text:
Wikiversity:Changing username/Archive 2

SUL for User:Anshul

 * Current username: Anshul
 * Target username: Anshul (old)
 * Reason: I am User:Anshul but I have forgotten my password/email.  I am unable to complete my SUL because of that.  My account here has zero edits.  I have been given to understand that doing this is the cleanest way for me to unify my global account.  If this is not how I should be going about unifying to my global name, please let me know what should be done.  Thanks! --120.138.117.230 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC) (Anshul)
 * Proof of ownership: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnshul&action=historysubmit&diff=372196161&oldid=372196093

 * Hey folks! It's been a little more than 2 weeks since I made the request. All the other wikis have cleared the way for my SUL.  Wikiversity is the only thing standing between me and my SUL.  Any response will be highly appreciated. Thanks! --120.138.117.230 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Anshul)

 * ✅ sebmol ? 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot! --Anshul 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Change name "CorentinB" to "Userunknown"

 * Current name:User:CorentinB
 * Target name: User:Userunknown
 * Reason: Privacy protection. Thank you in advance. --CorentinB 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change of username from Osteomyoamare to Benjamin
Osteomyoamare 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Current username: Osteomyoamare
 * Requested username: Benjamin
 * Reason: I was a fool to make a username that was so hard to remember, leads to problems with logging in.
 * You have unified login for Osteomyoamare. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one. Do you want this? (Probably not). Benjamin is already registered on some other projects, but not yet as a unified login. However, you would then need to go through usurption requests (which probably wouldn't succeed) to create a unified login across the projects for Benjamin. So, I would suggest perhaps choosing a new username which isn't yet used on other projects, so you can get a unified login. You can search for new usernames here: . So, options are:

 * 1) I can rename the local WV account to Benjamin, but it could then be problematic to have a unified acount
 * 2) Suggest a new username which isn't used elsewhere, then I can change your WV account to this new name, and then you can create a unified account.
 * Note that you don't need to have a unified account - it is optional. You could just be happy to be Benjamin here on Wikiversity. Its just that there is other activity on your current user name on other WMF wiki projects which you may wish to keep together under one user name. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * James, Thanks very much for your interest and guidance. A unified account does sound ideal. If it were at all possible could I use =Benjamin=? It seems to be an unused | wikimedia username. Thanks again, --Osteomyoamare 01:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅: User:=Benjamin=. You can now also claim this as a unified login - via Special:MergeAccount. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Change username from "EGM6321,F10.TEAM1.WILKS" to "EGM6321.F10.TEAM1.WILKS"

 * Current username: EGM6321,F10.TEAM1.WILKS
 * Requested username: EGM6321.F10.TEAM1.WILKS
 * Reason: I miss typed and used a comma instead of a period. Thanks.
 * ✅. Warning: User EGM6321,F10.TEAM1.WILKS was already migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it caused the local user to be detached from the global one. This probably won't matter to you if you are just editing Wikiversity (and not the sister projects). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change username from "Heldergeovane" to "Helder.wiki"

 * Current username: Heldergeovane
 * Requested username: Helder.wiki
 * Reason: Personal preference. PS: I'm the onwer of the global account with the new name, as pointed out here. Helder 18:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

✅ The user "Heldergeovane" has been renamed to "Helder.wiki". Special:Log/renameuser. Warnings: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User Heldergeovane has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it caused the local user to be detached from the global one.
 * User Helder.wiki is reserved for a global account.
 * Thank you! Could you also delete these redirects, and this subpage please? Helder 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleting the talk page redirect makes it difficult for people to determine that the account has been renamed in the past, however. I have to say that it's interesting that Heldergeovane is "Whiteknight" in Portuguese, at least according to Google Translate. Adrignola 14:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I haven't deleted the old user page and the old user talk page redirects pages pending more discussion or proposal for deletion (see Requests for Deletion. I have deleted the first two user subpages and the the third no longer exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirects should be deleted (this was made in other wikis too, when the option to not create the redirect when moving the pages wasn't used), since the global account was renamed and the old username won't be used at all. The renaming is already in the log if that information is ever needed. Helder 01:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The subpage doesn't seeutting Template:RfD on those pages for discussion. The subpage is not there but
 * preceding truncated comment added by Helder.wiki 01:34, 26 March 2011, note added in archiving by --Abd 14:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Change Username "Killer Magikarp" to "AddThreeAndFive"
I'm in the process of changing all my Wikimedia accounts to this name.
 * Confirmation of account ownership.
 * ✅: The user "Killer Magikarp" has been renamed to "AddThreeAndFive".
 * Notes
 * User Killer Magikarp has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it caused the local user to be detached from the global one.
 * User AddThreeAndFive is reserved for a global account.
 * The page User:Killer Magikarp has been moved to User:AddThreeAndFive.
 * The page User talk:Killer Magikarp has been moved to User talk:AddThreeAndFive.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) ✅ added "done" template in archiving. --Abd 14:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pesare amol → Mehdi

 * Current name: Pesare amol
 * Target name: Mehdi
 * Reason:Per SUL request .My real name is Mehdi and I would like rename my username to Mehdi in en@wikiversity. My name has changed to Mehdi in fa@wiki and en@wiki .--Pesare amol 09:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mehdi registered 2006. No Contributions. Enwiki and Fawiki rename confirmed.
 * Recommend usurpation. Given 2006 account, no edits, common Farsi name, and SUL Mehdi owned by requestor, I see no need to wait for almost-certain lack of confirmation from original owner should it be requested. I will, later today, notify original owner, in any case, by email. --Abd 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is My Confirmation for changing username in all wikis.--Pesare amol 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please confirm My request. It's a week.--Pesare amol 15:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mehdi, you are lucky it's only been a week. Look above. We have a problem with a 'crat shortage. I'm considering requesting stewards to intervene. My apologies, but this isn't an easy problem to fix. I've asked the 'crats to handle the requests. No response. --Abd 16:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. I was raised this problem in the stewards IRC Channel.--Pesare amol 20:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅ 22:03, 6 September 2011 by SB Johnny, see log. --Abd 23:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr.salticid → Dr.Salticid

 * Datestamp: 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from I have a very minor username change request. I convinced a friend of mine who is a curator at a museum to create a Wikiversity account and try editing an article. He created the account User:Dr.salticid earlier today, but would like it changed to User:Dr.Salticid (with a capital S). Unfortunately, he couldn't just create a new account with the different capitalization because MediaWiki complained that it was too similar to the existing account. I'm making the request on his behalf since he is a total newbie and already feels a bit put off by the difficult user interface of MediaWiki. I'm afraid making him jump through more hoops will leave him with a totally bad experience. I know this is unorthodoxed, but considering the circumstances and the very minor nature of the change, I hope it is acceptable. Thanks for your help! Kaldari 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr.salticid registration today
 * target account does not exist.
 * User:Kaldari SUL is sysop on enwiki, meta, and other wikis.
 * Recommend immediate rename. --Abd 22:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅ --SB_Johnny talk 09:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Naweedkhan → nomi8998

 * Datestamp: 18:25, 28 March 2011

 * Reason: No longer want to use real name. -- Naweedkhan 18:25, 28 March 2011
 * was unsigned. Signed for user, Abd 14:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Recommend immediate rename. No SUL for either account. User:nomi8998 unregistered. --Abd 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ The user "Naweedkhan" has been renamed to "Nomi8998". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

*Sebi* → -sebi-

 * Datestamp: 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason: Templates break on the * in my old username. *Sebi* 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ The user "*Sebi*" has been renamed to "-sebi-". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Striker → Defender

 * Datestamp: 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: Global rename. See this for confirmation. If there is an account here with the new name, just rename it to Defender1 or another name. That account has been created accidently when I visited this project while logged in on my home wiki (SUL creates accounts automatically). Thanks in advance, Striker talk 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Striker talk 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ The user "Defender" has been renamed to "Defender1". The user "Striker" has been renamed to "Defender". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Walker → Jacob J. Walker
Jacob Walker (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Jacob Walker (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 23:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: Per APA style, and to improve having a general unique identifier for scholarly work, I am trying to use my middle initial. Further, I wish to unify my accounts, and as far as I understand, they all need to have the same username, and I have already changed my username on Wikipedia.
 * ✅ The user "Jacob Walker" has been renamed to "Jacob J. Walker". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

CuriousOne → Dave Braunschweig

 * Datestamp: 21:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: Ready to move to a unified login, however, the CuriousOne username is already taken on Wikipedia by someone else. Also, my use of Wikiversity is now professional / academic in nature, and I want to stand behind my work by name.  I also feel it will be advantageous to my students if they see edits / comments coming from me and are able to recognize the name.  Thanks! CuriousOne (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The user "CuriousOne" has been renamed to "Dave Braunschweig". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dpkpm007 → Deepak
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dpkpm007 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Dpkpm007 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: Unifying all accounts. diff

