User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange

The username "Jesus is Lord!", some claim does not fit Wikipedias policy of no offensive usernames. This page is for voting on whether to force the user to change his/her name to something less inflammatory.

Note: Jimbo wrote on the mailing list: "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." (quoted by Uncle Ed)


 * It's interesting that you mention that since the so-called policy was changed in order to make it possible to ban my username. See . Jesus is Lord! 19:38, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The April revision and others say that "the user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement".JamesDay 15:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Meta-Question: Is there a policy that provides for voting to force name changes? If there is no such policy, then this vote is for naught.
 * I disagree. I think that knowing where a large number of people stand on the issue can help guide in both applying and creating policy. It also helps those in the majority identify those in the minority so they know who to try to convince and what arguments they need to counter. The vote is just a good way to divide of the discussion into "pro" and "con". Taking this vote as binding is folly without rules and restrictions having been made before the voting began. --Nohat 23:15, 2003 Oct 8 (UTC)


 * I'd go even further than that: as I said on the mailing list, consensus beats policy, principle beats consensus. A well informed, broad consensus on a given issue not only overrides pre-existing policy, it forms a precedent on which any further policy should be based. Ideally, forming policy should just be a matter of collating precedents. A vote is a useful means of forming a consensus, since after a vote there is generally a consensus to respect its outcome. -- Tim Starling 11:15, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * In particular, what is the deadline for counting? One week, or what? -- Toby Bartels 22:36, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Fine. Or until Jimbo makes a declaration, whichever comes first. -- Tim Starling 11:15, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to suggest policy so much as to ask what it is. Judging from the tone of your response ("Fine.", rather than "Yep, you guessed right!"), I suppose that there hasn't been. In the absence of previous policy, then, I would suggest (in accordance with what you wrote above) that we achieve consensus before imposing some policy. -- Toby Bartels 01:31, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Discussions about voting rules after voting has started tend to be driven by the issue itself. In the interests of avoiding such unproductive debate, I side with whoever said it first. However, I sincerely hope the issue will be peacefully resolved before the end of voting. A compromise has been suggested on User talk:Jesus is Lord!. -- Tim Starling 01:58, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * This is true; one reason why voting is evil especially when not planned out in advance. And one reason why this vote, which was not planned out in advance, should not considered as anything more binding than an opinion poll. But I definitely agree that the discussion on User talk:Jesus is Lord! is the best route to resolving this; my comments on the process in this page should be interpreted as primarily about principle (which will not be moot even if this page, in the end, is). -- Toby Bartels 03:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

VotingIsEvil (opinion polls aren't so bad)


 * Well, I used to think that opinion polls weren't so bad either, until I read above that there's usually a broad consensus to obey the results of the poll/vote (it's hard to tell the difference until it's interpreted, you know). -- Toby Bartels 01:31, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Another meta-question: So when's the vote on how to count the votes? -- Toby Bartels 01:31, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedians who have reviewed the matter and who choose to abstain from the vote

 * 1) Louis Kyu Won Ryu 17:10, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) ¬ Dori 21:45, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 3) I am mildly offended by this name, about as much as by Jesus fish car adornments, and for much the same reason, cf. Matthew 6:5-6. It would please me not to have to encounter "Jesus is Lord!" underlined in bright blue letters, but it's not about to chase me away from Wikipedia. -- Cyan 22:43, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 4) As someone who affirms the statement in question, I have decided to avoid placing myself in any camp.  I would like to say to the vocal agnostics/atheists that, should one of you choose to edit under the name User:There_is_no_God as Vicki R. suggested, or another such name, I would be the last to tell you to change.  Would I find it irritating?  Yes.  Offensive?  Only under difficult circumstances (i.e., said user makes multiple controversial edits to Christianity or God).  Even then, though, I would recognize that it is my own freely chosen beliefs that cause me to feel this way -- a seperate issue from usernames that prey on racial stereotypes (i.e., that which is not chosen).  It might be that, were I to find you a reasonable person, I would politely and privately ask you to change out of courtesy.  I would not instigate a vote like the one held here.  A personal choice, that, and not one I am asking be enforced.  Hoping this resolves peacefully, Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 5) I am not offended by the name or the use of it, but I would prefer to see a different name used. ( if that makes much sense). I am sure the user has the best of intensions for using the name, but I think that in this venue as user name it  trivalize the meaning of the expression. Smith03 22:19, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC) Moving to abstaining Smith03 23:29, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
 * 6) Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:51, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC) - have no objection to the sentiment, but since I could not defend "Allah Akbar!", "Satan rules!" and "Only Buddha can save you!" as a totally uncontroversial username; maybe "Jesus is my Lord!" would be more felicitous, if he could be persuaded to voluntarily tweak it into a less absolute statement. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:51, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC
 * 7) I think this user should be invited to change his username. Hopefully, he will appreciate that this is a collaborative community where good will is important and compromise is essential, that such a username is distracting, and that he will prefer to attract attention and be valued for the quality of his research, his writing and his editing. -- Viajero 15:51, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 8) Toby Bartels -- Since some people are personally offended, I now know why there is such a fuss. But I will still try to work with JiL on a personal level to convince them that a voluntary name change, along lines JiL will find acceptable, would be a good idea. -- 01:31 (ish), 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedians who have no idea why there is such a fuss

