Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

robots.txt

I'm not sure where to put this. And I'm not certain if, as an admin, I could edit it even if I were to find it.

But this page, it's archives, and all associated talk pages should be added to robots.txt (privacy reasons, in particular).

Any help would be welcome. - jc37 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought they already had been. Is this not the case? I think it would need a bugzilla request to the developers for new pages to be added to robots.txt... WjBscribe 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
bugzilla:14793 filed. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems sort of pointless, to add a "robots.txt" file, as long as the logs and archives are kept public. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses

Is there any way of blocking IP editors (but allowing recently created accounts) from editing? There seems to be a spurt in users not reading the rules and placing a request. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe with Javascript... Soxπed93(blag) 15:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Any idea how to do that? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can make a quick Javascript to do it, but I'll need consensus. Soxπed93(blag) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Javascript wouldn't it be easier to have the page semi-protected, if IP editors are a problem? NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that new editors, with typos etc, want renames as well. For example, if User:Examplehere actually wanted to be called User:ExampleHere, but couldn't simply get a new account because of the anti-spoofing measures, they would want a rename instead. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I realized the mistake after I posted the above diff.  :( Maybe develop a new type of protection that only applies to IPs? NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Possible. That would need to be discussed at WP:VPP and WP:VPT, however, because that would require a large consensus. There are few pages that would benefit from that type of protection, however. That's why javascript would be a good alternative for select pages on which it would be beneficial to block IP editors. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat, but I support this. The same happened again today. In the absence of a pressing need for IPs to edit a page specific to usernames, such a script would be helpful, especially because it would prompt the user to login when making/commenting on/retracting a rename request. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal. Could this be used on other pages besides CHU? I'm not sure it's worth developing an entire new level of protection just to keep confused IPs out. GlassCobra 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Soxred93's proposal. --SJK (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Limiting the CHU page to non IP addresses only =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) See this: =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing "new section" tab

Just a minor point. I noticed that the CHU page has the "new section" tab at the top. I propose that it's taken away. It formats requests under level 2 headers instead of level 3 headers, so it sometimes creates unnecessary formatting errors. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is no __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word, so Javascript will have to be the way to do it ^_^. Soxπed93(blag) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to make the new section for CHU format under level 3 headers? That'd probably take something more than Javascipt... GlassCobra 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

SUL link

Like at WP:CHU, can we get the SUL link added to the template on this page so we can just click to view that here since it's so crucial to a rename here too? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'SUL conflicts?' link? Rudget 11:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes please, in fact, add it to the usurp page form/template too please. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do it now. Rudget 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for those that didn't know, I have added the SUL username collisions detector to the interwikis a long time ago and you can use it like this >> SUL:Rlevse [[SUL:Rlevse]]..--Cometstyles 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for rename

Can i request a new usernameBarrhead Travel (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Barrhead Travel → travuser

This is the wrong page for a request. Please make it on the project page itself. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting pages when renaming

OK, so an account is renamed, and its userpages and talk pages and whatnot are moved to the new userspace. This results in redirects, which is fine - but what do we do with redirects from monobook.js? In theory, the only person to access that is the user, and they obviously would go to the new username's monobook, so do we need to redirect the old versions? I ask because a bot apparently tagged several monobook.js pages for renamed users as {{editprotected}} requests, so I wanted to check before clearing them. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I dont see why monobook.js should have the REDIRECT message. Is it possible to automatically move a page without the #REDIRECT information? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think they're working on that; The redirects themselves don't matter much, but we had over 40 {{editprotected}} requests from Russbot for users who had been renamed twice, or who otherwise had their old monobook.js pages tied up in double-redirects. They've been deleted now, so no problem. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to use NOINDEX

Bug 14793 asked for addition of en:Wikipedia:Changing_username to http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt to avoid search engine indexing, but it hasn't been added. The same effect should now be possible by simply adding __NOINDEX__ (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report) to Wikipedia:Changing username. I suggest doing so. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it to the page. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to the request for NOINDEXing RfAs, placing it on CHU (et al) is a fantastic idea; we get lots of requests for anonymity. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Acalamari 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Bug 14793 was resolved a few hours after my post with additions to http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt. I only posted here but it probably triggered something. There is no harm but potential benefit in also adding NOINDEX, since there are scenarios where NOINDEX will prevent indexing in places that robots.txt wouldn't have stopped. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Why is merging unavailable as an option? Is it a programmatic problem, because it seems the database could be edited to link items to the new username/ID. GreenwoodKL (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps a developer might be able to answer this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
See this --124.169.134.215 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging edits?

I was wondering, is it possible to merge my contributions under another account with my current one? I had another account I used in 2005-6, User:TBH. --Philip Laurence (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, its not possible as yet. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Grawp attack on CHU

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grawp attack on CHU. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

SUL on renames

Many requests have a crat note that requires a user to confirm that in renaming the local account will be detached from the Unified Login. I notice that many users have made just a few contributions to en, with little or no contributions outside enwiki. I think we can go ahead with a rename since it does not cause too much of a SUl issue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your edits last night (my time). That seems reasonable to me. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

My username (User:Neil) is SUL-enabled (see [1]). I would like to rename my account here. I do not really care about renaming the other accounts - they can stay as Neil on all the various projects. What steps do I need to take in order for this to proceed? Neıl ☄ 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Post at WP:CHU explaining the above. Follow the instructions on the page. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests to usurp

I've been noticing that some requests have been declined recently because an account can be usurped, but the user has not specified their desire to usurp. I think it makes sense that we automatically assume that a user who has made a request to change their username would remain interested in this change regardless of whether the account already exists, and therefore we could safely move such requests to USURP without any hassles. After all, in what circumstances, exactly, would someone request a rename, be told they must usurp the account, and then change their mind on this base alone? The reason I ask is because some people are baffled by the process, and would never get around to converting their request to the format required at USURP, so we are left with an unhappy user confused as to why they cannot be renamed. This seems to be counter-productive, considering how short a time it does take to re-add a request at USURP, or to even just tend to an usurpation request directly. Thoughts? (just for the record, I refer to this as a specific example that I can remember of late: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username#41doctorsalt97_.E2.86.92_Drscience - not to pick on you at all, TRM, but I just brought this up because this matter was specifically not a one time thing, and I was just hoping for clarification). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a better alternative would be, if a message was placed on the talk page explaining the situation. The bots do not differentiate between an account that can be usurped (0 edits) and an account that can possibly be usurped (no GFDL-significant edits). I also think the renaming function needs a complete revamp as far as the interface is concerned, making it more of an integrated feature rather than an add-on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It seems to me we need to better our communication with our requesters, because it seems as though our clerk/bureaucrat notes aren't getting through adequately. Posting such talk page messages is certainly a step in the right direction. Thanks for the insight. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
See my suggestion below. Let me know what you think about it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I always refer the posts to CUU, for exactly the reasons you (AD) state here. If we have user's who aren't renamed after a certain while, they start to wonder, and then they can't find the thread because it might've been archived. Maybe instead these 'usurp would be better' comments are aimed towards the clerk(s)? Caulde 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to CHU process

Since we go through almost a thousand renames per month, I'm thinking of making the Renaming function an integrated feature that is accessible through the "my preferences" tab. The immediate advantage would be preventing non-logged in users from making a request.

On the interface page, this is what I envision:

New name: [Textbox]
Reason: [Textbox]
Automatically recreate old account [checkbox] (to prevent a Grawp-like situation.) (Note: Should be unchecked if renames are done for privacy concerns)
Place a request (button)

Mediawiki then checks the following:

  1. Place a warning if restricted characters are present, or if the change is to do with just underscores or first letter caps.
  2. Will the current account be detached from SUL? YES => Warning to user
  3. Is the requested name similar to existing user? == YES => Warning to user (that the request might be denied)
  4. Is requested username available? == NO => Warning to user AND
    1. If requested username not available, does requested username have 0 edits? == Yes => Display usurp instructions. Make the user confirm, and place the request at CHUU
    2. If requested username not available, does requested username have <10 (edit: an arbitrary number) edits to mainspace? YES => place it on CHUU. Clerk or Crat can evaluate the criteria.
  5. If warnings, user needs to confirm a go-ahead.
Finally
  1. Display the request on CHU
  2. Display the block log of user and Display rename history

How does this sound? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If that can be implemented, that would be really helpful (even though it would make clerks like Caulde and myself obsolete). I guess I'll have to go work on some articles. Useight (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea very much. I've always felt like our method for placing requests at CHU was a bit hackish. If we can find somebody to write this extension, I'm all in favor. — Dan | talk 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds great if it can be implemented. It would make the intricacies of the process more transparent and would mean users make all the required decisions before finally submitting a request which, in theory, could be actioned virtually instantly. Could we also have a weblink which Googles the new name so we can check for potential WP:U infractions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
So the renames would be done through 'my preferences' and the output would be displayed on the CHU page, where the bureaucrats would 'push the buttons'? If so, that doesn't sound half bad. The only drawback is, I am sure there will be opposition by those who feel this may be needless bureaucracy. (TRMs idea is pretty neat too). Caulde 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this is a step in the right direction. Malformed requests are a persistent problem, and making the process more transparent might be more easier for us and for the requesting user. bibliomaniac15 20:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What they ↑ said. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a fine idea. The software implementation may, unfortunately, pose a problem. It would require a complete change in the software design of the "myprefs" functionality. The developers may be able to do it, but this won't be something occurring overnight. In addition, it'd also involve the non-user output, or editing, of a page, which would mean changes to the history functionality, as well as to what the actual software is able to do. Other than this, I think I like the idea. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bug 15,698 filed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unified login

Hi.

I recently decided to unify my login for this project and it worked except I have another username at Wiki commons. I registered the username 'Hazz' at commons but now realise that was a mistake as I want 'TwentiethApril1986' to be my username there. Can any of the Bureaucrats change this for me please?

TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the Commons Crats. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark whatever

Are that Mark whatever sections (above Rebel Queen Pokeynut -> Lady Renegade request) supposed to be there? it seems a little...odd. HJHLady Renegade 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed them and put a note on the user's talk page, hoping to help him find the correct location for the work he is trying to do. Useight (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Query (moved from WP:CHU)

Sorry if this isn't the place to ask a question, but I'm not sure where else to ask this: I'd like to have a previous user name removed from "file history" entries due to privacy concerns. I already had this username switched to the current name, but the old name is still showing up under the file history for multiple images that I posted with the account. How can I get those entries removed?--metsfan84

Could you point is to the relevant images? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Soxbot

I'm missing the bot. What happened to it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It got blocked, because it blanked the page for a reason I can't figure out for the life of me. Xclamation point 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
My bet is the api, its been giving some of my bots funny results recently. Try adding
if (empty($chu_content)) {
       die("Bad API Result\n");
}

so it doesn't blank the page --Chris 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Plz unblock now? Xclamation point 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked. Let's hope it works. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Bot problems again? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

misplaced request for username change

User User:Ssakcaj has been blocked for his username, and now he is asking for a rename, but he didn't read the instructions so he is using the wrong template, in the wrong place. Please have a look at User_talk:Ssakcaj#Ssakcaj → Pliqueajour. MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

the unified login system

Regarding the warning User JohnDoe has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one.

Should we always ask the user if this is ok? Or what circumstances should we ask and what circumstances should we not ask? Kingturtle (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This archived thread might help: Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3#SUL on renames =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

A couple of years ago I've created an account here: User:Alex:Dan, which was different from my original user name on Romanian Wikipedia. But in September 2008 I've used the single unified login function and I've created a new account here: User:Alex:D. I want to transfer the talk page, logs and history from User:Alex:Dan to User:Alex:D, but also keep, if possible, the history of the latter account. What do I have to do? --Alex:D (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't merge the contributions of both accounts. So, you would need to select one of the two usernames as your primary username on enwiki. We can swap the contributions of the Alex:Dan and Alex:D accounts if you wish. I'll detail the procedure if you wish to swap the two. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then I want to transfer the history from Alex:Dan to Alex:D. --Alex:D (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Login as Alex:D and place a request. Then login as Alex:Dan and confirm that you own the other account. (We have to make certain that you own both accounts.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

username change limit

Is there a limit to how many times you can change your username? ♣PrincessClown♥ 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is not one set limit, but most, if not all crats won't rename you if you have been renamed a bunch of times. Xclamation point 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you change your username 2 times? ♣PrincessClown♥ 17:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Usually. Xclamation point 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot depends on the rationale behind the name change and how frequent you are making the request. A person who has been with wikipedia for 5 years would have a better chance of getting 5 name changes at a rate of 1 per year than getting 5 name changes in a 5 week period. Likewise a person who changed their name to their real name, but almost immediately realizes this was a mistake is more likely to get a name change than a person who simply wants to change their name again in a short period of time.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 20:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So

If your a bureaucrat can you rename yourself? Ô.ô wow ô.ô (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New tool

tools:~chris/chu_search.php it helps with searching the archives for old requests. Still needs a lot of work (e.g. get it to work with WP:CHU/U and WP:CHU/SUL, get it to rank results, etc) but its works --Chris 09:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It now also searches CHU/U and CHU/SUL --Chris 08:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

troubles...

Seems like this system runs smoothly except for three things I've noticed that slow the process down and clog up the page:

  1. The surprisingly common occurrence of botched requests (here, for example). I'm not sure how or why this happens so often, but we really need to figure it out. It's a pain.
  2. The occasional request from an IP address. Either we can semi-protect this article permanently to prevent such requests, or we need to make some more explicit notice in our instructions about the requirement to be logged in when making the request.
  3. Making sure users are aware of the implications of using their real names. We shouldn't have to ask each editor who makes such a request. There should be something explicit in our instructions that satisfies our desire to let editors know the implications.

Just some food for thought here. Trying to clean up parts of the process. Kingturtle (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little hesitant on the semi-protection because there a fair number of new accounts requesting a change because they made a typo when originally creating their account. I don't have any hard numbers, but it seems that there are more typo-related requests than IPs making requests. Useight (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I started a discussion about a 4th protection level, which allows all users but no IPs at WP:VPT. Unfortualely, it does look there is much consensus there. Xclamation point 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
On the flipside Useeight, if the account hasn't been around for the few days it needs to be to edit semi-protected pages, aren't we just as alikely to tell them to start over with a new name anyway?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If the account is brand new and they are requesting a very different name, then yeah, we just have them create another account and abandon the first; however, if they want to go from User:Exmaple to User:Example, that request is usually granted. Useight (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Why can't they just request via WP:ACC? It would be faster than waiting for a name change IMO --Chris 07:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Also point 1 might be because of this look closely at the CURRENT and NEW sections, the image is broken --Chris 01:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to be User:1

I want to change my name, and User:1 doesn't have any edits. They were asked about usurpation at User talk:1, but I guess it didn't happen. I tried to sign up for it, but I think I can't because the talk page exists. If you look at the talk page's history, some inactive user just moved their talk page over to it. I'm using my real name now, and I'm thinking that might not be the best idea. Anyways, do I have to do the whole usurpation thing? Is there a reason the first usurpation wasn't finished? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened was someone requested the usurpation of User:1 but a bureaucrat said they wouldn't perform the request as the name may cause confusion. The person making the request then changed their request to be for User:One. Have a look at what happened in the archive.
You could try opening another usurpation request. Opinions as to what is and isn't acceptable in usernames may have changed since then, but there's no guarantee that your request would be granted. You might want to link to the old request when you make your request. Tra (Talk) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Request deleted

Hello! I wonder why User:SoxBot VI removed my request (dif)? Yeah, i know, it's a bot, but did i do anything wrong about my request? / Sincerely SveFrisko (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll disable it for right now and contact the botop. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Done and requests restored. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you! -SveFrisko (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Are you aware of the potential privacy-related ramifications that can come from using your real name"

This seems like an unnecessary question. First of all, it's vague -- if we have something in mind then please spell it out so we can include it in the instructions, username policy, or in the request template. If we don't mean anything in particular but merely that people are giving up their anonymity and that their name will be recorded in the Wikipedia history, I think they kind of knew that already. If they don't already understand that I don't think they really need to worry about it. All these questions are just slowing down the process and inconveniencing these people who are probably actually interested in contributing (by AGF). Note that I agree we should ask about SPAMMER and COI, although I would rather we ask clearer questions and not invoke policy shorthand. In general though I've been noticing a trend toward stopping requests in their tracks to a certain extent, and I'd like to see some loosening up. Andre (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice Kingturtle mentioned this above a few days ago -- good job. Andre (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We should just have something explicit in the instructions. I'll give it a go. Kingturtle (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's been in the instructions for a while, actually. "Using your real name is permitted. However, use of a real name may make you vulnerable to issues such as harassment. You should consider the benefits and drawbacks of making substantial contributions under your real name before doing so." bibliomaniac15 05:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit saying that such a request will be denied unless they explicitly say in their reason that they understand the implications. Kingturtle (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Useight (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with warning, but requiring them to explicitly state they understand? *shrug* Not that passionate about the subject that I'll disregard the addition, just thought I'd register my incredibly mild dislike of it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I just thought it would help if the user told us they understood before we asked. But feel free to change it. It doesn't have to be required - and in fact, we aren't requiring it in spite of the advisory. Kingturtle (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed denied to delayed. Kingturtle (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I Have a question

I just changed my name from WWEFAN99 to WWEYANKS52, and i would like to no, do all of the pages I made with my former mae count for pages with my new account, the same goes for edits? Adam Penale (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All the edits you made with your first account should be reattributed to your new account, though this may take a little while. Useight (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The change should have happened by now. I am looking into why it is delayed. Kingturtle (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
So...... what happened? Adam Penale (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As WWEFAN99 you had nearly 10,000 edits. This might take a little time for it to push through the job queue. Give it a day or two more. Kingturtle (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Real name?

