Steward requests/Username changes/2020-01

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2020, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Simple rename requests

کارگردانان سینما و تلویزیون ایران

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ajeem95

  Done--Turkmen talk 20:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

لاکی لوک

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ng Pey Shih 07

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Tanatana23

@Tanatana23: Username Tana is already registered and have valid contributions, so please choose another one. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

MagictoMaster

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kovács Nándor-Hunor

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hddty.

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

123456789_re

昨日変更したばかりであることはわかっていますが、長すぎるとログインが大変です。先日の依頼は誤りでした。どうか変更をお願いします。日本語での説明ですみません。--123456789 re (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done per riley. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiMiKra

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ifsanjry

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Peeravich23

  Not done You are indefinitely blocked on two projects, including on you homewiki. Most recent block was yesterday. So think you should deal with blocks first and then consider for rename. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Vijay B. Barot

  Done--Turkmen talk 16:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

AutoMapa

Can you then explain your activities on commons (which include spamming) and plwiki (which include vandalism)? The blocks aren't only username issues. Oppose renaming to avoid scrutiny. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage - sure. The spamming/vandalism is misunderstanding. I had already explained everything but username. This is the only issue I got right now. The user @Cybularny told me that he will unblock my account for editing when I got username changed. AutoMapa (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) ?? --AutoMapa (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: They are also blocked on commons for spamming (the username issue is secondary). They had not been unblocked on plwiki too. Just a note for you, I am thinking this is to prevent negative association with their company being blocked. I had a strong hunch that this is a shared used account. They said they had explained everything and username is the only issue. False, I did not see them explain anything anywhere at plwiki / commons. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Well you might be right about negative association bit, but if they had continue editing, a rename was necessary in this case. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: I gotten your point of continue editing, my concerns is just along the lines of "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct." Thanks for your clarifications. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Aron Manning

  Not done I think you should ask to arbcom for renaming, as I don't know whether you will be unblocked or not, but with an active block I'm hesitant to accept. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. Unfortunately ArbCom is very busy this time, much more important matters than this don't fit their schedule – like my unblock request –, please don't burden them and me with unnecessary bureaucratic rounds. This username is unpractically long, therefore I've been using the "Aron Man" signature for many months. I wished to rename to the similarly sounding, but more creative and meaningful "Irn-Man", however if that makes you hesitant, then please consider renaming to "AronMan" – one word, two capital letters, no space between. Please recall the Global rename policy which only requires that the rename is not seeking to "conceal or obfuscate" and reminds that the "The old name is duly and visibly linked". I hope this sufficiently justifies the request. Thank you for your careful consideration. If I may ask for it, please ping in your response. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 19:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Well the policy says "history of conflicts/blocks", but you have an ongoing conflict/block which is yet to be resolved and we don't know the outcome. And renaming a blocked user without in the knowledge of local authorities clearly doesn't respect their policies. So in short it should be them who will decide that you should be renamed or not. @Aron Manning:. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
En.wiki ArbCom typically doesn’t have any comment on username changes and give a non-answer when asked. The local and global policy is essentially no renames that hide the identity of a user who is under scrutiny. Deal with the en.wiki block first, and then we can rename. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Aron Manning" -> "AronMan" (which signature I've been using for months) is certainly not hiding the identity, but thank you for your comment, TonyBallioni. I wouldn't expect a comment from ArbCom, either. However, it sounds to me that you are speaking on behalf of ArbCom, of which you are not a member. Would you clarify this?
Thank you for the ping, 1997kB. That partial citation from the policy with full context says "The old name is duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict or blocks." If the policy were to say it is not allowed to happen, there would be no reason to link the old account. This sentence in the policy is clearly a guidance for how to rename, implying that the rename does happen. I hope this clarifies what the policy says. Again, thank you for attending this request. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 07:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I’m speaking as a global renamer who has been through this scenario before. ArbCom typically kicks it to us and our interpretation of both global and local policy has consistently been “deal with your block first.” TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Aron Manning

