User talk:Jebus Christ

I suggest you change your Wikipedia:Username. Secretlondon 13:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nah won't be doin that.

Block

Your username has been blocked as inappropriate, in line with our blocking policy. You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See wikipedia:username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. Alternatively, edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing namechanges, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible - if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation to them - see wikipedia:list of administrators.

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username. This can only be done before you create the new one.

— Trilobite (Talk) 17:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how my username has offended wikipedia policy? Jebus is a humerous term used to television shows such as the Simpsons and the family guy and it has other origins. See the Jebus article. It is not a trademark nor copywrited material. Jebus Christ 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neologisms_on_The_Simpsons#Jebus Jebus Christ 11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this, has rather undermined my faith in Wikipedia. Banning a name like JebusChrist reflects highly undesirable charecteristics in an open encyclopaedia. Is there any way to refer this matter to some body such as the arbitration committee? Loom91 10:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I chose this username

Just thought i'd take the time to explain this. There isn't a whole lot to explain really. I found it funny when homer simpson used the term in the television show The Simpsons. Prior to entering Wikipedia I used the same username in Dr Karl's self service science form and Tech Talk (where the moderators have never seeked to block it). This username says a lot about my sense of humour and character. I view choosing this user name as a form of self expression. Jimididit 12:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Petition to reinstate this username

If you believe this username should never have been blocked, please sign this petition to have it reinstated. All those undersigned appeal to the administrators of wikipedia to unblock this username. We also send a message to the administrator User:Trilobite that you have NOT acted in accordance with the Wikipedia username policy by blocking this username and furthermore the act of blocking this username is contrary to everything wikipedia stands for.

User: Jebus Christ 18 March 2006 02:34 GMT

As someone opposed to censorship in its all forms and incarnations, I sign this petition. Loom91 08:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is akin to someone removing an image from an article because it offends them, except more trivial --Paul 03:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

why there censorship on names while other things no ?? I think some admins using only what they like of wikipedia policy and at the time they want & against the people they chooes and one of these admins is Secretlondon sorry of your bad luck Jebus Christ. Qatarson 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd that you cannot be called Jebus Christ if you want to. Sure I understand it offends many people, but it is not a banal word in any way and the offense comes from personal beliefs, which while I feel they should be respected, I think that this in no way offends them because you are not asking for others to be called something offensive. If you wish to be referred to as this, than that is your choice and you are the one who is going to rot in hell. Good luck with getting it removed.--Licinius 11:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This username should be reinstated.Tancred 11:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The name is open to interpretation anyway, it may or may not refer to Jesus Christ. If homer was allowed to use it on the Simpsons, it should be allowed on wikipedia. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know this user but I'm against abuse of administrator privelages. - Diceman 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As with others, I've just happened across this page, and yes it is ridiculous that his user name has been blocked. I appreciate why some people might disapprove but lighten up. Nobody is attacking anyones beliefs with it, it's just a gag from the Simpsons! It is trivial. Starfighter Pilot 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggested you changed your user name - I didn't block you. Secretlondon 19:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrator privileges should be revoked and the name reinstated. --Executive.koala 10:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Whoever it is that can't handle the name needs to lighten up. "Save me Jebus!" I've also just had a quick look at the page dealing with Wikipedia's policy on usernames and I can't see where it says that your name can be blocked based on religious grounds. Have they properly explained to you why exactly it was taken and on what exact grounds? It says something about being careful not to offend anyone but I cant see how anyone could be offended by this. It's not attacking Jesus, nor is it an exact copy of his name. Just my two cents. Wilko29 12:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The only explanation i've received for the blockage is this... 'This user was blocked in accordance with our username policy. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)' Jebus Christ 17:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The username policy is there so we can all work happily together. If people are offended by your username, you're not helping the project. Which is more important really - your username (is "Jebus Christ" really that great?) or Wikipedia? See WP:NOT. Stevage 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point us to the part of the username policy that this username violates. I can't find it. Jebus Christ 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A section for those who oppose the reinstatement

The original block was appropriate. Anything that looks at first glance like "Jesus Christ" is probably inappropriate, and can thus be blocked under the blocking policy and the username policy. I'm also a little uncertain about your decision to use this talk page and userpage. It could be construed as disruption, and is certainly unlikely to persuade an administrator to unblock the user.

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that your conduct, and choice of username, will reflect on public perception of the quality of the product. You can call yourself anything you like in some communities, but the sole and defining purpose of this community is the production of the encyclopedia. It isn't the place to come to play games. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I notice that, in the source of campaigning for your petition, you have propagated numerous personal attacks on another editor [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I understand that you are upset at having your username blocked, and if you want to have this decision overturned you should of course feel free to seek to do so , but please do not make such attacks on other editors. Personal attacks not permitted, and if repeated over a time after warning, may result in your being blocked. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

Just a question. What exactly constitutes a personal attack? I didn't say anything that wasn't true and the point I was trying to make is that the username blockage was inconsistent with that editor's other behaviour. If you think I could have gone about this in a better way i'd like to hear your opinion in the matter.

