Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Deleting previous username
2 Ridiculous!
3 Rename problem
4 Jabberwock
5 Something's gone wrong
6 Is this possible?
7 Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames
8 New template
9 My username
10 [Question about resolving a heck of a username mess]
11 I think I am up a creek
12 Double name change
13 Not Off Topic
14 'Once fulfilled'
15 Signature
16 Barnstar
17 Changing username on commons.wikimedia.org
18 Reducing number of requests
19 format
20 VoABot
21 Question about changing user names
22 Unfulfilled/2006/August?
23 {{Welcome Email}}
24 Change in structure of fulfilled archives
25 Bot-generated links
26 Bot-generated links
27 User accounts
28 Username Change Template
- 28.1 {{subst:ucfirst:Example}} → {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}}
29 Interwiki
30 Archiving
31 Interwiki
32 Archiving
33 Alternatives Above or Below?
34 Username Change Template
- 34.1 {{subst:ucfirst:Example}} → {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}}
35 names with spaces
36 Access to MySQL database
37 Usurpation and single login
38 Talk archive
39 New template
40 Page moves
41 Colors make page hard to read
42 Usurpation
43 Clerks
44 Blocked user requesting name change.
45 Privacy concerns
46 Speedying a name change
47 Noting an edit I made
48 Good grief
49 My contributions here
50 User rights logs
51 Relevant discussion
52 New and shiny Template:CHU
53 Abandoning one username and starting anew with another
54 Question re: changing user names
55 Overwritten request

Deleting previous username

I had a username change several months ago, for reasons related to harassment by unsavory elements that googled my name, found my personal details and retaliated by inundating me with hate mail. My previous username contained my full name, the current one only my first name. My question is: Would it be OK to delete my previous username's account? (now redirecting to my current one). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure usernames can't be deleted. I think what people usually do is disable emailling, have the user-space pages deleted if desired, redirecting them to the new account, and locking the account using a really long radom-gibberish password. --maru (talk) contribs 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. If you have a username change, the old accout is removed from the system; all references to the old account (except old signatures) and all account settings (preferences, watchlists, etc.) are moved to the new account name. The old account name is as though it never existed; it can be registered by anyone who comes along. This is the only case where accounts are removed from the system, and they techincally aren't removed, they're replaced; accounts cannot simply be deleted, they must have thier settings transferred elsewhere.

With that said, I think the original question related to deleting the user/talk pages (as it refers to redirecting, which applies to pages, not accounts). Yes, you may delete the old user/talk pages. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Essjay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK to go to old talk pages (including, say, closed discussions on AFD pages) and change the links to point at your new username? —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Essay later said I could do this, so I did.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous!

It says you must have less than 200,000 edits, and it includes a link to an edit counter? No user, human or bot, has acheived 200,000 edits. (See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.) The highest human contributor has about 72,000. This is preposterous. Grand master ka 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you be ridiculous. Do you really think that for all of eternity nobody shall ever exceed SimonP? We are only 5 or so years into writing Wikipedia. I myself will bump against the 200k limit in about 9 years if I keep going at my current rate. Don't be so shortsighted. --maru (talk) contribs 04:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but right now nobody has anywhere near 200,000 edits. Would it be so hard to add that part back in 10 years? It looks extremely silly now. Grand master ka 04:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably worth letting people know the 5000 edit limit is no longer in effect, that there will be no practical limit for a number of years.--Nectar 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "Requests by users over 200,000 edits" page as unneeded, but it is worth noting that the limit is no longer 20,000 (or 6,800, which was the limit before 20k). How best to do that is up for debate. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Grandmasterka here. It is silly now but that doesn't mean that it would not happen in the far future. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, in the future, the limit will be raised far above 200k (which I will reach within three years at my present clip (ohnoes!!!) BD2412 T 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename problem

I had my account renamed but can't login into either the old or new account because neither account exists. Please see Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive9 under the subheading "Ephilei." Thanks! --216.125.80.201 07:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

08:54, May 6, 2006 Nichalp (Renamed the user "JBJ830726" (which had 311 edits) to "Ephelei")

The problem appears to be that you couldn't decide on a spelling; in the text of the request, (see [1]) you said "Please change User:JBJ830726 to E-p-h-e-l-e-i" (emphasis mine), which is what Nichalp did; the heading, however, was styled "E-p-h-i-l-e-i," which was apparently the spelling you desired. Since the request here demonstrates that you intended it to be spelled with the "i" rather than the "e", I've changed it to the correct spelling. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sorry for the typo. --Ephilei 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Jabberwock

Please change User:Iamthejabberwock to User:Jabberwock. First, to avoid conflicts with User:Thejabberwock (which is how I have been signing), and second, for conciseness. Thanks, TheJabberwʘck 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this request; we already have User:The Jabberwock and User:Jabberwocky, and I believe at least one other editor using some form of the "Jabberwock" standard. The above request is techincally moot, as User:Jabberwock already exists, but the point remains: Where a rename is likely to cause confusion with one or more users, should it be performed? (My opinion, for the record, is no: It doesn't fit our mandate, to change names where it benefits the community.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not change it to "TheJabberwockIAm" --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it have to be Jabberwocky centric? Why couldn't you be "Borogove", or "Mome rath"; "Jub jub bird" sounds downright jolly, and "Bandersnatch" is just awesome. --maru (talk) contribs 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Maru. Anybody else have suggestions for a new username? I need to avoid confusion with User:TheJabberwock. I could use my real name, User:Dan Gilles, but that's kind of boring, and plus people don't know how to pronounce "Gilles." I think there's already a Mome Rath... Bandersnatch is good though. Any other ideas? TheJabberwʘck 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

click here to suggest a new name. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! Λυδ α cιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 05:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong

Yesterday I requested that my username be changed from Robert.c.smith to SpookieWookie. I then clicked the 'send me my password' button on the login page, and was very surprised to see that I had been mailed the details (username + password) for another user. That's rather serious, no? Does that mean that someone was emailed my details? I'm posting anonymously , since I can't login to my new username yet, and don't want to request my password again. 81.159.10.238 10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was handling multiple requests at the time, and switched the two accounts. The other user promptly informed me of the mistake, and I corrected it. You should be able to log in to the account SpookieWookie. My apologies for the mistake, it was a case of too many tabs and trying to do a dozen things at once. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this possible?

I might want to switch my username GT with Xt. Perhaps this would be done by moving User:Xt to User:Xt (placeholder), then moving User:GT to User:Xt, then moving User:Xt (placeholder) to User:GT. Can someone let me know if this is possible? — GT 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This kind of switch would be possible (assuming that you can log in as Xt and confirm that is also your account), but as we always try to minimise the number of username changes due to the strain it places on Wikipedia's servers, and as Xt has only two edits, it can just be moved to Xt(old) or similar, and GT then moved to Xt. Warofdreams talk 01:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames

Numerous vandals and miscreants have created insulting and offensive (and sometimes just annoying) usernames such as:

User:! ! ! ! Linuxbeak is an unemployed bum
User:!!!! curps was a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels
User:!!!!!!!!!!!!David Gerard is a pedophile who has AIDS
User:(curp's mom has some really huge tator tots)
User:And people clamor to block you even if you aren't slick willy
User:And suck on them, JoanneB
User:And you know CapnCrack likes the titties
User:Assholes with Ugly Testicles
User:Assjay Loves Badonkadonk
User:Be..non fucked.......w.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a in its nigger hole
User:Linuxbeakshouldunbanmeorhesgay
User:Linuxerist and Whop Are Gay Together
User:Willy + JoanneB = lifetime of titty-fucking
User:¡FireFox blocked the US Congress on Wheels!

