As requested, I have enforced the "ban" on DW's username.
Banning someone by username can be done through the Wikipedia web interface only by a user with "developer" rights -- currently, there are 4 of us:
* Brion Vibber
* Lee Daniel Crocker (LDC)
* Magnus Manske
* Ed Poor
Just execute a "change query" to change the exiled user's "password" field (which is actually encrypted) to something in clear text, e.g., "banned for 2 weeks per so-and-so" -- which effectively prevents the user from logging in.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@bomis.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:05 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] DW's new threat
I told DW, pointblank, not to insult people. But DW continues to
behave in this way. So, goodbye DW. It's time for a ban.
Could some sysop make this happen... AND, I'm sorry to have to ask,
but what's the best procedure for me to do this myself?
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks Brion,
I understand your argument more fully now. I was somewhat surprised to find
myself 'acting' as a voice for people offended by the usernick chosen. But I
thought it important to let people know some people were unhappy but felt
uneasy about expressing their views, fearing they would not be taken
seriously. Re Zoe's observation that the person responsible for the
complaint must be very religious, there were a number of people, some
non-religious, some religious, but all felt that the name CrucifiedChrist
was offensive to religious believers and those sensitive to the beliefs of
christians.
Regards,
JT
>From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why is 'CrucifiedChrist' less offensive than a
>punon oral sex?
>Date: 28 Jan 2003 14:08:50 -0800
>
>On mar, 2003-01-28 at 13:51, james duffy wrote:
> > Brion,
> > I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening
> > argument' comment.
>
>Allow me to compare, using an exaggerated form purely for rhetorical
>effect:
> "I'm the only person ever to complain about how
> offensive this is! Ban it now!"
>with
> "Wikipedia has lost access to a valuable resource
> because this user name made the project look
> extremely unprofessional."
>
> > The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a
> > clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already
>caused
> > offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only
> > bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous
> > offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom,
>you
> > regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!
>
>Offense is only taken, not given. There is no objective measure of
>offensiveness that I can perform; actual reactions and quanitifable
>results as to how the project is affected are much more convincing to
>me.
>
> > People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly
>because
> > their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages
>back
> > telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken
>as
> > seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else.
>
>Thank you for doing so -- we can't take seriously a complaint that is
>never received!
>
> > Your
> > continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me
>think
> > that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because
> > religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of
> > causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive.
>But
> > mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest
> > political correctness?
>
>You clearly have misunderstood my position. I am offended by neither
>corny sexual puns nor by co-opting of religious terminology, but I
>consider both to be in the category of things that make the project look
>bad, along with silly usernames in general. If they make the project
>look bad enough, or they provoke enough trouble within the ranks, that
>it is detrimental to the project, I'm all in favor of kicking them out
>and letting us all get back to work.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
The irony is: on a Christian discussion website or newsgroup, "CrucifiedChrist" wouldn't be considered an offensive username. Rather, it would be a sign that the user was a devoted Christian who closely identified with his Savior.
It reminds me of Saint Paul, who wrote that he would discuss nothing other than "Christ, and him crucified". (1 Corinthians 2:2). See also discussion at http://www.piney.com/1Cor2JFBGiftHS.html or do a Google search for "Christ and Him Crucified" (did you know there's a Christ and Him Crucified Webring?)
Ed Poor -> thinking of changing my username to "BlessedAreThePoorInSpirit" (Matt. 5:3)
Some people have suggested using real names for user names. I would oppose
that as many people would feel uneasy using their real names and it might
lead to some people deciding not to contribute anymore. But there is a
solution.
«WHEN SOMEONE SIGNS UP, THEY ARE GREETED WITH THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE:«
In using Wikipedia, you are requested to use a User ID. In chosing that ID,
remember, people from many different cultures, traditions, faiths and
countries use Wikipedia, as readers, contributors, or both. In an effort to
avoid causing offence (however inadvertent) to people from diverse
backgrounds you are asked in chosing your user ID to follow one simple rule:
1. No user ID is to be used that has a
a) sexual
b) religious
c) cultural
d) political
meaning that could cause offence to other users of, and/or contributors to,
Wikipedia.
Options for User IDs include
* any set of initials, eg RHK
* numbers, eg 115, 8724
* words or a combination of all three, eg, Mangus099, RHK115.
It is up to you. Once you follow the simple rule of avoiding terms that
might cause offence, you have absolute freedom to choose whatever
combination you want.
2. If however, perhaps inadvertently, you choose a User ID that does cause
offence, Wiki will notify you and ask you to change it to a different
option.
3. Remember, in those circumstances, you 'have' to change, within 48 hours.
Members who persist in using terms that could be offensive to others will be
banned from Wikipedia and all contributions made by them WILL BE REVERTED,
irrespective of content or quality.
(The last line is to act as a double deterent. Some may think that if banned
they can simply sign on as a different user and continue on where they left
off. However the threat that all their hard work would automatically,
irrespective of contribution or quality, be undone, may well make users who
want to be on Wikipedia think twice before endangering their work by using a
potentially offensive name.)
Any observations?
