Talk:Steward requests/Username changes

crosslinkage

In cases where someone (say, person "old-X") asserts they are person "new-X" on wiki Y and they want to be "new-X" here on meta as well, should we be asking for crosslinkage (validation by "old-X" giving a diff to a post on Y by "new-X" that says they are "old-X" on meta) ? Always? only if it would require a usurpation? Never? Thoughts? I have tended to require it on Commons and it seems to be catching on... ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that asking for validation could be the best path, just to be safe and to prevent possible impersonation or whatever. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking but I think input from other crats is needed before policy is just up and changed. I'll drop some notes I guess. ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request template

I propose using {{sr-request}} for all requests on this page. The template provides links to the account's contributions and logs, a bureaucrat activity analysis script, the local bot policy (if implemented), and can easily be extended with various tools and links, and simplifies usage:

Current	====Username@wiki==== I request sysop access. *'''Language Code:''' xx *'''Local Request Link:''' [[:xx:Project:wiki]] *'''Automatic List of local bureaucrats:''' [[:xx:Project:Special:Listusers/bureaucrat]] *'''Local User Page:''' [[xx:User:Example]] Thank you. ~~~~
Proposed	====Username@wiki==== {{sr-request |status = |domain = xx.wikipedia |user name = Example |discussion= [[:xx:Project:wiki]] }} I request sysop access. Thank you. ~~~~

The template is already standard on Steward requests/Bot status, where it has much streamlined the process. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:47:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't we want to have a slightly different template here (or enhance this one a bit for naming related things) than the bot request one? One that points to the crosslink of the ID from the local wiki to meta rather than to bot policy seems what we would want for renames. But the basic idea of a template seems a very good one indeed if it increases accuracy of the requests and ease of making and understanding them. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the name of this page, this proposal is confusing me a bit, but for SRP, I think I like that :) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 12:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to paste this on Talk:Steward requests/Permissions. It would indeed need more tweaks for this page, although I do intend on doing that eventually. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 17:01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

well that would explain it! :) yes please do. Other projects may also want to consider this. Commons I know would... Commons 'crats are always asking the same questions. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

some new rules here?

I wonder if there are new rules for account renaming on projects with active bureaucrats (see [1] and [2]). See also: s:cs:Wikisource:English guidelines, s:cs:Wikisource:Přejmenování účtů, s:cs:Wikisource:Přejmenování účtů/Žádosti, s:cs:Wikisource:Boti or s:cs:Wikisource:Boti/Žádosti, all pages the user have seen before. I also cannot find a "per Meta request" here as stated in the summary of the renaming. Thanks for answer. -jkb- (cs.source) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the waiting time on those projects was long enough - of course, anyone's judgment of "long" can differ a lot from mine. Active b'crat force means a force of bureaucrats that are ready and willing rto perform their duties. How long can the requests wait (and even the 'crats that are editing be sent messages) before a reaction? Wojciech Pędzich Talk 11:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are no active b'crats (definition of "active" can vary - I should be able to get a response from the local b'crat in a week) stewards can and should take care of the relevant tasks. -- Cat ^chi? 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, there is no disaster happened. From this point of view no problem. But, renaming a user is not only a duty of a bureaucrat but a decision as well. Then, The user - who already had some problems not only on our subdomain - knows quite well where are the pages to request it, more over pages not only in Czech but in English (see my links above); the request was not on a proper page. As our subdomain grants no bot flags normally (see the policy) so it doesn't seem to have a great preference to rename a bot, whose main activity seems to be renaming of itself from time to time and whose activity on our domain seems to be near zero in the future. So, I hope you understand my point of view as well. Regards, -jkb- (cs.source) 11:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, where is the Meta request for the renaming? Thx, -jkb- (cs.source) 11:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta page for rename requests is at: Meta:Changing username. The Steward page is at Steward requests/Username changes. -- Cat ^chi? 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, White Cat. Both pages are in my watchlist. But I did not see the request there, that was the question. By the way, your idea with the new community logo was pretty good, I like it. I hope you saw my voting for it there. Regards, -jkb- (cs.source) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Working procedure for username renames I have seen is:

• Post a request in any one of the local talk page of any active b'crat
  • Active b'crats: Local b'crat that made at least a few edits in the past 30 days
• Wait for one or two weeks
• If the local b'crat does not respond in that time period put a request on meta page for stewards.

Since username renames are nothing significant (unlike the granting of Sysop flags for example), and since SUL standardization sometimes requires bulk number of rename requests, stewards fulfill bulk requests from time to time. Infrequently though.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lines, White Cat. You could have asked me (whom you know) and not a quite new bureaucrat. More over, you know the pages where it is to be requested. But maybe you have reasons. OK. But, by the way, I still did not find a request from you here, requesting a renaming on cs.source because the local bureaucrats did not follow your request in time. Can i see it? A short link?? Thanks. -jkb- (cs.source) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. wikisource:cs:Uživatel diskuse:Milda#Bot username rename. Milda makes daily edits and registered as "most active" by the stewardy tool. I made a bulk rename request so I was paying very little attention to who I am filing the request to. I was merely speedy requesting: Steward requests/Username changes/2008-2#Ownbot @ many wikis (about 300 requests listed). That list are the renames of wikis w/o bcrats or bcrats that did not respond to the rename request at all (or replied very slowly). -- Cat ^chi? 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I mean a link to your request here, on Meta, not there, cs.source. I have read your #Ownbot @ many wikis, but I could not find anything about cs.source. (By the way, please understand that I cannot follow the talk pages of all users on the subdomain. If you have had contacted me, so be sure, I woudld have responded soon). Please, have a look at your page in cs.source and give there a link to your second account. We want to have double account to be linked. Thanks and regards, best wishes from -jkb- (cs.source) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am not quite sure why Wpedzich renamed the user on cs.wikisource, but I guess because the user had asked for it over a month, and again ~2 weeks ago with no answers to it.