CecilK → Cecil
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

CecilK 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason: Unifying all accounts. The account here was created at a time when I already was owner of the SUL (SUL March 2008, this account May 2008), but only a few days later the lock for other people being prevented from registering under an already used name became active. User here has not really used the account. Link to proof that Cecil/CecilK are connected. -- CecilK 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the request and for notifying User talk:Cecil. Let's see if there's any response from the existing Cecil user over the next fortnight. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine95 → Giorgios

 * Datestamp: 05:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: I use this username for online gaming, and I do not want to be identified with my online activity. I also plan to contribute more to Wikipedia, and I do not want any educational facilities or work places to notice my current username. Byzantine95 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The user "Byzantine95" has been renamed to "Giorgios". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Surgo → Surgo451

 * Datestamp: 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I wish to be able to edit Wikipedia through a global account - apparently my handle is taken already on it, and making separate accounts is messy. Surgo (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The user "Surgo" has been renamed to "Surgo451". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lipedia → Mate2code

 * Datestamp: 13:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: More distinctive, already renamed on Commons and Wikipedia. Lipedia (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The user "Lipedia" has been renamed to "Mate2code". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jurgen1996 → JurgenNL

 * Datestamp: 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: Global username. See here for confirmation. Jurgen1996 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, confirmed via IRC. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

simplex → simplicial complex
✅ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I can't create a global unified account because the username "simplex" is taken on sister wikis; which I want to make contributions to. Simplex (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Draubb --> Goldenburg111
--The Gir’s and Sing 19:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp:
 * Reason: I had a bad reputation with "Draubb" and I am requesting to rename to have a better start, since I have been a more mature person than before.
 * ✅. The user "Draubb" has been renamed to "Goldenburg111". FYI, User Draubb had been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it has caused the local account to be detached from the global one. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

BCG999 → RandomDSdevel
BCG999 (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 18:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I am in the midst of asking for this same user rename at all Wikimedia projects because of how my old username contains my initials, which I do not want to be in my username.
 * User RandomDSdevel is reserved for a global account. Is this your global account or someone else's?-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's my account; if you need me to confirm this, how would I do so? — BCG999 (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A diff link for an edit made by RandomDSdevel to RandomDSdevel's user talk page on another wikimedia project where the RandomDSdevel account is SUL attached, with a statement to the effect you made this request is usually a good way to confirm who you are. -- dark lama  15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When you ask for a 'diff link,' do you mean that you want me to link to one of my contributions from my talk page and put this link next to something that says that I am who I say I am?
 * Curious,
 * BCG999 (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See examples of "confirmation link" on this page for other requests. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

✅ RandomDSdevel → RandomDSdevel (usurped) and BCG999 → RandomDSdevel -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User did not respond to request for confirmation link, including request by Jtneill on BCG999 talk page. I would ping w:User talk:RandomDSdevel on enwiki, I have emailed the new username from mediawiki.org. BCG999, this would be a comment by you, logged in as the RandomDSdevel SUL account somewhere, stating that you are BCG999 here and are requesting usurpation. We do this to protect RandomDSdevel. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

لطرش احمد الهاشمي → لطرش أحمد الهاشمي
لطرش احمد الهاشمي (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 15:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: i want the same name in all wikimedia project - Confirmation: w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive151
 * same username change done on en.wiki, per link provided.
 * log exists for target username here, automatically created, likely this user. No contributions here for target username.
 * Recommend rename. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please merge this new account with the others now via Special:MergeAccount. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

change username "Calshakes" to "Cal Shakes"
Change for Calshakes Please change username "Calshakes" to "Cal Shakes". Thank you!
 * Hi, moved up from usurpation to here - did you write the wished name correct ? That account doesn't exist in any wikimedia project.
 * So you could also just create that wished account new if you like (or doesn't the software allow this because it is a too similar name ?) Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

❌ Stale. User did not respond. --Abd 13:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Change username "Unknown001" to ";Hiba;1"
Hi! would you please change the user name " Unknown001" to " ;Hiba;1 ". Note: I have already created an account named " ;Hiba;1 ". If this was a problem you can change " Unknown001" to ";Hiba;812", the most important thing is that it can be a global account for all wiki projects.Thank you!--;Hiba;1 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

❌ It looks like you are all set with the new name, but let me know if there is any need to rename the old one. --mikeu talk 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Change username "Xenon" to "Gboyers"
Hi. I'd like to rename my account to the unified name I use on other wikis (including Wikipedia). I would then merge with my unified Wikimedia account (which is gboyers). Xenon 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting confirmation here --mikeu talk 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed here. Adambro 13:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ The user "Gboyers" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change username "Carlos.ivan.fuentes" to "Cifuentes22"
When googling my name, the first thing to appear is my user page in wikipedia and other pages I have edited, effectively putting relevant information about me and publications lower in google. As an academic I need people to easily find my articles rather than my contributions to wikipedia. Thank you. C.I. Carlos.ivan.fuentes 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * already exists. Please confirm (while logged in) that this is your account, or pick another username. Also, keep in mind that renaming here will not affect your username on wikipedia. --SB_Johnny talk 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

❌ Request withdrawn. --Abd 13:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed, my account. Thank you. Cifuentes22 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Change username "Mjquin_id" to "Mjquinn_id"
Changing my unified login across all projects. Mjquin id 05:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ The user "Mjquinn id" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change Myrecovery → Amit6

 * Current name: Myrecovery
 * Requested name: Amit6
 * Reason: This username is long. I don't feel comfortable when other users call me "Myrecovery". Please change my username to "Amit6". Amit6 (Talk)
 * ❌ The user "Amit6" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change username Flamevox to Visible Light
Hello. I ask you to change my username. Visible Light 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry,I cancel my request. Flamevox 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

❌ Withdrawn --Abd 13:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Change username "TheTechieGeek63" to "Zollerriia"

 * Current username: TheTechieGeek63
 * Requested username: Zollerriia
 * just want to get a shorter to type username. Please change my username? Thanks in advance. I am also Zollerriia in English Wikibooks and Simple English Wikipedia. I'm sorry to have bothered you.TheTechieGeek63 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ The user "Zollerriia" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change username from "Banerjee" to "Bbanerje"
BBanerje 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Current username: Banerjee
 * Requested username: Bbanerje
 * Reason: Want to unify all wikimedia accounts.
 * ❌ The user "Bbanerje" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change username from "Deepumohan.p" to "WarFox"

 * Current username: Deepumohan.p
 * Requested username: WarFox
 * Reason: I don't want to use my original name in Wiki. Have renamed my account in en.wiki. Now requesting the same in other projects. Thanks. Deepumohan.p 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌. The user "WarFox" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User:WarFox automatically created 27 August, 2010. No substantial contributions either account. This was merely an attempt to create formal SUL based on prior automatic account creations. --Abd 17:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Change username from "Cwenger" to "CWenger"

 * Current username: Cwenger
 * Requested username: CWenger
 * Reason: Simple capitalization change.

Warnings: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) ❌ --Abd 13:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User Cwenger has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one.
 * User CWenger is reserved for a global account.
 * So may not want rename. Alternatively, you should just create the CWenger account on this wiki and then it will be attached to your SUL. Then just ignore the Cwenger account here (you can add redirects if you want to the user page and user talk page).

Renaming கலை to Kalaiarasy
Mainly, I'm a Tamil wiki contributor and I created the account with a username in Tamil. I had problem in using the Soxred tool 'cos of this Tamil name. Besides, I felt that it would be nice to have my username in English (that everyone can read), and thus asked for renaming in ta.wiki. My username was then changed from my old username கலை to my new username Kalaiarasy (that is my first name) in ta.wiki. Even after the renaming, I faced a few problems and have been advised to change the name in all wikis which I'm linked to. So, I made a request in Wikimedia, Meta-wiki at Steward requests page. They helped me changing my name in wikis which don't have the local bureaucrats and asked me get the renaming locally in wikis which have the local bureaucrats. So, I'm making the requests in those wikis and the local bureaucrats complete the renaming procedure. Can you please do my renaming in en.wikiversity too?. Thanks in advance.--கலை 23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC) This request moved from User talk:Cormaggio --Abd 17:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%88 SUL account for existing name.
 * archived meta request. Done on projects without 'crats.
 * No contributions for original user name other than user name request. See explanation on User talk:Jtneill. There was no response there.
 * Kalaiarasy was created already, by this user, and has edits, so renaming cannot be done.
 * Recommend no action It might be simpler, in cases like this, to block the original account to avoid a problem with impersonation in the future. Or to do nothing. Or what? I'll discuss this at meta. --Abd 18:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fire in the Hole → Lester Foster

