Return to Question

I suggest either reopening the question, or giving a tailored reason for the closure, or editing the question to better conform with the criteria for an acceptable question here. Unfortunately, I am 200 points short of doing the first, doing the second retroactively would be difficult (impossible ?) for the close voters, even if they were so inclined, and, without understanding the closure reason, I don't know how best to do the third.

 I have however, edited the question in question about user names to try to explain its motivation better, to add context to the question, and to address the concern about its potential to be divisive. If you have time, please read my edit.

Let me give an answer in advance to a few of the predictable objections to this question.

1. The count will not be an accurate count of support for Monica because not everyone strongly supporting Monica has or will modify their user name. Agreed. Very few counts or measurements are totally accurate. The point is, are they better than nothing? Or can they be combined with other counts/measurements to give a handle on an informative answer?

2. The absolute number doesn't mean as much as the status of the name-changers. As another user pointed out, 1,000 run-of-the-mill supporters mean less than 10 highly influential supporters. (Can't find who made this point.) Agreed. But the number of name-changers is small enough so that this second point would not be hard to estimate if the user names were known.

3. Why bother? The proof will be whether SE comes through with an acceptable offer. Valid point. However, it seems pointless to me to go through all this sturm und drang if one has no indication whatever how many people support it. If the answer is 10 we should all go back to our real lives. If the answer is 1,000, we should be at least heartened. The answer seems to be 100 or so, which means that further publicizing is worth some effort.

4. The number of people contributing to the Monica Fund is a better measurement. Valid Point. I suspect there is a great deal of overlap -- not total, but large -- between the two measurements. But two good measurements using two different techniques are widely regarded as better than one, in physics at least.

5. Can't be done, or can be done only with an extraordinary effort. This is absolutely valid, and, IMO, if correct, and presented as the tailored reason for closing, is the only valid reason for closing this question, given the latitude to dozens of questions about The Mess left open.

Motivation for the question about user names (both the question in question, and this question):

We have reached a point where almost everything that can be said about The Mess has been said, and said several times. Also, Monica has retained legal counsel. Both reasons argue for something like a cease fire on our part, but one where we keep the issue visible and maintain pressure in a way that is not counterproductive. Modification of user name is one way -- not the only way -- to maintain visibility. Data on this this point would be helpful in deciding the most useful tactics.  I emphasize that this is not meant to be divisive; strong supporters of Monica have shown their support without adopting this tactic.

I added this paragraph to the question in question, but having fewer than 3,000 rep points, it probably is not yet visible to anyone but me.

I don't understand why the question about how many user names have been changed to support Monica was closed.

The reason given was that the question did not appear to be about the technology used to support this site.

But, just how does this question differ in that regard from the majority of questions about The Mess?

I suggest either reopening the question, or giving a tailored reason for the closure, or editing the question to better conform with the criteria for an acceptable question here. Unfortunately, I am 200 points short of doing the first, doing the second would now be difficult (impossible ?) for the close voters, even if they were so inclined, and, without understanding the closure reason, I don't know how best to do the third.

I have however, edited the question in question about user names to try to explain its motivation better, to add context to the question, and to address the concern about its potential to be divisive. If you have time, please read my edit.

Let me give an answer in advance to a few of the predictable objections to this question.

1. The count will not be an accurate count of support for Monica because not everyone strongly supporting Monica has or will modify their user name. Agreed. Very few counts or measurements are totally accurate. The point is, are they better than nothing? Or can they be combined with other counts/measurements to give a handle on an informative answer?

2. The absolute number doesn't mean as much as the status of the name-changers. As another user pointed out, 1,000 run-of-the-mill supporters mean less than 10 highly influential supporters. (Can't find who made this point.) Agreed. But the number of name-changers is small enough so that this second point would not be hard to estimate if the user names were known.

3. Why bother? The proof will be whether SE comes through with an acceptable offer. Valid point. However, it seems pointless to me to go through all this sturm und drang if one has no indication whatever how many people support it. If the answer is 10 we should all go back to our real lives. If the answer is 1,000, we should be at least heartened. The answer seems to be 100 or so, which means that further publicizing is worth some effort.

4. The number of people contributing to the Monica Fund is a better measurement. Valid Point. I suspect there is a great deal of overlap -- not total, but large -- between the two measurements. But two good measurements using two different techniques are widely regarded as better than one, in physics at least.

5. Can't be done, or can be done only with an extraordinary effort. This is absolutely valid, and, IMO, if correct, and presented as the tailored reason for closing, is the only valid reason for closing this question, given the latitude to dozens of questions about The Mess left open.

I don't understand why the question about how many user names have been changed to support Monica was closed.

The reason given was that the question did not appear to be about the technology used to support this site.

But, just how does this question differ in that regard from the majority of questions about The Mess?

I suggest either reopening the question, or giving a tailored reason for the closure, or editing the question to better conform with the criteria for an acceptable question here. Unfortunately, I am 200 points short of doing the first, doing the second retroactively would be difficult (impossible ?) for the close voters, even if they were so inclined, and, without understanding the closure reason, I don't know how best to do the third.

I have however, edited the question in question about user names to try to explain its motivation better, to add context to the question, and to address the concern about its potential to be divisive. If you have time, please read my edit.

Let me give an answer in advance to a few of the predictable objections to this question.

