Requests for Comment/Username and User Account Policies
This Request for Comments is now closed. Please do not edit this page. New edits may be reverted. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- All proposals have consensus support and are adopted as approved policy. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this RfC is to propose refreshed Username and User Account Policies that are easier to users to read and for the community to enforce. Additional proposals may be made as well. Harej (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
RfC open: 05:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1.0: Username Policy[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt Username Policy/2024 to replace the current Username Policy. (Comparison)
The proposal streamlines current policy and generalizes references to Wikimedia usernames to include user accounts on other platforms as well (like Fandom).
Support 1.0[edit | edit source]
- Support This makes sense and is standardized/reworded better. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support No issues with the new wording. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't have any issues reading the former version, but I don't see why not. BlankEclair (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support better. --Waki285(talk|contrib|log|CA|Target) 11:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Better username enforcement helps to prevent those username violations and I am supporting for that reason as I have seen one username with a death threat. TheFunny339YoshiPlushGuy (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support per BrandonWM and TheFunny339YoshiPlushGuy. - Hurstbergn (T) (C) 23:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support for all the reasons given above. – Jph2 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support lgtm - clear, concise, easy to translate. / Felenov / T / C / 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Simpler. --Firestar464 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support You have my strongest support. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support The changes are acceptable. ---- Imamy (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks great. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 02:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support LGTM :+1: --Labster (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Honglan233 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 1.0[edit | edit source]
Abstain 1.0[edit | edit source]
Comments 1.0[edit | edit source]
- I'd support the change, but I would prefer to get rid of Requests for Comment/Usernames entirely and simply use the regular RfC format or post on the community portal. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 09:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Why was Existing accounts removed? What was the reasoning of this? Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 11:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with Rodejong in that I'd like to know why Existing Users section has been removed or not redirected to a new section. The Section would reassure and clarify to Existing Users whose names may not yet be considered a violation and illustrates a course of action to address the name in question.
--- Imamy (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 2.0: User Accounts Policy[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt User accounts policy/2024 to replace the current User accounts policy (Comparison)
This proposal merges the current user accounts policy with the essay Alternate accounts, creating a single consistent resource on best practices for user accounts. If this is approved, the alternate accounts essay will be streamlined to point to the new policy.
Support 2.0[edit | edit source]
- Support Same as above, no concerns. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support The new version makes things more clear and is better written, so no issues. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I especially like the sentence giving explicit permission for using separate accounts for separate wikis over "Please use common sense". BlankEclair (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Waki285(talk|contrib|log|CA|Target) 11:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support The user name policy so far sounds great after reading this part It seems understandable enough to support as accounts abuse and account spamming have been a thing I have seen with users. TheFunny339YoshiPlushGuy (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Reception123 - Hurstbergn (T) (C) 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support for all the reasons stated above. – Jph2 (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support lgtm - adds bot and unauthorized use sections, no concerns here. / Felenov / T / C / 03:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks good コレイ (talk) (contributions) 02:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Less pages for highly related policies is better. --Labster (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Very good --Honglan233 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 2.0[edit | edit source]
Abstain 2.0[edit | edit source]
- Abstain It seems that I may have misread the Comparison on the first time around. 2024 - The Multiple and Alternate and Shared accounts are mentioned as are other details. However they are not expressed as clearly as I prefer.
Comments 2.0[edit | edit source]
- Question: Will the new Brand or role accounts section affect accounts with brand names (e.g. YouTube)?--铁桶 (Talk) 02:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there a way to merge or combine User accounts policy and Alternate accounts? User Accounts Policy is simpler to read however Alternate Accounts Essay is clunky.
- The Essay: Alternate Accounts is very similar to Policy Section Heading: Multiple Accounts. Generally when a user has Alternate Accounts or Multiple Accounts, if they find the clunkier Essay first, they may not realize that the policy is a separate document.
--- Imamy (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Essay: Alternate Accounts is very similar to Policy Section Heading: Multiple Accounts. Generally when a user has Alternate Accounts or Multiple Accounts, if they find the clunkier Essay first, they may not realize that the policy is a separate document.
- Imamy, the proposed user accounts policy is based heavily on Alternate accounts as well as the existing user accounts policy. Should the new policy be approved I will edit down the alternate accounts essay or make it into a redirect. Harej (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Harej I'm not sure if the User accounts is sufficient as it is to replace Alternate accounts. First, because, User accounts seems to imply that Multiple accounts and Alternate accounts are different which is why I felt Alternate accounts buried the link to User accounts. I'm not sure that I know what the final copy will look like if the policy appears to state that there is some difference between Alternate accounts and Multiple accounts. Discussions are already filled with abbreviations and then to have discussions with additional layers of ambiguity due to similar terms is likely to make discussions more interesting. Second, for many platforms, Alternate accounts and Multiple accounts are different. So if they are identical on Miraheze, it must be clearly stated that they mean the same thing otherwise, it would be natural to assume they represent different account situations.
