Jump to content

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Changing username

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luxo (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 25 August 2007 (→Luxo ← LuxoDE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
This page is for requests to usurp accounts that already exist in the circumstances described below. If you wish to request a rename to a username that is not already taken, please do so at Wikipedia:Changing username.

This page permits users to request, and bureaucrats to consider and carry out, the "usurpation" of usernames. This consists of renaming an existing dormant account in order to permit another user to adopt the name. If you are interested in usurping another username, please be advised that the account must have no edits or log entries (except in the username creation log) to qualify for usurpation, as described by the changing username guidelines.

Please do not request usurpation if your user account is less than several months old, or barely used. In order to ensure that usurped usernames be put to good use, we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users.

Process

Please follow these instructions carefully to ensure that the process runs efficiently. Malformed requests may be rejected.

  • Be sure the account you wish to usurp has no edits or log entries, as described above.
  • Ensure that it meets the changing usernames guidelines.
  • Leave a message on the talk page of the target account (preferably of the form {{subst:usurpation requested}} ~~~~) notifying the user of your request.
  • Please do not e-mail the target account yourself. If this becomes necessary, a bureaucrat or other designated user will do it.
  • Copy and paste the following text into the bottom of the section on this page for today's date.
{{subst:usurp|Name_To_Usurp|Current_Name}} ~~~~
Replace "Name_To_Usurp" with the username you wish to usurp, and "Current_Name" with your current username. You may include some reason for the change if you wish. Be sure you are logged in under your current username. Save the page.
  • If the owner of the target account does not object within seven days, a bureaucrat will fulfill your request. Mark the date, so you will not be surprised when you find yourself unable to log in to your old account.

A few users have agreed to provide assistance with the mechanics of this process. If you wish to assist as well, please read the linked page carefully.

Instructions to bureaucrats

  • Accounts should be renamed to "Username (usurped)" -- this is intuitive and is unlikely ever to be a desired account name. The links labeled '1' and '2' will automatically fill out the user renaming interface with the proper information.
  • If a user consents to have his account usurped, the request may be fulfilled immediately, rather than after the full waiting period.
  • Mark completed requests with {{done}} and rejected requests with {{not done}}. A bot will archive them.
  • At your discretion, you may wish to add Template:Usurped to a user's old username Talk or User page to notify that to others that their account has been usurped, rather than just a redirect.

Changing username:

  • Completed rename requests:
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13
14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26
27|28|29|30|31|32|33|34|35|36|37|38|39
40|41|42|43|44|45|46|47|48|49|50|51|52
53|54|55|56|57|58|59|60|61|62|63|64|65
66|67|68|69|70|71|72|73|74|75|76|77|78
79|80|81|82|83|84|85|86|87|88|89|90|91
92|93|94|95|96|97|98|99|100|101|102|103|104
105|106|107|108|109|110|111|112|113|114|115|116|117
118|119|120|121|122|123|124|125|126|127|128|129|130
131|132|133|134|135|136|137|138|139|140|141|142|143
144|145|146|147|148|149|150|151|152|153|154|155|156
157|158|159|160|161|162|163|164|165|166|167|168|169
170|171|172|173|174|175|176|177|178|179|180|181|182
183|184|185|186|187|188|189|190|191|192|193|194|195
196|197|198|199|200|201|202|203|204|205|206|207|208
209|210|211|212|213|214|215|216|217|218|219|220|221
222|223|224|225|226|227|228|229|230|231|232|233|234
235|236|237|238|239|240|241|242|243|244|245|246|247
248|249|250|251|252|253|254|255|256|257|258|259|260
261|262|263|264|265|266|267|268|269|270|271|272|273
274|275|276|277|278|279|280|281|282|283|284|285|286
287|288|289|290
  • Rejected rename requests:
2005: Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2006: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2007: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2008: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2009: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2010: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2011: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2012: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2013: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2014: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2015: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2016: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2017: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2018: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2019: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2020: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2021: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2022: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2023: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
2024: Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov

Usurpations:

  • Completed:
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16
17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|31|32
33|34|35|36|37|38|39|40|41|42|43|44|45|46|47|48
49|50|51|52|53|54|55|56|57
  • Rejected/Not Completed:
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16
17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|31

SUL requests:

  • Completed:
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11
  • Rejected/Not Completed:
1|2|3

Current requests

Please place your request in the section for the current day, at the bottom of the list. The current UTC date is 19 November 2024.

August 1, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 9, 2007.

Shutterbug ← COFS

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. i said 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user requesting this usurpation left a message for the user who is being usurped 21 mins after making the request. (The original fill no earlier than date is still more than 7 days from notification.) Updating template. --Jeremyb 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: The ArbCom, in its /Proposed decision subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS is probably going to require COFS to change his username. Thus, the trend that people under ArbCom not being able to change their name can be suspended. However, it does say that this should take place after he returns from the proposed one-month ban. Also, this may want to wait until the decision is final. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Proposed_decision#COFS_must_select_a_new_username is the link. i said 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then wait we shall. --Deskana (banana) 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: On hold, awaiting ArbCom decision. Andre (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really familiar with this but I thought the decision is clearly unanimous. So this is happening anyway. Can I execute this part of the ArbCom decision now or not? COFS 05:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of the Changing usernames guidelines is that approval should be sought from the ArbCom in this matter; since the case hasn't been closed yet, the formal motion to close being passed would, I assume, be "approval", albeit indirect. Perhaps wait until then? ~ Anthøny 08:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Looking at the case we seem to be a long way from it closing, never mind the end of the proposed 30 day ban. The case needs 7/13 votes to go ahead and it currently has 5/5. I expect that we will not see it close until until the end of August because of holidays etc, and then COFS will therefore (probably) be banned for a month. It therefore looks likely they will not need to be renamed before the beginning of October. I will ask arbcomm for clarification but I suspect the anwer will be to wait to avoid confusion. Secretlondon 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good sign that you try to preempt the Arbcom's decision here (What do we need them for then?) And I thought my "ban" runs already. Well, back to editing then for me. COFS 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole request is pre-empting arbcomm. Secretlondon 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the user name change decision has been passed by a majority now (7/12). Can we do this now? I hate floating around in half-dones. COFS 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Uninvited Company has said that he would prefer it done now, rather than later. However, it specifically says at the /Proposed decision page that the rename is done after he returns from this ban. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Proposed_decision#COFS_banned_for_30_days. i said 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am minded to ask COFS to come back after the arbcomm case is over and we know what they have decided and any punishments. Secretlondon 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jdforrester agrees with Uninvited Company. i said 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 10, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 18, 2007.

lingesvaran ← Linges1982

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– Anthøny 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Usurpation is usually reserved for more established accounts, and you didn't put the notice on the target username's talk page. -U 00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC
Note. Please note that the notification was left by AGK on August 14 2007. I am therefore moving this request to the section for that date. WjBscribe 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done --Deskana (banana) 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 16, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 24, 2007.

Micah ← Micah2

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– WjBscribe 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you account is very new and that you have only made 4 edits to the project - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a few months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is new, but I am not that new to Wikipedia. I have made a number of contributions in the past anonymously as I didn't see the need to have a username since I just wanted to improve things but had no desire to take credit for them. Now that I've realized some of the benefits of having a username (specifically so I can be notified of changes to pages I am interested in, and engage more actively in discussions on talk pages), I've decided to settle down in an account. I actually have had a number of accounts in the past, but deactivated them due to this reason. I'm now intending to maintain this account's status and continue edits as this user, rather than anonymously. --Micah2 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any accounts/ips you have edited as? --Chris  G  09:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be by email for privacy reasons? What do the Clerks and Bureaucrats think? -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Micah2 can email me or any other Clerks/Bureaucrats who have an email set. --Chris  G  01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no, I cannot do this. As I said above, my edits have been anonymous so there are no accounts I can list, and I do not keep track of the dynamic IP addresses that I'm assigned by the various ISPs that I've used over time (does anyone do this?). Additionally, I didn't mention this above, but one of the reasons I haven't edited as anything but anonymous was because the username that I typically use was not available and creating an account with something arbitrary tacked on the end that wasn't very inspiring or memorable wasn't very motivating (case in point, this username). --Micah2 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: If you edit for a month or two under this name there will be no problem with renaming you. Secretlondon 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle ← Bungle44

I initially tried to register under Bungle when I first registered to Wikipedia back in April 2006. I realised it had been taken to my dissappointment, but none the less settled with my current one, Bungle44, albeit reluctantly. I've always used the Bungle identity, and it's a nickname which I am most acquainted to, as it is the name which people I know identify me by. Given the existing "Bungle" account has obviously been registered for some time (before I registered), and that is hasn't been used nor does it have any log entries, it seems to make sense that I have the opportunity to take it on as my account name.

Many thanks, Bungle44 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. i said 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has been notified since. Updated template. i said 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Deskana (apples) 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 17, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 25, 2007.