(and I promise you, there are many even more offensive examples) Indeed, crap like this is the bulk of what shows up on the first page to be seen when any visitor clicks on "Special pages" and then "User list". Since such accounts cannot be destroyed, but are subject to username changes, I hereby propose that we engage in a system of warehousing these offensive accounts by using the username change function to change said accounts to a series of numbered accounts prefaced by a "￥" (which comes near the end of all characters in the Wiki alphabetization scheme). Any of the above could be changed and the actual pages moved to, e.g., User:￥-00001, a note about the origin dropped on the warehouse page, and the resulting redirect deleted (it is unlikely in the extreme that any of the vandals who have created such accounts would bother to even look at them again, much less try to use them, once the account had been blocked). If a 'crat does the name changes, I'll do the rest. Comments? Critique? BD2412 T 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of these usernames have no contributions. Can they still not be deleted? --131.215.6.125 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, a username once created can never be deleted (I could be wrong, but know I've seen it said before). BD2412 T 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If we move it, the username would be open to recreation again by the troll/vandal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I considered that, but am not worried about it for two reasons.

First, any troll or vandal can already just as easily create a username that is identical but for an extra exclamation point at the beginning, or substituting a special character for a similar letter, or some other minor variation. There is no practical limit to the number of ways that a username could be crafted to insult, offend, or attack someone, but that does not mean we should allow such insults to remain in the public view.

Second, vandals often make dozens of these at a time likely forgetting that they exist as soon as the account gots blocked - indeed, they probably expect the account to get blocked right away, and create it solely for the purpose of creating this annoyance in a way that to this point remains a permanent fixture on the list of usernames and on Wikipedia. That is the evil I seek to do away with. BD2412 T 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be a good addition would be if the devs could give us a function (like a checkbox) to prevent the username from being recreated in the future once we chage a username. The old username would be autoblocked from creation and would not appear in the special:listuser. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be a Good Thing^TM, but I would move these names irrespective of such a function just to keep them from showing up presently. Actually, we should have something in place (like certain email address generators do) that prevents the creation of names using certain character strings such as curse words and terms like "pedophile", "paedophile", "is gay", "on wheels", etc. Perhaps widely known usernames could be added to that list, so that no one could create a new account incorporating the name of that user. I believe our software should also be smart enough to know that, for example, é or ě can be used to stand in for "e", or that ¢ and © can substitute for "c"... BD2412 T 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a technical question here. If somebody registers an offensive username like "So-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots", and it gets blocked on sight, then renamed weeks later to "Nulluser00005446" or whatever, and somebody re-registers the old name, which account is blocked from editing? the old one, the new one, both, or neither? As far as I know, this has never been tested, as we generally only offer the service of username change to editors in good standing. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:59] <freak|talk>

My understanding is that the block would follow the username; ergo "So-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots" would no longer be blocked, while "Nulluser00005446" (or as I would prefer "￥-00005446") would be blocked. I honestly don't think it matters - once the vandal has made his point and the account has been permablocked, he will almost certainly never bother attempting to log in under that name again (and if he really wanted to, could just make a new account at "$o-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots" or "So-and-so has sexual relations with tátor tots" or "!!!!!!!!!!!So-and-so has sexual relations with tátor tots". My problem is chiefly with those old vandal-created offensive usernames that are there right now, and can be dispatched. BD2412 T 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a couple of cases where someone was blocked for having an inappropriate username (inappropriate does not necessarily mean "Offensive and full of obscenities"), and then asked to have it changed. What ended up happening was that the block did carry over, but remained listed under the old name, creating a serious problem when trying to unblock. We eventually had to go back and unblock the old username by hand in order for the new username to be created.

With that said, I don't think there is a need for this; there was a problem some months ago with obscene usernames appearing on the first page of Listusers, but that was solved by the creation of a number of accounts that now fill that page. Anyone clicking alphebetically though a list of one million usernames should expect to eventually find something they don't agree with; I don't honestly believe anyone in their right mind is using listusers without filtering either for the name of the person they're looking for, or the class of users (i.e. "sysop"). It strikes me that this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist, and that the time needed to rename thousands (and yes, in a list of a million usernames, there are going to be thousands that need to be renamed) of accounts could be better spent solving a problem we know needs to be fixed (like, say, copyright infringements or vandalism of the featured article with goatse, which is likely to be seen by far more people).

Finally, renames can only be performed at the request of the user, or with community consensus. A specific policy for renaming inappropriate usernames would need to be proposed in the projectspace, discussed extensively, and adopted, before it would be acceptible for them to take place. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I will take this proposal to the community. I will note, however, that on the first page that comes up from the User pages link, I see 66 fairly nasty attacks on admins (mostly aimed at Linuxbeak, and many of which are invasions of privacy), plus a handful of generalized attacks aimed at political or religious leanings. Now, my biggest concern is the results that show up on that first page, and doubtless the vandals who made those accounts knew that they could get their attacks to appear there (hence all those exclamation points). If no 'crat wants to do this (and I do appreciate your desire to attend to more pressing and public matters), I'll ask to be given the 'crat powers for one week just for this purpose, and I'll warhouse the worst cases. BD2412 T 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your display looks like, but when I look at Special:Listusers, the default is 50 listings, and they are almost all nothing but exclamation points. Nothing obscene appears at all. I'll upload a screenshot shortly. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what shows when you look at Special:Listusers as an anon, or a new user. I don't see any inappropriate usernames. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I see. I have my default return set to 500. Well, it's not as big a problem as I thought then, but I would still argue that, at the very least, the attack usernames that reveal personal information about an admin (or any other user) should be changed. BD2412 T 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal copied to Wikipedia:Offensive username proposal; discussion copied to Wikipedia talk:Offensive username proposal. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New template

Note to bureaucrats: Please watch for new requests by blocked users at Category:Requests for username changes when blocked, populated by the template {{Username change request}}. See [2] for an explanation.

(Moved this note, inserted by King of Hearts, from the main page.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My username

Should I change it? Gang sta E B 15:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if you like it. There's nothing wrong with it, as far as I'm concerned. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[Question about resolving a heck of a username mess]

{Moved from the project page. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

When I first signed up, I thought it would use all-lower-case usernames like most login systems do, so I picked "smccandlish". This was autocapitalized to "Smccandlish" which is just silly. So I used the account anyway. Didn't know about Move, and didn't know about Changing_username. Did find about about redirect, though. Redirected (at different times) both my User and Talk pages to "SMcCandlish"-spelled versions. My contrib page remains with the Smccandlish spelling of course, since those aren't hand-editable. So, now User:Smccandlish, User:SMcCandlish, User_talk:Smccandlish and User_talk:SMcCandlish all have Histories. D'oh.