 * Datestamp: 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This is supposed to be my alternate account, and I have been using the Lester Foster nick for ages in other forums, and I'd like to be renamed to that name. Thank you. Fire in the Hole 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend immediate rename. Fire in the Hole confirmed sock of User:Diego Grez. User:Lester Foster not registered here. See w:User:Lester Foster. --Abd 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Fire in the Hole is SUL and created here on en.wv. Lester Foster is created locally. Neither have en.wv edits. If rename still wanted, please request rename of already created Lester Foster to something else as well. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Waterfox → KuduIO

 * Datestamp: 00:37, 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

requested globally — Waterfox 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend immediate rename. Waterfox autocreated only, no contributions. KudiIO no account. --Abd 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ KuduIO is SUL and created here on en.wv. Waterfox has 4 minor edits. Just keep using KuduIO. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull → Tristessa de St Ange
Proof of ownership (enwp)
 * Datestamp: 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason: Transgender; changing SUL name across all wikis, changed already on enwp. NicholasTurnbull 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * edit counter Nicholas Turnbull: 49 live edits on 8 pages, almost all from 2008. No deleted contributions.
 * See Wikipedia Changing username request and fulfillment.
 * No existing user with target username.
 * Recommend rename. --Abd 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ User NicholasTurnbull has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one. User Tristessa de St Ange is reserved for a global account. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WarGaleon → Kyoushuu

 * Datestamp: 07:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason: changing SUL name across all wikis WarGaleon 07:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ You already have, I think, Kyoushuu as SUL and really no edits from WarGaleon on en.wv to unify, so I think just keep using Kyoushhu SUL for now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Orashmatash → Mh7kJ

 * Datestamp: 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: I am renaming globally. Confirmation: here. Thanks! Orashmatash (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The user "Orashmatash" does not exist. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Moemin05 → عبد المؤمن

 * Datestamp: 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: rename on all wikis (ar, en, fr, de, es, commons) Moemin05 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The user "عبد المؤمن" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Readopedia → Energybender

 * Datestamp: 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I would prefer to use this name on all wikis. Readopedia (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The user "Energybender" already exists. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Naz → Nazar
Renaming to my SUL.

Acknowledgement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nazar#SUL_merging -- Naz 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * sebmol ? 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mysha
Hi, I have SUL as Mysha. As one of the pages keeps telling me my SUL is incomplete, I would like to resolve the last few conflicts. One is the user:Mysha on Wikiversity. The current user has slightly over 70 edits, all done on 5 dates in July - September 2007, and links the user page to an URL that no longer seems to exist. Is there a way to resolve this? (I'm as yet only asking whether there is a way; apparently you're still discussing this issue, so I'd rather know what's going to happen before plastering usurpation messages all over.) 212.203.0.54

So, any progress on the issue? 212.203.0.54

 * Hi Mysha, Looks like that user doesn't have email enabled, but could you at least post to the user's talk page to notify of your SUL request for usurping the local account. Then if there is no reply after a few weeks we can consider the usurption request. If you don't get prompt reply here, then you can ping my talk page. Also, we need to confirm your status as Mysha e.g., by posting on another wiki logged in as Mysha that these are your requests and providing a link to that from here. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 * ❌ Stale. User may request again. --Abd 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Harrypotter to Leutha
I would like to have the same user name as the one I use on wikieducator: User:Leutha.Harrypotter 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This can be done, but note the warning that "User Harrypotter has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one." -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder about this. I have considered the matter and have decided this is the way I want to go.Harrypotter 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Computerwiz908 to Logan
See diff. Thanks! Computerwiz908 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User notified User talk:Logan. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been 14 days. Could you rename me now? Computerwiz908 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

✅ --SB_Johnny talk 23:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Usurpation of User:Grillo
My global account, except enwv, is Grillo. I'd like to usurp this account here too, the user in question only has 3 edits and no specified email address. Thanks! /Grillo sv 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting confirmation here. --mikeu talk 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed here. Adambro 13:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite a while ago :) How is it going? This is the only wiki that stops me from having a global account. /Grillo sv 04:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay. The current User:Grillo needs to be notified first. It doesn't seem this has been done, so I've posted a message to User talk:Grillo. The user's email is not enabled. We need to wait at least 14 days to allow him/her to reply. Then you can ping again here or on my user talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No reply and it's been over 14 days. Please note that the other Grillo did only three edits in February 2008 within an hours time. Among those, two were on his/her user page. /Grillo sv 22:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ The previous User:Grillo has been renamed to User:Grillo (usurped). You should be able to claim it for SUL now - let me know if any problems. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? That's not usurpation. You need to rename Grillo sv to Grillo otherwise the whole thing just leaves it up in the air and anyone could claim it and otherwise we create accounts here ONLY TO REQUEST other accounts be involuntarily renamed, rather than to usurp them.--BewareofDoug 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry - my mistake. ❌ The user "Grillo" already exists. Perhaps Grillo claimed it, but its not SUL-ed? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Usurpation of User:Doug
Thanks.--BewareofDoug 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Current name:User:BewareofDoug
 * Target name: User:Doug
 * Reason: SUL; analysis of global account:  (many other projects are merged but I have made no contributions to them).
 * Home wiki: enwiki where I'm an admin
 * Additional information: The target has edits but the last edit is in mid-2006, the same user is User:Reswik whose account has is also inactive, the last edits by Reswik on this and enwiki both being in mid-2007.  I have e-mailed the user on both Wikiversity and enwiki and posted to his talk page on enwiki.  I wondered, if the target account does not respond, can he be renamed to User:Doug (old) or User:Doug (usurped) or something like that as is done on other projects?
 * Verification of global ID:
 * BTW, I have pending usurp requests on all of the projects that I don't have merged yet: Wikiversity, Wikibooks (also Reswik), wikiquote, ja.wikipedia, ko.wikipedia, and es.wikipedia; excepting it.wikipedia as there is an active User:Doug there who is apparently unconnected to Reswik (doesn't speak English fluently and makes no interwiki links on his user page).--BewareofDoug 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, Wikibooks renamed User:Doug" to "User:Doug (usurped)" based on inactivity; I mention this in particular because it is the same user (m:User:Reswik) as User:Doug on this project.--BewareofDoug 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

- There is reluctance to usurp accounts that have had significant edits. See: "I didn't do yours because the account had edits." Also, there seems to be some general confusion about the use of Usurpation requested which literally states "...because you have not used it to edit..." See the discussion thread that I opened at Wikiversity_talk:Changing_username to request community input on this process. Also, see the change that I made to the template to try to clarify the intent. I would hesitate to usurp an account with contribs unless there is some indication that Doug switched to using the Reswik account, for example. Did you email both User:Doug and User:Reswik? --mikeu talk 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have e-mailed User:Doug on this Project and User:Reswik on both this and enwiki and I've posted messages on enwiki as well for Reswik (See w:User talk:Reswik); all done last December; I did not bother to post a message on User talk:Reswik on this project. As I noted above, User:Reswik has been inactive as well since mid-2007 on both this Project and enwiki, and does not appear to be active anywhere else (Last edit by Reswik anywhere was August 2007 on here).  None of Doug's edits on this project were in the mainspace, for what it's worth.--BewareofDoug 21:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ Let us know if any problems. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Doug 06:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Usurpation of User:Samar

 * Current name:User:Marsa Lahminal
 * Target name: User:Samar
 * Reason: Unification of account under the new name (SUL). w:User_talk:Samar
 * Additional information: The user account was created in May 2007, and has only one edit (see here), which most probably was vandalism. The user hasn't contributed since May 2007. Marsa Lahminal 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SB_Johnny talk 10:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Joy-temporary → Joy

 * Datestamp: 10:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Reason: I'm trying to get a unified account, and this account Joy here, created on 15 September 2007 has 0 edits and stands in the way. Please move it away. en:User:Joy --Joy-temporary 10:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User notified: User talk:Joy - but I can't email them - don't see the link (?).
 * SUL confirmation: en:User:Joy/SUL

 * Help please? :) --Joy-temporary 12:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Joy SUL.
 * Confirmed notice of original user.. Confirmed 0 edits.
 * Confirmed "SUL confirmation" above, acknowledges renaming from home wiki.
 * Recommend usurpation. --Abd 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

✅, your account should attach next time you visit. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

MehranVB → Mehran
MehranVB 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason: Make my SUL account global (Confirmation diff on home wiki)

 * Confirmed that target account has no WV edits. No accounts elsewhere are attached to WV Mehran, and other accounts globally with the same name, but unattached only have five edits, (four on Commons, last in 2006, and one on nl.wiki. Wiktionary account has been usurped.) Target account here does have email enabled.
 * Notice Wiktionary username change from MehranVB to Mehran, granted today, same day as request.
 * However, the diff provided does not clearly establish MehranVB as being Mehran on fa.wiki. Edit by Mehran there acknowledging the VB username and confirming this request should suffice. I suggest that Mehran SUL attach all the MehranVB accounts if possible. --Abd 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅ Mehran moved to Mehran (usurped). The name should attach now next time you log on.--SB_Johnny talk 08:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Clifsportland → Cliff

