user23519: It appears that the Russian moderator, "Vollkoffer", dwelling in US is already total corrupt and makes use of power here to even oppose his own kind, parents and father. Censure and act for war and conflict. Encourages to harm and spams for political objectivity.
How dear can this enviroment of fools tolerate such, incl. the owner? Thats simply criminal like the rest of this google and facebook dictatorship of Brahmans.
Long enough has this fool misused BSE for his political and biased ways and speading of Adhamma and played double-agent for his Rave and belly.

A seria of manipulating and fool actions questions had been raised for trying to misuse good:
False Virtue and True Virtue
Is Buddhism a teaching of ethical neutrality
later hide by closing.
A wise person leaves SE, google, facebook, twitter and co. as well as leader with baseball caps or trainers... and avids association with Jewish behind or what ever social nationalists behind.
So the answers show clear (by avoiding to answer but turning to biased politic of slaves): One is encouraged here to parttake on this rebellious political undertaking, and of course, everybody with basic faith in the Gems will suddenly avoid the place like greatest enemy.
It's sad that even potential criminal are even promoted by modern media, as under his countries law he would face up to 15 years prison. Nobody should actively associate with punks and rebels, since it's the straight way to hell.

user471: The other moderators of Buddhism SE have reviewed the updated user profile photo, username and user profile description of moderator Andrei Volkov and have determined that there has been no violation of the Stack Exchange Network Acceptable Use Policy and the Public Network Terms of Service, in our opinion.
If you find that any questions, answers or comments posted by any user is in violation of the Buddhism SE Code of Conduct, please flag it and the moderators will look into it. To understand how moderators evaluate the appropriateness of a Buddhism SE answer, please read this Buddhism Meta SE answer.
If you disagree with any specific moderation decision, you may post a question here on Buddhism Meta SE.

user16635: I came looking for this meta post because of an encounter I had with someone down in the main stack. The question here (as written) is a mess of reactivity, so I'm not surprised that it's been downvoted and rationalized away by most answerers. I'm not even going to try to parse the content of the question itself, because that seems pointless.
But... I agree that screen-names like 'Stop Putin Stop War' are ill-advised. The mere existence of this angry, ranting, discombobulated meta-question should be all the evidence we need that these kinds of monikers are ill-advised. Buddhism is in the business of easing and releasing dukkha and tanhā, not prodding them into flaming excess. When one picks a name that one knows will divide people into camps then one is actively opposing the dharma, and that is not a good look for a Buddhist Q&A site.
Arguments I don't care about, just so it's said:

Yes, I'm aware that it's not against policy or the terms of service. Many things that are legal by the letter do not sit right with the spirit. This isn't a moot court, where legalism trumps ethics.
Yes, I'm aware that all users have the right to speak freely. But everyone seems to miss the point that freedom entails responsibility to the community. Discretion matters.
No, the name itself is not overtly offensive (at least I don't find it so, and tend to agree with it). But it is overtly divisive and antagonistic. This isn't the place for that.

To expand on an example I used in the linked discussion, this is a bit like walking into a dharma talk at a meditation center and discovering that the monk giving the talk is wearing a pornographic t-shirt. Now, it may be the case that this monk is deeply concerned about attachments and inhibitions to sexuality within his community (or western culture more generally), and wears the t-shirt as a statement. But that rational-intellectual explanation doesn't do a lot to counter the sheer ridiculousness of the act itself. Who is going to learn dharma when they cannot suppress an involuntary eye-roll in the presence of the teacher?
One must pick one's battles, and the battle here is against ignorance, not against Putin. Is Putin ignorant of the dharma? Is the entire Ukraine situation a demonstration of brutal ignorance on a massive, bloody scale? Sure, and sure... but we will never prevent those wars out there unless we win the metaphysical battles in here.
As you know, it's perfectly possible to create a stack-specific moniker, so feel free to be 'Stop Putin Stop War' in other stacks. But please don't bring your big pointy stick in here, where all it will do is poke people and stir up hornets.

user254: The moderators of this site are also "users" or "members of the community", not only "moderator".
And rules apply to all users (including moderators), for example:

The site is for Questions and Answers (Q&A) about "Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice" only.
Posts about "politics" are off-topic (unless they are Q&A about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice) -- should not be posted on the site and may be deleted.

