Hi all, The situation on blocking people for bad usernames seems extremely confused at the moment. According to the official policy (WP:USERNAME), this should not happen:
-- If enough people complain about your user name (through talk pages or the mailing lists or Meta-Wikipedia), the bureaucrats will change it. Neither complaints nor name changes should be arbitrary, but user names that are offensive to a significant number of people will be changed, not without notice, but without appeal.
Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith.
Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. This can take place on either (A) the user's talk page, (B) a subpage of the user's talk page, or (C) a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate section. The user should also be made aware of the discussion. --
However the policy claims that username changing is currently disabled, so all of that is moot. Arguably, if you can't change a bad username, then blocking might be permissible? But in any case, [[WP:CHU]] makes no mention of it being disabled.
On the talk page for Wikipedia:Username, there was a straw poll on whether sysops should be able to make snap decisions when policy is clearly breached. It has achieved anything but consensus (roughly 55% in favour).
So what is going on? Why do we keep seeing messages on this list about people being blocked without warning for having mildly provocative usernames?
Steve
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On the talk page for Wikipedia:Username, there was a straw poll on whether sysops should be able to make snap decisions when policy is clearly breached. It has achieved anything but consensus (roughly 55% in favour).
So what is going on? Why do we keep seeing messages on this list about people being blocked without warning for having mildly provocative usernames?
You are addressing two issues simultaneously which I think risks confusing the discussion. I'll try to break them apart here.
First, whether admins should make judgments when it seems that a username clearly violates policy. This is going to happen regardless of the result of any vote. The next time I see someone create the username "Linuxbeak ON WHEELS! ! !", "Jimbo Whales Is Communism", etc, I am going to indef block, not sit around waiting for dicussion. The same goes with "GEORGE BUSH IS A WHORE" and so on. Most username blocks I've seen are of this variety: new accounts with blantantly inappropriate or vandalistic usernames where discussion is obviously a waste of time. It's very easy to get skewed results when you use loaded terminology like "snap judgment" to describe cases like these. But the results you get aren't going to change what the admins on the front lines are doing to protect against vandals.
Second, there is the question of what constitutes an inappropriate username. I don't see any need to use the mailing list to set up binding precendent in this matter. There is no way to make a comprehensive definition of "inappropriate" and each case should be dealt with individually.
Ryan
On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
First, whether admins should make judgments when it seems that a username clearly violates policy. This is going to happen regardless of the result of any vote. The next time I see someone create the username "Linuxbeak ON WHEELS! ! !", "Jimbo Whales Is Communism", etc, I am going to indef block, not sit around waiting for dicussion. The same goes with "GEORGE BUSH IS A WHORE" and so on.
Indefinitely block an IP address because the user thought "Linuxbeak ON WHEELS!!!" would be a funny username? That seems a trifle over the top, no? I'm not an admin, but such a user seems far from being beyond redemption, and he hasn't even done anything wrong yet! Bizarre that we agreed that it was wrong to block users who announce an intent to insert pro-pedophilia POV into articles, but we would indefinitely block a user who simply chooses a cheeky username.
Most username blocks I've seen are of this variety: new accounts with blantantly inappropriate or vandalistic usernames where discussion is obviously a waste of time. It's very easy to get skewed results when you use
It depends what you're discussing. Renaming "Jimbo Wales Is Communism" to "Newuser499" or even "JWIC" seems fair and reasonable. Blocking the user's IP for the next millennium doesn't.
loaded terminology like "snap judgment" to describe cases like these. But the results you get aren't going to change what the admins on the front lines are doing to protect against vandals.
As I have no experience fighting vandals who register new accounts, I'm prepared to believe that the vast majority of these problematic usernames really are nasty vandals. But just theoretically it seems unnecessarily heavy handed.
Second, there is the question of what constitutes an inappropriate username. I don't see any need to use the mailing list to set up binding precendent in this matter. There is no way to make a comprehensive definition of "inappropriate" and each case should be dealt with individually.
No, there's not much problem there - there are good examples on the policy. What I'm concerned about is that the policy says that the treatment for such cases is renaming the user - not blocking. And actual practice is apparently completely different.
