Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In borderline cases, it should not be necessary to immediately block the username but rather to attempt to discuss the problem. For instance, not every name that includes "Jimbo" is a misleading reference to Jimbo Wales or impersonating him; there are many people named Jimbo, and new users may not even know who Jimbo Wales is.
An attempt to discuss the username policy and concern with the user, and a request that they change their username should typically be attempted before considering further action. In cases where the violation of policy or the user's intent is clear, or likely created in bad faith, you should exhibit the use of common sense and fair and level ...
You should place the page on your watchlist to monitor ongoing changes. If the reported username is a blatant violation and the user is likely to edit disruptively under a new username, the account should be "hard blocked", which is done by ticking the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes in the block form.
Article titles should not begin with a standard namespace prefix (Talk:, Help: etc.), as this will place them in the wrong namespace, which (among other problems) will exclude them from standard search results. In this case, another title must be found (it won't help to change the capitalization of the prefix or put spaces before or after the ...
It's often better if a good faith user with an innappropriate username is blocked before they edit, so they can quickly create a new username before they even have any contributions. In my opinion it's best to block as soon as possible if a username is against policy - it sounds strange, but it will encourage new users to create an account with ...
Consensus is quite clearly that users soft-blocked for username issues should not have to answer further questions as a prerequisite to unblocking after the username issue has been addressed. The suggestion of incorporating {{ coiq }} into the unblock template is an excellent idea, and {{ coiq }} should be deprecated according to the consensus ...
The PAT is usually generated automatically by the remote system — for example, as a string of 52 alphanumeric characters. Typically, permissions may also be adjusted for each PAT individually, allowing or restricting access to certain classes of data or functions on the remote system.
It seems to me we should add something to the policy about illegible signatures, but I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways someone could obscure their sig, because someone will always find some other way; it would be sufficient to have a catch-all saying that signatures styled in such a way that an editor could not easily determine ...