Federation username shenanigans.

[SKlein-1428]

It is absolutely insane that you can poke around with federation for five seconds and then never change the usernames of anyone who experimented with it AFTER federation is disabled. I have tried to find solutions without bothering anybody about it - I, too, believe in self-support first! - but there's zero documentation for any solutions, or (at the time we did it) any warning this will happen.

How do I either fully delete all federation removing federation-related-blocks to change, or, allow the people who experimented with it to change their usernames despite the fact that we are "federated" even though its disabled and we're literally not. I'm fine digging into the database and doing it manually for each user but there's no easily accessible documentation describing how to do this.

Yes, this is a bug, because "working as designed" when it's designed to be so hostile to users for vague compatibility reasons that stop applying without giving an obvious way to override it, is bad design, and bad design, is a bug.

I have way too much untreated AuDHD to deal with fellow open source devs today. I just need straight answers from someone who knows what I have to do, not seventy days of being told I'm asking the wrong question or being insulted for not magically knowing something somebody else knows. It cannot literally be that the only way to change the username of these users - one of whom is an Admin - is to deactivate their accounts and create new ones, completely disrupting the flow of chat history and account configuration. The ENTIRE point of choosing rocket chat was to regain control over our services. This is not us in control.

Anyway, frustrations aside, it's nothing personell kid(s), have a great day everyone. No hard feelings if you banish this to the Shadow Realm for not being appropriate/following the rules.

[JarvisX-Z]

Hi, thanks for raising this — this seems like a clear usability gap rather than just expected behavior.
A possible fix could be to allow username changes once federation is disabled, since the original constraint (cross-server identity consistency) is no longer relevant in that state.
At a high level, this could be handled by:

• Relaxing the federation lock when federation is turned off

• Adding an admin override for username updates

• Ensuring basic conflict checks to avoid duplicates

Even a simple safeguard-based approach would be much better than forcing account recreation.

[SKlein-1428]

Thank you for seeing my points through my frustrated ramble!

I don't have much to add after your reply, all of these various options would make dealing with a post-federation change of heart much easier. Especially for self-hosted smaller communities. We often have a lot more flux in name consistency vs larger organizations that need to more easily be able to identify the same person over lengthy periods of time for accountability and payments and the like.

[reetp]

Rambling & abuse will just get you ignored. You may be frustrated but...... You need to be methodical & accurate.

(Never test anything on a production server. It's easy enough to spin up test instances in 2026)

I have no idea if there is a solution to this, which may be why it isn't documented. Federation is massively tricky.

To elicit any chance of a sensible response you would help yourself by completing the bug reporting template here. It is standard practice with issues.

No one knows a thing about your server except you - perhaps it's an old version etc. So start there if you want any chance of help.

(Careful with multiple nonsense AI/GSoC responses you may receive here. They can waste a huge amount of your time)

[SKlein-1428]

Rambling & abuse will just get you ignored. You may be frustrated but...... You need to be methodical & accurate.

(Never test anything on a production server. It's easy enough to spin up test instances in 2026)

I have no idea if there is a solution to this, which may be why it isn't documented. Federation is massively tricky.

To elicit any chance of a sensible response you would help yourself by completing the bug reporting template here. It is standard practice with issues.

No one knows a thing about your server except you - perhaps it's an old version etc. So start there if you want any chance of help.

(Careful with multiple nonsense AI/GSoC responses you may receive here. They can waste a huge amount of your time)

"Rambling and abuse will get you ignored" "You need to be methodical and accurate."
Untreated AuDHD, and none of what I said was abuse. Just rambling. I used all of my spoons trying to solve the problem - methodically and accurately - before I even came here. I've been participating in the Open Source and Free Software communities for over 20 years. Hence "I don't have time for the you're stupid/why didn't you try this obscure nonsense nobody documented" note.
My server is up to date, docker based, and federation being tricky is meaningless when federation is turned off all its caveats should be deactivated too. I'm actively NOT engaging with Federation, I'm actively NOT interacting with the tricky thing that put limitations on my server, and there is no present way to turn off those limitations. Even if there are reasons why that's the case, it should be up to the server Operator if they want to accept those negatives, break compatibility with Federation, and willingly choose so.