JT
>From: Tom Parmenter <tompar(a)world.std.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>CC: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Why is 'CrucifiedChrist' less offensive than a
>pun on oral sex?
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:43:12 -0500
>
>What Brion said. In the policy we put together, we stated that
>offense was to be in the eyes of the offended, not in the inoffensive
>motives of the creator of the name. Certainly there are all kinds of
>religious belief and practice, sincerely followed, that may be
>offensive to others, even to co-religionists.
>
>Tom Parmenter
>
>|From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton(a)verizon.net>
>|Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:19:36 -0600
>|
>|Brion Vibber wrote:
>|
>|>Offense is only taken, not given. There is no objective measure of
>|>offensiveness that I can perform; actual reactions and quanitifable
>|>results as to how the project is affected are much more convincing to
>|>me.
>|
>|This is a good point. There's no way of knowing simply from the
>|phrase "Crucified Christ" whether the speaker means it as a joke or
>|as some sort of actual statement of religious belief.
>|
>|Mormons actually regard the crucifix itself as offensive. They argue
>|that using it as a religious symbol is tantamount to worshipping the
>|weapon used to murder Christ. Obviously, most traditional Christian
>|religions don't share this attitude, but it has a certain logic to it.
>|
>|I remember taking a Japanese Buddhist on a visit to a Catholic church
>|once. She walked around the chapel, looking at the depictions of the
>|stations of the cross, with Jesus dragging the crucifix and being
>|tortured with his crown of thorns and blood dripping down his
>|forehead. I don't know if she was "offended," exactly, but she
>|certainly found it scary.
>|--
>|--------------------------------
>|| Sheldon Rampton
>|| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
>|| Author of books including:
>|| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
>|| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
>|| Mad Cow USA
>|| Trust Us, We're Experts
>|--------------------------------
>|_______________________________________________
>|WikiEN-l mailing list
>|WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>|
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On a more serious note, let me underscore the public-mindedness of Jimbo's approach. As always, he is considering more than just the current contributor base, but also the full population of potential users and contributors.
We avoid "obscene" usernames for a reason: not because Wikipedia is against obscenity , but rather because the feelings of contributors, present and potential -- as well as readers those of readers -- are important to the project.
Although it is a sacrifice for some of us (e.g., I'd rather be known as "MoonIsTheSon" :-) we endure a bit of self-denial for the sake of others.
"Uncle Ed" (aka Ed Poor, which is actually my real name)
Jonathan Walther wrote:
>Far simpler just to say that lewdness, blasphemy, and slurs of all
types
are unwelcome here.
Yeah, and so is name-calling, you poo-poo-headed geek! ;-)
Ed Poor (my real name)
P.S. "The exception proves the rule", heh, heh.
I think we can *certainly* all agree that:
(a) That some names really are offensive and need to be
changed or deleted.
(b) This shouldn't be allowed to soak up vast amounts of
time and energy which could more usefully go into real
work.
And we can *probably* all agree that:
(c) Most usernames are obviously either benign or
offensive, only a very small number are difficult to
classify as OK or not-OK.
(d) No realistic written set of rules can ever be detailed
enough to catch all possible offensive names - some types
of people will go to an enormous amount of thought to dream
up something that is technically "legal" and yet still
offensive, and there will be other cases where a written
rule takes out a perfectly innocent username on some
technicality.
(e) Most or all of the cases raised so far have been
straightforward. There really wasn't much room for any
reasonable person to doubt that "cumguzzler" was offensive,
nor "crucified christ".
(Note that I'm making a distinction here between a name
"being offensive" and that same name "causing personal
offence". For example, I felt a little offended by
"cumguzzler" but was not personally offended by "crucified
christ". However, as an ordinary "reasonable man", I can
see that "crucified christ" is obviously going to offend a
lot of people who happen to hold different religious
beliefs to mine. Both names are clearly unacceptable.)
>From these points, we can reason that (i) formal, exact
rules are unworkable, and (ii) that extensive discussion of
each case is an unreasonable waste of our time. Why
*should* we have to spend forever arguing about such
offensive trivia when we have work to do?
It seems to me that we can probably agree that 99% of cases
could be quickly decided by one or two or three reasonable
people. Why not appoint some - let's say three -
representative "reasonable people" from amongst us and
declare those three the "Name Police"? (I don't think it
matters much which three people - 'most any three regular
list members will do.) Then instruct whoever it is that has
the practical power to change a username (i.e., the person
who holds the database keys) that a request from any two of
the "Name Police" to change a username is to be complied
with.
Here is how it would work:
Let's say that the three are (just picking the first three
names to come into my head) Tom, Zoe, and Ed. User XXXX
come along and registers an offensive name. Dan notices it
on "recent changes" and tips Zoe off. She agrees it is
offensive, and passes the message on to the other two (via
talk pages or email - it doesn't matter). Ed is away but
Tom agrees that XXXX has crossed over the line, and with
two requests, the name is changed to something more
acceptible.
Next week, user YYYY comes along. I message Tom, but he
thinks I am over-reacting and the name is OK. So does Zoe.
Result: the name stands.