I understand that You think that users could find the requestpages there easily, but if they don't they could be also directed to them easily.

Imho no answer at all is quite unfriendly. I get requests on my talkpage too and let users know where to place it formally, most of the time some information is missing there too, thus while letting them know where to request I usually tell them what else is missing, e.g. what confirmations etc., for fulfilling their request.

As far as I can see there had been personal disputes, but imho that should have nothing to do with a rename request of an users own account to the global username owned by the same user.... We should be professional enough to separate these things.

Also since blocklogs get updated to the new username even that could not be an argument for not renaming him.

So I wonder, why has he not been renamed, or why did he not get any answer to the request even though the user seems active.

(And please don't get this wrong, I am not reproaching this, I am just curious)

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi birdy. Be sure there are no problems at all. I had just some questions, that's all. So I was wandering why White Cat is requesting a just new bureaucrat, not me or why he did not use the correct page listed above, because in March we have been spoken about similar problems and I gave him a link several times. Also, the Czech Wikisource does not grant bot flags (similar to the policy of some other Wikisources, Wikinews etc.), so that a quick solution is not that important. But, be sure, I see that White Cat is like to have his SUL bot account completed, why not. And as I said, I see no problems here. Regards, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi White Cat. You probably forgot it so I'd like to rememeber you that you are expected to make links between your both accounts on cs.source (linking from White Cat to the other one, see above). And, of course, if you find a link to your request here on meta asking for the renaming on cs.source (see above) so it would be very delighting. Best regards, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

@ Steward_requests/Username_changes#Making_a_request_for_an_account_that_is_not_yours - since now harassing usernames can be hidden (locally via 'hideuser' and globally via CentralAuth) wouldn't be better to point users that discovers those names to contact us privatelly for considering hidding the name and not publishing it here? I propose to remove that section. Regards, --dferg ^{☎ talk} 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge contribs

Is it possible merge contribs in the proces of renaming from A to B?--Juan de Vojníkov 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. To rename A to B, if B already exists, it must first be renamed to C. The contributions of two accounts can't be forced together using the rename tool. Courcelles 05:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thx.--Juan de Vojníkov 16:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

New tool for renaming

Hi all, I just wanted to point to a new toolserver tool written by Quentinv57. This came about because of a recent rename request and it is working very well. It only gives the steward using it the option to rename on wikis with no, or only inactive crats. It is not automatic so the steward using it will still be "manually" making the renames. Thanks very much to Quentin! http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/global_renaming.php fr33kman 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Different system for the archives

Hello. I just would like to notify people that I changed the system of archival for requests after 2011 January 1st. When Steward requests/Username changes was created, in 2007, the number of requests by year did not justify the creation of separate archive pages for each month. But now there is a real need. Moreover, my bot will now archive username changes requests too. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 14:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement

Does someone here know the answer to my questions on that talk? It seems many renames will be necessary, but nobody knows how many, where, when, how or by whom. --Nemo 06:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If en.wiki's experience with the initial, voluntary SUL adoption in 2009 is any guide, it will be several thousand to several tens of thousands. Also, if my experience at en.wiki is a guide, many many names exist for which there are several users holding local accounts, each active on one or two projects. I foresee most renames being done here by myself (and hopefully the other stewards). Also, I would encourage the documentation to note that local admins or experience users can directly bring requests here without making new or inexperienced users figure out how to access Meta/complicated templates. MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do between now and May 27?

Somebody requested a rename at a wiki where I'm a 'crat. It's straighforward and I would have fulfil it before the finalisation announcement. But now, since global rename is coming, should I ask the user to wait? If I do the rename anyway, would it create more work for the stewards? I imagine this scenario would happen at other wikis too. ...Aurora... (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. It's difficult to say whether it would create more work for us stewards, because that always depends on the individual case. --MF-W 16:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I take a look at their sul. If they are trying to resolve conflict issues before 27 May, or if they are active only on this wiki, I'll just rename it. If they have contributions across a few sites, I'd usually ask them to hold off. --Bencmq (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This user already has SUL and wouldn't be affected by the forced rename. Thanks, I'll ask and see what the user thinks. ...Aurora... (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

trying to get ahead of the 8 ball here

We have a large number of username-related templates at en.wp and have been discussing how they will need to be changed when SUL is finalized. It looks as though we should be pointing them to this page, is that right? Also, should users who are currently "soft" blocked for username issues be instructed to explain where and why they are blocked and/or to request a steward who is familiar with our local username policy? I only ask this because I'm pretty sure en.wp has one of the most complicated and nuanced policies, I'd hate to keep blocking the same user over and over because the Stewards are suddenly expected to know what our local policies are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Um.... We don't know yet. I can say with reasonable certainty that SRUC as a redirect will point at whatever page we decide on, but I know some people are working on different layouts. If they're soft-blocked, maybe have them tell the en.wiki admin what they want the new name to be and that admin will bring the request over here. I don't think the stewards will agree to enforce the no company name part of en.wiki policy, but en.wiki can certainly require selection of an appropriate name as a per-requisite of unblocking. Using en.wiki admins are intermediaries should ensure that only compliant requests make it over to meta and any steward can act on those. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that en.wikivoyage explicitly allows company names, for example. --Rschen7754 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that we are developing a list of changes to make and a new version of SRUC on User:MF-Warburg/New SRUC. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

mmmpfff, edit conflict, I just wanted to post that link! Re enwiki blocks, I agree that it's probably a good idea if a user who got blocked because of a username policy violation talks to the blocking admin (or someone else) on his talk page first about a possible new name, before requesting a rename. --MF-W 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be best as it fairly similar to what we already do. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)