[Foundation-l] Update on ombudsman issue

Thu Jul 20 20:37:58 UTC 2006

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

On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>