User talk:Mangojuice/IU

Throwaway name policy
I think that when you give the examples "User:aaaaaaaaaa or User:a389ufh", it may cause people to misapply the policy. People sometimes pick strange usernames like these because they're used to Internet communities where every good name is taken.

I'd say you should pick more obviously throwaway usernames, or just leave out those examples altogether and let people use their common sense. I don't want to see another Ggggggggggg12.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I took it out. This does happen from time to time, but when it does really happen, it can be considered part of a sockpuppet pattern.  Also, what was missing there was a more strongly worded warning not to apply preemptive blocks to good-faith users.  Mango juice talk 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive blocks for impersonation
Looking at this again, I'd suggest moving "impersonating" usernames to the top category, because we often want to block those preemptively and they tend to be clear-cut cases. Instead of "Usernames should not be used to impersonate other Wikipedians." in the second section, I'd recommend changing the last bullet in the first section to "Usernames chosen to harass, personally attack, or impersonate someone".  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind one entry there. I think there are different levels.  Surely, someone who registers User:Can't sleep, clowns wil eat me is up to no good; on the other hand, some usernames are sufficiently distinct that they should not be assumed to be done in bad faith... but those users could still try to impersonate someone; imagine a User:Resper who adopts a signature very similar to yours and pretends to be an admin.  Mango juice talk 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't tell what you mean by "I wouldn't mind one entry there", but I think I see the point you're making: sometimes, you can only block for impersonation once you see how the name is being used, making it part of "Inappropriate use of usernames". But "Can't sleep, clowns wil eat me" is definitely suspect from the start, and I think people will see it as an odd omission in your proposal if we can't consider it a "suspect username". Would it make sense to have impersonation in both categories?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As another idea, "Can't sleep, clowns wil eat me" could be given as another example of a username for which any use would be inappropriate.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Let me try to adjust.  Mango juice talk 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language usernames
I propose adding text like the following:


 * Note 3: Foreign language usernames. It is acceptable for usernames to be in a language besides English. Such names may appear confusing to English speakers -- they could be very long, contain unusual combinations of letters, or even be written in a non-Latin script -- but it is important to allow them because Wikipedia is a multilingual project. Foreign-language usernames should generally not be considered "exceptionally confusing".

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No need. This is proposed to replace the "Inappropriate names" section of WP:U; there is already a section outside of that about Non-latin names.  Mango juice talk 11:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-Latin and non-English are different, and we've recently seen a name blocked solely for being non-English. I really think this part is necessary to prevent people using the "exceptionally confusing" clause to block legitimate foreign usernames. I would also be okay with removing the "exceptionally confusing" clause, because I don't see what it's supposed to accomplish.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh. This isn't going to be adopted anyway, it's doing too many things at once.  People like some parts and not other parts.  Mango juice talk 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're giving up? We should propose something, to keep the discussion going. There are a lot of people looking for something to replace the current policy. I can live with "exceptionally confusing", I suppose, and we'll discuss which usernames should be blocked for confusion later. I suggest you change the title of "Suspect usernames" to "Preemptive blocks" (as some people are asking for that and nobody particularly seems to mind), and we bring this up on the Village Pump and related places.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Since this is such a radical change in policy, how about a "speedy unblock" option to minimize inadvertent damage caused by admins unaware of the change: "Until (some date), any block whose reason indicates a violation of the username policy, and to which this version of the policy is clearly inapplicable, may be reversed immediately and a friendly note should be left on the blocking admin's page notifying them of the change in policy." As an exception to the usual "discuss before reversing an administrative action" rule in order to minimize the risk that a legitimate user is frustrated by an invalid block —Random832 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a license to wheel war -- not something we want in a policy we expect the community to accept. I think that the policy will be applied correctly with time.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Rspeer. Also, I don't think unblocking is necessarily the right thing to do there.  Once the user is blocked, we should view the situation as if the damage has been done.  If the user requests unblocking, though, I think it's okay to unblock them if the reviewing admin feels the block was inappropriate.  Sometimes such a situation necessitates discussion and sometimes it doesn't.  But I don't think this is any different from any other unblock request, so no reason to handle it differently.  Mango juice talk 11:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the same reason we have WP:BITE at all - newbies are more likely than established users to simply be driven off by such things rather than trying to (what they'll see as) jump through hoops to be allowed to edit "The encyclopedia anyone can edit". —Random832 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)