The ideal solution to me would be for the user and talk pages to be merged, histories and all, from the "virtual user" SMcCandlish ones back to the real ones under the userid Smccandlish, then for this name to be changed to SMcCandlish, and lastly for me to then follow the Move instructions above. I don't know if this is possible. I really wouldn't care at all, except that I have a strong suspicion that someone else can actually register a real user "SMcCandlish" and take over my "virtual" User and Talk pages! So, if merging will work, please let me know and I'll go follow the general merge instructions for merging one page into another and get the real Smccandlish account back in control of the content and history stuff, so the rename will go smoothly. If merge can't do this (namely put the content and history of the corresponding pages together into one), I'll probably ask for the rename anyway (in a properly formatted request here) and sacrifice the history. If by having a "virtual" User and Talk page this prevents anyone from creating a real SMcCandlish account, then this is all moot (I don't care that my contrib page says "Smccandlish"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh...my. How about this: I'll merge the relevant page histories together at User:Smccandlish and User talk:Smccandlish (you have to be an admin to do so). I'll also rename you to SMcCandlish, and you can move the merged pages to User:SMcCandlish and User talk:SMcCandlish, and you can put the correct content on that page once the move is done. Will that work? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Works for me! I have just now made a source backup of all the User and User_talk content. So: ... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I am up a creek

I forgot my other password, but wanted to change to this username anyway. Do I have to be logged into that account to request the change? It has been a little bit since I was on that account, but is there a way to find out the password? Sorry for not knowing the rules and process. --CountryOfOrigin 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you provided an email and confirmed it, then you can request a new password via email. If not, sadly you're stuck, as we're not permitted to perform changes without a statment of consent from the owner of the account, made with the account in question. You can, however, note on your userpage that you had a previous account and forgot the password, so that the contributions can be traced to you. Essjay (Talk) 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Double name change

See for the problem Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Transfer of adminship. I have two acounts (explained there). Is it technically possible to change my user name Electionworld in Electionworld2 and my user name Wilfried Derksen in Electionworld. When that is done, Electionworld2 can if possible be deleted. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to do, except the last part; accounts are never deleted. However, the sysop flag goes with the account when it's renamed, so this rename scheme won't cause you to merge your contributions from one account with the sysop flag from another. Essjay (Talk) 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Off Topic

Greetings. One reason people often request a change in username is to disassociate themselves from edits made under a previous username. I won't lie. I am a previous contributor who abandoned his former account and started a new one. However, my desire is to be able to erase from the Wikipedia database some edits that I made under my previous account (I was often drunk, to be honest). I hope it will be possible some day. How hard can it be to selectively delete edits from an edit history? Once you press "Save page", it seems you are fucked unless you can get the whole page deleted. This is a flaw that needs to be fixed. *Captain Jack Sparrow* 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I brought up this subject before and I was either met with silence or unsatisfactory answers ("a developer can do it", but no one ever put me in contact with such a developer, etc.). I will bring up this subject again on various talk pages. It is more important than you may realize. I have come to see it as the most important subject in Wikipedia. In my case, I don't have it that bad because practically all of the edits I'm concerned with were on article talk pages or in edit summaries. These should be less problematic to delete as opposed to article content. *Captain Jack Sparrow* 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you fucked it up, stand by it (or if you really can't, do what what you did and get a new account). I see no problem with the system as it is. If you made the occasional blunder, who cares? As long as your general record is okay, nobody should. Max robitzsch 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

'Once fulfilled'

The above section should make clear whether you have to move your talk page yourself. It is unclear (to me too). Max robitzsch 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends; moving your userpage will automatically move your talk page, so you have to deliberately uncheck the "move the associated talk page" box to leave it where it is. If you don't have a userpage, of course, you won't be moving it; assuming you'd want to keep your old messages, it would make sense to move your talk page, if you don't, then leave it where it is. The main point of the message is that if you want it moved, you have to do it yourself, the person doing the renaming won't do it. Essjay (Talk) 07:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanted my name changed for anonymity reasons (I used my own full name). Now after the change I find that my user page (easily findable by Google to anyone who knows my name) still shows my list of edits and also my changed name. So what use (if any) is there to the change in terms of 'vanishing' (at least in the sense of disassociating my future edits)? Is there none? Do I have to make up a totally new Identity?

I see that the former user page and talk page have now been deleted. Does that solve your problem? For now, Max robitzschi is a new account with a blank user page and only 3 edits and nothing to tie it to your new name as far as I can tell. Of course, there will always be a record in the database, so you will not truly be anonymous if someone wants to go digging, but google should not pick it up. The only way to truly become anonymous with no records tying the old account to the new is to abandon the old account and create a new one and start over at zero edits. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Signature

If you have your name moved, will your original name (as it appears on talk pages from before you made the move) link to your new identity? Oh, and if ou have two accounts (an earlier one, for example with few edits) and change that username to a different one, can you move your other account to the username held by the original? 68.38.136.228 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you change your name, it reattributes your edits in the database (page histories) but does not change signatures. If you are being completely open about the change (not doing it for privacy reasons) then you will want to move the old user and talk pages to the new name, which will create redirects at the old name--then old sigs will redirect to the new account. However you will also want to recreate the old user name because if someone else created it they would "own" the name and could undo the redirects and impersonate your old identity. This of course leaves an obvious trail, so if you are changing your name for purposes of anonymity, different tactics come into play. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If we change our signature, how long does it take before Google stops coming up with all of our results? 68.38.136.228 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean various talk pages you have signed, changing user names won't change them. You can change them or blank them manually, and then it will probably be a week to a month before they stop showing up on google. (Google has multiple servers which cache differently, maybe there's a faq at google with more specific info.) I'm a bit confused about what exactly your situation is. Would you like send me a wikipedia e-mail with the details? I may be able to give you more specific advice. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I hereby award the staff working at WP:CHU for their tireless work in dealing with me, who has probably been a huge pain in the ass for you guys the past while. -Zapptastic, formerly Zappa.jake, 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing username on commons.wikimedia.org

Hello

how can i get chanced my username on "commons.wikimedia.org”? i cant find a link or page on commons! --Еdgar 18:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Changing username. Courtesy of Google. Kimchi.sg 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reducing number of requests

Given that changing usernames is murder on the servers, and that we get a lot of requests that don't meet any basic threshhold of importance, what do people think of adding some allowed reasons for changing a username and not allowing the rest. Personally I don't think changing usernames is very important unless it's to protect personal information or people from stalking or to allow people to edit under their real name for accountability reasons. In other cases it doesn't help the project's main goals of creating an encyclopedia. What do people think of restricting name changes to:

Removing personal information (such as emails or real names) from usernames
Allowing people to edit under their real name for accountability if they wish

