I believe that the word "neutrality" is inappropriate for use as a user name. However, an existing user currently has precisely this user name — Neutrality. I feel that this is very problematic and that Neutrality should change his user name. (I'm randomly assuming here that Neutrality is male.)
I have contacted Neutrality about this on his Talk page quite some time ago — see User_talk:Neutrality#Ropers_.7C_Username
( Neutrality has announced that he may archive his Talk page, so that link may change. In case the link changes, here is a copy of the discussion as of 14 Aug '04.)
To also briefly explain my concerns right here:
Similar to what is said by item (3) on this page, I believe everyone (or at least every non-malicious Wikipedia user) is striving for neutrality. For any user to label him/herself "Neutrality" can too easily be seen to imply that the so-named user was working harder for neutrality and others were not doing that.
Imagine you got into an argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the
NPOV, say, in a political article:
Wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased) had a user name of "Neutrality"?
(NB: I have so far never gotten into any such discussion with
Neutrality.)
Such an imbalance isn't just bad for the side not carrying such a user name. — It's bad for
Neutrality as well, because it will just be like a red cape to a bull — it will attract unnecessarily strong opposition (and thus probably raise tempers on both sides).
For these reasons, I believe Neutrality should change his user name.
Ropers 13:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.
Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.
Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
hmmm... while i think this discussion would be a bit excessive for an ordinary user, in my opinion, it's a bad idea for a member of the Association of Members' Advocates and the Mediation Committee to go under this alias. however, i don't think it's within our rights to force Neutrality to change his(?) user name for that reason. i do think the community should take this consideration into account in its decision as to whether Neutrality should be on these and other committees. an optimal solution, of course, would be for Neutrality to simply change his alias voluntarily. as for Neutrality removing his own name from the Rfc, that was, in my opinion, quite inappropriate regardless of the circumstances. – Floorsheim 10:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The username policy may not be clear on this point, but someone who started editing as Administrator, including posting signed comments, was told off. Granted, Neutrality is not in the same league as this. The same user also created User:Vfd, which was objected to as well. V V 02:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This RfC is invalid for the following reasons:
Again, I appreciate the concern, but this listing is inappropriate. I am archiving. Neutrality 04:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is just silly. It's not like Neutrality has given himself a deceptive name like Administrator. Or a politically offensive name like Rex (King). Or a sexually offensive name like Roper (Rope Her). Now, I suppose I should have to change my name too, lest some poor rube think I will actually morph into a Wolf and disembowel him mid-argument. Wolfman 23:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seems quite a far stretch to me. I suppose he could always just use some other name while he is mediating. Of course this is really all up to him, as his name violates no rule. Thinking of changing my name to Paragon_of_Virtue_and_Wisdom. Wolfman 21:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality's name is not the name of a page or a position on this website. It's a concept, and I think people are smart enough to distinguish between a user and a concept. The name objected to by a whopping three people, one of whom has a clear grudge against Neutrality.
If anyone genuinely thinks Wolfman is actually a lycanthrope, then I will sign on to this complaint against Neutrality. Until then, this is merely a waste of time. Gamaliel 22:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to take sides, I aim for neutrality (tongue firmly in cheek). However, I would allow a username like JRR Trollkien but not JRR Tolkien. There is no attempt at deception in the former but there would be in the latter. Wolfman noted above that Neutrality's name is not the name of a page or a position on this website. It's a concept, however, it is a position. Neutrality is the lack of position. I honestly find the name Neutrality more disruptive than that of CrucifiedChrist or whatever troll is on the block today.
Neutrality is not an offensive name (unless you pray to some neutral deity) however, it is a possibly disruptive name. I could live with a troll (or a normal user for that matter) with the name of Neutrality but I would never vote for a sysop named Neutrality. It is just the way things go. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 23:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
People. We are talking about someone's username. It's not Kyke_Go_Home, KKK_4_Life, or even CrucifiedChrist... its just a concept. You sign a petition of 10 people that believed Neutrality was actually neutral because of his username and I will endorse changing the name. That is, if you are honestly worried about other users assuming neutrality because of a username (i still can't write that without smiling), and do not simply hold a grudge. -- kizzle 22:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
point taken, i apologize. i'm new. but my request for petition still stands. -- kizzle 06:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, please. Nothing Kizzle said was remotely close to a personal attack. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 18:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
nah it's ok, seems like people are bit sensitive here. or was that a personal attack? -- kizzle 19:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To Gamaliel and for the record:
Ropers 04:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Imagine you got into an argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the NPOV, say, in a political article: Wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased)had a user name of "Neutrality"?"
