I have been watching the "vote" and conversation here regarding User:Jesus_is_Lord! with interest. I am saddened to see what I believe is a mob justice attitude developing.
I wish there were something I could do, since I believe this is unfolding most unfairly, and in a fashion detrimental to the Wiki.
The first edits under the name Jesus_is_Lord! began October 6. Generally, the edits appear helpful and in good faith. Most have been made to articles addressing homosexual issues. In contrast to the assumption many have made (me included until I read through the history), the edits do not reflect an anti-gay bias.
Several users complained about the name, here on the mailing list and on the wiki. There was brief discussion that rapidly deteriorated into a "vote". While a majority of people have "voted" to impose a mandatory name change, there are also clear reservations.
I am concerned about several aspects of this, um, process.
1. The vote took place before discussion was complete, which isn't supposed to be how we do things.
2. I am really rather dumbfounded by the number of Wikipedians who usually have a strong libertarian bias and are ordinarily ardent supporters of freedom of expression, who have voted to force a name change. These are largely the same people so strongly oppose censorship of any kind when the substance of the material is different.
3. Forcing a name change in this case is inconsistent with our treatment of other, similar users. In the interest of fairness and consistency, if we are going to force a name change by technical means in this case, we ought to in the several others that have been enumerated in previous posts to the list.
4. I believe that there are elements of retributive justice in some people's thinking, as in SV's statement that "the guy was being a jerk -- making him change his name was a way to tap him on the shoulder, and ask him to pay attention to the wikiworld around him." This line of reasoning has no place here. The fact that the user has limited history, appears to have edited under other names, is making edits some object to, etc etc etc etc should have nothing to do with the decision making here.
5. I also believe that a "herd mentality" has developed in the vote: people are voting to force a change because they want to support other users who have already voted the same way. I steadfastly refuse that the 20 or so wikipedians who have voted this way have each independently evaluated the evidence and made a thoughtful decision on the merits.
6. The "there ought to be a law" ad hoc invention of rules and governance procedures is simply inappropriate at Wikipedia, except in egregious cases, which this isn't.
7. The various threats of immediate action by developers who have the technical means at their disposal to carry them out, are uncalled for and have made consensus harder to achieve.
8. Lastly, forcing someone to change their name through technical means is not going to build community. It is not going to bring the Wikipedians closer together, or build solidarity, or make WP a more comfortable, friendly project. There is an old saying: Friends come and go, while enemies tend to accumulate over time. Is it worth it for us to make another user upset with Wikipedia?
So, in light of all this, I once again call for the vote to be discontinued, and encourage everyone who has taken strong positions one way or another to retract them so that there is enough space for discussion and consensus.
Respectfully
Louis