What other criteria would people like to see? - Taxman ^Talk 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it. If changing usernames is radically interfering with editing, then the code needs to be optimized (perhaps to run slower over longer amounts of time); unless it's causing crashing, it's not worth the restricting. Servers are there to be used. --maru (talk) contribs 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the cost of editors wasting their time when there are much more important things like articles to work on. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that changing usernames just because "you don't like the current one", for example, is not a good idea, so I agree with you that some limitation would be useful. Two other reasons that I can see a reasonable case being made for are:

Typo in real name derived username. For example, if I created MaritnRe and didn't notice for a while, it would be reasonably to want to edit under their correct name if possible.
Good faith users whose usernames might be blocked if created now, due to a similar name gaining popularity since original creation. For example, if User:Taximan (real user, but no edits) had significant contributions in the background, it would be unfair to just block the username as being similar to User:Taxman since both are reasonable names (albeit very similar, and easy to confuse) (I can't see which was created first, but it's just an example)

Both of these situation could be tempered with the caveat of requiring a minimum number of edits as otherwise simplying creating a new user and redirecting the old one might suffice. Regards, MartinRe 22:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those situations are certainly reasonable too. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I can imagine some people changing their usernames to their real names (to satisfy Taxman's criteria two) and then changing them to the name they actually prefer, removing personal info from their username (to satisfy Taxman's criteria one). Now that would be a strain on the server. However, I suppose that kind of thing could easily be spotted. -- tariqabjotu 22:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Would setting a lower limit on the number of contributions help ease the situation? I notice many users requesting name changes have fewer than fifty edits. Certainly, they could simply just register a new name. -- tariqabjotu 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If we reduced the number of username changes, the logs would be more useful to spot things like your first scenario, but even if the number didn't reduce, the logs are still there for that. Then those like that can simply be declined within a certain period of time. The only problem with a minimum edit is that adds to the time it takes to process each request thus wasting more time that's not directed to articles. I suppose we could start by putting it in the guidelines to see if it helps. And I'm proposing this after several well respected editors I know have asked for a username change. Even with that in mind we need to focus efforts on article improvement instead of meta work. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

format

I've modified the request format a bit such that the note about not putting quote marks around the username should no longer be necessary. If anybody was particularly attached to the old format, please do change it back, but I'd like at least to give this one a trial run to see if it works better. — Dan | talk 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the new format. It's much clearer. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't ignore requests lodged before the change--Arktos ^talk 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

VoABot

The bot is now set to archive the main WP:CHU page. Please notify me of any problems. Using {{done}} for completed request helps the bot to recognize them best, along wih ":done" (regardles of case) or any other obvious completion statements the bureaucrats want to use (I'll add any if needed). Adding {{not done}} to a request will cause for it to be archived after two days.Voice-of-All 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you have it wait at least a day to archive complete requests? — Dan | talk 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to wait about 24 hours (a bit more). I think the bug that was causing it to archive too fast has been fixed now.Voice-of-All 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about changing user names

I am considering going up for RFA in the next couple of months and I was wondering if admins were able to change their usernames like everybody else? or if the role of the admin prevents such changes? Thanks. Irongargoyle 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify... Can they have their usernames changed by a bureaucrat? Irongargoyle 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was myself.Voice-of-All 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Irongargoyle 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfulfilled/2006/August?

There were no rejected username requests in the entirety of last month? Seems odd, since several months previous had 10+ rejections... -- nae'blis 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is strange. Michael 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think {{Welcome Email}} is not helpful and just leading to pointless requests being made here. Please comment at Template talk:Welcome Email#Not helpful. Angela . 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Change in structure of fulfilled archives

If nobody objects, I'd like to restructure how we are archiving fulfilled requests to be inline with how we archive unfulfilled requests. I.e., archiving in a monthly pattern. Thoughts? --Durin 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at [3], it appears a bot is doing the archiving. I think I'd still like to see the structures be similar. --Durin 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, programming for the # archiving was very difficult, a switch to the date format would not be difficult at all, as long as people agreed on it.Voice-of-All 23:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot-generated links

When here for requesting a change for my own username, I saw that the process could be helped by providing some links and notices. The result is at User:DumbBOT/UsernameChange. While the bot is obviously limited in the way it parses the page, the resulting report could be of some use. As requested on my talk page, I can keep it updated daily for some time, so let me know if somebody is actually using it. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I am using it, but it doesn't yet seem to pick up every entry - any ideas what the problem with some of them is? Warofdreams talk 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One that I have found is a "rwquested" instead of "requested" (maybe I could include the possibility of a wrong letter). I'll run the bot again tomorrow and check the remaining ones. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly changed the bot so that it parses entries that are not exactly as expected. When a section cannot be parsed, it states it. I will update it dayly. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot-generated links

Thanks for this; I am using it, but it doesn't yet seem to pick up every entry - any ideas what the problem with some of them is? Warofdreams talk 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User accounts

(Moved from Help Desk)

I was hoping to create a new user account called "emery", but to my dismay it was already taken. By luck, I guessed the password, (I feel a little guilty for trying to log in as emery) but almost immediately logged out once I realized that I actually guessed the password. Before I logged out I took a quick look at the contributions to see if the account was active. There were no contributions, so I assume that the account is inactive. Is there any way I can "take over" the account if emery is indeed inactive? My sincerest apologies to emery if he/she is still active. Thanks for the help. --71.117.45.56 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I've heard of that -- we tend to call it "usurping" the username. To my knowledge, there's no set policy regarding it at this point in time. You might have better luck asking at Wikipedia talk:Changing username. Good luck. Luna Santin 00:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a proposed policy, but the beaucrats don't seem to be particularly inclined to either say nay or yea. It's basically in limbo, with a fair bit of support but not enough for anyone to be BOLD and declare it policy. --Gwern (contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So from what I've gathered there seems to be no real point to request usurpation at this time, as no buearocrats are willing to do it as of yet. But, I've got a hypthetical for you: I want the username Max, but that username already had 2 edits (one minor). But, both edits were made on March 20, 2002. So, my question is if I wanted to usurp an account such as this, with 1 or 2 edits that were made several years ago, would that be possible?

Also, while searching some talk pages I found a good question that User:Nat Krause asked that I had myself: "This page states, 'An account with any edits should not be usurped, as that is possibly against the GFDL and is also fraught with peril.' Can this be explained a bit more? I don't quite see the peril, in an instance where an account has a very small number of edits. For example, if there were a User:Bill who made 4 or 5 (non-deleted) edits in 2005, couldn't we just move that account to User:Bill_2005 (or something along those lines) and open the original up for usurpation? Does that conflict with the GFDL?—Nat Krause"

Thanks for the help and any responses. --71.117.44.209 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Username Change Template

First off, congratulations to whomever got this page to function with a template for requests; I tried for months to get that going, and was met at every turn with failure. I wanted to propose an addition, however; I've often fancied the addition of a templated link similar to the one below that would help speed up changes.