 * 1) Uncle Ed: I didn't see any reasons given along with the votes. Presumably all the "changers" feel that the offensiveness of Jesus Is Lord! as a username is self-evident. Well, it might help if you spell it out.
 * 2) Sam Spade 04:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) I agree with Ed
 * 3) Andrewa: I'd prefer the name changed, I think it's counterproductive. But I think it's a bad thing to force the change. Yes, it's POV, but it shouldn't ever appear in an article, so does that matter?
 * 4) We didn't judge the user BuddhaInside based on name.  And the names are somewhat similar.  We judged the BuddhaInside user based on stirring up controversy on homosexual/heterosexual issues and attempting to drag people into long debates on the letter of the law about relatively trivial things. (a rules lawyer as we used to call them in Role-playing games).  This user will probably be judged in the same way.....based on contributions.Ark30inf 06:25, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't see what the problem could be with names such as "Jesus is Lord!", "Satan is our Saviour!", or "Elvis will Return!". (Think two of those names are still availiable.) If it being a sentence is a problem, maybe "Lord Jesus" or something. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp 07:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 6) zero (Don't any of you cry-babies have any articles to edit? PS: I'm an atheist.)

Allow current name
(formerly called Keep name, changed 11:41, 9 Oct 2003)


 * 1) Jesus is Lord! 07:34, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Evil saltine 07:38, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC) (don't agree with name, but don't find it particularly offensive, maybe i'm just dumb)
 * 3) Vancouverguy 21:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC) - I don't think it's offensive.
 * 4) &mdash;Eloquence 04:46, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC) (NPOV in contributions is far more important than NPOV in names)
 * 5) Anthère agree with Erik
 * 6) Jiang 23:02, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC) (why the fuss? this is a waste of time)
 * 7) Mkmcconn 14:29, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) (There are many threatening, ironic, silly, and irreverent names.  Regrettably, this user claims to be a Christian and yet appears not to remember that there are inappropriate uses for precious things, and troll-like seems to be basking in the trouble stirred up.  I had assumed that the name was intended to manipulate other editors to contradict edits made, prejudicially - and if that's true, it's irritating.  HOWEVER, this is not profanity, and is not the sort of thing ordinarily called "offensive".  The user should be the one to request a name change, in this case.)
 * 8) LDan (What's the big deal? So he's christian, so what?)
 * I think the people who wonder why there's such a big fuss about this vote to allow the current name rather than abstaining. Three more numbers are below for them.


 * 1) Jesus_blows_goats I think I should be allowed to have my "Jesus_blows_goats" name and this user should be allowed to have his "Jesus_is_Lord!" name, because censoring this widens into a very messy area if we simply change them to be expressed in other languages, or in coded, less obvious forms.

