Wikipedia talk:Delete unused username after 90 days

message: Application of the Proposal
I have contacted the original creator of this idea, Máté Soós, with this message:
:Since I originally created the straw poll at WP:DUU90 and posted it on the Community Portal, the project has had an amazing wave of success. Recently that began to decline again, so I reposted the project on the Community Portal.  Now the proposal stands at 222 Support, 6 Conditional Supports (two of which have had the conditions satisifed, so  it's safe to assume they count as Supports), and only 17 Oppose (some of which have been proved to be wrong, so that might decrease as well). In other words, the idea has been an overwhelming success, and I would like to propose to you that you make this known to the Administrators, the Sysops and even the Board of Directors and Jimmy Wales himself. This revolution of thinking has come a long way since the first edition and we have you to thank for the little spark of  thought which started it. I suggest that we make this known to the Admins, Leaders and Sysops and finally get something done about WP:DUU90. Thank you. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ
Hopefully this will shortly lead to activation of the policy and a cleanup for us all. Well done to all 234 Wikipedians who voted, and others who contributed! Give yourselves a pat on the back for your hard voting and thought-refining. Now all have a sit down and a nice cup of tea. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

message: ===Slight change===
I fully support this proposal, but with one modification - 6 months, not three. For the reason of counterarguments already given, (prison, grounding by parents) 90 days is too short. If it was increased to 6 months, I would back this proposal with everything I've got. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal as modified by Vanderdecken. If someone creates an account and doesn't use it at all for 6 months they're probably not going to. Doppelganger protection accounts don't have to not make any edits, just have them make a minor one or something and that problem with the proposal's gone. --Niroht 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true that accounts which have made an edit outside of their own userspace can't be removed without causing database errors. But that's not what we're discussing :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that such aacounts wouldn't actually be covered by this proposal. This is only for accounts that have made no edits outside of their own user space. Both the terms of the GFDL and technical requirements of the database mean that any account that's made an actual contribution to the encyclopedia can't be deleted. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to realize that this proposal is for usernames with no edits to be deleted after 90 days of inactivity.  Besides, those with email would be notified after 60 days anyway.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the proposal as it appears to be the second of the two ideas Andeh is thinking of. People have to remember that accounts can be recreated. If someone has an unexpected year-long tour in Iraq, for instance, they can return and create a new one. Is that really a big deal? joturner 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can recreate it, and odds are it isn't a big deal because they have never even edited here. Chris M. 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a good idea to rename this proposal to "Delete unused zero-edit usernames" or something similar to avoid the common misinterpretation. --Zoz (t) 14:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 0 edits ever is correct. But I don't see why we shouldn't apply this ex post facto. From what I'm reading, the whole point of this rule is to get rid of all latent accounts that have accumulated over the last few years. TheProject 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 0 edits and no logins for 90 days - I see no reason why this should be a problem? 99.99% of these accounts are obviously inactive and even if someone out there logs in infrequently but never edits anything it's hardly a big problem to register a new account. I don't foresee any problems of any kind. Gardar Rurak 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All inactive accounts, even ones created before this policy, should be given a warning and the 90 day wait period. Other than that I see no good reason to not apply this retroactively. But I agree that a disclaimer of this policy be provided to new users.Trfs 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we really ay this only applies to no edits ever?  Or does it mean no current contributions?  To clarify if a editor only edited on a page that was later deleted they curently show no contributions, but have actually edited and will remeber doing so.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would object to this. I have a second account (MarkS2) which I use for viewing pages via a netgem box on my TV. It has a heavily customised monobook.css to simplify the interface and make it workable. The account has never been used for editing articles or talk pages. I wouldn't want to loose this account and would just end up performing a (pointless) edit in the mainspace just to get an edit. --MarkS (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but how many people do you think are in the same situation as yourself? If the number isn't high we can have a list of accounts exempt from this. -- Миборовский 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That, and you need to log in to use your monobook.css anyways, so if you log into the account frequently, there's no reason why it should be deleted. TheProject 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such thing as a pointless edit. Log in, fix a typo or a disambig link or what not, log out. The edit can be a useful one. bd2412 T 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also no account that has mae an edit to anywhere on Wikipedia can be deleted as it will be a violation of GFDL as there wouold be a least one unatributed edit, also it would break MediaWiki for this very reason. LC@RSDATA 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it would "break MediaWiki". If I remember correctly, if someone contributes, then their account is deleted, someone else can register an account with the same username and a new password and take ownership of that edit. This is obviously a violation of GFDL. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that accounts with deleted edits should be deleted. Wouldn't the deleted edits then be attributed to any future users of that account name? ~MDD4696 15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just pointing out that this should also be taken into account. Renata 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, deleted edits may be purged (see deletion review) and thus, unaccessible and disappear from wikipedia database. SYSS Mouse 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To resurrect this moribund thread, does anyone know how many of those no-edit accounts appear to have no edits solely because they were created to make spam articles which have been deleted?  I don't think this is actually a problem unless some future user gets associated with the deleted content.  Assuming it links by userid this should not happen (and also assuming that, a programming change would allow the software to say "account deleted" for these).  Or maybe it's just the username which will be freed up, keeping the user in place as a numerical userid. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, these need to make one pro forma edit now. Sandstein 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They get blocked if confirmed.--Andeh 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the problem of a doppleganger account (from which no edits are supposed to be made) getting blocked. bd2412 T 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also usually the user page of such accounts are redirected by there authors to the correct user page which requires an edit. Thus insuring that account will not be deleted. LC@RSDATA 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are incorrect. The current guideline says to put the doppelganger template on the user page, and to add the template using a real account. The doppelganger account should have no edits.SoberEmu 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Usernames with at least one edit will be kept for all of eternity (unless the developers say otherwise).
Are people actually voting on that policy, or should this more correctly be titled "Usernames with at least one edit are not affected by this policy"? I'm not taking a position either way, just wondering whether that part might be put to a vote someday and whether there's a "severability" in legal terms between that and the zero-edits policy that most people are probably consciously voting on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems the privacy policy is stating that "if you want us to remove your user account, there's no guarantee that we'll do it", rather than "we promise not to remove your account", although this could really use clarification. TheProject 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, under ===Removal of user accounts=== it veeery clearly says "Once created, user accounts will not be removed." So first, you'll have to amend this. Renata 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people at the Wikimedia Foundation could just add ", with the exception of the English Wikipedia which deletes accounts with zero edits and those which have not logged in for 90 days." Also a notice would have to be put on wikipedia stating it has been altered. LC@RSDATA 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, ok then.  I guess "theres nowt as queer as folk", to quote a Northern England expression (meaning: people do the strangest things - and the source of the double-entendre title for the TV show .--Rye1967 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion and Modifications

