Talk:Nash the Slash/Archive 1

message: this stupid thing to the ongoing dispute (see article history) about whether the article should or should not give the artist's real name. 
The user who introduced the current uncertainty did so only after being advised that the "Jeff Plewman" name could only be removed if it were factually wrong (and after this RfC was launched); prior to that, his own edits and e-mails on the subject clearly stated that the name was correct but Wikipedia's use of it was a personal inconvenience for Nash. 
The following question has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment: Does the subject of an article (or the president of his fan club) have the right to insist that Wikipedia cannot give his real name, if his real name is already publicly available on other websites? Nobody's claiming that the information is wrong; the claim is that the artist doesn't want it publicized (even though it already has been elsewhere). 
My points are as follows:
# The information is already out there, and nobody disputed its accuracy until after I made clear that Wikipedia would only remove it on factual grounds. Previously, the user's own words communicated the exact opposite position of what he chooses to communicate now. 
# The subject of a Wikipedia article does not have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about him unless the information is objectively false.
Comments? Bearcat 17:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC summary

message: To the administrator,
I am not at all pleased about Nashferatu 'outing' me on this site. If you read my posts I was simply trying to add accurate information to an entry which is what I understand from the policies to be one of the values of wikipedia. I do not know Nashferatu, I did not give him my name and I did not give him permission to post my name here. I would request that you consider banning him from Wikipedia either temporarily or ideally permanently as you see fit. I would also ask, if its possible, for you to remove my birth name from these pages. My real name unlike Nash's is not part of a related entry in this encyclopedia and therefore I do not feel it should be indicated here publicly. 
Thank you
-Plexuss (BM)
* Just for the record, Wikipedia has a lot of administrators; I'm not the only one. I will refer your request to the administrators' notice board for further discussion and action if they deem it appropriate, but since I've been directly involved in this dispute it would be inappropriate for me to personally impose the measures you request. Bearcat 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Thanks, DES, for your necessary note and actions.  As a general user who initially called N's actions to account, I also admit some personal frustration and beligerence throughout.  Rest assured, however, that I will hereafter be vigilant in upholding Wp policies regarding conduct and in ensuring the integrity of the information presented therein.  Please also let me know if you've any questions.  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article clearly states this ambiguity and relevant citations, so there is no problem with the content or its propriety.  There is a problem and it is unsavoury, however, when certain users abuse this medium to promulgate their zealous – even self-serving – views.  To that end, I think I can speak for the Canadian Encyclopedia and other Wp users when I say: no comment.  E Pluribus Anthony 10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning for Outing