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