Force name change
(formerly called Change name, changed 11:41, 9 Oct 2003 - the first eighteen people listed below do not necessarilly agree with forcing a name change)


 * 1) &#25140;&#30505sv 07:32, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * 1) Tuf-Kat 07:40, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Tim Starling 07:41, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * 3) mav No He ain't.
 * 4) Yes, he is! And so is the Rev! Rev. Moon is the Messiah!
 * 5) * This vote should not count; RMitM is a very new username created for the sole purpose of making fun of JiL, not for working on Wikipedia. (All edits as of this writing, even to Wikipedia articles, either make fun of JiL or of Ed Poor, our resident Unificationist.)
 * 6) Hephaestos 08:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 7) * Be careful. Is YOUR user name on any safer ground?
 * 8) ** No - his name does not make an affirmative political, religious or other controversial statement. --mav
 * 9) *** Hmm. So JesusChrist would be acceptable?
 * 10) ****I'll just say for the record that if a group of people who aren't trolls gather and want me to change my handle, I'll do so. - Hephaestos 04:51, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 11) ****Impersonating a deity which currently has many followers is not acceptable. JamesDay 05:55, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 12) *****So FlyingSpaghettiMonster would not be OK? DomenicDenicola 2005-11-07
 * 13) Fonzy (I thought "God" was the Lord?)
 * 14) John Owens 09:02, 2003 Oct 8 (UTC) - IMNSHO, neither/nor ain't.
 * 15) Paige 17:05, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC) - How about a "no complete sentences for names" rule?  (BTW if this name stays can I be User:Who_left_that_there? or User:Girls_are_so_much_cooler_than_boys! ?)
 * 16) * You could have User:Girls are cool (if this name was something like User:Jesus is so much cooler than Brahma I would vote to change, but it's not) Evil saltine 23:44, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 17) (personally offended) I agree that this user is probably someone who created the name with the purpose of stirring everyone up, and it worked. In fact, getting Wikipedians to get into heated arguments over minuatiae is so easy, I can understand the temptation to engage in this kind of mischief. But JiL, even though you have already won your little game, don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back. Inciting controversy on Wikipedia is like shooting fish in a barrel. Why don't you think about why you're wasting everyone's time with this nonsense and just change your name or go back to being whoever you were before. It amazes me how the anonymity of the Internet makes people act like fifth graders... -- Nohat 23:15, 2003 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * 18) Flockmeal 19:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 19) Angela. I don't find it offensive, but I can understand others might, which is why it should change.
 * 20) * Is there any voter here that doesn't fall under this category? That is, is anybody personally offended, or are people simply trying to apply the NOU policy with an eye towards hypothetical offended people? (Please state "personally offended" by your vote if you don't mind; this will help me in my own decision.) -- Toby Bartels 22:09, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 21) Wikipedia relies on freedom of speech, but states quite clearly that there must be attempts for NPOV. NPOV efforts should apply to screen-names as well, because screen-names appear in places other users frequent (namely article histories, and recent changes, etc.) NPOV is simply wikipedia etiquette. Although I am not offended by the user-name in question *and* I fully support free expression, I feel the user should consider a less POV user-name, and instead use his/her user page for such expression. User pages are the proper arena for POV; this is partly because other users are never forced to view user pages. Kingturtle 22:34, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 22) * The NPOV policy was designed for encyclopaedia articles, not for usernames. It extends easily to textbooks, dictionary entries, and other nonfiction works, but it doesn't apply to personal statements. This has nothing to do with what people are forced to view, but instead with what Wikipedia, as opposed to an individual user, is claiming. That's why it not only doesn't apply to user pages but also to talk pages -- because these are the opinions of individuals, not of Wikipedia. While I agree that JiL would do well to voluntarily change their name in order to avoid offending other Wikipedians, this is not an application of NPOV. -- Toby Bartels 22:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 23) * The reason why offensive usernames aren't allowed isn't because of NPOV - it's because having offensive usernames show up on "Recent changes" and in Page histories damages Wikipedia's reputation as an authoritative (and serious) source of information. Is the username "Jesus is Lord!" offensive enough to meet that standard? I... have to say I don't think so. Therefore I have changed my vote. What does Stevertigo think? -- Cyan 22:55, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 24) The statement the name consists of is false to most people on the planet and most religions. Having a false statement in article histories is undesirable for a work which seeks to be authoritative. It's also offensive to those of strong contrary religious beliefs. JamesDay 05:55, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 25) * Just because most people believe it's false doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed as a user name. User names aren't like articles, they're just handles to the people editing.
 * 26) ** As the April revision of the user name guidance says, the user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement. This name appears to have both purposes and to have succeeded at both. JamesDay 15:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 27) I'd prefer that JisL chose a more appropriate name. I am not personally offended, but I do feel that J-is-L is inappropriate. However, I do not vote for (or against) an enforced name change. Martin 11:12, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 28) I am irritated by the name, more than offended--it causes me to want to create the login User:There is no God and start editing with that. Each is a POV statement of a religious position, and doesn't, in my opinion, belong in the list of recent changes. Vicki Rosenzweig 12:25, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 29) * The name, User:There is no God, even like the much subtler User:Fairandbalanced, and other ironic or polemical names, are designed to provoke prejudicial reactions.  They are irritating, as they are meant to be. They are tares in a wheat field (if you'll pardon the loose reference) which are designed to tempt other editors toward rash, destructive action in order to make a point.  Wikipedia (probably) must tolerate most of these trolls, because their edit history shows that they are beneficial users, and counsel others not to allow these provocations to draw them into vandal behavior.  Mkmcconn 16:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 30) Personally offended and I very much dubt the user can make NPOV edits. Liftarn 09:49, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 31) * This is a dangerous assumption. We are discussing a name change, not a ban on a user. Mkmcconn 16:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 32) Change it. -- Schnee 15:43, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 33) Policy is clear. Change the name. FearÉIREANN 19:42, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 34) Usernames are not a forum for making a statement. DanKeshet 20:37, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * 35) The fact that some people are bothered by it should be enough of a motivation for the user to change it. Why provoke people, no matter how few or how many? Change it. Danny 12:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Other comments
It appears that someone else has a very similar user name, User:Jesus is Lord. They have not, to my knowledge, been told to change their user name. There is also a user named Jesus (User:Ihcoyc) in Greek. When you apply your anti-religious bias you could at least do so uniformly. Is making an affirmation about Jesus worse than claiming to be Jesus (as User:Ihcoyc does)? I would say certainly not! Jesus is Lord! 19:24, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * User:Jesus is Lord has not made an edit since Sept 15 and only made about a dozen total edits. Your user name, however, is all over Recent Changes and now is in the history of many articles. It is also the fact that your user name makes an affirmative statement that is the issue. The other examples you point out do not do that. --mav 19:31, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree-- Mav put it quite well earlier-- "Jesus is Lord!" is a POV statement-- its doesnt work if were trying to emphasize NPOV. Is this user still using the name or has he changed it?&#25140;&#30505sv

There is also a certain user named User:Jesus Saves! whose only contribution (made today) is to his user page. Same person? ¬ Dori 21:45, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is also a User:CrucifiedChrist. Adam Bishop 22:38, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I think the name should be changed out of respect for the project. Imagine someone looking up an article on Wikipedia, then trying to tell someone else that this project works at creating neutral articles when the authors use names like "Jesus Is Lord!" This is the same reason I changed my username. I would not respect an article written by someone who can't even be bothered to choose a handle that does not imply a strongly-held POV. Tuf-Kat 04:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

I took note of the usernames used on Wikipedia and here are some that might be considered "offensive", "inflammatory", or whatever you like to call it when you don't like someone's usernames. As far as I know, they have not been harassed to change their usernames (with the exception of "Retard").
 * User:GayCommunist - I'm pretty sure this will offend someone. It seems, according to their page, that this name was chosen to be intentionally shocking.
 * User:CapnToke - The username is a reference to drug use.
 * User:I am Jack's username - This username is a sentence, some people have indicated that usernames should not be sentences.
 * I registered a new username after Ed Poor asked me. While my old username (based on the film Fight Club) went over very well with other sites, I understand that for an NPOV encyclopedia it doesn't. It could've caused meta confusion. Now I'm wondering if people'll have a problem with the acute in my current username (which is my real name). - Jeandré, previously I am Jack's username, 2004-04-08t16:16z


 * User:She Who Must Be Obeyed -This one is also a sentence, a command actually.
 * Antonio Sex Party Martin - Although their user name is "AntonioMartin" they sign with the various middle names such as "Sex Party", "Confirmed Bi", "El Sexymeter", "Bestial One", "Orgy", "Sexually Graphic" among many others. Perhaps some of these will offend someone?
 * User:Retard The name is offensive, the topic was discussed, but nothing came of the discussion.

