Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 2

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.

Archive 1

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:

(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:

Example → Elpmaxe

Current name: Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
Requested name: Elpmaxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
For global renamer: rename user
Datestamp: ~~~~~
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

Example → Elpmaxe

Current name: Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
Requested name: Elpmaxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
For global renamer: rename user
Datestamp: ~~~~~
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)

Effect on Talk Pages / Signatures

Thanks for processing my name change so quickly!

One thing though. Correct me if I'm wrong: Clicking through my contributions, it looks like all the edit histories have been rewritten per the name change; but when I look at my talkpage posts & other places where I signed with a "~~~~", it looks like the old username is still there unless I go back & change it manually.

Looking through the talk archives here, it seems like that's what's supposed to happen, and I guess it makes sense technically. However, it's not particularly clear from the text on the project page. (from reading the "notes", I actually thought for a bit that changing my sig in "preferences' would change all of them.) I think an item in the "what the change does" or "notes" section that makes this more clear would be fabulous. Thanks again. --Turangalila (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I only got the first part of your question. Yes, the links to the username will remain as is since it is hard coded at the time of posting. Could you post a reworked phrase here just so that we know what you propose? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I got fuzzy there. Basically I thought maybe the instructions on the main page here could be clearer, to help the technically illiterate like moi. In particular, these passages:

(under INSTRUCTIONS: Effects of a username change) ...All edits and other user data from your old account...will have been reattributed to your new account...
(under Notes) Please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~~~~.

...had me thinking that sigs on talk pages would be changed automatically along with everything else. I realize now how dopey that probably sounds to an experienced editor. But for folks w/ privacy concerns -- changing from their real name, etc. -- It might be good to point it out explicitly. Maybe there could be a bullet point in the Instructions (or Notes) with text like:

Be Aware: This change will NOT effect signatures you have ALREADY left on talk pages, or other places where you signed your username with ~~~~. Those pages will continue to display your old username unless they are edited manually.

That's just an example. I'm guessing someone higher on the food chain than me should make any actual edit :-) --Turangalila (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Valid point. I believe that note was under another section titled "alternatives" or something like that. Someway down the line it was moved to notes. Go ahead with the edits. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Change made as above- also clarified the point in notes about signature changing to say that it is an alternative being proposed. WjBscribe 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Man you guys are fast! --Turangalila (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of username

I would just like to get a view of how appropriate it would be for me to change my username to User:Susan for a month to see the difference that female admins get when dealing with vandals and abusive contributors, I fully understand if this isn't appropriate, but think it would be a very valuable study. Regards Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The account already exists, but can be usurped. But should we go through the process of notification and waiting? What about Susan[#]. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds fascinating, Ryan (seeing as I somehow volunteered you :) ). Do you intend to write this up as an essay? It would make fascinating reading ... - Alison^☺ 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also that there's nothing in WP:U to prevent you from doing this. It's just a little naughty, is all. I'm not sure how I'm going to react or keep a straight face when you get called some of the things I recently have. That should be interesting. - Alison^☺ 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If permissible, I note that a usurpation filed today would likely be completed on April 1st. WjBscribe 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

After giving a lot of thought to this, I don't think usurption for me to write an essay is a valid use of process so I would like to use an original name. Could you clerks give me an idea of which username is acceptable? Special:Listusers is giving me a few problems at present. Here's the list; User:Anna, User:Hayley, User:Adele, User:Cara, User:Claire, User:Clare, User:Christine..... any other suggestions would be welcomed! I plan to request a username change as soon as an acceptable one is found Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing Usernames more than 1 time

Hi. Is it possible for me to change my username for more than 1 time? — ze ro » 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no policy that prevents this. It's important, however, that you provide a detailed reason for your requesting another change when making the request. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Honda Pilot, inappropriate?

I probably don't have enough experience with this to make the call. Is Honda Pilot (talk · contribs) an inappropriate username per WP:U because it "match[es] the name or a trademark of a well-known company or groups"? "Honda Pilot" is certainly a Honda trademark, but I don't know if it's realistically a confusing or misleading username. If it is a violation, is it sufficient to add something to the name, like "Honda Pilot fan", so that it no longer actually matches? I said that I think it's still a problem because it contains the trademark, but the user brought up the example of Hondasaregood (talk · contribs), a well-established user with a company name in his user name. TomTheHand 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I post an RFC for this? I've always felt that those were sort of a "I think this user should change names, but they won't, so please force them" deal. This user is willing to change but wants to know what would be an appropriate change. I figured that since the bureaucrats are the ones who make the change they might be the best ones to ask about what an appropriate change would be. TomTheHand 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Honda Pilot Fan is okay, but Honda Pilot isn't. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Change username and keep signature

I'd like to change my user name (the one I log in with) but keep the signature the same (the one four tilde's produce). Is that possible? Thanks JBEvans 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get your question completely. If you change your username, your usename will be changed (ie J. Bryant Evans will be renamed to something else, and the name in a history of a page will reflect that. Your signature will continue to remain the same. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia:Username policy

This page needs a sentence that all proposed usernames must comply with Wikipedia:Username policy. The first para would be ideal. I'd do it myself but I can't work out where the /front matter template is.. Secretlondon 16:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the note: PS This might be useful: Wikipedia:Changing username/Front matter in th future. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! I was presuming it had [[Template: ]] in somewhere. Secretlondon 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On MediaWiki

I am an administrator on a MediaWiki wiki, and is it possible to change a user's username easily? 71.191.100.99 16:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (Hangfromthefloor)

You need to install the Renameuser extension on your MediaWiki. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What counts as too close to another username?

What counts as too close to another username? this doesn't really help. Are we to presume that people won't be allowed to fix their capitalisation by making a new account? Is this in mediawiki release notes anywhere? Secretlondon 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is true I believe. I think it was recently mentioned in WP:POST. I'm not too sure which archive, somewhere in January or February perhaps. I wouldn't be knowing the technical details on what fuzzy logic they use to determine what is considered to be close. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives searchable by google?

I've been asked whether the completed renames archives are searchable by google. I don't know but I suspect so - anyone know for sure? Secretlondon 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the archives are but the logs aren't- I'm not sure though. It might be worth asking at WP:VPT. WjBscribe 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

VOABot

VOABot seems to be repeatedly archiving the unfilled requests without removing them from this page.. Secretlondon 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into that. Voice-of-All 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still being strange. It's not archiving them all. It's just archived 1 completed request when we have about 10. What does it go on? Is there anything we should be doing to help? Secretlondon 09:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot is still not removing some from the page. We have multiples in unfulfilled and I've just manually archived loads. Secretlondon 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

VOABot is removing some (not all) of the completed requests but isn't actually putting them anywhere. We have had no additions to the completed archive since early April. Secretlondon 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported here. Our archiving is currently broken. Secretlondon 12:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User log

Never noticed this until today. It doesn't really matter, but when you get your account name changed and your account was created after they started logging account creation, the links in the user log that come with account creation still go to your old account. (See the bottom entry here and see where the wikilinks go). By the way, is there a way to wikilink the log of a specific user instead of giving the http address? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to the below message. Prodego ^talk 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How long between name changes?

How long do you have to wait in order to request another username change? ↔ ^tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 02:55:09, Friday, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on why you are requesting another name change. Secretlondon 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Google indexing of the archives

Currently google indexes the archives so if you rename yourself for privacy reasons your renaming request (and, say, your real name) can be found with google. I've raised at the technical village pump and been told that we need to have a discussion about it and if that is in favour then the developers may add the renaming archives to robots.txt. User:WJBscribe raised the similar User:NoSeptember/admin username changes so I suggest we consider them together.

One major issue may be that our search function has been considerably out of date/suspended for performance reasons so it's not that uncommon for people to use google to search within wikipedia. However if you make an account with your real name and asked to be renamed for privacy reasons googling for your real name will bring up your new alias. What do we think? Secretlondon 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense to allow local wikis to edit their own robots.txt file at MediaWiki:Robots.txt or whatever so we don't have to ask the developers every time we need to disallow Google indexing of some part of the site? (I have no idea whether this is technically feasible). Kusma (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-register the old name

If the old name is totally removed from the database during a rename, it becomes available to be registered. Should the user be instructed to re-register the old name to prevent impersonation? Should the old name be registered for them? WODUP 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to register the former username: Let's assume that User:Foo changes username to User:Bar and redirects User: and User talk:Foo to User: and User talk:Bar so that anyone who clicks on their old signature will be redirected to their current userpages.

Someone else then registers User:Foo and replaces the user and user talk page redirects with their own content. Any signatures left by the former User:Foo will now point to the new User:Foo, not be redirected to the correct page, User:Bar.

Also, I did find Wikipedia_talk:Changing username/Archive 1#Blocking old username in the archive, but that discussion is more than a year and a half old. WODUP 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We used to create the old username and then block it. We don't do that anymore. Secretlondon 10:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. In the archived discussion, User:Warofdreams asked if there was any purpose to this instruction. No one came up with one, so that instruction was removed. I think that either the old name should be recreated for the user or the user should be instructed to recreate it themselves. Any ideas or objections? WODUP 22:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though I'll need more than just no objections. Please, let's see if there is or would be a consensus to change the process to again recreate the old names in all or some circumstances. WODUP 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. If I change my username, I can request that my old name be re-registered (or do it myself)? Rocksong 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. That would prevent the confusion and impersonation described above. WODUP 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Block log

It's been brought up on my userpage that blocklogs don't move with usernames. If we look at the renaming of User:Deathrocker to User:Daddy Kindsoul the user's very extensive block history does not seem to have been moved at the same time.

It's been suggested that this is intentional and that we are giving users a new start. However I think this is a bug and impairs an admin's judgement on how long a block to issue. Currently we are very liberal with regards to renaming but I think we need to be more cautious when the username has a block history.

