Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

General comment, moved from top of the page itself:

Would somebody please add the following information to <HEAD> area in the HTML code, as having this page archived does somewhat defeat the purpose of being able to change one's user name. Thanks. :
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

Older talk

Hi,

I noticed that User:H.J. has asked (in the main page of this talk page) for her name to be removed. However, her name can be pieced together fairly easily bt looking at some edit summaries 70-80 edits back in User talk:H.J. - is this a problem?

If I was wrong to even mention the possibility, feel free to simply delete this entire talk page, since I am the first one to edit it. -- Pakaran 03:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No worry. Edit summary is not searchable at all by Google or Wikipedia-search (which hasn't been working for n years anyway). --Menchi 03:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok I didn't realize that, thanks. It makes sense, though - if it were, past pages would get crawled to and indexed. I wasn't sure how serious she was about making it impossible to discover her real name, as well - note that e.g. Natalie Portman's real name is fairly easy to find, she just doesn't go out of her way to reveal it. -- Pakaran 03:32, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Why is it wrong to use her real name? Apart from being gorgeous, what's so special about her? We list other people's real names. I doubt concealing her name is much to do with protecting her family; it is far more likely to be because, when you have a name that sounds like "slag", it's nice to have a pseudonym.

Hi, Could you please attribute changes, most notably Ben Pollack article (from ISP # 63.232.144.4, 63.232.144.124, and 63.232.144.118 to my ID (Cyclonezz)?

Many Thanks

Please ask at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. Angela. 10:14, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

password forgotten / email wrong...

Question moved to Wikipedia:Changing_username#Request_for_password-change Fantasy 10:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Username changes?

Does anybody even check this page? I see the requests are building up. Cbguder 15:07, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Only developers can change usernames, and currently, only Tim Starling is interested in doing it. I expect he's been too busy with the bugs in the new software lately. This is a much lower priority task than everything else the developers do. Angela. 01:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see, but they're also requesting us not to get the new usernames in advance. I don't want anyone to get my real username... Maybe they should allow admins to handle this, too. --Déjà Vu | Talk 09:45, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Edit changes from username to another

I see instructions for changing usernames and moving edit histories from ip address to username, but how about changing edit histories from one username to another? I already created a new one and have been editing with both. --Lussmu 15:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Different Language

Is it possible to change my username at a different Wikipedia?

Yes, see meta:Changing username. Angela. 18:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
I have two questions. First, I already requested a name change (from Strangeloop to Mark Dingemanse on en and nl). However, I'm not sure I'm doing it the right way since the procedures here and on Meta seem to conflict. Here, it says that I should create the new account and start to use it right away. On meta it says that I should NOT create the new account. What should I do and what is going to happen? A related question: since I want to get on straight away with my new account, I want to make sure that the user page of my old account is not moved to my new account when the change eventually takes place. Could this be confirmed? - Mark Dingemanse 11:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Either will work - the procedure on meta is the older one, which is a bit more complicated for no good reason, hence why it was changed on en :-) I suppose no-one thought to change it there as well. As for not moving user pages, I don't normally move them when I do it, but you could put a note next to your request if you want to be sure. — Kate Turner | Talk 21:28, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there?

Is this page still looked at by the developers? I don't want to be pushy but it seems that since november no user name changes were done?! --LuTo 17:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no user name changes were done since October 10th... — mark ✎ 15:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could somebody go and bother those responsible? --Blankko 15:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I started bothering Kate, who used to change the usernames. Any other ideas of who to bother? --Hippalus 08:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Kate seems to have left in disgust over objections to some unstated Wikimedia Foundation policies regarding Microsoft software. --Doradus 15:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
And just now I bothered Tim and Angela as well. Hippalus 09:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone going to change user names of people in the other Wikipedias? My request have stayed for half a year untouched in m:Changing username. I have confirmed it in my local Wikipedia user page, so my wait has been inordinate. It seems like the developers have abandoned the page. They changed the policy here and ask now to register the new name in advance. But we haven't heard even such announcement in Meta. -Hapsiainen 00:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is really starting to suck. --Blankko 16:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've raised the abandonment of this page on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, only to be told a developer must do this (admins can't). Apparently no developer has interest in this ever since User:Kate left. It's now listed on the sad long page Wikipedia:Cleaning department without any members. Jordi·✆ 07:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How long does it take for an developer to change a username? Tony Jin 19:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like the "right" way to proceed is to have a developer write a tool that would allow admins to handle this. --Doradus 18:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Maybe a feature request is in order? Josh 01:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Feature request, and the future of this page

A feature request has been put into the latest tracking system: Mediazilla. See bug 1807. If you care about this, please create an account there and vote for that bug. Meanwhile, I will see if people can create a new user-moving tool for bureaucrats to use. +sj + 05:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there no way to rename to an existing account?