Change Example to Elpmaxe: Change

The link could be created with a template parameter, such as {{change|Example|Elpmaxe}}. It would turn filling requests into a one-click process (short of checking that the user really requested it and leaving a note). Thoughts? Essjay (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. It would save us (Bureaucrats) the mindless work of copying and pasting the old name and the new name to the Renameuser tool when it is the case of granting a request. Also noting, a similar template exists for CheckUser — actually two: checkip and checkuser — so I see no reason why we couldn't have something similar here. Redux 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I created those to make the job easier; I used to have to do the same thing to run RFCU checks that I do now for renames: Go to the user's userpage and click the "rename" link in my dropdown tabs. The templates are much, much quicker. How shall we format the template? Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that we could even take this opportunity to come up with a template that would give us all the information we need in order to consider renames (in cases where deeper consideration might be required). Basically, I was thinking we could provide users with a template that they'd copy and fill in the data, such as: {{subst:Rename|OldName|NewName|reason-for-rename}}, and that would result in something like:

=== OldName → NewName ===
* Current name: OldName (talk • contribs)
* Requested name: NewName (change username)
* Reason: reason-for-rename

The line "change username" would be the link to the Renametool with the already-filled-in lines for old and new names — and we might include a note in the instructions alerting users that the "change username" link works only for Bureaucrats and that other users will get an error message; the usual. Noting that, once the rename is done (if it is done), the link to the old account's contributions would become useless, and after the user talk page is moved, the link to the talk page would be a redirect there. But then again, requests are archived shortly after being either granted or denied, so it'd make no practical difference. Just a few ideas. Redux 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea! I created {{renameuser}} because {{rename}} already exists (though it is a redirect to {{move}} if we want to subst: out the uses and reclaim it). The template looks like this:

{{subst:ucfirst:Example}} → {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}}

Current name: [[User:{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}|{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}|contribs]])
Requested name: {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}} (change username)
Reason: Because I said so.

I included a link to Special:Listusers for the desired username to make it easier to check if it is pre-existing as well. Thoughts? Essjay (Talk) 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks great. And good idea with the link to Special:Listusers! :-) I'd say we could start using that immediately. As for taking over {{rename}}, I've left messages on both its talk page and the talk page of {{move}}, letting people know that we are considering using that name for this template. I've asked that anyone who would oppose it let us know here. So, if nobody says anything in a few days, we can go ahead and delete the redirect and move the rename template there (we'll need to merge histories too). Special:Whatlinkshere for the present rename template says that 32 pages link there (and one of them is actually this page, because we linked the template), so we should be able to clear that fairly quickly. Redux 07:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with this, I've added a big pink box at the top of the page warning users to read the instructions; there has always been a phenomenon here that users skip past all the carefully worded instructions, copy the last request on the page, and totally fudge all the work we've done to streamline this process. In addition to that, I've created {{no template}} as a quick rejection of misformatted requests. Essjay (Talk) 05:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

I wanted to add the dutch interwiki to this site, but the "edit this page"-tab doenst give the links? Anyway, it's nl:Wikipedia:Verzoek voor hernoeming van account... Ciell 18:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They are listed on Wikipedia:Changing username/Front matter for convenience of organization; I've added it to the list. Essjay (Talk) 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Okay, so here I am again, stirring up more trouble. I'm wondering why the current archiving time-frame was chosen; when EssjayBot II was archiving the page, anything two days or older was archived. It looks now as if requests wait a week for archiving; I'm wondering if a shorter period, say three days, wouldn't be a better choice. Thoughts? Essjay (Talk) 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the number of requests we get, I think archiving it daily or every two days would be more suited. It would also help us reloading unnecessary HTML code. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant the done/not done. Not this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I had EssjayBot II doing, every two days. I can put it back on the job if that's desired. Essjay (Talk) 06:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

They are listed on Wikipedia:Changing username/Front matter for convenience of organization; I've added it to the list. Essjay (Talk) 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I meant the done/not done. Not this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I had EssjayBot II doing, every two days. I can put it back on the job if that's desired. Essjay (Talk) 06:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives Above or Below?

The Instructions box at the top of the page requests someone with only a few edits to "see the alternatives above," however, I believe the alternatives are actually *below* that box... Newbie Laurie Fox 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooops, should read things when I move them around... Essjay (Talk) 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Username Change Template

Change Example to Elpmaxe: Change

=== OldName → NewName ===
* Current name: OldName (talk • contribs)
* Requested name: NewName (change username)
* Reason: reason-for-rename

{{subst:ucfirst:Example}} → {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}}

Current name: [[User:{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}|{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{subst:ucfirst:Example}}|contribs]])
Requested name: {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}} (change username)
Reason: Because I said so.

I included a link to Special:Listusers for the desired username to make it easier to check if it is pre-existing as well. Thoughts? Essjay (Talk) 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{{rename}} appears to be used not uncommonly[4], and is the older usage of this template. Moves are often proposed decentrally, using the conveniently and reasonably named template, whereas the template for username changes is only used for the specifically instructed process here on this page, with the template given directly on the page available for copy and paste; the title of the template could be gibberish and it would still generally work for this process. —Centrx→talk • 11:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really a moot point, as we've been using the other template for two weeks, and have made no move towards reclaiming the other. It was an idea that was proposed, discussed and dropped. Anything else here? Essjay (Talk) 11:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. There was no indication of that here; it was proposed that {{renameuser}} be used and then to take over {{rename}}, barring any objections; and the original reasons for using {{rename}}—whether it be taken over now or 6 months from now—would still have been valid without countervailing reasons. —Centrx→talk • 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I left messages on the talk pages of the {{move}} and the {{rename}} templates soon after we contemplated the possibility of reassigning the rename template for use on this page. Even though there was no immediate response, I thought it over and came to the conclusion that it would not be necessary to do any of it. First, there would be, as you mentioned, the problem of the more traditional use of the template, and second, obviously, the fact that users need only to copy and paste the template and fill out only the three fields, none of which affects the template name. So it really makes no difference whether it's named "rename" or "renameuser". Therefore, we have dropped the possible reassigning of the template. I would have made a note about it on the two templates' talk pages, but since, as I mentioned, no one had responded until now, I had assumed that my posts had been ignored, so I just left it alone. Redux 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

names with spaces

I tried to change my name to "Paul Murray", but after filling in the template it seemed to be saying that I was trying to change it to "Murray Paul Murray", or something.