"Your request to use your real name will be denied unless you state explicitly that you are aware the implications of using your real name"

O rly? I'm not a fan of protecting people from themselves in this case; since when do we explicitly require confirmation? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the 18th or so and about four threads above this one. Useight (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfft, you can't expect me to do such mundane things as "read" or "pay attention." EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, geez. What we need to do is create a new user access level called "Secretary". They can compile and deliver a timely report regarding the issues we think are important. Useight (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I still have a few questions

As I have said farther up on this page, I changed my account form User:WWEFAN99 to User:WWEYANKS52, and apparently the edits I made with my first account aren't reattributed to my new account. Now I was wondering if i could go back to my old name and keep all of my Edits and pages. I really dont want to have to do that though. Adam Penale (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming if you just keep waiting, you'll eventually have all the contributions. Please be patient. Andre (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, Thank you for responding Adam Penale (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I filed a bug report. Kingturtle (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I use WP:CHU or WP:CHU/SUL?

I currently have a unified login without any differences across projects (I have the same username everywhere), and am thinking about changing my username on all projects. Would it be appropriate for me to place my request at the main CHU page, or at CHU/SUL? (I'm a bit confused as to whether the SUL subpage is only for clearing up name differences across projects, or if it's also for changing multiple names on multiple projects.) Thanks, Politizer talk/contribs 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

CHU would be most appropriate. The standard process is to get all your former accounts renamed into the name you want on each separate wiki, then remerge an SUL. Pretty cumbersome, but that's the only way so far. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. Thanks for the help, Politizer talk/contribs 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SUL/Partial usurpation

I have a question about the partial usurpation. My problem is that I have an account on MediaWiki and on Meta (with the same name) and would like to have the same name here on Wikipediam, which is already taken (without edits or log entries though). I tried to unify the account from MediaWiki so I can request a partial usurpation here, but it then says that there is already another home wiki (on pl.wikipedia) but that one is not mine. Is it possible to somehow get the account unified, without renaming all the accounts, or is it possible to at least have that empty account here renamed, so I can register with my nick here? Thank you. 91.1.121.5 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked user asking for rename

As per comments he left on his user page, Adamstanton is requesting a name change. I noticed it and brought it here rather than the main page, since he didn't say what username he was asking to change to.

Please note he is an indef blocked user, and also was found to be socking under the name Adam J Stanton. I don't know if this disqualifies his request, so I brought in here in good faith. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the name change because of privacy issues, which must be respected. This name change in no way exonerates the user from past behavior or from actions the community has taken against him. Kingturtle (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A Question

I want to ask a question. I have changed my user account name from "BigFatPigCa" to "TagSmallPig". However, it seems that the name appearing in the past edit history page remains the origianl "BigFatPigCa" and the old account can still be used. How can this problem be solved ? For example, in the following edit history entry

SineBot (Talk | contribs) m (52,687 bytes) (Signing comment by BigFatPigCa (talk) )

Here the BigFatPigCa still appears without being replaced with the new account name "TagSmallPig". Pig 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  •  Bureaucrat note: See the notes and instructions, and especially the section Effects of a username change, above.
  •  Done --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: moved from CHU queue for archival and clerical purposes; header size refactored for WT:CHU archival purposes. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Changing username

Everyone happy with this? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Hopyfully, it puts a halt on some of those malformed and noncompliant requests. Xclamation point 14:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what I had in mind. Can't be ignored. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, once the Abuse Filter goes live, we can disallow them before they even appear :) Xclamation point 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. I've made a few tweaks, but feel free to revert them. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Does changing the username also affect my "unified login" name and keep the edits as well? --Philip Laurence (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Your en: account will be detached from the SUL. See the instructions. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On manual moves

This has probably been asked already, but how do we treat manual username changes by a user who creates a second account and then moves with his first account all previous userspace items including the talk pages there and then asks for the remaining redirects to be deleted. I'd decline the deletion of the redirect on the talk but what about the rest? Is there some step to 'complete' the change officially? --Tikiwont (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we want to avoid manual changes of usernames and to move entire histories from the old names to the new names. If a user has already gone forward with a manual change, the old username should redirect to the new username - unless there is a privacy issue involved.
In the case you're referring to, if the new username is still relatively fresh, we can rename it to a generic name, and then rename the old username to the new username. Kingturtle (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, sometimes people rush ahead. The particular example I have in mind we can probably leave as it is now with the redirects. I'd advise the editor in case they want to recover the edit history. We don't disable the old account then do we?--Tikiwont (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to indefinitely block the old name - unless there is a specific reason the user wants two accounts (like one for home use, and one for public-terminal use)...but that must be explicitly explained on the user's pages. Kingturtle (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No they actually marked the old account as 'retired', so I'll go ahead with the redirects, the block and a notice to come here in case of further doubt. Thanks,--Tikiwont (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

tool server

I'm still not getting any SUL info from the tool server. Kingturtle (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at WP:BN --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dans-eng --> Dans

Dears,

I'd like to change my username from User:Dans-eng to User:Dans, in order to achieve coherence with my other accounts it:User:Dans and lmo:Utente:Dans and thus ask for a global account. I know that User:Dans was once used on en:wiki, but he seem to have been deleted, and I'd like to know if I can succeed. Thanks.--Dans-eng (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Make your request at WP:CHUU. Kingturtle (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One/low number of edit(s)

See here. It seems to me our common practice with regard to this may have changed. Thoughts, bureaucrats? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I put that feature in s more of a notice, rather than a problem. Xclamation point 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, fair enough; although, as it is currently worded, it is, in fact, stated to be a "problem" by SoxBot. Perhaps a rephrasing is what is needed? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If the current and target names are similar, I assume it may be more difficult for the editors to make the changes on their own, so I go ahead with it. I am also of the mindset that it may be better to make the change even if the current name and target name are dissimilar - because it is tidier that way, one less unused username lying around. Kingturtle (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's mostly a case by case situation. If a username is a change from "Acmeexplosivesinc." to "AcmeExplosivesInc.", that would be denied. However, some simple changes like that are perfectly fine. The bot is not (and should not) be the only thing the crats use. When I wrote SoxBot, I wrote it to assist the crats in identifying easily deniable requests. I did not write it to be prefectly reliable. Sometimes the API gives false results. It can't determine extenuating circumstances. Next time I SSH into the Toolserver, I'll change it. Xclamation point 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SockBot > SockMob

{{subst:Request accepted|Allowing username change to SockMob (talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Requests go on the main CHU page (or WP:CHU/U, depending on the situation). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Limited number of edits

If my memory serves me correctly, if you made a certain amount of edits, you could no longer change your username. Does that limit still exist? DiverseMentality 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but it's insanely high (I think it's around the range of User:SmackBot, with 2 million edits). Xclamation point 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the limit is 2 million. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:RTV, the limit is 200,000. I had always assumed this was the correct number, but if it's not, that needs to be updated. Useight (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. As long as I can still change my username with the amount of edits I have, I'll survive. Thank you three. DiverseMentality 06:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice

Can we add a note about the potential harm of using a real name to the edit notice? Seraphim♥ 23:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a this note on the page. Acceptable? NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a good idea. People do not realize how likely it is that someone will really make their life hard over the proper spelling of something. Chillum 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There was already a sentence regarding the matter: "Using your real name as a username may put you at risk for harassment. Your request to use your real name will be delayed unless you state explicitly that you are aware the implications of using your real name." I will remove the new addition to reduce redundancy. The original text was also more neutral, as I don't believe we actually discourage users from selecting their name as a username, but rather simply inform them of the potential implications. Useight (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, anybody who uses their real name as a username is a fool. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Rofl! --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm. :p PeterSymonds (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, NanohaA'sYuri and Useight, you seem to have misunderstood. I was suggesting that we add the note to the edit notice for the page, not the page, which I knew already had a note. Also, can we add it above the collapsed "Instructions" box? Seraphim♥ 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. I simply removed a redundant and somewhat inaccurate statement from the front matter. Useight (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems when I added it I must have missed notice that one was already there. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but can someone add a note to the edit notice please? I can't seem to find it. Seraphim♥ 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I would, but I do not know how to edit that notice. I assume it has to be changed in meta, but I only edit en.wiki. If someone could tell me the correct procedure for editing that notice, I would be very appreciative. Useight (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ditto! Then I wouldn't be bugging you kind people to do it for me :). Seraphim♥ 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Changing username. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The dangers of using a real name are already documented in the general notes section. That editnotice was created for instruction, not warning. Furthermore, the editnotice is directly transcluded from the front matter's "instructions" subpage. So you'd have to change that to have the warning displayed; and it's hardly appropriate there. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
But I'm not sure how many people do see that note or really understand the seriousness of using a real life name. Wikipedia already damages people through BLPs; shouldn't we should try a little harder to stop the name of an account from potentially causing harm? After Juliancolton provided the link, I didn't edit it because of the transclusion (I'm not very code knowledgable). Can we just subst that part? Seraphim♥ 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing username removes my block log?

Would changing my username remove my block log? I know my edits are moved over but I have blocks in my log which are not valid blocks and want a clean block log. Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The block log would be transferred, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a reason for this. If you have been blocked, then it will be on your record forever. You can't evade your block history. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A bit unfair for those who have been wrongly blocked. I can't see why such tool which can only be used by Bureaucrat to remove such block logs but is still stored but just under a Removed blocks log. Bidgee (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, for incorrect blocks, it is a pain; but there is a reason we do it – for all the people whose blocks are valid. Sorry. Just bear Useight's comment in mind. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been errantly blocked as well. People can easily see that these types of blocks were made incorrectly and therefore don't consider them (during RFA or editor review, for example). I believe a developer could technically clean someone's block log, but that's not going to happen. Useight (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's been tried before, if I recall correctly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Which part was tried, a developer tried to clean a block log or an individual tried to convince a developer to clean one? Useight (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The former. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is essential that block-logs are carried over to new usernames. Blocks on your record that were wrongly done are not and will not be held against you. In fact, even blocks on your record that you deserved will not be held against you after some time. For example, if an editor was blocked because of an edit war 4 years ago, but has since been an ambassador of wikicitizenship, I doubt anyone would hold the incident against said editor. Kingturtle (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My name change

Hi, I changed my username in December 2008, I was just reviewing this edit history, it seems that some of my old edits are still listed under my previous username (English Peasant). Surely they should all have been changed over by now? What happened? King of the North East 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough you have a whole chunk of edits that haven't moved over from October 2006. We may have to submit a bug report if the problem persists. bibliomaniac15 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, is there any way to kick start the transfer of these edits to my current username? King of the North East 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If no-one here knows how to do this, has anyone got an idea where else I can make this request? King of the North East 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added your circumstances to an existing bug report. You may want to add your email address to it. Kingturtle (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Name reserved

I just tried to rename User:Einfall here on en:Wikipedia to User:Avalokitesvara (what the same user is named elsewhere on Wikimedia). I got the error message "User Avalokitesvara is reserved for a global account." Well yes, that's why I was trying to do this. Special:RenameUser isn't letting me do this however. Um, what's the problem, or how do we get this taken care of? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay, at the suggestion of User:Anonymous Dissident, I first moved the reserved (but never used nor created) User:Avalokitesvara to User:Avalokitesvara (useruped), THEN moved Einfall to User:Avalokitesvara. This seems to have worked at least here on en:Wikipedia. I hope this takes care of the whole issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I expect Einfall will need to perform unification, though. Which is easy enough. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's the usual protocol. Usurp, and if you're doing it for SUL purposes, you can ignore the error message and go straight for the rename. bibliomaniac15 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Add editnotice to CHU?

Should we add a helpful editnotice to the CHU page, to assist clerks, similar to WP:AIV and WP:UAA? I was thinking something along the lines of...

What do others think? Xclamation point 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I don't use editnotices anywhere except for RFPP. All I need is {{cratnote}}, {{done}}, and {{notdone}}, and that's it. Suppose I'm a little too lazy to memorize all of the editnotices. bibliomaniac15 04:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I just use {{clerk-note}} preceeded by whatever I need to say. Although I can see this being potentially useful for some; although I think it'd be better if it gets trimmed down a bit. Useight (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It definitely seems useful, but I agree that it needs to be trimmed a bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing leads to another

I'm doing a lot of speedy deletion work, especially in the spam queue, which leads to blocks for promotional usernames, which leads to requests for unblocking and name changes. When non-crats help out at CHU, I see they generally call themselves clerks. I don't want to claim to be something I'm not, but I'm happy to provide information I have when someone applies for a name change; should I stick the little "clerk" icon next to my comments? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of clerking templates is optional. The only templates which can only be used by the 'crats are {{done}} and {{not done}}, obviously. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And {{Cratnote}} :) -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, true. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unified account

I requested my username be changed about a 2 months ago and today realized it only affected my english wikipedia account and not my other accounts through the wiki global account. Any way to fix this or do I have to start over? --Phil1988 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just had my name changed on enwiki. I'd like the same change to be in effect globally. I'm interested in this answer as well! LadyofShalott Weave 05:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but renames on en.wiki only affect the en.wiki username. You have to go to each wiki you're active in and rename in those separately before you remerge. bibliomaniac15 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the response/information! LadyofShalott Weave 02:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to rename the other accounts and then have them re-unified? --Phil1988 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in one fell swoop, no, unfortunately. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects from old username

This week, User:I-210 changed to User:I-15, and then to User:I-10. Both of the redirects from the former names were deleted. That seems a little too fast to me, though I don't recall the usual time for leaving those redirects up. I'm going to recreate them and I'd expect them to stay up for at least a week, or longer if that's customary.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User has long been involved in many disputes, blocks and apparent block-evasion, and other troublesome patterns. Somewhere some editors might find enough GF left to hope it's not to avoid scrutinty, but best to keep links in the discussions about this user bluelink for a while. DMacks (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is to avoid scrutiny: [2]. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Separation

Why are WP:CHU, WP:USURP, and WP:CHU/SUL separate? It appears that users regularly have requests denied because they are on the wrong page, when they could be fulfilled anyway. Bureaucracy, anyone? Stifle (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because each of them demand separate instructions, templates, archives, process and bureaucrat response times. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
And is that the way it should be? I hope we're not process wonks. The (relatively) recent merger of SPI and RFCU comes to mind. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fine. We have seven or eight types of requests, so having different pages helps insofar as instruction and handling are concerned. Each of them is clogged enough in that regard as it is. Combining them would be a nightmare in administration and for the average user trying to figure out how to make a request/what templates are needed etc. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
At most, SUL and CHU could be combined. Because USURP is very specifically time-delayed, merging it with the rest would be a nightmare for us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking that more recently as well. Since the SUL rush has really died down, remerging it with CHU could be done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should... if for no other reason than the fact that I keep forgetting to check it, and it would help me out greatly. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is useful to keep the three separate. I find it easier and more efficient to do all of one type at a time. Each type has various subtleties that are best to keep separate. It is also easier and useful to keep the archives separate. Kingturtle (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
With the exception of WP:USURP, I don't deny requests that are simply in the wrong category. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless it's clear that the user is not really serious about a name change, I'll usually move the request to the correct category and append a {{clerk note}} to the end. Xclamation point 22:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Username usurpable?