Hi, I already registered the username User:Poiuyt Man, because the instructions of the changing username page a few months ago instructed me to do so. Will it be impossible to rename my account to this name now, since I've already created it? --User:Poiuytman talk 12:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't do it. A developer could - but they are overloaded with more important stuff. If you have another name (and it's never been created) then we can rename you. Secretlondon 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if he created both accounts in question, couldn't he have you rename his placeholder to nonsense, and his current account to the name he'd like? Shem(talk) 21:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Refused Requests

We need to decide what to do with requests that are refused. Currently they are just clogging up the list. I'd remove them but I don't know whether they were informed on their talk pages. Also people need to archive when done. Secretlondon 20:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is also no obvious way of letting them know their request has been fulfilled. Presumably the first many of them will know is when they find they can't log in. Leaving a message on their new talk page won't really help. I tried to email the one I've just done but they didn't leave an email address. Secretlondon 20:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My contributions

I'm thinking of changing my username. If I do, would I still have the contributions I did under "B-101"?- B-101 11:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes - that's the benefit of renaming rather than making a new account. Secretlondon 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Erm, I think Secretlondon might have misread your question. When you change your username, all your old contributions (in the article histories) are retroactively renamed. So no, your old contributions would not be under B-101, they would be under whatever new name you choose. However, the comments you have left on talk pages would still be signed in the old username. →Raul654 17:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to know, if I would still have the over 2700 edits I made since 2004.- B-101 18:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking old username

The instructions for bureaucrats currently state that the old username should be recreated and blocked. I've not been blocking the old usernames, as (1) I've been recreating them using instantly forgettable passwords which it is highly unlikely anyone will guess, and (2) if people are concerned about me using the account to impersonate an individual, well, I could unblock the account, and it wouldn't be much of a mystery who was doing it. Is there any purpose to this instruction? Otherwise, I'll remove this part of the instructions. Warofdreams 10:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been blocking them. I once managed to block myself (which was clever) though. As for the instructions I think 2 things need clarifying:

  • Some people have been renaming when both names exist if the user says that both accounts are theirs. They've been doing things like Account2 -> Account2_random. Account1 -> Account2. I think there are 2 problems with this - we don't know that the 2nd account really is theirs (unless we get a developer to do an IP check), and we are told that renaming is hard on the database. Is doing 2 renaming jobs justified?
    • The first problem can be resolved if they log in to the second account and confirm it is theirs. Is doing two renaming jobs justified? Well, if it is more intensive the more edit you have, then the second account should have very few edits, and it won't greatly increase the load. But if it loads the database by a similar amount regardless of number of edits, then that is an important question. Warofdreams 12:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The instructions say that renaming jobs are resource intensive and that if you have a few number of edits you should just get a new username. Others have said that it is more intensive the more edits you have. This has led to everyone having a maximum number of edits for renaming but everyone having a different level. I think we should probably state a ballpark minimum to be considered and rewrite the instructions as it looks like lots of people aren't reading them currently. Secretlondon 14:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It does depend in part on the nature of the edits - a couple of edits into which a great deal of effort has been put may be worth changing; thirty minor grammar edits or throwaway comments on talk pages may not be worth the bother. But we could offer a guideline of, say, twenty or fifty edits. Warofdreams 12:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

B-101

I put down my request to have my username changed this morning. Does anyone know how long it's gonna take? And also, how will I know that my username's been changed?- B-101 19:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It'll take until someone gets around to it - the typically current wait is three days to a week. We have to check various pieces of information and go through a process (listed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats) in order to change your username. Unfortunately, at present, there's no method of informing you that your username has been changed. You'll know it has been changed when you can no longer log in to your old account, and the bureaucrat who has changed it will usually leave a message on your new talk page or e-mail account to confirm this. Warofdreams 09:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

AARGH!

Hi, this whole changing usernames thing is new to me. I'm afraid that i'll screw up (as opposed to familiar functions such as RfA and vandalism reversion), so can a bureaucrat post a note here or on my talk page about the whole process so I can be sure I understood the instructions correctly? Thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Disappearing requests

There used to be a long line of requests (including mine, to change from Tony Jin to King of Hearts), but where did they go? Mine wasn't fulfilled, but it wasn't in current or refused requests either. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Involuntary name changes

I thought we blocked people instead; e.g. {{usernameblock}}

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The policy is Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. It says nothing about non-latin user names and has the following. I'll paste it here as it is pretty clear:

Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. This can take place on either (A) the user's talk page, (B) a subpage of the user's talk page, or (C) a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate section. The user should also be made aware of the discussion.

For uncontroversial cases where the user is actively editing, the decision can be taken in a day or two. For more controversial cases where the user is less actively editing, a week is more appropriate. For highly controversial cases, or cases whether the user has left Wikipedia, discussion might well take a month.

