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