How do I change my name to "Paul Murray"? (Paul.Murray is taken)

Pmurray bigpond.com 01:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You place an underscore ("_") between Paul and Murray, as in Paul_Murray. This will prevent the links from breaking. The system does not recognize usernames with underscores, so you will still be renamed to Paul Murray. Essjay (Talk) 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Access to MySQL database

Hello, I'm able to rename the users of my own wiki directly on the mysql database. Is this something I can do, or is this possible desastrous for database integrity? --81.246.180.212 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is something you would have to ask the developers of MediaWiki; you can find them in the IRC channel #mediawiki on the freenode network or on the mediawiki-l mailing list. Essjay (Talk) 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks Paul--81.246.161.35 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Usurpation and single login

1 - Raul654 renamed "Werdna648" to "Werdna", after he moved the original unused account "Werdna" to "Werdna old". Does this mean that usurpation of unused accounts can be done?
2 - I have heard about a new feature called "single login", which will permit account sharing between any version of wikipedia. What could happen if a username is controlled by two different users on two wikipedias (I am "Canderous" on it.wiki and there is an unused account "Canderous" here)?
— Canderous Ordo 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We avoid usurpations because the English-language Wikipedia currently does not have a policy addressing the subject. We are to work on this policy, but, coincidentally enough, we are waiting to see what things will be like when the single login is implemented. I don't know the circumstances of the rename carried out by Raul, but most likely the two accounts renamed belonged to the same person. When that's the case, the owner needs only to authorize the renaming of the two accounts.
As for the single login and same-name accounts in different projects, it is expected that the accounts with less edits will loose the username to the account with the most edits. But things could still change, there should be substantial preparation for this to happen, in order to minimize problems. Redux 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An additional note on this: The policy of most bureaucrats is to not perform Usurptions because there is no policy or framework for doing so. (There is a proposal, however.) That does not prevent individual bureaucrats from performing usurptions if they feel there is good cause for doing so; the use of bureaucrat tools has always been based on consensus and discretion, and continues to be so. The vast majority of the active bureaucrats doing namechanges (and I'm defining active as those who do several a week, as opposed to one every six months or so) ascribe to the "no usurptions without a policy" guideline. There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and have generally been done by bureaucrats who are less active with their bureaucrat access. Essjay (Talk) 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk archive

Posts here get archived before they are read. A five day retention time is a little short for a page that gets only a few topics per month, don't you think? Femto 12:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really; I check the page daily, and I'm under the impression that Nichalp does as well, and Redux is fairly quick to respond. Is there a particular comment you can point to that was archived without being read? Essjay (Talk)

I mean not the question wasn't read, but the answer. Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 2#names with spaces asked me again. This page presumably gets its fair share of new users with only a few dozen edits and several days between making contributions. We shouldn't expect them to come back and go digging through the talkpage archives (some may only recently have learned what a talkpage is in the first place). No harm in keeping the topics visible a little longer for those who might otherwise just assume their question was inappropriate and has been removed for some reason. Femto 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll increase the date size, though more topics generally = less likely to be read, so hopefully the tradeoff will be worth it. Essjay (Talk) 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New template

Hi. Given that it is becoming relatively common for us to see requests where the user did use the template, but made one or more mistakes that normally result in the links not being usable, I've created {{Template incorrect}} for a quick response to those — since {{No template}} doesn't apply exactly to those cases. Cheers, Redux 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I usually just fix them and go on; it's usually a case of forgetting to sub _ for spaces. Essjay (Talk) 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's if the underscore is the only problem. I created the template after handling several requests where the requester misspelled their own username (usually capitalization, but also cases of users inverting the position of two letters), and also cases where the user attempted to copy and paste the links from someone else's request and adapt them, which resulted in mistakes that rendered the template useless for us. We might consider removing the reference I wrote into the new template about forgetting the underscore, and only use it if it's one of the cases I've just described. Redux 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; I haven't seen many of the other cases, but yes, this is good for them. With the RFCU clerks now helping out with the page, we should have less of the underscore problem. Essjay (Talk) 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Just an FYI, there is now a new checkbox to automatically move user's user/talk pages, and it is checked by default. Since many users do not want their pages moved (since thier requests were privacy related), I'm setting my .js to uncheck it by default; anyone else who would like the code is welcome to it. I would advise others to only use it if they are sure the user wants the move. Essjay (Talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An idea: we could adapt the template, including a new line for the user to fill out as "yes" or "no". Something like: "Move User and talk pages:". In the template, the user would write "yes" or "no". If they forget, the default answer would be "no". For the sake of aesthetics, this should maybe come before the "reason" field, so that the requester's signature would continue to come attached to the rationale? Redux 16:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Colors make page hard to read

The colored parts of this page are hard to read. The red background of the instructions box makes it hard to read, and the part you copy is supposes to be gray, but it isnt'. - Peregrinefisher 10:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Humm, I see the gray box in gray. Maybe this has something to do with your browser, possibly the "options" section on the "tools" menu? As far as the colors, we had no choice: we need to call attention to the instructions. Too many people were posting requests without reading them, which results in delays for them and more time spent by the Bureaucrats to handle requests that could be dealt with more efficiently. Redux 16:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation

After many months of discussion and consensus building, and an intensive month-long campaign to raise awareness and involve as many interested parties as possible, I have taken the stop of declaring that consensus has been reached to adopt Wikipedia:Usurpation. As such, I have created Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations as a draft of the process for making such requests; I have also created two templates to be used for doing so. I encourage the others who are active on this page (and would presumably be active there as well) to take a careful look at it and see if I have missed anything or if there are any features we should incorporate. I'm sure that approximately a month from now we will all be quite busy with the first round of usurpations. Essjay (Talk) 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerks

I am posting a request to join the clerks at Wikipedia:Changing username. I'd appreciate feedback as soon as possible - I'd like to get down to participating in Wikipedia in a new way quite quickly.

Regards,
Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are currently sufficient clerks to manage the load. However, if you wish to become a clerk you may add your name here and you may be asked to join us when there is a need. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting name change.

Hi, Webapp (talk • contribs) has requested a name change on his talk page, but can't make the request because an indefinite block. One of the reasons for the block is an inapprorpiate user name (it corresponds to the name of a software product). The other reason listed by the blocking admin is advertising as related to the creation of multiple WebApp articles and the subsequent AfD process (see Out of control AFD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebAPP). Some questions were raised that indicate a check user might be appropriate for the various participants. At any rate, if the indefinite block was mainly for the user name, then someone should work with the user to have it changed. If the other activity is sufficient to merit an indefinite block, then it would be helpful for someone to explain that to the user. I suggested to the user that the only way he was likely to be unblocked was if he promised to stay away from editing anything to do with the WebAPP product he is affiliated with. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

Something should be done with the way archiving is now handled. If the user requests a username change out of the privacy concerns having the original request stored forever in archives defeats the very purpose of the action. Could such requests be deleted? 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the request wouldn't serve much purpose. Every username change is logged in the user rename log. If privacy is the main concern, the best solution would be to simply create a new username from which to edit. The edits from the previous account wouldn't be attributed to the new account, so they'd be no link between the two. SuperMachine 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing usernames over privacy is one of the primary purposes we process username requests. As a matter of design, username changes are recorded in the mediawiki log, however, they offer a degree of security and help the user in the "right to vanish" should they wish to disassociate themselves from past accounts. Blocks still stay as does the edit history, but it offers a new face or mask to the editor, and unless someone looks deeply they won't find the connection. Of course, the best way to ensure privacy is to simply create a new account, but changing a username is a compromise for those that don't want to lose their edit history. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedying a name change

