Wikipedia talk:Changing username

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Complications with this username

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

Bots

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

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

Renaming accounts with no contributions

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

I guess the idea is it's less effort for the editor to create a new account than for a bureaucrat to rename the account, particularly in the case of well-intentioned editors that (re-)created articles that were speedy deleted for various reasons and want to start fresh. This is particularly true of editors that had their articles deleted and had spammy usernames that got blocked. But who am I to tell the 'crats what to do with their time.--chaser (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of it is that we do have a limited (and too small imho) amount of crats to swiftly answer all CHU requests, so those users who do not need edit re-attribution can just create a new account instead of waiting for a crat to come along to do it. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think certain bureaucrats do prefer to exercise their tools more judiciously. Not that renaming an account with no contributions is not judicious, but I remember that The Rambling Man would hardly ever do this type of rename. Myself, I usually do them. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I deny them out of habit more than anything. Performing the renames takes only slightly more effort than tagging them with {{notdone}} does. I'm willing to revist my stance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We've had a number of RFA candidates given grief over earlier discontinued accounts, and even to an extent recent renamings. I appreciate that it may seem pointless to rename a zero edit account, but "disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored" is not IMHO entirely a true statement. I would suggest at the least rephrasing it to "disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored, providing you redirect their talk and user pages to your new account with the code #Redirect [[User:your new name]] and #Redirect [[User Talk:your new name]] and declare the old account on your user page with words such as "I used to edit as [[User:your old name]]". Or take one of the other routes specified at wp:sock#LEGIT" ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What about, "If you have not made very many edits, it might be more efficient to simply create a new username and discard the old one; disused accounts are harmless and may be safely ignored."? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, and this way the stated rules don't conflict with what we are actually doing. :) -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

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

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_6#Clerks_at_WP:CHU and also at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Assistance that really didn't seem to go anywhere. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If the requesting account is blocked, I'd feel comfortable with clerks marking them as {{notdone}}. Outside of that, eh; could get iffy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis

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