On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not over the top, because it's not a
funny username and 100% of the
time such a username is created, it's a sleeper account for Willy on Wheels.
Given the number of sleeper accounts he has created in the past, is is just
not feasible to investigate each one individually.
Yes, I didn't realise this history. It would seem appropriate to
include a comment like "When a username is part of an established
pattern of usernames by a particular vandal, admins may block first,
and ask questions later." or something.
Well, nobody is blocking the IP except the
autoblocker. If you think the
autoblocker is a problem, then it would probably be more productive to take
that up with the devs. The point is that no one uses "is Communism" in their
No opinion yet.
I can see how it looks that way. I can't think of
anything to say except
that it really isn't, and that your appraisal of the situation might change
when you have become more familiar.
Some background text in the policy perhaps?
Are you concerned that the behavior is inappropriate,
or do you think the
policy should reflect what people actually do? Put another way, which do you
think should be changed: the behavior, or the policy?
At first I was concerned that the behaviour was inappropriate, now it
seems that the behaviour is quite reasonable, so the policy should be
updated. Evidently the "community complains, warning, wait, rename"
sequence is completely skipped in these rare cases. But we should be
specific: Any inflammatory username should not be dealt with like that
- there are probably good faith editors who didn't know that
"AbortionJihad" would cause such a problem.
Right?
Steve