[WikiEN-l] Re: User names

Sat Oct 11 03:29:21 UTC 2003

Stevertigo wrote:
> --- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>>But I haven't been able to edit the talk page yet.
>>It may change further depending on JiL's responses
>>to attempts to convince him to choose a new name
>>volunatarily;
>>but I haven't been able to read his responses yet.)
> 
> 
> What do his responses have to do with your opinion on
> the merits of the name? I would agree with those who
> caution that the issue should be separate from
> behaviour.  Tim pointed this particularly important
> bug out to me.  Part of maintaining a consistent
> policy is abstaining from the sideissues -- Just vote
> on the merits of the name, dagummit thats it. 

If JiL asks for a change of name, then you've won. You have been arguing 
all along that the name should be changed to something more appropriate, 
and that's exactly what will occur if JiL gives in. The only difference 
is that it won't be controversial, which as far as I'm concerned is a 
good thing.

> The real problem issue I see is with the tacit
> deferment of action on these matters to developers--
> like Tim, who's mostly used his conversion script for
> non-inflammatory changes, and seems a little tender
> about just getting it over with.  This shouldnt be a
> big deal -- ideally we want people to agree to a
> change, but barring that, its a conflict between the
> consensus and the ego of one person.  Are sysops *not
> to enforce a nay vote on a username, always defering
> to a developer?  This puts developers in a bind,
> because in order for them to make a decision they seem
> to think they need to get involved. They dont-- they
> just need to do the bidding of the community. 

I'm obliged by the current system to make a judgement on the state of 
the argument. That's not always easy but as far as I'm concerned, that's 
  where my obligation stops. Also, I'll always act on any declaration 
from Jimbo.

I can also stall. A suggestion for a compromise has been made, and I'm 
happy to wait until JiL has a chance to accept or reject it. If you're 
not happy with this, I suggest you either ask Jimbo to make a 
declaration, or try to convince one of the other developers to use my 
script (the details of which are now public).

Of course, as stalling goes, you're the expert. If you hadn't set up 
that vote, the discussion would probably be over by now. Votes require 
voting periods. Toby Bartels suggested one week.

-- Tim Starling.