[WikiEN-l] User names

[Ray Saintonge]

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