Steward requests/Username changes/2019-04

Simple rename requests


  Donek6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


  Done --Alaa :)..! 17:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


  Done -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 15:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


  Not done renamed in queue. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


I think this is a conflict of interest of the requestor. Are you trying to promote yourself? --Stïnger (会話) 10:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC).
@KSKLand: ^. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be rejected as there are clear indication that the owner of this account is not the person himself, and also there are indication that this account is owned by several people, blocking maybe necessary.--AldnonymousBicara? 16:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done No response. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fabio Falleroni

@Tweezers87 and Fabio Falleroni: Please login with account Fabio Falleroni and sign below my comment to confirm you own the account. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I created the discussion page wrongly with my personal name on the ago 2017 (there is no one real account). Please can you rename the page with a new name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tweezers87 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tweezers87: There is a user account Fabio Falleroni created in 2017. The only relevant "page" I could find is it:User talk:Fabio Falleroni which is a user welcoming message, however the creator of the page is someone else. We cannot rename that page, because it is a user talk page which belongs to that account. If you own the Fabio Falleroni account then you can login with that account to request a rename, by which all pages in its user and user talk space will be renamed to the new username. If you do not own that account, then we will not able to do so. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done No response. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Requests involving merges, usurps or other complications


  On hold until April 1st. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 12:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 12:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Stanglavine: Just a suggestion that don't forget to suppress those redirects during usurpation. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Tracked in Phabricator:
task T219693 resolved
  On hold For sysadmin supervision. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Saint Johann

  On hold until 2nd of April. --Base (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Note: This user is blocked on nlwiki for sockpuppetry. --Stïnger (会話) 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC).

Blocking in user main wiki (with socking)=   Not done --Alaa :)..! 00:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Where can I read that you may not change your username if you're blocked?IX V MM (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


  Not done Account is indefinitely blocked at Dutch Wikipedia. We cannot rename a user who seeks renaming to evade scrutiny or hide bad conducts. In addition, your account is not established enough to usurp another account. You have filed a rename request recently which has been rejected, so please do not file any additional requests unless you get yourself unblocked at local wiki(s). -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 22:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Duke of Nonsense

The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not done Hello @The Duke of Nonsense:, Account Ulysses isn't eligible for usurpation due to valid edits on dewiki. Additionally you stated during your last rename that it's your final rename (1). Given the history of multiple renames and your statement, no more rename request from you will be accepted at this time. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Walk Like an Egyptian

All the edits of the "Wow" account were reverted because of vandalism in 2006, so I think that account is eligible for usurpation. --Stïnger (会話) 12:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC).
  On hold I think same thing. No valid edits that prevent usurpation. On hold until April 8. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 13:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
"Walk Like an Egyptian" has been renamed at 27 August 2018 (for the second time). I see not possible rename again. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stanglavine: There is nothing keeping us from processing this request. Nihlus 15:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nihlus: There is some discussion about the time to request a new rename, a limit of renames, etc. Some suggest six months and two renames at most. Anyway, there are discussions. This will already be the third renaming of an account with a little over two years (the last renaming is just over six months). If there is not a stronger reason for renaming (like privacy, etc), I do not see why renaming, again. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 15:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
My current username is the same as the song written by The Bangles, which could give the impression that I am promoting a song. And yeah, I requested a third rename because of a brief discussion I had in October 2018. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  On hold until April 9. Nihlus 18:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done. Nihlus 22:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello @Mihaiam and Mihaiam~enwiki: Merging account isn't possible due to technical limitations, but we can do a local rename here, in that case you will lost these edits. Are you happy with this? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It's OK, go ahead.Mihaiam (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@علاء: Looks like we need you here. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mihaiam: we'll replace between (Mihaiam~enwiki) to (Mihaiam) on enwiki only, please confirm your approval? --Alaa :)..! 17:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's perfect, thank you Mihaiam (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Mihaiam: please enter Special:MergeAccount from both accounts --Alaa :)..! 11:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello @Jgaignerot: Account pharmakon isn't eligible for usurpation due to valid edits on English Wikipedia, please choose another one. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, your account is not eligible to usurp another account. Please choose a name that is not currently taken. Nihlus 21:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not done no response since more than 7 days --Alaa :)..! 17:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


  Not done @Mkern1: Your account is not established enough to be eligible for usurpation request. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


  On hold Until 15 April. Account Maol have only invalid edits. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 13:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, account already renamed at 4 March 2019. I think not process this requisition. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know about that. How long does one have to wait between changes? /maol3 disk 16 March 2019 kl. 17.05 (CET)
@Stanglavine: IMO we can accept this request as it looks like they weren't aware about waiting between two consecutive renames and we generally apply this criteria to users abusing the rename feature. Also the target account seems to have vandalism only edits. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Maol3: Generally six months. But, in your case, per above, let's process.   On hold until 17 April. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would not process this request as the requesting account is less than two months old. They seemed to have made enough edits to satisfy any form of arbitrary number, but I don't believe that is enough given how recent the last rename is. Nihlus 06:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


  On hold Until 18 April. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 13:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirming that I own the other account. --Smashhoof (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smashhoof2: As stated above merging isn't technically possible. We can only rename Smashhoof2 to Smashhoof. If you are ok with this please confirm. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@1997kB: Is it easier to just usurp that account? I don't really know how all this works. Smashhoof2 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smashhoof2: Yeah usurpation that account isn't big deal, but those 13 edit on account Smashhoof right now will not be merged. We will simply rename Smashhoof -> Smashhoof (usurped) and then Smashhoof2 -> Smashhoof. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@1997kB: Alright, that sounds good! Smashhoof2 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done the progress. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Smashhoof (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


@Schmelzle: The renamers, for now, have discussed this and have declined your request. You will need an exceedingly compelling argument for us to reconsider this. If you believe that there is more information we should be aware of that you may not state freely in public, feel free to email that information to me, and I will bring it to the attention of the other renamers. Until then, this request is   Not done. Nihlus 22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The most compelling argument is, that my REAL NAME has to be removed. would you be lucky if your real name was published over and over again if you don't want it? If its impossible to rename my account on the one wikimedia project where i was banned years ago, then at least from all the other projects where i am not banned. I don't see any room for discussion in removing my real name by the means of granted privacy. Please rename. Schmelzle (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The request in order to find anonymity - one of the most important Wiki-policies - is more than understandable and absolutely legitimate! I can see no single reason why Schmelzle's explanation for requesting a new name shouldn't be "exceedingly compelling". Pls reconsider the request. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nihlus: You have just stated that "the renamers [...] have discussed this and have declined your request". You did not mention at all WHY. So I'll ask you: Why? Especially considering that the rename had already been done before it was un-done again, I feel some kind of explanation is in order beyond a simple "not done". Rosenzweig (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The renamers were unanimous in deciding to reverse the rename. The reason why is that renames to evade the scrutiny of the community is a common reason for us to deny such requests. Schmelzle, from what I gather on dewiki, has a long-standing history of making personal attacks and off wiki harassment. He is currently indefinitely blocked for the last 2 years and every block review of his was unsuccessful in gettin the block lifted. We are advising Schmelzle to get the block lifted first before re-requesting a rename.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll respond since I blocked on for his continuing to badger about this when he had been told to stop: the global rename policy prohibits renames that would cause evasion of scrutiny. Someone objected to the rename (for what I consider valid reasons) by emailing the global renamers list saying that they felt it was him trying to hide.