message: I fully support this proposal, but with one modification - 6 months, not three. For the reason of counterarguments already given, (prison, grounding by parents) 90 days is too short. If it was increased to 6 months, I would back this proposal with everything I've got. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal as modified by Vanderdecken. If someone creates an account and doesn't use it at all for 6 months they're probably not going to. Doppelganger protection accounts don't have to not make any edits, just have them make a minor one or something and that problem with the proposal's gone. --Niroht 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true that accounts which have made an edit outside of their own userspace can't be removed without causing database errors. But that's not what we're discussing :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that such aacounts wouldn't actually be covered by this proposal. This is only for accounts that have made no edits outside of their own user space. Both the terms of the GFDL and technical requirements of the database mean that any account that's made an actual contribution to the encyclopedia can't be deleted. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to realize that this proposal is for usernames with no edits to be deleted after 90 days of inactivity.  Besides, those with email would be notified after 60 days anyway.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the proposal as it appears to be the second of the two ideas Andeh is thinking of. People have to remember that accounts can be recreated. If someone has an unexpected year-long tour in Iraq, for instance, they can return and create a new one. Is that really a big deal? joturner 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can recreate it, and odds are it isn't a big deal because they have never even edited here. Chris M. 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight change

message: Okay, I think there's some confusion as to the wording of this policy. I've clarified it. There are two requirements: 0 edits and 90 days of not logging in (that does not mean 90 days of not editing). So, any account with one or more edits is safe. Any account that has logged in in the past 90 days (either to edit, or to use a watchlist, or to customize based on skins, date/time preferences, etc.) is safe, so long as they log in at least once every 90 days. TheProject 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to rename this proposal to "Delete unused zero-edit usernames" or something similar to avoid the common misinterpretation. --Zoz (t) 14:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Just to clarify: this is for accounts with 90 straight days not logging and 0 edits ever, correct? Also, I think we should make sure we don't apply this ex post facto. If we approved this policy today, we shouldn't delete accounts that have had no action since their creation three months ago; it should only apply to accounts that were created after the policy is approved. Also, we should mention this policy when you create an account. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 0 edits ever is correct. But I don't see why we shouldn't apply this ex post facto. From what I'm reading, the whole point of this rule is to get rid of all latent accounts that have accumulated over the last few years. TheProject 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 0 edits and no logins for 90 days - I see no reason why this should be a problem? 99.99% of these accounts are obviously inactive and even if someone out there logs in infrequently but never edits anything it's hardly a big problem to register a new account. I don't foresee any problems of any kind. Gardar Rurak 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All inactive accounts, even ones created before this policy, should be given a warning and the 90 day wait period. Other than that I see no good reason to not apply this retroactively. But I agree that a disclaimer of this policy be provided to new users.Trfs 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we really ay this only applies to no edits ever?  Or does it mean no current contributions?  To clarify if a editor only edited on a page that was later deleted they curently show no contributions, but have actually edited and will remeber doing so.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question and a thought

message: I don't see any reason not to go through with this AND apply it ex post facto. The accounts being deleted are just spam that is taking up space, and nobody will care. However, put a warning that if people don't want doppleganger accounts to be deleted, they should edit with them. The issue of spurious single edits can be solved if the guideline isn't posted, just enforced (silent deletion after 90 days of no use)--Zxcvbnm 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full support 

message: I like the idea of removing accounts that have never been used. However, some users may have spent some time setting up a viewing account where they customise their preferences and watchlist. This proposal would remove their accounts after 90 days of not logging on whilst somebody who did nothing with their preferences, nothing with their watchlist and just one minor edit would get to keep it for ever. Could we extend the definition of unused to include unused preferences and nothing in their watchlist. --MarkS (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferences and watchlists 

message: I propose that the one edit be either a mainspace or Wikipedia or talk edit. Some users just messes around with their user page and does nothing with it. -- Миборовский 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to this. I have a second account (MarkS2) which I use for viewing pages via a netgem box on my TV. It has a heavily customised monobook.css to simplify the interface and make it workable. The account has never been used for editing articles or talk pages. I wouldn't want to loose this account and would just end up performing a (pointless) edit in the mainspace just to get an edit. --MarkS (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but how many people do you think are in the same situation as yourself? If the number isn't high we can have a list of accounts exempt from this. -- Миборовский 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That, and you need to log in to use your monobook.css anyways, so if you log into the account frequently, there's no reason why it should be deleted. TheProject 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such thing as a pointless edit. Log in, fix a typo or a disambig link or what not, log out. The edit can be a useful one. bd2412 T 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also no account that has mae an edit to anywhere on Wikipedia can be deleted as it will be a violation of GFDL as there wouold be a least one unatributed edit, also it would break MediaWiki for this very reason. LC@RSDATA 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it would "break MediaWiki". If I remember correctly, if someone contributes, then their account is deleted, someone else can register an account with the same username and a new password and take ownership of that edit. This is obviously a violation of GFDL. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective criterion for the "validating" edit 

message: Dunno if it was talked before, but how about deleted edits? I know a couple accounts that show zero edits only because their articles got deleted. Would they fall into "0 edits" category? Renata 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that accounts with deleted edits should be deleted. Wouldn't the deleted edits then be attributed to any future users of that account name? ~MDD4696 15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just pointing out that this should also be taken into account. Renata 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, deleted edits may be purged (see deletion review) and thus, unaccessible and disappear from wikipedia database. SYSS Mouse 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To resurrect this moribund thread, does anyone know how many of those no-edit accounts appear to have no edits solely because they were created to make spam articles which have been deleted?  I don't think this is actually a problem unless some future user gets associated with the deleted content.  Assuming it links by userid this should not happen (and also assuming that, a programming change would allow the software to say "account deleted" for these).  Or maybe it's just the username which will be freed up, keeping the user in place as a numerical userid. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted edits?

