Wikiquote talk:Changing username/Archives/1

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Continuing from WQ:AN

After our discussion, I amended my proposal (posted to WQ:AN) as following. I added two new changes underlined:


When you request for changing your user name, please follow the format as below:

  • Your current user name: {{user|your name}}
  • Target name: {{user|their name}}

If you request for usurpation also, please use the format below instead and leave a message to the affected user on their talk page, and if possible, by wiki e-mail too.

  • Your current user name: {{user|your name}}
  • Target name: {{user|their name}}
  • Contact: Talk / Talk and Mail (select one)

No usurpation is granted automatically unless the target account has caused only harm with malicious intent to the project. If you are convinced the target was created in bad faith, you are welcome to address your concern, but it is up to the local bureaucrats.

If your request is for usurpation, and it is not a clear case of impersonation, your request may be fulfilled under one of the following conditions:

  1. the affected party agrees to rename.
  2. the affected party did no significant edits for which their history should be retained to comply with GFDL and at least three weeks pass from your message to the affected party without response.

Regarding to increasing numbers of requests for usurpation, I think we have to make our criteria clear than now. Your active involvement into this discussion will be very appreciated. --Aphaia 08:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I am happy with the above but have made some grammatical corrections.--Poetlister 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I moved one sentence once placed before the example formula for request for usurpation. I hope it makes more clearer both requirements and condition of exceptions. --Aphaia 07:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine by me!--Poetlister 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose two things (inseparable imo):

  1. Move the above to the main project page (anyway it's a mere draft?)
  2. Make a section to accept username changing requests on that page.

I think it may be consensus the current way (accepting requests on WQ:AN) won't work in a near future. --Aphaia 12:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks great, imo. I also agree with your proposed criteria, feel free to do your proposed changes. Cbrown1023 talk 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

I've lurked on sister projects and found the way of w:WP:CHU nice in some points, not necessarily import all things (it may overwhelmed our capacity). They separate pages into three: instruction (front staff), normal requests and usurpation requests.

I think it reasonable to have different pages for normal and usurpation requests, since their time scope may vary. We are now going to place three weeks awaiting time for usurpation, but we've processed normal requests almost immediately so far. Filing them into different pages may make it easier to track down requests (which is ready to process and which is not). --Aphaia 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. We can be far less bureaucratic than the bureaucrats on WP.--Poetlister 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Weeell, I should have said four, instead of three. Anyway I launched four pages, including one renewed:

Give looks to them and your feedback! --Aphaia 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing[edit]

Before accepting requests here and on Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation, I think we are better to implement one more thing.

How to head the request. We gave the recommended formula but no way of heading.

Giving a look to WQ:AN and Wikipedia request page, i think both current name and target name will be convenient for all involved parties (b'crats also) to keep an eye on a particular request. So the recommended format will be:

=== [[User:Current]] -> [[User:Target]] ===

Thought? --Aphaia 01:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.--Poetlister 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

I have started an archive to avoid the page getting too long.--Poetlister 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Aphaia 06:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reject to usurpation request[edit]

For just making the mechanism work in an easy and clear way, either the request is noticed by mail or on talk, can we ask the target user to indicate their intention on their talk, not mailing the involved parties? If the request on talk is blanked or commented as reject, we all can learn the answer and we make it sure the answer came really from the targeted user. --Aphaia 06:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea.--Poetlister 12:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the rules say:

  • If your request for usurpation is not a clear case of impersonation, your request may be fulfilled under one of the following conditions:
    1. the affected party agrees to rename.
    2. the affected party did no significant edits for which their history should be retained to comply with GFDL and at least three weeks pass from your message to the affected party without response.

So we can expand this part, or just add "If the affected party disagrees, objection can be expressed with blanking the message of the notification of request for usurpation, or explicit objection." like that. Perhaps English Wikipedia has already some formula about that. --Aphaia 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very vague; all it says is "If the owner of the target account does not object within seven days, a bureaucrat will fulfill your request provided other requirements are met. Where a request is to unify global login, the seven day waiting period is waived and requests will be performed once reviewed by a bureaucrat." I would certainly object to the part in bold. I suggest the following wording: "If the affected party disagrees, he or she may object by blanking the message of the notification of request for usurpation, or by objecting explicitly on the talk page or here."--Poetlister 22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree to remove the part in bold and like your wording. BTW, now I think I understand why some people insist their request is related to SUL (which doesn't affect our process yet). We have no such exemption, so no need to keep it. --Aphaia 01:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial period ended[edit]

on July 10. I invite all to join our postmortem of this trial. --Aphaia 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has gone well, except for one or two people asking why we wait three weeks before we allow usurpation.--Poetlister 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Me too. And while I have a sympathy for them, since our project is smaller and moves more slowly than the bigger ones with non-active members, I think still a three-week waiting is okay for us, specially the existing community seems to have no strong preferences on this matter.
We made slight modifications, and they seem to work well. Currently I don't perceive any need of further changes.
If there is no other opinion about that, I think we would like to move on, and say it is now our official policy and procedure. --Aphaia 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm now I found a minor need of modification on WQ:CHU/U. I saw two cases of possible confusion around "contact" in our current formula. Some took it as their own contact, not the affect user's. We would like to make it clear like "How was the affected user contacted" or so (I don't like this lengthy version though). --Aphaia 09:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "three weeks must pass from the time you leave your message"? And what do we do about stewards coming in and usurping without telling us?--Poetlister 20:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On Poetlister's second point, can we put a big, red notice in the appropriate MediaWiki page that tells stewards that they are expected to notify us when they do this? Or perhaps even ask us to do it instead? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Stewards are coming in and usurping without telling us? They should not have done it, because they sure aware of our existence; we have three b'crats, while I stated I was on a break until very recent. I'll contact them if they really have intervened in such a fashion. --Aphaia 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I put my question at m:Metapub#Stewards intervened?. Let us see what comes up.
Yes, Rdsmith4 did it in June [1] and Bastique did it twice in July [2].--Poetlister 06:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I drop a line to him and cced it to you. --Aphaia 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
On behalf of the stewards, as I have already clarified why that usurpation was made on June, the one on July by Bastique was to 2 accounts that belong to the members of the Ombudsman commission and it was done not only on your wiki but in multiple others because both of them need it for their Global right, I believe Bastique did it hastly because most wikis have a certain number of days waiting period before an account can be usurped and since one of the account he usurped belonged to a banned impostor and since that account had edits. I believe Bastique was wrong in not asking the community before he usurped those, but like the one earlier, he probably had a really good reason :) ... --Cometstyles 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
They can't have needed it that urgently, as neither Mackensen nor Rebecca has created an account here using SUL. We have three bureaucrats here, in different time zones, so there would have been no problem contacting at least one of us.--Poetlister 23:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Rebecca is a Foundation staffer so Bastique's processing could be justified. Dihydrogen Monoxide case is another story which cannot be easily justified according to m:Stewards policy. It broke "Transparency" (no documentation of the request) and "Check local policies" (stewards are not allowed to override local policies). I sent a note to Dan, hopefully he is aware of his fault now. --Aphaia 04:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One more addition[edit]

I reviewed the recent usurpation and found we could safely add one more thing to automated usurpation granting; for SUL accounts which is taken already by the requester.

Now our policy says: "No usurpation is granted automatically unless the target account has caused only harm with malicious intent to the project."

We can just add the second case "or the target account belongs to the requester. In the second case, you may sign in the wiki with the target account and put your signature, instead of leaving a note on the targeted account talk page" or so.

Thought? --Aphaia 05:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I dealt with such a case yesterday and waived the three weeks.--Poetlister 06:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)