We generally do not accept any rename request from indeffed user. That being said, I cannot find any reason why we should make an exception just for you. You have to fix your block problem, or give us a compelling reason to proceed anyway (which I am not convinced yet). — regards, Revi 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Revi, thank you for responding! About 20 compelling reasons came to mind, I'll write a few:
  1. I'm an active and valued contributor – regularly receiving positive feedback – on 2 wikis, the mediawiki discord and an occasional contributor on a few other wikis. (This should be a reason to be unblocked, not for a simple rename, but well...) Neutrality gives due weight.
  2. I've been using the requested name as my signo for many months.
  3. A humane reason: the current username is cumbersome, it is impractical with a space in the middle for a techie (it can't be selected with two clicks...) and it's too long. You have chosen your name much better and I was inexperienced when I've chosen mine. I'd like to have a more comfortable editing experience with a shorter, succinct username. If this tool would be serving the contributors' editing experience then this would be the reason to rename, without any more sweat.
  4. The requested username meets all 4 criterias of the policy: 1) "carefully selected", 2) "duly and visibly linked" (redirected, obviously), 3) see below, 4) the new name is not registered on any wiki (checked).
  5. GRP point 3: "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct."
    1. There is no bad conduct, I'm a beneficial contributor on multiple wikis. The original block is in the process of being appealed for 7 months now, the ball is in ArbCom's court.
    2. I'm not under scrutiny. Quite the opposite, I am seeking scrutiny and it's denied: I'm emailing the ArbCom every month to review my appeals and yet they haven't responded in the last 7 months, despite that en:wp:ARBPROC#Incoming_mail requires a response within 24 hours. Neither am I under scrutiny by admins: my paths to appeal were closed mostly without reason given, or with bureaucratic reasons and my appeals were ignored. Nobody seems to be interested in "scrutinizing" me, despite my requests. Something's amiss here. My impression is that I'm the victim of a never-ending bureaucratic time-waster. I hope that wouldn't spill onto meta.
    3. I reckon the cases referred to as "practice" requested fundamentally different names. Why would someone assume that "Aron Manning" -> "AronMan" (which is my signature) seeks to conceal anything?
    4. Since the advent of global accounts (SUL) a rename can't conceal a "history". I wonder what practical scenarios are imagined where that could happen, especially when the new name is almost the same as the old. I would appreciate if the commenters would clarify those scenarios they had in mind on the talk page and I ask them to do so.
  6. en:wp:NOTBURO. If the practice is not what the policy says that's a sign it has become too bureaucratic. Without any doubt the policy bears more significance than the practice. I reiterate that the so-called practice was applied to fundamentally different usernames, not similar names as in this case.
Side note: Generally, if the practice veered too far from the policy then the practice should be fixed to better serve to benefit the contributors' editing experience, without unnecessary bureaucratic struggles. Don't just "make an exception", improve the processes, the editing experience; reduce the level of bureaucracy and give due weight to the efforts of editors long after they were sanctioned.
There are many more reasons, if this wouldn't be compelling enough. Thank you for attending this request. Best regards —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 02:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This was deliberated by global renamers and stewards on global-renamers lists (including your supplementary reasonings), and the consensus was not to grant this request. There was a unanimous consensus that you need to resolve your indefinite block before you can be allowed to have your username changed. For the renamers and stewards, — regards, Revi 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@-revi: I'm at a loss for words regarding that decision. Without any justification it seems it completely ignored the fact that the rename request is eligible per the Global rename policy. Please provide the justification for this contradictory decision that is as thorough as my reasons above in 10 points, per en:wp:ADMINACCT. Please provide the policy citation for each point, where applicable - as you recall "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies" (en:wp:ADMINCOND) -, or in case of a "that is the practice" reasoning please provide the link to the previous cases that demonstrate the "practice" where the requested name was this similar to the original, therefore there was no concern about concealment.
In light of the decision not following policy it is concerning that comments from administrators involved in rejecting to evaluate my appeals on enwiki was taken into account. Please list the users who were available in this short timeframe of 18 hours to form a "unanimous consensus".
I kindly ask you to have a positive mindset about this request. I'm contributing in good faith, I would appreciate if good faith would apply to me as well. I find the "amendment" to a comment ("why we should make an exception just for you") particularly exclusionary. You aren't making an exception, you would be applying the policy as it is written. Equality is a fundamental priciple of our movement, why wouldn't the policies be applied equally to every editors?
In the lack of a justification I have serious concerns about this decision failing to meet the criterias of neutrality and good judgement. The decision was made within 18 hours. Please provide the thorough justification within one day, before the request gets archived.
Thank you in advance. Kind regards —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 02:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Continuing with the same wikilawyering that got you blocked on enwiki is inadvisable here. Beyond what is written in policy, account renaming is somewhat of a privilege reserved for users in good standing. I would recommend that you try to (re)gain that standing before continuing to make demands here. This request is closed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: There is no wikilawyering, I am asking for a justified explanation. I find that allegation inappropriate. I have done my due diligence to justify my request, I believe it is appropriate to ask for the same in return, as a form of respect. This is not a demand however - I shouldn't even need to ask - and I reckon this decision will not be justified.
A correction to your statement: wikilawyering is not the reason for my block on enwiki, in fact, I was the victim of wikilawyering. If this concerns you, or you doubt it, I'm willing to give a recollection of the events on the user talk page.
It sounds to me that you are implying repercussions, therefore I won't be furthering this request, but it needs to be reviewed transparently: my inqury for an explanation was unanswered and I feel that my request was supressed. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 06:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Arthurfan828