message: I support the idea very much, but what about doppelganger accounts? Those will never make edits, but they are important to keep. Thetruthbelow 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these need to make one pro forma edit now. Sandstein 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They get blocked if confirmed.--Andeh 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the problem of a doppleganger account (from which no edits are supposed to be made) getting blocked. bd2412 T 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also usually the user page of such accounts are redirected by there authors to the correct user page which requires an edit. Thus insuring that account will not be deleted. LC@RSDATA 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are incorrect. The current guideline says to put the doppelganger template on the user page, and to add the template using a real account. The doppelganger account should have no edits.SoberEmu 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: :Usernames with at least one edit will be kept for all of eternity (unless the developers say otherwise).
Are people actually voting on that policy, or should this more correctly be titled "Usernames with at least one edit are not affected by this policy"? I'm not taking a position either way, just wondering whether that part might be put to a vote someday and whether there's a "severability" in legal terms between that and the zero-edits policy that most people are probably consciously voting on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One edit?

message: BTW, I hope you are aware that if this passes, Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy (which is linked to from every WP page) will have to be changed. --Renata 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the privacy policy is stating that "if you want us to remove your user account, there's no guarantee that we'll do it", rather than "we promise not to remove your account", although this could really use clarification. TheProject 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, under ===Removal of user accounts=== it veeery clearly says "Once created, user accounts will not be removed." So first, you'll have to amend this. Renata 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people at the Wikimedia Foundation could just add ", with the exception of the English Wikipedia which deletes accounts with zero edits and those which have not logged in for 90 days." Also a notice would have to be put on wikipedia stating it has been altered. LC@RSDATA 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy policy

message: To avoid to delete unfairly some accounts at the beginning of this meassure, (which I support) we should set a testing period of 3-6 months and not 90 days, in which all users that are able to be informed will be informed(via email or automatized posts in the users talk pages). After this "testing" period the deleting may begin imetiatelly and the time period will be normally set in 90 days
--Noumenorian 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To avoid to delete unfairly

message: It sounds strange to think that the majority accounts of are created without doing at least one edit.  Why do people go to the bother of creating an account if they do not want to make an edit?  Vanity/name reserving doesn't sound plausible for 70% of users, there must be some other reason.  In my case, I did some edits before I even created my account and that sounds a more likely behaviour.  Does anyone have comparison figures for other sites where an account can be created?   Can someone else query the database to confirm the figures quoted by whoever initiated this--Rye1967 22:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, ok then.  I guess "theres nowt as queer as folk", to quote a Northern England expression (meaning: people do the strangest things - and the source of the double-entendre title for the TV show .--Rye1967 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the background figures - 70% unused - accurate?

message: Could these accounts be flagged as "inactive" after 90 days, with some warning given to the user who has that name if they show up, and then deleted after a year if they're not accessed at all? htom OtterSmith 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible inactive status?

message: Just one technical question, since I don't know -- is the logged-in status affected by the "remember me" cookie?  I haven't actually "logged in", as in clicking a Log In button, in many months.  (Not that this would affect me anyway; just curious.)   — Catherine\talk 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical question

message: I would suggest sending a warning by e-mail 14 or 30 days in advance of deletion, even if the e-mail address is not confirmed. NeonMerlin 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning by e-mail

message: ===Support the proposed policy===
With or without modification, comment as necessary.
#Support, since it was my idea in the first place (see history ;) ). I hope it all works out Msoos 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: With or without modification, comment as necessary.
#Support, since it was my idea in the first place (see history ;) ). I hope it all works out Msoos 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support the proposed policy

message: #Conditional support provided one or more of the developers backs up the claim that it will have a significant effect on the server speeds. If this is not the case, I oppose unless email warning is sent to all deleted users in advance and candidate users have not had any activity since registering. BigBlueFish 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional support

message: #Oppose for now I haven't had time to consider this fully, but having experienced fairly unpleasant illness recently, I'm minded to oppose on the grounds of caution and good faith. Partly because the policy as stated needs, in my view, more detailed work. I've logged a reasonable number of edits in my time, but would be less than happy if a 'fallow' period resulted in my account vanishing. Clarification is needed here as to what class of user account is targetted for deletion and the reasons for doing so. I understand that large numbers of inactive accounts are not desirable (any bulletin board admin will agree with this) but there are more pressing issues in my view. Stamping on the trolls and vandals should take precedence over hunting down the merely indifferent. Calilasseia 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed votes

message: With or without modification, comment as necessary.
# Oppose --Max 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose the proposed policy

