Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrucifiedChrist

If a consensus is formed over the next week that this name should be changed, then this action can be carried out by any sysop using the procedure described at Wikipedia:Bans and blocks. Please state below whether you would agree to a forced name change.

This user name is offensive. The user should be required to choose another name. RickK 01:14, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In what way is this name offensive? Are you mormon, or what? Is any religious name wrong? Is hephaestus offending pagans w his name? If thats the case, draw the line, and make it policy. Otherwise, leave this guy alone. Jack 06:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jack, read Wikipedia:No offensive usernames which states Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of religious figures. See also the past cases where a name change has been made at Wikipedia:Changing username. Angela . 06:34, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of these. But that is a reccomendation, not a rule. My advice stands. Create a rule, enforce it uniformly, or leave the guy alone. Its not an inherently offensive name (unless religious names are inherently offensive). Jack 07:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whatever my religion is has no bearing on this. And yes, all religious names are inherently offensive. Note that JesusIsLord was forced to change his name. RickK 02:51, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. Banning all religious names is stupid if not impossible. Many things are considered religious that others would not. Is the mere idea of a different religion offensive nowadays? gracefool 06:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia is no-offense website. I am quite shure people many people will be offended when reading about Masturbation, Gay marriage, and even all the articles originating from the american sensus (because of the 'race' stats). Should they be deleted, forced to change name, forced to change content? ---Dittaeva 08:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Christ was crucified or at least is widely thought to have been crucified, no? IMO, the user name is odd but it is not offensive to me. But that is just me. --mav

My vote goes for following Wikipedia:No offensive usernames. Although he was crucified, it's just offensive. -- user:zanimum

I don't see why it's offensive. How does it offend Christians? How does it offend non-Christians? gracefool 06:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My vote goes for a username change. --Delirium 06:56, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

The user name (intentionally?) distracts from writing a high quality NPOV encyclopedia. I ask that the user choose another name that will not cause offense. Failing that I support a forceful username change. Maximus Re x 07:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First of all, Drolsi Susej né Jesus Is Lord! was not forced to change his name. Instead, he agreed to change his name after discussion with other Wikipedians. Doubtless, the concurrent attempt to force a name change had some effect on the discussion, but there was no decision made, and no precedent set.

Still, as with Drolsi, I'd advise CrucifiedChrist to change their name voluntarily if people are offended. (Since we live in such an "If it's a good idea, then it ought to be required." society, I'd like to stress that wanting CC to change their name and wanting CC to have their name changed are very different things! That should be obvious, but unfortunately, it's not.)

-- Toby Bartels 04:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why this name should not stand. notsnhoj 14 Feb 2004

Note that this is this user's third edit of his/her Wikipedia career. RickK 04:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does that entitle him to any less of an opinion? Could be a sock puppet, but this is a pretty pointless discussion to create sock puppets for. Metasquares

Sock puppets do the darnedest things. You never know what one will be created for next. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 05:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While I realize that CrucifiedChrist is expressing a sincere belief, it is still just a name. Perhaps he could voluntarily choose another name with a similar theme but a less potentially offensive topic? That seems win-win: CrucifiedChrist can express his belief and other Wikipedians aren't offended. Failing that, I still think he is entitled to his expression, and should be allowed to keep his username, with whatever that entails. --Metasquares 05:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He (is CC male?) might well wish to do so -- that's just what Drolsi Susej did. OTOH, I see no reason to think that anybody has been offended at all. On CC's talk page, there's very little discussion (which makes one wonder how the matter ended up here) and no sign of anybody taking offence. I would wait until an issue exists before worrying about it. -- Toby Bartels 05:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The issue does exist. I am offended. I wrote this on his Talk page:

This user name is in violation of Wikipedia:No offensive usernames.

And was told to bring the matter here. RickK 05:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that! See, you never bothered to tell him that yo were offended. In fact, nobody has said that on his user page -- only people saying that it offends someone without specifying who. If I were him, I wouldn't pay much attention to that either. BTW, whoever told you to bring the matter here was mistaken, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is for bringing ongoing debates to the attention of the community when Step Two of Dispute resolution begins. But outside of this very page, there has been almost no debate -- you didn't even link here from User talk:CrucifiedChrist, where the person whose name is at issue can actually see what's going on! The fact is, Step One has barely begun. This is not the time for voting (as many people here seem to think), but for an attempt to talk with CC and resolve matters amicably. -- Toby Bartels 03:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment that this username distracts from the goal of writing an encyclopedia and that this user should change his or her name. Tuf-Kat 05:31, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