In August 2008, when I got renamed to X!, I was originally wanting X instead of X!. The reason it was denied was because the nowiktionary user has rights to the SUL. However, the nowikt user has been inactive since 2005. With Lucasbfr trying to usurp Luk even though someone else has SUL rights, it made me wonder. Despite the couple thousand edits to nowikt, would it be usurpable after all if I tried to get in contact with the nowikt user? Xclamation point 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if the nowikt user agreed that you could usurp it. Otherwise, no. Andre (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Or if, by some chance, the nowikt Crats decided to usurp it for you. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem regarding my username change

I had my username changed from Diniz to Midgrid yesterday. Due to my large number of edits, I was initially unable to log in as Midgrid, and logged back in as Diniz instead to see if it was still working (the bureaucrat who renamed me advised me that I would be able to log into both accounts until all of my edits were reassigned. However, it appears that this caused the Diniz account to be recreated again, possibly due to the fact that I have not changed my username on other wikis yet. [3] Not all of my edits have been transferred to my Midgrid account, and none since I noticed this. Will the remaining edits still be reassigned, or does further action need to be taken?--Midgrid(talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Complications with this username

After renaming from Themaeeandhisfriend to Shannon1 the unified login was lost, yet I could still log in under "Themaeeandhisfriend" at Commons and Simple English Wikipedia and all my contributions were still there.
On pl.wikipedia there is another (existing) username called "Shannon1" which has 0 edits, but is causing complications for me to redo my SUL privileges.
When I log in in Commons, it logs me out here and then logs in under "Themaeeandhisfriend" automatically. I want to have SUL priviliges for "Shannon1" But I do not know where to request. Shannon1talk contribs 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bots

The bots are all goin' rouge, so some extra eyes on this page wouldn't hurt. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's going on, but I wonder if it could be related to the current notice on the SUL report: "Due to technical problems, s3 is unavailable now." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Renaming accounts with no contributions

One of the notices at WP:CHU reads: "If you have not made very many edits, please just create a new account and discontinue use of the old one. It does not need to be deleted; disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored. This will save you the trouble of submitting a request and waiting for it to be fulfilled. You can copy your old watchlist to your new account.". Why don't we just rename? It is not like it will majorly tax the servers? Is there another reason of which I am unaware or forgetting? Otherwise, I for one would like to remove that caveat. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the idea is it's less effort for the editor to create a new account than for a bureaucrat to rename the account, particularly in the case of well-intentioned editors that (re-)created articles that were speedy deleted for various reasons and want to start fresh. This is particularly true of editors that had their articles deleted and had spammy usernames that got blocked. But who am I to tell the 'crats what to do with their time.--chaser (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the point of it is that we do have a limited (and too small imho) amount of crats to swiftly answer all CHU requests, so those users who do not need edit re-attribution can just create a new account instead of waiting for a crat to come along to do it. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think certain bureaucrats do prefer to exercise their tools more judiciously. Not that renaming an account with no contributions is not judicious, but I remember that The Rambling Man would hardly ever do this type of rename. Myself, I usually do them. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I deny them out of habit more than anything. Performing the renames takes only slightly more effort than tagging them with {{notdone}} does. I'm willing to revist my stance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • We've had a number of RFA candidates given grief over earlier discontinued accounts, and even to an extent recent renamings. I appreciate that it may seem pointless to rename a zero edit account, but "disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored" is not IMHO entirely a true statement. I would suggest at the least rephrasing it to "disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored, providing you redirect their talk and user pages to your new account with the code #Redirect [[User:your new name]] and #Redirect [[User Talk:your new name]] and declare the old account on your user page with words such as "I used to edit as [[User:your old name]]". Or take one of the other routes specified at wp:sock#LEGIT" ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think I'd rather rename the account as opposed to having a surfeit of unused accounts floating around. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to place a lot of emphasis on the reason for these requests. "Didnt realise my real name would show" is commonplace and I'll accept it readily. "Bored of it" stretches my AGF abilities for an account 1 hr old and I deny. --Dweller (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller in that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; but d'y'all think we should adjust the wording on CHU to indicate that? -- Avi (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What about, "If you have not made very many edits, it might be more efficient to simply create a new username and discard the old one; disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored."? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, and this way the stated rules don't conflict with what we are actually doing. :) -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, done. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

As a non-bureaucrat, would I have the authority to mark obvious stuff (eg. accounts blocked as promotional) as  Not done? As far as I know this hasn't been discussed in the past. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_6#Clerks_at_WP:CHU and also at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Assistance that really didn't seem to go anywhere. MBisanz talk 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If the requesting account is blocked, I'd feel comfortable with clerks marking them as {{notdone}}. Outside of that, eh; could get iffy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis

I didn't find in zhich subpage the interwikis can be edited, would be whise to add Commons:Changing username--Kimdime69 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Commons can't be added to the left side. I'm not entirely sure if we need to link to it directly from here, if for no other reason than the question of "where do we draw the line on non-WP rename pages?" EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken but unused names

What if a username was registered years ago, but never used? I would like to switch my username to RidgeRunner or Ridgerunner. Both were registered 3 years ago and have made 1 and 0 edits, respectively. I think it's pretty unlikely these names are going to be used again.--Flash176 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what WP:USURP is for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah ha. Many thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish

WP:RTV is quite confusing. It says the following in the "How to leave" section: "user talk pages – these are generally not deleted unless a user is exercising a permanent right to vanish."

Then in the "Vanishing from Wikipedia" section it says the opposite: "user talks per convention are almost never deleted."71.88.58.198 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to clerks

It's good to see that users continue to help on these boards to make the process more efficient. Just one little thing...
I see a lot of messages asking users to make requests on a different noticeboard. Please, if you have time, could you move the request to the right place? Especially when users are coming from other projects (ie. for SUL related requests) and English is not their first language, the process is bound to be a little baffling. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Please move this request to [wherever]" isn't really helpful and reformatting a request to move it to the different sections of CHU only takes about five minutes. →javért chat 22:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging of contribution

  • One question. Can I merge my contribution with other nickname which used until creation of SUL-account? NickSt (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No. It is not (yet) possible to merge accounts yet, even to other accounts on your SUL. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld abandoned

Just to let you guys know (as moving my account wasn't possible) I'm abandoning my old account and starting afresh as stated on my user page. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxbot reporting on Baraka Books → Kilvert

Hello. A quick query - Soxbot is reporting that the Kilvert account exists, but it is also saying that edits/deleted edits or log edits have been made. I can find the account, but no edits, deleted or otherwise, and only the account creation log. Have I missed something blatantly obvious here? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be lumping the account creation item as being a log item. (or it might just be a general catch-all response if it finds anything). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So it's not perfect?! Okay, well good news for me was the editor in question is a spammer so, as they say in Germany, nein danke. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking requests

When a username is changed can't the anchor to the request be linked to from the field that by default has WP:CHU? -- Mentifisto 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? You mean the name of the section? Yes, it should be changed if the requested username is changed, though it isn't automatic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be meaningless when the request is archived? MBisanz talk 03:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Does archiving happen quickly? Maybe it can be set up to link to a future archival section, or perhaps use oldid to link to the page permanently. -- Mentifisto 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Chris G Bot 3 checks every hour but only archives {{done}} threads when the last time stamp in the thread is 12 hours old and {{not done}} threads when the last time stamp is older than 36 hours. Javért  |  Talk 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as a necessarily constructive change. Most people go to CHU to escape from their past name, and I'm not sure linking it would be fixing anything. Conceivably we could link to the diff, but it comes across as a bit more tedious than necessary. bibliomaniac15 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Aha, if that's the fundamental reason it isn't linked to then it's okay (although it's still easy to search for the rename request). -- Mentifisto 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued use of user name after editor changed because of severe harassment

An editor changed his user name after severe harassment. A couple of editors continue to use his user name despite continued warnings not too. These editors will continue this disruption until they are made to stop.

  1. I know there is a page, maybe it used to be this one, where it is stated that this is not allowed. Which is it?
  2. Does anyone know of any Arbcoms where this was an issue and the arbcom has ruled on this?

Ikip (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My view: Using names changed away from (in a request granted by a crat at the username change page) in casual conversation is something that should not be done. The reason for the name change doesn't matter so much as the wishes of the editor whose name was changed. The only time that a link back to previous names is warranted is if there is good reason for it, such as continued disruptive socking or other behavior where knowing previous names, or knowing multiple IDs concurrently used, is important to combatting the issue. No single admin should take such a decision lightly, it may be best to seek guidance first. So to your question, yes I think there is such a page, although I don't know the name, and it may have been raised in cases but again I don't know the cases... Whoever is doing it ought to stop. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, as it is not explicitly mentioned, but WP:OUTING may be applicable. ∙ AJChamtalk 00:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming problems

I requested for name change recently, changing from Marsa Lahminal to Samar. The problem is my Marsa Lahminal account can still be used, and the two accounts are acting separately. At times when I open Wikipedia in another window, my username is shown to be Samar however my preferences and edits are done by the name of Marsa Lahminal. I have four edits (after the rename) with Marsa Lahminal. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It again accidentally got signed by Marsa Lahminal. Samar (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the easiest thing to do is to totally log out of Wikipedia, then his Ctrl + Shift + Delete (in Firefox) to delete your cache, history and cookies. Then, log back in as "Samar" and you shouldn't have any problems. Regards, Javért  |  Talk 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:) I have done that, the problem persists. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...some backlog in Firefox is not going to cause this. Anywyas I have tried again, the problem is still there. Samar (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else it could be, let me ask a 'crat right quick. Javért  |  Talk 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what is causing this. I could always block the old account for you. MBisanz talk 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, i'll wait for a couple of days so all my Wiki accounts are renamed Samar, then I'll request you to block it if the problem remains. (I don't see how this will effect but anyways). Thankyou Samar (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Samar, the username Marsa Lahminal was recreated on en.wiki automatically as you are still using this name on other WM projects, and have enabled the unified login. If you navigate to en.wiki while logged in as Marsa Lahminal on another project, it will log into that account here also. ∙ AJChamtalk 00:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Why didn't I remember that? The very same thing happened to me when I was trying to usurp Javert on it.wiki. I had to create a new account (in this case, Javert2) and everytime I moved from it to en, it would switch me to "Javert2". Javért  |  Talk 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear I am not the only idiot, Javert :). Thank you. Samar (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are our standards for SUL usurpation?

Can someone point me to the policy or talkpage history where we have established our rules for SUL usurpation? They don't seem to be at the top of the SUL page and it isn't clear to me how we determine whether an account with edits can be usurped under SUL.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WJBscribe created the SUL process one day since he was the only active crat when SUL was turned on (Andrevan became active to help later). MBisanz talk 06:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, but has anyone ever said this is when you can or this is when you can't, even if it's just a comment by Will somewhere explaining his thoughts? I don't have any problems with the way we are doing things but it seems like a user who wants to usurp an account that has edits for SUL purposes, just has to post and pray. Moreover, other projects seem to have equally undeveloped rules so that you can't even look to another project for policy guidance (or more likely look to this project for guidance on what policy makes sense there - i.e. you can't say "I know we don't have a clear policy on xxwiki but on enwiki they do it this way").--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
For example, the discussions and help pages at meta seem to suggest that significance (in a GFDL sense) of edits is not relevant, but that the rule is more one of superiority of claim - but that both the superiority of one's claim and whether accounts with significant edits can be usurped period are matters for local projects to determine. If our policy is a superiority of claim as determined by the local crats, then I think we should use that phrase somewhere. If not, then we should make it clear that we don't follow the same rule as is discussed on meta.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

When SUL was first enabled, I proposed and implemented a modification to the policy for dealing with requests to usurp existing accounts. Those changes were to remove the waiting period and to usurp accounts even if they expressly refused to be renamed, see:

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 10#Modification of usurpation practice for SUL requests

I have never suggested that the "no GFDL significant edits" test does not apply to SUL requests. Whilst I think we're all a little more willing to stretch what a "significant edit is" for a SUL request, there hasn't ever been a consensus on whether renames without the consent of the target name (even to something like "Foo (renamed)") breaches the terms of the GFDL in discussions either here or on meta.
A futher discussion that establised "rules" for SUL (or usurpations generally because of SUL) took place later, when I made the case that the test should really be no GFDL significant edits by the target name on any Wikimedia project:

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11#Effect of SUL on certain rename requests

It may be that in my absence, bureaucrats have sought and obtained a different consensus or that the practice has involved since then. I am surprised that meta favours superiority of claim alone these days. When it was discussed there a year ago, there was very strong opposition to rename users who had GFDL significant edits without their consent. Does anyone know of a discussion since then where these concerns were addressed? WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said "discussions on meta" I really meant the info posted at H:UL and related pages, not really the discussion pages per se. The intent that seems implied at those pages is one of "superior claim" not "significance of edits". I have heard this point before about changing a username creating a GFDL violation, but I don't understand the reasoning. The edits belong to the account not the name, don't they?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link to the last discussion of this I remember on meta meta:Talk:Steward_requests/SUL_requests/Usurpation_policy#GFDL_concerns. As I recall, it's all about interpretation of the GFDL term that requires reusers to "preserve the section entitled history" (the GFDL being designed as a licence for paper documents - i.e. user manuals). There were I think 2 views on how that applies to rename. Mine is that by renaming someone called Foo to Foo (renamed), no information is lost from the history. Only extra information is added (that a person who wanted to be attributed as "Foo" was later renamed). Others took a stricter view of the obligation to preserve and felt that it allowed for no renamings without permission. As far as I know this was never resolved and no guidance was provided by the Foundation (as some had wanted). WJBscribe (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice in the first BN discussion Will links to, there is a reference to the Global account policy, and a quote from what it used to say. At that time it apparently said that you could ask for an account to be renamed if it had no edits. There is no longer any such language - the page has been moved to the H:UL page I mentioned. The only real discussion there about this topic is here. This is where I got the superiority of claim theory. There is absolutely no mention of any prohibition on SUL usurping of accounts with any type of edits and neither GFDL nor significant are used. On talk there is a mention that on some projects usurpation may not be possible if the account has edits; no reference to significance nor a rationale beyond the implied "because each project is independent so they don't have to allow it".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I see there being two hurdles before I as a bureaucrat will rename accounts with significant contributions without their consent in the name of SUL unification. (1) A consensus on the question of whether the GFDL is infringed by such renaming and (2) a community consensus on enwiki that this is something people want to happen. (1) is technically not required for (2) but I believe that (2) is unlikely without (1). I am not enitely sure where "significance" came from as a criteria - it may be that it was a term I found convenient to use in order to move the process forwards at the time. WJBscribe (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I note too that one of the concerns voiced in the second discussion is that people might get a superior claim over established editors. It sounds like the issue wasn't so much the GFDL as whether it was good policy to allow people to claim names that people on other projects had because it might strip existing users of their names.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, that is a big concern of mine. It comes partially out of an incident where I renamed an enwiki admin who usurped an unused enwiki username. It was just before SUL came online and so it wasn't then common practice (it may not have been possible) to check for all uses of the name across all projects. When SUL came online, enwiki was allocated as the homewiki by the software (it was an account with more edits and/or an admin account) and the enwiki user created the global account. A user on another project, who had several thousand edits and had used the name for years, was extremely upset that he had lost out on the global name and there was a lot of ill feeling from that project about how it was handled. That's something I'm keen to avoid happening again. WJBscribe (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two things