That should take care of 99^% of the problem. Once in a
blue moon, an example will crop up which is really
difficult to decide. In this rare instance, anyone is at
liberty to bring the matter up here on the list. XXXX may,
if he wishes, appeal to the list against the change, or I
may bring up YYYY and say "that really *is* offensive, can
we reconsider?" or Ed may post here to say "I am unsure
what to do about user ZZZZ - what do others think?".
Who should the "Name Police" be? I don't think it matters.
99% of the cases are so obvious that just about any three
list members will come up with the same answers anyway.
(And they can still be over-ruled here, if need be.)
How many should there the be? I'm not sure. One would do,
three is probably better, too many more risks turning it
into a circus. If only three, then maybe there should be
one or two "deputies" available to fill in for people who
are away.
How should they be chosen? I don't care. Pick some at
random off the January archive, have Jimbo nominate them,
run an election - it doesn't matter. Turn them over after
some set period of time so that no-one gets lumbered with
it forever.
PS: All that text for "a simple suggestion?" - Whooah -
time I learned to write more briefly!
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
Brion,
I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening
argument' comment. The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a
clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused
offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only
bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous
offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you
regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!
People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because
their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back
telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as
seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else. Your
continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think
that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because
religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of
causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But
mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest
political correctness? As a non religious persion myself, I find your
attitude and complete inability to see the scale of the offence caused
puzzling, to put it at its politest. I thought pluralism is concerned with
showing similar respect to all sides equally. Or are religious
sensitivities, specifically sensitivities towards christians, less important
that other sensitivities, specifically ones to do with oral sex?
Please explain why causing offensive to religious people is a 'huge
improvement' on a pun on oral sex.
JT.
>From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist
>Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:01:37 -0800
>
>On mar, 2003-01-28 at 11:53, james duffy wrote:
> > One of the reasons was that the person who has ownership
> > of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and
> > took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and
> > contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an
> > encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was
>on
> > the brink of giving.
>
>That would have made a _much_ more effective opening argument -- thank
>you for following up with details.
>
>Unfortunately, since Wikipedia didn't adopt a 'use your real name or
>post anonymously' policy, the selection of nicks, and the process of
>deciding what is and isn't acceptable, is always going to be arbitrary
>and ex post facto. (Does "Tokerboy" give the professional appearence we
>want to present to potential IP donors? Or even "Maveric149"?)
>
>Cf. http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?UseRealNames on MeatballWiki.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist
>Date: 27 Jan 2003 23:48:38 -0800
>
>On lun, 2003-01-27 at 22:47, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:37:11PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > >CG used a number of login names from the same IP, including this one.
> > >All things considered, I'd say it's a huge improvement.
> >
> > Blasphemy is as offensive as lewdness. He is still trying to
> > deliberately provoke and offend people; hardly what I would consider a
> > "collegial spirit of mutual respect".
>
>The problem with these names is the disruption caused by other
>Wikipedians taking offense at them.
>
>"Cumguzzler" received acrid complaints within hours and generated pages
>of screed *entirely from other people debating its lack of merits*
>within a couple days of its first appearence, while "CrucifiedChrist"
>has been used for almost two weeks *without a peep* from anyone until
>today.
>
>In my book, that's a huge improvement. Now please stop feeding the
>trolls; we've got an encyclopedia to work on.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>
Actually, Brian, 'CrucifiedChrist' has caused offence; I received five
private emails about it so far (as well as the Wiki Mail stuff) after I
mentioned to someone that I thought the term unacceptable.
However people feel 'embarrassed' complaining publicly about it because
taking offence at religious references might make them seem like far right
religious nutters. But the people who complained aren't fanatical religious
folk; two described themselves as non-religious, one a lapsed Roman
Catholic. It says something about public attitudes to religion (and the
damage done to religion by the religious right) that they felt uncomfortable
about complaining publicly and ended up sending me a message saying 'will
you say something?'
Personally, as another non-religious person, I think CrucifiedChrist is FAR
MORE OFFENSIVE than Cumguzzler. The latter is merely a childish wordplay on
sex. CrucifiedChrist is a direct, deliberate mocking of the religious
beliefs of millions of web users and large numbers of people using Wiki. I
have been trying to get permission to use a set of pictures for Wiki, but
was turned down. One of the reasons was that the person who has ownership
of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and
took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and
contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an
encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was on
the brink of giving. (And so we lost a set of photographs of world heads of
state and prime ministers.)
So this is not a trivial argument, it is about the respect Wiki shows to ALL
its contributors and ALL its users. Would it be seen as equally trivial or a
'huge improvement' if Cumguzzler had changed his username to a term that
mocked jewish beliefs, agnostic beliefs, feminist beliefs, or that attacked
the culure and values of African-Americans, Hispanics, etc? NPOV should mean
equal respect for all. That includes christians. Either EVERY name, no
matter what the offence caused, is acceptable, or we draw a line and few
serious websites would turn a blind eye to a contributor who deliberately
set out to mock the beliefs of many fellow users. So again, I want to find
out what action Wiki proposes to take about a user who in their username
mocks the central tenet of beliefs of many people on Wiki. His action
remains unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail