Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks, Essjay. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  (Note: Essay later said I could do this, so I did.) —Silly Dan (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting previous username 

message: 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. Grandmasterka 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Grandmasterka 04:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculous! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jabberwock 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Something's gone wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this possible? 

message: Note to bureaucrats: Please watch for new requests by blocked users at :Category:Requests for username changes when blocked, populated by the template . See  for an explanation.
(Moved this note, inserted by King of Hearts, from the main page.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Should I change it? GangstaeB 15:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My username 

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

text: Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  &#91;Question about resolving a heck of a username mess&#93; 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I think I am up a creek 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Double name change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Off Topic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: 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)
replies: text: Commons:Changing username. Courtesy of Google. Kimchi.sg 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing username on commons.wikimedia.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like the new format. It's much clearer. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't ignore requests lodged before the change--Arktos talk 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  format 

message: The bot is now set to archive the main WP:CHU page. Please notify me of any problems. Using  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  to a request will cause for it to be archived after two days.Voice-of-All 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you have it wait at least a day to archive complete requests? — Dan | talk 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  VoABot 

message: 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)
replies: text: Let me clarify... Can they have their usernames changed by a bureaucrat? Irongargoyle 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was myself.Voice-of-All 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :-) Irongargoyle 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about changing user names 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is strange. Michael 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfulfilled/2006/August? 

message: I think  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)
thread_title:  [[Template:Welcome Email|<nowiki>{{Welcome Email}}</nowiki>]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change in structure of fulfilled archives 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bot-generated links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bot-generated links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Oooops, should read things when I move them around... Essjay (Talk) 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives Above or Below? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  names with spaces 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ok thanks Paul--81.246.161.35 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access to MySQL database 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Usurpation and single login 

message: 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  for a quick response to those — since  doesn't apply exactly to those cases.  Cheers,  Redux 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page moves 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Colors make page hard to read 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usurpation 

message: 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,Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clerks 

message: Hi,  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)
thread_title:  Blocked user requesting name change. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Privacy concerns 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speedying a name change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Would it be sufficient to ask the user to tag the pages  if they get moved accidentally? -- nae'blis 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like the default should be to not move, then. -- nae'blis 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noting an edit I made 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good grief 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My contributions here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  User rights logs 

message: Contributors here may wish to see Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its current location: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Clerks.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant discussion 

message: 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, . See that page for instructions, and feel free to modify, criticise and use it.  --Conti|✉ 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New and shiny [[Template:CHU]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Abandoning one username and starting anew with another 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overwritten request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect on Talk Pages / Signatures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Change of username 

message: Hi. Is it possible for me to change my username for more than 1 time? — zero » 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changing Usernames more than 1 time 

message: I probably don't have enough experience with this to make the call.  Is  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 , a well-established user with a company name in his user name. TomTheHand 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Honda Pilot Fan is okay, but Honda Pilot isn't. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honda Pilot, inappropriate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change username and keep signature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to [[Wikipedia:Username policy]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: You need to install the Renameuser extension on your MediaWiki. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On MediaWiki 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What counts as too close to another username? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archives searchable by google? 

message: VOABot seems to be repeatedly archiving the unfilled requests without removing them from this page.. Secretlondon 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking into that. Voice-of-All 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: See my reply to the below message. Prodego talk 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User log 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How long between name changes? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Google indexing of the archives 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Block log 

message: The fact that a user has been previously renamed doesn't occur in the logs. Look at this user:
::* 
::* 
::* 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  More log issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! Secretlondon 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Right to vanish 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Password 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: This feeds into the "shall we block after renaming" issue and the crappy logs problem.. Secretlondon 16:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just leave a note encouraging people to re-register their old accounts themselves? WjBscribe 16:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: */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)
thread_title:  More renaming fun 

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

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

text:  Welcome to the cabal.  Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CHU]] clerk 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here meaning this talk page, or meaning under the request itself? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the request (ie not on the users talk page) Secretlondon 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: 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.
* - this is if a user requests a new username that is already taken but suitable for usurpation.
* - 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: The bot appears not to be archiving rejected requests - well not removing them from the page anyway. Secretlondon 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke to Voice of All, the problem should be fixed. WjBscribe 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot again 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Just fix the templates for them. No reason to add extra bureaucracy... WjBscribe 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What templates? The Sunshine Man 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Creation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One Question 

message: Hello all :) I've created a new template:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  {{tl|Bcratbacklog}} 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Delete completed requests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with WjB. I think I also agreed on this before. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming previously blocked users (again) 