User:Dirrtychristian was blocked for a WP:U violation. He requested to be unblocked so he could submit a request to have his username changed, which I honored (as did he). Is there a way to speed dirrtychristian → Dakilang_Isagani along, given the WP:U violation? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This process has, at least of late, been fairly backlogged. If the user is otherwise not creating any problems, I would allow the unblock to remain and let them edit as they always have, so long as the username change request is pending. If an admin blocks based on name violating WP:U, then unblock and direct them to WP:CHU where the username change request is being made. Just my suggestion... --Durin 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A backlog is perfectly fine (well, I mean, it isn't, but that's a fairly good reason). I'm not too worried about the user, I was just wondering if there was an express lane, for lack of a better term, for username changes that are being dictated by policy, rather than simple "I want a new name" cases. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, interesting idea -- the people you'd need to talk to would be the b'crats themselves, I figure. WP:BN? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

An express lane for these would probably be a good idea. Create a new section of this page perhaps where username violations go. I'd be more than happy to help out to speedy those through, whereas your average username change I just don't see the value to the project in. - Taxman ^Talk 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Noting an edit I made

Given what I'm told is a new feature that adds a checkbox to move all of the userpages belonging to a user being renamed, I've gone ahead and made this edit to the CHU header. Feel free to revert and get me with a cluebat if I shouldn't have done that. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about that one. A lot of people make privacy-related reqeusts, and don't want thier pages moved; my response was to use javascript to automatically uncheck the box. My feeling has always been, and continues to be, that you ought to be able to move your own userpage if you want to, and if you don't, we shouldn't be doing it for you. I'm sure someone requested this feature, or someone thought it would be useful, but when most of the requests I'm seeing specifically state privacy as the motivation, I'm not doing any default-moves. I'm not sure how exactly to phrase "Some bureacurats may move your pages, others will not." I would personally prefer a "move it yourself" policy, but perhaps a "state a preference, otherwise it will be left to the bureaucrat to decide" phrasing would work. Essjay (Talk) 06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm can we also add a parameter to the rename template that allows the user to specify if he wants to move his/her paages? (move=yes). =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be sufficient to ask the user to tag the pages {{db-owner}} if they get moved accidentally? -- nae'blis 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If thier concern is privacy, then it's one more log entry that points out who they used to be. The rename log isn't searchable by username (it is for bureaucrats, but not by the user who was renamed) so it's a big more of a chore to find them from that, but it's quite easy to check the page logs for pagemoves and find them. On the other hand, anybody getting a rename should have a nice "move" tab at the top of the page that lets them move the page if they want to. Essjay (Talk) 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the default should be to not move, then. -- nae'blis 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief

I suppose I have little license to complain as I am not involved in this process anymore, but the rules -- appearance as well as content -- are truly ridiculous. I see requests rejected due to imperfect formatting -- bureaucrats have so many Very Important Things to do that they cannot be bothered with a touch of intuition and a bit of copying and pasting, and user-friendliness be damned? You've got a clerk checking the history for you to ensure the requests are legitimate -- how hard can this be? It hardly takes more than a click and a glance. I congratulate those handling this page for going beyond the call of duty with regard to their titles; I wonder merely whether they have forgotten that the term 'bureaucrat' was originally chosen with tongue very much in cheek. — Dan | talk 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to aid the bureaucrats on the page because of late it has had some extensive backlogs. I've wanted to make it easier so bureaucrats keep up to date on it. Granted, it's a low priority area, but there are real users on the other end of these requests and not replying to them in a prompt manner is not beneficial to the project. --Durin 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another reason for a new 'crat, who will actually do the job and keep the backlog low in this area, no matter how "low" priority it is considered. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason for rejections based on formatting is because if we do not insist on proper formatting, users run amok on the page. With a year's experience as the main bureaucrat performing renames, I can say that it used to be a much more time consuming task, often taking several hours a day; it can now be done in a few minutes, but only because we insist that users follow the guidelines. We tried being lenient and what we got for it was a total lack of compliance whatsoever. I asked the Checkuser clerks to look over the page to reduce the number of requests rejected for formatting and other minor issues. As for the backlogs, those have been a result of too much helping; when the page is made unuseable by unhelpful "helping," it is unsurprising that the bureaucrats choose to stay away. We are, after all, not obligated to spend our time here; we do so out of the goodness of our hearts. If someone else would like to take over as the primary bureaucrat here, they may run the page as they like; it is run in the manner that it is because it is the manner that makes doing our jobs most efficient. I'd also like to note that the addition of someone else checking that the request was made by the user was not introduced by a clerk or a bureaucrat, and was not a requested action. Essjay (Talk) 08:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One reason you have bureaucrat status though is to rename users, and if you just stay away because of minor issues like formatting, nothing will ever get done. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We are volunteers here, just like everybody else. I don't have to do anything here at all, and neither does any other bureaucrat. Having been the main bureaucrat on this page for the past year, I have a pretty good standing for asserting what does or does not make this page work; when we don't insist that users follow the requested format, the task becomes extremely time consuming and wastes hours that could be used for other purposes. We tried various different techniques, including making the changes for users, and placing large notices on the top of the page, to no avail. It was only when we begain rejecting requests that didn't comply with the format that users began doing as they were asked. Requesting that users fill out a template is not too much to ask in exchange for us spending countless hours of our time performing these requests. Essjay (Talk) 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know we are all volunteers, but as I said if you don't do it, no one will. I believe that in requesting bureaucratship you actually want to do these things, and by saying you don't have to do anything is a little backminded. Sure, you don't have to do anything, but then why are you a bureaucrat? You've been granted the extra right to change usernames, but if you no longer enjoy it, step down and let someone else who wants to help out, no matter what (that isn't a request by the way, I think you do a decent job. I'm just concerned by the lack of any enthusiasm for your role.) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you hadn't thought that all the way through when you posted it, and offer the opportunity to revise. Otherwise, I expect I'll see talk page postings making the same statement to all the illustrious users listed here. You've just painted a lot of very respected people with the "you don't care about your job" brush, including a number of stewards and a former member of the Board of Trustees. Essjay (Talk) 11:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I apologise if I offended you in any way, the comment was not made to be an attack or anything, it's just my view on this. I'm just sick and tired of being told we don't need anymore bureaucrats, when I know of a perfectly good candidate who will sit back and get the job done without a fuss, yet will get opposed in an RfB for "we don't need anymore". Clearly we do, you point me to the active bureaucrats, but I personally wouldn't call them all active. Clearly, no matter how much I complain, nothing will ever change, and so nothing will ever get done. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your disillusioned by the RFB process, but there's little we as bureaucrats can do. The RFB is determined by the community, and the "backlog" (RFA, renames, bot changes) can hardly be called as one. 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how difficult it is to copy a template, replace the parameters and save the page. It's one of the most simple things to do on wikipedia. If a simple thing like that cannot be done, we aren't expected to spoon-feed them. I've come across an instance where I renamed a candidate but it turned out that it was not the name he wanted. Investigating, it turned out to be that he had erred on the title of the request vs the requested name. With the template that eliminates this. Yet we see people blissfully copying others' requests with the danger of getting renamed to another account and creating a royal mess. We do close to 150 renames per month, and each case involves checking the account and checking the request. End result, use the template or your request will be delayed. We have strict rules for putting up a correctly formatted RFA, I don't see why we can't be a tad strict here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The job does get done here, when we're left alone to do it. There are a dedicated corps of users who have volunteered and been vetted to be clerks for RFCU, and when I asked them to come here and help keep this page clean, they did so without any question, just as they always have. When the clerks are left to do thier jobs, they do them, and when the bureaucrats are left to do our jobs, we do them. This page only experiences backlogs when others who aren't active here come in and complain about the way the page is run, and interfere with it's operation. My take on users who are unhappy with the way I do things is to give them the opportunity to do it instead; when there is criticism of the way I and the other active bureaucrats run this page, or others interfere with the administration of it, then I step back and leave it to them to do. That the users who do this most frequently are not bureaucrats and can't perform the renames causes a backlog. Take a look at the history and notice how everything goes smoothly, then someone interferes, and a backlog forms. When they stop interfering, the backlog goes away, and stays away unless they interfere again. Notice how the page hasn't been backlogged in the past week or so, and notice how that coincides with the bureaucrats and clerks being left alone to do thier jobs. From my vantage point, the solution to the occasional backlogging of this page is for others to stop interfering with it being done, at which time it will be done without any fuss. Essjay (Talk) 12:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself am on the waiting list of clerks, and I look forward to helping out here, if needed. Thanks for your response, and being so patient with my annoyance =) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a huge deal, really; my statement was aimed more to those who interfere on the page itself, rather than users who raise issues here. Essjay (Talk) 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My contributions here

