Wikipedia talk:Changing usernames guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines page.

Contents

[edit] Proposal to promote to guideline

I put forward that we propose to promote this page to an official Wikipedia guideline. Let us discuss the proposal here in an attempt to reach a consensus. --Deskana (banana) 21:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's essentially a description of what we do anyway, I strongly support the adoption of this guideline as official. Andre (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I support the adoption of the guideline, on the basis that it's simply a description of current status. Also, this page will provide users with an obvious place to discuss the practices over there (namely the ridiculous (IMO) vanity renames, which have lead to mass confusion! (points at single letter usernames)). Thanks, Martinp23 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too. This page accurately describes the current practice in language that ordinary users can understand. Shalom Hello 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems to be a good summary which will help to explain renaming actions/inactions. Daniel→♦ 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sr13 23:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, and seems to codify what I have observed of current practice, which is the best way to formulate guidelines/policies... ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many is too many?

"Too many previous username changes. Changing usernames puts a lot of strain on the server, causing watchlist lag and even possibly causing a database lockdown. If there's no evidence that a user will stick with the new username, performing the rename is probably not a good idea."

As this is an attempt to streamline policy, shouldn't it also be quantified? Keeping it open like this seems to invite independant thought, but will probably end up getting set as a precedent somewhere, and then followed because that is what happened before. Wouldn't it be much better to have some community deiscussion about it? Martijn Hoekstra 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest clue how many is too many. I recall that Tellyaddict became The Sunshine Man and is now QXZ, so two renames is presumably okay. I am not aware of any user who has been renamed three times. Shalom Hello 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Qst, but he's actually now User:Rlest! Although, some of the changes weren't actually made using the process - rather by registering a new account. Martinp23 23:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think he was User:Fpt at one point as well. Andre (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say Three Strikes, and-now-you're-just-changing-your-name-for-the-hell-of-it. Anyway, I'd prefer to see the name on policy violation names to be changed to "unintentional" violations. If someone starts, say, User:KILL THE JEWS, we should ban them outright, not let them hang around in WP:CHU limbo. But if, say, someone creates User:353tt457, because it's the name of their super awesome clone soilder from the planet Zelus in some table top RPG or something, give them a chance to change it as a confusing name. To be more specific, names that are intended to insult, demean, be rude, or imitate should be instantly blocked. Names that infringe trademarks, are confusing, or are too long should be allowed to change, as long as they don't meet the above. I'd also like to see Bureaucrats may NOT decline a name change for a reasonable reason that complies with the Username Policy. Seeing someone apply for a CHU, meet all the requirements, and then be declined because some Bureaucrat decided he didn't like the name, even though it was perfectly within policy, and if it was a new account there would be no grounds to block him for the name --Longing.... 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, bureaucrats are supposed to use their judgment, so what you suggest with the "may NOT" isn't really going to fly. I think the same sort of applies to the "too many" criterion - rather than setting a hard and fast ceiling, we'll approach it on a case by case basis. And as far as KILL THE JEWS and that sort of thing, that really falls more under the blocking policy than the CHU policy. Andre (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is pretty much exactly the problem, using judgment is resulting in "IDONTLIKEIT" rejection of name changes. Even bcrats need rules. --L--- 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that saying to many is a good idea. If you don't trust bureaucrats' judgement, then what can youn trust here? Od Mishehu 09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have had two renames - One from my RL name as I quickly realised that was not such a hot idea and then One WP:USURP to my current (and final name). My point being that I would assume a usurp creates as much drain (if not more) as a change, as it is in outcome the same thing - to that end I would think if you're not happy by your third / maximum fourth incarnation it's possibly a bit too late, unless there were extenuating circumstances. Pedro |  Chat  09:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I don't trust bureaucrats' jusdgement, that would be silly indeed. The point I was trying to make is, if you do make a guideline, you may as well put some guidance in it. The particular namechange in question may have special cirumstances, and a burocrat in question may wish to ignore all rules for that one. Too many is a hard concept, and precedents in Wikipedia have always had a strong influence on decission making. To avoid endless discussion between a bureaucrat who thinks a user had too many changes, and a user saying that it's not fair, and that user so and so also had a namechange after so and so many changes, having some number might be preferable. Martijn Hoekstra 10:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But how to pick a number? It seems any such would be arbitrary. Andre (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

reindent. True enough, but that would be the same problem when an actual jusgement has to be made. IT's not easier on a case by case basis than it is in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs)

