Wikipedia talk:SUL/Consultation on renames

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations#Single User Login: thoughts?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Single User Log-in, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Single user log-in

Contents 1 Wording 2 Example case for discussion 3 Add blocked accounts 4 Some suggestions 5 Create a banner notice 6 I don't quite understand what is next

[edit] Wording

I support "where the username has either a) not edited recently or b) not established themselves, to be treated with bureaucrat discretion. "Recently" is to be defined relative to the established nature of the contributor, and how many edits they've made." Emphasis on "or". In truly ambiguous cases, more than one bureaucrat should give their opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's good to consider SUL renames the same as usurpations. Usurpations are a particular type of 'change username'. SUL renames are not about a user asking to change username; they're about two users who have the same username, albeit on different projects. (The person who is requesting the name is not asking to change their username, they're asking to keep it.) However: if we can assist the SUL process by liberalizing our usurpation requirements somewhat, I'd support that.

I don't think we need to do forcible usernames just yet; we can delay a decision on that, or leave it to the developrs to deal with. But if one user appears to have left the project, and we have the technical ability to rename them to assist someone who hasn't left, I don't see a strong reason not to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example case for discussion

If case anyone wants an example case to discuss, try this one. More details here. Short story: three sets of transwikiied contributions (but no account created on those wikis), and two clashes of account names, one at fr-Wikipedia and one at Commons. I predict Commons will get lots of clashes of accounts with similar numbers of edits, where only the home account activity will help distinguish them. I know Commons has its own policies, but if discussing this case won't prejudice that, please feel free to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Users may also usurp accounts that consent to being renamed regardless of edits." - If that is also the case at Commons, I should just contact the editor in question. Is there a standard, polite way to ask someone about taking over their account name? Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add blocked accounts

Perhaps obvious, but this should be allowed for permanently blocked vandal accounts (particularly impostors) as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

Further to the above, I would agree that an indef blocked account could be usurped (making sure to unblock first, and annotate logs to avoid the bugginess with blocks and renames). I would say any account that has: fewer than 50 edits and has not edited within the past 6 months, no edits at all, or has not edited in the past 18 months could be immediately usurpable. If they don't meet these criteria, they should try to be contacted and given at least 1-2 weeks to object/suggest a username to be renamed too. I don't think GFDL is a concern. Edits from the original user will simply be attributed under a different name. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked is not the same as banned, it just means that the period of blockage is until someone consents to unblock. Do you mean to allow usurpation of banned accounts only, or also of indef blocked accounts that are likely to be reactivated at some future date? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not many indef blocked accounts ever get unblocked. In the majority of cases indefinite = infinite. When it does happen it usually happens very soon after blocking, when discussion is still ongoing and usurpation would be inappropriate. Once usurped, the account will not be unrecoverable either, they can still sign in under the new username, and if they are unblocked can request a renaming. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not many, but some do get unblocked after chosing to take a long break to cool off. Not everyone angrily demands an immediate unblocking. Some go away and come back months later and ask if they can be unblocked. I'd still judge by number of edits. If an editor with a lot of good-faith edits was indefinitely blocked, make some effort to contact them first. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems quite reasonable. The example that brought the "blocked" case to mind (where this consideration would not apply) was simple:user:Rick Block. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Create a banner notice

I would like to respectfully suggest that we create one of those banner notices (like for elections to the board) to place across the Wikipedia to notify people about the SUL and the relevant policy discussion. Particularly since many of those who could be affected if we chose to change our current rename/usurpation practices are unlikely to know about it otherwise, but also because I'm afraid many of those attracted to the current discussions may be administrators who would have a conflict of interest because they are seeking to take advantage of the SUL on other projects. (No, I'm not assuming bad faith. But increased input is always helpful.) --Tim4christ17 ^talk 08:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could put this page on the "centralized discussion" list; WJB already annonced it quite broadly.

I don't favor putting up a site notice about SUL until we have at least a timeline from the devs about when it will be rolled out more broadly and a rollout plan. At the moment, I don't think we have enough information to make a coherent announcement.

In the end, it isn't clear to me that the enwiki usurpation procedure will be the determining factor about name conflicts. If the decision is made that all logins will switch to SUL (which I think is the plan, isn't it?), then eventually something will be implemented to resolve all the remaining conflicts, even if we haven't resolved them ourselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't quite understand what is next

I went through the single user login procedure and found out that there were OVER SIXTY accounts with my user name (User:Sam) that are not me (I'm only en:wikipedia, commons, meta and mediawiki). So what will happen with these other accounts? Some have never been used, but some are active. Who sorts out the conflicts and how? I don't really care that there are other people with the same name on a different project, but eventually, if everyone is going to have a single login, something will have to be figured out... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The accounts that have no contributions can be handled here: m:Steward_requests/Usurpation(currently closed due to technical difficulties though). Accounts with contributions are handled by local bureaucrats, so you'll have to go to these wikis and request usurpation of these accounts manually. This is currently subject to local policy but will eventually be handled by the software, which will handle account-conflicts based on some algorithm (when and how is still unclear to me). MiCkE 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also ask for a renaming of your own account... Blinking Spirit (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)