Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Process tweaks

  • There should be a place on the {{usurp}} template where the link to the {{usurpation requested}} addition can be added, or the provision that the link must be given should be dropped (otherwise, this link won't be added in a consistent fashion). --ais523 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the diff link requirement can be removed; the message should still be on the talk page, and we have a link to the talk page in the template. Essjay (Talk) 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it probably should, but that's probably better discussed on the subst page, as it will likely be one of those templates that has to be bot subst'd every so often. Essjay (Talk) 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Are there going to be separate archives for this (different from CHU). [1] says no, but maybe this was just a C&P. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just make it a subsection of the CHU archives? Redux 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I was thinking Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Archive1 etc. to match Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive1 for fulfilled, and Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Unfulfilled/2007/January to match Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2007/January for unfulfilled. I've been bold and fixed the links on the WP:CHU/U page - obviously, if no usurpations occur in January, which is very likely, /January will be redundant. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
My intention was to add a section to the existing archive page when the policy went live; no need to cause confusion at this stage. Essjay (Talk) 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technicalities

There are a few [occasional] problems with the proposed process: 1) Regarding the e-mail to the owner of the account-to-be-usurped, I'm thinking most of the times this will not be possible, because the user will not have enabled an e-mail account, particularly if the accounts to be usurped are those that were created a while back and never used; 2) Perhaps we should extend the possibility of usurpation to accounts that were used shortly and almost immediately indefblocked for performing clear-cut vandalism — why allow a vandal to hog a (presumably) perfectly usable username because he registered it, vandalized Wikipedia a couple of times with it and then got indefblocked? It would have to be a small number of edits, all vandalism, and the user must have been indefblocked, perhaps for a preset minimal period of time, so as to ensure that the ban will not be reviewed, or already has been and was maintained.
Regarding the first point, I'm thinking that, if it is not possible to email the user, the request would have to remain posted for a somewhat longer period of time (45 days, maybe 60?). Redux 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I think it was designed to be the same time. I guesstimate <10% of users to be usurped (TBU) are going to have their emails registered, as they all have zero edits. Some may have registered their email on signup, but I doubt it will be many. I like the idea of 45 days for talk pages, to be honest, if they haven't got their email enabled (which is 30).
2) A fair point, but you must remember that there may have been discussions about this user/vandal on ANI etc., or in the histories of AIV, which make it awkward. Also, and don't quote me on this at all, but wouldn't they still contain GFDL rights over their contents, the main reason why we don't usurp accounts with edits? Although most would probably have been reverted, therefore nulling it on Wikipedia, do they still hold the GFDL moral assertion over the content that was reverted?
Just tossing some thoughts around, I may be totally wrong on all of that last bit. By the way, I've got an usurpation lined up, and I'm happy to be first-in-line :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, about point 2: regarding your first observation, it's like I said, it must be clear-cut vandalism, uncontroverted, which caused the account to be indefblocked without controversy. If there were threads of discussion about the user's behavior, maybe even a RfAr or a RfC, then the username cannot be usurped. About the second point: going back to the clear-cut vandalism, these people arguably contributed nothing to Wikipedia (I'm talking about attacks such as page blanking and profanity vandals — it's no small peas that will get someone indefblocked immediately and without controversy), and their history of vandalism would still be associated with a distinguished account, only renamed. Nothing would get obliterated, the contribution history does not get replaced literally with the history of the user usurping the account name, and the username change moves are duely logged, so the succession in "ownership" (bad word) of the account name is also a matter of public record. Also, considering that we can "usurp" today if the owner of the account TBU (nice acronym :-)) posts agreeing to it (although technically, it's not really usurping if the owner agreed to it, but it's not a "regular" rename either), it would seem to me (please correct me if I'm wrong), that if GFDL were an obstacle as you put it, no usurpation would be possible, period, and even renaming accounts would be problematic. Redux 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, GFDL requires that an author is listed and recorded, the author being linked to the account the contribution was contributed under (heh), now it shouldn't matter if the name of the account changes, it's still the designated account of the creator of the contribution. I believe with MediaWiki, the contributor is identified by and absolutely connected to their account number rather than by the username attached to the account number. It's a bit like the chassis number of a truck, it doesn't matter what shape or colour the body is, it's the chassis number underneath that counts. This would permit any vandal who has been blocked to have their username usurped instantly. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the GFDL issue is an important one, and really needs to be answered by someone who can give a binding answer (like, an attorney, perhaps the Foundation's attorney). However, I see another reason to not do these renames; unless it has been fixed, renames used to leave the user's block log behind, so doing a usurption on an indefblocked account would leave that user with an indefblock in thier blocklog. While this might not be a big issue for most users, it could be problematic; I've got a couple silly/mistaken blocks in my log, though I've never been legitimately blocked by anyone for anything, and users who weren't familiar with Wikipedia have found that confusing in the past. It's probably best to stick with the policy of "if there have been edits, no usurption." Essjay (Talk) 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A good point. But what if we make it part of the page that, in the event that "you" (whomever may be concerned in the specific rename) are requesting to usurp a username under these circumstances, there's this and that to take into account? Maybe make it part of the instructions. I mean, if the party directly concerned accepts the "risks", maybe we should allow them to get the username. Again: the proposed circumstances in which usurpation would be possible would make it very difficult for there to be any kind of "widespread" confusion about the new account using the name: a quickly banned vandal will not have a widely known "bad name" out there, and if the new user behaves properly, there would be very little opportunity for any serious problems to arise. And even those would be arguably easily solved, since the user rename log would show that it's not the same person — and again, the user requesting the rename will be made aware of the possibility, however small, that s/he might have that kind of problem.
But that's just my impression. Any more thoughts? Redux 13:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Moving a vandalistic username to "User:Vandal #8493470983" or something like that by renaming him, then usurping the leftover account is possible. If the new user wants to "clear his name", he can get someone with AWB or something similar to update the links pointing to his user account, as done by several users upon rename. Technically speaking, since the user ID of the account is stored in the revision and archive tables (rev_user and ar_user, respectively), as well as the username itself (rev_user_text and ar_user_text), all the edits are [theoretically] reattributed to the user. That said, I am very certain of three technical issues still unresolved:
  • The hidden table (where oversighted edits are stored) is not updated during a rename operation. In the highly-unlikely case that an edit is un-oversighted, it would be left in a stale state. Besides potentially causing technical problems, it could be a GFDL violation either way. That can be fixed quite easily, but it would probably require forking the Renameuser extension, as the hidden table is created by the oversight extension, and you cannot assume that oversight is going to be installed everywhere where Renameuser is needed.
  • The archive table is only updated when the $wgRenameUserQuick setting is set to false. Apparently, the English Wikipedia has it set to true. You will need to persuade a developer to change it.
  • The logging table is not updated during user renames. The biggest problem is with user blocks, and there is no easy fix for it. The user ID of the blocked user is not stored in the table row, just the username, and it is stored as the name of any other page. An example of how the table looks is:
log_type        log_action      log_timestamp   log_user        log_namespace   log_title               log_comment
protect         protect         20070112054349  2               0               Main_Page               Main Page [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading] 
delete          restore         20070112034340  2               2               Blblblblbl              1 revisions restored: retest 
renameuser      renameuser      20070112034218  2               -1              Renameuser              Renamed the user "[[User:Blblblblbl|Blblblblbl]]" (which had 0 edits) to "[[User:Vandal test 0001|Vandal test 0001]]"
delete          delete          20070112034007  2               2               Blblblblbl              content was: 'YOU ALL SUCK' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Blblblblbl|Blblblblbl]]')
block           block           20070112033946  2               2               Blblblblbl              {{vandalism}}
newusers        create          20070112033850  5               2               Blblblblbl              
protect         protect         20070111020023  2               4               Community_Portal        testing cascade protection [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading] 
delete          delete          20070111015641  4               8               Yourvariant             No longer required
  • As you can see, the name of the vandal username (Blblblblbl) is stored as the name of the page, not as an account object. The only way I can think of fixing it is to do the following SQL query:
UPDATE `mw_logging` SET `log_title` = '(new username)' WHERE `log_type` = 'block' AND `log_title`='(old username)'
  • That said, I have no clue how expensive that would be. It would fix that bug, though. Something similar can be done for page protections to fix the "protections left behind during move" bug as well, if it hasn't been done, I imagine it must be due to load reasons - ask at wikitech-l. Titoxd(?!?) 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there were that many...technical complications. I guess we better stick to never-active accounts only then. So much stuff to overcome in order to rename even quickly blocked vandals...I suppose ignorance is bliss. I know too much now. ;-) Redux 12:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, fixing the third one requires the patch I sent in Bug 7011 to be accepted. The other two require lobbying the devs... ;) Titoxd(?!?) 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old request page

Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp

Will these requests be given priority in the event someone else requests the username through the process before the person who first expressed an interest is able to file the necessary request, if so, then the old request page should be protected to ensure nobody can change previous requests and linked to the proper request process. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was my intent that those would be the first to be filled, if they are still desired. They will, of course, have to follow the policy, but provided they do, they will have first chance on those usernames. Essjay (Talk) 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When will this be active?

Sorry if this may seem annoying but I was wondering when this page was planned to be active? Yonatanh 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It appears that the earliest it will become active is ~February 11, 2007. --Durin 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The earliest the page could be active is whenever one of us gets around to opening it up, which happens to be now. The earliest a usurpation could actually be performed is 31 days from whenever the first request is made. (Unless someone actually gets the user they want to usurp to agree to it, in which case it could be done immediately.) Essjay (Talk) 12:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actions that are logged prevent usurpation...

...but nowadays, creating an account is logged. This needs to be changed to give an exception so that creating an account doesn't prevent the username from being usurped (otherwise, no account could be usurped, because all accounts have been created). --ais523 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I expected that to be an obvious exception; were we to annotate and include every possible variation, we would have to split the policy into a series of pages to keep it under 10,000KB. The point of the log provision is to prevent the usurpation of usernames that have been used for image uploads (and perhaps page moves, though that seems less likley). In practice, those of us who will be performing usurpations are wise enough to know to ignore anyone who tries to ruleslawyer with exceptions of this sort. (Not suggesting that is what you're doing, just pointing out that those who might will be ignored.) Essjay (Talk) 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:POINT and WP:IAR, exploiting loopholes in policies is a bad idea, so I agree that pointing it out shouldn't make a difference. On the other hand, if a loophole is noticed, it may as well be closed up. In this case, it's possible that the bold there are no exceptions to this rule might manage to confuse people who would otherwise be seeking usurpation into thinking that it was impossible unless the account was created before account-creation logging started, and I see no harm in clearing the matter up (it doesn't seem particularly creepy to me). --ais523 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to stick to my guns and say I don't think it's strictly needed, but if you'd like to change it, please feel free. Essjay (Talk) 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Shouldn't the header at Template:Usurp be the other way around? I just filled my request (wohoo!), and my first impression was that I did something wrong as I read "Conti → ContiE". That looks like the user Conti wants the username ContiE, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a note whether new requests should go on the top or on the bottom might be useful. I added mine to the top, others added theirs to the bottom. And the "diff link" on "The user must provide a diff link to this message when making their usurpation request." (Wikipedia:Usurpation) should be changed to "permalink", since it's not possible to create a diff when there's only one revision on a page. --Conti|✉ 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a note asking people to add new requests at the bottom of the list for each day. Normally, when there's a list of due requests, we will go down the list, from the oldest to the newer requests — and especially since requests posted in the same day can be many hours older or newer than other requests, and those expiring sooner will be attended to sooner. If a Bureaucrat drops by only when a number of requests are already ready to be acted upon, then the Bureaucrat will likely go down the list, using the rule "first come, first served" (that's not an absolute rule though, just a rule of thumb), so it makes sense that new requests should go at the bottom of each list. I don't believe it is necessary to reorganize the existing list, but as of now, we will shift any misplaced requests to the bottom of the list. Redux 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to clerks

To the RFCU clerks who have been wrangled into clerking this page as well:

It would be helpful to have a confirmation that all the points of the policy have been met. To that end, I've created a couple of templates for flagging requests that don't meet the policy, and one for those that do. They are:

  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Users with GFDL significant edits may not be usurped. {{has edits}}
  • This user has entries in their Wikipedia user logs. Usernames with any logged actions, other than user creations, may not be usurped. {{has logs}}
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation. {{can be usurped}}

Also, it would be helpful to know two more pieces of information: Has the talk page message been left, and does the username being usurped have an email set. (We don't need clerks to actually send the emails, just check if they have an email set.) To this end, I've also created:

  • The user requesting this usurpation did not leave a message for the user who is being usurped. All users requesting to usurp a username must leave {{subst:usurpation requested}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the username being usurped. {{no message}}
  • The current owner of the target username has been notified of this usurpation request. {{has message}}
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. {{no email}}
  • The current owner of the target username has an email address set. {{has email}}

Adding those for each request would help a lot. It should be fine to do a bulleted list below the request, i.e.:

  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username has been notified of this usurpation request.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.

