Last modified: 2005-07-14 05:10:38 UTC
Username changes are currently done by developers, with requests collected on Wikipedia:Changing username. Since anyone can create an account, without usernames being approved in advance, anyone should be able to change their username themselves.
Agreed, there's no need for further work since it's trivial to create a new username. Closing as WORKSFORME.
I thought this was obvious, but apparently not: It is trivial to create a new username but it is not trivial to transfer the history, that's why we had Wikipedia:Changing username in the first place.
It is non-trivial to change the attributions in the history; it may require modifying hundreds of thousands of stored page revision records for a very actively used account, so it's not something that's likely to be run automatically in response to a user-initiated command. Additionally, interaction with user blocking and other issues need to be considered. Frequently changing names could be easily abused to make it difficult to nail down an attacking vandal.
(In reply to comment #3) > It is non-trivial to change the attributions in the history; it may require modifying > hundreds of thousands of stored page revision records for a very actively used > account, so it's not something that's likely to be run automatically in response to a > user-initiated command. > Additionally, interaction with user blocking and other issues need to be considered. > Frequently changing names could be easily abused to make it difficult to nail down > an attacking vandal. I assumed that the page histories only recorded user IDs to save space and prevent duplication. Otherwise what's the point of the IDs? Frequently changing names should be easier to track than frequently creating new accounts.
I think the larger problem lies in the area of signatures, which are based on usernames (not id's). As user Rholton, that is my public id (User:Rholton) and my signature ([[User:Rholton]]). This appears on all my talk page posts, votes for various issues, etc. The "wiki-way" (or at least the "Wikipedia-way") requires a (currently informal) web of trust that is based on user identities determined by signature (which are verifiable by edit-history).
(In reply to comment #5) > I think the larger problem lies in the area of signatures, which are based on > usernames (not id's). As user Rholton, that is my public id (User:Rholton) and > my signature ([[User:Rholton]]). This appears on all my talk page posts, votes > for various issues, etc. > The "wiki-way" (or at least the "Wikipedia-way") requires a (currently informal) > web of trust that is based on user identities determined by signature (which are > verifiable by edit-history). As I understand it, we had this problem when Wikipedia:Changing username was being used, so we have nothing to lose by adding the feature I requested. This is unless people change their usernames excessively, which we trust them not to.
I agree that we should be able to trust users to do this, the same as creating new accounts -- advise them that it's hard on the database and not to use it lightly, remind them that they can change their sig without changing their name, and punish them if they abuse it. (If it really requires judgment calls, could it be assigned to admins or bureaucrats or stewards instead?) Many people want to change name because they choose a username before learning the norms of the community, and then choose to change within a few weeks of signing up; would these short requests cause fewer challenges? If the difficulty is based on the number of records to be changed, perhaps a cutoff could be assigned. "Simple" requests, less than N records, could go through immediately, while more database-intensive requests could be assigned to a queue, to be: 1) run at "off-peak" hours (if we have such a thing) 2) run on an offline server (if that's possible), 3) run during downtime required for other reasons (which still might take months, but at least would get done eventually) or 4) to languish as they currently do waiting for developer attention (but at least the simple requests wouldn't clutter the list). If it's only going to become more and more expensive to change names as our histories become longer and deeper and more compacted, then perhaps we should change policy to disallow it, or limit it to accounts of a certain age?
(In reply to comment #7) > I agree that we should be able to trust users to do this, the same as creating > new accounts -- advise them that it's hard on the database and not to use it > lightly, remind them that they can change their sig without changing their name, > and punish them if they abuse it. (If it really requires judgment calls, could > it be assigned to admins or bureaucrats or stewards instead?) > Many people want to change name because they choose a username before learning > the norms of the community, and then choose to change within a few weeks of > signing up; would these short requests cause fewer challenges? If the > difficulty is based on the number of records to be changed, perhaps a cutoff > could be assigned. "Simple" requests, less than N records, could go through > immediately, while more database-intensive requests could be assigned to a > queue, to be: > 1) run at "off-peak" hours (if we have such a thing) > 2) run on an offline server (if that's possible), > 3) run during downtime required for other reasons (which still might take > months, but at least would get done eventually) or > 4) to languish as they currently do waiting for developer attention (but at > least the simple requests wouldn't clutter the list). > If it's only going to become more and more expensive to change names as our > histories become longer and deeper and more compacted, then perhaps we should > change policy to disallow it, or limit it to accounts of a certain age? This (and all of the comments above) doesn't seem to answer my question: Why don't histories just record the user IDs, so that we can just store the username in one place and not worry about changing the histories?
(In reply to comment #8) > > This (and all of the comments above) doesn't seem to answer my > question: Why don't histories just record the user IDs, so that we > can just store the username in one place and not worry about > changing the histories? Basically, because of IPs and convenience. IPs are logged in the revision, with user id 0. To make queries easier, the username is also stored in revisions, together with the numerical user id. To get all revisions and their authors you just have to make one query using this design, no special treatment needed for anonymous users. Yes, other solutions would be possible.
See also bug 2523, a Special Page to rename users.
(In reply to comment #10) > See also bug 2523, a Special Page to rename users. It appears that if that bug has been fixed, so has this one.
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > See also bug 2523, a Special Page to rename users. > It appears that if that bug has been fixed, so has this one. Re-opening this request until the new extension is available on the wikimedia sites.
WONTFIX, because the ability to rename any user via the web interface is too much of a potential security problem. (think XSS issues).
(In reply to comment #13) > WONTFIX, because the ability to rename any user via the web interface is too much of > a potential security problem. (think XSS issues). It's no more of a security problem than creating a new user.
Extensions installed on wikimedia servers. Contact your bureaucrats to rename users.