message: Some editors have expressed reservations about deleting blocked accounts. I think that blocked accounts that meet the other criteria set forth above should be deleted. The concern is that deleting the account will leave the original creator free to recreate the account in an unblocked form.
The vast majority of accounts that are blocked have been blocked precisely because of edits made under those accounts; such accounts do not fall under this policy. The only way that an account gets blocked without ever having made any edits is if the username itself is highly offensive, an imposter, or uses a pattern of a known vandal, such as "_____ on wheels" or "_____ is communism".
The creators of such accounts are generally well aware that these accounts will be blocked immediately, and are not making long-term plans to use them. After 90 days, the creator would likely have long forgotten that it had ever existed. If the creator would be inclined to recreate the same account (surely only to be blocked again), this policy would not affect their ability to create an account with a nearly identical username, by having five exclamation points at the end instead of four, for example, or any number of other nonce variations.
Thus, deleting these accounts offers no additional convenience to vandals whatsoever, as they can always create an account with a marginally different name. However, enacting this deletion policy will provide us with the great benefit of erasing many stupid and offensive usernames from the rolls of our user list. I therefore implore the community not to impose any limitation on the application of this policy based solely on the blocked status of an account to be deleted under it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this strikes me as a good reason to keep blocked accounts: once we've blocked "____on wheels", which we will do every time it's created, we need never block it again (and taking the effort to create it and failing may discourage the next vandal, which would be a Good Thing.) Since an account with zero edits should be blocked only for inappropriate user name, this is, I think, the only question. Septentrionalis 20:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is, if we don't delete these accounts, they stay in our database, and the vandal (if inclined to make trouble) simply takes the same amount of effort to make a slightly different offensive username. In short, if we don't delete the account, we'll end up having to block a different one, and will only increase the number of such permablocked accounts in our database. Besides, after 90 days, hopefully that vandal will have found better things to do than bother Wikipedia with offensive username registrations. However, I'd be open to some compromise - suppose we agree to start with the oldest accounts first, as there are some never-used vandal accounts who have been blocked for years. Knock out all unused blocked accounts that are more than a year old, and talk about proceeding with the rest after that is done. bd2412 T 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to simply add a note, commenting that there may be reasons to leave some blocked accounts, like User:Squidward XXX and User:XXX on Wheels, in existence and permablocked; these may be as numerous as the indef-blocked attack accounts. Septentrionalis 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same rationale for deletion still applies. If User:XXX on Wheels vandalized and was blocked, the account cannot be deleted; if User:XXX on Wheels made an account but got blocked without ever having edited (either because they never got the chance to make an edit or because they never intended to do so), I think it fairly safe to presume that 90 days on, the creator of the account will have forgetten it ever existed, and will not go looking to re-create it in order to vandalize from it. Furthermore, if the vandal does want to vandalize, he can just as easily create User:XXXX on Wheels or User:XXXXX on Wheels or User:XXX on Wheels!. By leaving the account, we impose no extra work on vandals, but merely keep our list of users clogged up with nonsense. bd2412 T 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add a note explaining that there is disagreement on this point. Septentrionalis 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with BA on this. —Nightstallion (?) 09:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To give an example of one of the two cases where I think it might be useful: User:InfinityO is permablocked as an impersonation account of User:Infinity0. In this case, it was actually used; but there are examples where such things were caught immediately. That should stay blocked. We don't want anyone else picking it to impersonate the existing user; and we don't want some newbie picking it by accident. Septentrionalis 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is food for thought - I can see a much stronger argument being made to keep blocked imposter accounts than to keep blocked User:XXX on Wheels or User:Linuxbeak is a monkey's uncle type accounts - are pretty much all imposters tagged as imposters, tho? If they're so tagged, I'm sure we can set them aside for now and worry on them later. bd2412 T 18:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure who BA is, but I agree with Septentrionalis; deleting blocked/imposter accounts just makes more work later. We're not in a shortage of names currently, I see no need to go overboard. Seems like it would be simple to make the bot/software that is going to do these deletions skip over any account with a current block. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I presume he meant BD - anyway, my problem is that we have some really unpleasant and pointless "attack" usernames which would be great to get rid of (and if they've been around for more than 90 days, it is probably harmless to destroy them). bd2412 T 02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About deleting blocked accounts... 