I have been contributing to WP:CHU since September of 2006, and reading it since well before then. I have made every attempt to be helpful and to aid the process by which people go through name changes. Today, I was informed by User:Essjay that my contributions here are unwanted, frustrating, causing substantial delays in the change username process, and have caused resignations among the clerk corps. I have been specifically and directly asked by Essjay to leave WP:CHU.

In my defense, I had no knowledge there was any clerk corps helping in this area of the project. It was not until February 15, 2007 that any change was made to this page to indicate that there is, in fact, a clerk corps [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Front_matter&diff=108297399&oldid=108031316. I readily admit that I do not read /front matter every day that I come here (and it has been most days since September). Thus, I did not see the notice that there were clerks here and had little way of knowing that there was in fact such a corps of users helping here. What I have seen is a process that is periodically backlogged, and I had hoped that my efforts here helped both the bureaucrats and the users requesting changes. For a user to make a request and receive silence for many days strikes me as poor service to our users and I felt my contributions helped to close that gap a bit.

I have seen that some users have been putting "clerk note" type annotations before their remarks here, and thought it odd. I re-checked at the time to be sure there was no official clerk status here, and found none. I grant that I should have raised the issue with someone, perhaps a bureaucrat, and did not. For that I erred.

I apologize for any disruption I made to this page. However, it was done in good faith with every intention of helping. --Durin 14:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User rights logs

Are others aware that user rights logs apparently do not transfer when a username is changed? So that we get, for example, this when a sysop requests a username change. Is this a problem? Should a bug request be filed? Chick Bowen 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should probably be filed, if it hasn't already. It may, however, be an issue like block logs; the block log of a user isn't moved with a rename because (as I understand it) of the way the data is stored. Titoxd was able to expound on the reasons that block logs aren't moved, so he may be a good choice to comment on this. Essjay (Talk) 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously falls under the same problems as this bug. I've added a note there, but I'm not sure this is going anywhere. Chick Bowen 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Contributors here may wish to see Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Its current location: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Clerks. — Athænara ✉ 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New and shiny Template:CHU

Hi there. I've created a new and (hopefully) useful template for assistance of this page, or rather took the three already existing ones and squeezed them into one, {{CHU}}. See that page for instructions, and feel free to modify, criticise and use it. :) --Conti|✉ 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Abandoning one username and starting anew with another

I just posted some advice to a user who is considering abandoning his/her username and starting anew with another. I wanted to point him/her to a policy or guideline that (a) says this is perfectly okay if it's not done to evade blocks or potential blocks (where there are a lot of warnings accumulated), and (b) lists a few details on how best to do this - changing the password in such a way that the account no longer can be used, cancelling subscriptions for such things as the Signpost, etc. But I'm unaware of such a policy or guideline.

So, first question: is this subject covered in an existing a policy or guideline? Second - if not, is there some reason not to do so? Third, assuming the answer to the second question is "no", then where is the best place to put such information - here? At Wikipedia: Username policy? At WP:SOCK]? (If worse comes to worse, I suppose an essay would have to suffice.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a set policy, but if the user wants to start afresh and turn over a new leaf, then by all means allow him/her or her to do so. I think this could be better debated in the username policy page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Question re: changing user names

I'm not looking to change user names myself, but I am curious - what happens with a user's block record when they change names? That part of the history seems to get "left behind", at least with the usurped changes, and (presumably) eventually deleted. Could this pose a problem for future reference purposes? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that gets erased. I'm not sure if a bug request was logged. Something is mentioned in the page archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard it is left behind to give users a semi-fresh start. --Matthew.

I don't think that's really good. It should travel with them. If it can't than the b'crat should issue a 1 second block saying something like "User has 3 previous blocks." --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is being debated on Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly sometimes a reason to change usernames. It's also part of the original interest in right to vanish... good that the discussion moved there. As long as this isn't being abused by a user, it's not unreasonable to allow it. +sj + 07:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Overwritten request

I notice that someone back in September made a username change request, but his request was overwritten by another user. What happened there? I see no sign that the guy's request was dealt with. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that quite a while ago- these days there are enough people watching these boards that it shouldn't happen. As to whether the request was ever dealt with, presumably the user would have returned to check why he hadn't been renamed and asked on the talkpage or posted his request again. If you want the definitive answer as to whether the rename was ever done you could search Special:Log/renameuser but as Special:listusers has a User:Rickett but no User:Amnesia Moon I guess it wasn't. WjBscribe 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EChanging_username_Archive_2_4a02.html"

Category: Wikipedia talk archives

Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Deleting previous username

Ridiculous!

Rename problem

Jabberwock

Something's gone wrong

Is this possible?

Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames

New template

My username

[Question about resolving a heck of a username mess]

I think I am up a creek

Double name change

Not Off Topic

'Once fulfilled'

Signature

Barnstar

Changing username on commons.wikimedia.org

Reducing number of requests

format

VoABot

Question about changing user names

Unfulfilled/2006/August?

{{Welcome Email}}

Change in structure of fulfilled archives

Bot-generated links

Bot-generated links

User accounts

Username Change Template

{{subst:ucfirst:Example}} → {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}}

Interwiki

Archiving

Interwiki

Archiving

Alternatives Above or Below?

Username Change Template

{{subst:ucfirst:Example}} → {{subst:ucfirst:Elpmaxe}}

names with spaces

Access to MySQL database

Usurpation and single login

Talk archive

New template

Page moves

Colors make page hard to read

Usurpation

Clerks

Blocked user requesting name change.

Privacy concerns

Speedying a name change

Noting an edit I made

Good grief

My contributions here

User rights logs

Relevant discussion

New and shiny Template:CHU

Abandoning one username and starting anew with another

Question re: changing user names

Overwritten request

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search