1. The count will not be an accurate count of support for Monica because not everyone strongly supporting Monica has or will modify their user name. Agreed. Very few counts or measurements are totally accurate. The point is, are they better than nothing? Or can they be combined with other counts/measurements to give a handle on an informative answer?

2. The absolute number doesn't mean as much as the status of the name-changers. As another user pointed out, 1,000 run-of-the-mill supporters mean less than 10 highly influential supporters. (Can't find who made this point.) Agreed. But the number of name-changers is small enough so that this second point would not be hard to estimate if the user names were known.

3. Why bother? The proof will be whether SE comes through with an acceptable offer. Valid point. However, it seems pointless to me to go through all this sturm und drang if one has no indication whatever how many people support it. If the answer is 10 we should all go back to our real lives. If the answer is 1,000, we should be at least heartened. The answer seems to be 100 or so, which means that further publicizing is worth some effort.

4. The number of people contributing to the Monica Fund is a better measurement. Valid Point. I suspect there is a great deal of overlap -- not total, but large -- between the two measurements. But two good measurements using two different techniques are widely regarded as better than one, in physics at least.

5. Can't be done, or can be done only with an extraordinary effort. This is absolutely valid, and, IMO, if correct, and presented as the tailored reason for closing, is the only valid reason for closing this question, given the latitude to dozens of questions about The Mess left open.

I don't understand why the question about how many user names have been changed to support Monica was closed.

The reason given was that the question did not appear to be about the technology used to support this site.

But, just how does this question differ in that regard from the majority of questions about The Mess?

I suggest either reopening the question, or giving a tailored reason for the closure, or editing the question to better conform with the criteria for an acceptable question here. Unfortunately, I am 200 points short of doing the first, doing the second would now be difficult for the close voters, even if they were so inclined, and, without understanding the closure reason, I don't know how best to do the third.

I have however, edited the question in question about user names to try to explain its motivation better, to add context to the question, and to address the concern about its potential to be divisive. If you have time, please read my edit.

Let me give an answer in advance to a few of the predictable objections to this question.

1. The count will not be an accurate count of support for Monica because not everyone strongly supporting Monica has or will modify their user name. Agreed. Very few counts or measurements are totally accurate. The point is, are they better than nothing? Or can they be combined with other counts/measurements to give a handle on an informative answer?

2. The absolute number doesn't mean as much as the status of the name-changers. As another user pointed out, 1,000 run-of-the-mill supporters mean less than 10 highly influential supporters. (Can't find who made this point.) Agreed. But the number of name-changers is small enough so that this second point would not be hard to estimate if the user names were known.

3. Why bother? The proof will be whether SE comes through with an acceptable offer. Valid point. However, it seems pointless to me to go through all this sturm und drang if one has no indication whatever how many people support it. If the answer is 10 we should all go back to our real lives. If the answer is 1,000, we should be at least heartened. The answer seems to be 100 or so, which means that further publicizing is worth some effort.

4. The number of people contributing to the Monica Fund is a better measurement. Valid Point. I suspect there is a great deal of overlap -- not total, but large -- between the two measurements. But two good measurements using two different techniques are widely regarded as better than one, in physics at least.

5. Can't be done, or can be done only with an extraordinary effort. This is absolutely valid, and, IMO, if correct, and presented as the tailored reason for closing, is the only valid reason for closing this question, given the latitude to dozens of questions about The Mess left open.

I don't understand why the question about how many user names have been changed to support Monica was closed.

The reason given was that the question did not appear to be about the technology used to support this site.

But, just how does this question differ in that regard from the majority of questions about The Mess?

I suggest either reopening the question, or giving a tailored reason for the closure, or editing the question to better conform with the criteria for an acceptable question here. Unfortunately, I am 200 points short of doing the first, doing the second would now be difficult (impossible ?) for the close voters, even if they were so inclined, and, without understanding the closure reason, I don't know how best to do the third.

I have however, edited the question in question about user names to try to explain its motivation better, to add context to the question, and to address the concern about its potential to be divisive. If you have time, please read my edit.

Let me give an answer in advance to a few of the predictable objections to this question.

1. The count will not be an accurate count of support for Monica because not everyone strongly supporting Monica has or will modify their user name. Agreed. Very few counts or measurements are totally accurate. The point is, are they better than nothing? Or can they be combined with other counts/measurements to give a handle on an informative answer?

2. The absolute number doesn't mean as much as the status of the name-changers. As another user pointed out, 1,000 run-of-the-mill supporters mean less than 10 highly influential supporters. (Can't find who made this point.) Agreed. But the number of name-changers is small enough so that this second point would not be hard to estimate if the user names were known.

3. Why bother? The proof will be whether SE comes through with an acceptable offer. Valid point. However, it seems pointless to me to go through all this sturm und drang if one has no indication whatever how many people support it. If the answer is 10 we should all go back to our real lives. If the answer is 1,000, we should be at least heartened. The answer seems to be 100 or so, which means that further publicizing is worth some effort.

4. The number of people contributing to the Monica Fund is a better measurement. Valid Point. I suspect there is a great deal of overlap -- not total, but large -- between the two measurements. But two good measurements using two different techniques are widely regarded as better than one, in physics at least.

5. Can't be done, or can be done only with an extraordinary effort. This is absolutely valid, and, IMO, if correct, and presented as the tailored reason for closing, is the only valid reason for closing this question, given the latitude to dozens of questions about The Mess left open.