Jebus Christ 14:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have played no part in your blocking. Secretlondon 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Secretlondon, if you played no part in my blocking I apologise sincerely. I assumed it was your doing because I was blocked very soon after posting to your user page my intention to not change my username. It may well have been a coincidence. Jebus Christ 20:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, "What exactly constitutes a personal attack?", the point at which I judged there to have been a personal attack was when you made many edits on different pages, mostly if not all in the talk and user talk namespaces, all focusing on the words and behavior of a named editor, strongly suggesting that he had behaved in a hypocritical manner. It seemed to me, and still now seems to me, that in the course of pursuing your understandable goal of trying to regain your blocked username, you had singled out one person for denigration.

Even if that person had been the one who blocked you, it would still have been a personal attack. It's one thing to say that you disagree with a person's activities, quite another to suggest that he's a hypocrite. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

An Apology to Secretlondon

I had assumed that secretlondon had made a request for me to be blocked. This assumption was made because I was blocked very shortly after posting to secretlodon's user page (I didn't understand at the time that you're not supposed to put comments on a person's user page) my intention to not change my username. Trilobite may well have been passing through, saw what he interpreted as vandalism to secretlondon's userpage and followed through by blocking my username (not for vandalism though, for having an inapropriate unsername).

Secretlondon I apologise sincerely. I'd make the apology to your user page but this is the only page I can edit right now.

Jebus Christ 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. You were liable to be blocked when any admin saw your name in recent changes. I tell people first - many other admins just block. I can block users myself (and forceably rename come to that) so I certainly don't need to make requests through other admins. Plenty of names denigrating Islam have been blocked for what it's worth. Secretlondon 08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I still want this username reinstated though. Jebus Christ 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have positive contributions to make, please find a different name and use it. This one is just far too likely to be seen as offensive to many people. Jonathunder 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jonathunder. Some people will find the name offensive. Find another username and move on. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because a bunch of idiots may be offended by a username is no reason for rational people to block it. I'm highly offended by highly-educated and sane people who support censorship, but that's no reason to block them. It is not possible to block everything that anyone may be offended by, and blocking only some of these represents an unfair POV (not to mention contrary to WP:NPOV). Please give back the guy his username. Loom91 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play games of free speech. If a name is likely to offend a significant number of people, then we will block it because we want those people, who we don't think are idiots simply because they have views that may differ from our own, to feel offended and unwanted. Jimididit is welcome to edit using his current username, and he can also apply to have his old contributions moved to his new account. There is nothing that he can do with an account called Jimididit that he could do more effectively with an account called Jebus Christ, except offend or annoy other editors. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that it might offend people by the name Jimi, Jim or James and that it will offend anyone with strong views in favour of free speech. I personally don't consdider freedom of speech to be a game and I certainly don't agree that it has no place in an encycopedia. Jebus Christ 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If your new username turns out to be offensive to significant numbers of people, we'll deal with that when it happens. I don't see how your choice username "jimididit" could possibly offend anyone interested in free speeech; that just doesn't make sense. I absolutely agree that free speech isn't a game; that's why I find the game-playing here in somewhat poor taste. Free speech doesn't mean you get a free choice of username on somebody else's website. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it mean anything that I didn't receive one single complaint about my username? Does it mean anything that not one person has expressed to me that they were offended by my username? On what basis are you assuming that significant number of people will be offended by this username? With regards to the username jimididit offending free speech enthusiasts, it's not the username that would offend them but rather the act of caving in to censorship and changing my username. There's a significant number of contributors to this debate who have expressed oposition to this username blockage. This is tantamount to taking offence to the censorship of this username. Jebus Christ 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly means something that you're still falsely claiming that you got no complaints when one editor advised you, twelve minutes after your first edit on the wiki, to change your name, and another editor went so far as to block your user. If that isn't enough of a complaint, also count in Jonathunder's and my own.

In advising you to continue using "jimididit", I'm not caving into censorship, just telling you that "Jebus Christ" is not considered a suitable username on Wikipedia. There isn't any rule on Wikipedia against taking actions that offend people who see the actions as censorship--indeed every vandalism block, every page protection, and every rollback made on Wikipedia is an act of censorship when viewed from a certain slant and in my experience there will always be someone who is prepared to take offence at each such action. However those actions, just as your username block, are taken in execution of Wikipedia's policies.

If you want to change these policies, please go to Wikipedia:Username and see if you can get consensus for the change. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actaully Secretlondon has stated that s/he is not offended by this username. And so far, that is until it suited you to, you had not claimed to be offended by it. Your claims were that others will be offended. An admin advised me to change my username. To equate this to a complaint from a person who took offence to my username is a falacious argument at best. There is no need to change current wikipedia username policy because there is nothing in the current policy to suggest that this username is unsuitable.Jebus Christ 16:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was editing pages under this username for a whole month, without any complaints of anyone taking offence, before it was blocked without warning, discussion or a valid explanation from Trilobite. Jebus Christ 16:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're engaging in wikilawyering now. I point out that two people took issue with your username and one went to the extent of blocking it, but you grasp at straws, saying one of them said he wasn't "offended" by it. Well clearly he thought it otherwise unsuitable. You edited, I repeated, for all of twelve minutes before he advised you to change the name. You had a month to change it and did not do so. So stop saying that you didn't get any complaints when the whole issue is that you did, in fact, get two complaints, one of which was a summary blocking--you can't really get much more forthright than that. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm clutching at straws? Have another look at secretlondon's comment (it's at the top of this page). Then go to her user talk where s/he has stated that s/he is not offended by it. As secretlondon has stated many times, this was a warning that someone might decide to block my username. I was editing hapily for a month. The fact that I was blocked 12 mins after my final edit is neither here nor there and I don't know what you hope to achieve by using it in your argument. Trilobite blocked me without providing a specific reason. For all I know, like you, he had assumed someone else might take offence. I can't really speculate whether or not he took offence or whether his act of blocking should be treated as a personal complaint. Despite multiple requests You have FAILED to point out where the username policy says I can't have this username.