Would it be possible to have a link to a users block history in the standard template? I think we need to draw up a 'guideline' on how we deal with this - I suggest that we don't rename if they have recently been unblocked. If they have been blocked in the past we look for reformed behaviour. Right to vanish issues are treated separately. What do people think? Secretlondon 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't intentional, it is due to the fact that 'miser mode' is on at enwiki, which is designed to conserve server use. With this on, the Renameuser extention does not reattribute logs, deleted revisions (which is why some edits can magically reappear under an old name), ect. As for the actual question, no comment. :) Prodego ^talk 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be moved. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But that will adversely affect the performance of the site. We keep getting error messages as it is.. Secretlondon 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Known issue. See Bug 7011, and hopefully try to persuade a dev to adopt my patch. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well it wasn't known by us (well me anyway). This issue (and the change to not allow new accounts to be created if they have a name similar to a current account) affect how we work. It would be really good if this sort of thing was passed onto us. I certainly don't work on wikipedia full time and don't have time to follow the mailing lists. The status quo doesn't scale, if nothing else. Secretlondon 02:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than retro-fitting the block logs to display historical anachronisms (blocking users who didn't exist at that time), we should ask our bureaucrats to exercise greater discretion in refusing users whom they feel are not in sufficiently good standing. For example, consider a blanket refusal to rename any user whose editing is formally restricted by the arbitration committee, then maybe a judgment call for those who've been blocked within the past 90 days, etc., etc.

Under the current name-change system, and with the block log modification patch, if I wanted to purge my own block log to remove the embarrassing error by my fellow admin User:W.marsh, I could request to be renamed to User:Freak 2.0, then re-register as myself and make no edits as I wait for Tito's proposed patch to take effect, then claim my account had been briefly compromised and say I'd like to usurp this impostor and be renamed back to my former name. Result: I'm clean, I still have 35,000 edits under my original name, and my block log has been shipped to Bumfuck, Egypt. Ten bucks says nobody here would even raise an eyebrow. —freak(talk) 15:40, Apr. 27, 2007 (UTC)

Your example seems a little far fetched and could only happen once as it takes into account the changes caused by Titoxd's patch. "blocking users who didn't exist at that time" - they did exist of course, but under a different name. It's the same account with the same edits - it just has a different name. We need an easy way of seeing if these people are restricted by the arbitration committee - is there a list somewhere we can cross reference? We need the block log bringing up in the template as a minimum. Secretlondon 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All of that assumes that my patch will be adopted, and you are more optimistic about that than I am... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The current name-change system impairs an admin's judgement on how long a block to issue. I agree that there should be a blanket refusal to rename any user whose editing is formally restricted by the Arbitration Committee or facing ArbCom santions, and a judgment call for those users who've been recently blocked, etc., etc. Is there any official policy regarding this? LionheartX 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More log issues

The fact that a user has been previously renamed doesn't occur in the logs. Look at this user:

Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They have been renamed twice and were asking to be renamed a third time. (but didn't tell us this). Looking at the logs of the third name there is no easy way to see that they used to be the other two. This not only doesn't allow us to spot renaming addicts it also masks the block history of the older names. This is really broken.. Secretlondon 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could a bot be written to check through the rename archives and points it out as when someone asks for a rename? Also, maybe a change to the rename software to move block logs over? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Same issue, same patch as the block log problem above. The problem is that you need to persuade Brion about this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've left a comment on the bug saying that it's causing us problems. As Brion had previously closed it as WONTFIX I'm not very hopeful. Secretlondon 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We discussed the wontfix that same day, and got him thinking... he admits it is not an ideal outcome, but he is not sure what to do about it. There's the issue of log accuracy on one hand, and the issue of account accuracy in the other. What happens is that there is no solid answer [yet] about whether the logs should stay with the username or with the account. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename template

This doesn't work if I'm using the secure login which I'm going to be in future. It is hardcoded to the insecure URL.. I don't want to have to login to the insecure server to exercise my 'crat powers. Secretlondon 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To give an example - this page is currently https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username. Mavrs is at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1&username=Mavrs but change username goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ARenameuser&oldusername=Marovich&newusername=Mavrs on the insecure server (which tells me I'm not logged in and I need 'crat powers to do that) Secretlondon 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added links to the renames template so they can be done from secure login. I'll do the usurpation requests in a bit... WjBscribe 21:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Secretlondon 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think given the way Template:Usurp is coded it should work for you from the secure login without any changes. WjBscribe 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish

I've been assisting a friend of mine by removing references to his former identity. Am I allowed to remove his namechange request? Thanks,--Rambutan (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - as long as you say it's under "right to vanish" in the summary (to stop people reverting as vandalism) Secretlondon 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Password

I apologize for this being out of place, but I wasn't sure where else to ask about this. I recently logged out, but I've forgotten my password (I changed it recently based on the password strength bulliten), and was wondering how I could recover it? 69.157.3.88 20:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you set an email address? Did you store it in your browser? If not - you're probably screwed.. (I think) Secretlondon 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue with the user on my talk page (yes, he's screwed). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new account. Thank you anyway. The Clawed One 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also,I've entered an email into my new profile and it says I've authenticated it. This means that, if I lose the password this time around, I can have it emailed to me. The Clawed One 21:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Security

Are user names changed involuntarily? There are some "names" that are blatant privacy violations. There shouldn't be any reason names like "***** lives in Portland, 5678 Beaverton Hillsdale Highway." — MichaelLinnear 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is the place to report them. Secretlondon 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More renaming fun

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard has the following for those who don't watch it: "I hope this is the right place to bring this up. I have User:Severa's page on my watchlist. She recently got a message saying that an article she had created had been tagged for speedy deletion. The article was called Bronze rule. It has now been deleted. She said that she had not created and never touched that article. The person who notified her then said it has been created by User:Kyd, and that Kyd's page redirected to hers.

Severa then updated her user page to say that her name was originally Kyd, but was changed to Severa in March 2006. I looked it up and found it was changed to Severa on 25 March 2006 by Nichalp. I can't link to the log, because I don't know how to get a log that just says that and nothing else. (I found it by going through the rename logs, 500 at a time, and using "find" on my browser when I got to March 2006.)

The new user Kyd registered an account on 11 May 2007. At the moment, there is nothing showing in the contributions of the new Kyd, as the Bronze rule article has been deleted. Regardless, it seems that registering a new account with someone's old name should not be possible, as a good user's name could become linked with vandalism.

Should the new Kyd be gently asked to change user name? ElinorD (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

This feeds into the "shall we block after renaming" issue and the crappy logs problem.. Secretlondon 16:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We could just leave a note encouraging people to re-register their old accounts themselves? WjBscribe 16:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

*/clears throat/* Either that or go back to having the bureaucrats or some other volunteers recreate the old name. WODUP 07:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an entirely different issue with the software. There is no way to currently check for deleted edits, and in fact, this is a problem with every single usurpation performed. We assume that Special:Contributions lists all edits, but it doesn't, as it does not query the archive table. While there is Extension:DeletedContributions that deals with this, I have no idea whether the recent schema changes allow it to be enabled here. I'll go find out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, not really... the index needed to make this efficient on a Wikipedia-sized site needs to be added. The best recourse would be for several users to bring the issue up in wikitech-l. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU clerk

Would anyone have any problems with me becoming a clerk here? I've got an interest in the username policy so I would like to help out it possible. No problem if you don't need the help. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier! You don't apply as much as just muck in! Secretlondon 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, totally informal. Just add your name to Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance which also contains the basics on how to help out. Feel free to ask me any questions... WjBscribe 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

<Ryan hangs his head in shame> Sorry for posting on the main page, please pass me my dunce hat! Anyway, thanks a lot for the help, I'll muck in from tomorrow (if I'm a pain, you know where I am :-) ) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I will gladly say welcome :) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the cabal. ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

I think we should add something to the instructions like "If we have a question we will reply here. If you do not reply after x days we will close your request.". This might deal with the hanging requests. Secretlondon 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here meaning this talk page, or meaning under the request itself? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the request (ie not on the users talk page) Secretlondon 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New templates

Hi guys, I've created a couple of template if anyone wants to use them that can be placed on user talk pages if requests have been malformed.

{{CHUuser}} - this is if a user requests a new username that is already taken but suitable for usurpation.
{{CHUuser2}} - this is if the user requests a new username that is taken and not suitable for usurpation.

Obviously, ignore them if you want to! Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These are great. What does the <noinclude> do as it appeared at the end of the template (the 2nd one) when I used it.. Secretlondon 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Hehehehehehehe to see what I mean. Secretlondon 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what the problem was - my poor ability to create templates! Oh well....I've fixed them both now so hopefully they should work (fingers crossed!). Ryan Postlethwaite 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot again

The bot appears not to be archiving rejected requests - well not removing them from the page anyway. Secretlondon 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to Voice of All, the problem should be fixed. WjBscribe 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template Creation

I've been keeping an eye on this page recently and have noticed multiple requests here users have not used the template for requesting username change, I left Note: Message here on them but maybe we could consider creating a template for this matter, I have only tagged two but I've actually seen more like that, any thoughts? Regards The Sunshine Man 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just fix the templates for them. No reason to add extra bureaucracy... WjBscribe 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What templates? The Sunshine Man 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One Question

You aren't allowed to copy someone else's reason word-for-word are you? Because that's what J. Bright did with my reason...Just a question :) Gargoyle123 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello all :) I've created a new template: {{Bcratbacklog}} because when User:Nichalp or User:Secretlondon are not around; the main changing username page gets pretty badly backlogged, it categorises into Category:Bureaucratic backlog which is similar Category:Administrative backlog, feel free to improve it or comment. Regards --The Sunshine Man 10:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its a bad idea. There are only three areas the crats need to look at and this is a particularly non-urgent pages. I don't think hastling the crats to help out here will be productive and might have the opposite effect. WjBscribe 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that template is very useful either. If there's a particular process in need of attention, a quick poke at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard is usually better. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete completed requests

Some of the requests for username changes are being requested due to privacy concerns... can we delete these when they are completed? if the requests are kept then it defeats the purpose of the change, which is to seek anonymity.

