Archives
Archive 1

See also: m:talk:Changing username

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, no. If you have a username change, the old accout is removed from the system; all references to the old account (except old signatures) and all account settings (preferences, watchlists, etc.) are moved to the new account name. The old account name is as though it never existed; it can be registered by anyone who comes along. This is the only case where accounts are removed from the system, and they techincally aren't removed, they're replaced; accounts cannot simply be deleted, they must have thier settings transferred elsewhere.

With that said, I think the original question related to deleting the user/talk pages (as it refers to redirecting, which applies to pages, not accounts). Yes, you may delete the old user/talk pages. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Essjay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Note: Essay later said I could do this, so I did.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's probably worth letting people know the 5000 edit limit is no longer in effect, that there will be no practical limit for a number of years.--Nectar 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have to agree with Grandmasterka here. It is silly now but that doesn't mean that it would not happen in the far future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably, in the future, the limit will be raised far above 200k (which I will reach within three years at my present clip (ohnoes!!!) BD2412 T 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had my account renamed but can't login into either the old or new account because neither account exists. Please see Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive9 under the subheading "Ephilei." Thanks! --216.125.80.201 07:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 08:54, May 6, 2006 Nichalp (Renamed the user "JBJ830726" (which had 311 edits) to "Ephelei")

The problem appears to be that you couldn't decide on a spelling; in the text of the request, (see [1]) you said "Please change User:JBJ830726 to E-p-h-e-l-e-i" (emphasis mine), which is what Nichalp did; the heading, however, was styled "E-p-h-i-l-e-i," which was apparently the spelling you desired. Since the request here demonstrates that you intended it to be spelled with the "i" rather than the "e", I've changed it to the correct spelling. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Sorry for the typo. --Ephilei 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

I'm not sure about this request; we already have User:The Jabberwock and User:Jabberwocky, and I believe at least one other editor using some form of the "Jabberwock" standard. The above request is techincally moot, as User:Jabberwock already exists, but the point remains: Where a rename is likely to cause confusion with one or more users, should it be performed? (My opinion, for the record, is no: It doesn't fit our mandate, to change names where it benefits the community.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not change it to "TheJabberwockIAm" --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

click here to suggest a new name. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 05:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Numerous vandals and miscreants have created insulting and offensive (and sometimes just annoying) usernames such as:

• User:! ! ! ! Linuxbeak is an unemployed bum
• User:!!!! curps was a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels
• User:!!!!!!!!!!!!David Gerard is a pedophile who has AIDS
• User:(curp's mom has some really huge tator tots)
• User:And people clamor to block you even if you aren't slick willy
• User:And suck on them, JoanneB
• User:And you know CapnCrack likes the titties
• User:Assholes with Ugly Testicles
• User:Assjay Loves Badonkadonk
• User:Be..non fucked.......w.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a in its nigger hole
• User:Linuxbeakshouldunbanmeorhesgay
• User:Linuxerist and Whop Are Gay Together
• User:Willy + JoanneB = lifetime of titty-fucking
• User:¡FireFox blocked the US Congress on Wheels!

(and I promise you, there are many even more offensive examples) Indeed, crap like this is the bulk of what shows up on the first page to be seen when any visitor clicks on "Special pages" and then "User list". Since such accounts cannot be destroyed, but are subject to username changes, I hereby propose that we engage in a system of warehousing these offensive accounts by using the username change function to change said accounts to a series of numbered accounts prefaced by a "￥" (which comes near the end of all characters in the Wiki alphabetization scheme). Any of the above could be changed and the actual pages moved to, e.g., User:￥-00001, a note about the origin dropped on the warehouse page, and the resulting redirect deleted (it is unlikely in the extreme that any of the vandals who have created such accounts would bother to even look at them again, much less try to use them, once the account had been blocked). If a 'crat does the name changes, I'll do the rest. Comments? Critique? BD2412 T 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these usernames have no contributions. Can they still not be deleted? --131.215.6.125 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, a username once created can never be deleted (I could be wrong, but know I've seen it said before). BD2412 T 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we move it, the username would be open to recreation again by the troll/vandal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, but am not worried about it for two reasons.

First, any troll or vandal can already just as easily create a username that is identical but for an extra exclamation point at the beginning, or substituting a special character for a similar letter, or some other minor variation. There is no practical limit to the number of ways that a username could be crafted to insult, offend, or attack someone, but that does not mean we should allow such insults to remain in the public view.