The consensus on this list was that the rename should be reversed per the global rename policy. If wants to have a discussion about this and agree to the rename, that is fine, but generally renames are refused when a block or ban on a home project is in place. Another renamer noted, and I agreed with, the idea that this users name is already in multiple discussions everywhere on-wiki. A rename would not actually help with his name not being public, and it could confuse people if an eventual appeal were to occur. Again, he has been instructed to handle this at, because from the information we received, this rename was not uncontroversial, and in such case, it is best for there to be discussion in the local project affected. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, that is at least some information, thank you. I don't think the "evade the scrutiny" bit makes any sense in the case of a user who has been blocked (at de.wp) or inactive (the other projects) for years and says he intends to stay inactive. This feels more like some people decided they wanted some kind of pillory. But apparently it's the policy that was agreed on to cite publicly, so I won't press this any further because I feel any such argument would fall on deaf ears here.
If I understood the advice correctly, the venue to pursue this, according to you, would be de:Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern, which is the German wikipedia's page to request user renames? Rosenzweig (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, especially to TonyBallioni for posting over there on the de-wp. The problem is, that Schmelzle doesn't want to have the block lifted, his only wish is that his real name is not connected to Wikipedia at all and forever. This is a legitimate demand, especially according to the European law, which gives every person the right to have personal infos deleted from the web. Schmelzle is not able to apply for a rename-process on de-wp due to his block, his mails to the German support team did not have any constructive success - hence, what can he do? He wants to comply to the block and we are not allowed to question his motivation: if he states that he wants his real name to be deleted from the projects by renaming his account, there is no community which can deny this request. Another user tried to open a discussion on the German wikipedia (requests for adminship) and was being redirected to this discussion here. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
My personal opinion:
His request shall be granted. However, he must declare that he does not want to edit any wiki under the new name, i.e. he agrees to a global block. In this way, any further concealment tactics could be prevented. He must be aware that his renaming is only symptomatic: The vandalism reports, the blocking appeals, the Commons files and so on are still associated with his old account name. --Filzstift (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
So, why should he agree to a block if he is not blocked (btw: I think that he's already declared this, but am not sure)? And you know as well as I do, that in that second his account should be renamed, aprox. 25 users will watch the new name on an hourly basis. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The user has signed using his current nickname on dewp talkpages for quite a while (which cannot be deleted), including AN/dispute cases. Additionally there are a lot of other pople having the same name. Which means his name is all over dewp yet. I fail to see how the rename is solving the issue. This looks to me like playing the system and creating more unecesary drama. I don't think he should be renamed, the rename is controversial and there is no consesus to do so (not here and not at dewp). @Schmelzle: Immeditaly stop the forum shopping: You asked on enwp (on a renamers talkpage, on the relevant request page and it was discussed at AN there) and commons as well as here, and you contacted users via mail (1) regarding this issue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The effects the rename has on version histories etc. will do. It is not about any discussions that most users of wikipedia pages don't find at all. It is just because my family name is connected to about 100.000+ edits in the main article space that still cause people to google after me and contact me.
You surely would do the same in a very personal privacy issue. Btw: What's your real family name? Would you be glad to have your family name up in here years after you are gone? Would you be lucky with people contacting you by phone because they saw you edited this or that article some 7 years ago?
And why should a block on german wikipedia affect my right for privacy on any other wikimedia projects such as commons, where i have uploaded some 10.000+ photos and where i also want my name to disappear (that's why i ask a global rename).
If my user name had not been my real name, then i would gladly understand that some people don't like it to be changed. But since my user name is my real name: there is no reason to keep my real name up in here forever and ever. There is technical ways to change my user name and there is a legislation that grants privacy, so please RENAME my account! Schmelzle (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is time to differ between a user being blocked on de-wp and a user requesting a renaming: you cannot demand that Schmelzle stops "forum shopping" - when he is being sent from one address to another one: yesterday, a respective post on AN in de-wp had been closed, because "it doesn't concern the German wp and there is a post on meta and en-wp"; now he is being sent to the German Community again. This is a user who just wants to be renamed, yes, he is blocked, but as soon as it effects anonymity resp. a change of the real name, there should not be any possibility to deny such a request. And could you, Steinsplitter, pls hint me to the controversial discussion in the German WP reg. this renaming? Thanks! --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I wrote "the rename is controversial" (which is basically confirmed by the fact that some users support and some users oppose a rename), not a specific discussion. But there was a disussion at dewp an enwp, with no outcome? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

//with edit conflict// My full support fot the re-renaming by PlyrStar93.

  • The block on dewp was made not only for harrasment on dewiki, but for serious misconduct and harassment (disregard of anonymity of users) in real life; Schmelzle is an adult and longtime user, he knew what the consequences are.
  • He does not want his name to be treated publicly here: since 2015 (the block), his name wasn't mentioned; when he was named, so because he brought his name into the game by himself as he did here or when checking the block like 2017. When he retires, everything stays calm.
  • Due to the enormous severity of his transgressions, easing the global block or renaming would be a blow in the face of the threatened colleagues who were threatened by him in wp and in the real life.

