From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chanlyn → Laura_Blanc

Starfriend → Konc

  • I'm a but uncertain as to where I should put the confirmation, on the talk page of this account or on the one I have on the sv-wiki? And does the confirmation need to contain anything special or do I just write that I certify the request? Starfriend ( talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Seems most existing requests with confirmation links pointed to the other wikis so I followed suite. Hope I didn't mess up. :) Starfriend ( talk) 02:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Rietveldarchitects → Rietveld Architects

Inphonex1 → Tsnesbitt

SingapuraHipHop → GoldenTriangleRecords

PlantsbrookSchool → Plantbrk

Robertcjohn → Robert.c.john

Ashokhall school ranikhet → Manjushree

Ujwalanurag → Ujwal Anurag

BarristerBuchan → ANDREW BUCHAN (Barrister)

 Not done. I think you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. WJBscribe (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The sock that should not be → TTTSNB alternate

 Bureaucrat note: This is not a " complaint" but this account has been renamed four times before: 1, 2, 3, 4 and I don't think another rename is necessary simply to avoid confusion. There has been a notice on the page since creation to clarify the account as an alternate account. I am declining this request for now as TTTSNB seems hesitant about the request and I don't think this change needs to be forced upon him. If another bureaucrat decides differently, or if further information comes to light while I'm sleeping, proceed as if I hadn't commented. Useight ( talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
 Bureaucrat note: I agree with Useight. Unless you're blind, very tired, or just can't read properly, these two usernames are not mistakeable. There is no valid reason for this rename, especially not since the owner of the account is being forced into to doing it for no valid reason. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I disagree. The 'crat who approved the last name change made a serious mistake. Usernames that suggest they are violating Wikipedia policy are not allowed. See User:Vandal, which is blocked. It is a waste of time when we see such a username and have to check them out, only to discover that they are a legitimate account. Please process the request to help the user avoid further potential issues. Jehochman Talk 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Please strike the insults, Nihonjoe. Having ops does not give one special dispensation to be rude. Jehochman Talk 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Those are just the facts. There really is no way to mistake the accounts unless you just aren't paying attention properly. If you're filing complaints against someone, you better make sure you have the facts straight before doing so, and if you can't distinguish the two accounts when filing that complaint, then you really shouldn't be filing the complaint. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There are many alternate accounts that invoke the 'sock' moniker, and it seems there is some disagreement as to whether this name is actually inappropriate. Keeping in mind that that operating a disclosed sock is not necessary abusive sockpuppetry, I would suggest WP:RFC/N to gather additional opinions. – xeno talk 12:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with Xeno on this... there is at least 2 other users in good standing who have legitimate alternate accounts whose names have "sock" in them. If you, or someone else still disagrees, a username RFC might be prudent. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
My understanding is that there are alternative accounts and there are sock puppets. There is no such thing as a "legitimate sock". We ought to be clear on nomenclature, and then enforce username policy consistently. Yes, an RFC would be one way to clarify matters. Where is the most visible and most appropriate place to have the discussion? This page is not watched by many people. Jehochman Talk 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I started a discussion here. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)And it's my understanding that calling a legitimate alternate account a sock is just an easier, and significantly shorter way of calling it such. Let me put it this way: Sock: 4 characters. Alternate account: 16 characters, 4x larger. (17 if you include the space between words). Sockpuppet/Alternate: 10/9 characters, respectively, over 2x larger.
I would rather be able to not use abbreviations in my accounts, so the shortest word to show that it's an alternate account makes the most sense. It's not too terribly long. It's easily identifiable as an alternate account, at least it is most of the time. [1] Note that the UAA report occurred during a time when someone was creating large numbers of disruptive accounts against me. And at the time, that wasn't the only account that got accidentally confused with the vandal. The sock that should not be ( talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
My alternative account is User:Jehochman2. Very concise, and unlikely to fool anybody. ;-) Jehochman Talk 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
RFC/N for the specific case, WT:UN seems fine for a general discussion. From my experience, sock is not used to always mean abusive sock and is often used in a more lighthearted manner. – xeno talk 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

CamsterE → Camster

The hereafter → The persian

CATALAI → Catalai

AdventistHC → WebTeam01

Gamblingbear → Diamond 102

CdnStar → Svdlqq

The Merchant of Uncyc → The Uncyclopedian

Parts washers → Parts washers (2)

Nooddless → GagaNowDotCom

Parts washers → Parts washers

Bux1234 → Bux123

DeanS → Qpe9m5kqsf

Wayne.hansen → Jimmydee6377

Reyqui → Requi_renamed

Atomicmotioninc → AtomicMotionInc

Thomas H. Larsen → Thomas Larsen

Hmm, I didn't realise that account had already been created: it has no edits associated with it. I'll file a usurpation request.— Thomas Larsen 01:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Unixtastic → A113

A113 is reserved for a global account, do you own the ru.wiki/commons user? If not, you'll need to usurp them at those projects first and then ask at m:SR/SUL for the global account to be deleted. Or choose another name. – xeno talk 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't own the ru.wiki/commons user. Please cancel this request. Unixtastic ( talk) 08:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Yalezhu → Aqersftyguibrvbyctvubkertxdbhj

Tessa.cam → Tessa Cam Rowe

Orenbn → YBN

Corporateair → Corporate Air

Partnerships Marketing → Partnership Marketing

Mr gronk → Mr Gronk

Indigopage → Mr P

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chanlyn → Laura_Blanc

Starfriend → Konc

  • I'm a but uncertain as to where I should put the confirmation, on the talk page of this account or on the one I have on the sv-wiki? And does the confirmation need to contain anything special or do I just write that I certify the request? Starfriend ( talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Seems most existing requests with confirmation links pointed to the other wikis so I followed suite. Hope I didn't mess up. :) Starfriend ( talk) 02:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Rietveldarchitects → Rietveld Architects

Inphonex1 → Tsnesbitt

SingapuraHipHop → GoldenTriangleRecords

PlantsbrookSchool → Plantbrk

Robertcjohn → Robert.c.john

Ashokhall school ranikhet → Manjushree

Ujwalanurag → Ujwal Anurag

BarristerBuchan → ANDREW BUCHAN (Barrister)

 Not done. I think you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. WJBscribe (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The sock that should not be → TTTSNB alternate

 Bureaucrat note: This is not a " complaint" but this account has been renamed four times before: 1, 2, 3, 4 and I don't think another rename is necessary simply to avoid confusion. There has been a notice on the page since creation to clarify the account as an alternate account. I am declining this request for now as TTTSNB seems hesitant about the request and I don't think this change needs to be forced upon him. If another bureaucrat decides differently, or if further information comes to light while I'm sleeping, proceed as if I hadn't commented. Useight ( talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
 Bureaucrat note: I agree with Useight. Unless you're blind, very tired, or just can't read properly, these two usernames are not mistakeable. There is no valid reason for this rename, especially not since the owner of the account is being forced into to doing it for no valid reason. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I disagree. The 'crat who approved the last name change made a serious mistake. Usernames that suggest they are violating Wikipedia policy are not allowed. See User:Vandal, which is blocked. It is a waste of time when we see such a username and have to check them out, only to discover that they are a legitimate account. Please process the request to help the user avoid further potential issues. Jehochman Talk 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Please strike the insults, Nihonjoe. Having ops does not give one special dispensation to be rude. Jehochman Talk 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Those are just the facts. There really is no way to mistake the accounts unless you just aren't paying attention properly. If you're filing complaints against someone, you better make sure you have the facts straight before doing so, and if you can't distinguish the two accounts when filing that complaint, then you really shouldn't be filing the complaint. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There are many alternate accounts that invoke the 'sock' moniker, and it seems there is some disagreement as to whether this name is actually inappropriate. Keeping in mind that that operating a disclosed sock is not necessary abusive sockpuppetry, I would suggest WP:RFC/N to gather additional opinions. – xeno talk 12:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with Xeno on this... there is at least 2 other users in good standing who have legitimate alternate accounts whose names have "sock" in them. If you, or someone else still disagrees, a username RFC might be prudent. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
My understanding is that there are alternative accounts and there are sock puppets. There is no such thing as a "legitimate sock". We ought to be clear on nomenclature, and then enforce username policy consistently. Yes, an RFC would be one way to clarify matters. Where is the most visible and most appropriate place to have the discussion? This page is not watched by many people. Jehochman Talk 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I started a discussion here. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)And it's my understanding that calling a legitimate alternate account a sock is just an easier, and significantly shorter way of calling it such. Let me put it this way: Sock: 4 characters. Alternate account: 16 characters, 4x larger. (17 if you include the space between words). Sockpuppet/Alternate: 10/9 characters, respectively, over 2x larger.
I would rather be able to not use abbreviations in my accounts, so the shortest word to show that it's an alternate account makes the most sense. It's not too terribly long. It's easily identifiable as an alternate account, at least it is most of the time. [1] Note that the UAA report occurred during a time when someone was creating large numbers of disruptive accounts against me. And at the time, that wasn't the only account that got accidentally confused with the vandal. The sock that should not be ( talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
My alternative account is User:Jehochman2. Very concise, and unlikely to fool anybody. ;-) Jehochman Talk 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
RFC/N for the specific case, WT:UN seems fine for a general discussion. From my experience, sock is not used to always mean abusive sock and is often used in a more lighthearted manner. – xeno talk 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

CamsterE → Camster

The hereafter → The persian

CATALAI → Catalai

AdventistHC → WebTeam01

Gamblingbear → Diamond 102

CdnStar → Svdlqq

The Merchant of Uncyc → The Uncyclopedian

Parts washers → Parts washers (2)

Nooddless → GagaNowDotCom

Parts washers → Parts washers

Bux1234 → Bux123

DeanS → Qpe9m5kqsf

Wayne.hansen → Jimmydee6377

Reyqui → Requi_renamed

Atomicmotioninc → AtomicMotionInc

Thomas H. Larsen → Thomas Larsen

Hmm, I didn't realise that account had already been created: it has no edits associated with it. I'll file a usurpation request.— Thomas Larsen 01:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Unixtastic → A113

A113 is reserved for a global account, do you own the ru.wiki/commons user? If not, you'll need to usurp them at those projects first and then ask at m:SR/SUL for the global account to be deleted. Or choose another name. – xeno talk 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't own the ru.wiki/commons user. Please cancel this request. Unixtastic ( talk) 08:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Yalezhu → Aqersftyguibrvbyctvubkertxdbhj

Tessa.cam → Tessa Cam Rowe

Orenbn → YBN

Corporateair → Corporate Air

Partnerships Marketing → Partnership Marketing

Mr gronk → Mr Gronk

Indigopage → Mr P


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook