Talk:Global rename policy/Archives/2015

Request for Comment: Officially implementing the global rename policy

This is a request for comment to remove the "proposed" part of the policy. Please indicate how you feel on the matter, and please do suggest any improvements if you see the potential for them. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see any issues with the document, and I think it's time that we make a definite policy on this matter. As of now, all the page documenting global renaming have those question mark tags... --Biblioworm (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• support A Site- or CentralNotice might be useful though. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• support. Samat (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Allan J. Aguilar (Ralgis) 06:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support - Would be very usefull to actually have a policy on global renames. The proposed text is short and to the point and works well in practice. It might need some fine tuning when we run into specific problems, but for the moment making this policy is a good idea. Taketa (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support --Glaisher (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support, also for a similar Usurpation policy. Trijnstel_talk 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Nahid ^Talk 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: In the last days global renamers have left practically all renames with no redirects. However, one criteria that the proposed global rename policy lists is this: ”The old name is duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict or blocks.” When there’s a conflict between what we (global renamers and stewards) do and what the proposed policy text says, one of them should be changed or clarified. If the local rename log entry (and/or move log entry) is sufficiently ”due and visible link” between the old and the new name, that should be apparent to anyone reading the text of the policy. –Ejs-80 11:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I think this policy is widely accepted and there seems no oppose and therefore it should be tagged as such. It is used currently, so it is defacto a policy yet. Thoughts? --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This text can be ammended in later if there's any need, but this is already de facto policy and should be tagged as such. —MarcoAurelio 09:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I've been bold and tagged the document as such, without prejudice that it can be removed if this discussion leads to contrary consensus. —MarcoAurelio 09:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It de facto is already a policy as it is used already and things are done "per this policy" anyway. -Barras talk 12:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Usurpation

Proposed addition

== Usurpation ==

Usurpation is the act of taking over a username under certain circumstances. This policy outlines what those circumstances are.

A local or global can be usurped without notice if it meets the following conditions:

• The account has no edits, and has been registered over two years ago.
• The account has under ten edits, and the last edit is from over three years ago.

A local or global can be usurped after giving the owner a notice and at least one month to respond under these conditions:

• The username has under ten edits, and the last edit is from less than three years ago.
• Before SUL finalization, if a local account does not belong to a global one, and that local account has less edits than the global one, then it may be usurped in favour of the global account.

Comment

The section on usurpation is newer, so please indicate any proposed changes you would like to see below. See here for the current text. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajraddatz (talk) 2014-10-25T22:19:46 (UTC)

• I don't think that it is appropriate to usurp accounts with edits. This may lead to copyright problems due to the attribution requirement. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  How so? The edits remain attached to the old account, and display whatever the new username is for that one. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  If the user registers as "User:X", then the user has to be attributed as "User:X". You can't start attributing the user as "User:Y" instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. We choose our usernames based on under which name we would like to see our contributions being attributed to. If we change that name after the contribution was made against the person's will (i.e. without even asking them), the attribution requirement cannot really be met. Vogone (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment as the proposal has been pretty stable it doesn't seem right to ask that we convert the proposal to policy and at the same time insert a new section. So I have moved the usurpation section here for discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Usurpation to me is a separate policy, rather than part of global rename, though aligned. There is

1. local usurpation to align with an already global existing account
2. usurpation of a complete global account (moving in another username during a rename)
3. usurpation of local accounts to align with other local accounts (no global account)
4. usurpation of global account to align with a local account (presumably with significant edits)

So there are questions, are you talking usurpation of local or global accounts? There are a whole series of scenarios that exist for your edits scheme, notifications, etc. So these need clarification, and certainty.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: the conditions I wrote above are my own observations of common practice over the last months, regardless if the accounts are local or global. But I have clarified above. Please modify as you see fit, and thanks for moving it here :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz:Not disagreeing, just codification, especially around edge cases, is always going add to add difficulty. I think that there needs to be a principle/scope to what is trying to be achieved that sits above the procedural, and stepping straight into a process is problematic. So as a string of words that need to be refined we are looking at something like ...

The aim of usurpation policy and processes is to allow the alignment of local accounts with existing global accounts prior to the finalisation of the unification.

but that only covers local to global. What is the rationalisation for allowing the usurping of global accounts? About the only one that I can consider is where we have blocked spambots that have taken useful username. I don't see the imperative to allow users to take existing user accounts with edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Question: what do you mean under "giving the owner a notice and at least one month to respond". What will happen if there is response? Is it only an option to choose a new name instead of using a standard "name (usurped)" or "name@xxwiki" form? -- Samat (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Unfortunately yes. If they have less edits than the requesting account, then as a matter of technical objectivity they will need to be renamed eventually. But they should be given every opportunity to change their name to something they like first. Ultimately, most of these requests will probably just be deferred to finalization. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I know about one case, when local account (single character) is owned by one other user which uses it only in his signature as redirect. There was one user who wanted to usurp it, but owner disagreed. Technically, this account have last activity more than three years ago, while owner have last activity three months ago. What to do in similar cases? JAn Dudík (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that there are also cases where users who have been renamed have re-registered the old username and cases where users register similar user names, in both cases to prevent impersonation and to avoid confusion. I think that an usurpation policy should be more careful. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Stefan2: See bugzilla:70379. —DerHexer (Talk) 09:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • How is this related to Stefan2's concern? I believe even such a "dummy" account could technically be usurped later, and thus the advice to act carefully while usurping is a legit one. Vogone (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
        • It was just related to have re-registered the old username which could be prevented by stewards as long as this bug will be fixed and a steward disallowed created a dummy account (which ofc could be renamed later). —DerHexer (Talk) 14:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• I disagree with all but the last "condition". A user name which is taken is taken, and accounts can also be used as read-only accounts. Vogone (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• To note that I have added an informational statement about usurpation to the policy that (hopefully) provides some clarity that it exists, or continues to, and that allows for the development of the guidance, but not sits directly under global renaming. I hope that as it is information, it doesn't affect the general policy, and captures the existing components of aligned practice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I proposed that we close this discussion and declare the policy effective from the date of closure. As such we remove the proposed template, and consider whether there is need for a mass message.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems appropriate, given the comments above and the text (which I just read once again). --Nemo 13:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to usurpation policy