Unfortunately there are always going to permanent records of renames on Wikipedia in the rename logs. Those are not searchable by google. Steps are being taken to do the same for the archives (though they have a very low google profile anyway). There is a warning at the top of the page to this effect: "Your request will be moved to the archives and the change will appear in the user rename log in the interest of transparency. There is no provision for renaming accounts without logging the change." Those who cannot have even this link between accounts need to create new accounts rather than ask for renaming. WjBscribe 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The archives are a different issue, though, and that one can be discussed. Unlogged renames may come in the future, as part of bitfields for rev_deleted, but don't hold your breath on it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming previously blocked users (again)

It's been suggested (as part of the User:Azerbaijani rename) that after we rename an acount with a block history we should block the new account for 1 second with the reason being a link to the old blocklog. This means that an admin can see the link to the old name's block history and that persistant offenders don't appear to have a clean slate. I've just done this on UserPeterm1991 to User:Shadyaftrmathgunit so that their two month old blocks were kept. I don't know if this is something we should be doing regularly for old blocks but I thought I'd flag it up. Secretlondon 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea but I don't know if this should become an automatic part of the process. As renames are discretionary, perhaps crats could suggest to particular users on reviewing their request that they will only perform a requested rename if the user agrees to such an entry in their block log? WjBscribe 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WjB. I think I also agreed on this before. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

VOABot (again)

It looks like VOABot isn't archiving rejected requests. Secretlondon 15:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll talk to Voice of All. One of the problems is that the lag on removing not done requests is quite long (so I'm never sure if VOABot is broken or just hasn't done it yet). How long do you think rejcted requests should stay up - both here and at WP:CHU/U? WjBscribe 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good deed for the day

I've recently been discussing a former change request with Mindys12345 (talk · contribs) who had a proposed name change to Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs) rejected, seemingly on account of a block in his log and some racist, or at least tasteless, userspace issues. I'm still making my mind up about the user and haven't extensively checked his edits - in other words, I don't "vouch" for him - but on the surface he seems to be a dedicated contributor. After being denied the change he created AdamJ.W.C. (talk · contribs) and tried to rather clumsily intertwine the two accounts. I've sorted out the double account thing to some extent, although he still edits as Mindys12345 but has his signature as "AdamJWC". I've also advised him to place a note on his talkpage explaining why his proposed change was rejected and why his sig and UN are different. Anyway, the question I think he would like to know the answer to: given good behaviour and clear evidence of sustained, positive contributions, could he conceivably be allowed a username change? Deiz talk 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes certainly. We can't merge accounts of course - but we could move one out of the way if needed. Secretlondon 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkey business

Please note that after The Sunshine Man requested a name change to User:Qmt, someone created the account and made one edit. Likewise with 5minuteautoloan and Neo6486. Maybe others. I suggest bad faith, and these accounts should be usurped. Thatcher131 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour

Firstly, see AN/I thread. As said there, it appears that someone is intentionally monitoring the rename requests and creating the accounts which have been requested to be renamed to and then making an edit under than account so it makes it impossible to rename or for the account to be usurped. Earlier today, I requested a rename change from The Sunshine Man to Qmt and the account was created approximately three hours ago and an edit made to the userpage making it impossible to rename or usurp. Above my request on the main CHU page, User:Bealljoh had made a request to be renamed too 5minuteautoloan - this too did not exist until earlier today, however luckily for that user the account has not made an edit so it can be usurped, could any bureaucrats run a checkuser on the IP address and see if they match. I have since changed my request and Im about to notify the other user in question about this, it seems a little suspicious that the accounts were created after a username change was made - as if they're being monitored and someone is intentionally causing trouble. Any thoughts? The Sunshine Man 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely on purpose, and about the other person, they shouldn't be usurped because 5minuteautoloan reads like spam. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The accound I requested, User:Qmt could possible be usupred although it has an edit, if the user page is deleted then the edit will go with it so that would mean to keep the block log clear and there would then be no contribs, that may mean it could be usurped

See the comments here - [5]. Warofdreams and Cecropia both share the view that requested usernames are "reserved" until a crat performs the rename. Taking those names will be seen as an act of bad faith and it appears the accounts will be usurped. WjBaway 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think it better, would you prefer to delete the userpage so the edit goes with it and then usurp (preferably without using the template incase they are checking for this and to prevent further disruption) or to rename User:Qmt to a completely different and junk name and then usurp, both will take the same amount of time, which do you think is better? The Sunshine Man 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The userpage should probably me moved first, because then the edit goes with it. I think above you said to delete first, so the edit goes with it. However, it doesn't. Deleted edits and block logs do not transfer, which means that the new account would have to be unblocked, since it was blocked as a vandal, and you would have the entry in your block log. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests not by the user

Normally it is clear cut that we only rename people who request it themselves. However we've had a couple of that have been requested via meta:OTRS and are in OTRS ticket# 2007060110010605. I can't verify that as I don't have access to the system. I could ask another OTRS volunteer to confirm but it seems very bureaucratic. What shall we do? Secretlondon 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: If anybody has been involuntarily renamed surely they will request to be renamed back, and such a counter-request would surely be granted unless (a) the original name was morbidly offensive, or (b) the renamed user mistakenly thinks their account has been deleted rather than renamed (in which case they would be unable to access the renamed account, knowing only the password but not the name of it). Without citing specific examples, please, do you have reason to believe either of these cases is true? —freak(talk) 18:54, Jun. 11, 2007 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are usually sensitive... We often help people who are trying to deal with on/off wiki stalking and harassment. Long delays here can cause many other problems. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. My question was how on earth to verify. We also get requests where people have been stalked and harassed. One problem is that no-one else seems to be doing these - so when I take a few days break there is a backlog.. Secretlondon 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You can approach any OTRS member to verify that a request or action relating to a ticket was actually related to that ticket. I know, it's a walled garden of sorts... but the OTRS team is overseen by Jimbo and the board so it's a sanctioned garden. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for future issues I'll be happy to verify tickets for you. Just drop a note on my talkpage ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Kfc1864-me

It was not vandalism, Another User deleted my own request.c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864 Talk to me 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming useless?

A long time ago, I joined Wikipedia with a logon using my own full name. At a later point, I realised that I did not like this too much after all, especially as I was often working on controversial articles or on articles about things to which I was connected in real life (infrastructure projects my company was involved in - I know, somewhat dodgy, but for those articles I made EXTRA sure that I stuck strictly to public sources, such as newspaper articles, and did not add a peep more, even if I had much more extended knowledge).

So I changed my user name. But recently I realised (shuld have noticed that earlier) that the change is out in plain sight on Wikipedia, archived in the name-changed-from - name-changed-to section of "changing user names". In other words, any semi-skilled user can STILL find out my real identity. Is there any way of protecting myself? Totally starting over would only help in regards to new edits... 203.109.150.58 05:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I dont think there is, they are archived as a record of the renames and they appear in the rename log, sorry but I'm sure you could speak to a bureaucrat about this but I doubt anything would happen. --The Sunshine Man 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing about a proposal for being able to do secret renamings (i.e. not in the logs). I think Secretlondon mentioned it about a month ago. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me.. I think that would take a developer (if they could be bothered and didn't have better things to do). I imagine that would be only for really serious cases involing the arbcomm and/or the foundation. Secretlondon 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the bitfields for rev_deleted work. I have no idea what is going on with it, but it was supposedly ready to be deployed live Real Soon Now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What I would like is that google stops indexing these pages. (google doesn't index the logs themselves). That is a possible but we need to show support for it and then get a developer to implement. Secretlondon 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it the developers are changing the system so that each Wiki will have its own robots.txt file they can edit, so we won't need the developers every time we need something added. I'll see if I can find out how that's coming along.... WjBscribe 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they implemented that already in some sort of way. I have no idea how to enable it, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I make the arrow?

Could someone tell me what keys to press to make that arrow, I don't know how. -- The Serene Silver Star 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean this: → ? You could copy and paste it or its in the symbols list at the bottom of your screen when you edit a page. But it should be added for you when you use the template- {{subst:Renameuser|CURRENT.USERNAME|NEW.USERNAME|Reason for requested renaming.}} (there's no need for a separate heading). WjBscribe 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish proposal

We have a number of requests for name changes under the Right to Vanish (one currently). Instead of having these vanishing users use up a name someone else may want, how about if we just make a neutral name starting with RTV and a serial number. That way the name would no longer be associated with the old account, and we wouldn't use up valid names. I suggest that we use the date as the serial with an added number or letter in case there is more than one of a given day. Example: RTV070406a. Comments? -- Cecropia 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, if they just want to vanish - there's no need to take up another username that someone may wish to use in the future, my only concern is if someone comes back after deciding to leave - I guess they could have a rename if they did, but it should probably be forced, because otherwise there would be a lot of users with similar RTV.... usernames. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if one has "RTV" in their name, people know they once exercised their right to vanish, and may look up who they originally were. So you actually "vanish" worse than when your new name is something like "Pete54354" (which seems like an ordinary account name). Sala Skan 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One the one hand, I do like the idea of standardising right to vanish renames as they can be a little chaotic at the moment. On the other, if we have a standard format, it will make keeping track of those who exercise this right very easy. All someone will have to do is look at the rename log and search it for all usernames that start with "RTV" and will immediately be able to track every one of those requests to the original account. I suppose the question is why renames are useful to those wishing to vanish and whether the standard prefixes would undermine that purpose. Giving those who wish to vanish the freedom to choose a name they feel best helps their purpose may be desirable - but in my opinion we do need to insist that it is not a name others may want in future. WjBscribe 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that point. Having a standardized rtv format would be too obvious. Do you see any other possibility, like a random alphanumeric name generator? My concern is using up perfectly good short names that someone else may want. Or maybe we could append some random digits to the requested name: i.e., wants BtB, gets BtB4277? -- Cecropia 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting old page

If I wanted to delete my old userpage (User:Redlands597198) - which now redirects to my current userpage under a new name - and the equivalent subpages under my old name that now redirect to subpages under my new name... How should I go about that? •97198 talk 02:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag all the pages you want deleted with {{db-u1}}. WjBscribe 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. •97198 talk 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki/language link section

I can't seem to find the interwiki/language link section in this article. Could someone please add [[da:Wikipedia:Anmodning om ændring af brugernavn]] (the danish version) at the appropiate location. Thanks.--Froztbyte 07:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 08:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean...

