Wikipedia talk:Changing username

Can I change my UserName?

Could I change my User name from The450 to Ryan Grey? The450 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi The450. Please see the notice at the top of this page. This isn't the correct place to request for a username change. Please read the instructions on this page and select the appropriate venue to file your request. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please change my username to udaya Udaya Nawagamuwa (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please change my username from Rajan J. Thapa to Rajan Thapa. Please Rajan J. Thapa (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re: directing users to m:SRUC

Template:Formerly

I remember there was a discussion about this page after SUL finalisation and the usage of m:SRUC to handle usurpation requests, but I cannot remember where the discussion has been archived to or what it was called. Anyways, I've moved a discussion from WP:CHU/U onto this page to reduce clutter and make discussion easier. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Discussion moved from WP:CHU/U

@WJBscribe: Please do handle these requests through meta. The account was not active on en.wiki, and should only have been usurped following the globally established procedure. It's impossible for every project to impose their own usurpation policy on accounts on other wiki's. Savh ^{tell me} 22:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that this rename fell within the remit of this board. If that's not the case, I apologise. That said, I'm not sure I understand why we still keep this noticeboard if uncontroversial usurpations cannot be handled here. Should we deprecate this board and send all usurpation requests to m:SRUC? WJBscribe (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Usurpations concerning accounts created on en.wiki can be handled here according to the previously existing local usurpation policies, as they could be before. Usurpations concerning accounts created on it.wiki could never be performed from this noticeboard, and should not be either currently. Savh ^{tell me} 22:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically, this rename would have been processed here prior to SUL unification. Bri@itwiki would not have been a global account, so Brianhe@enwiki could have been renamed to Bri@enwiki, and gained the claim to the global name when SUL unification took place, with the same result. But I see your point that actually renaming the @itwiki account takes it a step further and that, for usurpation here, you ask us to confine ourselves to targets with enwiki as their home wiki and no significant contributions to other projects. I will reflect on whether the volume of such requests makes keeping this noticeboard meaningful. I think it may just be adding confusion and we would be better sending all enwiki usurpation request to m:SRUC. @Xeno: what do you think, is it work keeping WP:CHUU? WJBscribe (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: I'm of the opinion that CHUU should remain open until there is an actual global usurpation policy, and remain open if that policy is more restrictive than the guidelines used here. If we turn it over to SRUC, a wide array of desirable usernames could be forever locked away. –xeno^talk 00:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Do you know if any progress is being made on a global usurpation policy? It's been a couple of years since SUL unification and I can't see anywhere on meta where it is being actively discussed. WJBscribe (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a sort of inactive discussion on meta but it's rather difficult to come to some sort of consensus when it involves multiple communities using currently different operating procedures, so the status quo has remained in place for a while now. Finding a proposal that suits everyone is rather difficult, and your help or input would certainly be appreciated. Savh ^{tell me} 11:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Having been involved in the evolving policy here, my suggestion would be to take it in stages. Let's start by seeing if we can agree a policy - even if it's limited - that's fairly uncontroversial and seek to expand it as we go. A good first step might be to collate in one place the usurpation policies of every wiki that has one, with a view to finding common ground. Are there any wikis that do not allow usurpation at all? WJBscribe (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia's usurpation policy was very restrictive, if I recall correctly, any edit made usurpation ineligible. –xeno^talk 13:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Another thing that's probably worth discussion is: "What constitutes a 'significant' edit that precludes renaming?" There seems to be vagueness around this statement. Minor typo fixing edits may be "insignificant", but they're still valid edits. What about copyediting? How much of the article must an edit change before it can preclude usurpation? What if they make multiple edits? It's a no-brainer if the account has made zero edits, or had all of its edits immediately reverted or deleted, but as it stands now it would seem that the interpretation of whether or not the edits of an account are insignificant enough to allow for usurpation is at the discretion of the renamer that happens upon the request. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Usurpation, in my experience as a 'crat on es.wiki, was an absurd process, and usually done on a case by case basis or bluntly following some established principles that were never reconsidered - it was a matter mostly in hands of bureaucrats. Commons, if I'm not mistaken, for instance required the owner of the SUL account to have usurped all other local accounts before the usurpation on commons would be handled – if any other wiki decided to mirror that criterion and you'd need to usurp an account on both commons and that other project, you could forget the usurpation. This is no longer relevant since all accounts are global ones, but it imo shows the absurdity of certain local procedures towards usurpation. One of the things I particularly like of this wiki's process is that it requires the requesting user to have a certain standing before it takes over an account, and that for instance should imo be a part of a global policy, if we ever get one. I don't think usurpations require much haste either, and I'm rather fond of the notification & month on hold process we're currently using on meta as well. I personally believe there are millions of combinations possible, and usurpations should be rather restricted, but I'm aware most people think differently.

I haven't read the full discussion on meta yet, though skimming over it it seems to be oriented at setting hard requirements - and that generally isn't liked. I'd like to echo Ajraddatz's suggestion to find a compromise somewhere, possibly in the continuation of that discussion. Savh ^{tell me} 17:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To me usurpations are an editor attraction and retention issue: if it makes editors happier to have a certain username, it's more likely they will contribute more and for a longer period of time. Of course keep in mind enwiki being the largest and oldest project has so many usernames that were registered and never used, this is why I am very hesitant to shutter the local venue given the more stringent requirements being floated for the global process. –xeno^talk 14:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Different usernames in different Wikipedias?

Just wondering if it would be possible to e.g. use a Cyrillic transliteration of my username on the Russian Wikipedia should I ever get good enough at Russian to make edits there. Excalibre (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Excalibre: Sorry, that is not possible. Your username is global, meaning that it is the same across all Wikimedia projects. It's not possible to have one username on one wiki and a different username on another on the same account; to do that, you need to have two different accounts. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017t

Dharmendra kashyap (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)