But there are 4 places where a user can post more-or-less whatever they want to:

In the About section of their User Profile (text)
In their choice of icon (sometimes called an identicon or gravatar)
In their choice of username
In a chat room

I looked for SE's policies about what restrictions there are, on choosing icons and names (see links below).
In summary I decided neither the icon nor the name are "offensive" -- they're not hate speech; not insulting race or religion -- and so they don't appear to contravene SE's rules.
It would be nice if other users (perhaps yourself) didn't take it as an opportunity to "create disruptions that moderators must deal with"

As a moderator, how do I handle a potentially inappropriate profile picture?

Our stance on this is simple, but quite subjective. It's first worth
reiterating that within reason, a user's profile page is their own
domain.
Avatars are much more visible as we show them under every single post
that you write, and as such, are open to a tad more scrutiny. If the
avatar:

Depicts or promotes hate in any form
Insults, is insulting to or negatively objectifies those belonging to a certain race, gender or religion
Otherwise creates disruptions that moderators must deal with

... then we're probably going to require you to use another avatar.


Possibly offensive usernames
This was about using swearwords (like "shitburg").
There's a history of SE users changing their names to campaign for something (e.g. "Reinstate Monica"), and the so-called "owners" of SE overlooking that.

23519: <p>It appears that the Russian moderator, &quot;Vollkoffer&quot;, dwelling in US is already total corrupt and makes use of power here to even oppose his own kind, parents and father. Censure and act for war and conflict. Encourages to harm and spams for political objectivity.</p>
<p>How dear can this enviroment of fools tolerate such, incl. the owner? Thats simply criminal like the rest of this google and facebook dictatorship of Brahmans.</p>
<p>Long enough has this fool misused BSE for his political and biased ways and speading of Adhamma and played double-agent for his Rave and belly.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLTvR.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLTvR.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>A seria of manipulating and fool actions questions had been raised for trying to misuse good:</p>
<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/46720/false-virtue-and-true-virtue">False Virtue and True Virtue</a></p>
<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/46733/is-buddhism-a-teaching-of-neutrality">Is Buddhism a teaching of ethical neutrality</a></p>
<p>later hide by closing.</p>
<p>A wise person leaves SE, google, facebook, twitter and co. as well as leader with baseball caps or trainers... and avids association with Jewish behind or what ever social nationalists behind.</p>
<p>So the answers show clear (by avoiding to answer but turning to biased politic of slaves): One is encouraged here to parttake on this rebellious political undertaking, and of course, everybody with basic faith in the Gems will suddenly avoid the place like greatest enemy.</p>
<p>It's sad that even potential criminal are even promoted by modern media, as under his countries law he would face up to 15 years prison. Nobody should actively associate with punks and rebels, since it's the straight way to hell.</p>
 471: <p>The other moderators of Buddhism SE have reviewed the updated user profile photo, username and user profile description of moderator Andrei Volkov and have determined that there has been no violation of the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy">Stack Exchange Network Acceptable Use Policy</a> and the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service">Public Network Terms of Service</a>, in our opinion.</p>
<p>If you find that any questions, answers or comments posted by any user is in violation of the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/conduct">Buddhism SE Code of Conduct</a>, please flag it and the moderators will look into it. To understand how moderators evaluate the appropriateness of a Buddhism SE answer, please read <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2585/471">this Buddhism Meta SE answer</a>.</p>
<p>If you disagree with any specific moderation decision, you may post a question here on Buddhism Meta SE.</p>
 16635: <p>I came looking for this meta post because of an encounter I had with someone down in the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/46917/16635">main stack</a>. The question here (as written) is a mess of reactivity, so I'm not surprised that it's been downvoted and rationalized away by most answerers. I'm not even going to try to parse the content of the question itself, because that seems pointless.</p>
