On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Really, I don't think there is any need for policy justification of dealing
with vandals. People have been dealing with them in this way for a long time
and there has never been a problem with it. I have to suggest that you
consider whether the apparent need for policy justification of blocking
inappropriate usernames is a solution to a problem that actually exists, or
whether it is its own problem. The perjorative term in this case is "process
fetishism".
To put it simply, I view this as a common-sense situation. We don't need
rules when common sense does the job just fine.
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.
[[User:AbortionJihad] is different from [[User:Linuxbeak On Wheels]] in that
it is a troll account, rather than a vandal. My rule of thumb for
identifying trolling is that if someone says or does something that could
have no value except to troll, then it should be treated as trolling.
Creating a username like AbortionJihad, by this definition, fits the bill
for trolling behavior.
Now, you can't know for certain what is going on in someone's head, but
there comes a point where you have to say that some kinds of behavior just
aren't allowed, regardless of intent. It's conceivable that the person
merely thought that AbortionJihad would be a hilarious username. But the
probability is so low that I can't view it as worth my time as an editor and
admin to investigate.
But as with all other admin actions, it should be viewed as open to review
by other admins, and in the event of disagreement, we have discussion to
resolve the dispute. The vast majority of the time, there is no need for
review. For the few times that there will be a dispute, I have faith that
all of our admins are rational and well-meaning people who, although they
may get a litte hot tempered from time to time, will come to amicable
agreement eventually so we can move on to solving the next problem.
There's no need to involve policy in this anywhere. Policy makes people
think that they only have to follow the rulebook, rather than use their
common sense and talk things out. The rulebook is good for some things, but
it's not good here. We need to have more trust in ourselves and each other
to do the right thing when the time comes, I think.
Ryan