After an appropriate time for discussion, a sysop can take a judgement on the name in question. They should only take action if their judgement is that a "rough consensus" has arisen that the username is inappropriate. This will involve blocking the inappropriate username, for which see Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

I don't see where unilateral renames fits in with our policy. Secretlondon 21:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to accept, hypothetically, that the "rename user" capability is new and therefore, like any new technical capability, may have policy implications not reflected in our existing set of policies. However, in this case in particular, I'm not sure we want to continue the practice of changing usernames involuntarily rather than blocking the affected user. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so concerned about the mechanics as much as the total ignoring of policies and procedures. I don't see *any* of names being covered by inappropriate usernames. I don't see any of our policies for dealing with inappropriate usernames being followed. I think I will be more comfortable with a discussion on blocking vs forced renaming when the-person-who-wishes-to-ignore-all-policies-and-procedures no longer has the ability to do so. This has been going on too long and has long got tiring. Secretlondon 21:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be more useful to discuss the issue now. I will follow whatever policies I can understand. Perhaps I made a mistake. Well, please let me learn from it. And let others learn from how we all pull together to educate rather than punish or exile. He-who-must-not-be-named 23:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
While it may have seemed like a good idea, I think the best idea is to simply block them. For example, what if someone wanted the username dotty or something of the like? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Another advantage to blocking is that it tends to be subject to more review... There are hundreds of users capable of instating or reversing a block, but fewer than twenty capable of instating or reversing renames. And, ultimately, if a username is found to be disruptive and the user insists on keeping it, then they ought to be blocked for disruption anyway. --Aquillion 01:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Can a user request his/her account be deleted?

Can a user with 0 edits request his/her account be deleted? (In case the user of one of those old accounts with no edits wants to free up his/her username) --Nectar T 20:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure it's really 0 edits? Edits to deleted pages do not show on Special:Contributions. Currently, accounts cannot be deleted; they can only be renamed. --cesarb 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Kate's edit count tool shows the user has never edited Wikipedia.--Nectar 00:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Disabled

Where was it announced that this feature has been disabled? I've looked on the mailing lists and can't find anything. Was a reason given? Secretlondon 14:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Brion told Raul, Pakaran and me on IRC this morning just before 12am (my time: +5:30 UTC). =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Did he say why? I am guessing load on the database. Secretlondon 14:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
He said some bug fix was being seen to somewhere. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A bugzilla link would be useful. This was actually being used (why was the editlimit upped to 6800, btw?) so it would be good for there to be community feedback of the "it's been three weeks!" form. 71.136.42.36 10:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Me too, I wanna change my username. --Rkundalini 03:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been gone a month now with no real information. I understand this isn't a feature supported by policy, but couldn't we at least have a bit more info than "so and so told so and so", such as what the problem is and some rough indication of the likelihood of it being reactivated and on what time scale? --Russell E 13:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please? --Russell E 05:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

looks like Wikipedia does not have commitment with the privacy of the members. --Mateusc 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess it's been re-enabled, I'd still be somewhat interested in an explanation for why it had to be disabled. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

We should ask people who have been waiting more than a week or so to reconfirm - they may have stopped editing or changed their minds in the intervening period. I could do this tomorrow, unless there are any objections. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have left notes for all the users down as far as User:Anastrophe-wikipedia (other than a few which will clearly be rejected), asking them to reconfirm on the project page. Please do not change the user names of people who do not reply. I haven't checked whether their requests are possible. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Name change to old/unused account?

Although I'm well above the 6800 maximum, I've been interested for some time in changing my user name to User:Owen. However, this handle has been registered for a number of years, while holding no evidence that it's ever been used. If an account hasn't been activated in some time (and never used for editing), would expiring it be an option? Sarge Baldy 18:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

68,000 edits?

Where did the number 68,000 (or 68.000 to some) dits come from? Why can't you change your name if you have more than that? 68,000 is an awful lot of edits. Can someone clarify this please? --HereToHelp|talk 21:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's only 6800, and a number of people are well above that. Sarge Baldy 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Changing the attribution of edits?

I have made about 500 edits under the name Strangeloop. I have since long switched to my current username, but if it is possible I would like to have those Strangeloop edits attributed to my current account. The page is not clear about this; please tell me if it's possible. — mark ✎ 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't possible. The only way around it would be to move edits under your current username to a third username, then reattribute the Strangeloop edits to your current username. It's not possible to merge the two accounts. Warofdreams talk 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Leaving or staying?

Joshua's name change to user:ScienceApologist is confusing. Is he leaving, or just changing his name? Uncle Ed 17:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Both. He's leaving, and wishes not to have his real name associated with his edits. This seems reasonable to me. — Dan | Talk 19:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation problems

When I created my account, I typed "jeti," only to be horrified to see WikiPedia welcome me as "Jeti." Is it possible for usernames to be uncapitalised?