<p><strong>But</strong>... I agree that screen-names like 'Stop Putin Stop War' are ill-advised. The mere existence of this angry, ranting, discombobulated meta-question should be all the evidence we need that these kinds of monikers are ill-advised. Buddhism is in the business of easing and releasing dukkha and tanhā, not prodding them into flaming excess. When one picks a name that one knows will divide people into camps then one is actively opposing the dharma, and that is not a good look for a Buddhist Q&amp;A site.</p>
<p>Arguments I don't care about, just so it's said:</p>
<ul>
<li>Yes, I'm aware that it's not against policy or the terms of service. Many things that are legal by the letter do not sit right with the spirit. This isn't a moot court, where legalism trumps ethics.</li>
<li>Yes, I'm aware that all users have the right to speak freely. But everyone seems to miss the point that freedom entails responsibility to the community. Discretion matters.</li>
<li>No, the name itself is not overtly offensive (at least I don't find it so, and tend to agree with it). But it is overtly divisive and antagonistic. This isn't the place for that.</li>
</ul>
<p>To expand on an example I used in the linked discussion, this is a bit like walking into a dharma talk at a meditation center and discovering that the monk giving the talk is wearing a pornographic t-shirt. Now, it may be the case that this monk is deeply concerned about attachments and inhibitions to sexuality within his community (or western culture more generally), and wears the t-shirt as a statement. But that rational-intellectual explanation doesn't do a lot to counter the sheer ridiculousness of the act itself. Who is going to learn dharma when they cannot suppress an involuntary eye-roll in the presence of the teacher?</p>
<p>One must pick one's battles, and the battle here is against ignorance, not against Putin. Is Putin ignorant of the dharma? Is the entire Ukraine situation a demonstration of brutal ignorance on a massive, bloody scale? Sure, and sure... but we will never prevent those wars <em>out there</em> unless we win the metaphysical battles <em>in here</em>.</p>
<p>As you know, it's perfectly possible to create a stack-specific moniker, so feel free to be 'Stop Putin Stop War' in other stacks. But please don't bring your big pointy stick in here, where all it will do is poke people and stir up hornets.</p>
 254: <p>The moderators of this site are also &quot;users&quot; or &quot;members of the community&quot;, not only &quot;moderator&quot;.</p>
<p>And rules apply to <em>all</em> users (including moderators), for example:</p>
<ul>
<li>The site is for Questions and Answers (Q&amp;A) about &quot;Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice&quot; only.</li>
<li>Posts about &quot;politics&quot; are off-topic (unless they are Q&amp;A about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice) -- should not be posted on the site and may be deleted.</li>
</ul>
<p>But there are 4 places where a user can post more-or-less whatever they want to:</p>
<ul>
<li>In the About section of their User Profile (text)</li>
<li>In their choice of icon (sometimes called an identicon or gravatar)</li>
<li>In their choice of username</li>
<li>In a chat room</li>
</ul>
<p>I looked for SE's policies about what restrictions there are, on choosing icons and names (see links below).</p>
<p>In summary I decided neither the icon nor the name are &quot;offensive&quot; -- they're not hate speech; not insulting race or religion -- and so they don't appear to contravene SE's rules.</p>
<p>It would be nice if other users (perhaps yourself) didn't take it as an opportunity to &quot;create disruptions that moderators must deal with&quot;</p>
<hr />
<p><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/243388/139866">As a moderator, how do I handle a potentially inappropriate profile picture?</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our stance on this is simple, but quite subjective. It's first worth
reiterating that within reason, a user's profile page is their own
domain.</p>
<p>Avatars are much more visible as we show them under every single post
that you write, and as such, are open to a tad more scrutiny. If the
avatar:</p>
<ul>
<li>Depicts or promotes hate in any form</li>
<li>Insults, is insulting to or negatively objectifies those belonging to a certain race, gender or religion</li>
<li>Otherwise creates disruptions that moderators must deal with</li>
</ul>
<p>... then we're probably going to require you to use another avatar.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/117617/139866">Possibly offensive usernames</a></p>
<p>This was about using swearwords (like &quot;shitburg&quot;).</p>
<p>There's a history of SE users changing their names to campaign for something (e.g. &quot;Reinstate Monica&quot;), and the so-called &quot;owners&quot; of SE overlooking that.</p>