Second, vandals often make dozens of these at a time likely forgetting that they exist as soon as the account gots blocked - indeed, they probably expect the account to get blocked right away, and create it solely for the purpose of creating this annoyance in a way that to this point remains a permanent fixture on the list of usernames and on Wikipedia. That is the evil I seek to do away with. BD2412 T 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a good addition would be if the devs could give us a function (like a checkbox) to prevent the username from being recreated in the future once we chage a username. The old username would be autoblocked from creation and would not appear in the special:listuser. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed be a Good Thing^TM, but I would move these names irrespective of such a function just to keep them from showing up presently. Actually, we should have something in place (like certain email address generators do) that prevents the creation of names using certain character strings such as curse words and terms like "pedophile", "paedophile", "is gay", "on wheels", etc. Perhaps widely known usernames could be added to that list, so that no one could create a new account incorporating the name of that user. I believe our software should also be smart enough to know that, for example, é or ě can be used to stand in for "e", or that ¢ and © can substitute for "c"... BD2412 T 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a technical question here. If somebody registers an offensive username like "So-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots", and it gets blocked on sight, then renamed weeks later to "Nulluser00005446" or whatever, and somebody re-registers the old name, which account is blocked from editing? the old one, the new one, both, or neither? As far as I know, this has never been tested, as we generally only offer the service of username change to editors in good standing. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:59] <freak|talk>

My understanding is that the block would follow the username; ergo "So-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots" would no longer be blocked, while "Nulluser00005446" (or as I would prefer "￥-00005446") would be blocked. I honestly don't think it matters - once the vandal has made his point and the account has been permablocked, he will almost certainly never bother attempting to log in under that name again (and if he really wanted to, could just make a new account at "$o-and-so has sexual relations with tator tots" or "So-and-so has sexual relations with tátor tots" or "!!!!!!!!!!!So-and-so has sexual relations with tátor tots". My problem is chiefly with those old vandal-created offensive usernames that are there right now, and can be dispatched. BD2412 T 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a couple of cases where someone was blocked for having an inappropriate username (inappropriate does not necessarily mean "Offensive and full of obscenities"), and then asked to have it changed. What ended up happening was that the block did carry over, but remained listed under the old name, creating a serious problem when trying to unblock. We eventually had to go back and unblock the old username by hand in order for the new username to be created.

With that said, I don't think there is a need for this; there was a problem some months ago with obscene usernames appearing on the first page of Listusers, but that was solved by the creation of a number of accounts that now fill that page. Anyone clicking alphebetically though a list of one million usernames should expect to eventually find something they don't agree with; I don't honestly believe anyone in their right mind is using listusers without filtering either for the name of the person they're looking for, or the class of users (i.e. "sysop"). It strikes me that this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist, and that the time needed to rename thousands (and yes, in a list of a million usernames, there are going to be thousands that need to be renamed) of accounts could be better spent solving a problem we know needs to be fixed (like, say, copyright infringements or vandalism of the featured article with goatse, which is likely to be seen by far more people).

Finally, renames can only be performed at the request of the user, or with community consensus. A specific policy for renaming inappropriate usernames would need to be proposed in the projectspace, discussed extensively, and adopted, before it would be acceptible for them to take place. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I will take this proposal to the community. I will note, however, that on the first page that comes up from the User pages link, I see 66 fairly nasty attacks on admins (mostly aimed at Linuxbeak, and many of which are invasions of privacy), plus a handful of generalized attacks aimed at political or religious leanings. Now, my biggest concern is the results that show up on that first page, and doubtless the vandals who made those accounts knew that they could get their attacks to appear there (hence all those exclamation points). If no 'crat wants to do this (and I do appreciate your desire to attend to more pressing and public matters), I'll ask to be given the 'crat powers for one week just for this purpose, and I'll warhouse the worst cases. BD2412 T 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your display looks like, but when I look at Special:Listusers, the default is 50 listings, and they are almost all nothing but exclamation points. Nothing obscene appears at all. I'll upload a screenshot shortly. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what shows when you look at Special:Listusers as an anon, or a new user. I don't see any inappropriate usernames. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see. I have my default return set to 500. Well, it's not as big a problem as I thought then, but I would still argue that, at the very least, the attack usernames that reveal personal information about an admin (or any other user) should be changed. BD2412 T 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal copied to Wikipedia:Offensive username proposal; discussion copied to Wikipedia talk:Offensive username proposal. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]