[Foundation-l] Commons Usurp issue

[Chad]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2008/6/4 George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>:
>> >> If an usurped account owner complains, along these lines, our
>> >> counterargument is "We still list (your account / identity) in the
>> >> article history, though we've changed the displayed text string for
>> >> it.  That's all we do for anyone, ever."
>> >
>> > Nice try but the GFDL isn't interested in account / identities just
>> > the text string.
>>
>> The GFDL is concerned with authors, not their arbitrarily chosen
>> pseudonyms. So long as the invariant list of authors is properly
>> attributed, it does not matter what nickname they use to sign into the
>> website.
>>
> How can you possibly properly attribute the authors' without using their
> self-determined names?
>
> I agree with Geni that the natural interpretation of "List ... as authors,
> one or more persons or
> entities responsible for authorship..." is to report them in the form
> orginally declared by the author.  Renaming them without their permission
> strikes me as neither legal nor ethical.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I believe that when a user elects to change their name, that is perfectly
alright. Similar to how if someone changes their name in real life, you
will still attribute their work and merits to them.

However, I do agree that renaming someone without their permission
enters a gray area that's a little harder to figure out. Indeed, if you look
at it simplistically: an author is simply a user ID. Regardless of what
their displayed username is, that ID never changes; just as the real
person doesn't change. But, asking someone to change what they'd
like to go by is borderline unethical, as you said Robert.

Now, if an account has never done anything (ie: no contribs), it could
be argued that they are not an author and thus renaming a user is
simply a technical move for maintenance. When they *have* done
something, renaming them without asking first (always asking first!)
is completely rude. It's simply _not nice_ to change the name they
wish to go by without first seeking their permission and obtaining
it.

Now, vandalism-only accounts are a different story, as it brings up
the old argument of whether or not vandalistic contributions are
required by the GFDL as well.

My advice to someone wanting to unify their logon but are stuck due
to a non-unique username: think up a new username you'd like to have
and rename yourself to that. Then you can keep all your contributions,
and keep on working with a new *unique* name.

I'm unsure as to what the rules for auto-merging are in place once SUL
is fully rolled out and forced merges are taking place, that would be a
question for Brion or Tim I guess.

-Chad