The name is reasonably close to the borderline of offensiveness and, in my view, narrowly but clearly on the wrong side of that line. It should be changed. Tannin 06:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think CrucifiedChrist should be given the chance to address these concerns or to volunteer a name change before the change is made forcibly. He hasn't edited in the last few weeks so may not be aware this page even exists yet. Angela . 12:48, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's reasonable to give him an opportunity to make the change of his own free will, and to chose a (non-offensive) new name for himself. Tannin 13:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is political correctness gone wrong. Quit your whining. - Lord Kenneth 05:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned discussion. I suppose you also approve of ThrobbingMonsterCock as a user name? RickK 05:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In sincerely hope you're not equating the username ThrobbingMonsterCock with CrucifiedChrist. sik0fewl 03:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The difference between the two is obvious. If you're offended because it contains the word "crucified", then I suppose you get offended by seeing crosses those silly Christians wear around the neck. If you're offended because it's Christ being crucified, then I would say you are a huge whiner who is desperately in need of help. If someone made an account called "GayJim", "GodIsALie", "JesusHatesYou", etc, I would approve of them. One obviously sexual in nature is generally not accepted by social standards and is made solely to ellicit disgust. You're one of the biggest whiners next to JackLynch...

Oh, and if I could make the rules, I would allow that username.- Lord Kenneth 05:54, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I find this discussion to be deeply offensive, and if I was CC, I would have permanantly left the wiki as soon as I saw it. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Sam Spade 05:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The super-religious fundies try to control everything regarding their religion. No wonder so many consider it to be a mind disease-- a virus of the brain. - Lord Kenneth 05:54, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not even a Christian. Get your facts straight. RickK 06:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say you were. If I recall correctly, you're Jewish. - Lord Kenneth 06:14, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Nope. More like agnostic leaning towards pagan. RickK 23:41, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He told me he was a Maimonidian or something like that Sam Spade 08:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear CrucifiedChrist: I'm not sure your name correctly identifies you. People usually make their names so that others call them and by referring to it, so religious concepts can hardly be considered as names. You can look at Wikipedia:Username for tips about choosing your username. -- Ilya 13:10, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My name distinguishes me from all other users of wikipedia, which is sufficient. I will strive to be open and accepting of your name, opinions, and views - please do the same to me in return. -- CrucifiedChrist

This user name is in violation of Wikipedia:No offensive usernames. -- RickK

In this assertion you are incorrect. No doubt, further self-reflection will reveal this to you. -- CrucifiedChrist

I have looked in the mirror and self-reflected, and agree with my first assessment. You need to change your name. -- RickK

Thank you for continuing to share your opinions with me. -CrucifiedChrist

User, First of all, I do want to say it looks like you've done some nice things here in the last couple of days -- I haven't looked at all the restructuring, and I'm sure there will be a tussle over renaming an established article, but it certainly looks to me as though you are being productive. That's why I'm puzzled that someone who seems like a genuine contributor here is interested in clinging to a name that is likely to offend users here. For instance, usually around here we are referred to by some element of our user name (Hephaestos, to take a random example, is commonly nicknamed Heph). When I went to write this, I realized I couldn't say "Crucified" or "Christ" because both felt uncomfortable for me. Usernames are nothing more than handles. If they cause trouble, I think anyone committed to what we're doing here should be willing to change....not for the voice of one obnoxious user, I admit, but for the sake of a large percentage of the community. Should anyone suggest that my user name is difficult to spell (and therefore a hassle), honestly I wouldn't mind changing at all. The question really is whether you're here to be a contributor, or to spark dissent. I hope it's the former: you have plenty to offer. Many of us here are Christians, and manage to write important articles about aspects of our faith--we do this by not attempting to confront people with our usernames. I hope you will consider changing your name, not because of an attempt to enforce a policy you may or may not agree with, but out of an honest desire to build knowledge about all things (including, if you wish, the faith that you seem committed to). If you disagree, I hope you will reply, and allow us to at least discuss this as peaceably as we can. :) I intend no offense to you, and hope you understand why I am approaching you. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 01:14, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is some discussion of your username occuring at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrucifiedChrist. Currently, a majority of users feel your name should be changed. Are you willing to address the concerns expressed on that page or accept a voluntary name change? Angela . 12:48, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

__

You seriously need to consider changing your User name in order not to offend other Wiki's religious sensibilities. Personally I suspect you may be suffering from a Christ-complex to even dream of such a User persona. C'mon i am sure you are capable of coming up with something more imaginative and less provactive than your present handle, but perhaps you are atempting to provoke debate in the advent of the new film about Christ??Norwikian 13:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page is unnacceptable

This is not a valid use of requests for comment. It must be deleted or moved. Sam Spade 04:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And where do you suggest name changes are discussed then? Wikipedia:Bans and blocks suggests this is the right page to use. Angela . 08:12, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Has he been contacted? What is the sense is jumping ahead of stage 1 and placing him here? Has he ever shared his side in this? Those are my concerns, that this is out of process. Some of the above almost looks like a poll, which would be 3, and all without giving him a fair chance to discuss it. Sam Spade 08:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have contacted him, as I said above. This page is a request for comment, not a poll, and therefore at stage 2 of dispute resolution. There is nothing "out of process" about it. Angela . 21:36, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Turning the other cheek

Today I make the time to finally turn my attention some articles here that fall below the standards of wikipedia and could use some bold edits. Instead, I find myself prevailed upon by those who choose to attack me for my faith instead of my contributions. People, we are here to write an encyclopedia, the edits are what count.