It may seem silly to other people, but I'm "jeti," not "Jeti" (some sort of java chat applet AND a webdesign company AND from "The Return of the Jeti," a game), "JETI" (a type of model airplane motor), or "JeTi" (various people name with names like "JEnnifer TIggllksfj or JErry TIjslllk &c. AND a church group by the name of "Jesus Time"). However, I'm unsure if this account capitalised means a name change to the same account name (letter-wise) uncapitalised is possible. I'd be very grateful for an answer.

Jossi

User:Jossifresco is extremely eager to change their username but has nearly 10,000 edits. I've left the following message on their talk page: "I appreciate your reasons for wanting to change your username ASAP. However, changing usernames places a huge load on the servers and I understand that for users with more than roughly 6,800 edits, there is a chance of it crashing Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, I'd recommend that you contact a developer directly, and if you have no luck there, raise it on the discussion lists or meta." If anyone has any better ideas, I'm sure Jossi would love to know. Warofdreams talk 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Username Change Problem

Several months ago (or was that a year? I forgot), I asked to change from User:Tony Jin to User:King of Hearts to remain anonymous and not use my real name. But the rules at that time said I had to create this new account, and then wait for developers to reattribute edits and block the old account. Is there anything that can be done now? -- King of Hearts 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, not really. We could move your current username to a placeholder and then your old account to your current username, but then you would lose all your recent edits. We are not able to merge two accounts. Only a developer can do that, and they are unlikely to find the time to do so in a non-urgent case. Warofdreams talk 12:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Transfering watchlists from old to new usernames

I've just created the article Wikipedia:Copying watchlist to new username instructing how to do this, and added the link to the Alternatives section. Coyoty 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Username question

Is it possible to change my username to one that exists but has only 6 edits to the user page itself and no article edits (or any edits elsewhere)? The user page just says "Error, must be delete." The name in question is User:Brian. Rx StrangeLove 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm....doesn't look like these kinds of requests are possible, once a name is created it's done, even if the user leaves permanently and never was a contributor? Rx StrangeLove 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely right. There's not a technical reason why this can't be done, but the general consensus has been not move any account unless requested by its creator. Warofdreams talk 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just as I thought, maybe there should be a way to "archive" unused or empty usernames to free them up. User:Foo to User:FooBak or something. This user for example used the account for 30 minutes and only made 5 edits to his userpage and was never heard from again (10 months ago). Maybe usernames with fewer than 10 edits and older than a year (or some pre-defined level of inactivity) should be archived on request with a bak extension. Doesn't really hurt anyone and keeps the edit history. Rx StrangeLove 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Making edits shows some intent of actually using the account. I do think it would make sense to free up accounts with no edits at all, which have been inactive for a given time period (a year or so). — TheKMantalk 07:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, there comes a time when there's not much point in waiting for someone to come back. In the case I was talking about there was no article space editing a all and only a handful of userpage edits. At some point it becomes a fairness issue where someone is taking up a username and seemingly never coming back preventing active users from using it. Rx StrangeLove 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Dropping inactive user names

Angela suggested me to start a discussion here if dropping inactive users should become a policy. The arguments:

  1. They are taking up valuable real estate, and real estate here is starting to sky rocket.
  2. Users that registered an en.wikipedia user account, just to hold along with their user account on one of the wikipedia languages, will have no reason to do so, after single login is made.
  3. Angela will not change my user name to user:ems, until there is such a policy, and everyone else mostly is to loyal to her.
  4. There should be an official policy.
  5. They could of been a test to see how registering an account works.
  6. They could of been registered by bots.
  7. Even if they registered to save preferences, I don't think they would mind having their user name changed, for someone who is editing wikipedia to use it.
  8. etc.

