Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality

I believe that the word "neutrality" is inappropriate for use as a user name. However, an existing user currently has precisely this user name &mdash; 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 &mdash; see User_talk:Neutrality

(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. &mdash; It's bad for Neutrality as well, because it will just be like a red cape to a bull &mdash; 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)

I second Ropers' complaint
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)

Other cases
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)

Response
This RfC is invalid for the following reasons:
 * The RfC guidelines currently state that at least two people must contact the subject of the RfC prior to listing; so far, no one else has complained.
 * The username policy disallows usernames that “are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task.” The policy lists as examples names which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred, are slurs, are the names of sexual acts or genitalia or violent real world actions, or that are scatological or pornographic. My username violates none of these rules.
 * I have already explained my username on my user page. I appreciate the concern.
 * A precedent was set by the Arbitration Committee in the matter of JRR Trollkien, where they ruled that his username did not violate policy. Surely if someone with the word "troll" in their username does not violate policy, my name must not.

Again, I appreciate the concern, but this listing is inappropriate. I am archiving. Neutrality 04:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In response to the points Neutrality made:


 * 1. The way I understand the rules at RfC, the "two individual users" threshold applies for cases of user conduct (as per section 2.1, not concerns over a user name.
 * Even if the two user threshold were to apply for user name issues as well, would we not say that that's satisfied by Rex071404 and Floorsheim's comments above?


 * 2. I believe that a user name of "Neutrality" can, in some circumstances (see my previously explained reasoning) be "needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task.”
 * I obviously agree that "Neutrality" is not a slur of any kind, but I don't understand the said definition to be necessarily exclusively limited to slurs.


 * 3. There is indeed a brief explanation on Neutrality's choice of username on User:Neutrality. As far as I can see from the history, Neutrality added that explanation earlier today, long after I had contacted him on his Talk page and after I filed this RfC yesterday. It's probably a good idea to have such a comment there as long as the user name is still in use. I do however think that while the comment may put the user name "Neutrality" slightly into perspective to the attentive reader, it doesn't really make such a user name substantially less controversial (again, with reference to what I said above).


 * 4. I am not currently certain how I feel about a user name of "JRR Trollkien". I would probably consider it harmless myself but could probably understand that it might offend some users (who may feel particularly besieged by trolls, in the non-fantasy sense). If I had that user name myself, I would probably consider changing it voluntarily. I don't however feel that what I said about a user name of "Neutrality" would apply to a user name of "JRR Trollkien". Totally different line of reasoning.


 * 5. I can see from the history that Mirv reverted Neutraliy's delisting of this RfC, noting that "delisting one's own entry is bad form". I would agree that it is.
 * Neutrality has also archived the pertaining discussion on it's user page (which is ok; he announced that he would do so). The archived version is here and a copied version is linked above.


 * I believe this RfC should be seen through in the usual way &mdash; and if the outcome of this RfC, in a by-the-book way, gets to be that Neutrality doesn't need to change his user name, then I will accept that. At this stage however, seeing that there are two further users who share my concerns, I would again appeal to Neutrality to change it voluntarily.
 * Ropers 17:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Name Police
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)


 * Few people here anticipate they will be rv'd for failing to meet a standard of "Wolfmanism", but many expect they may be edited or rv'd for failing to meet a standard on "Neutrality".


 * This of it this way; what if my user name was "Admin" or "Sysop"?


 * Rex071404 04:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If Admin were Neutrality's name, that would be a problem since it's clearly deceptive. His name is no more deceptive than yours or mine.  Some editor goes by 'CrucifiedChrist'.  Now that's intimidating &mdash; if you are the sort who takes things literally.  Who wants to get on the wrong side of Jebus?


 * Think of it this way Rex; do you think Neutrality is neutral just because of his name? Your arbitration complaint against him suggests otherwise.Wolfman 05:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Wolfman, obviously no one here thinks that about Neutrality. That's not the issue.  The issue is whether or not it's likely for someone else to think such a thing.  I, for one, can easily see a newcomer looking at a post by Neutrality, knowing him to be a member of the mediation committee, and thinking that he was in some way officially designated as being especially skilled at assessing NPOV-ness and to a greater extent than other members of the mediation and arbitration committees.  That, to me, is a problem and one that could be easily fixed.  –Floorsheim 23:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What Floorsheim just wrote pretty much sums up my objections against this user name. Spot on. Ropers 21:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * NB: I would myself have VASTLY preferred not to submit this here. I first politely contacted Neutrality on his talk page and pursued a discussion there, hoping that I could convince him to change his user name voluntarily. I think it shouldn't be a big issue to change a name like that if there are some objections against it. (It's not like it was his actual surname, as in the case of my own user name.) And who, after all, wishes to attrackt opposition? Anyway, at a certain point Neutrality didn't comment further and I waited a substantial amount of time before I went ahead and poted this RfC. In a way I even feel bad about it because, again, I'm not out to "get" Neutrality in any way. Plus, going the confrontational route is to some extent always counterproductive. Still, I think the issue would just have been swept under the carpet had I not filed this here. (And indeed Neutrality actually unlisted this RfC himself. It was later reinstated by someone else.) Yet, somehow I still think and hope that the option of an amicable/voluntary solution is still there. I would welcome that. Ropers 21:35, 20 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)


