[WikiEN-l] Blocking for inappropriate usernames

[Ryan Delaney]

On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at 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