Two things:

  1. I'm proposing that we rename Wikipedia:Changing username to Wikipedia:Changing username/Regular. I think we should use Wikipedia:Changing username as a landing page that clearly directs prospective requestors to the subpage they need (/Regular, /Usurpations, and /SUL). This way, we avoid redundant warnings and instructions on the three forums, and we can reduce each page's front matter. Overall, a lot less mess, and (hopefully) a lot less confusion.
  2. I think the "are you aware of the implications of using a real name?" questions are becoming problematic. Requests are being declined because requestors are failing to respond. The warning about real names is clearly stated in the "Choosing an appropriate name" section; why bother having this warning when we insist on interrogating everyone who asks for a real name? We should just trust that people have read the warning – if we don't think people bother to read the "General notes" section, we shouldn't retain it. At any rate, the vast majority of people are aware of the virtues of anonymity and of the risks of exposing one's identity online. I propose we abandon all real name questions for the sake of improving efficiency.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on both. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. I wouldn't object to renaming Wikipedia:Changing username, although I think Wikipedia:Changing username/Standard would be better than /Regular - not sure why, and perhaps I'm being a little pedantic, but what the heck. ∙ AJChamtalk 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Regarding point 2, the warning about real names also makes clear that the process will be delayed until the requester states explicitly that they are aware of the implications. That people do not do this is a strong suggestion that they have actually not read the warning. The problem is, if they haven't read this warning, they may also have overlooked the suggestion to check back periodically, which is why so many of these go uncompleted. ∙ AJChamtalk 09:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1 and 2 are not entirely separate: with a new format, people may be more inclined to read what will hopefully be a shorter and cleaner set of instructions. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
On point one, I'd also agree that a rename would be a pretty good idea, but I'm not yet a fan of "Regular" nor "Standard". If I think of a better term, I'll let you know. But I'd take Standard over Regular. As for point two, I'd say keep the notice on top, instead of the oft-used "are you aware of the implications" questions. Useight (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Simple" instead of regular/standard?
Actually I think we should think about restructuring these boards completely. When WP:CHU/SUL was created by Rdsmith4 and myself, it was to deal with a volume of requests that was overwhelming the other boards (which were already had pretty high traffic) especially when glitches meant that requests could be on hold for long periods. With SUL now fully live, a lot of requests could be deemed to be "SUL-related" (all new accounts seem to be global accounts, so even a rename after one edit is a bit SUL-related). I'd be happy to just lose the SUL board. I think there are too many requests to have only one board but am open to the idea. Does anyone have a radical idea to make the whole thing work better? WJBscribe (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cut out SUL and implement my landing page idea? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisit: In the interest of moving things to action, I'd appreciate it if regulars and bureaucrats could indicate below whether they are in favour of the move and the deprecation of /SUL:

In favour
  1. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. MBisanz talk 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Javért ☆ 08:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Not so sure on the dropping/merging of SUL, but I favor the move and creating a landing page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  6. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Not in favour
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. ...

Trying

I've been trying to help clerking, but by the time I get home from work and have a few moments to spare, everything's been done. You guys are just too speedy! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I know I try to be as responsive as possible. Some ideas if you are looking for ways to help out are:
  • Double check completed renames since there might be a commercial/celebrity meaning that is not obvious to the crat, but is obvious to you based on your life experience.
  • WP:USURP tends to have more discussion situations that would benefit from further input as there are usually competing claims based on other wiki users activity levels and edit counts.
  • WP:BRFA is always backlogged and many times it is because no non-technical people have stopped by to confirm a task has consensus. I should also point out that a banned user managed to get through 13 BRFAs without anyone noticing; while it isn't a given that someone would have noticed, we certainly need more eyes looking at that area.
  • Wikipedia:User access levels (also Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header and Wikipedia:IP block exemption) really needs a re-write to take into account things like new userrights, disabled features, new features of existing rights, and changes in how rights are granted and removed. It has been haphazardly maintained over several years and really could use a comprehensive re-write with an eye towards becoming an official guideline.
Best. MBisanz talk 06:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...maybe I'll tackle that last one first. I like rewriting/editing. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Name change doesn't affect File history

Has it been noticed before that a name change will change the name in page histories including deleted page histories, but not in file histories? I noticed this with Special:Undelete/File:Stoltenberg_arrives_at_Stortinget.jpg; the page shows Tfrogner's new name in the page history but his old name in the file history. Why is this?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to be the case that deleted edits weren't reassigned when users were renamed, though that changed sometime in 2007 I think. Deleted edits should not reflect the new name. It might be a glitch, or (less likely) it may be that it takes longer for the database to change deleted edits after renames. It may also be that something went wrong with this particular rename - I see that MZMcBride had to complete the userspace moves. WJBscribe (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it is different for deleted files, but purging usually fixes this for non-deleted files. For example, see File:Tyne and Wear Metro logo.svg which does indeed show my recently changed username in the file history. DoktorMandrake 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My contributions

I was using WP using my old account User:Saqib Qayyum (which is now renamed as User:S Q) and made some contributions by mistake. No idea how can I forget to sign in with new account. So now, I wanna move contributions I made using my old account to my new account♥. If is there any possibility, please do that at very earlier. S Q (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not possible to merge accounts. You could, however, redirect User talk:Saqib Qayyum to your current user/talk page to make it clear you own both accounts. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation links

For the sake of procedural rigour and the evasion of deliberate subversion (who knows?), I've introduced a new parameter to Template:Usurp3 that requires requesters to provide a link to their home wiki confirming the legitimacy of the request. I find myself frequently asking this of those who use /SUL anyway, and it's certainly best we ensure our methodology when dealing with global accounts is water-tight. Does anyone have any grievances with the change? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. Do we have them edit there, too, in order to show it's really them, or is that part of what you are asking them to do already? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is for unregistered users requesting that an already-registered account be moved out of the way. So it's all about a registered and established user on a home wiki confirming on their local user talk that it really is them making the request here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Requests being incorrectly listed at CHU/U

It seems to be that requests are often being incorrectly listed at WP:CHU/U when they should be listed on the main page. I'm not sure if clerks are slower to move them, or the instructions were altered recently; either way, I think this needs to be addressed to say time and effort on everyone's part. Any ideas? Perhaps an area of the instructions that we need to clarify? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue that can be tied to confusing directions. The planned landing page should fix the problem, or at least minimise it. Until then, all we can do is move them. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Error on project page

Hi, I noticed a grammatical error on Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL, but I can't edit it (edit box goes straight to new requests). The first sentence - "This is page is a temporary forum" needs the first 'is' removing. Could someone with the required status please change it? DB 103 245-7 Talk 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind - I've figured it out and fixed it. It suddenly dawned on me that it was a template type thingy. DB 103 245-7 Talk 21:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I recently left the following note on Avraham's talk page and Juliancolton suggested that I post it here as well, which I agree is probably a good idea so that as many people as possible can comment on my suggestion/make a countersuggestion, etc. :)

"I've recently started clerking at Changing username again and have moved 6 or so requests from usurp to the regular chu since yesterday. I've noticed that while Template:Renameuser has a place for the reason for the request, Template:Usurp does not. It may be a good idea to add a "reason" parameter for the second template so that requests moved from usurp aren't held up at CHU because a reason was missing. What do you think?" –Katerenka ☆ 19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, although we might need to move to a new template if there are legacy variable issues with adding it to the current template. MBisanz talk 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite a good idea, will help when clerks move requests from WP:CHU/U to WP:CHU. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Status

Can someone explain why the {{{status}}} parameter is of any use? We have  Done for a reason – if a request is marked done or notdone, it's completed; if it's not, it's not. It's a pointless addition to an already complicated template. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure myself, I just saw others adding it and thought that it had been discussed somewhere while I was away. I, too, agree that it is rather pointless. –Katerenka ☆ 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the status tag on usurpations, since usurpations take at least a week, and oft times more, it is good to see what has been handled and what needs attention. I've re-added it to {{usurp}}. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait period

How long should we be waiting for targets to respond to e-mails/notices for SUL cases, the full week or less? -- Avi (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on how strong the claim is. If the emailed party's claim will never succeed against the requesting party, less than a week is probably ok. If it is a closer call, then maybe wait the entire week. MBisanz talk 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that we can notdone and archive them after a week to two weeks, but if they happen to reply outside of that we can revive the request as needed. bibliomaniac15 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Allowing one full week should be standard practice. Kingturtle (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Color me "one week" as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I feel that it's fine to perform the request within a short period when one user overwhelmingly has the claim. It's a relative thing. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any harm in waiting? If it's not preventing them editing, then one week sounds fine. Angela. 09:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The only scenarios I can think of that I wouldn't wait are in cases in which the target was a vandalism only account or in which private information might be compromised. Kingturtle (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Change username

Per request of User:EdJohnston (also admin), i would like to have my account changed from its current name to VascoAmaral.

Mr.Johnston's request seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NothingButAGoodNothing#Consider_renaming_your_account_to_Vasco_Amaral), i sign off attentively,

--NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

An indefinitely blocked user (the block is over two years old) with around 60 confirmed and suspected sockpuppets has requested through e-mail that her username be changed from her real name to something else (unspecified) because of embarrassment. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent sockpuppet is from July. Is there a policy in place as pertains to processing such a request, and is there someone in particular I should tell her to contact? I can see arguments both for and against allowing such a request (user can avoid further embarrassment, but this might also make new sockpuppets harder to track). Dekimasuよ! 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New template

Hey, I've noticed that quite a few renames go uncompleted because the requesting user never responds to concerns/questions, but I think it's a bit unfair if they haven't noticed that there's been a reply. To make it easier for everyone, I've created {{CHU note}} to notify users whose request has been responded to and requires some clarifying. If possible, could the 'crats/clerks make use of this template? Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic idea, JC. If possible, is there a way to make the template give a link to their specific request such as "CHU note|their rename request"? I would do it myself, but I'm terrible with templates. @Kate (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's already part of it. :) I added {{anchor}} to the {{renameuser2}} template, so now [[Wikipedia:Changing username#{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] should link to specific requests. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Even better. :) Thank you, @Kate (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Fixed, now operational I think –Juliancolton | Talk 03:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, works fine now. @Kate (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd recently noticed the same issue, and in the past day or two have taken to posting {{Talkback}}s to user talk pages after leaving a clerk note. I may make use of this template, but will more likely just continue to use talkback. Thanks anyway. AJCham 05:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I really really hate the talkback template; it is so ugly, non-standard, difficult to archive, etc. Can we avoid using it here please? MBisanz talk 08:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. AJCham 09:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If clerks want to do this, they're very welcome to but I don't think it's a particularly good use of your time. The instructions already say, "Check back periodically to answer any questions that may arise regarding your request." If people don't do that, then they risk not getting renamed. WJBscribe (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, by my reckoning it only takes three or four seconds, and if it makes the requesting user's life a bit easier, I don't see any downsides. I can't force anybody to utilize the template, though, of course :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I updated the template to allow automatic inclusion of a sig if desired. You can see the usage on the template page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Trusting the clerks to mark notdone on blocked users

Would anyone object to us allowing clerks to mark requests from blocked users with a note to that effect, followed by the notdone template, which I believe currently only the Crats apply? --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Archive_3#Request_for_clarification, FWIW. Personally I can't see why the clerks shouldn't be able to {{notdone}} requests by blocked editors. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it's a good idea, but then you would have to have a set list of clerks and add their names to Chris G Bot's archive list. Otherwise a 'crat would have to go back through and re-mark them so that they would be auto-archived. @Kate (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Since the group of clerks here is fairly small and consistent, could we maybe request that the bot can be supplied with a sort of "trusted clerks" list (horrible name, I know) in its userspace (fully protected and updated by crats) with all those users that it "trusts" to be allowed to add that template? Also, if we allow it for blocked users, can we also allow it for other, clear circumstances, for example when the user withdraws their request? Regards SoWhy 08:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added this functionality to the bot - User:Chris G Bot 3/trustedusers.js --Chris 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Then the clerks would ask a 'crat to consider adding them? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Who else? I'd suggest that if this is accepted by the crats that we simply deal with it here, i.e. everyone who wants to be on the list should request it on this talk page. I guess this is what you had in mind but I think we should emphasize that it's probably pretty annoying if people started bugging crats on their talk pages for such an addition. On a side note, maybe a set of (in)formal guidelines like WP:NAC is probably a good idea if this is implemented. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As long as we don't have a Wikipedia:Requests for Trusted Usership, I'm fine with this proposal. (X! · talk)  · @088  ·  01:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please. Let's try to keep this as non-bureaucratic and drama-free as possible. @Kate (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be acceptable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree completely with the idea of "trusted clerks". It adds an entirely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I wish to impress on everyone that there is no rush to mark requests as not done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh, CHU was never really a big deal to start with, so I don't think that if such a system is implemented, we would need to be especially bureaucratic and strict. Nearly every administrative area of the project allows for non-admins/non-crats to close and remove requests that are obviously going to be declined anyway (AfD, AIV, CSD, to name just a few). I don't see why, if the operator of the clerking bot is willing to add a list of "trusted" contributors to its list of recognized users, CHU should be any different. True, there's no rush to deal with requests, but I think allowing us minions to tidy up the place more efficiently is a good idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if the process were conducted in a decidedly non-chalant manner, it'd still be an inherently bureaucratic structure. The fact that CHU isn't a big deal is the primary reason we shouldn't install such a structure. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • True, but as I said, it doesn't have to be a "structure". We can allow clerks to reject obviously invalid requests in the same manner that AfD allows for non-admin closes, RfA allows non-bureaucrat WP:SNOWs, and FAC, which has three designated directors, lets "regular" people close withdrawn nominations. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Julian is correct. I don't think any crat will object that clerks mark obvious cases as not done as a way to tidy up the place. The only reason we need such a list is that the bot would otherwise not accept those taggings. It has nothing to do with rushing but due to the limited number of crats, CHU, CHU/U and CHU/SUL get backlogged at times and in those times it would be useful if clerks could tidy up by tagging those requests that don't need any further crat attention, thus saving crats the time to do it. Regards SoWhy 09:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not really a big deal, but there's a request by a blocked user that's sat there for a week. Could someone tag it? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to usurp my name on each wiki?

So far I've checked wikimedia commons (don't know if this is part of unification) and italian wikipedia, and I found that my username is taken, but no edits have been made. Is there any way I can apply for global usurp of my username, so I can unify? I would at least like to use my current username on italian wikipedia. Angelo (talk · contribs) 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. On any Wikimedia Foundation wiki that has local bureaucrats, you'll have to apply for usurpation locally. @Kate (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Retired" instead of a RTV rename

If the username has personally identifiable information, does that not fall under the right to vanish? Regardless of the user's retirement plans, we should be performing these renames, if the username is tied to personal information. Andre (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily fall under the right to vanish – a user might have no intention of leaving and only want more privacy. In general, yes, we should be more ready to grant requests for privacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And another thing (real names)

If a user is already using a real name, you don't have to ask if he or she is comfortable using a real name. Just do the rename. Stop making so much bureaucracy. We're called bureaucrats to make the position seem as unglamorous as it is, although apparently everyone still thinks it's a cabal or a secret club. But that doesn't mean you need to make tons of red tape for every user who walks in wanting to change their name from Johnsmith232 to John E. Smith III. Andre (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if we made the note at the top of the page more prominent, or put it in the edit notice or something, we wouldn't have to deal with the "are you aware of (and comfortable with) the implications of using your real name?" that I see five times a day. Useight (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Or we could just stop asking it. This is 2009 here. People get that if you put something online, it's not going away. Andre (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable concern. Every week, we change dozens of names back from real names to pseudonyms because people didn't anticipate the problems. The instructions, despite my best efforts, are legnthy and are clearly frequently not even glanced at. So, in summary, it seems appropriate care for the users to ask the question. There's no rush, what problem are you trying to solve? --Dweller (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is when a user asks for a simple procedural rename which should be granted immediately, and you ask a question to which the possible answers are, "yes, I understand" and "no, wait, let me just contradict myself here." When will it ever be useful to deny a rename on this basis? This holds up the process for users. It's even worse when someone posts a rename that's unbelievably trivial, such as the John Smith example I gave above. Andre (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. It's useful because we're trying to care for our users - it's not a huge additional hurdle for them to jump (we ask a question, they answer it). The hold up is negligible, sometimes a matter of minutes. It seems to me that the users who don't respond are usually the ones who've stopped editing at the same time they posted their namechange request. Especially so now that clerks are visiting usertalk pages and encouraging people to return. --Dweller (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning to Changed Usernames

I have a user who changed their username, and all of their talkpage history, including warnings, moved over to the new username. Fine and dandy - but the user then re-registered their old name and resumed editing under it. The new name has 0 edits since the change. Is there a policy regarding this sort of situation? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure there's a policy. Are you certain it's the same user? --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A reasonable question - and one I've overlooked. The thread is at WP:AN, if anyone wants to have a look - WP:AN#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
To address the question, it looks like there is significant overlap in topics between the new and old accounts - mainly on Australia related topics. There are additional behavioral indicators, discussed at WP:AN. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed condensation of the instructions

I've made an effort to condense the general notes and instructions into something more readable, less technical, and easier for new users to understand. See User:Juliancolton/CHUbox. I believe I've retained the most important points while removing the less relevant notes. It seems to me that folks will be more inclined to read the instructions if they're less bloated, so this would help to reduce malformed requests and misunderstandings... any thoughts or objections as to whether I should implement the changes? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea is, naturally, a good one, but I'd not bother. I plan to enact the "landing page" overhaul later this month, given that there were no objections. A simplification of the current instructions will prove inapplicable. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed...

Is Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL the correct place to request a name change if I have a unified account but my home wiki is this one? I haven't found any successful requests from people from en.wikipedia.org here and if I still could, I don't see the point of having to include a diff proving my authenticity. Eugeniu B +1 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, if you're moving out of a SUL, the request is treated at CHU; if you're moving into a SUL, see /SUL. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm still confused. My account is a SUL but I'd like to keep it that way. I just want my username changed for my SUL. Eugeniu B +1 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

I've strongly been considering changing my user name (mainly because it contains my first name and my entire birthdate) and I've made over 2,400+ edits and I'm worried that If I change my user name that my edit history might not carry over to my new user name, account and or history. So if anyone can answer my question, if I change my user name will all of my edits from my previous account be transformed over? Ashley92995 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It should, yes. If you had closer to 15,000 or 20,000 it might take some time to fully relocate, but at this point you should be good. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not done No reply template

Because I'm lazy, I've created Template:Ndnr which renders:

 Not done No reply. {{subst:#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| | ~~~~}}


Cheers --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to parameterise {{not done}}? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
{{not done}} is used for different purposes throughout the project, so it's probably not a good idea to specialize it for one page. Though maybe it can be incorporated into {{CHU}}. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I imagine "No reply" could have uses elsewhere, but point taken. I don't think there's much point to fiddling with or making templates for the sake of two words anyway; each to his own. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if it included the signature, too, on second thoughts. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, I think, but it has to be substed. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing:  Not done No reply. Dweller (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC) A success, I'd say. And 12 characters for the substed template is much better than the 27 for nd nr and signature --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I tried to figure out how to make it auto-sign without substituting, but apparently that's not possible... –Juliancolton | Talk 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for reattribution of 10K edits

When established editors rename, how long can we tell them it's likely to take, say, 10K of edits to reattribute? --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere from instantly to a day or so is my guess. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed my user name on January the 3rd, and it still hasn't completed. It's about 10k edits as well. Any idea? Could there be a glitch? Nymf talk/contr. 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be a while if the database servers are lagging, which they were the other day. Andrevan@ 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

More frequent archiving

Anyone else think we need to have Chris G Bot 3 (talk · contribs) archive completed WP:CHU requests (whether  Done or  Not done) more often? Once a day or less seems really low, and I think it would help make the page more manageable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to my count, 22 of the 39 currently posted requests could be archived. A faster archive time does sound useful in keeping the page trimmed down. Useight (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more in favor of archiving completed requests every 6 hours or so, while keeping rejected ones around a bit longer (24 hours), to ensure requesting users have a chance to see why their rename was declined. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine with that schedule (for both you mentioned). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, here's the current way it works (from User:Chris G Bot 3):

It checks if threads need archiving every hour. The bot will only archive a thread if {{done}} or {{notdone}} is present and has been placed by a flagged 'crat (see here for a list of current 'crats). {{done}} threads are archived when the last timestamp in the thread is older than 12 hours. {{notdone}} threads are archived when the timestamp is older than 36 hours.

Do we want to get that last timeframe changed to 24 hours? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

two conflicting SUL's

I am currently dealing with a case where apparently someone is impersonating an admin from de-wiki across a number of of wikis (at least fr & en) by creating accounts in his name and then performing low level vandalism while linking to the de-wiki account. Here is a request to rename the en-wiki account away from the impersonating username. Something similar is getting done on fr-wiki. Since the en-wiki account got created automatically I assume it is linked to a SUL. What kind of problem will this generate? Agathoclea (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

obviously there is a history see this Agathoclea (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is there a SUL conflict? The vandal could do it because the software did not check whether an SUL account of the same name exists and thus allows a vandal to create a name on any wiki that is not part of the unified login. Since Armin P. now visited both fr- and en-wiki after this happened, accounts were created and it's no longer possible. There is not really anything we can do but the vandal's claims are pretty easy to disprove since the SUL tool will show that the accounts are not connected. The software has been updated to make it impossible to register any account where a SUL account of the same name exists, so something like this should not happen again. Regards SoWhy 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I want a cool/short username, can someone help me?

I was turned down for User:1 a while back because usernames are supposed to go across namespaces, and someone had (barely) used it on some other language, even though here it wasn't a real user. I see User:8 is a sock, for example. Most of the other single digit number usernames also don't lead to a real user. Can someone help me figure out which short/cool username I can actually usurp? In exchange, I'll write one medium GA, or one short FA, on the subject of you're choice (no long FAs, terms to be discussed ;-) ). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank#Gayguy69

I blocked this username, and there's some discussion about whether this was the right thing to do. I'm particularly interested in feedback from females, since we're always looking to bump female editor participation up from its current dismal 15%, and I think it's possible that more women than men would be offended by the name. (Posting this here, at WP:VPP, WT:RFCN, and at WT:U; I'm trying to get a sense of whether women answer the question differently when they don't see themselves as a tiny minority in the discussion, so if you know female editors who you think might be interested in the question, please show them the link, User_talk:Dank#Gayguy69.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Even if this particular name is okay, I'd like to get a sense of whether women find usernames offensive that can't be seen as anything other than a reference to a specific sex act. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Briefly, and as said in the linked discussion, I find it offensive that women are being given a special status in that they may be too fragile to accept things that men can. Certainly the possibility that a women may be offended (whilst a man would not) cannot be a valid reasoning for issuing blocks. Anyhow I'm off for the night. NJA (t/c) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing back

Now the the RL issues that forced me into a name change last year have rendered the change moot, is there any way to change back? User:Kevin was created automatically by SUL and has 4 edits I think, related to redirecting/deleting my user/talk pages. Kevin (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you own the SUL, sure. MBisanz talk 04:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I own the SUL, although I don't think the User:Kevin here is attached. Kevin (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 09:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Kevin (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Redskunk (talk · contribs)

I had a username change from Redskunk to NativeForeigner. I noticed in my watchlist that this account was created. I think it could create a problem when people look at my older edits, especially because it links to that user's prospective userpage creating confusion. What should I do about it? Best Regards NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you have a claim to it via the commons account, so you would need to file a req at WP:CHU/SUL to make it a unified SUL account and move the new registrant out of the way. MBisanz talk 07:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to maintain this account username, and I have a commons account through the SUL. In fact I was not aware of this account on commons. What should I do? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rehman" on SUL

Hello. Sometime back, my account was renamed after a request at WP:CHUU (to my current username), but it seems that something went wrong during the process. I now have three accounts which i cannot access (see here). Is there a way i/we can fix or delete these accounts? Regards. Rehman(+) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple possibilites:
  1. Those accounts have a different password than the one used by your other, unified accounts.
  2. Those accounts are owned (or were created) by someone else.
If you created the other accounts, and they have the same password as your unified login accounts, then just going to those wikis while logged in will attach them to your account. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I've tried all passwords i have ever known to have used, none worked. I think those were autocreated when i was looking into articles relating to energy in the languages, but am not sure. If i dont own them, is there a way usurp (or delete, preferably) them? Kind regards. Rehman(+) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like an email address was set for the German wiki account (de:Benutzer:Rehman), but not on the Dutch (nl:Speciaal:GebruikerE-mailen/Rehman) or Azerbaycan (az:Xüsusi:EmailUser/Rehman) wikis, so you should be able to get your password emailed to you from the dewiki (fill out this form with your username (Benutzername) and click on the "Email new password" (Neues passwort zusenden) button). If an email address you control was set as the email address there, then you should receive an email message with a link to click. For the other two, since you never set an email address, there are two options: keep trying to access them, or request to usurp them on those wikis. Hope that helps. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought of usurpation too, and it seems to be the best procedure so far, but i dont exactly understand the languages. Is there a place where i can submit a request in english for accounts in other languages? Rehman(+) 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You may try opening a request at meta:Steward requests/SUL requests. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Nihonjoe. I will request it there shortly. Best regards. Rehman(+) 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New template

To complement Template:ndnr, I have created Template:yhne.

When substed, it renders:

  •  Not done You have no edits. Please just discard your existing account and create a new one. Dweller (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bet I can save you a couple more letters of typing. ;-) {{subst:/y}} should work as well now. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Contribution history

I recently vanished and changed user names, but the contributions before January 28, 2008, still show up under my old account and list my old user name in page edit histories. Is this a glitch or is that how it works nowadays? Thanks. (This is a dynamic IP in case I log off.) --207.206.136.230 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Depending on how many edits you had, it can take some time for the database to change everything over to the new username. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll check it again in a few days. --207.206.136.230 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting thought

Now, what would happen if I changed my own username? Would the software allow that, or would it crash? What would the log entry look like -- XYZ changed Useight to XYZ? I'm sure my number of edits would also cause some server slowdown. Useight (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

[4] –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so it can be done. Thanks. Useight (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unified login with Commons

Hi. I didn't want to put in a request as I wasn't completely sure which section to list it in and it would be easier to describe it here. I have recently been renamed on here from Wikiwoohoo to Cloudbound. I had unified login under the Wikiwoohoo name and have edits on Commons with that account. If possible I'd like to have my account on Commons renamed to Cloudbound too and then have unified login with that account. Before I put in the request I just wanted to check if that's possible. The meta page suggests I would need to put my request in on Commons so could you let me know which page that should be done on? Thanks! Cloudbound (the new name for Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would have to put in your request on Commons, and the page is the same as it is here: commons:Commons:Changing username. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Cloudbound (the new name for Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to merge accounts ?

I currently have two accounts (common on all wikipedias), this one and JJ Georges. JJ Georges was created by mistake because I messed up while creating an account on commons. I have no use for a secondary account and would like to know if it possible to merge the two. If not, I might ask for deletion of the JJ Georges account (would the deletion result in disappearance from all wikipedias ?). Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Three things. Firstly, it is impossible to merge accounts. Secondly, it is impossible to delete accounts; the closest we can get is renaming them to a random character string. Thirdly, a rename here will not affect the account on other Wikipedias. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
...And fourthly, this discussion should be on WT:CHU. I'll move it there now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have left me a message before moving the discussion. Impossible to delete accounts ? What about the "right to vanish" ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you were watching the page. The right to vanish is executed by having an account renamed to a random string. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And the right to vanish is only for people who are planning to not ever come back and edit Wikipedia, under any username. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Landing page

A few months ago, I proposed the idea linked herein. I've now put together a draft for the landing page. Please make changes to it and express your thoughts. If people are generally happy with it, we can make the shift quite soon. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK, but I wonder if we still need a separate subpage for SUL? I think I made some comments about this a while ago, but not sure when/where... WJBscribe (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

user attempted renaming

Swawdsd (talk · contribs) has attempted to change their username by moving their user and talk page to User:SrAlvaroedao, is this a problem?--RadioFan (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him if he wants to change his username and pointed him to WP:CHU. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

SUL server

I'm getting blank results (not "no results", but blank results). Anyone else having this problem? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Real names and vandalism

Some vandalism that I noticed today made me wonder something: if a vandalism-only account has the name of a notable real person, would it be appropriate for the (blocked) account to be renamed so that the person's name is not associated with the vandalism? And if so, what would be the process for requesting such a change? (The account that made me wonder this is User:Sharon Shoesmith, but it's more of a general question really.) -- AJR | Talk 01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, no reason to rename for that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On the merit of SUL requests

We've had SUL for a long time and the Langra -> Thaumaturgist request makes me wonder whether our preferential treatment of SUL requests should be discontinued. The original intent was to allow people who registered before we had SUL to be able to take advantage of it even if the username on their home wiki was taken here. In this case, we have someone who registered on commons long after SUL was implemented, who chose a name on commons that had been taken here two years before. My feeling is that we should decline requests like this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking that one step further, maybe we no longer need a separate page and should file these with the rest of the usurpations. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the reason for the separate SUL page was because we expected a flood of requests. Surely they must have gone back to a trickle now, so I agree that the page can be retired and the requests moved back to CHU and CHU/USURP. –xenotalk 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe it was originally a sort of parking lot for requests that couldn't be processed because of limitations of the "rename" feature early in the rollout of SUL. It took on a life of its own after the bug was fixed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with the above opinions. The "partial renaming" and "normal renaming" would take place on the main CHU page, and the usurpations would be on the USURP page. Personally, I would like to see all three pages get merged, because I've noticed far too many requests get held up, denied, etc because they were put on the wrong page. (X! · talk)  · @978  ·  22:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea to me, too. --Deskana (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) If we do merge all of them back into one page, I think we should work on a format which can handle any type of request (perhaps some sort of hybrid template which can be used to handle all three of them) so we can easily see what kind of request it is quickly, and then track progress on the requests. The different kinds of requests are all handled differently, with different formats for the requests, so this needs to be addressed before any merging. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Possibly something like User:X!/newCHUtemp... (X! · talk)  · @098  ·  01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Something like that, but with something indicating which kind of request it is (CHU, CHUU, or SUL). I may be missing something else, too, but that's what I can think of right now. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that many people who want a rename don't get the difference. That is the advantage of my system, people fill out a request, and it should hopefully be easy enough to deduce what they're looking for. Additionally, part of the unification will hopefully make the introduction a lot less prolix. I take one look at the CHU pages, and I immediately think "who even reads all this?" I think of the terms of service that no one reads when I see that. (X! · talk)  · @180  ·  03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be agreement to discontinue using the SUL page, at least. I'll make the necessary updates. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reformat

Per #Landing_page and related threads, I've restructured CHU's venues. Most of the associated housekeeping has been attended to, but I might have missed a few redirects and links here and there. In addition, the documentation needs to be updated on CHU/SIMPLE and CHU/USURP; I'll get to that over the coming days. Help with these matters would be appreciated. Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll say that this is a wise move. The page structure of CHU always left much to be desired. AGK 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot broken

It appears the clerking bot is broken. I also noticed that X! has taken a break from cratting, so I don't know if he will be around to fix it. MBisanz talk 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. MBisanz talk 19:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "Respected"?

"Respected users wishing to vanish completely, perhaps by way of a rename to a random character string, are an exception to this rule."

  • "Respected" is a slightly vague term in my opinion, this could mean anyone from a user with 500+ edits to a crat? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Change was made in this edit. MBisanz talk 04:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename/move query

Hello. A query. On following an IP link from an edit, I encountered the talk page of an anonymous editor who apparently has a reliable history of constructive edits going back some months, and comprising several thousand edits. This person has been encouraged by various other editors to register, and has been considering doing so, but is concerned about losing the edit history. I was going to suggest the editor simply move the page. My understanding is that doing so results in a merge of the edit history of the renamed page, which takes care of the user and talk pages. My understanding is that the move process results in the previous page name being redirected to the new page name. This being the case, anyone clicking on a link to this user's IP would be redirected to the user's new name. Does this sound right? Wotnow (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For clarification's sake could you please be a bit more specific in the "edit history" area? I'm presuming you mean the edit history of th IP's talk page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about moving the edit history of a talk page? If so, that should be able to be done. The contribution history of the IP, however, can not be moved to a new username. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your replies. I realise the edit history of a talk page can be moved. Indeed it was the realisation of this that caused me to hold off on any suggestions to the editor, when I realised that the merge history pertained to the page being moved, not the editor's contribution history. But I did notice the blurb about redirects, and wondered if that might solve the editor's problem. I confess I did also see some blurb saying IP addresses couldn't be renamed. But given that the IP talk page does have a 'Move' option atop it, I wondered what would happen if the editor actually tried it. Has anyone tried it (I assume yes, as there's always someone who will try to do something that looks do-able - it's the nature of us humans), and what happens? Surely the problem posed for this editor has occurred before? What options does the editor have? Is there anyone I can point him/her to for further help or advice? Sorry about the questions, but it has got me thinking. The answer to the last question should take me out of the loop and negate any further questions (although I remain intrigued on the other questions). Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The user I refer to by the way is User talk:220.101.28.25. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
We can move the history of his talk page, so it would appear that everyone who commented on the IP's talk page actually commented on User:XYZ's talk page, but we can't reattribute the IP's edits. So, the end result would be a user with lots of comments on his talk page, but he wouldn't've made any edits. Useight (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I think that's the editor's main concern. I did wonder whether a redirect would take care of that - so that a curious reader might click on the contribitor's link and be redirected to his XYZ talk page. It also occurs to me that there must have been other editors who have been in a similar situation to him: lots of edits using an I.P. address and they eventually decide to register. Among such examples (and they must exist), if there are some well established editors with good standing and credibility, such people would perhaps be the best sounding boards for 220.101.28.25. For a sounding board, it's hard to beat someone who has dealt with the very issues that one is contemplating. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Name change request

I'd like to have my username changed CampTenDMS, if possible, for privacy purposes. Much obliged. CampTenDMS (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You should make your request at WP:CHUS. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Local or Global Change?

When an account is renamed, it it locally renamed or globally renamed? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Only locally. Usernames elsewhere may be renamed on their respective projects, if local bureaucrats are available; failing that, a request may be made at Meta. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Stalled renames

Moved from WP:USURP

[R]enames with users who have very many edits can be problematic. Poor CT Cooper still hasn't had his contributions catch up to him... –xenotalk 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Same thing with Courcelles, who still has contributions here. It might be time for a developer to fix Courcelles up. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Yea, 2 weeks out and no contributions moved. May be time to reopen bugzilla:17313. –xenotalk 14:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I requested that it be reopened.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
          • No need to request it reopened, you just change from fixed to reopened =) [Which I've done] –xenotalk 21:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I have commented and given more detail on my particular case. CT Cooper (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
              • It appears that all the edits in both cases have now moved over correctly. CT Cooper · talk 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have a Global Login, will I be able to make a new global login after requesting name change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

Yes, but you'll have to rename all your other language accounts one-by-one. –xenotalk 22:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Old Username still exists?

I filed a successful rename request, and my username was changed.

However, I entered my old username (Amtrak7) and password by accident, and it still logged in. Is this by design? Train2104 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bug that I think occurs due to cookies and/or SUL (and probably server gremlins). –xenotalk 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It can't be due to either, I clean my browser cache and cookies every time I close it, and I never registered on any other Wikimedia projects.Train2104 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You were active around the time your rename occurred [5], so maybe a cookie recreated it automatically (before you closed your browser). See logs. There doesn't appear to be any bugzilla: filed in this. –xenotalk 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
So how do I go about deleting that recreated account? Train2104 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I could rename it to something else if you want. –xenotalk 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The best would be to delete it, but I'd rather just abandon it with its current name if deletion were not possible. Train2104 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No way to delete it, unfortunately. On the bright side, the fact that it's created, and with a password you know, means that no one else will be able to recreate it to impersonate you. –xenotalk 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple directions

I have had several people confused about this page, not realizing they just need to raise a request on WP:CHUS. Would anyone object to a slight reformat so that "Must Read" becomes "STEP 1: Must Read" so that folks know they just need to follow steps 1 & 2? Fæ (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation question

Not a single user name that I looked at, that already existed, was an active editor, or a non-vandal. Yet, all these names, and anything "close" to them (and I and an L are the same), are not available. I went through a couple of dozen user names that I wanted, all were rejected.

The instructions say to not request usurpation until you've been editing for a few months ("Please do not request usurpation if your user account is less than several months old, or barely used.")

However, it appears that users with few to no edits are able to usurp other user names.[6] The bot listing dump says, "Requesting user has 12 edits." Going to User:Panyu's contributions it appears this user had no edits, and this does not appear to me to be a "well-established user." Is this correct, or am I misreading something or not using the contributions correctly?

Thanks for clearing this up. --KMLP (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead with your request; the rule is usually taken with a grain of salt. –xenotalk 18:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. The reason you are seeing no contribs for Punyu is because they've already been renamed to Puny.

Stalled renames

Moved from WP:USURP

[R]enames with users who have very many edits can be problematic. Poor CT Cooper still hasn't had his contributions catch up to him... –xenotalk 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Same thing with Courcelles, who still has contributions here. It might be time for a developer to fix Courcelles up. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Yea, 2 weeks out and no contributions moved. May be time to reopen bugzilla:17313. –xenotalk 14:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I requested that it be reopened.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
          • No need to request it reopened, you just change from fixed to reopened =) [Which I've done] –xenotalk 21:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I have commented and given more detail on my particular case. CT Cooper (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
              • It appears that all the edits in both cases have now moved over correctly. CT Cooper · talk 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My own rename is stalled (archive and revision table). Logs moved over. Roan might have a script to handle that since we did some manual rename completion himself. Otherwise I'll make some script myself. If I'm fixing my own edits, I may as well do others as well. As for the cause of stalls, see this commit. Aaron Schulz 19:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I am reading that correctly, RenameUser is now limited to users with 25,000 or fewer edits. MBisanz talk 21:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation problem

My old account still exists. I had not intended to sign up for a Commons account, until I got a satisfactory user name here, but when I clicked on a picture link that took me to commons this opend up a commons account under the old user name (KMLP), and, then I applied for usurpation of Kleopatra at commons, and had to sign in with KMLP, and when I go back to en.wiki, my sign in has changed to KMLP. It's very confusing. Is there any way to get rid of the KMLP account at en.wiki? Uhgg. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The only way to "get rid of it" is to stop logging in under that username everywhere, on all Wikimedia projects. Until you get all your usernames changed on all the projects, you'll just need to be very careful. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you change back?

I'm changing my username, and am fine with my decision but just out of curiosity can you change it back? Like if you change your mind. Quadzilla99 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, no (though exceptions have been made in the past). You have many edits and renaming will be a strain on the job queue. Choose a name that you won't want to revert from later. –xenotalk 23:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ty. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Toufoula, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change username : Toufoula to Grace.G cause regarding wikipedia username policy we are not allowed to have a username of our organization and instead to register the account under the representative name and am the representative of Toufoula and i would like to change the username to my name Grace.G Thank you.

Toufoula (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You don't request name change here. You request it here Baseball Watcher 21:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No actual information

There is no actual information on which page you should use to change your username on this page or in discussions. Could somebody who knows please address that issue? Thanks --sb 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice (the one with the ) at the top of the page. There is a link there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but that link just redirects back to this page. Where can I actually change my username? Thanks again. Cheers! sb 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines#Handling SUL conflicts

FYI, I've created a section to help explain SUL conflicts and also provide some guidelines for handling them. (Shortcuts: WP:SUL/C, WP:SUL conflict). Comments & tweaks welcome. –xenotalk 15:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Searching the archives -- now with an actual search

I have added an input box that searches "Changing username" archives (on the bottom of the archive page). I also added the following after the toolserver search tool link, 'It is much slower, but pulls up the full log for each instance of a given name instead of just the nearby text. Instead of linking to the actual archive where a name is found, the toolserver tool links to an "edit that section" page (although, given that it pulls up the full log for each name change, a link may not be necessary). However, the toolserver tool does not allow wildcard characters (such as *) in a search.' Let me know on my talk page if there are any questions/concerns. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Names containing underscores

Your username cannot contain underscores and cannot start with a lowercase letter.

Is this still true? I got my username changed to something with an underscore/space. Is it just more complicated for the bureaucrat that way? —Mu Mind (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You can have spaces, but due to the way the system works, you cannot have underscores (as they are converted into spaces). There are ways that you can change the appearance of your signature and user pages to show underscores, but the system will always think of them as spaces. demize (t · c) 13:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OUTING and WP:RENAME

I recently saw an ANI thread started by a renamed user who claimed to have been "outted" becuse another user refers to them by accounts original name. This is not 'outing'. WP:RENAME is not WP:FRESHSTART or WP:VANISH. If you want a 'fresh start' please see that policy. Although referring to a renamed user by their original name is impolite (especially if they ask you not to) it is not 'outing'--Cailil talk 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So where exactly do I petition to change my username?

Mind sending me a link to the page? Your help is appreciated, whoever you are. Whathitz (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's here for simple and here for usurpations i think
Depends on the target username. If you want to be renamed to a name not yet taken, use Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. If you want to take a name already taken (but with no relevant edits), use Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I choose a name not on either list?

Sugestion

The project page needs to have a place to actually request a user name change, otherwise, this page is of no good, right? Planetary ChaosTalk 10:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two places listed on the page, under Venues. Rd232 talk 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For usurpation, what edits are okay?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Guidelines

The guideline currently says that If the target username has good faith edits which were not immediately reverted, and the account owner has not explicitly consented to the rename, then usurping could cause GFDL copyright issues. Does this mean any edits whatsoever that aren't vandalism? Or, for instance, userpage edits? i said 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This language, which has changed only slightly from what it said at the time of the above post, is basically based on a widely held but incorrect belief that renaming a user would cause their prior edits to be incorrectly attributed to the usurping user. This is ridiculous. If this were true, no one with edits could ever change their name. The only issue is that the Signatures on talk pages and notice boards will indicate the old name which will be the new name of another user. The history logs will show the correct account. When I usurped User:Doug several years ago, the old User was renamed to User:Doug (usurped), that editor's edits show up there. I got the user's name, not the users account. There is nothing in the GFDL that restricts this (and certainly nothing in the Creative Commons license) and if there were, the change would be nearly impossible even if voluntary as you would need an express affirmative response in that case.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I will look at this clause further later today; however, my initial response is that that within WMF that means connecting it to a particular account - and I believe we had this discussion on meta several years ago; I'll have to look for it. That aside; however, we have a long standing only because of the belief that to do otherwise would violate the license. Meta has always said, since before SUL was even active, that priority of rights would be the test. But, I will have to look at this further to get you diffs, etc. Thanks for discussing this, I have tried for years to get a real discussion going, we had one at one of the usurp talk pages a couple years ago but it only ever got a couple comments and never went anywhere.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't necessarily agree that everyone thinks we shouldn't brush people off their previously-well-used usernames only because of the debatable licensing issue. For my part, I think we also tend not to do it because of simple politeness... (e.g.) Thought experiment: How would you feel if you took a year or two off and came back to find someone had taken over your 'Doug' name? –xenotalk 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly what I meant. If someone has a couple dozen mainspace edits back in 2006 or even 2009, I don't think we have to assume forever that they might return and be offended to find their name had been changed on them. Especially if they never enabled e-mail, never checked their user talk, etc. I don't think anyone ever suggested that if an account with thousands of mainspace edits went dormant for two years it would be usurpable; but if that happened to mine, it would be my own fault. It's possible to take a break from wiki and still check your messages or at least enable e-mail.  ;-) --Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. In that case, I think that actual practice is closer to your position - bureaucrat discretion is used in the corner cases (e.g.). –xenotalk 16:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I haven't found any of the discussions that I was involved in, but if you look through the archives of this page and search for "GFDL" you'll find numerous discussions on this. Most seem to end agreeing with my comments above or don't know. Most also maintain the rule we have been using for reasons associated with block log records and the like not being able to be moved - I am guessing that is no longer the case. I've only done a quick search for CC attribution, but so far I've only come up with the acknowledgement that most editors have never specified a manner of attribution. One guide (there are multiple sites that copy it) suggests going down a list of priorities for attribution based on what the owner of the rights may be presumed to have intended. A user name is the last choice. I don't think there's any evidence though that users have specified this manner of attribution (they may have assumed it would be so, but that's not specifying). The real problem there too is that it gets us in the business of determining what is a GFDL or CC significant edit and that's not really a business we want to be in. I'll continue to research it but I believe that the real point is twofold, 1) attribute as specified if specified, and 2) make it possible for the author to prove his or her identity so as to establish an infringement. Renaming doesn't do anything to the second, as to the first, I don't think it's relevant absent an affirmative specification.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this line of debate is somewhat academic, given that we don't currently practice dogmatic adherence to the belief that usernames can never be usurped because of licensing concerns, but our own policy holds that "your contributions are attributed to your username" and "Your username is a nickname that will identify all of your contributions to Wikipedia." –xenotalk 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment left at CHU/U

This comment was left on the front page of WP:CHU/U by Boltholeplaceholder on 2011-08-07T16:32:34, as a section called "meta-edit since I cant edit higher", right after the instructions - frankie (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The instructions are wrong. Going by the admin correction to my own rename request, the instructions should say to insert "subst:usurpation requested" in user's talk page, not "subst:userp". That didnt work when I tried it.