I have had no complaints and I have not been provided with a valid reason for the blockage. Jebus Christ 09:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I said. You were warned that your username was unsuitable twelve minutes after your first ever edit in that name. Not "blocked after twelve minutes after your last" as you seem to think I was saying. As for policy, Wikipedia:Username explicitly states that potentially inflammatory usernames are not permitted. Just accept it and move on. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Great. That's progress. You believe the username Jebus Christ is potentially inflamatory. Please can you explain your basis for thinking this username is potentially inflamatory. Jimididit 12:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents on Jebus's username

Usernames with religious (or political) references should only be blocked if:

1. The username serves to impersonate a god (or politician). 2. The username serves to attack or insult a religion (or politician).

I don't think this user has done either. He has even clarified the source of his username. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we do have an actual policy on usernames, and it doesn't say what you suggest. I think we're victims of our own success. Our user population has just about doubled in the past year, and people are coming here expecting it to be a bit like Live journal or Myspace. It isn't, it's an encyclopedia and the community exists solely to support the encyclopedia and for absolutely no other purpose. For those who find that fact irritating, well those forums do still exist and nobody can tell you not to go and subscribe to them. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there is an official policy on usernames, I suggest you copy and paste (and link to) the relevant section of the policy that details this user's offences. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The user himself has done so. See below. --Tony Sidaway 10:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Username Policy - 'Inappropriate Usernames' section

'Show me where this says I can't have this username...' Sorry about the formatting but I can't edit the page to view the correct formatting. It might be easier to read here Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames

Inappropriate usernames include both clear and masked names. Wikipedia does not allow certain usernames, including the following:

No confusing or misleading usernames, eg:

Names that can be confused with other contributors. (If someone else is using a nickname that you wish to use, please consider using your real name or an alternative pseudonym instead. In the unlikely event that someone else is editing Wikipedia with your real name, please add a middle name or some other way of distinguishing between you and the existing contributor) Names that include commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or imply an official position on Wikipedia. Prohibited username components include, but are not limited to words resembling the following: "Administrator" or "Admin", "Rollback" or "Revert", "Edit war", "POV", etc. "Delete", "Upload", "Pagemove", "Redirect", or other editing processes or abstractions. "Bot", "Robot", "Script", "Initialize", "Automated", "Daemon", etc., unless the name is intended as a designated bot account. Any visible toolbar buttons, namespaces, or other technical terms which may be confusing to inexperienced users or otherwise imply a capacity other than that of a normal user. Also, beware that the letters capital i and lower case L, and the numeral 1 look exactly the same (I/l/1) in certain fonts, as do upper/lower case O and the numeral 0 (O/o/0). This should be taken into account, and creative use of one in place of the other (I where L would be expected and vice versa) is discouraged, given its past misuse. An infamous example of a user who had an alias that did this was Willy on Wheels. Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that were perceived as impersonation attempts on present users, or gave the impression of being "official".

No inflammatory usernames Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Names that promote or imply hatred
• Names that are recognised as slurs
• Names that refer to symbols of hatred, including historical figures who are widely associated with such
• Names that refer to sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre
• Names that promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions
• Names that are scatological or pornographic
• Names that contain profanity, obscenities, or other potentially offensive language

Misspellings, or spellings of the above with "cr34+1v3 sub5717u710nz" (creative substitutions) Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers, such as "ZJUn5XDLfqSve6yO", "R852783459b", or "asdfjjjjjjjk". No harassing or defamatory usernames: Harassment and defamation is in any case inappropriate on Wikipedia. Further, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia. Nor should usernames divulge the personal information of other users. This can include parts of a name formatted similarly to a telephone number or social security number.

Avoid non-Latin characters. Most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will be additionally burdened, as such names will be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??") or squares ("□□□ □□"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar. However, you may use other alphabets as alternate link text in your signature.

Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.

No usernames that closely resemble notorious Wikipedians' usernames. Willy on Wheels, MARMOT, Jake Remington, MilkMan and Wikipedia is Communism are considered to be the most infamous usernames. Any username based on these or significantly similar to them (EG. Contains "Willy", "Wheels/On Wheels" or "Communism/ist") will likely be blocked as soon as it is seen. Generally, such names are difficult to choose accidentally, but if you are concerned, click on the names above to see a list of names they have used.