message: Don't know if this was mentioned before but wouldn't it be handier to do this after single login is implemented? Many users on another wiki (commons, foreign language etc) made an account here to protect their name. And from what I've heard single login does look now like it will be there in the foreseeable future. Garion96 (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't such users want to trash all the individual accounts in exchange for a single login account then? I concede, I've made accounts on other wiki's which I virtually never edit in order to protect this username... perhaps once this is implemented, we can have a notice posted on the other Wikimedia projects for a short time to alert editors that old, unused Wikipedia addresses are getting deleted, and the way to save them is to make an edit from them. bd2412 T 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume there will be a way to join accounts. If so, then it would be better IMO to wait till single login is implemented. It doesn't seem that this proposal has to be implemented in a hurry anyway. It can wait can't it? See also this press draft. I saw Angela referring to it recently. Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not sure this proposal would affect anything for people who have cross-namespace usernames. Either their old account will get booted for nonuse, or will get sucked into the new one... I presume that the single user account will not be deleted if there's a single edit from it on any of the projects, but I also don't want to hold my breath waiting for it to come about. My immediate concern is eliminating the unused offensive and insulting usernames created as a one-time gag. Those should never be recast as single-user accounts either. bd2412 T 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only thing which could happen I think is that for instance the german equivalent(famous admin name needed hmm) Tony Sidaway has an empty account here, which he could lose if someone else registers it after the cleanup and makes a few minor edits on it. Therefore making the account impossible to use for the german user. I have to admit that this scenario is not that likely to happen, but still... Garion96 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be enough time so that he'd be able to log into it for a certain amount of time, or make an edit to perserve the account.  He came here to preserve his account by making it, I'm sure he can come here to perserve it by logging in every so often or making an edit. Chris M. 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a notice posted at every Wiki project for a few weeks before we start deleting accounts should be enough to cover that concern (although I'd give obvious vandal/attack accounts and inappropriate usernames no grace period). bd2412 T 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the obvious vandal and attack acounts of course can definitely be deleted. With all the other ones I still think it's better to wait, just to be on the safe side. There's no real hurry. Garion96 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmmm.... how about if there was a way to check if the same username is registered on another project? That way, we could immediately  (1) knock out the vandal/attack accounts, and (2) knock out unused no-edit accounts for which the name exists only on en.wikipedia (which there must be a lot of, because my understanding is that en.wikipedia has orders of magnitude more accounts registered than any other Wiki project). bd2412 T 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be great if that's possible. Is there such a way? Garion96 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't there always? I have great faith in the ability of technology to provide the solution! bd2412 T 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's Interiot's Single User Login conflict checker but it's pretty (understandably) slow. --james // bornhj (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single login 

message: Cannot happen due to legal reasons. Please read the GFDL... Sigh. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That already was discussed here and on the project page though. Garion96 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that is not what this proposal is about. bd2412 T 01:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note: Deleting usernames with 1 or more edits. 

message: This proposal has been voted on for 13 days now, does anyone know when it is scheduled to end as there is virtually no opposition - with nearly a hundred and fifety users voting in support and a mere 9 opposing votes. Just wondering. LC@RSDATA 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Closed by whom? Who has such authority? I suppose someone would have to make a feature request, and then we wait. Prodego talk 11:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll contact Jimbo. LC@RSDATA 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implement? 

message: Does the one edit count even if the person made the edit to their own userpage? In that case, would something like User: Conservative Joe be deleted since the user has only made one edit ever? 63.23.38.30 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: Conservative Joe's user page was deleted just recently. theProject 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points - first, any edit to any page counts - this is a software limitation, not merely a policy matter, as unattributed edits can not exist; second, it does not matter if the edited page is deleted, the edit still exists in the database (and is viewable by admins). bd2412 T 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just one more point 

message: In order to satisify everything about the GFDL and all:
*No edits
*No deleted edits
*No oversight hidden edits
*No log activity, except for new user.
*No otherwise hidden log activity.
In other words, there should be nothing about a user in any of the logs except for the username being created, including any otherwise hidden.  The basic premise?  They can have done NOTHING that ended up on wikipedia for any amount of time except for being a new user.  In this way, the original intention of 'unused' is completely upheld.  Anything less will probably get tossed out.  Kevin_b_er 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-encompassing note 

