[Foundation-l] Update on ombudsman issue

[George Herbert]

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at 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 at gmail.com