the Mason-Dixon line? SamBC(talk) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, "Dixie" could have many meanings. Into The Fray T/C 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all of those (apart, possibly, from the personal names) are references to the Mason-Dixon line, or reference to reference to such, or so on and so forth. But now I'm just getting academic, and this isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand, which I consider settled at an "allow". SamBC(talk) 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several users have said that this doesn't violate the policy. I'm satisfied. If there is a definitive violation of policy with my name, please contact me for my actus fidei so this Inquisition can end.Die4Dixie 08:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a change, politely and with the final decision to be left to the user. It would be for the bets, though, Dixie, to avoid a possible COI. Please consider it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rethought, and I am actually going to say Allow. This is a good faith, productive user whose username, I believe, is not a true violation, but rather an expression of Dixie's respect and feelings for his grandfather's sacrifice, and on a war which happened along time ago. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=162510541"