Stevertigo wrote:
What a silly man you are Edmund. Anyone who looked at the page knows JiL got way more thumbs down --and all the other votes were scattered. You try to say 1.5 actually objected -- when you should have said "took offense" -- big difference. Theres has never been in any voting system that I know of for a process by which people must legitimize their vote somehow in accordance with another subjective standard. Silly Ed.
But there /has/ been policy for offensive usernames that they are to be changed because the /cause offense/. You're right, Ed should have said that only 1.5 "took offense". But it is still significant that this is a small number. (BTW, my position changed from "Don't understand the fuss" to "Abstention" the moment that somebody said that they were personally offended. But I haven't been able to edit the talk page yet. It may change further depending on JiL's responses to attempts to convince him to choose a new name volunatarily; but I haven't been able to read his responses yet.)
-- Toby