Done? ;P Andre (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I defer the excitement of using that template to the crats ;-). WjBscribe 08:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No backlog!

The new 'crats are on the ball! Kudos to Andre and Deskana! Sr 13 01:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, its great with no backlog! Rlest 09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for guidelines regarding this process

Me, Andre and WJBscribe have created a set of guidelines for the changing usernames process, in an attempt to standardise our existing practices, as well as create a formal set of guidelines that reflects current pratice. Note that if the community decides to grant this guideline status, then there will be very little to no change in our existing practices at changing usernames, and usurpations. I am posting notices on several pages in an attempt to gain consensus on the talk page of the proposal to promote it to guideline. All input is welcome. --Deskana (banana) 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't see any problems. ~ Wikihermit 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok to me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing signatures

Are there any bots that can replace a user's old signature with that of their new name? I seem to remember seeing a bot doing such work at least once. 86.132.150.77 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I've never heard of such a bot. You just have to deal with the old signature. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Link

I have recently helped an editor on #wikipedia-en-help IRC Channel, and I provided them with this link, as they were struggling. I thought it may be a good idea to integrate this into this page. Anyway, if it is done, I would appreciate the preload taken out of my userspace. The link is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username?action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Stwalkerster/chupre

which should automatically do everything, except fill in current, new and reason.

It's just an idea...:-) Stwalkerster talk 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done --Chris G 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also

Done on CHU/U --Chris G 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good but I've restored the old instructions along side it as an alternative as people may prefer to copy and paste the template - I certainly find it useful to have it easily accessible for references when fixing malformed requests. WjBscribe 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Logs merger

shouldn't block logs be merged in the new username as the contribs are? username change seems an easy way to clean ones misdemeanors, thus avoiding longer blocks for repeated infringements of rules. Anonimu 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

They should be. Its a bug with the rename process that hopefully the developers will eventually fix. In the meantime, crats can deny requests to people with lengthy block logs or block the new username for a second and link to the old block log in their summary. That way admins blocking in future know there's a old log to look at as well. WjBscribe 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd been told it was fixed - clearly not. It's come up with the mess regarding User:Tbeatty who appears to have been recreated. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What is going on with this account? Secretlondon 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive chaos

Just looking for an old declined request and came across this mess - Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2007/March. Damn Bot. Nearly 400 "archived" requests when there should probably only be about 50. Could really do with the duplicates being removed if someone either (a) has a lot of time and patience on their hand or (b) is clever and can write a script that can sort it more easily. Anyway - thanks to anyone who sorts it :-). WjBscribe 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot2 --Chris G 02:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot has had problems like this before. Is it still doing it? Secretlondon 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep a pretty close eye on the Bot these days - so the problem gets spotted much sooner when it comes up. Obviously it was given free reign in March, hence the extent of the mess... WjBscribe 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you do this on a wiki?

I'm a sysop on a wiki and some people want to change their username. First, can a sysop change a usernames? If so, how? Chris9086 ^talk

A sysop can't usually change people's usernames - you need bureaucrat access to do that... If its a Wikimedia Foundation wiki, renames can be requested on meta if there are no local bureaucrats. WjBscribe 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok (P.S. I signed my message wtf?) Chris9086 ^talk

If its a non Wikimedia Foundation wiki take a took on mediawiki.org --Chris G 10:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's running MediaWiki, you'll need The RenameUser extension SQL^{(Query Me!)} 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken rename

User:RS1900 was renamed from User:RS2007 a couple of days ago. Some of their edits are still allocated to their old name. [6] and [7]. They are obviously unhappy about this. Is it just time or do we need a developer/bug report? Secretlondon 08:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen this problem last more than about 10 hours before correcting itself. This may need a developer to look at it. WjBscribe 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please fix the Indonesian interwiki to id:Wikipedia:Perubahan_nama_pengguna. Thanks. Meursault2004 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adding username

There is a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry to explore the idea of creating Wikipedia:Adding username that would be operated similar to Wikipedia:Changing username, mostly in that a bureaucrat would need to approve additional usernames/accounts and that there would be a record of a person's accounts so that contributions made by one person (including deleted contributions) may be attributed to that one person. Please consider commenting at that discussion thread (here). -- Jreferee t/c 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you become a clerk?

That's all I was wondeing... :) Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement. Just look over this and go ahead. i ^said 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

However, is there any amount of edits you have to do before becoming a clerk, the only edits i've done is the article Spellforce 2:Dragon storm from my old account, the entire page was left blank previously so i added info and the system specs. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no formal requirements at all, but clerks should have a general satisfactory knowledge of how this page and some of Wikipedia works, maybe watch over how its done for a few weeks, then when you feel confident — clerk away! Qst 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll monitor the changing username page closely for the next few weeks and see what clerks do, if i understand what clerks do i may sign my self up for being a clerk, i am however learning quickly on what to do on wikipedia since i've been testing things out on my userpage first before i change any articles part from the article Spellforce 2:Dragon storm which i've already have added info and specs details. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats good, I hope to see you as a clerk soon, whenever you are ready, you can help out :) Qst 12:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename user log

This thing is really strange and sketchy. Why are some things not logged? For instnace, I know that Dbiv was renamed Fys, but I looked both up [8][9] and neither show up. Likewise, I queried Riana dzasta [10] and got nothing. However, Jeske Couriano works [11]. Was there some poitn in time where the system wasn't logging the renames correctly which was only fixed? hbdragon88 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's been some fiddling about with the MediaWiki system messages involved in Special:Renameuser, that's for sure. There was also a time when the logging system was different (not only for renaming, but also for promotions - e.g., the logs read "X changed user rights for Y from (none) to (none) (+sysop)", which was weird). Definitely, the logs page is a bit wonky. Anthøny 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

After a particular change to the way logging works, it broke all the previous logs. Manual searching is still possible since the comments say who was renamed to what, but the actual log is broken (saying that everyone was renamed to User:$2), making search targeting impossible. --Deskana (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Usurping to existing username

What happens if I usurp from current username to the existing former usernames such as from BlueEarth to Cosmium and from Chris Dybala to Cosmium. Probably one day, I want to change from BlueEarth to Cosmium, otherwise, I'll might change it to Cosmium122 if necessary. BlueEarth (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Renames to non-latin usernames

