--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)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.
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.
~S~
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com