--- Imamy (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Harej I'm not sure if the User accounts is sufficient as it is to replace Alternate accounts. First, because, User accounts seems to imply that Multiple accounts and Alternate accounts are different which is why I felt Alternate accounts buried the link to User accounts. I'm not sure that I know what the final copy will look like if the policy appears to state that there is some difference between Alternate accounts and Multiple accounts. Discussions are already filled with abbreviations and then to have discussions with additional layers of ambiguity due to similar terms is likely to make discussions more interesting. Second, for many platforms, Alternate accounts and Multiple accounts are different. So if they are identical on Miraheze, it must be clearly stated that they mean the same thing otherwise, it would be natural to assume they represent different account situations.
- Imamy, the proposed user accounts policy is based heavily on Alternate accounts as well as the existing user accounts policy. Should the new policy be approved I will edit down the alternate accounts essay or make it into a redirect. Harej (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 3.0: Usurpation of existing accounts[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the following Usurpation policy:
Usurpation is the process of taking over an account name that is already registered. Requests for usurpation can be made at Steward requests and may be granted in the following circumstances:
Accounts with 0 edits (on any wiki):
- the account must have been created more than 1 year prior to the request for usurpation;
- the user requesting usurpation must place a notice on the target account's talk page informing their intention to usurp and wait 1 month for a response before requesting;
- the user must have a good reason for requesting the usurpation.
Accounts with edits:
- the account must have been created more than 3 years prior to the request for usurpation;
- the user requesting usurpation must place a notice on the target account's talk page informing their intention to usurp and wait 2 months for a response before requesting;
- the user must have a very good reason for requesting the usurpation.
Accounts having significant edits or a significant presence on at least one wiki are not eligible for usurpation.
Accounts that are impersonators of users on other platforms:
- the account must have been locked for impersonation of a user on Wikimedia, Fandom, or a similar platform;
- the user requesting usurpation must be the original user;
- the user must confirm their identity by editing or taking some other action with their account on the other platform.
Support 3.0[edit | edit source]
- Support I'm not a terrible fan of the set limits and believe they should be more of guidance to Stewards than policy, but I don't have strong objections so will support. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I understand BrandonWM's concerns about limits but I feel like it's best to have some clear limits so that existing users don't have to be concerned about their account getting usurped and to avoid having differing standards between Stewards. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support BlankEclair (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Just enough strict rules. --Waki285(talk|contrib|log|CA|Target) 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support as long as there is very clear and strict justification to adopt accounts, reasonable policy. / Felenov / T / C / 03:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks good コレイ (talk) (contributions) 02:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support While Stewards have made good decisions in the past, having codified rules will still help so everyone knows what the ground rules are. I would have supported a lower threshold for accounts with zero edits, even though I'm aware people create accounts just for skins and gadgets. --Labster (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Honglan233 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 3.0[edit | edit source]
Abstain 3.0[edit | edit source]
Comments 3.0[edit | edit source]
- Comment: 1-3 years seems too long. Question: How many global edits is maximum allowed? Silicona (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well it's also quite a big thing to take someone else's username, since they're the ones that came up with it in the first place after all. It really should be quite an exceptional process and users should definitely not have to worry that someone can easily take over their username if they're away for a while. As for a maximum edits, I don't think it would necessarily make sense to put a number on it, though I doubt any usurpation would be granted for edits above 50. Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Question: What about usernames of impersonators of WMF users on Miraheze, like Yamla and Kittycataclysm? Shorter timeframes for those? Silicona (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- What about usernames of Fandom users? Harej (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good question indeed. :) Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 06:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that the weeds get very thick when you get to obscure accounts. Ones with minimal edits, or which in theory may themselves be an impersonation from an entirely different platform, or usernames that are frankly rather common. A degree of intent and/or notability should play into it be it from Wikimedia, Fandom, or for that matter YouTube (there is precedence of attempts to impersonate from there by LTAs in the logo space). The fairest approach may be to broaden the clause to consider impersonation from 'relevant spaces', but I can't think how to word that just now. --raidarr (💬) 08:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding obscure accounts, I think they key is the requirement that the account has been locked for impersonation which means that a Stewards/GS already decided that the account was in fact an impersonator and not just a coincidence. I'd be fine extending it to all other websites but the original reason for having Wikimedia projects is that those are by far the most common ones and I don't think I can recall us having locked an account for impersonating Fandom users. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that the weeds get very thick when you get to obscure accounts. Ones with minimal edits, or which in theory may themselves be an impersonation from an entirely different platform, or usernames that are frankly rather common. A degree of intent and/or notability should play into it be it from Wikimedia, Fandom, or for that matter YouTube (there is precedence of attempts to impersonate from there by LTAs in the logo space). The fairest approach may be to broaden the clause to consider impersonation from 'relevant spaces', but I can't think how to word that just now. --raidarr (💬) 08:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good question indeed. :) Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 06:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.