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

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.

On 20/07/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort(a)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... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

But is the box, which would link to the true ombudsman, be a good idea?

So call the ombudsman something else. User:Ombudsman had the name first, right? Ombudsman is a sexist title anyway.