A cursory glance at "recent changes" shows at least three other editors with offensive names, but none of them are receiving this treatment:

EveryKing  - Not my King
Hephaestos - Tribute to a Pagan God
DrunkAsian - An offront to sober Asians

Only those who express faith to Christ are to be persecuted, while the rest left unmolested?

What would Jesus do? He would rise above and prove himself! You may bicker on, but I deign not to prolong this argument. I will use what little time I have to spare to make meaningful edits that prove my value to the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, but I will not spend that time in the arguing fruitlessly here.

Judge me by my contributions, not by your antipathy towards my beliefs. -CrucifiedChrist

I don't think this is motivated by antipathy towards anyone's beliefs. In fact, I don't think anyone knew what your beliefs were until you expressed them. My initial impression was that you were using a very powerful (and to many people, a very precious) Christian symbol in a light-hearted and inappropriate way.

From a Christian perspective, I can't imagine that it is appropriate to use the name of God in your own username. I don't sign myself off as "Jesus Christ" or "YHWH", because I think it is blasphemous. "We preach Christ crucified" says Corinthians; my concern is that many users will think that you are calling yourself Christ crucified. Andrew Yong 10:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user's -User Page, he seems sincere, so doesn't seem to want to offend, but the name seems rather presumptuous. As Andrew Yong says, it implies self-identification. A username like ChristDiedforMySins (not suggesting it--just example) might still be offensive to some people, but avoids the problem of possible blasphemy is some user's eyes. On a broader note, I have a problem with any username that might overshadow the user's edits and become an issue in itself. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't my username imply self-identification as well? I'm also christian, but I don't see this user's username as offensive. --Fibonacci 21:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amazing how much effort some people put into thinking of ways to be offended. I think CC is more entitled to be offended by you than you are to be offended by his username. --Zero 11:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree. --Dittaeva 11:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Me too. --Fibonacci 21:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Sam [Spade] 21:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Echo that. ··gracefool |☺ 00:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Their are actually two separate matters at hand here. One is whether we should be making an effort toward forcing a change. The currently unanimous chorus of noes indicates that the futility of such a consensus has been recognized by most of those who would prefer a change.

The second matter is this name, which puts me in mind of the Reverend Jefferson Fuck Poland, member of the Universal Life Church and founder of the Sexual Freedom League. The members of the SFL took it away from him in fairly short order, perhaps because his choice of name made a major contribution to clarifying his lack of seriousness about doing what they wanted to do (which i'll leave to the readers' imagination).

If this user is given the impression the failure of consensus is any sort of endorsement of that choice it would be another JP, for Just Pathetic, situation. What's in a name? A WP name is just a tool; you can make it a tool for being remembered by yr colleagues for the kind of work you do, as EveryKing would succeed at if more active, and as Hephaestos certainly does, or you can put on some big flashy show that hardly any of your colleagues cares about except to note your annoyance factor. My reaction is that CC isn't here for almost anything that i'm here for; i haven't taken note of any sign of collegiality, but of another JFP. Is the cheek turned toward me the kind i'd kiss? Surely they have their reward.

--Jerzy (t) 14:32, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

I can't see any problem at all with this username. It's not one I would choose personally, true. But it reflects orthodox Christian doctrine and generally accepted historical fact, in polite language. So what's offensive about it? It's POV, certainly, but AFAIK that is not a bar to its use. It's memorable, and I can see why the user likes it. Andrewa 18:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not find the name offensive but rather distracting and giving this user's contribution -especially concerning religion- a less NPOV feel. Therefore, as stated in Wikipedia:No offensive usernames, I suggest this user changes his name. If he does not wish to do so, then I feel it is up to him. I think forcing him to change names is ridiculous, though I do advise him to do it. --Dyss 00:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it suggests POV, but the truth is that he's a Christian and therefore has potential POV in that area. His username is honest. Admitting potential POV is certainly not a bad thing, it makes one more accountable. ··gracefool |☺ 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would DefinitelyNotCrucifiedChrist be an acceptable username? CheeseDreams 19:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)