Lets discuse. -- ems2

In general, I believe that, at a minimum, user names that did not contribute any lasting content should be dropped by the software. This is a can of worms from a database perspective, though, and the developers have bigger fish to fry. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can of worms it is, but there should be a way of cleaning out the obvious usernames, ones with no edits, no edits to article space or edits that are so few or old that they are not meaningful anymore. With the understanding that they must be kept, there should be a way of archiving them to a holding account so that others can use it. For example the one I was interested in had only 5 or 6 edits to the user page and no other edits at all 10 months ago. Other than dev time I don't see a reason why accounts like that couldn't be shifted away. Rx StrangeLove 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Accounts without any edits ought to be dropped after a year without trouble (no edits to reassign). Other accounts can have a threshhold worked out for them that correlates to the # of edits they have, and there should be a mechanism for reassigning these edits (either something like User:MIA0016 or reassigning the edits to the IP that each individual edit was made from). Accounts like User:!!!!!!!!!!!!! are really annoying in Special:Listusers — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect to UC, his statement is rather ill defined. I assume we are talking about accounts that have been registered, but have never made an edit. (And not simply "inactive" accounts that have not edited in a while). I do agree that we should have a policy of what to do with them. I think a lot of "good" usernames are taken, and we often get requests here to switch names to accounts that exist but have never made an edit. ON the other hand, I agree that renaming people is dangerous. Raul654 18:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. I agree with the fact that many usernames are plain useless but I have a point to raise: What if the user has contributed some valued material but has been inactive for over a year? Under the GFDL licence, he has to be credited. If we delete the account, we run the possible risk of deleting his name from the history, and hence is a violation of the licence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 18:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in full support of dropping usernames that have never edited anything, but cannot support making usernames inactive that have even edited just one article outside their own user space. -- Francs2000 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So if a username's edits were confined to his or her userpage it would be ok to drop? What do you think would happen if I made a request like that on the project page? The username in question for me has only 6 edits on the userpage and none anywhere else. I'd like to make that request but I'm not sure where we are at on this issue. Rx StrangeLove 19:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
(by the way the username in question is User:Brian). Rx StrangeLove 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I said that on the assumption that if you're making their username inactive their user page would be deleted with it. If their only edits to the whole of Wikipedia are to their user space then they haven't really done anything to warrant their being around, in my opinion. -- Francs2000 12:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an effort to see if the username is identical to a username at another wiki before we delete/change it, even if it has no contributions? NoSeptember talk 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather the policy was not changed before single login (which Brion is working on this month) since it will only potentially increase the numer of conflicts that have to be dealt with. Some people have registered accounts on all wikis so that they can have that name as their global name when Wikimedia finally gets single login across all projects and all languages. Unless there's a way to check that no one has a name on another Wikimedia wiki, it shouldn't be dropped since they might be active elsewhere.
Another issue is that dropping nicks that haven't edited also enforces the idea that accounts are only for editors, when most of the preference settings are also useful to readers (changing the skin, avoiding underlined links, search settings, etc). Do you really want to ban readers from having accounts? Angela. 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login/Omegatron doesn't have this problem, and accually not deleting these users would be a bad thing. If users are just registered for preference, then it doesn't matter what username they have, and can just be renamed. Ems2 22:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the number of situation in online life where we have to choose a username, I can't see that there is any real need to "reclaim" usernames. To be blunt, to expect that you can still obtain a three-character username here is pretty unrealistic, and yet recently I came across a new one User:BTR (a fellow TRS-80 geek). Considering the work and discernment needed to define policies about how inactive a user is, whether the person has to have edits or not, whether or not those edits are "significant," and how recent the edits need to be before the username is up for grabs, it seems best to let current policy stand. It's better to develop a relatively unique username for each of us, so that when things like "Bcorr" are taken, you can move on. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an official policy. Of some sort. If we are going to drop users, it should exclusively be users that have never, ever edited, and been inactive for at least a year. I'd also suggest that, if technically feasible, they should be e-mailed with a warning about expiration (if they have e-mail set). I'd also be curious whether there's any way to detect non-editing accounts that still login, or browse Wikipedia from a machine cookied from their login. I'd really like User:Adrian myself, but I'm not willing to displace someone who actually uses it, even if its just for saved preferences, to get it. (cont'd)

