SV wrote:
Jesus is Lord! needs a name change-- the WP:NOU policy was designed for User:THROBBING MONSTER.. and really should be renamed as something like no controversial usernames, or no inflammatory usernames.
The use of Jesus in a name is designed to be inflammatory.
I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christinans and atheists.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christinans and atheists.
But this means renaming WP:NOU to WP:NIU -- Ill get a start on the policy rewrite, and then go to bed. Yawn.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
[Sent both to wikiEN-l and directly to mav.]
Maveric149 wrote:
SV wrote:
Jesus is Lord! needs a name change--
I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christians and atheists.
Does this mean that [[User:GayCommunist]] is offensive as well? Or is it because [[User:Jesus is Lord!]] makes a direct claim, so that [[User:Subject of Lord Jesus]] would be fine?
I am both a non-Christian and an atheist, and this username does not offend me in the slightest. But changing it to [[User:Subject of Lord Jesus]], if preferable to you, might still be a wise move on this user's part for the sake of good relations (in accordance with Paul's excellent ideas in Romans 14).
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Maveric149 wrote:
SV wrote:
Jesus is Lord! needs a name change--
I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christians and atheists.
Does this mean that [[User:GayCommunist]] is offensive as well? Or is it because [[User:Jesus is Lord!]] makes a direct claim, so that [[User:Subject of Lord Jesus]] would be fine?
I am both a non-Christian and an atheist, and this username does not offend me in the slightest. But changing it to [[User:Subject of Lord Jesus]], if preferable to you, might still be a wise move on this user's part for the sake of good relations (in accordance with Paul's excellent ideas in Romans 14).
I have a high level of tolerance for the names that people choose. For these Jesus-related names let's hope that that individual realizes that people who see that name attached to an edit will presume that he is injecting some kind of Christian bias, and scrutinize his contributions more carefully.
Ec
What's our exact policy on this? I'd be happy to issue a ruling, but I'd prefer to stick with exact precedent. But I don't remember what that is.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
What's our exact policy on this? I'd be happy to issue a ruling, but I'd prefer to stick with exact precedent. But I don't remember what that is.
--Jimbo
We don't have an exact policy. [[Wikipedia:Username]] is a good start, but it's probably best to look at the revision before SV changed it in response to this debate, in order to make this particular case a more clear-cut violation. Although there's no exact policy, there is a broad consensus, which IMHO trumps policy every time. Consensus beats policy, principle beats consensus.
After TMC, there was a broad consensus that "offensive usernames" should not be allowed. I interpreted this to mean offensive to a significant minority, rather than offensive to the majority of people.
In the SH case and in this case, it was clear that most people are interpreting the policy in a similar way. Although people who openly say that they are personally offended by a given name are rare, a majority in each case wanted the name changed. I was not at all offended personally by SH, but I changed the name out of respect for those who were offended.
My own personal opinion is that people who are not offended by a particular name, and can see no reason why anyone else should be offended, should abstain from voting, unless they have some other reason why they believe the name is acceptable or unacceptable. That's their choice, though.
In the SH case there was no formal vote, but a head count of opinions expressed played the same role.
-- Tim Starling.
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
[Sent both to wikiEN-l and directly to mav.]
Does this mean that [[User:GayCommunist]] is offensive as well?
Not to me. Although user:GayCommunist was neither gay nor a communist if I recall... He did it more or less for shock value, which may form cause for a name change.
Or is it because [[User:Jesus is Lord!]] makes a direct claim, so that [[User:Subject of Lord Jesus]]
would be fine?
Bingo! It is a bad idea to allow bumper sticker messages as user names.
--mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
[Sent both to wikiEN-l and directly to mav.]
Does this mean that [[User:GayCommunist]] is offensive as well?
Not to me. Although user:GayCommunist was neither gay nor a communist if I recall... He did it more or less for shock value, which may form cause for a name change.
Or is it because [[User:Jesus is Lord!]] makes a direct claim, so that [[User:Subject of Lord
Jesus]]
would be fine?
Bingo! It is a bad idea to allow bumper sticker messages as user names.
--mav
That sounds completely arbitrary. I think all usernames should be allowed. How do usernames affect our development as an encyclopedia? LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
That sounds completely arbitrary. I think all usernames should be allowed. How do usernames affect our development as an encyclopedia?
Usernames give an impression of our community to outsiders. and usernames can affect how we perceive and treat each other.
We strive to be inclusive and neutral. We strive for an atmosphere of helpfulness towards each other, an atmosphere where good deeds and respect are the norm. We strive for an atmosphere of intellectual seriousness and fun.
Without referencing any of the specific examples that have been given thus far, I think it is fairly clear that some names can undermine those goals. Names that are hateful, or that are designed to shock others, or that are overtly ideological can be obstacles to understanding each other, and to recruiting others to our grand mission.
The rule, though, cannot just be "if this name could conceivably offend someone". That rule has been adequately lampooned here by a number of people. The truth is, for any name, it is possible to envision _someone_ who would be offended by it.
There are easy cases that we can all agree are wrong, I think. Usernames that are purely and simply expressions of racial slurs would fall into that category.
And there are harder cases. JesusIsLove is overtly ideological, overtly religious. But it isn't something that's _offensive_ really, even to people who don't agree with it. Still, I think such names should be discouraged as ideological.
But the difficulty of the issue doesn't mean that we have to accept either of (a) let everything go OR (b) have a regime of hypersensitive tyrannical policing of every little thing that people do.
A policy of kindness, benevolence, common sense, etc. can do a lot.
--Jimbo