Thanks clerks! Essjay (Talk) 08:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I've got too much time and wanted to learn a bit about the esoteric template stuff, I've created one template for all this, {{CUU}}, with the parameters "contribs" (yes, edits, logs, both, logs&edits; default is no), "message" (no/yes) and "mail" (no/yes). All three parameters can be left out if everything's alright, so that "{{CUU}}" (without any parameter) can be used when the username can be usurped, has been notified and has a mail address. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that Essjay. Have a great holiday time in CA :)Daniel.Bryant 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Conti; forgive my tinkering, but I've updated the template a bit (see documentation at template page). I'm thinking we may be better off transcluding this one, but I can make it mostly subst-friendly if we prefer. Luna Santin 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. I've changed the mail default option to "no email", because that seems to be the case most of the time. --Conti|✉ 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this be applied retroactively? Or only to new requests? Luna Santin 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that I've applied it to all the old requests I'd have to answer a. :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Added one, for the use of bureaucrats who have emailed the user: The current owner of the target username has an email address set, and an email has been sent by a clerk or bureaucrat to notify them of this request. {{user emailed}}. Essjay (Talk) 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add desired name talk page diff to template?

Is it worth adding a place to link to the message on the talk page of the desired name to the {{usurp}} template? It's necessary for every request to include this diff, so it may as well be there. Also, as a few people seem to have forgotted to link the diff, it might serve as a prompt. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The clerks will indicate, through their symbols, if a user hasn't been notified; as such, this would be moot. Daniel.Bryant 08:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New users requesting usurpation

Should brand new users be allowed to usurp other accounts? According to the usurpation policy, users should be "established contributors" to request usurpation, which new users obviously are not. Two users (AndHab and Rabollig) created their accounts to request usurpation of other accounts recently, and one other (Kumbi) has very few edits. --Conti|✉ 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could take the opportunity to discuss it now if need be. Currently, policy disallows those from being carried out. In my opinion, that is reasonable. We should not submit the servers to not just one, but two renames (which is what it takes to usurp a username) if the requester hasn't established an identity on Wikipedia yet, and when we have no way of knowing if the user is even going to stick around and contribute continuingly after getting the username. Redux 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As a clerk, I'm entirely neutral regarding that and would treat such a request no differently from any other. As a member of the community, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Redux. There may come a time when somebody needs to decide what exactly an "established" member is, for the purpose of the currently existing policy, but so far it seems to have been pretty clear. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as strange that a new user should sign up and file a request for usurpation within ten minutes. I suppose it could be long-term readers that had decided not to sign up until they were able to get their desired usernames, but that seems a bit far-fetched. Otherwise, it must be established contributers wanting a scokpuppet in a specific name. Obviously, I don't want to sound like I'm throwing accusations around or anything - it's not really a problem - I'm just trying to get my head around whats going on in these cases. I guess if these are established contributers wanting socks, they perhaps have more of a basis to request usurpation from. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, maybe people that have signed up for an account and promptly forgetting the password wanting their accounts back. I guess it's probably not as clear cut as I'm making out. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would a new option for {{CUU}} like "established=yes/no" be useful for the bureaucrats and clerks? Something like "This user has very few/less than 50/100/500 edits.", whatever the threshold for being an established user should be. --Conti|✉ 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it's a thought; I'd personally just as soon let it be a seperate note (as we can see on WP:CHU/U, we generally have a seperate signature line where any special notes could easily go). Unless we don't think that'd be obvious enough. Looks like we have one such request, right now, so will give a demo; without any bcrat say-so, I'm currently assuming the decision is in the acting bcrat's hands (clerks making those decisions aren't neutral clerks, after all; pointing it out is no harm, though, I think). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usurping doppelgangers