I think it is -- if you have all the past renames to review, you can see if the user's just stringing us along or if he has real reasons to change. Andre (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I wouldn't be too happy with a hard limit. I don't think that rehashing the recent sysop renames vs. community trust threads will do us any good but, as far as I am concerned, there just might be compelling reasons why a third and fourth rename is appropriate for one user and why, even if it's hard to understand for that person, somebody else's second or third rename may not. No offense to Andre or any of the other 'crats, but IMHO we have two of our most trusted and experienced bureaucrats in our WP:CHU and WP:CHUU regulars, Secretlondon and Deskana and I'm pretty sure they can figure out any borderline cases themselves. In essence, what I'm trying to say is: yes, the basis for most of what we do us community consensus but this isn't just some standard administrative action that will affect a lot of users. It's more along the lines of 'it's a privilege, not a right'. A username change is not the rule, it's is the exception and, in most cases, a rename is very much non-critical. We trust the 'crats, let's give them some room to make discretionary decisions. S up? 00:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I take exception to that. How am I not a CHU or CHUU regular? I could understand it if you didn't include Deskana or me, as we are the newest crats, but why would you consider Deskana to be any more trusted and experienced than I am? I was promoted within a day of Deskana, and I did 150 renames in July to Deskana's 39. Now Deskana has 52 renames to his bureaucrat log and I have 178. Secretlondon only did two renames in July. Andre (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I'd like to apologize -- I certainly did not mean any offense. If you don't mind, I'd respectfully ask permission to take this to your talk page. Well, on a more general note, perhaps, I should really take a prolonged wikibreak. I'm afraid I've been pretty busy lately and it appears I'm really doing more harm than good here. Sorry again - I didn't mean to insult you in any way. It's just that I'm way more familiar with Deskana's work and, actually, I'm afraid I may have got my facts mixed up. S up? 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, no hard feelings. We can discuss it on my talk page if you wish, but don't feel obligated to. Everyone mixes things up sometimes. Andre (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
About number of renames: A user who asks for a rename every week, should be rejected at the third request. A user whop asks to be renames once a year, 5 times may be reasonable. Od Mishehu 13:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

5 total, up to twice a year. It's the perfect answer, and if you argue with it, your logic is inherently flawed. --L-- 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that your last sentence is a joke. And I do argue with it, we should not make an arbitrary restriction on this. Bureaucrats can decide for themselves. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that placing an abslute limit is a bad idea - I think the best solution is to say what it already says (making it clear that a second request is likely to be accepted, but that there is a limit), and let 'crats make the final decision. Od Mishehu 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It depends entirely on the circumstances. If, for instance, Pedro decided he wanted a rename, then I personally would give his request serious weight. But there is one user I can think of who I would decline rename requests for, and he's only been renamed once. Let's remember this page is a guideline. Placing an absolute limit on a page that directly instructs you to use common sense in the header of it seems somewhat silly. Were this the "Changing usernames policy", I might agree. But this is the "Changing usernames guideline". --Deskana (banana) 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Deskana said it perfectly. This is a guideline, our bureaucrats can be trusted to use common sense. Arbitrary limits are not needed. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Instead of starting a new thread, I'm just going to ask in this one, as it is about the same thing. The guideline currently states:
    Too many previous username changes. Changing usernames puts a lot of strain on the server, causing watchlist lag and even possibly causing a database lockdown. If there's no evidence that a user will stick with the new username, performing the rename is probably not a good idea.
  • While that is indeed a reason, it seems quite flimsy. Additionally, there are concerns about users getting confused (e.g. "Who is this guy? Oh, that is his username today?") and about users who've had controversial renames before. While it is true that I could just edit the guideline to add the reasons, since this has already been discussed above, more words can't hurt. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well