 * It is your opinion that his user name doesn't violate a rule. I beg to differ: As Neutrality himself quoted from the user name policy: ``The username policy disallows usernames that “are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task.”`` Note the discouraging to other contributors bit. Especially as regards newbies.
 * But anyway, maybe the majority view will be that his name doesn't violate that rule. I'm not trying to "convict" Neutrality as a rulebreaker. I am trying to lobby for what I feel is an issue of fairness and I filed this RfC to give some exposure to it. My hope is that if several people share my objections that that will maybe make Neutrality reconsider. Ropers 21:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yawn
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 am appalled by Gamaliel's sophomoric argument! Rex071404 23:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am. And I plan to wreak vengeance upon all who oppose me, next full moon.  Beware! Wolfman 22:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex: Come, come. Be polite. Admittedly Gamaliel's argument could be perceived as impolite as well (though I personally just think it's an illogical point he made (if at all intended seriously)), but no one is helping anyone by ranting. Get a website. Get a blog. Rant there. Not here. Please. Ropers 00:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that this objection is a bit silly. Am I being rude in saying this? ··gracefool |☺ 04:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are. Rex071404 15:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Sunborn's take
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, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  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)


 * "i still can't write that without smiling" This concerns me, Kizzle.  I hope your reason for bringing this up was not to make it clear that you think the people who disagree with you on this issue are silly or that their point of view is a silly one.  That would be something that goes against Wikiquette ("Be Civil") and must be avoided.  Assuming that was not your intent, you should generally try to avoid remarks of this sort as they can easily be interpreted by others as being personal attacks.  –Floorsheim 02:35, 3 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. 18:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that it was. I wouldn't know seeing as I'm not Kizzle.  That being the case, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it wasn't.  My point is that his words might be interpreted that way by some, which is not helpful to anything we are trying to do as Wikipedians.  For that reason, remarks that leave room for this sort of interpretation must be avoided.  The same goes for "oh, please," your earlier remark "this is merely a waste of time," and your titling a section on this discussion "Yawn."  None of these are conducive to discussion, and most of them would be considered by most an intentional effort at mockery.  I'm giving you the same benefit of the doubt I give Kizzle in assuming your intent was not to be offensive.  However, regardless of whether it was or it wasn't, we all must refrain from this sort of thing in the future as it is destructive to our cause.  Instead, if you have a position to express, do so by giving the reasons behind your position, and leave it at that.  For more about this, read Wikiquette and Civility  –Floorsheim 23:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm all for civility. I'm not for policing ourselves to such an extent that we live in constant fear of offending someone with an innocuous comment.  I’m sorry you think some of my comments are not conducive to discussion, but if my opinion is that this RfC is a waste of time, why should I not say that?  I don’t see any need to sugarcoat strong views as long as they are not personally insulting.  Perhaps the “yawn” was a bit much, true, but most of the contempt I have for this RfC is because I see it as a retaliatory effort by a user who added a link here in his signature and has an evident grudge against Neutrality.  That user is in far more need of lectures on civility than I am, as you can see from a month’s worth of attacks and insults on half a dozen users documented here.  I’m sure that you have as little respect for the “Well, he did it first!” excuse as I do, so all I can say in response to that is that I am not made of stone, and a little contempt is going to show through after being bombarded by vitriol from one user for a whole month.   As far as my response to your comment to Kizzle, I thought that by lecturing Kizzle about civility after a harmless comment seemed to me to go against the principle of Please do not bite the newcomers.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "I thought that by lecturing Kizzle about civility after a harmless comment seemed to me to go against the principle of Please do not bite the newcomers."
 * Point taken. I could have found a gentler way of saying what I did.  Kizzle, if you're reading, my apologies.  However, I do not agree that Kizzle's comment was harmless.  Sarcasm, however slight, feeds the cycle of disrespect between users and makes Wikipedia more stressful than it has to be.  It must be avoided.
 * "...I am not made of stone, and a little contempt is going to show through after being bombarded by vitriol from one user for a whole month."
 * Took a look at the rfa you mentioned, and I can understand where you're at. I've dealt with my own share of frustrating users, and I must admit that I too haven't handled every situation as well as I wish that I would have.  However, we shouldn't allow the fact that we are human and are bound to fail from time to time keep us from always trying our best.
 * "I'm all for civility. I'm not for policing ourselves to such an extent that we live in constant fear of offending someone with an innocuous comment."
 * I agree that no one should be expected to give careful consideration to every little thing they say, discerning and minimizing probabilities of someone being offended by it. However, there is a big difference between that and simply following a few guidlines, such as avoiding sarcastic and derisive remarks and words and phrases that generally would be taken as insulting when we can preserve meaning without using them.  It is typically the case with usage that falls into these categories that much more explanatory wording may be found.  Supplying this wording makes the meaning more clear than not.
 * "I’m sorry you think some of my comments are not conducive to discussion, but if my opinion is that this RfC is a waste of time, why should I not say that?"
 * This provides a good example. I doubt your point in making that statement was to inform other users that your time had just been wasted by you reading this RfC.  I'm sure you're aware that that bit of information would interest few people other than yourself.  Rather, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) you were saying that you didn't think there was currently sufficient reason to deem Neutrality's user name a considerable threat to the facility of Wikipedia.  It would have been preferable for you to simply say that (or whatever your point was if I have interpreted you incorrectly) than to say something that is considered sarcastic and disrespectful by most yet does not establish your point as clearly.