Is one allowed to usurp one's own doppelganger accounts? I used each of mine to make a single edit to the doppelganger userpages before I confirmed them, and I would of course consent to having one moved somewhere else to usurp it. I'm not interested in it for myself right now, but I think this should be allowed even if the doppelganger account made an edit. Grandmasterka 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. All we might require would be a post made from the doppelganger account here, to confirm the situation. Currently, we are even forgoing the waiting period if the owner of the account-to-be-usurped consents explicitly. Well, I guess it doesn't get any better than a user "consenting" to her/himself to "usurp" his/her own account. ;-) We are, of course, talking about the typical doppelganger: clearly identified as one by the owner, who will have declared, in advance (at the time s/he created the account in the first place) that the account exists as a doppelganger. Redux 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it has been our policy all along that if you want a given username and the current owner of that username agrees to give it to you, we will perform the change. I don't really consider these usurpations; usurpation has a connotation of force, so a change-by-agreement doesn't really fit. Essjay (Talk) 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diff ← -Slash-

There has been a number of tentitive objections raised over this username, related to the MediaWiki feature. A very quick ask-around indicated to me that there is no concensus to whether this username is suitable; hence, I bring this discussion forward to, well, discuss this request. I do so here to avoid any clutter of the main CHU/U page, as requested by Essjay (who indicated he would prefer any discussion here, for which I agree). This discussion has been noted under the request on the main CHU/U page, with a link. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Diff seems to me to violate WP:U as it falls under: "Wikipedia terms. This includes commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms". The examples given in the policy include "Rollback", "Revert", "Delete" and "Upload". I would have thought if those were invalid, "Diff" must be as well. WjBscribe 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with WJBscribe here. Diff is a Wiki feature. --wL<speak·check·chill> 08:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No ... too confusing --BigDT 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning on agreeing here, but then again, it would link to User:Diff and not the lastest change to the article. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 14:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is against policy, and the rules is important. That being said, I don't think it would be disruptive. So.... no real opinion hehe HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's definitely against policy, and it could cause confusion. Doesn't seem suitable. Aelffin 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's against policy, then block it. "Diff" is the feature we use when looking at the differences between edits. Acalamari 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Aww, but yeah, it won't work. I'll think of a different username. What do we do with the request? And what happens to the already existing account? {Slash-|-Talk} 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing happens to the existing Diff account; there's no pressing need to block it, as it is inactive, and probably forgotten. If someone begins using it, it may be blocked under WP:U, but let's cross that bridge when we get there. Titoxd(?!?) 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As -Slash- has withdrawn his request (above) I have marked it not done. It will be archived in due course. Essjay (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging requests

Hi all:

I'd like to ask the non-bureaucrat observers of the page to please refrain from tagging requests with Y Done and N Not done. These two templates are used on the main CHU and the CHU/U page to trigger the archiving bot, so adding them causes requests to be removed from the page; this is a problem, because the task of deciding whether to perform a rename or not is specifically a bureaucrat task, and forcing an archive of a request without us being able to see it first leaves room for a lot of problems. I have no doubt that those who have done so here and on CHU have done so in good faith, as a convenience in obvious cases, but it really does create problems, as we slowly slip towards non-bureaucrats making calls on not-so-obvious cases, and those with ill intent using the templates to vandalize.

Some time ago, I specifically asked the RFCU clerks to keep an eye on these two pages, making sure that requests were properly formatted, that nobody was trying to fool us into renaming someone else's account, and that no vandalism was taking place. They are concerned, and I share their concern, that it is becoming much more difficult to do this because we're getting just a bit too much help. So, I'd like to ask specifically that only bureaucrats use the Y Done and N Not done templates (due to thier sensitivity, described above), and I'd like to encourage those who aren't RFCU clerks to please be very careful in what is being done here, as it really does have an effect on our ability to keep the page in order and make sure that all the renames we perform are done correctly and with due regard for policy.

