Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations/Archive 3

E-mail Address Requirement
Wouldn't it make sense to require a valid e-mail address? That would cut down (i assume) on the great number (i assume, again) of unused accounts. Gaclbusiness 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there have been countless discussions into that, however it would probably be seen as taking away from the "free" part of "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Simply having unused user accounts doesn't put any extra strain on the servers, so really it doesn't matter how many unused accounts there are. And with a process like usurpation, the risk that unused accounts would take away names that valid editors want to use isn't really a risk at all. I see where you're coming from, but the argument gets dangerously close to requiring everyone to register an account in order to edit Wikipedia; an idea that has been rejected. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy?
Where is the policy on usurption listed? I see references to a 50 edit rule etc but WP:Usurpation just redirects here. Secretlondon 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything you need to know is described under "Process" on the Usurpation page. There are some guidelines that the bureaucrats may use to determine if a name should be usurped (such as the requesting name have 50 or so edits, or the requested name be registered more than 6 months ago). These are not "rules" in the sense that they are absolute, they're rules in the sense that they provide guidance in decision making.  Leebo  T / C  18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I didn't realize that you yourself are a bureaucrat. I don't mean to sound all-knowing. If another bureaucrat wishes to expand upon what I said, that would be appreciated.  Leebo  T / C  18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not done these before! Where are the guidelines? (I want to make sure I do it right..) Secretlondon 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Usurpation was created as a policy for this, but was later redirected by bureaucrat Rdsmith4, so all information about this process can be found on this page at the moment. --Conti|✉ 19:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I might consider switching to User: (my first name). The account has one edit, which was immediately reverted, and was in 2001! Is usurpation technically possible in such a case? What about if that one, instantly reverted, edit were to be deleted, would it be possible then? --kingboyk 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Usurpation is possible if the other user consents to it, no matter how many edits they have. That also would mean that if the user has one edit, it's possible. Since the one edit was reverted and if from 2001, I don't think the b'crats will have a problems with it. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Let me think about it then. I'm quite well known under this name but it might be nice to have my first name. Hmm... --kingboyk 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance to Self
I'm guessing that I shouldn't add to my own request? --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there'd be any real problem with it, but you're too late now. ;) --Conti|✉ 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For the CUU template, shouldn't "The current owner of the username has been notified of this usurpation request." have a check mark next to it. There's no need for all the different symbols. We should make it simple by having anything that meets requirements have a checkmark. (By the way, that part of the template I listed above, is actually a different template itself). --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that might actually be cleaner, now that you mention it. What about the email, though? Just leave that as-is? – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and given that a shot -- see      -- if anybody wants to revert or switch the images around and about, feel free. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this thread. I kinda like the old way better but maybe it's just that I was used to it. Not big deal I guess... WjBscribe 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's a lot easier to tell about each request. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly got attention. ;) For the record, two of the changes I made haven't been reverted ( and ), if anybody wanted to undo those. Just another option, we could use something like this:
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px]] Can be usurped. Target username does not have contribs or log entries.
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px]] Has been notified. Target username has been notified of this request.
 * With, of course, whatever equivalent red check to mark "bad" things. It would make it clear what's good or bad for a request, while (maybe?) keeping the quick access to information handy. If anybody likes that, feel free. The status quo is also fine, I think. Not too big of a deal, either way. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just stopping by, saw the images got changed around, again. :p Any thoughts on the bolding? The images would allow us to tell at a glance whether a request is going forward, while the bolding would give just a wee bit more fast information. Just a thought; I haven't been so active, here, lately. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bring to WP:CHU"
Unless I'm missing it, do we have a template to tell people that the username isn't used and that thye should bring it to CHU? --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 11:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because we usually just copy it over to WP:CHU for them (adding it with the right template for that page). I think making them create a new request is unnecessary bureaucracy. WjBscribe 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How Can I Delete My Account With No Edits
I created this account: gaclbusiness. I'm not going to use it, how can i erase it? It has no edits. The thing is, i didn't realized my usurpation had been accepted and, as i couldn't access my account because it was gone, i created it again. By the way, thanks to the person that made the usurpation happen. . . Gus 05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say... just don't do anything with it. As long as you don't make any edits with the account, it can be usurped in the off-hand chance that someone wants it, and it's not like it is taking up any room. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

