Shortcut

• WT:CHU

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

See also: Guidelines archive Assistance archives: 1, 2 Simple archive Usurpation archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

moved from WP:BN 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are far too acquiescing to requests for account rename. Renaming from a real name to attempt retrospective anonymity may be a good reason, but perusing the requests I see few cases worth their time. In almost every case, the account should create the new account, redirect the old account to the new, and stop using the old account.

I know that I dislike encountering renamed accounts or their records. Someone seems new, but they are actually old. Some old account seems to have retired, but is ongoing renamed. The records of the rename hard to find and understand. It is confusing and it lessens the standing of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content as we undermine past compliance by altering the records of contribution. Multiple pseudonyms are less of a problem than unreliable pseudonyms (the pseudonym that you knew and recorded for attribution a year ago is now no longer accurate). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, your argument is confusing. A renamed account is much more transparent than one that has discontinued an old account and begun editing afresh, as the old edits transfer across. As does the attribution. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine for attribution onsite, but it creates discrepancies with forked content, whether the forked use is printed, on DVD, etc, or used with explicit attribution of the authors. Imagine reading elsewhere that author A wrote article X, and then you go to Wikipedia but find no immediate evidence of A writing X. That sort of discrepancy discourages respect of the reuse conditions. I'm not talking about onsite transparency, but respect for the attribution histories, much must consider consistency of attribution recorded elsewhere.

(this conversation might be appropriately moved to another page?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can feel free to move this part of the thread to WT:CHUS if you wish. It's not really what I had in mind bringing this issue here, but it's worth discussing anyway. As I understand it, the primary purpose of attribution is for Wikipedia (and reusers of content from Wikipedia) to properly respect the intellectual property rights of contributors. However, Wikipedia is limited to respecting their rights to the extent they permit it to respect them. For instance, an unregistered IP editor receives less intellectual property protection then a registered editor because he selects a means to contribute that will not permit unique identification. In that same way, renames at WP:CHUS are voluntary (WP:CHUU is a different story I'm not talking about now) and done only with the consent of the holder of the intellectual property rights. If the holder of the rights wishes to engage in a process that will dimminish the integrity or value of his rights, that is his choice. If he were to release his edits into the public domain, Wikipedia could not, and would not, stop him from doing so. Reusers of those edits would be under no requirement to provide attribution to that public domain material. As such, I don't see how renaming has a harmful effect on attribution because the user, not Wikipedia, is the one deciding to harm his own intellectual property rights. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. Many things you say, including about how it is account holder who is possibly compromising their own rights, I agree. My concern is that an externally recorded attribution of a page is retrospectively altered by account renames, and that instability in attribution history (albeit mild) diminished external confidence in Wikipedia's attribution records.

A possible solution has occurred to me:

My problem is that I may remember, or have records, of Example (talk · contribs) having significantly written a certain article. User:Example was subsequently renamed, and all his edits were reattributed to User:Example-renamed. If I look at Special:Contributions/Example, I get contradictory information.

I suggest that Special:Contributions/Example should report that a rename of the account has occurred.

If the rename was for mere preference, report along the lines "User:Example was renamed to User:Example-renamed on 1 August 2009, and all previous edits have been re-attributed to the new name."

If the rename was an attempt to vanish, report along the lines "User:Example ceased editing and relinquished his rights to attribution of contributions to Wikipedia. Please attribute his contributions to "Wikipedia" without further specifics."

If the rename was an attempt to gain anonymity retrospectively, the person should choose something between the simple rename and vanishing.

I understand that complete vanishment, down to denial that the account was ever registered, it not possible by standard methods. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring this post-move, just strapped in my real life. I'll be back this weekend. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a pink box at the top of User:MBisanz's Criminally Negligent Sockpuppet that says "This user has been renamed. The rename log is provided below for reference." If something like that could be added to the old name's account contribution's screen, would that resolve your concern? The log entry could be concealed in RTV situations. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t do it in pink, just ordinary black text.

It belongs, as I think you mean, on the User contributions special page.

I would not want to see it invite people to request usurping and account that has ever been used, even if the contributions are reattributed elsewhere.

Preferably, I think, it would give the date range of reattributed contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But filed at Bugzilla:44316. MBisanz ^talk 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]