Steve
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Indefinitely block an IP address because the user thought "Linuxbeak ON WHEELS!!!" would be a funny username? That seems a trifle over the
No, it's just the username that's blocked indefinitely. The IP might be hit with an autoblock, but us otherwise perfectly able to edit 24 hours after.
When was the username policy last edited? I can't remember a single thing you cited in that first post of this thread.
Anyway, there are names that should never see the light of day and it would indeed be a waste of time to rename those only to have them be blocked again when they start editing/vandalizing.
Mgm
On 3/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's just the username that's blocked indefinitely. The IP might be hit with an autoblock, but us otherwise perfectly able to edit 24 hours after.
Ok, now I'm getting confused. When you say the *username* is blocked indefinitely, you mean that the user account can no longer edit, but the IP that created it can? Or do you mean that henceforth no one can create an account with that username? (I suppose the first implies the second anyway...)
I also wasn't familiar with autoblocking. Interesting...haven't had time to think about the repercussions of that yet.
When was the username policy last edited? I can't remember a single thing you cited in that first post of this thread.
At a quick glance, that paragraph seems to be at least a couple of months old.
Anyway, there are names that should never see the light of day and it would indeed be a waste of time to rename those only to have them be blocked again when they start editing/vandalizing.
I gather from this post and the next, that the problem is "serial username creators", such that any "xxx on wheels" is the same user. I hadn't realised that history when I complained about blocking users on sight for certain user names. The policy could definitely be updated to take that into account though (especially as it seems to be common practice?)
Steve
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Indefinitely block an IP address because the user thought "Linuxbeak ON WHEELS!!!" would be a funny username? That seems a trifle over the top, no?
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.
Most username blocks I've seen are of this variety: new accounts with
blantantly inappropriate or vandalistic usernames where discussion is obviously a waste of time. It's very easy to get skewed results when you
use
It depends what you're discussing. Renaming "Jimbo Wales Is Communism" to "Newuser499" or even "JWIC" seems fair and reasonable. Blocking the user's IP for the next millennium doesn't.
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 username unless they are the Communism vandal, who is banned from the English Wikipedia. Admins have been blocking these usernames on sight for quite some time and we've never heard a peep about it out of anyone, because the vandals just create more socks rather than provide the mailing list with baseless complains. They are vandals, after all.
As I have no experience fighting vandals who register new accounts, I'm prepared to believe that the vast majority of these problematic usernames really are nasty vandals. But just theoretically it seems unnecessarily heavy handed.
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.
No, there's not much problem there - there are good examples on the
policy. What I'm concerned about is that the policy says that the treatment for such cases is renaming the user - not blocking. And actual practice is apparently completely different.
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?
Ryan
On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@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
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@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
On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
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".
As it stands, a vandal could legitimately claim that process wasn't followed. Sure, they wouldn't necessarily get far - but wouldn't it be better to actually document standard practice?
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.
Well, I wasn't actually proposing creating new rules - simply
documenting existing ones.
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.
Speaking as a pleb, policy also serves to reassure people that admins do follow some kind of rulebook, rather than simply making it up as they go along. I'm not sure that admins regularly blocking people for an undocumented reason is a good thing. However, as it is not a disastrous thing, either, I'll let it go.
Steve
This policy may need some review, but as an admin I've {{usernameblock}}'ed on sight new accounts such as "Another wiki cheese-ology vandal". Users declaring their intenet to vandalize the project in their username should be clear enough. The same goes with known patterns of users needing to create accunts for future page move vandalism (e.g. "Wikipedia is Communinsm on WH33LZ!"). The RFC process can be slow and does always have an actionable resolution to it.
xaosflux
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking for inappropriate usernames
On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
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".
As it stands, a vandal could legitimately claim that process wasn't followed. Sure, they wouldn't necessarily get far - but wouldn't it be better to actually document standard practice?
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.
Well, I wasn't actually proposing creating new rules - simply
documenting existing ones.
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.
Speaking as a pleb, policy also serves to reassure people that admins do follow some kind of rulebook, rather than simply making it up as they go along. I'm not sure that admins regularly blocking people for an undocumented reason is a good thing. However, as it is not a disastrous thing, either, I'll let it go.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l