message: There still seems to be a fairly arbitrary attitude to what the cutoff period should be, despite the proposal title of 90 days. I wondering, is it possible to produce cumulative frequency statistics on how long accounts concerned by this policy have been idle? That would give a more informed insight on how long or short to set it. I also still want to see a server admin say that this whole process will do the servers that much good. BigBlueFish 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please realize that this proposition isn't the slightest bit prejudiced against GIs, or any other group. As discussed several times above and below, any user who makes ANY edit, even just posting a single comment here (as you've already done) ensures that their username will NEVER be deleted. This is a matter of both technical and legal requirements which can never be changed. The only accounts subject to deletion are the ones that have NEVER made a single edit anywhere on Wikipedia, and also haven't logged in within the past 90 days. So if a GI (or anybody else) wants to ensure their account remains reserved even if they unexpectedly get kept away from the internet for an extended period of time, they just have to make a single comment (like the one you just made, or even just on their on user page) and they're safe. --Maelwys 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make an edit to an article as soon as you make a username. That will cover it, and only takes 5 seconds - • The Giant Puffin • 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, if you aren't in a position to make an edit within your first three months, just recreate the account when you get back from your mission. NeonMerlin 02:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused period 

message: As a GI who occasionally spends seasons away from anything remotely resembling internet access, I find this topic - and the percentage of those who apparently approve of the proposition - discouraging. Keglined
:Please realize that this proposition isn't the slightest bit prejudiced against GIs, or any other group. As discussed several times above and below, any user who makes ANY edit, even just posting a single comment here (as you've already done) ensures that their username will NEVER be deleted. This is a matter of both technical and legal requirements which can never be changed. The only accounts subject to deletion are the ones that have NEVER made a single edit anywhere on Wikipedia, and also haven't logged in within the past 90 days. So if a GI (or anybody else) wants to ensure their account remains reserved even if they unexpectedly get kept away from the internet for an extended period of time, they just have to make a single comment (like the one you just made, or even just on their on user page) and they're safe. --Maelwys 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make an edit to an article as soon as you make a username. That will cover it, and only takes 5 seconds - • The Giant Puffin • 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, if you aren't in a position to make an edit within your first three months, just recreate the account when you get back from your mission. NeonMerlin 02:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissing the GIs?

message: Has it occured to anyone that no one who will be affected by this proposal has (or even can) vote on this page?--Rayc 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but if you never edited at all, why would you want to vote? Basically this should not effect anyone, as all these accounts are stale, and would never have made any edits. Prodego talk 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Isnt that a good thing? By voting here, people no longer fall under the caterogy of inactive users, both ensuring their page's survival and showing that they actually check what is going on in the WP community - • The Giant Puffin • 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if there is a valid reason that people get accounts and then can't edit with them, there is no way to find out about it.  Though there probably isn't one, I just thought it was an odd paradox--Rayc 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, if you can't edit with your account, then you don't need one (and Wikipedia doesn't need you to have one). As my Contracts professor would say, don't lose sight, don't lose sight of the fact that accounts exist only as a mechanism to assist users in improving Wikipedia. True, we're building an encyclopedia for the world, but anyone can read Wikipedia, account or no. An account is only of use if an editor is using it to make improvements. bd2412 T 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If they would not be able to edit with the account, how would that be able to create it? All you need to do is make an edit as soon as you create your account, and you're sorted. I dont see why this is such a problem. Making a minor edit to your own talk page or user page takes 5 seconds - • The Giant Puffin • 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paradox

message: In response to the above GFDL reminder it crossed my mind that if a username only has edits inside his own userspace, it would be possible and legal to eradicate said user if we simply wipe his userspace from the database as well. It's not like it'd have any useful encyclopedic information in it anyway. >Radiant< 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that's actually right, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go farther than that. If an article is pure giberrish vandalism, we should be able (after an appropriate time) to wipe that from the database as well. And certain edits - such as page blanking or even random removal of paragraphs from an article - do not contribute anything for which any intellectual property protection would apply, and would receive no GFDL protection. bd2412 T 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-encompassing? 

message: Likely to happen any time soon? If not, why not? Any 'crats here? —Nightstallion (?) 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the devs are working on the single user login right now, which will come "real soon"™. It wouldn't make too much sense to implement this before the single user login is implemented. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, that could be the case. Incidentally, how soon is real soon?  —Nightstallion (?) 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any of the devs responded at all? --Masamage 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meep? 

message: Unfortunately Brion Vibber has said on MediaZilla that this is not going to be implemented and has closed the bug. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not going to happen