{{subst:usurpr}} is almost the same as {{subst:usurpation requested}}, but the former signs automatically. Looks like you misspelled it as "userp". –xenotalk 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

I noticed the page says that if a user has more than 50K edits, a usurpation is not possible. At last check I have around ~50400 edits, and about 3600 more that are deleted. If I were to delete some of my userspace edits to bring the undeleted count under 50K, would a name change be possible? Thanks.   JJ (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question. Probably not (as deleted edits are also re-attributed). However, you can be renamed by a developer by filing a bugzilla: request. –xenotalk 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I might have to try that.   JJ (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Username Change request has been a month

I put in a request to have my username changed a month ago and it still has not been processed. I contacted a Wikipedia Bureaucrat directly from the Bureaucrat list by email to check that I have structured by Username change correctly and if he could help. He said to place my request here. Can a Bureaucrat please help with my username change. --ActPerspective 19:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by STXDavid (talk • contribs)

You placed the request on your talk page, but it needs to be placed at WP:CHU/S. ActPerspective is not registered, so there shouldn't be any problem - frankie (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted request

This is the data from an accidentally deleted request

=== Digitalfrontier → Sallyjp === {{renameuser2| 1=Digitalfrontier | 2=Sallyjp }} * Datestamp: 01:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC) * Reason: was not allowed to use existing company name [[User:Digitalfrontier|Digitalfrontier]] ([[User talk:Digitalfrontier|talk]]) 01:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to re-add it to the listing, or if the user has to do it herself. (I didn't delete it... Don't want to revert in case it wrecks something else. The diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple&diff=prev&oldid=448851616 ) Peridon (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I've carried out this rename. –xenotalk 14:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearer Instructions

Hi, I've read through the page, but I must have missed something obvious as I still don't know how to request a rename to my username! Help please! -Israeli terrorist (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC) ... nevermind, just realised you have to click on the link 1 or 2. :) -Israeli terrorist (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Subpages

Does the Usurping also move all the subpages? pluma Ø 20:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Todo

  • Link archives from request pages, make them searchable
  • I thought this would be easy, but it looks like the {{archives}} template can't do a short list unless the archives are all under /archivelist, and the long form would be unmanageable for the subpages. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, is it worth moving the archives to make them searchable directly from the subpages, or is the link just good enough?--~TPW 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Better instructions for SUL requests (i.e. remind to certify, make it known account not required for mere vacating, etc.)
  • Because this talk page is archived I am going to create a more formal {{todo}} list.--~TPW 15:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification suggestion

It would be helpful to send an email (automated?) to a user when their user account changes. In my case, my request took about 8 days to process, and the way I found out that it had gone through was that my login suddenly failed. I quickly figured it out, but the effort required to send an email vs. the potential confusion especially with a long lag time seems like a clear win. siafu (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC on rename throttle for repeatedly blocked users

{{rfc}}

Should we restrict editors with long block histories from repeatedly renaming themselves? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently, we had a case where a user was community banned after something like 17 blocks. Except it wasn't 17, they had been blocked just as many times under other names and once a name had a nice long block log on it they changed. Everything was done by the book, the changes were recorded using 1-second blocks so as to be permanently logged. So, I'm not suggesting that CHU or anyone working there failed, the community failed in that this aspect never even came up in the conversation. I would suspect that if most participants realized were actually talking about twice as many blocks we would easily have had WP:SNOW support for an indef ban and all the talk about last chances would have gone by the wayside. So, what I am proposing is a rename throttle for users that have been repeatedly blocked. Nothing too severe, perhaps something like "Users who have been blocked more than five times in the year preceding their request may be declined." Would probably need more nuance than that, and obviously an allowance for exceptions if several of the blocks were quickly overturned or whatever, just running the basic concept up the flagpole to get the conversation started. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible step. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Proper renames carry over the block log. A rename throttle will not solve the issue described, which is of users who abandon old usernames to take up new ones - which isn't covered by the rename guidelines but by the alternate account policy. –xenotalk 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)example in proposal is historical; block logs move properly since 2008
The user in question's account was renamed according to this policy and the block log was officially carried over. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Well, this is a historical case. Since 2008, block logs will be moved intact (bugzilla:7011). –xenotalk 21:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In which case I'd say the change is unnecessary. 2008 is getting to be a pretty long time ago now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I was not aware of that. There may be one or two lingering cases like this out there but clearly the proposed change is not needed. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is probably still merit in discussing (somewhere other than here) whether to allow users to abandon one username to take up a new one when their old one has a lengthy block log. (I can think of at least one high-profile example) –xenotalk 21:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Historically, renames were only granted to users in good standing, with an exception for users planning to leave the project permanently. I always believed that was good policy, and would support a return to it. The problem is not that the logs get lost. As pointed out above, logs are carried over now. Instead, the problem is that the human memory of past events is lost. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Links updated?

Resolved

If I do this will links to user space content (e.g. essays) be updated automatically? Gerardw (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. All your subpages get moved as well. The Moose is loose! 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

need to remedy my compromised username/page

Resolved

I hope you can help me. I just compromised my page, by including—in my comment on a talk page—the url for an edit page of an article. Fortunately, I then happened to review my posted comment and decided to click on the url link; when I did so, I realized (to my horror) that the url link connects you to my logged-in view of that article, which now allows any user who clicks on that url link to then edit under my name, usurp my page, etc.

To prevent that from happening, is changing my username the best way to proceed? If so, does it allow me to use a different password (as my current password is now exposed to discovery under my current username). Also, would someone stumbling on my self-compromising url link (discussed above)—and therefore my current username/page—be able to somehow find my new re-named page? Or would that not be a problem, as they would not be able to log in to my newly renamed page ...?

Thank you for your help. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and cannot believe I just compromised my username/page/password, etc. Eagle4000 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you try logging out and then going to that page? What you describe isn't really possible the way the system is designed. MBisanz talk 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick and supportive reply. I did what you suggested and everything seems fine. Eagle4000 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, glad it worked out. MBisanz talk 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits not carried over

I was renamed recently and not all of my contributions carried over; see here. Is there a way to kickstart the process again so all my edits get carried over, or am I stuck like this until we have account merging? I notice that my oldest edits were carried over. The Moose is loose! 21:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? (Just editing so this doesn't get archived.) The Moose is loose! 21:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Normally I would say you should post to bugzilla:17313 but a recent comment there makes it seem like they want you to open a new bug altogether. –xenotalk 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Iw

Please add interwiki sl:Wikipedija:Sprememba uporabniškega imena/Enostavna to en:Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple (due to protection I cannot make it) Thx., Ziga (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Username Murata

I want to have the username Murata because of SUL (home: de). It does not exist, but I can't create it because of the existance of MuratA. Afaik the account is inactive, but it has a few contibutions a few years ago. Is there any possibility to allow an usurpation, a renaming of the account or allowing me to create the account (There should be no technical problems with that, as all the systems I came across on wiki were case sensitive)?

(FYI: I did create the account Murata1337 on en:wiki before the implementation of SUL)

--de:Murata Murata1337 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please put in a rename request at WP:CHUS. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Everything works fine. Thank you. (There you can see it :D ->) --Murata (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Username Sudhanwa

I did some mistake in writing the target syntax. It was done as "TARGET sudhanwa". Now it is corrected. This is what toolserver says: http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Sudhanwa Please check again. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhanwa j (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How rename?

How can I rename my name? It's in the EN-WIkipedia to complicated (zu kompliziert). I Can't speak English so good. --Fuchs111 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Click here to place a request! Klicke darauf, um einen Antrag zu stellen. Jacobus21 16:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltforce (talk • contribs)

Request for information

I'm a Bureaucrat (Steward)/Admin on my local wiki and am requesting information on how you carry out your username usurpation process from an administrative viewpoint. What extensions or process do you use? -- Technical 13 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the information I requested is located here. -- ShoeMaker   ( Contributions • Message )   15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How long does it take to change a username.

I requested a username change a week ago, it should be simple in my case as I try to usurp from an enwp account with 0 edits and there is no SUL account under the name. So why does it take so long? SpeakFree 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakFree (talk • contribs)

Question

Hello. I changed my name in German Wikipedia from "Bartiebert" to "Danny S.". I have a global account, so in English Wikipedia I got an account under this name automatical. For now I just created a redirect from "Bartiebert" to "Danny S."; is it possible to change the username subsequent? --Danny S. (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Detritus

At the end of the second sentence under Venues there are brackets leftover from a deleted template: "Otherwise, it may be delayed or declined.}}" Davidiad (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks — Frankie (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Question concerning history

If I wanted to change my username, I see that the revision history of the old name's user page be kept. Hypothetically speaking, would it be possible to delete the previous revision history when changing a username? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it would not be something we would do. All of the history from the original username would transfer to the new username. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
But the user can ask for his user page to be deleted; if that were done, then the history would disappear as well (though it would still be visible to administrators). The user could then re-create his user page, with a clean history. Victor Yus (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: New category called Redirect-only Usurpation

I would like to propose a new category of usurpation called Redirect-only Usurpation. The purpose of such a usurp is so that a requesting wikipedian who would otherwise get denied a usurp because of "too many SUL conflicts" can use the desired name on one wiki without increasing SUL conflicts for possible SUL candidates on other wikis. In this case, the requesting user would be granted a usurp-only (instead of usurp and name change) for the target username, and the bureaucrat would setup a redirect from the target username to the requesting username, and block the requesting user from logging on as the target username (perhaps by an unknown password). The requesting user could never post edits as the target username, thus not adding to the SUL conflict situation. Later, the requesting user could petition for a regular usurp (including name change) only when the "too many SUL conflicts" status had subsided because of time having passed (re: time requirement in guidelines). Also, the requesting user would not be granted an SUL until they could do so having successfully usurped in the regular way. Yes, it would require a couple of extra steps for the bureaucrat, but I think it is important that as many usurps as possible be granted (while staying within the guidelines). I propose this because it would solve my own situation, but I am not alone in being denied a usurp based on "too many SUL conflicts" that are rather thin. In my case, the German user of the target username has made 4 edits in the past 5 years, one of which was within the last year. Mind you, this is not the target username on the target wiki that has made a recent edit. This proposal would solve the issue with SUL conflicts. I would appreciate any and all feedback on this proposal.  Guðsþegn —— Thane_me  15:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand - what purpose would the redirect serve, if you're not allowed to use the username? (Technically I suppose you could create such a redirect yourself anyway, without the help of a bureaucrat - but again, what good would it do you?) Victor Yus (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It would allow the user to use the target username as an address. So, for example, I could tell someone go to User:Thane instead of User:Guðsþegn (which happens to contains two letters not on any keyboard. Of course, users may have other reasons, including simply branding. Why does anyone want any particular username? And no, you can't redirect a username that someone else uses -- at least it's pretty tacky (though they probably wouldn't notice.)  Guðsþegn —— Thane_me  18:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why it's any more tacky than asking a bureaucrat to do the same thing. We're assuming the other user is no longer active anywhere (right?), so we don't expect them to either notice or care. Victor Yus (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Whenever they do a usurp the bureaucrat takes the target username and simply renames the account to "target username (usurped)" so that should the user ever return, they will not actually have lost anything (history; talk, etc.) except their name. They don't steal their horse; they rename their horse. Non-bureaucrat wikipedians don't have the tools to do this.  Guðsþegn —— Thane_me  11:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like something you would need to bring up over at meta since it would involve more than just enwiki. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Good idea.  Guðsþegn —— Thane_me  18:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Wikimedia Forum the best place to post the issue, or is another place better?  Guðsþegn —— Thane_me  18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Narrowing eligibility

There has never been, as far as I am aware, any community consensus on when a rename should be performed. When the ability to rename accounts was first technically available, renames were rare. At first there weren't any real "declines" on the page of requests -- unworthy requests eventually sort of expired when they were ignored. At some point we had a bureaucrat or two who thought the "rename backlog" was a bad thing and who went and started fulfilling substantially all the rename requests that were technically feasible and that didn't violate the username policy.

It's not at all clear that the community wants this or supports it. Renames have become common enough for controversial users that the arbitration committee is annotating case pages to help keep things clear.

The use of courtesy vanishing is also problematic in that links and history involving some high-profile users are now obfuscated, making some discussion difficult to reach. I note that the courtesy vanishing policy has never had consensus support, either, again, it was something that a few bureaucrats just started doing under their own discretion.

I wonder whether we might be better served by better policy and more careful vetting.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines which was written a while back. It's probably in dire need of updating. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy vanishing/RTV is certainly contentious, but I wasn't aware there were any concerns about "standard" renames. Have there been suggestions that they're granted too freely? 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. 28bytes has echoed my own thoughts. Has there been opposition to these practices? I would have thought that silence offers a reliable assumption of consent in these cases. NTox · talk 22:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm the crat who has done the most of the routine renames and I think Nihonjoe and EVula have done most of the courtesy vanishes. Since there is a rename log and we're all about editor retention, I'm not sure what's wrong with doing an easy function like renaming if it makes editors happy. While that isn't the case with courtesy vanishing, I'm not sure why we should be strict with renames when we can always track down or unvanish bad users who don't leave or keep acting poorly. MBisanz talk 23:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with allowing renames on request as long as the person doesn't get carried away (requesting many renames in a short period of time) and as long as the requested username meets policy requirements. As MBisanz pointed out, it's a simple thing which makes editors happy, especially when they may have picked a username they later determine is not a good choice. I'm also not aware of any substantial opposition to it, and the guidelines are based on long-established practice (just codified so people can more easily access it). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the current status quo between strict and lax is fine. Have there been complaints? Useight (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it can be helpful when an editor with a troublesome history wants to turn over a new leaf. As mentioned above, the logs mean no-one is being fooled. And it's a far better outcome than socking. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following some history from a year or two ago. It's hard to follow a discussion when multiple participants have changed their names and the relevant links no longer work. I don't know whether that problem is widespread enough for us to characterize it as there having been complaints. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
One thing to consider is that there's nothing really stopping editors from just abandoning Account A and starting up Account B, without benefit of a proper rename and the transparency it provides. (For example, both the initiator and named party of this current RfC.) If we discourage use of the rename tool, we may see more editors doing that. 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I used to do a lot of renames a few years ago but I stopped as it felt like an unproductive use of my time. When I did them we insisted that they had a record of editing with the account - we didn't rename newbies - they were told to make a new account. Secretlondon (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We certainly DID reject renames when it started. People were regularly rejected for being too new or for being a troublesome contributor. Secretlondon (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We were certainly quite strict in 2005 - Wikipedia:Changing_username/Unfulfilled/2005/October. You only have 72 edits - no rename for you! Secretlondon (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered user and usurpation

I am confused about the usurpation process in regards to unregistered users. I believe I meet the requirements to usurp a user name, except that all of my edits are under my IP address (static for years). Would I have to register an account, edit as it for months, then request usurpation for the name I really want and hope it has not been usurped by someone else in the meantime? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You can register an account (choose your second choice account name, perhaps) and then request usurpation of the account name you really want. It takes a week to usurp an account (to give the target account owner a chance to object), and in that time, you can continue to edit as your registered account to build up a (registered) contributions history. There's not a formal number of edits or days registered that you must have, but your extensive contributions as an IP will certainly be taken into consideration, and I would personally be inclined to grant the request (assuming the target account has not edited and does not object to the usurpation.) 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Global account

I requested a name change here on the English Wikipedia a while back from SunCreator to Sun Creator but I noticed the Global account is not linked/synched/working. It's become quite a problem because when I go to another language Wiki I'm not logged in and when I do, on the English Wikipedia it returns to the old username of SunCreator! Advice on syncing them please. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 09:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ummm...?

There are requests after mine that got changed/rejected...