 * Datestamp: 16:48, 10 February 2011

 * Reason: I have the SUL Cliff. My home wiki is en.wikipedia. Because I intend to use this name for the next 50 years or so, I would like to unify it if at all possible. Below is the link to the diff, showing my ownership of Cliff on en.wikipedia. --Clifsportland 16:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User notified: User talk:Cliff.
 * Diff link: here
 * Account was registered 2006. No edits. I've emailed the user. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SUL for Cliff.
 * Confirmed notice to Cliff. Confirmed en.wikipedia ack. Done on Wikibooks.
 * Recommend usurpation. (Assuming no response to Jtneill email) --Abd 20:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please visit Special:MergeAccount. Cliff → Cliff (old); Clifsportland -> Cliff. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

BdragonSUL → Bdragon
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

BdragonSUL (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 22:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link: here
 * Reason: SUL request
 * Thanks for your request. I've emailed User:Bdragon. Let's see if there's any response in the next week. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bdragon is now Bdragon72 per email request. BdragonSUL is now Bdragon. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ready12 → Ready
Ready12 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link: here
 * Reason: Unify global login / SUL request
 * Thanks for your request. I've emailed User:Ready. Let's see if there's any response in the next 2 weeks. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any update on this? Thanks, Ready12 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - Ready → Ready (old) and Ready12 → Ready. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

White Cat → とある白い猫
I own both accounts. This one has revisions, other one does not. -- Cat chi? 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link: N/A
 * Reason: Unify global login / SUL request
 * Can you post a confirmation message here using the target account? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I own both accounts. Please rename. :) --とある白い猫 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got the message "The user "White Cat" does not exist." on trying to rename. Not sure why. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is apparently not done yet. This is a usurpation request actually. As proven above, he owns both accounts, so you will need to rename とある白い猫 to something else like とある白い猫 (usurped) and the you can rename White Cat to とある白い猫. -Barras (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC) If you've any questions about this, please contact me at meta. -Barras (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help:
 * The user "とある白い猫" has been renamed to "とある白い猫 (usurped)".
 * The user "White Cat" has been renamed to "とある白い猫"
 * -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting this done finally! -Barras (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dpkpm007 → Deepak
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dpkpm007 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Dpkpm007 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: Unifying all accounts. diff

Mayurbot → Mayur

 * Datestamp: 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Reason: Hi, I am a bureaucrat of hindi wikipedia, My main account is hi:Mayur in hi wiki, In english wikiversity this account has already covered by some user but he had no edit so far and inactive, To have a global account i want to Rename my this account user:mayurbot to user:mayur at en wikiversity so as to have a global account, Thank you and Regards--Mayurbot 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Target user does not have email enabled. Please also add Usurpation requested to the target user talk page.
 * Can you please verify this request by editing your home wiki and letting us know about that edit here? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi i have informed that user on is talk page and edited my home wiki user page here for proof--Mayurbot 09:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mayur registered 16:15, 11 January 2009. No edits. Confirmed link above for original Mayur notification by Mayurbot and Jtneill. On hi.wikipedia, Mayur ('crat) (SUL) operates Mayurbot (botadmin) (SUL). Proof of identity with en.wikiversity Mayurbot not complete, however, appears adequate.
 * Recommend Usurpation. --Abd 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The user "Mayur" has been renamed to "Mayur (usurped 2)". (Mayur (usurped) already existed. The user "Mayurbot" has been renamed to "Mayur". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

N tmp → N
N tmp (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 14:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: SUL
 * home wiki/confirmation: https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Benutzer:N
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for slow response. The target username does not have email enabled. I have posted notification of intended usurpation to User talk:N. Let's see if there is response within 2 weeks. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hello? --N tmp (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * ✅ The user "N" has been renamed to "N (usurped)". The user "N tmp" has been renamed to "N". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --N (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Katarighe → Cyfraw
Katarighe (Talk ) 06:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 06:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: I would like to rename this account to "Cyfraw" Here are the Confirmation diffs for evidence. Thanks
 * ✅ The user "Cyfraw" has been renamed to "Cyfraw (usurped)". The user "Katarighe" has been renamed to "Cyfraw". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DennyTemp → Denny
DennyTemp (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link: here
 * Reason: SUL unification
 * ✅ - The user "Denny" has been renamed to "Denny (usurped)". The user "DennyTemp" has been renamed to "Denny". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Denny (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko → Kumioko (usurped)

 * Datestamp: 11:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link: here and w:User talk:Snowolf
 * Reason: I abandoned his account some time ago and scrambled login data. I have since regained access to my enwiki account and to the global SUL. The metawiki user 'Kumioko' is indeed me and I would like to have this old and scrambled username renamed to so he use SUL-autocreation to have a new user here. (Kumioko) 138.162.0.42 18:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. The user "Kumioko" has been renamed to "Kumioko (usurped)". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

81.182.171.144 → Dj
81.182.171.144 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Conformation link Here
 * Datestamp: 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: Unify my account
 * ✅ - The user "Dj" has been renamed to "Dj (usurped)". Unable to rename 81.182.171.144 as DJ, but I think this should free you up to use Dj via SUL? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it works! --Dj (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Djdubay → Djd
Djdubay (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link: here
 * Reason: Clean-up for SUL after W:WP:USURP. Target user has no edits, so did not notify per: Changing username/Usurpations. I have not created the SUL account yet, waiting for other projects, but target account will create a conflict when I do. Still waiting on this request.  This is the last project to respond.  SUL account has been created a while back, and I'm locked out of this one until you complete this request. Djdubay (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Djdubay (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 17:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: Clean-up for SUL after W:WP:USURP. Target user has no edits, so did not notify per: Changing username/Usurpations. No response to my last request, so I'm re-submitting to reset any triggers that may get someone to look at it.  This is an SUL request.  I'm completely locked out of this project due to account conflict until you complete this request.  Thanks!
 * ✅, as this was also requested on meta. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Receptie123 → Reception123

 * Datestamp: 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I have a rename on many Wikimedia Foundation projects, I would like one here as well. Receptie123 (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone please take care of my request? Receptie123 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Reception123 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

83.213.181.168 → Alan
83.213.181.168 (discuss) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I request usurpation for SUL completation. Target username informed. Inactive since 2006, 0 edits. My confirmation link. Thanks in advance. --83.213.181.168 (discuss) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: usurp3 (usurponly=yes) template not found. --83.213.181.168 (discuss) 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Special Note: I suggest you create an account for yourself, there is no reason to permit this, this is just a waste of time. --Aaqib talk 20:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but see Alan, I´m SUL owner. I just want to complete the global SUL, WMF has postponed indefinitely the forced change. --83.213.181.168 (discuss) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Any news about this?? 83.213.180.160 (discuss) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I suggest you wait for a month later, our only crat is taking a vacation, I'm not a bureaucrat. Sorry. --Goldenburg111 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by a Steward (Permalink). Regards. -- Alan (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Newjerseyliz → Liz
Newjerseyliz (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: I have this username on almost all English wikis. I posted a notice to the desired userpage here. Evidence that I use this username elsewhere is here. Thanks for considering my request!
 * This should be done - can you check? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Liz may or may not have checked, but the usurpation was done. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Faizan Al-Badri → Faizan
Faizan Al-Badri (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason: Please change my username, I am an editor from English Wikipedia, and I request usurpation here for unified login. I am a regular editor at your projects, especially Wikipedia.

 * Thanks for the request and also notifying the user on User talk:Faizan. I have also just now emailed the user to notify and check whether it is OK. Let's give a chance for reply - say 2 weeks. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also noting that Faizan Al-Badri has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local account to be detached from the global one. Also username Faizan is reserved for a global account, so can you provide a confirmation link for your use of that account by editing to say that this is you on another wiki project and posting a link here? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jtneill, sorry for the late reply. Here's the confirmation link. Please change my username as early as possible. Faizan Al-Badri (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. ready to rename. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Faizan -> Faizan (usurped) and Faizan Al-Badri -> Faizan -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Scott Martin → Scott
Scott Martin (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: SUL unification. Usurp request because a person registered "Scott" here in 2007; however they only made one useless edit to a project page.
 * @Jtneill: Hi Jtneill, you seem to be the only active bureaucrat here. Could you help me with this please? Many thanks. Scott Martin (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 * The target username's only edit was to sign up as participant on Topic:Computer networks. The target user does not have email set up, and to create a user talk page merely for this request is so unlikely to be seen by the original user that it should not be done. The usurpation will do no harm, that single sign-up should be edited to the new username, that's all. w:User:Scott is a sysop on en.wiki. commons:User:Scott Martin is a sysop on Commons.
 * There is no globally linked and attached account for our user Scott.
 * Recommend usurpation I'd have preferred to see direct verification that our Scott Martin = Wikipedia Scott. However, with Wikipedia Scott Martin -> Scott, there is no reasonable doubt as to propriety of usurpation. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC) struck error. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Abd. Here's a confirmation link just in case. Oh, I'm not a sysop on Commons though! Scott Martin (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Scott. I don't know where I got that idea. You have autopatrolled and filemover privileges there, not sysop. The link you gave shows that WP admin Scott is attempting to usurp WV Scott, which is adequate. Patience, we will get there. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Abd, Jtneill: Any news on this? Thank you. Scott Martin (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Abd, Jtneill: Hello? If this is difficult for some reason, I can ask a steward to look into it. Scott Martin (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Officially, Wikiversity still has five bureaucrats. However, only one has been active in the last three months. You have already pinged him. Under these circumstances, stewards, shown the diffs, may act. Except for one request, the requests here are clerked, verified, and ready to go. I will again remind Jtneill. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've completed this request, since Jtneill isn't looking at it. Ajraddatz (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

King jakob c 2 → Jakec

 * Datestamp: 02:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: My previous name seems somewhat immature. King jakob c 2 (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Target username unused here.
 * Active SUL account for target username.
 * Original username was not renamed on Wikipedia to target. Original user page was redirected to new user page for target username; the redirect is hidden.
 * King jakob c 2 acknowledges being Jakec on Wikipedia, in edit to User:talk Jakec.
 * Jakec acknowledged this.
 * User was renamed on Commons as requested here.
 * Recommend rename. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Target user account now exists, so I've switched this to a usurpation request and posted about this on the target user talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have reported that I checked the log for Jakec. Jakec was "created automatically" 18:12, 11 February 2014, after the user filed this request, when this user logged into the SUL elsewhere and looked at Wikiversity. (Special:Log/Jakec)
 * When this request was filed, the SUL account did not exist as such, according to CentralAuth.
 * The SUL account was "registered 18:12," 11 February 2014. That is an attachment date, and a whole series of wikis show that attachment date, including Wikiversity.
 * Only SUL Jakec could have created that log entry, and from the other evidence shown, Jakec is King jakob c 2. So please go ahead, and there is no need for a Jakec (usurped) account. This is the same user. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 * User:Abd, User:Jtneill So would you mind going ahead with the rename then? --Jakob (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please merge this new Jakec account with the others via Special:MergeAccount. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hosiryuhosi → Rxy

 * Datestamp: 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: I want to change my current username to short username at WMF wikis globally. Note: Global account "Rxy" is my account (confirm). Thanks. Hosiryuhosi (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Target SUL account active.
 * Confirmation is in Japanese. Rxy acknoweldges, from google translate: (This is a sub-account of Hosiryuhosi).
 * No edits of target account here, only autocreation.
 * Recommend rename. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Target user account exists, so have requested usurpation on that talk page and shifted this to a usurpation request. (If doing this seems unnecessary, please let me know.) -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * James, unless there is something I've missed, the target account only exists because it was created automatically by the CentralAuth mechanism, by this user. The autocreated account is for the SUL account of the requestor. Please go ahead. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please merge this new Rxy account with the others via Special:MergeAccount. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

IndianWikipedian - Anup
IndianWikipedian (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: I'm the owner of user:Anup SUL account, requesting usurpation for the purpose of SUL unification. Thank you!
 * Confirmation: diff link at home wiki, SUL info.

 * Existing local user has been notified. User does not have email enabled.
 * However, existing local user has no edits. (Contributions Logs)
 * Home wiki diff verified as notice of username change from IndianWikipedian to Anup on en.wikipedia.
 * Usurpation recommended. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please merge this Anup account with the SUL account via Special:MergeAccount. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Juan de Vojníkov → Juandev

 * Datestamp: 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: For the last couple of years I am using username Juandev on the Wikimedia projects. Unfortunatelly here at en.wv custodian rights are attached to user:Juan de Vojníkov, which make it difficult to act as a custodian at this project. I dont mind loosing edits of the user Juandev. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I prove that the request above was set by me.--Juan de Vojníkov (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While filed as a rename, this is technically a usurpation, because Juandev has long existed and edited. I will move it to that section; however, it is clear that Juandev = Juan de Vojnikov. If Juan de Vojnikov usurps Juandev, the custodian rights will travel with it. There are few edits for Juandev, and I understand that the MediaWiki extension allowing account merge is not enabled. Hence:
 * Usurpation recommended. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, OK. Thx!Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please merge this new Juandev account to the others via Special:MergeAccount. Like Abd said, the global user merge tool isn't enabled yet. I was told that it will work the same as the local user merge tool on the voyage projects. When it's working, you may request to merge Juan de Vojníkov, Juandev (usurped) etc with your main Juandev account. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them. (Can't promise I'll read them quickly.) Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot → ArchiveBot (usurped)

 * Datestamp: 09:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: I operate a bot by the same name on Commons, and would like to create a SUL/global account for it. The Wikiversity owner of ArchiveBot is inactive, and the bot has not edited for over a year now.  Thanks,  F ASTILY  09:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done by a steward, since there are no active crats on this project - F ASTILY 09:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

D abhi → Abhinav
D abhi (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 20:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: To merge into SUL. Confirmation : diff
 * ✅ by Ruslik0 on 21 June. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Narayan557 → Narayan
Narayan557 (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 21:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason: I'm using the username Narayan on some different wikimedia projects (homewiki: nl). I created this temporary account to ask for a SUL unifaction of the account Narayan. A confirmation edit on my home account can be found [here].
 * ✅. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Usurpation of Yun-Yammka

 * Current name:User:Dark Obsidian
 * Target name: User:Yun-Yammka
 * Reason: Old username no-longer wanted, username does exists on this site but user only has an edit on userpage and talkpage per username policy could the old username be blocked.  DarkObsidian  14:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please list all your current and previous accounts/usernames? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

❌ Stale. --Abd 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

SUL Request: Crackerjack

 * Target name: User:Crackerjack
 * Reason: Hi,

I'm trying to obtain the username "Crackerjack" for SUL. So far I have claimed it on en., sv., and commons. There are still (apparently unused) accounts on ja, wikitionary, and wikiversity. Can the current User:Crackerjack on Wikitionary be moved out of the way? Authenticated note on my EN talk page is here.

Thanks! 96.50.8.248 17:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stale. User may request again. --Abd 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Change name "PatrickE" to "Patrick D"
I created an account a few days ago, attempting to use my previous Conservapedia moniker "PatrickD". That name was taken, and I foolishly just chose the next name, "PatrickE". On further reflection, "Patrick D", with a space, would be a better choice. The listusers function heare at WV shows that it is available, though it also shows that "PatrickD" would have been available, so I don't really know. The conflict involved the big global wikimedia registry, and someone in Germany. I know very little about how the global registry works, so I don't know whether "Patrick D" would be available. But the "SUL search util" seems to be saying it's available here. PatrickE 05:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stale. User may request again. --Abd 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Singlish speaker → Sonia
To re-unify SUL. Is it sufficient evidence to reference these recent renames on enWP and simpleWP? Singlish speaker 06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (SUL)
 * (SUL)
 * ❌ Stale. User may request again. --Abd 14:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Change username from "mankbadi" to "Philospher287"
edit by Mankbadi 19:04, 21 July 2011 confirmed by Abd 23:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Current username: mankbadi
 * Requested username: Philospher287
 * Page to be deleted or renamed: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Mankbadi
 * Reason: Want to be anonymous. Thanks in advance!!!
 * Mankbadi, if you wanted to be anonymous, this won't quite accomplish it. That account was old and this request actually calls attention to and would link to the new accounts. You'd be better off starting a new account with a new name, not one of those above. While the account could be hidden, the edits themselves, where you placed your user name, will still be found on the wiki, they can't be removed without a lot of difficulty. If you want your user page deleted, just edit it as Mankbadi, blank it, and copy

 * onto it. Given that the Mankbadi account did not have any problems, nobody will mind if you start up a new account, it's not worth the trouble of telling us! --Abd 23:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User page deleted as suggested, no action needed, archive request --Abd 02:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

95.223.246.236 → Nikki
--Abd 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Datestamp: 02:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Reason: I have the SUL Nikki and I'd like to finish resolving the conflicts where possible. My home wiki is commons. Thanks. --95.223.246.236 02:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User notified: User talk:Nikki. (No contributions for Nikki.)
 * Confirmation: --95.223.246.236 02:08, 15 May 2011 added sig of IP --Abd 02:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 * SUL Confirmed notification of Nikki. Confirmed usurpation request on Commons.
 * Requested user to create account to rename here, such as User:Nikki - commons and will request additional confirmation then on the commons page. (is this correct?) --Abd 02:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No response yet. --Abd 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend close as not done, no user response to query. --Abd 18:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

122.105.140.130 → LordVetinari
❌

 * Datestamp: 12:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Target name: User:LordVetinari
 * Reason: For the purpose of SUL unification. My home wiki is Wikipedia. Thanks. 122.105.140.130 12:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User notified: User talk:LordVetinari.
 * Confirmation:
 * It's been 17 days. Could you rename me now please? 122.105.140.130 11:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been 46 days. Could someone rename me now please? 122.105.140.130 06:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC) As edited by IP 175.38.202.158, see below.

 * Verified request from IP at sig. date shown.
 * LordVetinari has no edits here, however, user with same name is active on en.wiki. w:User:LordVetinari is not attached on en.wikiversity.
 * Contributions/175.38.202.158 updated timing, then blanked request, comment (Change mind. Usurp not needed)
 * I will contact LordVetinari to confirm intentions and assist. I reverted the IP blanking of this request. This request was malformed, for to usurp requires another account with password access to rename to the usurped name, and we'd want confirmation that both LordVetinari accounts (ours and SUL) were the same user. --Abd 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * wp user LordVetinary has another SUL account at Wikiversity. I have notified the user by email to let him know that this request exists, in case it was not filed by him, and to ask him his intentions, suggesting he confirm this request with his existing account, which could then be renamed to LordVetinari. --Abd 23:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No response yet --Abd 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * recommend close as not done, no response from user. --Abd 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

FarzanehSarafraz → Farzaneh
FarzanehSarafraz (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamp: 05:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason: I have requested usurpation on enwiki and my target username has an account on en.wikiversity with 0 edits. So I am putting this request so that I can use SUL once my request is approved on the other wikis. Thanks.
 * I have now usurped Farzaneh on other wikis and also have a SUL for Farzaneh, and would like to add the username on this wiki to my SUL account. Please see the confirmation here. --FarzanehSarafraz (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ping? --FarzanehSarafraz (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 * ❌. The user "Farzaneh" has been renamed to "Farzaneh (usurped 2)". (Farzaneh (usurped) already existed). But the user "FarzanehSarafraz" does not exist. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

محمد الجداوي → Avocato

 * Datestamp: 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link:
 * Reason: Privacy reasons.--M.Gedawy 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note: I created the destination account here automatically by mistake (self-created).--M.Gedawy 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The user "محمد الجداوي" does not exist. Note that I had renamed Avocato to "Avocato (usurped 2)" and then renamed it back. So check SUL. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GedawyBot → AvocatoBot

 * Datestamp: 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation link:
 * Reason: Privacy reasons.--M.Gedawy 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note: I created the destination account here automatically by mistake (self-created).--M.Gedawy 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The user "GedawyBot" does not exist. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity:Changing username/Archive 2


text:
Wikiversity talk:Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions

About policy or about users?
The resolutions seem to assume that CRs are about policy changes, but then some of the commenting seems to assume that it's about users. --Abd 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

7 Resolutions?
The proposals are silent about how a resolution to be presented to the community is formed. Only mature resolutions should be placed in the site notice, which means that they have found their best form. Standard deliberative process pays a great deal of attention to this. With the requirement for two established users to support, we are making a good step toward cleaner and more efficient process. We will need to define "established user." Certainly any custodian is an established user. What about someone who was a regular user five years ago, but who hasn't edited since then?

We do not have to nail down all the details ab initio.--Abd 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Timing?
A draft CR in user space would establish no timing. There should be no deadline for them. The user whose space it is should have quasi-administrative control over what is in his or her user space. It's been argued that these would be used to harass. Harassment is against policy no matter where the harassing text is located. While we should give great freedom to users as to what they host in their own user space, that is not a carte blanche.

When the CR has gained the approval of a second established user, and they judge it ready to move to WV space, one clock would start ticking, but that might be a long clock. It should be a separate decision to place a CR in the site message. At the minimum, this would take a custodian, not one of the original two who file, who agrees that the community should see the CR. We have many custodians who can do this. If we don't, we need to get more custodians.

Too many CRs in the site message, participation will drop. The CR itself can discuss when to place it in the site message. At that point, there should be developed evidence and argument on all major positions. Premature placement will reduce participation, and will, at the same time, encourage knee-jerk !voting without consideration of arguments.

Placing it in the site message is tantamount to going to a vote, which is the last step in standard deliberative process. Under Robert's Rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to close debate and go to a vote on the main motion!

The key to the experiment done, and to improving this process, is to create a document that shows clear evidence and argument, that then asks the community to resolve the issue, in a way that, in the future, we know why it was done, it's clear and relatively concise. I'd expect a good CR to spend quite a bit of time working on drafting resolutions, amending them, etc.

As to closing the CR, the second clock would start when the CR goes in the site message. 7 days is a bare minimum, I'd say. If consensus is obvious at seven days, it could be closed. But if approval of a resolution is short of 2/3, roughly, it should be open for another week. After the week elapses, there should be a close. Ideally, this is a neutral close, but that can be tricky. The close itself should represent a consensus about the result. It should carefully avoid being an argument for the result. It should, however, state what appear to be the reasons for the result, as a reporter might state them.

There are many details from standard process that can be incorporated, such as how a resolution can be reconsidered expeditiously, how to insure that debate takes place fairly and covers issues completely, and so on.

I am not claiming that Robert's Rules of Order is controlling! It is not. But we neglect the centuries of experience, incorporated in standard process, at our peril. We have seen much disruption resulting from not having clean and effective process in place. --Abd 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Current review in the site notice
I see that the current review is in the site notice, under Resolutions. The Resolutions are based, to some extent, on discussion in the WV:Community Review/CR process discussion page, but that is not clearly referenced, and the process by which the Resolutions came to be drafted and presented is unclear to me. It seems to be one person who drafted them. There was no discussion of the process, on-wiki, AFAIK. Given that there is substantial opposition expressed, the opposition should have been given an opportunity to amend the resolutions, before they were presented to the community, so that, if possible, there was a higher level of consensus.

We are bypassing careful process. It might be harmless, or it might cause continued disruption from those who might think that the Community was led into making hasty decisions. Procedurally, the site notice was set by Jtneill, so the formal requirement that I've been proposing was met. But that doesn't mean that this was ready, and a good CR process would give guidance to the site-notice acting custodian was to when it would be ready.

This is not an argument against the resolutions presented. --Abd 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise language
Still "learning by doing" here... a few of the resolutions seem to have general support with reservations about the language. I'm going to try moving the amended versions here for a bit before re-introducing them on the main resolutions page as subheaders. The action-focused approach on resolutions seems to be a good way to move so far. --SB_Johnny talk 14:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolution 3(a)
The main page of a community review will:
 * 1) Begin with a brief statement which explains the purpose of the review.
 * 2) Have a list of questions with yes/no answers. Questions can be added as indicated by the statements of the participants.
 * 3) Have statements by individual contributors about the topic, under their own headings, not to exceed 700 words. Threaded and long-form discussions should take place on the talk page. Statements may contain links to other discussions or longer statements on another page.

 * This works just as well for me, though I do think it would be better to focus on policies (as opposed to one-off actions). R3/R3a gives us a basic structure for what the main page of a review looks like. --SB_Johnny talk 14:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest two types of actions can and perhaps should be considered, sort term and long term actions. What actions do people want to see happen right now? What actions do people want to see happen to address similar situations in the future? BTW I would support replacing all the other resolutions you proposed with the above resolution. The only thing missing would be the minimum and maximum times for a review to be open for. -- dark lama  14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... I'd prefer to move in a direction that's focused on ways forward rather than case by case decisions, but that's just a preference (and I suspect I'm in the minority on that anyway).
 * Just to clarify though: do you support this particular resolution in the new language? --SB_Johnny talk 14:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I support looking for ways to move forward. I suggest working on policy though is in most cases not going to be the best way to move forward. Moving forward by means of policy all the time will only encourage people to resolve problems through proposing new policies instead of compromise. I think we should assume most problems are the result of a failure to compromise by default and not due to lack of sufficient policy.
 * The new language could use a bit of tweaking, but I support what I believe to be the spirit of it.
 * Begin by briefly explaining what the purpose of the review is. We recommend you focus on evaluating your experience at Wikiversity.
 * Add simple questions that can be evaluated with yes/no answers. Questions can be added in response to statements by participants.
 * Each participant should add a new subsection for their own statement. Statements should not exceed 700 words. Statements may link to discussions and longer statements on another page, such as the talk page.
 * Reviews are to remain open until at least 1 month has passed without any new ground being covered.
 * -- dark lama  15:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's full agreement yet on when to close, so let's just stick to what we agree on for now and see what happens with the closure. --SB_Johnny talk 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I included 4 just to show what I was getting at before. -- dark lama  15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I actually like your 4th point (and we might reach it in one of the other resolutions anyway), but this is where I'm going with the "narrow scope" thing: there's a lot to be done, so getting the things we do agree on out of the way can help prevent things from bogging down (as they are wont to do hereabouts) ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I realized I missed something important. "Reviews are to find common ground and to learn what people agree on." That should go before 1. -- dark lama  16:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That probably should go with (or replace) the resolution regarding the not-written-in-stone thing. See above (edit conflict). --SB_Johnny talk 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording looks good to me. Is this one ready for inclusion on the page? --mikeu talk 13:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Already there for a few days (you actually voted on it!), but I think it's probably ready to be amended to the CR Policy page too. --SB_Johnny talk 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mikeu is referring to the new language I proposed? -- dark lama  13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what's on the page... --SB_Johnny talk 13:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I must be missing it, because I only see your wording on the page. -- dark lama  13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the 4th point, they're yours. --SB_Johnny talk 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. Resolution 3(a) uses the wording you proposed at the top of this section. The wording I proposed is not used at all. -- dark lama  15:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, I see it. Actually the wording is from Jtniell... I guess I didn't notice the things you added to 1 and 3 (sorry about that... the 4th part was what stuck out!). I really don't have any preference for either version (yours or Jtniell's). I'd very much like to move on though. --SB_Johnny talk 15:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of "700 words"
I suggest:

 * If a contributor's section exceeds 700 words, any editor may remove the material in that section, with a neutral and civil reference to the contributor's section, as it was before removal, shown in the latest permanent version in history. The contributor may then re-add material up to the 700 word limit, total. A contributor may also consent to refactoring by another editor, to present the contributor's position succinctly.

The point of this is to avoid useless argument over how over-limit contributions are handled. This proposal clearly does not treat removal as censorship, and is silent on the value of the removed contribution, which is not truly removed, it's just effectively collapsed to a link. This may encourage contributors making voluminous contributions to condense them, in what they replace. If they go over 700 words in their "condensation," it may again be removed, burying their original contribution. Natural consequences! In the end, if it's a mess, they can fix it. Under 700 words! --Abd 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just move the comment to a new section on the talk page (leaving a link behind). --SB_Johnny talk 18:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't see why it's simpler, and it's not ideal. It, in fact, creates more comment on the Talk page! Which, then, invites reply there, and it can spin out, when, the purpose here is to avoid such train wrecks. SBJ, I'd like you to consider what I write. If I explain in detail the first time, you complain about the length. If I don't, you make comments that show you didn't really consider the issue. What I have proposed creates no mess at all, it's simple and it's clean. It works because response isn't threaded in the comment sections, so the reference to history is clean, can go right to the relevant section, no fuss.
 * Personally, I'd vastly prefer what I suggested, being done to a comment of mine. It's hard for you to dredge up 700 words, so your preference probably doesn't matter! What I suggested is, in fact, simpler, it takes less editing. You pull up the permanent link to the current CR page, going to the section directly. Then you edit the current page, and replace the whole section with the link and an explanation, we could even specify it. Save it and it's done. You want to edit two pages! --Abd 20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Moving the thing over to the talk page would achieve the same goal, and also allow others to offer suggestions on how to make the statement more concise. --SB_Johnny talk 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It will fill up the Talk page with comments that were already considered too long! Nothing prevents anyone from referencing an "archived" comment like this, on Talk, even copying the whole thing, if they want to, but I'm saying that, as someone who would have been most likely to be affected by the 700 word limit, I greatly prefer the archiving step, which has a side benefit of keeping the text with the page. While a Talk page is usually not moved separately from the regular page, it happens. Because archiving to history takes only one edit, I'm recommending that this be the default practice. If editors whose work is so archived then want it on Talk, they can easily add it there. That's one more edit. In other words, what I'm suggesting is half the work, but if copying to the talk page is needed, it's then the same work. It's amazing to me that you'd argue with this, SBJ.
 * If it's copied to Talk, and the editor doesn't want it there, but someone responds to it, what do you do? More work. --Abd 03:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually like this, though I am actually with Leighblackall personally maintaining neutrality. I think "deconstruction" into wiki-bytecode might be an approach to force onto long-winded editors exactly what it is that they are trying to say to give them a chance to amalgamate their their thoughts and reconstruct them into prose making them better editors.  Moving text is problematic as it may resemble censorship, though is necessary at times!--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolution 4(a)
Resolutions to address any actions or changes that seem appropriate in light of the discussions on the main page and talk page should be listed on a subpage. Comments on the resolutions page should be kept brief (at most three lines), be on-topic, and clearly indicate the contributor's desire to, , , , or.

 * Comment: introducing this because R4 was too broad (and in some ways too specific). CR policy already has instructions about scope and notification, but it doesn't mention a resolutions page (which seems to be working out fairly well). --SB_Johnny talk 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolution 7(a)
Community Reviews will be closed if no new ground is covered for 1 month. Unresolved issues may be addressed in a new Community Review. Old issues may be raised in a new Community Review if there is something new to be contributed, or if the resolutions of an older review have caused unintended problems.

 * Comment: based on what I saw of an IRC discussion last night. --SB_Johnny talk 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruption of voting process?
Full description of JWS !voting in this CR is archived to history at. --Abd 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Opposing every resolution without discrimination or compromise, JWS copied to each comment a standard rant:

 * "Community Review" is a misnomer and a failed system that was imported from another wiki website. After the Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity Community Review was forced upon the Wikiversity community. "Community Review" and all the other disruptive influences of SB Johnny and his buddies should be removed from Wikiversity and nullified. The currently active bureaucrats should resign, along with all policy-violating sysops. The honest Wikiversity community members who were driven away by the Hostile Takeover should be brought back and those who had their tools removed by bogus emergency desysop procedures when there was no emergency or who resigned their tools in protest/disgust after the Hostile Takeover should be given back their tools. Wikiversity should return to holding important discussions at the Colloquium.

 * JWS subscribes to the Bad Actor view of history, that assigns blame for community problems to Bad Actors, and if they would just go away, everything would be fine. In some versions, this becomes "If they are banned," everything will be fine. It's naive, and typically leads, should those who hold this view manage to become dominant, to repetitions of the old problems with new faces. The view allows people to avoid facing their own responsibility for problems, the failures to act that are behind "Bad Actors" maintaining power, if that's actually the problem. We are all responsible for the condition of Wikiversity, through errors of omission or errors of commission. Complaining about others will not solve the problems. Taking responsibility will. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then, to each copy, he added some unique comment, though in one case (resolutions 2 and 3), he used almost exact additional text.

1. If someone has something on their mind they should be free to take it to the relevant Wikiversity page or the Colloquium, not have to first start a page in their user space.

 * The CR does not replace normal Wikiversity discussion, so it's clear that JWS has not understood what is being proposed. While the proposal suggests starting a CR in user space, that is only for it to see a support added, minimally. Nothing prevents people from taking "something on their mind" to the Colloquium or the "relevant Wikiversity page." We are talking about a formal process that more actively solicits community participation, not a forcing of the expression of concerns into a straightjacket. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

2. ''If "Community Review" needs to be artificially limited to narrow topics then that is just one more example of its failings. "Community Review" should not be used as a substitute for the normal process by which the community develops needed policies.''

 * Nothing prevents the "normal process" from taking place. Policy pages may be edited normally. CR is designed to find and validate wider consensus than normal discussion, when normal process breaks down, as it obviously can. If the normal process works, there is no need for CR. Then, the limitation of a CR to a "narrow topic" is simply standard deliberative process, based on centuries of experience. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

3. If "Community Review" needs to be artificially structured as proposed in this "resolution" then that is just one more example of its failings.

 * Democratic organizations above a small number of members learned, over the centuries, that, without structure, discussions, which expand as the square of the number of participants, become dysfunctional with scale. In real organizations where structure is lacking, most participants bail, stop participating, because it becomes entirely too tedious. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Simpler alternative proposal: Anyone like SB Johnny who has vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community should stop trying to force on Wikiversity failed ideas like "Community Review".

 * Personal attack on SBJ, ad hominem argument. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

5. ''"we have a bad track record of passing policies" <-- The problems with Wikiversity policy started when SB Johnny decided that he did not have to follow Wikiversity policy and he started forcing upon Wikiversity policies from other websites. SB Johnny's schemes for ever more absurd rules for "Community Review" are not a solution, they will just continue the problem that he created.''

 * Personal attack on SBJ, ad hominem argument. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

6. I'm tempted to ask for a definition of what a "resolution" is and what resolutions have to do with the mission of Wikiversity, but it would be far easier for everyone to simply return to having normal wiki community discussions and stop trying to salvage the failed "Community Review" idea.