Discussion moved from main page as request it pertains to (Gangleri → לערי ריינהארט ) was soon to be archived. WjBscribe 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: If your name is changed here (Which I assume it will be per Unified Login), could you redirect its English equivalent to your userpage to minimize confusion and make it easier for users to contact you? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what any issue would be here. He wants the name “לערי ריינהארט” - it‘s a simple copy-paste. And redirects are created automatically during renames, so unless you delete them when renaming, that’s a non-issue. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat note: I'm conscious that renames to non-latin usernames have been declined in the past - see [12], [13] - and a related discussion at the Bureaucrat noticeboard. I'm a little reluctant to unilaterally change the approach to these and find Cecropia's argument quite persuasive. Given the inconvenience likely to be caused to other users, are renames to non-latin names desirable? WjBscribe 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with you. The only counter argument is single user login which may or may not happen. Secretlondon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. Unicode fonts are daily more common; copy-and-paste is easy enough. Surely Gangleri will be considerate enough to make the transliteration clear (perhaps in a signature or some such). This is a hard-working and longtime contributor who might just as well have registered his username in Hebrew to begin with (new usernames, contradictorily, are allowed to contain non-Latin characters). Refusing to change his name now seems purposelessly punitive. — Dan | talk 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have rejected these in the past. WJBscribe and Secretlondon, you are both bureaucrats. If you found against it, perhaps you should marked it "Not Done," rather than leaving it for another 'crat to pick up. Otherwise we are encouraging (intentional or not) bureaucrat-shopping. Non-latin usernames, as I've stated before, are disrespectful of the main English Wikipedia community, who cannot read these usernames in any sensible manner, and therefore have difficulty forming an impression of who we are speaking to and who is editing articles. I didn't see this in time, or I would have recommended to the user (as I have in other cases) that they register the non-Latin name, and make it a redirect to an Latin-character name. Then everyone should be happy. -- Cecropia (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've stated many times before, it's the 'crats job to take into account the consensus of the community and follow policy. The username policy clearly states that these are allowed. If you disagree, please take it to WT:U. This chap contributes on another wikimedia project with his non latin username, we have plenty of templates and buttons here that mean he can do the same here without much hassle. Dan has fulfilled this request, and I can only thank him for that, it was clearly the right thing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, if you can point to the policy that says that bureaucrats are required to rename users to any name permitted by the username policy, or to a community discussion with a clear consensus that such renames should be performed, I will do them without hesitation. As it stands, there is a discretion and bureaucrats may refuse renames to valid usernames where they have good cause. I have not taken a view here - I think Cecropia makes good points, as does Rdsmith4. I therefore take a neutral approach - neither performing nor declining these requests but leaving the status quo. I have no problem with Cecropria rejecting these, or with Dan performing them (as he did here). If you feel strongly that these renames should be routinely performed, I suggest you start a discussion and flag it up to interested parties so some sort of consensus can be achieved. WjBscribe 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You have discretion with certain things, but when items are written into policy, you should abide by them. This user could quite have easily stopped contributing with his account and created a new username - and there would have been no question whether or not it would have been allowed, this should therefore be a straight forward username change. We don't want users running to new accounts that are allowed by policy because they can't get a 'crat to change their username. I'm not questioning your motives - you flagged this up because there had been issues previously with non latin usernames that have come here, I'm just suggesting there really shouldn't have been any - policy is policy, you have discretion with consensus judging, but I really can't see how you have discretion in reading policy, WP:U is quite clear with regards to this particular username. I don't think it's my responsibility to flag up discussion on this once again - the community have accepted that non latin usernames are allowed many times before. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the rename policy and the username policy - they are not the same thing. Crats are not required to rename any user to any name permitted by the username policy on request. They are required to consider the wider implications of the rename to Wikipedia. If a rename, albeit to a valid name, will have a negative impact on the project it should not be performed. The disagreement is not about the username policy - I think everyone agrees users may create accounts with non-latin usernames under the current policy - these should not be blocked. However, there does seem to be disagreement as to whether people should be renamed to such names, which is a separate issue. On a purely practicial level, it represents the difference between tolerating their use (which the username policy does) and facilitating their use (which routine renames would do). WjBscribe 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasons quoted against renaming, but I really disagree here. If we didn't tollerate their use, we wouldn't have them written into policy. I go back to my point that this user could quite easily just create a new username, but it's better for all parties if the user keeps his contributions. We don't want to alienate users here, single user login could quite easily happen, then we'd be obliged to accept these usernames. I don't think the wider implications here are that severe that policy has to be ignored. We have the user contributions link available and templates accomodate these usernames. From an outsider looking in, I'm sorry to say that this looks like a couple of people (with a few extra buttons) that don't like non-latin usernames deciding not to rename accordingly. I just think the crats should take a look at policy, and rename accounts to names that are accepted by that policy, providing there aren't behavioural issues involved, providing the user is acting in good faith, and intends to carry on that approach. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To respond to some of those comments you've made:

Consequences of denial. You presume the users will leave or create a new account. You seem to reject the possibility that the status quo will prevail i.e. that they will continue editing under their current name. Many users who have had rename requests declined still edit Wikipedia.
SUL. This has been "right round the corner" for many years. When Brion announced progress on it recently, there was a lot of opposition to SUL being implemented much to the devs surprise as I understand it. I would need to fish through the mailing list to find the relevant posts, but one of the objections to SUL is relevant here. What Brion was proposing was that under SUL someone would need to have the same name across all projects. But several users wanted to be able to unify different names - specifically so they could alter their usernames to be readable to people on the projects they contribute to. It was seen as a flaw of the proposed implementation that this sort of rename would be needed for it to work. Some would no doubt feel that the solution is a more sensitive implementation of SUL, not adapting to conform to a particularly rigid SUL idea. Ultimately I find it impossible to predict (a) if SUL will happen and (b) what form precisely it would take.
Attitudes to non-latin names. The username policy is mainly used to decide what names should be blocked. I agree that there is a community consensus that non-latin usernames should not be blocked. That is in my view a long way from a consensus that people should be renamed to such usernames. I am not convinced a community discussion would result in such a consensus. Indeed, I remain firmly perched on the fence when it comes to the desirability of such renames. Wider discussion is probably not a bad idea.
Crat discretion. What you are proposing is I think out of step with how crats understand their role here (certainly how I have always understood it). It is simply not the case that all a crat need do is check the validity of the username, look for behavioural issues and, if none are present, perform the rename. In my opinion there are more factors involved than that and renames should only be performed where there is a net gain to the project - that doesn't have to be much, making a user happy is enough as far as I'm concerned where no issues outweigh this. If you think that the approach you outlined above is (or should be) how the community would like the way crats approach things, I think you need to point us to a pretty strong consensus for that. So far all discussion has been in favour of crats having a pretty wide discretion here.

I've brought the matter here so it can be discussed more rather than being lost in archival. I am willing to adapt my approach based on any wider consensus that may form. In the meantime, I intend to neither perform nor reject these requests. WjBscribe 02:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I take all your points above, but I think you've misunderstood on a couple of them. With respect to denial of a request, I don't think that users will leave as a result in many cases, but there's still a potential. I stick by my original point that as a community, we should attempt to make users happy wherever possible. A net gain of the rename could in fact be that the user feels happier contributing with their non latin username. If a username is acceptable by the policy, their really shouldn't be any difference with a rename - the community consensus is that they're acceptable, so shouldn't be a factor when considering a rename. If there was a serious problem, they wouldn't be allowed. Crats do have discretion, I completely agree here, but in this particular context, I think what's being implemented is a crat consensus rather than a community consensus. I don't really think I need to point to a stronger consensus than the username policy - these types of usernames have been allowed for years and there's no real differency between a user who wants a rename, rather than a user that wants to create a new account (it goes back to my previous point that users shouldn't feel the need to create a new account to have their username. I respect SUL may or may not be implemented, but it should be considered and taken with a wider context. We're part of one big project here, and often users feel more comfortable contributing with a consistant username thoughout all wikimedia projects - this was on particular significance with this username. Whether or not it is implemented, we should respect the users wish with having the same username. I have to go back to my original point - the community has decided that non latin usernames have no technical issues involved with them - we have cut and paste and templates and buttons that mean they are just as accessible as latin character username. I just think that 'crats should respect the username policy a little more than they currently do with respect to this issue - theirs no real difference with respect to new or old user. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see this crat consensus - the request was performed after all. It seems to me that only 4 crats have commented on this issue. Cecropia believes these renames should be declined, Rdsmith4 thinks they should be perfomed. Secretlondon and myself have not as far as I can see come to a conclusion on the desirability of these renames. Doesn't feel to me as if the crats agree and indeed I suspect if we had a big discussion and canvassed the opinions of a lot of editors there would be a similar lack of agreement. WjBscribe 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You make the best point, Will, in saying that there is a difference between tolerated and facilitated. You see, though, we have a situation here that makes me wonder why this should even be a bureaucrat task, and illustrated why bureaucrats need to understand issues the same way. Since we do not have agreement among 'crats in a positive fashion (i.e, you and Secretlondon both commented negatively but failed to act) every person who wants a non-Latin rename will be looking for Dan to perform it. If I were to decide against it, surely those who advocate for allowing the renames (such as Ryan) will complain. So this is IMO an untenable situation. At least it didn't happen at RfA. -- Cecropia (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the user could simply create the username and use it. Declining the rename only fragments the contributions and gives the appearance of an arbitrary criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid pooint, but it assumes the necessity of the user's desire for a non-Latin username is more important than the ability of the vast body of users of English Wikipedia to be able to understand who is contributing and who they are interacting with. Why do we refuse renames to random lists of characters? -- Cecropia (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's also an extremely valid point and why I can understand your point of not renaming to some extent. If there were major problems with non latin usernames, we simply wouldn't allow them full stop. The problem with long, random usernames is that it would be difficult to tell them apart from one user to the next. I'm of the opinion that non latin users, provided they are relatively short, are still distinctive, and differences can be seen from one to the next. You get to recognise users who edit in your particular area, and a non latin username will no doubt become well known in their particular field on wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find the opinion of other bureaucrats irrelevant here, since anybody who refuses to allow legitimate (not nonsensical) renames involving non-Latin characters is specifically contradicting the username policy, and bureaucrats have no authority to do such a thing. If the community decides to disallow non-Latin usernames at en.wiki, bureaucrats must do the same. Until that point, this should not matter at all in renaming decisions. — Dan | talk 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you go a bit too far to dub the opinions of other bureaucrats "irrelevant." Non-latin usernames are, for many editors, as indistinguishable as random letter names and, importantly, unpronounceable. Since you cite policy, the policy also says:

As a courtesy to contributors who are unfamiliar with other scripts, users with such usernames are encouraged to help them navigate by means of Latin signatures, Latin user page redirects, and an explanation on their userpage.

Don't you think we should at least require that those asking for non-Latin renames follow that courtesy? -- Cecropia (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not say it is required. I think such a change in the policy might be desirable, but as a bureaucrat I am not permitted to start requiring it when the policy states it is only 'encouraged'. Anyway, we have not yet seen anyone refuse to cooperate.