That said, most online communities will drop inactive users. Wikipedia is only going to grow, and it's unreasonable to have totally inactive and dead users taking up namespace, forever, irrevocably, no matter what. Still, it's not enough of a problem yet that we should risk inconveniencing passive users by messing with the way things work. Unless it's technically feasible to see if a user is browsing but not editing, we shouldn't action this until such a time as technical ability for this determination exists. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They can pick up messages if they are logging in to browse, though I don't know why someone would take the effort to login only to browse. Rx StrangeLove 01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As indicated elsewhere, to allow customization of features of Wikipedia not customizable to unregistered users, whatever they may be. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Then it doesn't matter what username they have, as long as they are noted of the change. Ems2 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we can't ask them on their disussion page if they are using their account? A message along the lines of "Your account has been deemed inactive, and may be usurped by another user. Please post a message on your discussion page within 2 weeks (or any other time period) of this notice to identify your account as active, and to avoid losing your account." could suffice. — TheKMantalk 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have for user:ems. Ems2 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, Ems2, but the above IS NOT CURRENT POLICY!
And Ems is are not currently in danger of "losing" his/her username (alias "nick").
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should make Wikipedia/Wikimedia usernames exclusive to editors. Users are allowed to have preferences, skins and other customisations without having to be editors. They should also be given the privelege of reserving a username, supposing that they may edit. I acquired my username a while before my first edit. I thus believe that the only major criterion for deletion is that an account has not been logged into for, say, over a year. Since the user table in the Mediawiki database includes a column user_touched which is described as "a timestamp which is updated when a user logs in, logs out, changes preferences, or performs some other action requiring HTML cache invalidation to ensure that the UI is updated.", this should be elementary for a developer to determine. Nonetheless, where an email addresses is available, a user should be given at least two weeks notice before their account is deleted. jnothman talk 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But, in such a case what username the user has, isn't that importaint. Any username would be able to provide the same thing, he just need to be told 2 weeks in advance, to see if he opposes. Ems2 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What right have you over them to a particular username? Yes, you could arrange a username swap with anyone, but it's a pain for the developers. And I certainly don't think 2 weeks is enough if the user has visited the web site within the past many months. You are right, in a sense, that if they were only visitng and not editing, the username they were using up till then is not relevant, but in the future it may be. I would assume, Ems2, you know a little Jewish philosophy: why, when a group is asked "give me one person to kill and I will save all of you" may we not choose any arbitrary individual, nor may we choose the most ignorant, nor the most physically defective, nor the poorest: we cannot judge an individual by their current merits, as we cannot determine their potential. Who are you to say that you are more deserving of this name than they? Surely if they let you have it, fine. If they are clearly inactive, both as an editing and as a browsing user,fine. If they have a nick and don't edit but do visit, yet simply don't reply to your request for their nickname (maybe because they don't understand how), this is in no way sufficient basis to take it from them. I also think that anyone who has edited (as opposed to vandalised) can in no way have their name changed except by their own request, even if inactive; they chose to author under a particular name and it would be fraudulent to change it to any other. jnothman talk 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I agree with you. Thank you. Ems2 10:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been waiting for this opportunity for a while now, I fully support ems2's points. I'd like to see a vote to see what the greater population of wikipedia as a whole thinks. —A 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "dropping" usernames that had edited even one article would probably be in direct violation of the GFDL. talk to +MATIA 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So rename any who has made an edit, or wait 70 years. Ems2 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If a name has already been taken, then it should be unavailable to anyone else, no matter how much someone wants it. The arguments for taking it so far sound a lot like those for eminent domain: "Well, he's not doing anything with it and my use of it would be more important than his anyway, so I'll take it from him." That's questionable enough if the name had never been used, but if it had been used at some time, then the new owner would be the one getting the credit (or condemnation) for the old owner's actions. That could be the intent of the new owner, in which case it would be identity theft, or it could cause problems for the new owner if he's mistaken for the old one. --Coyoty 00:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unavailable ever? For usernames that have never made an article edit I think that's going a bit far. There's no identity to steal when there are no contributions assocaiated with the username. And in fact when the userpage itself says to delete it. Rx StrangeLove 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally only contribute every so often, if I see a mistake to correct, or some addition to make, for example. But why should rare contributions be reason for deletion of username? EL 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be and wont be. We are talking about accounts that wasting real estate, not using. ems 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What about sockpuppets? So what happens when we have an account who made only 2 or 3 edits... all of which were either reverted/deleted on sight as pure vandalism, or as sockpuppetry? Whats GFDL say about vandalism? I'm all for deleting accounts registered with no edits (unless its a username shared from a foreign wiki). Lets hurry up and flesh out some sort of policy/guidelines here.  ALKIVAR™ 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as there are features that can be customised only by logged-in users, we can't assume that inactive/never active accounts are not serving some purpose. In addition, of course, there are accounts set up to avoid impersonation both here (like using I for l) and on other languages (I have registered in several languages where I have never edited anything more than my user page, and others in which I have done a few trivial edits, like fixing numbers and names, things you can do even if you don't have a clue about the language). Guettarda 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think fundamentally changing username is a priviledge and isn't essential to the project of producing an encyclopedia. We do allow people to change their names - but I can think of very few changes that were useful to the project - these are the ones where the original one breaks the username policy and I'd always rather rename than block. People wishing to change their username to one they think is wittier or whatever I have very little time for. I know of at least one user who has been renamed twice...
Lots of contributors would love to be the person to get their first name as a user name - why should these premium names get reallocated a)to anyone at all b)to the person who petitioned first? We are not limited in the number of usernames we can support - we are not going to run out of them. Secretlondon 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
IMO, accounts that have been used solely for vandalism should be deleted and those usernames made available. However, I am against doing this with any legitimate editors. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you run into the problem of those names having histories of being vandals, giving the new owners bad reputations. "Oh, look, Onus is back. I know everything he writes is nonsense, so I'll just revert everything he writes..." --Coyoty 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we're having this debate. So far as I can summarise, there are three categories of usernames which have been proposed for deletion or arbitrary renaming are:

  1. Those which have been inactive for a set period of time (e.g. one year).
  2. Those whose only edits are vandalism.
  3. Those with no edits.