 * "Normal wiki discussions" have continued for more than two years, since the "Hostile Takeover," and they have not resolved long-term problems. Community Reviews have often not led to conclusions precisely because they were hijacked by tendentious debate, and the process proposed here is designed to make issues clear, so that the evidence and the points made don't get buried in rubbish. JWS did not participate in this review itself, He did not add a comment section of his own. He's only nay-saying, now, every proposed conclusion, with mostly irrelevant argument, ignoring the actual consensus that has been appearing, not seeking agreement, only complaining about the past. He's been doing this for two years, to what effect? --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Alternative proposal: stop wasting the time of Wikiversity community members by forcing upon them failed ideas like "Community Review" and systems of rules for "resolutions" and other bureaucratic structures.

 * It's up to "Wikiversity community members" if a process wastes their time or not. Process rules do not necessarily set up "bureaucratic structures," they are a set of procedures that a community adopts so that people know what to do if they encounter problems, so that the community can attend to substance instead of hassling over process every time. However, most organizations or committees do set up a chair, who makes process decisions, always subject to review by the members. We rely upon the administrative corps to do this, but, really, the function of a chair should be separated from "enforcement," because the duty of a chair is to serve the community by seeking maximized consensus, partly by ensuring the rights of minorities. A chair is ideally elected by supermajority, though, technically, majority vote is enough. We might consider this. It's tricky on a wiki. (ArbComm is the closest thing Wikipedia has to a "chair," and arbitrators mostly don't understand the reasons why it's a Bad Idea for arbitrators to be personally blocking, etc. Wikipedia has not selected high-level administrators based on expertise at dispute resolution, unfortunately, but on popularity, mostly Lack of Controversy.... Better process is going to take some work, but it need not be complicated.) --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment: This doesn't actually seem to be disrupting the process, though it does point out the need to perhaps keep resolution comments very short. --SB_Johnny talk 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you "keep" resolution comments short? Who has the "need"? Here, JWS copied the same rant to every comment, making all of his comments long, but not on point to the resolution being addressed except for the few words added at the end. This isn't Wikipedia, but he'd be blocked in a flash for doing similar on Wikipedia and for good reason. In any case, WV is for learning, and I'm learning lots of disruptive tricks to use if I ever want to disrupt. Why should I bother being succinct, if I can actually overwhelm a page with repeated walls of text? I previously imagined that to write a wall of text, I had to actually create some new content, but, obviously, it's much more efficient to recycle it. Congratulations on your forward-thinking and forthright approach, SBJ.
 * I answered the issues he raised, here. Perhaps I should go back and amend all my comments to add that discussion of the issues? Surely I can take as much space as JWS! You deserve what you get, below, just not for the reasons JWS states. --Abd 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it as disrupting the process because I saw perfectly reasonable and constructive contributions being made after his contributions. However (after further thought), I can see why it might discourage those who haven't weighed in from weighing in. Personally, I tend to read the first sentence of his posts, and only read more if the first sentence makes me think that there might be something insightful in the rest of the post.
 * Limiting the comments on the resolutions page to 2 or 3 lines would at least force him to make his point more concisely, and make it easier for people (who haven't had enough experience with him to just skip to the next comment) to simply read his input and move on to the next person's input.
 * As far as blocking, banning, etc.: I really don't have much of an opinion (he doesn't bother me, but then again I don't tink he has much to offer lately either). --SB_Johnny talk 20:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "the need to perhaps keep resolution comments very short" <-- The Ruling Party has no interest in true community discussion...they've worked too hard driving away the honest members of the community....still, there is the risk that someone might speak the truth and mention how the Ruling Party has vastly disrupted Wikiversity and should resign. Of course, the Ruling Party will try to engineer more special rules to prevent free discussion and examination of how they continue to disrupt the Wikiversity community. personal attack <-- Discussion of the abusive and disruptive behavior of Wikimedia Functionaries is not a personal attack. It only further disrupts Wikiversity when Drama Queens try to prevent discussion of the vast disruption of Wikiversity that has been caused by SB Johnny and the abusive sysops who gather around him. "Disruption of voting process?" <-- Decisions at Wikiversity are made by community discussion, not voting by regimented drones. The Wikiversity Main Page should include a description of how SB Johnny assisted a gang of policy violators from Wikipedia to disrupt Wikiversity and impose a Hostile Takeover on what was intended to be a peaceful community of collaborating learners. Until there is some kind of Truth and Reconciliation process the Wikiversity community will not recover from the Hostile Takeover and the goon squad will continue to strut around disrupting the Wikiversity community while fondling their tiny banhammers. --JWSchmidt 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising
Every Sunday, mourning, over WVBD ...

B&D s’fargenigen. B&D s’men ken a bootkick krigen. A schnook, a Kort, a drama queen. Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing.  [Source: Red Buttons via The Barton Brothers' 1940's Borscht Belt comedy sketch "Joe and Paul" with Klezmer music accompaniment by Sholom Secunda, courtesy of the NPR Yiddish Radio Project.]

Closures
Looking over this this morning, I think we can close a few of the resolutions for now: That's as far as my thinking goes this morning :-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * R1: no consensus or movement towards consensus, so can be tabled.
 * R2: no consensus, but perhaps could be amended.
 * R3: dropped in favor of R3a
 * R3a: broad support, can be adopted.
 * R4: broad opposition, can be tabled, though at least some description of resolutions pages would be helpful.
 * R5: broad support, can be adopted.
 * R6: broad support, can be adopted.
 * R7: no consensus, but perhaps can be amended.

 * I would agree with that assessment. --mikeu talk 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for amended wording on R2 or R7? --mikeu talk 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had made some suggestions above. --SB_Johnny talk 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 * R2 Original language: Community Reviews should be narrow in focus, and aimed at clarifying, refining, or changing a Wikiversity policy or guideline.
 * First of all, I read the !vote as 5 support, 1 amend, 4 oppose, and 2 neutral. Removing "narrow in focus" might pull in some of the Oppose, but not please some of the supports. Rather, I'd suggest understanding the operation of "narrow" could be useful. If a CR were considered too broad, the drafter, at that stage, might be encouraged to narrow it, perhaps to create more than one Review with narrower focus. I don't think that if there were no clear way to do this, that therefore the Review would be closed! "Should be" indicates desirability, not rigid requirement.
 * Within a Community Review, questions may be posed. These questions should be narrow! Ideally, they should be designed for Yes/No !voting.
 * I'd suggest this language:
 * Community Reviews should aim for narrow focus, to establish, clarify, refine, or interpret a Wikiversity policy or guideline. Issues not yet clear enough for a decision-making process should be discussed at the Colloquium or other appropriate page, before moving to Community Review. Generally, if there is prior discussion, it should be referenced when a Review is created.
 * I haven't checked to see if this is redundant to other proposals. --Abd 22:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * R7 Original language: Community reviews will be closed if they have had no changes for a month, or that have already produced 7 proposed resolutions. Unresolved issues should be addressed in a new Community Review.

 * This had no support as-is, and my question about it is why we want to establish any special CR closing process at all. There are so many contingencies that it's difficult to cover them all. We might want to establish a general period for a CR to normally remain open, but snow closes prior to that are possible, and an active CR shouldn't be closed just because it hits some limit. On the other hand, a CR that seems active just because one user is adding stuff, or two editors are debating, without any change in apparent overall position, might be closed. It's all a judgment of the closer, and what the community will accept in a close. As CR is moving, here, toward CR for policy/guidelines only, CR simply may fail or may establish some revised policy or guideline. If the CR consensus is clear, it then becomes more difficult to justify major changes without substantial discussion, but, again, no rigid policy is like to serve well. We just saw an editor blocked for making a change to a policy, but the change wasn't really to the policy, but was a use of the policy page for soapboxing about the alleged abusive implementation process. If the editor had made an apparent good-faith change to the page, the editor might have been reverted with little fuss, or, at most, warned. We don't want to make it difficult to improve policies and guidelines! So I recommend just dropping R7 for now, and we might edit the page later to add a standard time. The minimum is a week, to allow for editor time schedules, that's what I've followed in on-line process, typically bumping it up to 8 or 10 days to allow some slop. WP XfD is 10 days. It's always possible to extend something, and with low common participation at WV, a month might be advisable. Longer than a month is unlikely to attract more participation, but, perhaps, we could have a rule about keeping a discussion open one week after the last new comment, if it's close, i.e., if a few more !votes might shift it.
 * The longer a CR is open, the more it is reasonable to decide it by majority !vote, after things like canvassed votes and other oddities are considered. Heretical, I know, I know. But that's the conclusion I came to after more than 30 years of participation in consensus organizations. When the status quo favors a minority, any decision rule requiring greater than majority support becomes a form of minority rule, the opposite of the intention of seeking consensus. I have seen this, many times, lead to the demise of consensus organizations! --Abd 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Stultiwikia

My main page is at the English Wikipedia

tr:User:Stultiwikia de:User:Stultiwikia fr:User:Stultiwikia

title: User:Stultiwikia


title: File:Nm1.s11.team4.HW3.4.fig5.jpg


title: File:Nm1.s11.team4.HW3.4.fig6.jpg