I did not mean that I put no stock by what the other bureaucrats think (to the contrary -- I have great respect for their opinions, as respected users and as colleagues): I only meant that I do not believe the question of the general permissibility of non-Latin rename requests is for bureaucrats to decide. — Dan | talk 08:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Commenting

Is anyone allowed to comment here? I did, then realized that there seems to be some kind of special 'clerk' status, and I can't tell if that means no-one else is allowed to comment or not.—Random832 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can become a clerk, as long as they were willing to put in some time and effort here (which means you could be a clerk :) ), just add your name to Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance if you plan on helping out here. Being a clerk does not give you a special status, it just means you're helping out at a place which sometimes needs helping. Cheers, Qst 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's not clear is whether someone who isn't a bureaucrat and isn't sure about making the commitment to be a clerk is allowed to just put in their two cents - the two other places that have clerks (checkuser and arbcom) do have restrictions on ordinary users editing. —Random832 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you wish to just help out now and then but are unable to make a commitement to full-time clerking (so-to-speak), then you could add your name to the list and put (Semi-active) by your name to inform people, or you could just not add your name and do your bit now and then. It's completely up to you. Also, there are no restrictions to being a CHU clerk, just as long as you're not vandal (which you're not). Qst 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Although reading up on policy would help, as commenters regularly tell people things that are incorrect. New users shouldn't have to pick through all that. Secretlondon (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, my only two comments so far (which I then removed since I wasn't sure I should have made them) were a suggestion to someone who wanted an underscore in their username, and a note on Certified.Gangsta's history (which someone else has gone into more detail on the same issue since then)—Random832 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Would i be able to become a clerk, i'll have to be semi-active and i do have knowledge of wikipedia. →Dust Rider→ 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to become a clerk, you are fully able to do so. Just read this page, read some of the recent requests (and the recent archives perhaps) to familiarize yourself with what comments need to be made, and begin. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Uppercase

Is there a reason the template uses ucfirst: on the parameters? It makes it harder to tell when the user is requesting a name in lowercase and might not want to be renamed if they knew it had to have the first letter in uppercase. —Random832 14:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support altering that so the template renders a lowercase letter; this makes it easier to flag when it happens. I am completely clueless as to templatesyntax, so I can't really make the change. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Several here. Firstly, did the tool searching for edits on other projects in {{CUU}} stop working on a temporary basis, or long-term? Until it's fixed, I think it would be a good idea to remove the parameter in the request template as redundant.

The arrows in requests for CHU point → way, while the ones at CHU/U point ← way. Jpgordon moved the arrow in this edit, to be more logical with the request, as it was easier to switch the arrows than the fields of the template. I support making the arrows uniform, where the request is CURRENT NAME → REQUESTED NAME.

For this page, there is a field in the template asking for a reason. Is there a need for a reason to be provided? Will requests actually be denied if a reason is not given? I note that CHU/U doesn't require a reason. I see no need to require a reason, and suggest that it become optional only.

On this page, is there a real need for the "Active users" section? Personally, I don't feel it adds anything. One does not need to formally do anything to be able to comment here; there is no "official" list of "clerks". The only reason I see provided on the page for its existence is to provide ease of contanct and coordination. There is no real reason to coordinate with those editors specifically; discussion can happen on the three talk pages. The only real reason is for ease of communication, I suppose. If one has a question about the rename process, one can find an actually active helper on the rename page itself; even then helpers cannot give definitive answers, so asking a bureaucrat would be more help. I suggest we remove the section completely, and direct questions to editors who are obviously actively helping, but preferably this talk page or bureaucrats themselves.

Also, is there convention on whether or not requests made on this page by brand-new or nearly brand-new users are accepted? I note that they are often accepted, but I have seen Secretlondon deny requests if the user has so few edits that it would just be easier to have them discard the account and create the new one (she will often allow requests like this if they would require an administrator to create the account, however). I think it would be a good idea to at least attempt to standardize practice, to prevent inconsistency and eventual bureaucrat shopping.

This one probably requires input from the checkusers as well. On cases at CHU/U where the editor claims that a previous account was theirs, and a checkuser would probably be able to help (i.e. the old account has edits to checkuser), do the checkusers want the bureaucrats to be the ones to make the request, or will requests from helpers be accepted? As a somewhat related note, how far back usually can checkuser go? I know it does the recentchanges table, but how far back is that in time?

So! Comments? Suggestions? Critiques? seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two answers here. For the question on reasons, only the most minor stylistic changes (caps, etc.) don't require reasons. I don't believe that reasons are required on WP:CHU/U either. I personally would like to require a reason for a change lest we get into a situation like Mario Wiki where we have to put a limit on name changes (there it's two a year, and no minor changes like extra numbers and caps). As for the new-user usurpation requests, they are usually declined (and not just by Secretlondon) because the bureaucrat must know that the name will be put to good use. XENON54 | talk | who? | 01 Feb 2008 11:53_GMT

I am asking why we require a reason at all. Currently, convention states that two renames is the limit, unless there are other factors, (for instance, mine). And I meant requests on this page being denied; amended my statement accordingly. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So...bureaucrats...anyone feel like commenting? seresin | wasn't he just...?

Clerk

What are the requirements to help out as a clerk? Does one have to be an admin? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I seemed to have missed the above messages. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, I'm having an issue. It seems that somebody registered under my old username "Clevelander" and has begun contributing ([14]). What should I do? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to log into that account and change the password? Kingturtle (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If we rename a user, the old username stops existing - so they can no longer log into it. It becomes available to be created by the renamed user or a third party. There is advice about recreating the account in the "Effects of a username change" section at the top of the requests page. I always hope that people take the time to read the info, but that may be unrealistic. WjBscribe 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Usurping previous usernames?

If someone changes their username, would someone else be able to usurp their previous name? I ask because I'm watching an editor to see if he changes his name, so I could usurp it (I'll give you one guess as to who it is). Justin^(c)_(u) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Once you usurp a new username, an account no longer exists by the old name. For example, I was NASCAR Fan24 but usurped my current username. I then re-created NASCAR Fan24 to prevent impersonation. So if User:Bob changed their name to User:Robert, then you could re-create User:Bob, assuming that User:Robert didn't re-create it first. XENON54 | talk 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, you *do not* need to usurp the old name - you can re-create just as any other account. XENON54 | talk 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is technically possible, but I strongly doubt it would be allowed. A recent request for a similar situation was denied. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is allowed, but only to prevent impersonation. --Jay ^Tur ₁ (Contribs) 11:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates?

I've noticed that leaving clerk notes or bureaucrat notes requires you to type the note out yourself, like:

Clerk note: Please provide a reason.

Click edit and you'll see what I mean. I was thinking about making templates for these, which would be used somewhat like this:

Clerk note: {{Noreason}}

Or whatever we would like to call it. It would be much easier, in my opinion. I'll be working on these in my sandbox, so you can look there for an idea of what I mean. -- Ryan Taylor 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've finished already. If I missed any, tell me. They're in my userspace for now, if you want the templates we can move them to template namespace.

{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Noreason}}
{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Autocap}}
{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Promot}}
{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Innaprop}}
{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Usurpyes}}
{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Usurpno}}
{{clerknote}} {{User:Ryan Taylor/Sandbox/Taken}}

Those all produce this (in order of the above):

Clerk note: Please provide a reason for renaming.

Clerk note: MediaWiki software automatically capitalises the first letter of all usernames, sorry.

Clerk note: The username appears to be promotional. Use of a company name as a username is prohibited by the username policy. Please choose another name.

Clerk note: This username may classify as an innapropriate username under the username policy. Please choose another name.

Clerk note: The target username has already been taken. However, it meets the criteria for usurpation. You may file a request in WP:CHU/U or choose another username that is not taken.

Clerk note: This username has already been taken. The username meets the criteria for usurpation, however, the user requesting does not.

Clerk note: This username has already been taken. Please choose another username.

These, of course, could also be used with Bureaucrat note:.

-- Ryan Taylor 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many clerknotes

Guys, I'm very grateful to everyone who helps out here, but the average number of clerknotes is ballooning out of proportion. Too many clerknotes creates problems - it must be confusing for those checking on the status of the request, and frankly its pretty unhelpful for the bureaucrat dealing with the request to have to look through an entire debate. Can I please ask:

Try and make your comments comprehensive - think about all the issues with the request. That saves other clerks overlaying there own comments.
There have been a couple of occasions when I have had notes discussing the lack of a reason, the fact that request has been reformated but no one seemed to have noticed the target account was taken anyway...
It really doesn't need a debate - I don't need the clerks to agree. Just flag up what might be issues with a request and make a decision. At some point, your discussion needs to move to your talkpage to stop cluttering the page.
If they haven't given a reason, is it obvious why the user wants to be renamed?
Are they changing from what looks like their real name? Alternatively, if their userpage contains a request that they change name, that's probably why they're asking...
Only leave notes if you have to.
I'm grateful to those who fix the formatting, but it doesn't need yet another note to say you have done so. Trust me, your work won't go unnoticed.

Sorry this message has rather a negative tone. It is great that you're all helping out, I just wanted to nip what seems to be a growing problem in the bud. WjBscribe 15:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Clerknotes for certain requests seem to be turning into clerklists and clerkdebates instead of good old "Look, you can/cannot have this username because blah blah". -- Ryan Taylor 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well - excessive notes seem like a big problem. Just this morning I saw a clerknote to the effect of "Yes, I agree that your name should be changed". Clerks are here to organise the process and inform people of the complex renaming rules. I'd go as far as say that any other clerknote is unnecessary. XENON54 | talk 13:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for that note, I meant for it to suggest to the 'crats that the user maybe a WP:SOCKPUPPET, I have now reworded it so that it suits what I am trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehelpfulone (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New Box addition to new requests

Hi there, I have added a new link when requesting a username change.

This shows my edit to the main page link, as I have created Wikipedia:Changing_username/editintro and when you click on the link to request a username change, Wikipedia:Changing_username/editintro will show up at the top of the page.

I hope nobody minds!

--The Helpful One 12:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming an old account

I'd like to rename an account for which I have forgotten the password. I can prove that the account is mine, but of course I can't log on to that account to make the rename request the usual way. The account name I'd like to change is User:Go for it!.

Please advise.