"You should have used best practices and you wouldn't be where you are now" is another one of those unhelpful comments that will never be useful in the real world. If everyone used best practices we wouldn't have bugs, bug reports, and messes to clean up. If everyone used best practices none of the IT people lecturing everyone about best practices would have much of a job (or, to be fair, 50 headaches a day either). I tested Federation the first day I installed the server. And then I turned it off and never touched it again. And months later its biting me. I SHOULD have used a test server - but I also shouldn't have to, to avoid something that is turned off from harming my workflow, something that can be turned on with no warning as to why it might prevent workflow later. If the world worked on Should there'd be no accidents or mishaps.

Asking people with ADHD to read pages of documentation before they can even ask for help, and THEN ask them to read and methodically fill out a template after they've already read all that documentation, is just not practical. The onus SHOULD be on the medical system to treat us - but there's that word again.

I even asked for a solution that involved manually digging into the database. I'm clearly willing to put in the work, just unable to communicate in the ways I Should.

Thank you for your time, nevertheless!

[SKlein-1428]

(Also it's not easy for me to spin up test I'm capped out on storage capacity in the year of Their Lord 2026 where the AIpocalypse is making everything unaffordable. Self-hosting - at home - is part of our criteria. But in your defence, you quite rightly pointed out that nobody knows that, because I didn't have the capacity to remember to communicate it.)

[reetp]

My comments and advice still stand.

No one is bothered about your ADHD - most devs have some form of it. You are not special. It doesn't excuse you from doing the basics properly.

Do a properly documented professional bug report, not ramble & waffle & anger & one upmanship (that's how it comes across) because you can't get the answer you wanted.

No one can really help because there is no bug report. Simple.

So good luck. I'm going back to my vacation. I have a beach waiting for me.

[SKlein-1428]

Didn't say I was special, kid. In fact I'm an advocate for "accommodation helps everyone, not just those who need it". Explaining why something is what it is is not the same as going I'M SPECIAL!!!! I also have a bum knee. Millions of people have a bum knee. If I tell you I can't walk the distance you want me to because I have a bum knee, you wouldn't go "You're not special!", yet "we" do this about neurodiversity. Why?

Don't care how it comes across, what is and what you see ain't the same. You come across as condescending and unsympathetic, I still tried to communicate with you to explain why your advice and standards are not something I agree with. All this time you wasted lecturing when you could have been on the beach this whole time?! Dude, enjoy your vacation why are you even bothering here. I'm clearly not compatible with github culture this bug report is going to go stale or disappear you're just wasting your own time.

Plenty of people could help without an official bug report template. And if I expected any help to begin with maybe I'd put in the effort. The only valid point you made is that I should have filled out a bug report I can't fill out. Congratulations, very helpful. "Do the things you can't or you're the problem!" I can't. The template bounces off of my brain. ADHD and AuDHD are a spectrum. "Everyone has ADHD!" isn't a valid observation. It's like comparing level 1 and level 3 autism and calling it "all autism".

I can't. So I can't get useful help. And that wouldn't be anyone's fault, until you started lecturing me about what you think I'm trying to do. Acknowledging that the Open Source and Free Software communities are extremely toxic and have harmed me in the past, and that I've been involved with it for decades, isn't one upmanship or anger, it's reality, and it's a reality that participates in preventing me from doing things "the right way", because in the past that effort was greeted with horrible behaviour. I don't play "guess which snake will bite" just to jump through hoops to get the chance at respect.

And if I'm so angry why am I being so aggressively joyful and wishing everyone the best, sincerely? I speak fundamentally honestly. There's no PasAg in my statements of joy and compassion.

We talk different languages. I'm aware of that. You're judging me based on yours.

NEVERTHELESS, have a great day and have a great vacation! Seriously, why ruin your own time off just to lecture someone you don't care about and will never talk to again? I got most of what I wanted out of venting about how dumb this restraint is. I'll likely reset the entire server or do the hard work of deleting and remaking accounts.

But it's stupid that I have to. Factually. That's bad design. Bad design does not mean bad devs. It can mean a misunderstanding of what's best for users, for a specific user, or a bug that was missed. But it's still bad design. Criticism against the product - and this IS a product, this is Open Source funded by legitimately evil corporate and governmental interests, if we wanna get deep we can get deep - is not criticism against the devs or the work they put in. Nothing about what I said or did was based in anger, hostility, or a desire to inflict rudeness upon anyone. I shouldn't have to hide frustration about a frustrating thing to be taken seriously. ¯_(ツ)_/¯