Recently during SUL finalisation in numerous cases script has created SUL accounts to vandals or sockpuppets instead of active users with slightly lower editcount (Special:CentralAuth/401 is a good example). Thus I would suggest amending the first part of the policy with a new rule:

A local or global can be usurped without notice if it meets the following conditions:

• The account has no edits, and has been registered over two years ago.
• The account has under ten edits, and the last edit is from over three years ago.
• The account is indefinitely blocked for reasons that do not allow unblock (sock puppetry or clearly disruptive behaviour like vandalism or spam)

I would welcome any feedback or better wording.

@Billinghurst: and @DerHexer: I am a bit confused about the current status of the usurpation policy, so please suggest how and where to announce this — NickK (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@NickK: I would think that the words for a policy would be along the lines of *(local usurp only) The account is indefinitely blocked, with the block being more than three months in age. We may also want something like (globally locked) Accounts that have been locked as spam only or spambots can be usurped.

@Keegan (WMF): I believe that the suggestion that blocked local accounts are not given precedence for the purpose of SUL primacy is of value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I, personally, would support global usurpation allowing this. However, factoring in whether or not an account is blocked on a wiki as a part of renaming is an area that I feel the Wikimedia Foundation should not be engaged it. Blocks occur for myriad reasons on our myriad wikis, and it seems to me to be a very inappropriate judgement call on our behalf when making that decision. It's a hard enough judgement call when it comes to global status, user rights, edit counts, and registration dates. Tossing in blocks is a net so wide that I'm not going to cast it. I think it's perfectly fine post-migration if it can be agreed upon allowing it as part of the global policy, I would like community members to make the decision. It's been a pretty long day, I hope this makes sense. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @Keegan (WMF): The problem here is that there is some difference between accounts of vandals/spambots/sockpuppets (that cannot be unblocked and are usually disposable accounts whose name is not of any value) and accounts of experienced users blocked due to their involvement in some controversies (whose name is known by the community and who can be unblocked even beyond 3 months). For example, even though Special:CentralAuth/Zoe in English Wikipedia is blocked for years, we should probably not usurp it as this user's name is well-known by the community. That's I think we should draw the line between accounts whose name does matters (experienced users blocked for some reasons) and accounts whose name does not matter (various socks and vandals) — NickK (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Billinghurst:, @DerHexer: and @Keegan (WMF): What are the next steps about this? AFAICS, it's a go for 15 April, so we should have some policy by that date. This is a clear example why such policy is needed (in fact SUL was deleted, but once script is launched again Sergey@dewiki will get the account again as he still had more edits as of 15 March, which is the rule for the script). Thus some policy should be in place before this move occurs — NickK (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Won't the script count the number of edit as of the date when the script is run, not as of 15 March? Doesn't the user still have some time to get more edits? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

    The version of script that was running in March definitely counted edits as of 15 March (there was a curious case when a user managed to get more edits between the time the script was launched and the time the script reached him, and the script did not create any SUL). In addition, the case above is not the only one (I have found at least 20 or 30 only in Ukrainian Wikipedia), and in most cases users don't even know they have to get some more edits, simply because we have no rule in place for deleting those SULs for blocked users — NickK (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've said some of my personal opinions but overall this (community policy) is completely out of Foundation hands. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on blocked accounts. Anyway, there's no need to rush as stewards will be able to fix all problems even after SUL finalization. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please also add that the user requesting the usurpation needs a minimum amount of edits, like 1000. I do not think someone with 10 edits should be taking over another account. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please officialize the parts of the proposed "global usurpation guideline" that people already agree on

• I am attempting to request an usurp that would fall within the above restrictions, but have been summarily denied because the above suggestion, despite garnering almost unanimous support amongst commenters, has never officially made it onto a "global usurpation guideline" page. DerHexer, your assistance will be much appreciated. Thanks! Salvidrim! 05:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  I am neither seeing "almost unanimous support amongst commenters" anywhere on this page, nor is "Salv" indefinitely blocked. If you refer to the other section, there is also no "almost unanimous support amongst commenters". Regards, Vogone (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  I am talking stricly about the "The account has under ten edits, and the last edit is from over three years ago." clause, to which I can't seem to find any real objections, but which hasn't yet added onto the actual guideline/policy page. Salvidrim! 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Also on that point I see 2 users objecting on this page. Vogone (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  There is no global policy, most of the policy statement previously has been about usurping local accounts where there is a clash of names and the guidance to how that is managed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)