  Not done Blocked for sock-puppetry on enwiki. Resolve the block first. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Manpreet0909

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

KlaasZ4usV

  Done DutchTina (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Requests involving merges, usurps or other complications

CHICHI7YT

  On hold until 9 January. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@CHICHI7YT: As you have changed the new username from Christiang to Chrisnait, this request no more need usurption. So are you sure you want to be renamed to Chrisnait instead of Christiang? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. CHICHI7YT (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Валерий Фаддеенков

  On hold until 6 January.--Turkmen talk 09:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  Note: w:ru:Обсуждение_участника:Хедин--Turkmen talk 10:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Phospor

  On hold until 6 January. Notification: 1. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Michge

@Maire: Could you please light us here. This user has an active block on enwiki and has a block log on plwiki. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  Not done no response.--Turkmen talk 14:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Nathan McAdam

  On hold until January 13, 2020. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Turkmen talk 19:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Lawlissmml

You can attempt to recover the old user name if back in 2012 you set an e-mail address for it. Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lawlissmml: As Ruslik mentioned if you are the one who registered Lawliss account and used an email address during sign-up, you can try password reset here. If you can't reset password then please mention that so that we can proceed with this request. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  Not done no response--Turkmen talk 14:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jaox

  Not done @Jaox: Filed task T242941, since there's no rename involved I'm closing this one. Please watch over phab task for more details. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Michge

  Not done Nobody ignoring you. In last request I pinged to get input from local renamer of your wiki, but they seems to be busy. We can't not rename you while there an active block on your account on English Wikipedia. So please deal with blocks first. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ph03nix1986

  On hold until 25 January.--Turkmen talk 22:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  Note: w:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Pho3niX--Turkmen talk 22:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Turkmen talk 10:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

EMD

@D-Kuru: Hey, why is it have to be EMD specifically? If it's just organization account you can name it as EMD org or EMD company or something similar. Usurption seems bit over for this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It's an acronym. I also thought about using just a different name, but since the existing account was created and never used as it seems, I wanted to try the name that seemed to fit best for me first. --D-Kuru (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@D-Kuru: There will be a waiting period of 1 month. Are you ok with that? (Just in case you are not in hurry) ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in rush at all. Even more than that would be fine for me as well. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
2019-12-24 edit: I forgot the not in the comment above. I'm in no rush aka time is not an issue for me. --D-Kuru (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  On hold until 24 January. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@D-Kuru: please note you can't create a new account with username EMD when it is renamed. It will say the username is too similair to EMD (usurped). So a new rename will still be necessary or an administrator has to create the new account. Maybe it is better if you create a new account with another username and request a rename to EMD. DutchTina (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I also thought that this might be easier, but I didn't want to block a username that may could be used by others. On the other hand if a username is random noone will ever use it I guess --D-Kuru (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If you did so, the process would be the same as right now. The only difference would be that EMD would be renamed to EMD (usurped) and your account would be renamed to EMD directly. Now you have to registrate it but I see no problem there anymore thanks to 1997kB. :) DutchTina (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@DutchTina: They are administrator on commonswiki, so after rename they can create the account themselves. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah okay, I did not know that. Thanks :) DutchTina (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done @D-Kuru:. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: Thank you. The account is already created. --D-Kuru (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: I guess I need one more thing. When I created the account I used the option to send me a random password because I did not want to bother with it at the moment. The password mail got caught up in the spam filter and got deleted. Now I do not have a password and I get no mail to reset it either. What can be done here now? --D-Kuru (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@D-Kuru: You can get another password by c:Special:PasswordReset after 24 hours. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: OK, thanks for the note! --D-Kuru (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bobatealee

@Bobatealee: User Boba have valid contributions (62 in fact) on dewiki, so this account is not eligible for usurption. If you still want to be renamed please choose another one. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: I'm specifically looking to have my name changed to Boba on the English Wikipedia. The account seems to have been renamed on there, but I wasn't able to register it. I made a request for the account on the usurp page, and I was told to go here. Bobatealee (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bobatealee: Unfortunately that's not possible, accounts are global, so it is not possible to rename you only on English Wikipedia. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: Alright, I wasn't aware of this. Thank you. Is the username "BobaTea" available? Bobatealee (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bobatealee: Yes, BobaTea is available. Should I proceed rename to it? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: Yes, please! Thank you for your help. Bobatealee (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)