1 is difficult, because users may return, and their edits have to be credited under the GFDL. 2 is difficult, because it could lead to arguments over whether all their edits really were vandalism, and could pass the vandal's reputation onto the new user (would you like to be the unsuspecting new User:WoW?). 3 is difficult because we don't know whether a user has created the account to save their settings. Even if we were to decide that one of these was acceptable, it'd be best to take no action until the single log-in has been implemented. The one approach which will allow you to use an existing username would be to get the permission of the user. But if they are inactive, you won't be able to obtain that. Warofdreams talk 10:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From the way I understood number 1 was referring to number 3. As in, those with no edits and have been inactive for 1 year, should have their accounts dropped. ems 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see this (I suggested similar earlier), at least in cases where it's clear that the user is both inactive as an editor and does not regularly lurk using the account. I don't know how often people keep an account strictly to save preferences, but in these cases a message can be dropped to their talk page and be discussed without simply taking eminent domain privileges. Sarge Baldy 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There was talk once of a way to check to see when an account had last logged it regardless of edits. Was I up in the night about this, and is there any way to put in a request to have this checked out? —A 08:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that once single-login is implemented (or at least a phase that reserves names across projects), accounts over a year old with no edits and no preferences should be deleted. This would I believe dispose of several hundred thousand names. We could also consider those who have been banned for "bad names" being moved to no-name accounts. Rich Farmbrough 18:12 14 March 2006 (UTC).

Lost password

I have made several contributions (username as Mfields1) but the account was logged out on my PC today and I cannot retrieve the password. I'm sure I signed up with an email account but no email is sent with my new password. I did sign up as MFields1 which is similar but all my past page monitors and contributions are lost. What can I do? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.166.204 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Try again...we were having a few problems recently. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Usurping a vandal account

For reasons explained on my talk page at User_talk:Raul654#A_complex_rename_request, User:Abelsson has a compelling reason to change his username, even though he probably doesn't want to. He has asked to usurp User:Henrik, an account used for vandalism in 2003 which I conjecture was then blocked (it predates the block log so there's no way to know for sure). Given the vandalistic nature of the Henrik account (and the fact that it appears to have been dead for 3 years) I see no reason why I shouldn't grant his request. If no one objects soon, I'll go ahead and make the changes. Raul654 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

New Account

I hate asking a question that has clearly been asked and answered before, but though it is referenced above, I simply cannot find the answer to the question. How would I go about creating a username and claiming the edits I made anonymously from work and my home network? 204.69.40.7 19:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't. As the page says (Historical note - In the past, this page was used to log requests for developers to manually change attributions and usernames. This practice has long since been discontinued by developers as being too time consuming for the few number of developers available)
You can create a username and use that, but changing attribution for edits you previously made doesn't happen because our developers are already overworked. Raul654 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Then I suppose I won't bother. 204.69.40.7 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why 6800 edits?

I did a search and couldn't find an answer to this question (although it apparently has been asked before), so why is the limit 6800 edits? It's not a power or a multiple of anything obvious. Is it just an arbitrary 'more than this and it's too much load on the database' figure? --Malthusian (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The developers may be better able to answer this question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any word on this? I'm at just shy of 5,000 edits, but I am still holding out for a change of username to A. I fear that if I go over 6,800 edits it will make it that much more compliated for me to get a namechange. Please put my mind at ease so I can stop worrying about this and get back to making Wikipedia a better resource. —A 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Relax, I've checked the source code on the page and it has been increased to 20,000. The devs should have informed us about the change. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear this! Thanks for the update. —A 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Lost cause"

I created my new screen name last year when accounts with tens of thousands of edits couldn't be moved. Now I have my old account, with 17,000 edits, and my new one, with about 6,000 edits, and I really just want to merge the old account with the new one. Is there ANY possible way this can happen, or is it just a lost cause? It'd make me very happy and forever grateful if it could occur. Mike H. That's hot 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No we can't merge accounts as of now. The developers used to do this, I hope they can provide us with this facility soon. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Listusers "feature"

Many of the problems on this page appear to stem from an issue with Special:Listusers. All user names, like all other pages, begin with a capital letter, so searching for a name beginning with a lowercase letter (e.g. sjorford) always returns no results, even if the name exists with an initial capital (Sjorford). Since search engines are generally case-insensitive, most people automatically type search terms in lower case, hence the constant confusion on this page.