I'm not sure that it should start with "personal preference". I'd say renamings because of, say, privacy are far more important, and should be pointed out first. As written the page sort-of gives the impression that it's normal and good to change your username at whim, and I don't think we should encourage that. >Radiant< 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The list isn't in order of precedence, as far as I know. Personal preference renames are generally allowed. Andre (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but it would give a better impression in order of importance. >Radiant< 09:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Since it's in no particular order, I'm sure Deskana would not mind if you reordered it that way. Andre (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked the "inappropriate" section slightly, for reasons similar to Radiant. In general, I agree that the most important points should go first. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Deskana (banana) 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So do you two (Radiant and Gavia immer) support the adoption of this guideline now? Andre (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • If I find problems with it in the future I will simply edit it to improve that :) >Radiant< 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any objection?

Does anyone have any objection to changing the page to policy a guideline right now? Andre (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me. It sems like most people see this as just a statement of current practice (which was a goal of the original composers), so it's not likely to be controversial. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Same here. It's a written guide of the current rules. ~ Wikihermit 20:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

What exactly does this mean? "Deleted edits are now reallocated during renaming." Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the case that deleted edits stayed with the username so that if someone was renamed to a previously used name they would inherit that name's deleted edits. I presume from the comment this has been fixed.Secretlondon 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Andre (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool

No problems from me. This is pretty much a statement of common practice. There are arguments to be had on personal preference/renaming addicts - how much 'vanity' renaming should we allow? This is for the community to decide. Secretlondon 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate above. Me and Andre are weighing in as community members interested in the process (not as bureaucrats). --Deskana (banana) 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target username is too new

"Target username is too new. If the target username was created recently, usurpation is probably premature. It is expected that the target username will have existed for at least 6 months." Why? I don't really see a need for this. It seems a bit pointless that someone wants to change to another name, sees that the account already existed, files a usurpation request, and then it gets declined because the target name existed for only two months. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The target account needs to have been around long enough for the 'crats to see that it is, in fact, not being used to edit Wikipedia. Od Mishehu 20:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New editors

Isn't it common practice to decline a CHU request when the requester is too new (e.g. he only made a handful of contributions), and tell them just to create the account? Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In my experience that's true for CUU but not CHU. I've seen people renamed with no contribs. Typically it's something like I didn't realize that my name would be visible to the public. --Jeremyb 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What's CUU? Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
C(H)UU = Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For usurpation, what edits are okay?

The guideline currently says that If the target username has good faith edits which were not immediately reverted, and the account owner has not explicitly consented to the rename, then usurping could cause GFDL copyright issues. Does this mean any edits whatsoever that aren't vandalism? Or, for instance, userpage edits? i said 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usurpation (again)

Guideline says this:

To ensure that good use is made of popular usernames, usurpation is reserved for established users. It is expected that an account requesting usurpation will have existed for several months and made non-trivial contributions to the encyclopedia.

"Several months" here is probably intentionally vague, to allow discretion; but it really doesn't give any indication of whether one's application is going to succeed. Similarly, what constitutes "non-trivial contributions"? Compare a user with 12 months editing experience, but several hundred edits, with that of a 3 month user with several thousand edits, mostly in mainspace including a history of reverting vandalism and creation of numerous good (not Good) articles. How does one distinguish between them and how much does the decision depend on which Bureaucrat is making the decision. There's a danger that users may wait until a known lenient B'crat is around dealing with these before putting in the application, and the danger is that that is "gaming" the process. Comments welcome. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)