VoABot duplicating page?
It seems to be duplicating the page. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 14:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that this problem was caused by the change of the page layout. I have contacted Voice of All and the bot will be changed accordingly. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that an editor suddenly decided they knew best and changed the layout of the page without bothering to check if this was a good idea and what consequences it might have (i.e. on the Bot archiving the page). It seems to me that we have two options: Which do people prefer? WjBscribe 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert to the old page layout with the instructions for crats and the archive at the bottom
 * 2) Get VoA to reprogramme his Bot to cope with that info being at the top instead
 * I like the idea of being able to hit the plus sign, but I don't think this will work because of where it inserts and because the heading is already in the template. I say revert. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you revert, then I'd have to then change the bot back :). At any rate, most changes around here are done boldy and discussed if reverted, rather than always discussed first. So that doesn't bother me too much.  Voice -of- All  03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot is still confused. I think the best fail safe measure would be to program it not to touch the page when it doesn't find anything archivable (archived requests count is 0). That would not prevent it from messing the page up with layout changes. --  soum  (0_o) 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would probably still mess up when archiving requests. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Opps, fixed.  Voice -of- All  15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Slight change on usurpation wait time

 * "If the owner of the target account does not object within seven days, a bureaucrat will fulfill your request."

On the usurpations page, the usurpation won't happen until 7 days later. Now it's changed to 8 days. Why has the target dates changed? ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 02:17:04, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't here of any change. Maybe just an adding mistake. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The dates look right to me for 7 days. Remember that they have to be correct even for a request added at the very end of the day (i.e. 23:59). Is there any particular header that you think is wrong? WjBscribe 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a time adjusting malfunction on the header:
 * ===April 4, 2007===
 * Requests left here will be filled no earlier than April 12, 2007.
 * It's not just one header, there may be more. ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 02:37:25, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks right. User X leaves a request at 23:59 on April 4. He can't be usurped until 23:59 on April 11. So to say the request will be performed on April 11 is unhelpful, effectviely it will have to be April 12. The time limit has to be for the latest request. Its been working like that since Dan changed the time requirement to 1 week and placed the first headers. I think the point was that 7 is an absolute minimum (Essjay previously required an entire month)- this way there's little chance of any request accidentally being performed early. WjBscribe 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Usupation overdue
Notice: You have forgotten to rename my username. My usupation is overdue. Please fill in the following request. Regards, — tz (Talk) (Contribs) Mon 00:08:57 2007-05-07

Usernames with edits
If a username that has edits explicitly agrees to be usurped, does policy permit renaming the old account to do the usurpation? C Mummert · talk 01:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. Effectively that becomes two consented to renames - which is fine. The account agreeing to be usurped can also choose to be renamed to a specific untaken username, rather than a generic one. WjBscribe 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible if the user only had one edit that was almost a year ago? Eg. Special:Contributions/Flat. Thanks,  Monkeyblu e  09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The username must have no edits to be usurped. If the user of the target username explicitly agrees to the change, it can be done. Extranet talk 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Want to usurp while in existance
I want to usurp users Chris Dybala and Cosmium to user BlueEarth when these does exist. I created new user because I don't know how to change user names. When I created a new user, Cosmium in last January, I changed every User:Chris Dybala links on every talk page to User:Cosmium and created redirect to User talk:Cosmium. BlueEarth 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be misunderstanding. Usurpation doesn't combine edits. It changes your account name. --R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Requirements for "reasonably well-established users"
Hey guys, I am a quite "reasonably well-established users" in the German Wikipedia: de:User:Rfortner (See my Edit-count for German Wiki). Also I am quite active in the French Wikipedia: fr:User:Rfortner (See my Edit-count for French Wiki).

Today I wanted to create the same account named Rfortner in the English Wikipedia (since now I always edited with my Austrian IP without signin in). But I found out that some funny guy created an account with the same name (Rfortner) in January 2006 (see Creation of Rfortner), but he/she never did any edits (see No Edits for Rfortner), so the creation of the username Rfortner is the only entry in all the Log's ever and there is even NO User-Page User:Rfortner.