 * –Floorsheim 09:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don’t wish to drag this out much longer, because I think that this is merely a disagreement of where to draw the line and not really any more fundamental disagreement. I do wish to note that I do not merely “ think there was currently sufficient reason to deem Neutrality's user name a considerable threat to the facility of Wikipedia” but I think this RFC is in fact a waste of time and utterly, jaw-droppingly ridiculous, and I think that difference is important enough to be noted.  The language I used to make that distinction may have been a bit impolitic, but frankly under your system where even harmless words like “silly” are verbotten, I don’t think it would even be possible to express such a difference.  I admire (and agree to an extent) with your desire for more civility, but I wouldn’t really want to be a part of a project where you can’t even call something “silly” (and not someone, an important distinction), because that would drain so much color and life out of it as to make it about as fun as an Amish quilting bee.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:35, 8 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)


 * It's not that Wikipedians are in general any more sensitive than an any other group of people but more that we are aware that all human beings can be sensitive at times&mdash;especially in the course of discussing topics we feel passionate about. Because of that, we take precautions to keep the atmosphere here as friendly and free of conflict as possible so that we all may function at our best.  In that spirit, we make it a rule to not do or say things that unnecessarily detract from such an atmosphere.  If you haven't already, you (and I'm not singling you out here, Kizzle; this goes for everyone) should probably read Civility as well.  –Floorsheim 23:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To Gamaliel and for the record:


 * 1) I filed this RfC.
 * 2) I did so AFTER contacting Neutrality on his Talk page and waiting a long time. See above.
 * 3) I do not have any link to this place in my sig.
 * 4) I am not in any way affiliated with Rex071404 &mdash; I don't know him much more than I know you.
 * 5) I don't have a grudge against Neutrality.
 * 6) For all these reasons, I would like to invite you to read my actual concerns (above). That you got the above points wrong IMHO suggests that you haven't read them yet.

Ropers 04:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any ambiguity in the wording of my comments. The comments to Floorsheim all refer to Rex and none of them refer to you. I have no idea what your motives are, but I'm sure they are sincere. I believe Rex's motives are not. I know that you started this RfC and I have read all of the comments here. I still think this is all silly, sorry. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, please avoid words like "silly" as most people find them offensive. –Floorsheim 09:32, 7 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"?"


 * If we are still considering this as a topic of discussion, I don't see how the above complaint can in any way shape or form be construed as an argument. "Wouldn't it drive you nuts" is not a justification for changing one's name and is nowhere stated in the username policy as a reason for changing someone's name.  In addition, anyone who is using the pretense that normal users are assuming some form of objective neutrality because of his username, please find some ACTUAL users who will complain to this seeing as I highly doubt that any of you actually believe this.  Otherwise, someone please succinctly state any good reasons why Neutrality should change or let this page fade away.  there are a whole lot more usernames we should ban if complaints like this take precedent, and doing so I think would detract from the actual discussions taking place if we focus on the trivial names we pick for ourselves rather than the content of our discussions. --kizzle 20:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reinstated RfC
I have relisted this RfC at 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)


 * I found it odd that someone would archive a debate in which they are the focus. I talked to him about it because I had posted a comment the previous day. He claimed that this was missed and that he was sorry. If it was a vandal or a troll there would have been some consequences. He seemed calm and collected. However, he has lost a bit of my trust. I just hope he has learned from it. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  02:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Summary
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":

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)


