I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to be changed on a certain date? Then do it. It will be over and done.
Regards, Sydney
---- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't really been much that can be done.
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to be changed on a certain date? Then do it. It will be over and done.
Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_ ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV
Well, certainly not the most harsh thing Lord Voldemort has ever proposed. ;)
If I owned the User:Ombudsman account, and refused to change it, I probably wouldn't mind a box at the top of my page.
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to
be changed on a certain date?
Then do it. It will be over and done.
Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_ ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_ ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV
Well, there is no reason to block his account and deprive him of his past edits, whether he complies or not. We will simply have to force rename him (User:The User Previously known as Ombudsman).
Oldak Quill wrote:
Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_ ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV
Well, there is no reason to block his account and deprive him of his past edits, whether he complies or not. We will simply have to force rename him (User:The User Previously known as Ombudsman).
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
Essjay
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use. A forced name change is far preferable.
Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use. A forced name change is far preferable.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20/07/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.
This would be my choice. We shouldn't aggravate a user when a far more easy, and friendly, option is available.
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/07/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.
This would be my choice. We shouldn't aggravate a user when a far more easy, and friendly, option is available.
I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this issue?
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this issue?
Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing. People may think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that. That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page. --LV
The box would be good, but we shouldn't force him to change his handle. Maybe a box like on User:Jesus_On_Wheels saying that he isn't the real ombudsman and the real one is at User:Wikimedia_Ombudsman.
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this issue?
Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing. People may think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that. That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page. --LV _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this issue?
Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing. People may think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that. That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.
There is a difference between "Your user account was not previously a problem or conflict with official Wikipedia functions, but is now, we need to officially ask you to change it or put up a disclaimer on your User page" and "Hey, let's all go force a name change on this guy because he didn't cooperate before".
That there may need to be a change and/or disclaimer is reasonably obvious now. There is zero justification in that necessity for any abuse of User:Ombudsman. They weren't violating policy before when they refused to change their name. Beating them up now for having previously stood up for their rights is inappropriate.
That there were discussions of forced changes or a permanent ban before anyone sent a polite note to them explaining that Things had Changed is a terrible, terrible shame for this mailing list...
But is the box, which would link to the true ombudsman, be a good idea?
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this issue?
Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing. People may think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that. That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.
There is a difference between "Your user account was not previously a problem or conflict with official Wikipedia functions, but is now, we need to officially ask you to change it or put up a disclaimer on your User page" and "Hey, let's all go force a name change on this guy because he didn't cooperate before".
That there may need to be a change and/or disclaimer is reasonably obvious now. There is zero justification in that necessity for any abuse of User:Ombudsman. They weren't violating policy before when they refused to change their name. Beating them up now for having previously stood up for their rights is inappropriate.
That there were discussions of forced changes or a permanent ban before anyone sent a polite note to them explaining that Things had Changed is a terrible, terrible shame for this mailing list...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
But is the box, which would link to the true ombudsman, be a good idea?
There is (now) a legitimate policy issue with his username, I guess.
I think it's entirely appropriate to ask him again if he'll voluntarily change his account name, and if not then it's entirely appropriate to insist that he allow a disclaimer/pointer box to the Wikipedia Ombudsman at the top of his homepage, given the new possibility of user confusion of him and an official function.
I'm just unhappy with the immediately draconian proposed responses as opposed to starting with constructive polite requests, with a couple of options we can talk with him about. There was no call for threatening to nuke him rather than asking nicely.
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There is a difference between "Your user account was not previously a problem or conflict with official Wikipedia functions, but is now, we need to officially ask you to change it or put up a disclaimer on your User page" and "Hey, let's all go force a name change on this guy because he didn't cooperate before".
That there may need to be a change and/or disclaimer is reasonably obvious now. There is zero justification in that necessity for any abuse of User:Ombudsman. They weren't violating policy before when they refused to change their name. Beating them up now for having previously stood up for their rights is inappropriate.
That there were discussions of forced changes or a permanent ban before anyone sent a polite note to them explaining that Things had Changed is a terrible, terrible shame for this mailing list...
Well, one, my proposal didn't include banning him if he cooperated. It did include asking him nicely (both for the name change and for the disclaimer). It would be a way _around_ a forced name change. Two, this mailing list is open, and User:Ombudsman is more than welcome to read it. We're not trying to hide anything by discussing it here. --LV
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this issue?
Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing. People may think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that. That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page. --LV
So call the ombudsman something else. User:Ombudsman had the name first, right?
Ombudsman is a sexist title anyway.
Anthony
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So call the ombudsman something else. User:Ombudsman had the name first, right?
Ombudsman is a sexist title anyway.
Ombudsperson, perhaps?
PS. I left a note on the user's talk page.
Oldak Quill wrote:
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use. A forced name change is far preferable.
It may be preferable, but if it's not allowed by policy, it's not allowed. Bureaucrats are not permitted to set aside policy when they deem it preferable; we're required to follow the rules regardless. If the matter is extreme enough to override the policies of the English Wikipedian, then it's an important enough issue for the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Board to order it done.
Essjay
On 7/21/06, Essjay essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that en.wiki does not permit forced name changes.
I thought it just required an RfC to change a name, not an arbitration case.
Anyway, unless the users Wikimedia's ombudspeople are going to use that account, I don't see a reason to change it, and I wasn't aware of any plan for those people to have a role account. They can do until their own usernames. Also, the position is specifically for "ombudsperson checkuser", so "ombudsman" would be too general and could give the impression they're an ombudsperson for all activities on the wiki, not just for the checkuser role.
Angela.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org