No I am quite lucky that for such a case a mechanism like "ursupation" exists. The account that I want tu usurp (Rfortner) fullfills all requirements. But I am curently NOT registred in the English Wikipedia, and even when I do so NOW (like with the temporary name Rfortner2) I would have to wait for several months since I fullfill the requirement of being a "reasonably well-established user" in the English Wikipedia. What can I do? Can any responsable guy here (maybe with some skills in German and/or French) determine, that I have fullfilled this requirement by my edits in the German and French Wikipedia? Any chance for me to get my well established username also in the English Wiki? -- Greetings from Vienna, 84.112.157.52 11:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (User de:User:Rfortner, fr:User:Rfortner)


 * The devs are working on single login which, when put into effect, should give you control of your username on all WikiMedia projects. In the meantime, perhaps you could contact a bureaucrat directly (or see if they respond here). They are free to use discretion; this page just covers the most common cases. CMummert · talk 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would go ahead and register the Rfortner2 account and note the fact that you're established on the other wikis (under your German and French accounts, add the English interwiki link to Rfortner2 to verify that it is indeed you). The bureaucrats will probably make an exception in such a case. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise to do as EVula recommends. It can't hurt for you to ask and our bureaucrats have in the past performed renames where people are widely known by the name in question on other Wikimedia projects. WjBscribe 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot for your help and your advice. I did as you recommended (created User:Rfortner2), left an usurpation-comment for User:Rfortner and submitted my usurpation-query on THIS page with some basic comments for the bureaucrats. I hope it will work as you forecasted. -- Rfortner2 15:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As requested on my talk page, I've confirmed that you are an established user on de: and (to a lesser extent) on fr: Warofdreams talk 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks a lot! By the way: The first thing I did today AFTER finding out about User:Rfortner was to create my login Rfortner also at Wikicommons to avoid similar problems there. Was a good occasion to bring my photos (like for the Centre Friedrich Dürrenmatt on an international level. So thanks a lot for the help of you all and now I am waiting what will happen till next week ;-) -- Rfortner2 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And, to further confirm the identity, some French and German diffs: . Doing that was a great idea... whoever suggested sure is smart. ;) EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks User:EVula, as it was you who suggested these edits ;-) -- Rfortner2 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Usurping at Request an account
I noticed that some of the requests at Request an account, e.g.:

are rejected because the account already exists. However, the existing account is one that could be usurped. Would it be possible do to something here to let them use that name? &#32;-- kenb215 talk 03:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Usurpations are reserved for established accounts. An IP requesting an account is not an established account. -N 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of edits
If an account has only made 1 edit to mainspace that was to add double brackets for a wikilink would this be suitable for usurping? Sophia 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm neither an admin nor a 'crat but I'm afraid the answer is no. As I understand it, the issue isn't so much attributability or even policy as those issues could be explained (and there have been various proposals to that effect) and possibly addressed - it's really the GFDL issue that makes this a no-no. -- Seed 2.0 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the account that has the edit would be renamed as well, so the edit would be reattributed to the usurped account. It is the deleted edits that makes the GFDL have nightmares at night. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I pretty much guessed that would be the answer but wondered as the edit was just formatting rather than content whether it made a difference. Thanks. Sophia  06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work
This whole thing is ridiclous, and doesn't work in the system why? Because the user whos name is to be userped is always an ancient account which is never used and edited anyway, and the user needs a valid email address so they can be contacted. Never going to happen, they never will have email addresses because they are not used, abandoned accounts, and this whole system never goes foward because the result is "The targeted user has not supplied a valid email address" and they are never about to, stopping the process each time. If you look down the list, being an ancient account that is never used. We need reach concensus. However please make a note of this, the page may need major changes. 81.151.27.55 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have misunderstood. The fact that the target account has no set a valid email address does no stop it being usurped, it just means they can't be emailed about the request. Leaving a note on their talkpage is sufficient. If they don't respond within 7 days the account will be usurped - check the archives :-). WjBscribe 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank god for that. Sorry about the deletion request, it wasn't trolling. 81.151.27.55 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you did want to delete Miscellany for deletion would be where it would go. It wouldn't be a speedy deletion candidate (which was the tag you added). Secretlondon 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for new username
Hello! I like my username, but I like another much more (I also have a back condition, adding resonance) -- that's part of the problem (i.e., it belongs to someone else). However, that user also appears to be inactive, having last edited in January, and has noted as much on their user pages (i.e., "Forthwith, this user account will be inactive"). So, my question is: is it possible to usurp/appropriate that username account as my own and edit under it hereafter, particularly given that user's expressed intent (e.g., implied consent)? Thanks. Quizatz Haderach 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. All edits must be attributed under the GDFL. The only way you can do it is by contacting the user (he appears to have e-mail enabled), and asking him if he can request a rename, so you can take be renamed to his name. --R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I will contact the editor -- keep your legs crossed. ;)  Thanks.  Quizatz Haderach 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't work out for you, you could consider User:Quasimodo or User:Quazimodo - neither of the accounts have edited, so you could apply to usurp either. WjBscribe 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I'll wait a few days and hope that Quizimodo will respond.  If not, perhaps I'll consider another name or stick with the one I have.  Quizatz Haderach 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Upon request, I hereby consent and allow User:Quizatz Haderach to usurp my (former) Wikipedia account and username for their own editing purposes hereafter. Thank you.  Quizimodo 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was successful in my usurpation of this username. While the username and edit histories appear to have been changed (to 'Quizimodo (usurped)'), it appears the former owner of this username has a block history (specifically on two occasions). My original block log (clean) is here. How can this be corrected? Quizimodo 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It can't be corrected; the logs do not update and there is no interface for removing entries from logs. If you like, I will block you for 1 minute with a block message that indicates the previous blocks were for the username before it was usurped. This will leave a permanent log entry explaining the situation. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes -- please do. Thank you! Quizimodo 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Old usernames
I just noticed something. Has anyone thought about what happens to the old user names that the usurper is giving up? I had a random thought about it today and realized that I was able to register myself again as User:Metros232 as a brand new account. So couldn't someone have snagged that before I did and gone around posing as me? Should something be done about this or what? Metros 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd assumed people realised this was the case and made their own arrangements for recreating their old usernames (but it clearly isn't as self-evident as I thought). This was raised a little while ago (see and  in the archive of WT:CHU). Perhaps we should make a decision on how best to do this. Asking the crats to do it is more work for them, making it clearer to those renamed has the problem of WP:BEANS. In some cases (where the account has few contribs) it should probably be kept available for others users - though with admins there's to some extent an impersonation problem... WjBscribe 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, count me in the "just kinda assumed it would have been taken care of during the usurpation process" category. Metros 04:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