I have relisted this RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Neutrality had twice self-archived this RfC about his user name. I think that's inappropriate: Let others archive it off if and when it gets resolved or becomes inactive. Self-delisting your own RfC is very bad style. Ropers 18:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it's helpful at this point to summarize how people have sided so far (please correct me if I'm wrong about anyone):
People with and w/o concerns about the username "Neutrality":
Concerns | No concerns |
Ropers | Neutrality |
[[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
![]() |
Wolfman |
Floorsheim | Gamaliel |
gracefool | |
The Sunborn | kizzle |
Netoholic @ | TheCustomOfLife (Mike H) |
Looks like a fairly even split to me -- so, well, if the community consensus gets to be that Neutrality should be free to keep his user name despite the concerns given at the top of the page, then well, I'd find that unfortunate, but I would accept it. I'll not however accept any Mullarkey like Neutrality delisting his own RfC. IMHO people aspiring for higher positions should conduct themselves to a higher standard than "the rest of us", not a lower one. Ropers 18:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
At this very moment, Neutrality has started an edit war over my modifications to his spam comments on my personal talk page. He doesn't seem to get the hint that his spam comments (unless they are a dialog with me) are not welcome on my personal talk page. He keeps modifying comments on my talk page. His behavior is extremely alarming and bizarre. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 19:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion at hand. -- kizzle 19:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just had a look at the history of your talk page. What Neutrality (and a couple of other users as well) was doing was removing fabricated comments you made up and signed with the names of other users. See this edit [1]. I didn't think my opinion of you could get any lower, but it just has. Have you any shame at all? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My apologies, I am striking my text per your advice. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 03:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If someone engages in behavior I find appalling and contrary to norms of behavior on wikipedia, I'm going to call them on it. If you find that violates your personal idea of civility, I'm sorry as that is not my intention. You are right that this discussion does not belong here, so why not just delete this whole section instead of elongating it? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I rex071404, hereby acknowledge that my vote and comments here against Neutrality's name, were motivated largely to bother user Neutrality on a personal level. Frankly, I was annoyed with him about certain other things which have transpired and I piled it on here as a "get back". So as to clarify my position, I do feel that his name ought to be changed, but I think it might best be handled by the simple addition of an !, as in "Neutrality!". To me, this is one way of making clear to new users that "Neutrality!" is a moniker, not to be mistaken with a Wiki role of authority. That said, I now recuse myself from further dialog on this topic. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 04:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
bravo rex. i like the new attitude. -- kizzle 06:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok. The majority now seems to agree that the user name is not a problem. I only ask for two things:
Ropers 13:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe that the word "neutrality" is inappropriate for use as a user name. However, an existing user currently has precisely this user name — Neutrality. I feel that this is very problematic and that Neutrality should change his user name. (I'm randomly assuming here that Neutrality is male.)
I have contacted Neutrality about this on his Talk page quite some time ago — see User_talk:Neutrality#Ropers_.7C_Username
( Neutrality has announced that he may archive his Talk page, so that link may change. In case the link changes, here is a copy of the discussion as of 14 Aug '04.)
To also briefly explain my concerns right here:
Similar to what is said by item (3) on this page, I believe everyone (or at least every non-malicious Wikipedia user) is striving for neutrality. For any user to label him/herself "Neutrality" can too easily be seen to imply that the so-named user was working harder for neutrality and others were not doing that.
Imagine you got into an argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the
NPOV, say, in a political article:
Wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased) had a user name of "Neutrality"?
(NB: I have so far never gotten into any such discussion with
Neutrality.)
Such an imbalance isn't just bad for the side not carrying such a user name. — It's bad for
Neutrality as well, because it will just be like a red cape to a bull — it will attract unnecessarily strong opposition (and thus probably raise tempers on both sides).
For these reasons, I believe Neutrality should change his user name.
Ropers 13:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.
Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.
Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
hmmm... while i think this discussion would be a bit excessive for an ordinary user, in my opinion, it's a bad idea for a member of the Association of Members' Advocates and the Mediation Committee to go under this alias. however, i don't think it's within our rights to force Neutrality to change his(?) user name for that reason. i do think the community should take this consideration into account in its decision as to whether Neutrality should be on these and other committees. an optimal solution, of course, would be for Neutrality to simply change his alias voluntarily. as for Neutrality removing his own name from the Rfc, that was, in my opinion, quite inappropriate regardless of the circumstances. – Floorsheim 10:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The username policy may not be clear on this point, but someone who started editing as Administrator, including posting signed comments, was told off. Granted, Neutrality is not in the same league as this. The same user also created User:Vfd, which was objected to as well. V V 02:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This RfC is invalid for the following reasons:
Again, I appreciate the concern, but this listing is inappropriate. I am archiving. Neutrality 04:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is just silly. It's not like Neutrality has given himself a deceptive name like Administrator. Or a politically offensive name like Rex (King). Or a sexually offensive name like Roper (Rope Her). Now, I suppose I should have to change my name too, lest some poor rube think I will actually morph into a Wolf and disembowel him mid-argument. Wolfman 23:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seems quite a far stretch to me. I suppose he could always just use some other name while he is mediating. Of course this is really all up to him, as his name violates no rule. Thinking of changing my name to Paragon_of_Virtue_and_Wisdom. Wolfman 21:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality's name is not the name of a page or a position on this website. It's a concept, and I think people are smart enough to distinguish between a user and a concept. The name objected to by a whopping three people, one of whom has a clear grudge against Neutrality.