Sorry, Schmelzle, but this is my point of view. -jkb- 10:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"serious misconduct and harassment (disregard of anonymity of users) in real life"? What are you talking about? The only ones who disregard anonymity and blow to anyones face are those users who constantly deny my rename request! Schmelzle (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
And with that, I will no longer be accepting any reason why I should accept a rename now. Your extensive block log and community discussion at dewiki speaks for itself. You've harassed, attacked, and outed dewiki users on and off wiki, and now you're expecting to go anonymous. I see no evidence of you apologizing to those users you've attacked, and what you're doing here is a clear case of trying to circumvent scrutiny by masking yourself. Sorry, but no. I respect the desire for privacy, but not when it comes from someone who doesn't respect others' privacy. Get yourself unblocked on dewiki first by going through another Sperrpruefung, or some other appeals venue, and then we will consider unblocking you. However if you wish to vanish, we will consider renaming you into obscurity, but you will no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia anymore. Pinging @TonyBallioni:CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. You essentially deny/oppose a request to vanish, even with an obscure name specified as target, and in the very same comment offer to consider such a request? --Vogone (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I would be comfortable renaming if there was an affirmative consensus in favour of it on Courtesy vanishing specifically says it only applies to users in good standing and Right to vanish points to en:w:Courtesy vanishing, which also notes that this is something that may be refused for blocked and banned users. Basically, as all the polices have a presumption against renaming in cases like this, and members of the local community have objected, we should not be acting on it unless there is a local consensus on the project where the block initiated. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. --Vogone (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vogone: No. I am not interpreting this as a right to vanish. The username isn't obscure either. Schmelzle has not asked to vanish, just to go anonymous. But as Tony also points out, Schmelzle is not in good standing right now. I am not comfortable renaming this user.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The reasoning in the request comment above makes it very clear to me that Schmelzle effectively has already vanished (besides this very attempt to get renamed) and is not intending to continue editing under that new name (which he couldn't even if he wanted, due to the local block), cf. "there is no reason to keep my real name up on the global account for years after i am no longer active." Should such an intent arise in the future, this would be a local dewiki matter, just as it is a dewiki matter whether to allow this controversial rename to happen or not. TonyBallionis remarks apply here. --Vogone (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to think I'm reasonable, and you do have a point, but the current consensus is no amongst the renamers. Before anyone renames, we should get a clear consensus favoring a rename first.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I could understand your arguments completely, if we'd not discuss a renaming request of a RL-name. Imho nobody should be allowed to stipulate nor decide about real-name uses - except the user himself. A community is simply not allowed to deny such a request. An argument stating that he once decided to use his real name and has to stick to it - even if there are legal stipulations stating otherwise - should lead to a warning for newbies not to use their real names on Wikipedia. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@AnnaS.aus I.: Well right now the majority of renamers are not comfortable carrying out the rename. Not until at least the dewiki community makes clear that they are okay with it due to the nature of the block. Granted the user is inaktive, but they can still make the request to the community by having someone copy the request. Or someone just asks the question on the appropriate venue “Should Schmelzle be renamed?” I speak German so I can follow this discussion, and if it’s clear that the German community is okay with it, I’ll do the rename myself. But right now, we half of the involved users saying no to the rename and the other half saying yes. You can see the dilemma here, I hope.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   On hold pending outcome of German Wikipedia discussion.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)on a
Cyberpower678, while I agree discussion on is best, I don’t think discussion on a user talk page is ideal to establish consensus (which is how it looks now.) It should be at an appropriate venue on (wherever they discuss conduct appeals, bans, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I told them to move it, or link the discussion somewhere more public to attract more attention.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
+1 not only that a discussion on a user talk page (or even a sort of voting, they declared it so) is a nonsence, in this case there should be a MB-voting process in my oppoinion. Secondly: what you read on the Grillenwage - this is a very unappropriate oppinion as the users frequenting the page are not the average of the community. Cheers (soon you will find here a request for a global ban for me :-) ) -jkb- 14:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I would be against honoring any consensus on dewiki that is formed on a user talk page. It needs to be in a central area that many users will see. Nihlus 22:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I have told them to move it, but they didn’t listen. I also would not honor that vote if it only happens on a talk page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
just 2 cents to make it clear: it's really not a normal user page but sort of public/common discussion page. Anyway, you're right that the discussion (and even more the "voting"-section in this case) hasn't been announced good enough. --Rax (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just clarifying that when I said I will do the rename myself, it's only when there is consensus among the renamers to do so. I will not go against the consensus of the global renamers.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and restored the   Not done status of this request, with no prejudice against a rename if there is a local consensus at the appropriate place on The consensus here is that this is a local matter for to decide, and until such a time as we have evidence of a community consensus in favour of it, held at an appropriate forum (not a user talk), the rename won’t be done. If that consensus exists, you can provide evidence of it here in a new request. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No objections here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)