[[Wikipedia:Usurpation]] is an extension of the user renaming process I've proposed, to meet the need I saw [[Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp|here]] (more than 54 requests, and it isn't even policy!). In a nutshell: "If an account has never been used for anything, let someone else take that account's name."
It has all the appropriate formatting and stuff mentioned in [[Wikipedia:How to create policy]] and it's been in proposal and discussion since at least April now (and was batted around long before I actually wrote the page); the overwhelming majority of the feedback has been positive. And the comments which have been critical or opposed generally are such because they believe that the "waiting period" in which the account to be usurped is notified to be too short - it should be longer than a month, should be a year/three months/etc.
In other words, I think consensus has for the most part been acheived, and that the last niggling bit is the exact length of the waiting period. We need more people to review it and settle on a time period, then we can send it off to Jimbo or whatever the next step is.
I've also made a request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]] for more comments.
Thoughts? Comments? Expressions of effusive enthusiastic ecstatic enthusiasm?
~maru
In an off-wiki (but public) discussion forum, a group of detractors of a living person publicly discuss colluding to disrupt Wikipedia in these terms:
-----
"It seems to me, Jim, that the way for us to deal with Wiki should be 'all or nothing'. "
"XXXX [WP editor 1] is concerned that Wiki should be an honest, well- sourced information resource. The world at large already knows Wiki will never be that - especially experts in any given field who already have publishing outlets and have no need nor desire to have their thoughts tinkered and tampered with by an amateur, self- appointed editorship. "
"Google-searching your chosen area of interest gets you further and faster. Wiki is crap, and the bigger it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes - more blogosphere than reputable encyclopedia. "
"But, pragmatically, it would make sense if every forum member joined in the editing there, if only to make YYYY [WP editor 2] work for a living and discredit ZZZZ (Living person) in the process. Just join in, a phrase here and there, change or remove things that are false, add things that are missing, generally raise hell? "
"Alternatively, we could all stay clear and have nothing to do with this blatent [sic] pro-XXX vanity piece. What we shouldn't do any more is attempt lengthy XXX-style discussions aimed at achieving 'consensus' among Wiki eds. (Though full marks to XXX - and XXX and others, too - for trying)."
"I say just either dive in and edit the fu*cker silly, however you see fit, hit-and-run style, or leave well alone. But do it for fun, if you do it at all. Wiki is not as important as its editors would have us believe."
----
The usernames of these people are known. Is there anything to do to preempt that possible disruption?
-- Jossi
On 8/21/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
"Google-searching your chosen area of interest gets you further and faster. Wiki is crap, and the bigger it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes - more blogosphere than reputable encyclopedia. "
Heh, google searching your chosen area always hits Wikipedia first, which tells you exactly what you need to do. Wikipedia long ago became my preferred first source for looking up any random topic. I'd love to know what their areas of interest are that Wikipedia is *less* informative than random pages found on Google.
Steve
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, google searching your chosen area always hits Wikipedia first, which tells you exactly what you need to do. Wikipedia long ago became my preferred first source for looking up any random topic. I'd love to know what their areas of interest are that Wikipedia is *less* informative than random pages found on Google.
I suspect it's an area where our article doesn't have "the dirt".
-Matt