Go for it (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can prove the account is yours, then I suppose you can just make the request with this username, and in the request, explain the circumstances and prove that you own the account. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Single login

Hi there, I'm a 'crat at the Spanish Wikipedia. ;) Recently, I've noticed a slight (but noticeable) increase of users from other wikis (but with an account at es:) requesting the change of their usernames due to a possible single login implementation. It's a valid reason and it is typically accepted. However, I was wondering if there really is an impending implementation, because as I said quite a few English requests have been posted at es:, and maybe there *really* is something going on right now. I figure this is the best place to ask. ;) I'm just curious, has anyone here heard anything about it? Thanks in advance for your help. ;) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling has announced a trial (admin only to start) of SUL on the Wikitech mailing list - see [15]. It does seem implementation is pending, though it has been pending before... WjBscribe 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I wasn't so far off after all with my hunch. XD I guess I'll post a note at the Spanish Village Pump, so users there are at least aware of the possibility of an 'impending' SUL. Guess we'll have to wait a bit to see if it finally works out or not. Thanks for the prompt reply WJB! :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, one more question, if you please. This admin trial thing... Do you think it'll be limited to en:wiki admins, or to all admins in all the projects? :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you've seen the email you know as much as I do :-). But I read Tim's comments to mean all admins, not ones on a specific project - I suspect if you have an admin account, the option to unify accounts will "appear on the first page of your preferences"... WjBscribe 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it does sound more logical to test all admins, hehe. Well, let's hope it doesn't backfire and, say, prevent admins from logging in. XD Thanks again for your help WJB! ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After name-change

After my name change will the pages I created still be attributed to me? And will my edit count stay with me? Thanks for the answers...--Camaeron (t/c) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. From the instructions:

When the rename has been completed, your account will have been renamed, and any contributions you have made (including deleted contributions) will be reattributed to your new account as a background process. Your account preferences, watchlist contents, password, etc. will all be preserved, and your user and user talk pages will have been moved to the new name.

Note: The process responsible for reallocating old contributions is currently dependent upon the job queue mechanism. As such, you may find old contributions do not immediately appear under your new account; this is perfectly normal. Updates should take at most a day to complete, although the length of time will vary according to the size of the job queue on this wiki, and the status of the server processes which process this queue.

—Tjohns ✎ 10:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

You should use this, when you change a username. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

There was apparently some vandalism by GR1992 (talk · contribs) on this page, messing with old requests. Can somebody check this [16] old pre-vandalism version to make sure no requests have been lost? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My requests where lost in one of the edits by GR1992 (talk · contribs), so I would imagine I'm not the only one. --Christian (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How long does the process usually take?

I'm just curious if it usually takes a day or a week or? Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It varies: sometimes a few days, sometimes instant; it just depends on when the bureaucrats are active. There isn't a set waiting time for a rename. Acalamari 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bots

It seems we barely need clerks now, as bots are there. ;) Qst (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bots can't detect promotional usernames or {{uw-samename}} cases. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional bot function request

I have some feature requests for SoxBot VI. I wonder if these could be implemented.

Check if the user is blocked. Raise a red flag if currently blocked.
If previously blocked, raise a flag (maybe orange), so that a bureaucrat can evaluate the case.
Check if the account exists on other wikis. Raise an orange flag if not.
Check and see if the only change in the rename is. Deny it if the change is only:
1. Converting the first letter of the old name from upper case to lower case.
2. Converting an underscore to a space or vice versa
Check the User rename log if the user has already been renamed in the past. Raise a red flag if so.
Check the WP:CHU history to see if the user has already put in a request in the past.
Check if the user has any negative record in an arbcom case. I'm not sure how this can be determined but it is important.
Check if the user has a sockpuppet record. I'm not sure how this can be determined but it is important.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply...

How would they be able to edit?
I tried, but there isn't really any easy way to go about doing it.
Considering that this has no interaction with the database currently, it would be hard, but could be done.
- Already does it, but for onwiki only.
- Good idea.
Same as above, there really isn't a way to do it easily.
That would also be difficult.
Yes, that would be difficult.

I'll see if I can work on some of those. Soxred93 (u t) 10:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the blocked edit: An editor may have made an edit before being blocked. From what I've seen, this is most often the case with inappropriate usernames. Or the blocked editor can make a request on his talk page, and the request be forwarded by the blocking admin. (Does the bot validate such cases?). The other requests would really help a lot since it would be a tedious process to check for some them. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We did have a bot for a short while that was able to flag up whether accounts had been renamed previously: User:HBC RenameClerkBot. It unfortunately stopped operating when User:H was driven off the project :(... I don't know if its code was ever made public. WjBscribe 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

H has an email address set, I could contact him and ask for the source code, and then run a clone of HBCRenameBot if you feel that it would be useful. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:10, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

That might be worth pursuing - or perhaps Soxred could do that and, if H is willing to supply the code, incorporate it into his bot? Seems best to just have one bot checking everything than to have two... WjBscribe 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[deindent] Working on it now. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:34, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

Email sent, we'll have to see whether H replies. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:38, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

Status report: I've got the source code [it's Perl] from H, I'm now setting up the stuff and will try it out. If anyone more experienced with Perlbots wants to try it out, I can post the code here [I won't do it unless wanted as it is fairly big]. I'm more of a Python/AWB/VB coder, but I should still be able to get this running. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:15, May 22, 2008 (UTC)

Perl simply doesn't seem to want to work for me. I can upload the code if Soxred wants to integrate it into his bot; that may be best, stops us having too many bots accessing this page at once. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:26, May 22, 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I hate Perl, so I am using PHP right now. But I might like to look at the source. Soxred93 (u t) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I know the feelng :P. The code is here, when you've finished/downloaded it, please feel free to delete the page. Hope it is of some use. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:28, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

my changing

I posted a request about 2 weeks ago. i got a message saying if I let myself change my username again, i wouldn't be able to change again. i said that was O.K. And I still ahven't gotten a reply. What should I do, or why ahven't I gotten a reply?I am sooooo cool! 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that request, and I think that the bureaucrat was trying to say that you should really think about the username change before making any request, because there is a heavy load on the servers. If you understand this (and I'm quite sure you do), then I would suggest making the request again. Singu larity 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you also needed to categorically state that you understood that you won't be allowed to change your name again. Your response to the bureaucrat's request was unclear. Go ahead and file again along with a categorical statement of the above sort. There seem to be no technical hitches.--Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry if I messed up the submission, I got a prompt, which looks like the missing edit summary warning box, so I put one in, and then tried to fix it, and oh well. Gopher backer (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it: I've fixed the formatting, and there's no harm done. Acalamari 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

Hopefully, this will get more response this time :/ seresin ( ¡? ) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the arrows should be standardized. However, the requests are handled by bureaucrats, so I think they'd be familiar with the procedure and not prone to err regardless of the formatting of the arrows. Useight (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support standardizing the templates making arrow and reason= use uniform but how much of an issue is this with the 'crats? – Zedla (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that this has now been sorted - mainly to allow both types of request to appear at WP:CHU/SUL without making a mess. WjBscribe 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrator changing name

Is it possible for an Administrator to change their account name and retain their Administrator status? I can't seem to find any information on this particular tidbit. I ask as I'm considering it. Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is, it transfers over with the change. Have you enabled SUL yet? If you have, you'll have to have your global account deleted first, then have the username changed, and then re-enable your global account. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this SUL for Wikipedia or someone's own Wikimedia site? As I am asking with reference to Wikipedia not my own personal wiki sites. Canterbury Tail talk 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SUL is, I believe, enabled for all Wikimedia projects (Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikibooks...). Singu larity 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When user name is changed

When your user name has been changed, are all your subpages still the former names? Example: My user name now is User:RyRy5. If I changed my name to User:RyRy, will my subpages still start as "User:RyRy5/SUBPAGENAME"? --RyRy5 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your subpages are automatically moved to User:NEWUSERNAME/SAMESUBPAGENAME when you are renamed. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More prominent notice regarding deletion of global acounts

Almost every request currently filed cannot be completed due to the fact that global accounts need be deleted beforehand. Perhaps a more prominent or visible note would be prudent to ensure that people do this before they ask to be renamed? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That would definitely make sense on the SUL subpage, and stop clerks/crats having to repeat the same thing over and over again. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:12, June 8, 2008 (UTC)

usurpation and GFDL concerns

I'm not sure I understand the GFDL concerns related to usurpation of accounts with valid edits. The attribution isn't broken so as long as the renaming/moving procedure is considered, or is it?

In particular, I don't understand item #10 here: All bureaucrats and stewards operating usurpations must remember at all times that the GFDL is only interested in the name the person adds to the history when they release the work under the GFDL -- this is not a matter of debate or subject to personal decision.

Isn't that fact (the username which the person added to the page history when making their edit) still preserved and traceable via the moving procedure of the account? dorftrottel (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename User Right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I personally think (which is possible) a renameuser right. Bureaucrats don't get to this ASAP and there isn't many. If someone, like me, who could check this a lot we could do this. Of course, if this was passed a system admin would have add the right, most likely. I want to have some input in this matter before I take it further. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

You may also wish to raise this at WP:BN, as this page isn't watchlisted as much by others. Rudget (logs) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If this was implemented, I would watch a lot. If I had the right, i would work on it a lot. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is redundant. There are already enough bureaucrats ready to meet the requests for renames. Rudget (logs) 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Other wikis (smaller wikis) use this system. Even if it is just a few users, it still would get jobs like this done faster. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have killed what little chances there were for this to pass by making it clear that you want the userright for yourself. It makes this whole process look very self-serving. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I used me as an example. Yes, I would like it but I would go through a requests process. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The instructions remind users "Please be patient. It may take a few days for your request to be completed." Usually requests are completed within 24 hours. But even if it were to take 2 days, that is ok. WP:CHU are not so urgent that they need to be immediate. Kingturtle (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we would never need this again. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Albeit this is a discussion, questioning everything is not necessary. Take life slowly, hurrying to get things done quickly will ultimately slow you down. Take it easy, mate. Qst (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On a survey, it took 10 hours for one request. Extra users with this right would get this done in 1/10 of the time max. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ten hours is hardly a long wait, in the grand scheme of things -- especially if it's the worst example readily available. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is looking more like a impatient device, so to speak. Renaming a user is not an urgent matter, what gave you that impression? Rudget (logs) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why let users wait? I didn't like waiting. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's much easier to just change how Wikipedia works than to be patient...
As a follow-up, I'd like to point out that I've managed to lock the database twice in my two weeks as a bureaucrat. While I don't think promoting a bunch of new renamers would make them start renaming people willy-nilly, I do have some concern about people (such as StewieGriffin!) that would seemingly process renames with an eye to speed than to actual policy. Renaming someone with several thousand edits can have detrimental effects (worrying about performance be damned), and I really don't like the idea of having lots of people with that ability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick survey of the archived WP:CHUs in June reveal that about 50% are completed in under 2 hours, and about 7% had to wait for about 11 or 12 hours. No one I saw had to wait more than 12 hours. Kingturtle (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea - admins and this new usergroup should have the right, but any 'crat can revoke it from either (without affecting other rights) if there is any misuse...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This will reduce the workload of bureaucrats Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