If anyone genuinely thinks Wolfman is actually a lycanthrope, then I will sign on to this complaint against Neutrality. Until then, this is merely a waste of time. Gamaliel 22:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to take sides, I aim for neutrality (tongue firmly in cheek). However, I would allow a username like JRR Trollkien but not JRR Tolkien. There is no attempt at deception in the former but there would be in the latter. Wolfman noted above that Neutrality's name is not the name of a page or a position on this website. It's a concept, however, it is a position. Neutrality is the lack of position. I honestly find the name Neutrality more disruptive than that of CrucifiedChrist or whatever troll is on the block today.
Neutrality is not an offensive name (unless you pray to some neutral deity) however, it is a possibly disruptive name. I could live with a troll (or a normal user for that matter) with the name of Neutrality but I would never vote for a sysop named Neutrality. It is just the way things go. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 23:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
People. We are talking about someone's username. It's not Kyke_Go_Home, KKK_4_Life, or even CrucifiedChrist... its just a concept. You sign a petition of 10 people that believed Neutrality was actually neutral because of his username and I will endorse changing the name. That is, if you are honestly worried about other users assuming neutrality because of a username (i still can't write that without smiling), and do not simply hold a grudge. -- kizzle 22:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
point taken, i apologize. i'm new. but my request for petition still stands. -- kizzle 06:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, please. Nothing Kizzle said was remotely close to a personal attack. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 18:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
nah it's ok, seems like people are bit sensitive here. or was that a personal attack? -- kizzle 19:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To Gamaliel and for the record:
Ropers 04:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Imagine you got into an argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the NPOV, say, in a political article: Wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased)had a user name of "Neutrality"?"
I have relisted this RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Neutrality had twice self-archived this RfC about his user name. I think that's inappropriate: Let others archive it off if and when it gets resolved or becomes inactive. Self-delisting your own RfC is very bad style. Ropers 18:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it's helpful at this point to summarize how people have sided so far (please correct me if I'm wrong about anyone):
People with and w/o concerns about the username "Neutrality":
Concerns | No concerns |
Ropers | Neutrality |
[[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
![]() |
Wolfman |
Floorsheim | Gamaliel |
gracefool | |
The Sunborn | kizzle |
Netoholic @ | TheCustomOfLife (Mike H) |
Looks like a fairly even split to me -- so, well, if the community consensus gets to be that Neutrality should be free to keep his user name despite the concerns given at the top of the page, then well, I'd find that unfortunate, but I would accept it. I'll not however accept any Mullarkey like Neutrality delisting his own RfC. IMHO people aspiring for higher positions should conduct themselves to a higher standard than "the rest of us", not a lower one. Ropers 18:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
At this very moment, Neutrality has started an edit war over my modifications to his spam comments on my personal talk page. He doesn't seem to get the hint that his spam comments (unless they are a dialog with me) are not welcome on my personal talk page. He keeps modifying comments on my talk page. His behavior is extremely alarming and bizarre. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 19:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion at hand. -- kizzle 19:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just had a look at the history of your talk page. What Neutrality (and a couple of other users as well) was doing was removing fabricated comments you made up and signed with the names of other users. See this edit [1]. I didn't think my opinion of you could get any lower, but it just has. Have you any shame at all? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My apologies, I am striking my text per your advice. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 03:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If someone engages in behavior I find appalling and contrary to norms of behavior on wikipedia, I'm going to call them on it. If you find that violates your personal idea of civility, I'm sorry as that is not my intention. You are right that this discussion does not belong here, so why not just delete this whole section instead of elongating it? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I rex071404, hereby acknowledge that my vote and comments here against Neutrality's name, were motivated largely to bother user Neutrality on a personal level. Frankly, I was annoyed with him about certain other things which have transpired and I piled it on here as a "get back". So as to clarify my position, I do feel that his name ought to be changed, but I think it might best be handled by the simple addition of an !, as in "Neutrality!". To me, this is one way of making clear to new users that "Neutrality!" is a moniker, not to be mistaken with a Wiki role of authority. That said, I now recuse myself from further dialog on this topic. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 04:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
bravo rex. i like the new attitude. -- kizzle 06:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok. The majority now seems to agree that the user name is not a problem. I only ask for two things:
Ropers 13:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)