Wikipedia talk:Changing username

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

RfC: Should all future username usurpation requests be directed to Meta-Wiki?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposal is successful. The current usurpation requests will be allowed to stay on the page until they are resolved. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 04:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion on Meta-Wiki last month, some renamers suggested closing the English Wikipedia usurpation request page and directing users to Meta instead. As far as I know, English Wikipedia is the only wiki with its own usurpation page, while all other wikis process such requests on Meta. While requests on Meta are typically handled within hours, those on English Wikipedia often face delays due to a lack of attention from renamers. Given this, should all future usurpation requests be directed to Meta instead? – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - Agree per nom. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to have this standardized across the projects, renaming has been global for quite some time now. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I've suggested, having two separate pages for usurpation is confusing, especially considering that enwiki's usurpation page is only for accounts whose home wiki is enwiki. As home wiki is largely a meaningless status now, there's no reason for this confusing page that only some people can use. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Usernames are a global issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support sensible option, sounds good. but we are looking at usurpation requests on azwiki. I think It would be better if the 30-day period in the enwiki was 14 days. the standard period. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
charlotte ^👸♥ 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Neriah (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Local enwiki page is irrelevant and undue for a global matter like account usurpation.--A09|(talk) 09:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above. --Eta Carinae (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support global process should be handled centrally and consistently. Cabayi (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Are there any downsides to this proposal? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only downside is when a user requests usurpation of an account whose home wiki is the English Wikipedia (home wiki is defined as having the or icons in Special:CentralAuth), they'd have to wait two weeks instead of just one week for the target user to respond, as the waiting period on Meta is two weeks, while on English Wikipedia it's one week. I'd argue this is not a big deal, because:
- A user's home wiki as shown in Special:CentralAuth is largely irrelevant for most situations, and can't be changed by the user anyways. Users are free to edit any wiki, even those not listed as their home wiki.
- Username changes rarely need to be completed urgently, so waiting an extra week is not a big deal. Additionally, giving target users an additional week to respond is a good courtesy.
- It's confusing to have two separate venues for requesting usurpation, with one accepting all requests and one accepting only some based on a distinction that is irrelevant. The confusion isn't worth saving one week off the waiting period.
In short, the only downside is pretty insignificant compared to the simplification of the usurpation process and reduction of confusion that would result if we retired this page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request archiving

With the new influx of requests from closing CHU/U, couldn't we have Cyberbot I archive approved completed request more often. I admit I know nothing about how this is done on the bot side, just seems logical. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing

I may be reading it wrong but I feel K6ka's rewrite in February implies that vanishing requests made via the Global vanish request form and via email are equivalent, which they are not. The email route is just a rename with the suppression of redirects. I'm unsure how to express the desirability of using the form. Cabayi (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: The section was derived from m:Account_vanishing#How_to_request_a_vanishing, which lists both options as equivalents to requesting vanishing. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. The text there does gently hint that the email route will only result in a renaming. It's rather mealy mouthed about the difference between the two outcomes. Barkeep49 gave me a nudge about a rewrite of the meta guidance, and I emailed xaosflux about starting a group discussion about the reasons for denying a vanishing last week... I'll get my act together and take it to the renamers' list. Thanks for the prompt. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I'm currently working with, and pending a response from, WMF legal about some new WMF guidance regarding vanishing (specifically about vanish denials) - spun off from phab:T374053. FWIW, most use cases are from new users looking to 'delete my account' - and the Special:GlobalVanishRequest is far superior about doing that. Additionally Special:GlobalRenameRequest is also far superior for actual rename requests.

As far as privacy, etc goes - "If your request is particularly sensitive" - not sure where that is coming from. First, renames and vanishes themselves are never secret. Second, vanish/rename "reasons" are already considered private when using the form. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've not kept up to date with requests processed by email, but under what circumstances would a request be accepted via email? Most of the time we expect users to at least be logged in before making a request, and there's no easy way to do that via email; if the user isn't able to log in, we can't verify their identity, and if they can log in, they can (unless locked) make an edit to confirm. I see on m:Steward_requests/Username_changes#Private_requests that information provided on GlobalRenameRequest is private, but then adds: Additional information that needs to be made in private may be sent using this direct wiki-email interface while logged-in. Not sure why that would be a thing, given how it previously already indicated that GlobalRenameRequest is private; the fact that a renamer may not check the mailing list before processing a request; the fact that there isn't anything that the user could have added to the EmailUser interface that also couldn't be added to GlobalRenameRequest (as both are plain text forms); and the fact that a user who has confirmed their email address and can use EmailUser can also use GlobalRenameRequest. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]