- Jesus is Lord! 05:57, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Fine--we will tinker with those names too. In the meantime, log off your username. Im announcing my intention to block you, if you dont comply with the request. Im not saying when--Im' just giving you fair warning. Wikilove be upon you and your progeny.&#25140;&#30505sv 06:20, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The name She Who Must Be Obeyed is, I think, a reference to the character Ayesha in an H. Rider Haggard novel and not a directive.Ark30inf 06:25, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I've heard that, and was surprised that it does have support. I thought "everybody" knew that She who must be obeyed is from the Horace Rumpole tales, by John Mortimer.  Rumpole is a henpecked barrister; his wife Hilda is known to him (alone) as She Who Must Be Obeyed. Mkmcconn 03:46, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I think Mortimer's character is comparing his wife to Haggard's Ayesha.Ark30inf 20:22, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I thought his/her name would just be changed. What gives you the right to block this person if they don't log off? Evil saltine 06:28, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Steve gives Steve the right to block whoever he wants, apparently. As far as I'm concerned, blocking logged in users is Jimbo's prerogative, except in cases of simple vandalism. If this user were blocked, I'd unblock him/her at the earliest opportunity. -- Tim Starling 10:29, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * Steve thinks "that the community has spoken"-- if the user continues to use a name in contradiction to the vote of the tribe-- someone ought to enforce that.  Steve thinks it is flaw of developers (as exemplified by Ed's recent Freudian slip on-list) that they in fact have greater authority, in line with their greater abilities. Steve thinks this is not the case, in fact, Steve thinks (judging by Tim's perhaps extreme caution to enforce this issue here) that Tim knows full well the problems inherent to abusing powers.  Steve need to point out that there is also a liability when it choses to defer judgement in these areas to developers, given that developers may tend to act with caution rather than action, or develop behaviours based on a taking of their abilities for granted.  Steve would like to add that Steve has high regard for Jimbo and Tim, as well as the other esteemed people with developer-level access on this great and wonderful web site-- Steve simply is pointing out a contradiction involving policies in action.  That said, Steve would like to retract his threat that he block Jesus is Lord-- Steve will abstain from any action, leaving it to a sysop (or developer) when and if they ever choose to act to enforce long-standing community policy. Respectfully, Steve

To respond to JisL, user:Retard's name was not changed because sie left, so the problem went away - the same applies to user:Fuck You, for example. If JisL leaves Wikipedia then in all likelihood the same will apply.

Regards AntonioMartin, if you dislike any of his signatures, you are free to edit them to be simply "AntonioMartin". I've done that myself on a few occasions, though out of irritaion rather than offence. In general, people are more concerned about inappropriate usernames than inappropriate signatures.

In response to, for example, "CapnToke", these names apparently haven't caused sufficient offence amongst sufficient numbers of people for the issue to arise. Offence is a very subjective thing. Hope this helps. Martin 11:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hope some sort of policy emerges from this. I agree with Martin that it's not so much the signatures -- which appear only on talk pages -- as the usernames -- which show up on Recent Changes.

At a glance, a user name which makes a statement like "Hackers have small dicks!" or "Hatemongers suck!" would appear be slipping in some POV with the excuse of "Hey, it's just a user name".

On the other hand, Jesus is Lord! is such a commonplace slogan that I'm not going to get worried about it. Not, of course, unless I start seeing some complaints from users who don't fear that someone might be offending, but who actually and convincingly register some feelings of being offended.

I think there's a difference between throbbing monster cock, who was only a troll pushing the bounds of what constitutes a permissible username, and JesusIsLord! -- but *sigh* I guess we'll see.

The reason I sigh is that it takes about 15 minutes of careful work in the database to change someone's username. SQL is tricky, and there's no "undo" button if you screw up. --Uncle Ed 14:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take 15 minutes of careful work, it takes less than a minute. I've done this 4 times now, and I've got it all nicely set up. I've got an SQL file where you just edit a couple of user variables and then run it. I was very nervous about wreaking havoc and destruction the first time I tried it, but I'm pretty relaxed about it now. The SQL file is pliny:/home/tstarling/changeuser.sql, group readable. The cases where it was used were User:SH, User:H.J., User:John Kenney and User:Adam Carr. -- Tim Starling 15:38, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's people like you who take all the fun out of being mean an' ornery. ;-) --Uncle Ed

I've created a page for information, requests and history of name changing at Changing username. -- Tim Starling 02:13, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)