Everyone's assistance is greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A question though: Raul654 asked the clerks to tag requests as {{done}} or {{not done}} after he cleared the main WP:CHU page a few days ago, would this be considered a legitimate reason for non-bureaucrats to use the templates? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If a bureaucrat specifically requests a clerk to assist them in tagging, then that is fine. My concern is about users doing so on their own authority, which usurps the role of the bureaucrat staff, creates confusion on the page, and encourages other users to do likewise, worsening the problem. Essjay (Talk) 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebola ← AndHab

WJBscribe contacted me regarding this request; he's concerned that it may not be appropriate under the username policy. The way we handled the previous such discussion worked pretty well (see Slash/Diff discussion, above), so let's try that again unless anybody objects. Beyond starting the section, I should probably let WJBscribe speak for himself. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is fairly straightforward; username policy presently prohibits "Usernames mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Ebola seems to fall within this category. WjBscribe 09:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. WjBscribe 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Ebola (disambiguation), I see three posibilities. As the name of a disease, it would be inappropriate. As the name of a river, perhaps less so, but we do prohibit the names of countries. As the name of a rapper (who is presumably a famous person), it would be inappropriate. Unless the user can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve any of these, I'm afraid it's going to have to be considered inappropriate. Essjay (Talk) 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've notified AndHab about this discussion but I note that he was only active on Wikipedia from 11 Feb to 13 Feb so may not reply. WjBscribe 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The Ebola River is not a country. The country there is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is not a username under discussion here. I note that naming a child or oneself after a river is not unprecedented. -- Ben 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you were confused by my statement; the phrasing was intended to raise discussion of whether the reasons for not allowing country names as usernames would also apply to rivers. Witness "As the name of a river, perhaps less so, but we do prohibit the names of countries." which points out, three words in, that it is, indeed, the name of a river, and goes on to point out a similar prohibition, that of country names. Essjay (Talk) 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no way in which the prohibition on country names could reasonably be extended to rivers, mountains, and other natural features. The reason for that prohibition is that no username should imply its user is speaking officially on behalf of a nation; we prohibit company and trademarked names for much the same reason. There is no reasonable risk that anyone will be thought to be speaking officially on behalf of a river, mountain, or other natural feature. "Wabash", "Danube", "Everest", and "Matterhorn" would all be unobjectionable usernames. -- Ben 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I hardly need the reasons elucidated for me; I have been here for a few days and do have some semblance of an idea of what's going on. I simply meant to jog the discussion on the appropriatness of the username. Essjay (Talk) 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Then please clarify your comment above, "Unless the user can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve any of these, I'm afraid it's going to have to be considered inappropriate." A river-name (which was one of "these") isn't inappropriate. Or should "Wabash" and "Danube" be usernameblocked too? -- Ben 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ben, as Essjay said the problem is that it isn't just a river as those are. If it were only a virus and a living rapper we wouldn't need a discussion- it would be invalid. If it it were only a river we wouldn't need a discussion- it would be valid. Its because it is all three that a discussion is needed. WjBscribe 12:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
WjB, the problem is that Essjay included the river-name among the invalid ("inappropriate") meanings: he listed all three, and then said, "Unless the user can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve any of these, I'm afraid it's going to have to be considered inappropriate." (emphasis added) That declares the river-name meaning inappropriate too -- which is the only thing I'm disagreeing with. -- Ben 12:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There's also a mixed drink named "Ebola", made with tequila, vodka, dark rum, gin, whiskey, and sweetened pineapple juice. -- Ben 13:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Lets not have an exception to username rules for names that are also cocktails, please. Otherwise we'd have to allow "screaming orgasm", "sex on the beach", "slippery nipple" etc. WjBscribe 13:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's an intriguing proposal, WjB, and I must admit I gave it some consideration. At first blush, such names would certainly liven up the edit histories of any articles to which they contributed. Who could resist looking at their diffs, to see what sorts of changes they put in? But then the sad and inevitable realization sank in, that if they were going to stick around as editors, most of their contribs would be like most of anyone else's, prosaic, ordinary, and even humdrum matters of correcting spelling and grammar, requesting or providing factual citations, processing secondary-source information into encyclopedic format, and dealing with the online "office politics". Once-thrilling phrases like "screaming orgasm" and "slippery nipple" would lose their piquancy and charm, and become unremarkable, everyday, hardly noticeable -- like the sight of nudity to lifelong members in a society of perpetual nudists. No. No, that simply wouldn't do. There is a point and a purpose to taboos. We must forbid such things, so that they can retain the thrill of the forbidden. -- Ben 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I came here from RFCU to give an opinion but ended up being entertained...thanks Ben. You do indeed have a unique way with words.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
