I think the standard on user names should be:
"Anyone can call themselves anything, until and unless several people say that it offends them."
By that standard, TMC had to be changed. But JisL has only 1.5 objectors so far: one says they're offended (after I SOUGHT a list of offended people), and the other says they slightly or mildly offended. That's no consensus.
Much ado about nothing.
Ed Poor
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.
~S~ Le tribe hast spokenst
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote: I think the standard on user names should be:
"Anyone can call themselves anything, until and unless several people say that it offends them."
By that standard, TMC had to be changed. But JisL has only 1.5 objectors so far: one says they're offended (after I SOUGHT a list of offended people), and the other says they slightly or mildly offended. That's no consensus.
Much ado about nothing.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
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
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
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.)
What do his responses have to do with your opinion on the merits of the name? I would agree with those who caution that the issue should be separate from behaviour. Tim pointed this particularly important bug out to me. Part of maintaining a consistent policy is abstaining from the sideissues -- Just vote on the merits of the name, dagummit thats it.
The real problem issue I see is with the tacit deferment of action on these matters to developers-- like Tim, who's mostly used his conversion script for non-inflammatory changes, and seems a little tender about just getting it over with. This shouldnt be a big deal -- ideally we want people to agree to a change, but barring that, its a conflict between the consensus and the ego of one person. Are sysops *not to enforce a nay vote on a username, always defering to a developer? This puts developers in a bind, because in order for them to make a decision they seem to think they need to get involved. They dont-- they just need to do the bidding of the community.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
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.)
What do his responses have to do with your opinion on the merits of the name? I would agree with those who caution that the issue should be separate from behaviour. Tim pointed this particularly important bug out to me. Part of maintaining a consistent policy is abstaining from the sideissues -- Just vote on the merits of the name, dagummit thats it.
If JiL asks for a change of name, then you've won. You have been arguing all along that the name should be changed to something more appropriate, and that's exactly what will occur if JiL gives in. The only difference is that it won't be controversial, which as far as I'm concerned is a good thing.
The real problem issue I see is with the tacit deferment of action on these matters to developers-- like Tim, who's mostly used his conversion script for non-inflammatory changes, and seems a little tender about just getting it over with. This shouldnt be a big deal -- ideally we want people to agree to a change, but barring that, its a conflict between the consensus and the ego of one person. Are sysops *not to enforce a nay vote on a username, always defering to a developer? This puts developers in a bind, because in order for them to make a decision they seem to think they need to get involved. They dont-- they just need to do the bidding of the community.
I'm obliged by the current system to make a judgement on the state of the argument. That's not always easy but as far as I'm concerned, that's where my obligation stops. Also, I'll always act on any declaration from Jimbo.
I can also stall. A suggestion for a compromise has been made, and I'm happy to wait until JiL has a chance to accept or reject it. If you're not happy with this, I suggest you either ask Jimbo to make a declaration, or try to convince one of the other developers to use my script (the details of which are now public).
Of course, as stalling goes, you're the expert. If you hadn't set up that vote, the discussion would probably be over by now. Votes require voting periods. Toby Bartels suggested one week.
-- Tim Starling.
Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
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.)
What do his responses have to do with your opinion on the merits of the name?
Well, considering that it's /his/ name, the things that he has to say about it are going to have an impact on my opinion. But what in the world makes you think that the only issue here is whether I like the name? If /that/ were the only basis for the vote, then I'd have voted to keep it a long time ago, and I wouldn't pay any attention to the arguments that the name is offensive, or "inflammatory", or "make[s] a statement". 'Cause I like the name.
I would agree with those who caution that the issue should be separate from behaviour. Tim pointed this particularly important bug out to me.
Tim pointed out -- quite rightly -- that it's irrelevant whether JiL makes good edits to gay-related articles, or whether he's an old problem user in disguise. That's because we're setting precedent here, hence policy, and this will apply to everybody, not just to old trolls. But this doesn't mean -- in fact, quite the opposite -- that the related matters of /policy/ are irrelevant. My attempt to talk to JiL directly -- which nobody else did! -- is an attempt to influence the precedent, hence the policy.
Part of maintaining a consistent policy is abstaining from the sideissues -- Just vote on the merits of the name, dagummit thats it.
No, dagummit!!! JiL's individual name isn't very important. OTOH, whether it becomes acceptable Wikipedia practice to greet new users (and the next JiL may be a new user) with "You're going to have to change your name." is a big deal. That is the sort of "sideissues" that I'm concerned with -- that is really the /only/ issue.
The real problem issue I see is with the tacit deferment of action on these matters to developers-- like Tim, who's mostly used his conversion script for non-inflammatory changes, and seems a little tender about just getting it over with. This shouldnt be a big deal -- ideally we want people to agree to a change, but barring that, its a conflict between the consensus and the ego of one person.
What "consensus" are you talking about? THERE IS NO CONSENSUS TO FORCE A NAME CHANGE! (At least not when you wrote that; I'm not sure how things stand now since Wikipedia is down. And Drolsi accepted a voluntary change anyway, so now I'm /really/ not sure how the page looks! ^_^) It's not as if all of the past discussion has been about whether or not to follow consensus; it's about whether to force a name change or not. What makes you think that you've convinced everybody already?
Are sysops *not to enforce a nay vote on a username, always defering to a developer? This puts developers in a bind, because in order for them to make a decision they seem to think they need to get involved. They dont-- they just need to do the bidding of the community.
No, sysops are not to enforce a name change, because we /can't/ -- that's a practical matter. Maybe a good thing (since sysops like you often see consensus when it isn't there), or a bad thing (since Tim was feeling more pressure than he should), but that's a fact of life, for now.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
What do his responses have to do with your opinion on the merits of the name?
Well, considering that it's /his/ name, the things that he has to say about it are going to have an impact on my opinion. But what in the world makes you think that the only issue here is whether I like the name? If /that/ were the only basis for the vote, then I'd have voted to keep it a long time ago, and I wouldn't pay any attention to the arguments that the name is offensive, or "inflammatory", or "make[s] a statement". 'Cause I like the name.
A person's name is necessarily representative of a POV, as is one's own user page. These are the places where POV must be acceptable, because we are saying things about ourselves. If we choose POV's that appear extreme they are bound to affect how others read our contributions.. If a chosen name is objectionable to some they will make that view known. The person with the objectionable name will quietly go away, often reappearing as an entirely new unconnected person without having lost face in the process.
Part of maintaining a consistent policy is abstaining from the sideissues -- Just vote on the merits of the name, dagummit thats it.
No, dagummit!!! JiL's individual name isn't very important. OTOH, whether it becomes acceptable Wikipedia practice to greet new users (and the next JiL may be a new user) with "You're going to have to change your name." is a big deal. That is the sort of "sideissues" that I'm concerned with -- that is really the /only/ issue.
It's an exercise in self deception to believe that a problem can be made to go away with a simple vote. Is today's 51% any more menaingful than tomorrow's 49%? Participatory democracy cannot work without safeguards to protect minorities. That's it most frustrating aspect.
No, sysops are not to enforce a name change, because we /can't/ -- that's a practical matter. Maybe a good thing (since sysops like you often see consensus when it isn't there), or a bad thing (since Tim was feeling more pressure than he should), but that's a fact of life, for now.
The technical ability to enforce a name change is a secondary matter; if it were a good thing the technical means would follow easily. I feel more concerned about the tyranny of majorities who carry on like on-line lynch mobs.
Ec