Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joe Scarborough

(Joe Scarborough | talk | contributions)

This user is obviously not Joe Scarborough, the talk show host and ex-congressman. The user's sole purpose here has been to disrupt the Scarborough article and its talk page, including personal attacks, legal threats, and a copyright violation (copied in Scarborough's official bio in place of the Wikipedia article). If there are no objections, this username should be permanently banned based on the username policy. Rhobite 22:06, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Unless there's some sort of proof he isn't who he says he is, I'll have to diagree with banning him based on his name. I'm not opposed to banning him for violating the site's other policies however.

He did misspell his own name along with the word "copyright", an odd mistake for someone with a law degree. But anyway, what are you saying? Should I be able to sign up as George W. Bush or Martha Stewart and edit this encyclopedia, as long as I don't prove that I'm not those people? It's very difficult to prove a negative with 100% certainty.. but it's extremely unlikely that Joe Scarborough hwould sign up for a Wikipedia account simply to harass users and write amateurish rants on talk pages. Requiring that we disprove users who impersonate famous people is not practical. If Joe wants to edit, a quick e-mail to the list from his @msnbc.com address is all that's required. Rhobite 22:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I've never heard of this Joe Scarborough, and it seems a common enough name to me. I can see banning the use of names such as "Martha Stewart" or "George W. Bush" or "Brad Pitt"; they're unusual enough names and are so thoroughly associated with the celebrities who go by them. But this? Nah. Exploding Boy 22:57, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at Talk:Joe Scarborough. The problem isn't that he has the same user name as a celebrity, it is that s/he is pretending to be that celebrity. Gamaliel 23:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point, is it? If he wants to use the name Joe Scarborough, let him. If he claims he is the famous Joe Scarborough, well, ok. We can't prove otherwise, right? Does it matter one way or the other? And if so, well, would it be enough to make it known that he isn't the famous Joe? And if we don't want people impersonating other people here, then we need to make it part of policy, right? Exploding Boy 01:12, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why is that not the point? It's precisely the point. We shouldn't have people impersonating celebrities here: it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous and it really doesn't say much for the accuracy of the encyclopedia if we let some kook who says he's a celebrity edit articles about that celebrity. And it's not particularly kind to the real celebrity. I'm sure this can fall under some sort of disruption or vandalism or fraud or username policy. Gamaliel 01:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel, but due to the objections I don't know if "Joe" should be blocked. In the unlikely event that he returns, we'll just have to ask him to respect the NPOV and other policies. I find it utterly ridiculous to allow a user to impersonate a celebrity and edit that celebrity's article (didn't "Hillary Duff" get blocked a couple months ago for doing this?), but I guess not everyone agrees. Exploding Boy, as a courtesy, could you visit Talk:Joe Scarborough and contemplate the consequences of allowing this guy to continue impersonating the article's subject? If you're going to object to blocking him, I think it would be a nice gesture for you to help deal with him. Rhobite 05:10, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I'm just saying that using the name Joe Scarborough, in itself, shouldn't be a blockable offense. As a separate issue, if people impersonating celebrities is becoming a problem, then let's create a policy that states that those claiming to be well-known people must provide some evidence to that effect or drop all such claims. While we're at it, why not draw up a list of names (Madonna comes to mind. Elton John, perhaps. You get the gist) and block them ahead of time to preempt such problems.? By the way, I've looked at that talk page, and really don't see anything hugely problematic. If all people are dealing with on that page is some guy pretending to be someone he's not (and not very skilfully I might add), it seems like relatively small potatoes to me. Exploding Boy 17:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it policy? Quoting Wikipedia:Username:

Avoid using real names of famous figures (living or recently deceased). Many editors consider them overly disruptive and may request that you change it. Creating a username of a famous person, and then performing disruptive edits in that "name" or in an attempt to discredit it will likely result in actions listed under the "Inappropriate usernames" section.

That's what I'm basing this RFC on.. I think the user is performing disruptive edits in the name of a celebrity. No need to preemptively ban names, that's not what wikis are good at. We're good at quickly adapting to situations such as this one. Rhobite 20:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not very strongly worded. "Avoid using"? That might need changing. If it is changed or is strong policy, then I support this RFC. Exploding Boy 21:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough could be any number of different people, I thought it was people used their own names. Salazar 00:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, he claims he is JS. Why not have him send in a mugshot with some prescribed artefact to prove it (a la 419eater)? :o) dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)