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

message: I've recently been discussing a former change request with  who had a proposed name change to  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  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? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good deed for the day 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monkey business 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requests not by the user 

message: It was not vandalism, Another User deleted my own request.c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kfc1864-me 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Renaming useless? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How do I make the arrow? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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). SalaSkan 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Right to vanish proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Tag all the pages you want deleted with . WjBscribe 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. •97198 talk 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting old page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. WjBscribe 08:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean... ? ;P Andre (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I defer the excitement of using that template to the crats ;-). WjBscribe 08:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki/language link section 

message: The new 'crats are on the ball! Kudos to Andre and Deskana! Sr13 01:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, its great with no backlog! Rlest 09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No backlog! 

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

text: Seems ok to me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for guidelines regarding this process 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, I've never heard of such a bot. You just have to deal with the old signature. Sr13 is almost  Singularity 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing signatures 

message: 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§ion=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)
replies: text: --Chris   G   08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also  on CHU/U --Chris   G   02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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%27_noticeboard#What is going on with this account? Secretlondon 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logs merger 

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

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

message: User:RS1900 was renamed from User:RS2007 a couple of days ago. Some of their edits are still allocated to their old name.  and . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Broken rename 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Adding username 

message: That's all I was wondeing... :) Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement. Just look over this and go ahead. i said 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How do you become a clerk? 

message: 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  and neither show up.  Likewise, I queried Riana dzasta  and got nothing.  However, Jeske Couriano works .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Special:Log/renameuser|Rename user log]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usurping to existing username 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Commenting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Uppercase 

message: What are the requirements to help out as a clerk?  Does one have to be an admin? NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I seemed to have missed the above messages. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk 

message: Hi, I'm having an issue.  It seems that somebody registered under my old username "Clevelander" and has begun contributing ().  What should I do? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you able to log into that account and change the password? Kingturtle (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Help? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is allowed, but only to prevent impersonation. --JayTur1  (Contribs) 11:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurping previous usernames? 

message: I've noticed that leaving clerk notes or bureaucrat notes requires you to type the note out yourself, like:
 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:
 
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)
replies: text: 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.
*  
*  
*  
*  
*  
*  
*  
Those all produce this (in order of the above):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These, of course, could also be used with .
-- Ryan Taylor  04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too many clerknotes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Box addition to new requests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming an old account 

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

message: You should use this, when you change a username. – i123Pie biocontribs 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: There was apparently some vandalism by  on this page, messing with old requests. Can somebody check this  old pre-vandalism version to make sure no requests have been lost? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My requests where lost in one of the edits by , so I would imagine I'm not the only one. --Christian (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: I'm just curious if it usually takes a day or a week or?  Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How long does the process usually take? 

message: It seems we barely need clerks now, as bots are there. ;) Qst (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots can't detect promotional usernames or  cases. -Jéské  (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 08:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Singularity 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  my changing 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: SUL is, I believe, enabled for all Wikimedia projects (Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikibooks...). Singularity 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator changing name 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your subpages are automatically moved to User:NEWUSERNAME/SAMESUBPAGENAME when you are renamed. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When user name is changed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  usurpation and GFDL concerns 

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

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

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

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

message: #StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. <Sigh> Timurite (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging different account's contribution lists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Bot has been struggling with archiving  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)
replies: text: My Bot archives  when they have not been edited for 12 hours and  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)
thread_title:  Archiving CHU 

message: 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 DissidentTalk 16:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps another template needs to be created? bibliomaniac15 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a variation of  in response to this thread; how's ? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine. That will be added to all (already unified) requests won't it? Rudget  (logs) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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 DissidentTalk 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: , a similar thing to  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The labeling of requests for which a global account must first be deleted 

message: *added here by — MaggotSyn 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  signIDlike → (it shall be deleted) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving [[WP:CHU/SUL]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: You mean the crat should be responsible, right? Since admins don't perform this feature. — MaggotSyn 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected text above. --Tombstone (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: +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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — MaggotSyn 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Xeno took the words right out of my mouth. Soxπed93(blag) 11:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former account vulnerable