 * I added my name to the "no concerns" list. Mike H 19:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * When I was a new user, I found the name very distracting. I saw references all around to the Neutral point of view, thought his name refered to it.  I don't have a major concern, but I think that if he is going on to higher level of responsibility, and because there are any concerns, he should respect the portion of the community that objects. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to clear up my position, I do not think Neutrality should be forced to change his user name. I politely suggest that he do it on his own for reasons I've already stated.  I do find his self-archiving of this RfC to be both inconsiderate to the users who are voicing concerns here and bad practice in general.  Since emotions are certain to play a part in such a decision if made by him and administrative decisions ought to be distracted as little as possible by emotions, the authority over this particular decision should belong to someone else.  –Floorsheim 03:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI about Netralility
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. 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. I didn't think my opinion of you could get any lower, but it just has. Have you any shame at all? 19:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * They were "nose-tweaked" for spamming my talk page, yet they kept reverting me on my own talk page. This included Neutrality.  [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to voice my protest here to both Gamaliel and Rex071404. Your comments above do not belong on this RfC, and neither of you are observing Wikipedia's Be Civil policy, which is something you both have been asked multiple times to do.  I hope the following quote (from Be Civil) will remind you why this policy is such an important thing for us to observe.


 * Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Where incivility here is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another. Our [community] has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the first being neutral point of view. The second demands a reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if "civility" is just an informal rule, it's the only term that can apply, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.


 * Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of other contributors. This directly affects the quality of the community experience at Wikipedia. By hurting the community, the quality of articles is affected as well. This creates a cycle of incivility that reinforces itself, and in some cases conflicts between contributors over one article can expand to involve additional people and additional articles.


 * –Floorsheim 03:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, I am striking my text per your advice. 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? 03:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rex. Gamaliel, there is nothing subjective about the fact that your behavior toward Rex here is uncivil.  The term is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress.  Explicitly telling someone how low your opinion of them is clearly falls into that category.  While there's nothing wrong with expressing the problems you may have with other users' behavior as they pertain to the functionality of Wikipedia (indeed, that's exactly what I'm doing right now), please make sure you do that in a way that is civil and that you find the proper forum for it.


 * I would agree to moving the details of this discussion and others to another article, but I won't agree to deleting anything. I think this last bit in particular is quite relevant as it speaks to the objectivity of both yourself and Rex concerning this issue.  –Floorsheim 02:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How about moving all unrelated comments to the talk page? By now it seems over half of this page is devoted to issues that have nothing to do with the RfC. As you said, this is not the proper form for my complaints about Rex, nor is it the proper forum for your lectures on civility or Rex's complaints about his nemesis. While I do think this is all silly, Ropers posted it in good faith and it does deserve an uncluttered hearing. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with moving discussion that does not directly concern the appropriateness of Neutrality's user name (including the present discussion) to the talk page at this time. However, I maintain that a discussion of civility is pertinent to any forum in which incivility is in the process of taking place.  This is because incivility stands directly in the way of the functionality of such a forum as a place to exchange ideas (as opposed to insults).  Users who are being uncivil to others must be made aware that their behavior is against the rules and that it has to stop.  Also, reminding people about civility generally helps to reverse the cascade of incivility that often takes place once one user has been uncivil to another.  I will continue to bring up civility every time it is breached in a discussion I am involved with, and I urge everyone else to do similarly.


 * On that note, Gamaliel, I protest your use of the word silly on the same grounds that I protested it before, and I also protest your use of the word nemesis. I don't think that Rex has stated anywhere that Neutrality is his nemesis.  By referring to him as such, you exaggerate the conflict that already exists between these two users, which doesn't help anything, and you risk the possibility of Rex interpreting this statement as mockery of his feelings of of frustration with regard to this conflict.  Be advised that you are breaking Wikipedia's rules by doing these things and please stop doing so.  –Floorsheim 14:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * While you are correct in saying that I’ve regrettably gone overboard in some of my comments here, I simply do not agree that the word “silly” is some sort of vile epithet that must be avoided. As you know, we’ve already had this discussion above, and if you feel the need to rehash this discussion again, please take it to my talk page so we can avoid cluttering this page any further, as this is not the proper forum for such a discussion.


 * I will move all unrelated comments to the talk page later today in case someone wants to register an objection between now and then. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of bias
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. 04:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

bravo rex. i like the new attitude. --kizzle 06:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I too am very happy, Rex, to see your remarkable honesty, willingness to admit mistakes and dynamically more civil tone. Keep it up.  –Floorsheim 14:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Respect. ( /me is impressed. ) Ropers 20:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks rex. Now maybe this absurdly long RfC will end. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞ Storm]] 20:45, 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:


 * 1) Somebody else who feels that consensus has been reached should archive this off the RfC page. Not Neutrality. Not me.
 * 2) I think Rex' "Neutrality!" idea was rather good. I would ask Neutrality to at least consider it.

Ropers 13:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I will archive it. The consensus seems to be:
 * Neutrality's name is not in violation of Wikipedia policy
 * Many users would, however, be reluctant to support the current name for a post of authority.Wolfman 16:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)