what can I do?
Hello,I'm Kazutoko@ja.Wikipedia. So, --218.42.94.51(ja:User:Kazutoko) 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But,User:Kazutoko isn't mine.The account must be Vandalism.
 * 1) I want to create account"Kazutoko" and I want to use English Wikipedia as account"Kazutoko".
 * 1) Please block User:Kazutoko.
 * 2) Please give me account"Kazutoko".
 * 3) After 2. ,please lift blocking of account"Kazutoko".


 * At the moment there is no general policy that allows this unilateral account taking. User:Kazutoko has exactly one edit (on Jan 23), creating a user page that claims he is ja:User:Kazutoko. You will have to hope for a bureaucrat to act on his/her own discretion.


 * Eventually, m:Help:Unified login will be implemented, solving this sort of problem. The "conflict resolution" procedure will be important for you. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK.Thank you!--(created account)Kazutoko@jawp (Talk@enwp|History) 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog?
I filed my usurp on Wed 6 June. Not trying to be a pain, but will this be processed soon? --Breno talk 05:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Secretlondon, the main b'crat at CHU hasn't edited in about 8 days. You could bug another one though (those are the ones I know off the top of my head. There are others. Renamings aren't as important as other tasks anyway (sysopping, bot flagging). When the crats get around to it, they'll do it (though they probably will listen to your request if you make one). -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 05:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. --Breno talk 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User IDs preserved?
Does the underlying numeric User ID associated with the old username get preserved after taking over the new username? For example, my current account has a two digit UID while the account associated with the name I want to change to has a 4 digit UID. I'd like to keep the two digit UID and have the new user name. Is that how this works? I'm sure it does, but I'd like to make sure before I go through with this. --mav 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, how can you tell someones user id? And though I'm not sure, I'm guessing it would transfer from your old account to the new one like everything else. (By the way, does that mean you were one of the first hundred users on Wikipedia? That's amazing!). R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't know... I just assumed it was on the contribs page and/or next to user names on Special:Listusers. But that does not seem to be the case. All a two digit UID means is that I was one of the first hundred people to create an account with the MediaWiki software way back in 2002. In fact, I had a UseMod user account before we changed wiki software. --mav 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's neat. And no, the numbers in listusers are just the number in alphabetical order. That number changes every time a someone makes a name that's alphabetically before you. Your userid should transfer with you though. R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does transfer. And the userid is visible on-wiki only on Special:Preferences (user profile).  As such, it is only visible by the user her/himself when logged on, a developer or by means of a database dump &mdash; it's not particularly easy to view it through this third method though, one must know what one's doing.  I've been explained how to do it once, on IRC, but I never actually attempted it, and now I don't think that I can quite remember the steps.  Redux 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)