For what it's worth, renames aren't as time-critical as, say, WP:AIV. Besides, the backlog is down to, on average, a few hours; in my opinion, that is sufficient. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be left to the bureaucrats. Although its only really a minor task, there's no need to have dodgy renames at the risk of including more people. Rudget (logs) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
An interesting decision, indeed, but I just don't think there is any hurry in getting renames done quickly, but they rarely go untouched for over a day now. Qst (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I remember waiting to get renamed! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Was this recently? If not, that is not particularly relevant to the current situation, thus the need for this userright. Rudget (logs) 16:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Few weeks. Plus, what about the future? We cannot predict the future? so we should really think about other times. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry things aren't going your way, but it seems to me as if this is some kind of "self promotion" and, almost certainly, status seeking. Since WJBscribe became a bureaucrat, renames are always performed fast. Move along now. Qst (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
StewieGriffin, in response to your last comment, don't worry about the future... we'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Qst (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think there's a pressing need at the present to divide rights further. I, too, see a backlog at times at CHU, but it always seems to be covered within 24 hours. I think a better solution would be to get a few more bureaucrats. Useight (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - If there was a massive backlog of rename requests, and/or only one or two active 'crats, then I would be supporting this all the way. However, renames are usually handled relatively quickly, and as mentioned above, renaming is not exactly time-critical. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:24, June 17, 2008 (UTC)
I see no pressing need for this change given the adequate ability of the 'crats to handle this work. Shereth 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Crats have it under control. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:CREEP to me. There isn't a real problem that needs to be fixed, so why bother making things more complicated?. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The bureaucrats have it under control, and I believe that the initiator of this poll is interested only in receiving this userright. In general, I believe that this is a useless addition of bureaucracy. Also, voting is evil :) Ral315 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if we did, StewieGriffin! isn't the type who should/would be getting it. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer something along the lines of hiding bad usernames, and Bureaucrat lite is not really a good start for enwiki :) ..--Comet styles 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- Getting a rename isn't time critical, and the crats have it under control. I see no reason for this. Steve Crossin (contact) 00:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Despite the regrettable delay in Stewiegriffin's case, I oppose also. DS (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
A delay of four hours is hardly regrettable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with EVula, renames aren't time sensitive and this seems a bit WP:CREEPish to me. Dureo (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Especially if we're considering giving it to StewieGriffin!. giggy _(:O) 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There is no need for renames to be performed instantly, nor for a group of users dedicated to renames. Four (or even twelve) hours isn't an ungodly amount of time for wait for something like a rename. Adding yet another user group will make things way too complicated. Xenon 54 13:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed by StewieGriffin!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging different account's contribution lists?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, On May 23 was my first wikipedia edit as user:ComradeTimur. Then I went away for 2 weeks and forgot my password! I did not know that it is possible to request to change the user name, so I took another account, user:Timurite.

Is it possible to merge the history of contributions of the first account into the second one? If yes, then please where may I ask about this? Thank you. Timurite (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contributions can't be merged, and you would have to be logged into the old account to request the username be changed in any case. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. <Sigh> Timurite (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving CHU

I've asked VOABot to archive the completed requests more frequently. 1 day for completed requests and 3 days for unfulfilled (not done) requests. Let me know if this is ok. It will clear off unnecessary old requests from loading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bot has been struggling with archiving {{not done}} requests for a while - it adds them to the archive but doesn't remove them from the request page. I think it should already be removing them at least that frequently (if not more). I've nudged VoA about this earlier in the year, but I think he's rather busy with developer work... WjBscribe 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My Bot archives {{done}} when they have not been edited for 12 hours and {{not done}} requests when they have not been edited for 48 hours. If you want m y to change this please leave a note here --Chris 08:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The labeling of requests for which a global account must first be deleted

There seems to be a discrepancy amongst bureaucrats and clerks alike on how to label requests for which a global account must be first deleted. While some 'crats mark such requests as "not done", with a large red 'x', others use the "on hold" label. I think we should attempt to be consistent here, if only for clerical and administrative purposes. Or maybe I'm too bureaucratic when it comes to these matters? >_< -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consistency in those that have been denied? And like-wise in those on-hold? I can't find any common factors at first sight. Rudget (logs) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another template needs to be created? bibliomaniac 1 5 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a variation of {{onhold}} in response to this thread; how's {{cantrename}}? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. That will be added to all (already unified) requests won't it? Rudget (logs) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This has now been overtaken by events: the bug is fixed so bureaucrats can now rename accounts to names reserved to a global account. There should be no further need to direct people to have their global accounts deleted. I have therefore deleted {{cantrename}}, hope you don't mind EV... I don't propose to perform the requests archived where people did not follow up crat requests for accounts to be deleted as I don't think we can presume these renames are still wanted. Probably best to await a fresh request from those users. WjBscribe 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree there. If they were keen on the rename, they can simply re-request. Going through archived requests is a shady area and all of the paperwork in moving the requests to the proper archives afterwards and notifying users who may not still want the rename would be a nightmare, for the 'crats and the renamed users. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Will, you heartless bastard, how could you delete a template I slaved over for so long? This outrageous offense has earned you my eternal ire. Oh woe is me, what will I do now that my beloved template has been so thoughtlessly destroyed? I'm going to go cry in the corner...
*cough* Uh, yeah, that's fine with me. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

{{CUS}}, a similar thing to {{cantrename}} that I created earlier this year for this purpose should also probably be deleted. Don't worry, I won't go and cry in the corner over it. :P RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that one's already in use in the archives so we probably should keep it. I suppose if all the instances of it were substituted we could delete the template. WJBscribe (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

signIDlike → (it shall be deleted)

added here by — _Maggot^Syn 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)'

My original username signIDlike is renamed and move all belonging into new name RushdimIDlike (talk). Why old one still exist? name change will be meaningless.RushdimIDlike (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving WP:CHU/SUL

Just a bit of I heads up, I'm currently requesting approval for an archive bot. Please leave any comments, criticism, etc on the brfa page --Chris 08:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Former account vulnerable

Taken from this project page under "Effects of a username change":

Be aware: Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and may potentially be recreated by a third party. This is true even if your old account pages have been redirected towards your new account. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself.

Why is the former username left vulnerable? A newbie potentially would be clueless about this even with the notice on the project page. I would like to propose that an additional step be added when the username is changed: The ~~admin~~ 'crat completing the move is responsible for re-creating the former account, redirect it to the new username and then promptly scramble the password. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean the crat should be responsible, right? Since admins don't perform this feature. — _Maggot^Syn 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected text above. --Tombstone (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

About 500 renames are now completed every month. Bureaucrats do not know if a user wanting a rename wants to re-register and use the old name (when they wouldn't want the password scrambled). I can count the number of times accounts have been recreated and used abusively in the last year on the fingers of one hand. With respect, I don't think it is a problem worth the extra time to recreate the accounts. We warn people on the request page, as you have pointed out above. If people request a rename without reading and making sure they understood the notes at the top of their page, they do so at their own risk. To be honest, I find the idea that people are not bothering to read the instructions dispiriting - if those making requests don't think it's worth their time to look at the information provided for them, I'm not sure why it's worth my time fulfilling the requests. WjBscribe 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

100% agreement, not to mention the fact that I'm not particularly thrilled by the prospect of adding several more steps to the renaming process. I don't see why it should be the bureaucrat's responsibility to protect renamed users from being spoofed if they can't be bothered to protect themselves. Besides, we're talking about newbies here (as per your hypothetical); if they have no name in the community to speak of, what would be the point in spoofing them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

+1. It sounds like unnecessary procedure creep. No need to pile on to the 'crat's workload, as it is. Shereth 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I suspect bureaucrats already have enough to do without dumping more responsibility on them, but still, why leave the user vulnerable? Instead of having to manually re-create the former account, the system should then automatically keep the former account active with the user's same password and automatically redirect. I do get the feeling that I am stepping on toes here, so I apologize. Maybe my proposal is utterly ridiculous, but it seems like something could easily be done to fix this. With that being said, this seems now more like a technical proposal than a procedural proposal so I will move this to Village Pump. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In the limited time I've spent assisting here, I'd like to mention that the majority of requests I've seen are from very new users, most of which have made little to no edits. Spoofing them per say, or using their old accounts will do no harm to them. On the other hand, an experienced user will already know that the old account is potentially harmful and will take the necessary action at their discretion. We certainly don't want to leave you with the impression that you've stepped on anyone toes though. — _Maggot^Syn 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean stepping on toes, I don't know why I said that. Rather, I meant I was wondering into unfamiliar territory and would be better served at VP for exploratory discussion. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1 more reason not to do this by default is the person might not particularly care, and then there would be an unused account with a potentially desirable name. –xeno (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Xeno took the words right out of my mouth. Soxπed93^(blag) 11:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)