Would it not be straightforward for Special:Listusers to automatically convert any search term from lowercase-initial to uppercase-initial before searching? — sjorford (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be a good idea; I'll mention it to the next developer I see. My guess is, however, that it is a default setting, since some wikis (including some Wikimedia wikis) are case sensitive on usernames; that is, you can have a username that starts with a lowercase letter. Essjay Talk • Contact 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've logged it on Bugzilla. However, I'm not sure about there being lowercase usernames - e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Listusers doesn't show any. — sjorford (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm positive there are case-senstive wikis, hence this note on m:Stewards: Enter the user name (which must begin with a capital letter unless it is a sysop with a lower case username on a case sensitive wiki) followed by @ followed by the wiki name, except for meta. Enter for meta only the username. (emphasis mine) Essjay Talk • Contact 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, there is an example on French Wiktionary ([1] [2]). Bug listing updated. — sjorford (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well it should be trivially easy to check whether case sensitivity is enabled on the wiki and modify the special pages as such depending on whether or not it is. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait...it looks more or less fixed. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we make a subpage and section on this page for 'requests to merge accounts' and put a note (just like under Requests to Usurp) that we currently don't have the ability to do this, but hopefully we can badger a dev into allowing us (except put in more eloquent terms :P). And then let's badger a dev into allowing us to do that. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say let's not create another section, lest we have angry people demanding to know why we won't fufil requests, as we do with usurp requests. I would be more than happy, though, to talk to Brion about what would be needed for us to to reattributions. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good to me. It seems to me that we get a lot of requests to reattribute edits, and it wouldn't be much different from changing usernames (except that it's more or less irreversable). — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, we'd need an interface for it, most certainly. However, it concerns me more that requests would be difficult to research; what's to stop someone from requesting reattribution from an IP they are unrelated to (are we going to checkuser them all)? Even worse, from a dynamic IP, where they will be taking credit for contributions that are not thier own, which cases severe GFDL questions. I'm not suprised that the developers stopped doing it; it seems to me to be a rather large Pandora's box. Essjay Talk • Contact 01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Usurpation proposal

While we're discussing username proposals, what do people think of allowing a good user to take the username of a registered account which has never done anything? As they have never done anything, the GFDL is no problem, and if we have limits on how new a user can usurp another account, and a miniumum dormancy clause (ie. a day-old account should not be usurpable, but a three-year old one obviously would be), I really see no problems for it. And it seems that the devs could implement this easily enough. --maru (talk) contribs 02:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been previously pointed out that an account may be active (e.g, someone is actually using it on a daily or weekly basis) even if it has never made an edit. --Raul654 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. That's not an insurmontable objection. CheckUser might be able to tell when a user last logged in (I don't know much about CU, so correct me if I'm wrong); it should be easy to add a feature for beaucrats if CheckUser can't be used that way; and if neither of the preceding are feasible, then we could simply leave a message on the talk with a generous deadline like of a month. Usurpations would take a long time certainly, but a long time is better than never. --maru (talk) contribs 02:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no feelings on such a policy; if it is adopted, I will perform the requests, if it is rejected, I will continue to decline such requests. However, I do believe that an essential element of such a policy must be to place a note (preferably a template, but that's something to be decided later on) on the talk page of the account, and to wait a suitable amount of time for the individual to be able to respond. As Raul points out above, and others have elsewhere, some accounts may be being used for browsing (to set preferences) but not editing, and we should not be in the business of evicting people from thier accounts. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm envisaging usurpation occuring when a few things take place:
  • When the original account-user can be trusted not to be ill-intentioned (for instance, perhaps a time delay akin to page moves and semi-protection. If a user can't be trusted to move pages and edit semi-protected pages, then they probably shouldn't be usurping accounts).
  • When the usurped-account is inactive. No edits, no recent logins (perhaps).
  • And when the usurped-account has been given generous notice on their talk page that their account will be usurped if no activity or edits at all are seen. Perhaps between a week and a month?
Do the three clauses seem to protect the usurped-account sufficiently? --maru (talk) contribs 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
When you say no edits, does that mean no articles edits? Or just a flat no edits anywhere? I'm not sure if GFDL presents a problem on userpages, it might I just don't know. For example I'm interested in one that has never done anything but made 5 edits within 40 minutes to the userpage. --Rx StrangeLove 05:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean no edits period. Since that makes the line brighter, and there raises fewer concerns about the GFDL (which covers more or less all article spaces). --maru (talk) contribs 17:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other objections or concerns? Have I adequately answered the arguments contra, and soothed the savage critic? Should I put this up as a proposed policy? --maru (talk) contribs 19:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, propose it as a policy. --JBJ 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, with that seconding, I've put it up here: Wikipedia:Usurpation. --maru (talk) contribs 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit count and username change

Hi I am interested in changing my user name from Dandelion1 to Dandelion but I don't want to lose my edit count. Is this possible? Thanks User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what changing username does; otherwise, it'd just be "registering a new account." :-D Stick your request on the main page and we'll take care of it for you. Essjay Talk • Contact 08:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeez!

Essjay and Nichalp are doing all the work! :D :( — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to keep this talk page from ending up like another talk page... ;-) Essjay Talk • Contact 08:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Err...implying something :P j/k — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No Edits

Hello, I was wondering if I would be able to delete my account if I have made no edits. Or should I just request to have my username changed?

User accounts are never deleted. However, if they have never made any edits, there is not much use to renaming them; there won't be anything public to rename. You're better off just creating a new account under the name you want. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Archive_1&oldid=1148691236"