Yeah. I'm gonna rename myself myself. :l • random signature is random 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Patience is virtuous. Remember there's no deadline. NTox · talk 02:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
And renaming yourself is not possible, moving your userpage doesn't do it, so I've moved them all back.--Jac16888 Talk 13:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine I'll wait, but just saying how come there are requests after mine that got changed/rejected? That's pretty unfair if you ask me. • random signature is random 15:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I only see one rejected report since your request, and none accepted. Please note that there are only a handful of editors capable of doing this, and that they are all volunteers, nagging isn't going to make them want to help you any faster. Perhaps you could pass the time by doing some editing, since that's the reason we're all here--Jac16888 Talk 15:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User name redirect

Hi, I changed my user name some time ago (forget exactly how long, but it's been a while), and I have a minor issue. When ever I sign my post, the signature posts as my old user name via a pipe link. So it looks like this: User:Hmich176|Son. How do I remove this so it signs as my current username? Many thanks! --User:Hmich176 (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Try going to Special:Preferences -> User profile -> Signature. If you leave the Signature box empty it will be automatically set to your current username; see meta:Help:Preferences#Signature — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Hmich176 (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Watch list change of permissions

Someone with more experience in the area may want to put a notification up on the page telling them that when the data is moved over from the old account to the new, the old account will lose its "reviewed" status, so any items in the new names watch lists that have the N tag for creating a new page, will have an exclamation next to it saying that it hasn't been patrolled.
Cheers, 4DHS (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

On renames and external attribution

moved from WP:BN 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are far too acquiescing to requests for account rename. Renaming from a real name to attempt retrospective anonymity may be a good reason, but perusing the requests I see few cases worth their time. In almost every case, the account should create the new account, redirect the old account to the new, and stop using the old account.

I know that I dislike encountering renamed accounts or their records. Someone seems new, but they are actually old. Some old account seems to have retired, but is ongoing renamed. The records of the rename hard to find and understand. It is confusing and it lessens the standing of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content as we undermine past compliance by altering the records of contribution. Multiple pseudonyms are less of a problem than unreliable pseudonyms (the pseudonym that you knew and recorded for attribution a year ago is now no longer accurate). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, your argument is confusing. A renamed account is much more transparent than one that has discontinued an old account and begun editing afresh, as the old edits transfer across. As does the attribution. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That's fine for attribution onsite, but it creates discrepancies with forked content, whether the forked use is printed, on DVD, etc, or used with explicit attribution of the authors. Imagine reading elsewhere that author A wrote article X, and then you go to Wikipedia but find no immediate evidence of A writing X. That sort of discrepancy discourages respect of the reuse conditions. I'm not talking about onsite transparency, but respect for the attribution histories, much must consider consistency of attribution recorded elsewhere.
(this conversation might be appropriately moved to another page?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You can feel free to move this part of the thread to WT:CHUS if you wish. It's not really what I had in mind bringing this issue here, but it's worth discussing anyway. As I understand it, the primary purpose of attribution is for Wikipedia (and reusers of content from Wikipedia) to properly respect the intellectual property rights of contributors. However, Wikipedia is limited to respecting their rights to the extent they permit it to respect them. For instance, an unregistered IP editor receives less intellectual property protection then a registered editor because he selects a means to contribute that will not permit unique identification. In that same way, renames at WP:CHUS are voluntary (WP:CHUU is a different story I'm not talking about now) and done only with the consent of the holder of the intellectual property rights. If the holder of the rights wishes to engage in a process that will dimminish the integrity or value of his rights, that is his choice. If he were to release his edits into the public domain, Wikipedia could not, and would not, stop him from doing so. Reusers of those edits would be under no requirement to provide attribution to that public domain material. As such, I don't see how renaming has a harmful effect on attribution because the user, not Wikipedia, is the one deciding to harm his own intellectual property rights. MBisanz talk 03:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Matt. Many things you say, including about how it is account holder who is possibly compromising their own rights, I agree. My concern is that an externally recorded attribution of a page is retrospectively altered by account renames, and that instability in attribution history (albeit mild) diminished external confidence in Wikipedia's attribution records.
A possible solution has occurred to me:
My problem is that I may remember, or have records, of Example (talk · contribs) having significantly written a certain article. User:Example was subsequently renamed, and all his edits were reattributed to User:Example-renamed. If I look at Special:Contributions/Example, I get contradictory information.
I suggest that Special:Contributions/Example should report that a rename of the account has occurred.
If the rename was for mere preference, report along the lines "User:Example was renamed to User:Example-renamed on 1 August 2009, and all previous edits have been re-attributed to the new name."
If the rename was an attempt to vanish, report along the lines "User:Example ceased editing and relinquished his rights to attribution of contributions to Wikipedia. Please attribute his contributions to "Wikipedia" without further specifics."
If the rename was an attempt to gain anonymity retrospectively, the person should choose something between the simple rename and vanishing.
I understand that complete vanishment, down to denial that the account was ever registered, it not possible by standard methods. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Not ignoring this post-move, just strapped in my real life. I'll be back this weekend. MBisanz talk 13:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you see a pink box at the top of User:MBisanz's Criminally Negligent Sockpuppet that says "This user has been renamed. The rename log is provided below for reference." If something like that could be added to the old name's account contribution's screen, would that resolve your concern? The log entry could be concealed in RTV situations. MBisanz talk 04:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn’t do it in pink, just ordinary black text.

It belongs, as I think you mean, on the User contributions special page.

I would not want to see it invite people to request usurping and account that has ever been used, even if the contributions are reattributed elsewhere.

Preferably, I think, it would give the date range of reattributed contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But filed at Bugzilla:44316. MBisanz talk 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SUL

I thought the usurpation process would usurp my SUL. Is that a separate process? Should I have mentioned it in my original request, or is it not possible? Thanks. Timl2k4 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, usurpation is on a project-by-project basis. For SUL issues you need to go to meta and speak to the stewards. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

1,819 views in one day?

I was wondering if anyone knew what what happened on 1/23/2013 that would prompt 1,819 name views in one day? As you can see from the 90 day view, the typical daily volume was about 150-200 views and in one day it spiked 1112.6% to 1819 views. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Wikipedia:Changing%20username/Simple Patriot1010 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You really don't understand what stats.grok.se is about. The stats track views, not requests. It means that there were 1,819 views of the page that day, not requests or edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Thanks Gogo Dodo - you are right and User:WilliamH recommended I learn all I can about changing usernames and the stats page. I edited my earlier comment (changed to views). You have to admit its a bit odd - maybe Jimmy Wales changed his name, or someone famous? So I am really going to find out how these stats work. I don't know if you know this or not - but I found a great way to identify anonymous ip's using stats.grok.se. Of course the investigations are archived or on hold. Ill make a new section on that technique. Patriot1010 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
First off, it is considered bad form to alter your own talk page comment once somebody else has responded to it as the context of the response may be lost. I have no idea why there was so much interest in this page on that particular day, but in the long run, it probably was not anything earth shattering. Nobody famous was trying to change their name. You really can't infer any details or intent on the aggregated, anonymous data that is provided by state.grok.se.
This is really off topic from changing user names, so if you want to continue the conversation, you should do so on my talk page. I concur with WilliamH that you need to learn about what exactly is a page view before you continue, but it isn't just page views. You really need to learn about how the Internet works in general and how the web works in particular if you are going to attempt to infer some trends in aggregated data. It isn't just changing user names that you need to learn (changing user names is not difficult and there is no hidden magic). You also can't identify anonymous IPs or anybody's identity from stats.grok.se. It only reports aggregated, anonymous page views. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't figure who those views are from or why they viewed it, just that somebody on the planet viewed it (and even then that is questionable if you understand how page views really work). But really, like I said, this is off-topic to this page. If you want to continue the discussion, please do so on my talk page. This page is only supposed to be used to ask questions about the change name process and there really is not anything further to ask about. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Should we reblock role accounts after successful rename requests?

I've come across a few examples recently where users have been blocked as role accounts (e.g. company names) and consequently been renamed. They've then come back and continued to edit from the role account (e.g. WackerNeuson (talk · contribs) today and Nencnews (talk · contribs) a couple of weeks ago). I presume this is accidental rather than on purpose, but it defeats the object of the original block if the role account can still edit. I've no idea how common this is, but would it be sensible if 'crats blocked the original account again once they've handled the rename request? SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

maybe an idiot/spamproofing necessary?

once Again we had either a spammer or someone who simply doesn't understand wither what this is for or how you have to do it.

maybe we could add a warning when this is not filled out right which doesnt let the user save when there is no username set or maybe that a bot immediatly deletes such things when they come from an IP or something like that, you know what I mean???

My1xTreme 09:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming

Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. More details on Meta.

(Distributed via global message delivery 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

More details like in less than a month CHU will no longer be relevant and all renames will be at meta and handled by stewards who probably have no idea what our username policy is since up till now they have had no need to possess that information. I've commented on the talk page there as well as starting a conversation at WT:UAA about what changes we will need to make to how we handle username violations as well as rewording every single username related template to reflect this new situation. Input from crats and other who deal with username issues more than welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Change Rex Momo into Rei Momo

Hi everybody, I would like to chang my User Name form Rex Momno into Rei Momo, because I've Rei Momo Account i quite all my pages.

Thanks a lot for your help

Rex Momo (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

you have to go to WP:USURP to take over this nick because it seems to be already taken on enwiki.
My1 14:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

Please remove ALL interwiki link in Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Front matter because it's now provided by Wikidata on d:Q13417566. GZWDer (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the Wikidata item hasn't been updated with the relevant links yet. Could you migrate the links over first? There are instructions at Wikipedia:Wikidata. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
d:Q4026973->Wikipedia:Changing username, d:Q13417566->Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. the ar, ca, cs, ... interwiki link all link to d:Q4026973(Wikipedia:Changing username).--GZWDer (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Aha, I see. :) Thank you for taking the time to explain it! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about procedure

Good evening Admins. of wikipedia! I was curious how the protocol worked for name change requests. . . I requested my name change 2 days ago, and I have no problem waiting, I'd just like to know when I can expect some feedback. Thank you in advance.EzPz (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Old account "recreation"

Currently, the project page says:

Once you have been renamed, your old account name will no longer exist and could be recreated by a third party. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself and make redirects.

Based on this discussion, I propose adding the following language to make recreation clearer:

Logging in to your old account recreates the account and prevents it from being taken by another user.

Out of sheer laziness, I am notifying the following three users of this topic in case they wish to contribute: @28bytes:, @Dennis Brown: and @MBisanz:.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You would need to add a note that if they log into the old name, thus reserving it, they need to link the two accounts, via a redirect or other mechanism. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain that you can log into your old account in English Wikipedia; but (I think) if you have the SUL account and log into another project, then visit English Wikipedia, that will recreate the old account. As a steward, MBisanz may be able to offer more insight. 28bytes (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposed additional words only apply to a SUL account. It is a result of renames not deleting global accounts (that must be requested on meta). If the account renamed was part of a global one, its name could not be taken by another user regardless of recreation by the renamed user (unless a steward agreed to delete the global account) - because new users cannot choose a name reserved to a global account. Perhaps a better change would to add the words "If you had not unified your login before being renamed, to guard against..." etc? WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not returning before now. My take on the above comments is this is even more complicated than I thought, and I at least still don't have a good enough understanding of how it all works to change the language. As for WJBscribe's comments - and I still remember fondly your help when I first became an admin, which seems like 100 years ago - when I created a bit of a mess, in part due to my ignorance of how this works, User:King of Hearts made the following comment when closing the SPI: "Yet another victim claimed by the mess that is WP:SUL. Hopefully we will never have to deal with this again when SUL finalization happens in a few months." It would be nice, though, if someone could improve the language to help others understand how all of this works.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist restored?

My username change seems to be completed, but I'm not sure. Can someone answer a few questions?

1. How can I restore my previous watchlist? If I need to do it manually, how do I gain access to the previous raw data?

2. The main page screen look different with a new layout. But I'm missing some of my previous userspace files. How can I access those and restore them to this new name? It also seems the "Watch" option is gone. How can I watch a page? In fact this page does not show up on my watchlist and it has no "watch" button.

4. Is there some reference page that explains all the above changes and how to manually get the username look and feel back to the previous one? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I came across Wikipedia:Copying watchlist to new username, but it doesn't work. Seems to be an old article. Is there an updated procedure? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I think you already figured this out, but it seems you had recreated your old username. –xenotalk 02:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is my request really "done"? (SUL request)

I did a request to usurp the user name Flauschi on June 15, 2013. The remark to that was: "Done - SUL request. WJBscribe (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)".

I do not understand that answer. I can log in on this Wikipedia (enwiki) now, but not on the German one (dewiki) and on the dewiktionary.

Is it the wrong place here to do that? Where should I ask to get the whole global account?

Thanks very much for your help!

--Flauschi (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The request was done locally; you will need to see de:WP:USURP and the relevant usurp page at de.wikt as well, or just wait until after wp:SUL/F is finished. –xenotalk 02:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How to go about this?

I just declined a speedy from an IP address that wanted to use a name that has been blocked as a sockpuppet. The name in question is User:Robert B Colton. I've left a message on the user's page recommending that it would probably be an easier process to create a different account name, but I thought I'd ask here as well. Just a look at the sockpuppet investigation and the discussion on the talk page is enough to make me think that the IP would have a far easier time of it if they started fresh with a username that didn't have this sort of background to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cancel request

Hello, I've made an usurpation request, however I'd like to cancel it before it's complete. Do I just delete it from the page? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.242.68 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably no longer relevant and you won't see this, but in case some future user is looking for the answer: yes, you can remove your own request if you no longer want it fulfilled. –xenotalk (written into archive) 07:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Are SUL requests still processed?

Just realised that the last SUL-request that was completed happened somewhere in July. Should one infer that there wont be any more processing of SUL-requests. Or is it just a general weariness? --(Sarras, everywhere else but here ;->) --77.117.71.114 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sarras: Sorry for the late reply. We've increased the size of the bureaucrat team since your query and you should be seeing much faster response times now. Thank you for your continued efforts. –xenotalk (written into archive) 07:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Two rename requests possibly the same user

Just pointing out the obvious since I'm not sure what the procedure is when this occurs but the two requests here and here appear to be the same person. — -dainomite   05:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The request with the earlier timestamp requested an username that was already registered, so it's a rather safe bet that the request was repeated with another target name. --(Sarras, everywhere else but here ;->)--89.144.206.97 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"WP:RENAME" bharatpro1 to ssbhati.1891

as it accepted by King of Hearts English Wikipedia Administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.183.98 (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Average processing time?

Hi, was curious what the average processing time is on a username change. I see some requests from September 27, 2013 that haven't been processed yet (October 10). I'm not being a wisenheimer--I volunteer at the Help Desk and people often ask about name changes and I'm just curious if 1-2 weeks is the norm. One Help Desk contactee has messaged me a few times asking about the status and I've been telling her to wait. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Sorry for the late reply. We've increased the size of the bureaucrat team since your query and you should be seeing much faster response times now. Thank you for your continued efforts. –xenotalk (written into archive) 07:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Script usage request

Resolved

locally, (not sure about the bug report :P )Mlpearc (open channel) 20:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Tracked in Phabricator
Task T59047

After clerking at WP:CHU/S for awhile, I have recently realized the addition of a script similar to HelpDeskTBLinks would be very useful for clerks (at any project page where clerking takes place). I've email Chicocvenancio for their input, no response as of yet. Looking for input from concerned editors, also advice on how to get this implemented if there are no serious issues. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Doppelganger

I just discovered that Bushranger (talk · contribs) exists, created back in ye olden dayz of 2006, but has (based on contributions/deleted contributions) never edited. I have no desire or interest in a username change, but given the obvious similarity to my username, I think usurping it as a WP:DOPPELGANGER would be appropriate - does that go through the process here using the usurponly=yes parameter? I started using that but on preview got a big honking red message about needing a link for SUL? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger, just go ahead and file, notify, and explain. You could also create an account to receive the name. –xenotalk 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Level three headers

Unless there is a specific reason that I'm not seeing, what's the need for level three headers on Instructions & Archives ? there's no need for an Edit tab on those sections, there's nothing to add or change that often. The TOC would have more accurate numbering if we changed the level three headers to

;Instructions

;Archives

The edit would be made at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Front matter
Mlpearc (open channel) 04:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: (Non-administrator comment) I assume this request is about Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Front matter? Its talk page redirects here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
PinkAmpersand, yes, correct as linked in my request the actual edit would be made on that page. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, wow I was tired when I wrote that. Carry on! — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Archive_3&oldid=1160908445"