Talk:Global username policy

Proposed policy and purpose

While the page still says that this is a proposed policy, it appears that stewards are already following it (example). I don't know whether the community have commented on this but this doesn't seem to be the case.

And while I'm here asking about whether this is actually a policy, I have to ask, what is actually the point of this? It adds unnecessary bureaucracy and w:WP:BITE to what was previously a very simple process – someone tells you that you have a bad username, and maybe blocks you for it, then you ask to change it, someone changes it and we move on. Now under this policy/proposed policy/whatever... if you have a username that states a political belief, you will be instantly globally locked losing all preferences and contributions you had made under the account. If you want to get your old account back, you'll have to email stewards at least a couple of times, one to appeal the lock and another to say which new username you prefer. If you are unable to access email then you have no way of getting your old account back and you have to start a new account because you didn't read the global username policy... that isn't linked anywhere at the moment. And I imagine stewards already have to deal with tons of emails about editors having to use proxies and other stuff. Why add this on?

I completely understand locking genuine abusive account names, but locking all the accounts that fall under this criteria seems wrong to me, and I would appreciate other people's input on this. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss this on SN. --Ferien (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Mark for translation

I think this page should be marked for translating to other languages.  A l p h a m a  ^Talk 14:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)