... and a font, and a computer game, and some server software, and several different bands (not counting the rapper, and not counting "Ebola Joy"), a bunch of blogger IDs (including "Fweng Ebola").... -- Ben 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would allow. The key point is whether, on seeing the username, other users would be offended. On this, my judgment is that they would not. Sam Blacketer 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow A user might very well be offended if a loved one had died from Ebola; see User:AIDS.Proabivouac 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's extremely unlikely that anyone using wikipedia has a loved one who has died from Ebola, since the number of recorded deaths is not as significant as those who have died of AIDS. If we're going to follow that line of reason, User:Fire should also be disallowed. --AndHab 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow - Name of a very fatal and horrible disease. May have other connotations but i am pretty sure that the most notable is a horrible disease. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Chris, the problem is that these hemorrhagic-fever filoviruses are named after the places they were encountered or identified. The Ebola virus is named after the river in the region it was discovered. One strain, Ebola Reston, is named after Reston, Virginia, for a similar reason. The related Marburg virus is named after a city in Germany. In each case the place-name came first. By the standard you propose, no place-name username would be safe, because a new strain or related virus might be identified there tomorrow, any place in the world; and suddenly the place-name will also be a disease-name. -- Ben 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the human names that have become names of diseases, due to the doctors who identified them (e.g. Alois Alzheimer) or the notable victims (e.g. Lou Gehrig). Is the username Bright impermissible because of Bright's disease? Tomorrow a doctor or victim surnamed "Kreider" may become the namesake of a disease; would your own name become impermissible here as a result? -- Ben 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a situation that is black and white as describved above. IF his name was dr. ebola, or john ebola, or ebola river or ebola xever i would no problem with it. Stated as it is, Ebola is innapropriate per username policy (IMHO). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Odd you should mention it, but there actually is a User:Dr. Ebola, and no-one's usernameblocked him. I guess that "Dr." in front of one's name really does make a difference! Also a User:Ebolarocks, likewise never blocked. Yet both of them, unlike User:Ebola, actually have contrib histories and user pages, leaving footprints on Wikipedia. (more "Ebolas") -- Ben 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Banning this person for their username is a solution in search of a problem. This is the kind of case that reflects poorly on public perception of our judgment as admins. What's next, a username block on me because my name might offend someone who has a relative in a wheelchair? Or because it contains the word 'boy' which has been used as a pejorative against blacks in the deep south? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You've made a compelling case. Should your name be sent to WP:RFCN or straight to WP:AIV? -- Ben 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But seriously, no. "Banning this person for their username" is not at issue. AndHab has asked to "usurp" the unused-but-registered name "Ebola". If that's disallowed, AndHab won't get that name, and either will remain AndHab or choose a different name (whichever AndHab prefers to do). But no-one's proposed to block or ban AndHab, whose current name is not a problem. -- Ben 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong Disallow Reasonable policy-violating interpretation takes precedence over far-fetched speculative apologetic suggestions dreamed up by users who always play devil's advocate for RFCs intended to prevent possible offense or violation. The Behnam 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Within the first three-to-five long words there, I got lost, The Behnam. If an interpretation is policy-violating, how can it be reasonable, and why should it take precedence? Could you rephrase that a bit more clearly and concretely? Please? Thanks! -- Ben 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think The Behnam's statement could be written that "a reasonable interpretation that the username violates policy takes precedence ...." — ERcheck (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow I have no problem with this. ViridaeTalk 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow change to this new username. Though it has other meanings, Ebola is most strongly associated with its meaning as the name of a disease — and thus violates policy. Likewise, we would not allow Alzheimer as its most common is association is with the disease name. — ERcheck (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. It's the name of a river. We shouldn't start applying rules as though they were important in their own right. They're important because of what they do, and in this case nothing needs doing — no sensible person would take offence. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the original "User:Ebola" was blocked awhile back, which is precisely where the name has no contributions and is available to be usurped. In any event, has anyone asked the user making this request whether he or she has really thought it through? Newyorkbrad 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious disallow Clear policy violation. That being said, I don't see a consensus to disallow here, suggest closing as no consensus to disallow. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow, there are some toponyms that have the misfortune of being homonyms with fatal diseases. These are disallowed clearly by WP:U. NikoSilver 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Following the spirit of the policy, rather than the letter, the test is "will anyone likely be offended?" the answer is no. Borisblue 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)