Voltron ← VoltronForce

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. i said 03:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Your account is a bit too new. Please submit another request in a few months. --Deskana (apples) 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC ← MC Snowy

Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia that are now deleted. Usernames with only deleted edits can usually be usurped.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
  • The current owner of the username has been notified of this usurpation request.
  • The current owner of this username does not have an email address specified. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since these edits are just to a user page, I think we'll allow this. Andre (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: The target name has 3 deleted edits to a spam article Stay Focus as well as 6 edits to their userpage. I say we don't allow. Secretlondon 12:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The deleted edits will stay deleted, and the userpage edits are inconsequential, really. I'll hold off on this anyway, awaiting reply. --Deskana (apples) 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luxo ← LuxoDE

I'm also owner of de:, commons:, meta:, mw:, test:-WP and ~luxo on the Toolserver, and I would like to have this account also. :) Thanks--LuxoDE 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
This users only edits are related to this request. However, the user is established on other Wikimedia Wiki's, so an exception will probably be made. Please give us a diff of you saying on another account of yours, "I'm Luxo on enwiki." --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
diff. Up to now i was a IP in en:WP, because "my" nick was already registered. --LuxoDE 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. A crat will most likely grant the request given your status on other wikis. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Deskana (apples) 18:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! :D--Luxo 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 19, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 27, 2007.

Voyager ← Voyager_ch

I have the same username on other wikis (de:, fr:, als, commons and meta) so I wish to change this one. Someone else registered as Voyager here, but no edits were ever made with this account. --Voyager 10:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Simon ← LivingShadow

I've forgotten the password from the Simon-Account and have therefore created a new account. I'm using the name Simon in the Wikibooks (de) and the Commons too. And, I forgot to set a mail address for Simon here ... LivingShadow 12:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Poppy ← Poppypetty

I have the username Poppy on most projects where I contribute (fr (sysop), Commons, fr wikiquote, and other wikipedias (de, es, and soon it, ...)). So, I would like to get this username. The account never contributed. Thanks.

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. i said 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 20, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 28, 2007.

Hopping ← OsteopathicFreak

Note:
This user is confirmed to have no deleted contribs. Singularity 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral ← Bucketheader

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andim ← Andim80

I have the same username on other wikis (de:, fr: and commons, so I wish to change this one. Someone else registered as Andim here, but no edits were ever made with this account. Andim80 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaddy ← Chaddy2

My main account is de:Benutzer:Chaddy, but I have also accounts with this nick in other projects (bar, commons, wikiquote, simple). Only here in en, someone else registered this nick earlier. But this user did never edit with his/her account. Chaddy2 21:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
Singularity 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 21, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 29, 2007.

justsomeguy ← somefrigginguy

Somefrigginguy 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. Like said before, it was suggested that he change his name, so his lack of edits should hopefully not be a problem. 09:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Somefrigginguy is not established yet, so usurpation can't take place. –sebi 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, this is the case. However, there was a RFCUN about his username, where it was requested that he change his name. In light of this, I think it might be a bureaucrat's discretion to waive this. i said 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 22, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 30, 2007.

Cenafan16 ← Hornetman16

Note:
I guess, then, we shall have to wait for a bureaucrat to weigh in on whether or not you can usurp the name, and unblock you so that you can confirm it. Although you could confirm it on the talk page of that account. i said 03:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which I just did at the top..check it!--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now it is just a matter of whether or not the bureaucrats will allow you to usurp an account you, according to your blocklog, abused as a sockpuppet. i said 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly thrilled about the prospect of renaming a user with a fairly extensive block log. What do other people think? --Deskana (banana) 09:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with doing it. VoL†ro/\/Force 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see how the block should affect the renaming of the account to the name requested. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you realise block logs don't move when accounts are renamed, right? WjBscribe 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that is applicable to our view? My reply was merely stating I personally don't see an issue that would cause a problem to rename the user. Sure, it may be undesirable and some people may not agree purely based on the principle, but the user's blockings don't seem terribly bad, and they have a reasonable amount of good-faith edits (from what I can see through a quick skim through). I don't support or oppose the rename (neutral vote), but I don't see a strong reason to state opposal. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: I wouldn't do it. Renaming is for editors in good standing, or to deal with problems. I see no benefit to the project from doing this - and much confusion from doing it. Secretlondon 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Strongly agree with Secretlondon's sentiments. --Deskana (banana) 15:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. Don't rename. ~ Wikihermit 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why? Anthøny ん 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic user. ~ Wikihermit 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of my reasons for the move is to start over basicly with a clean slate.--Hornetman16 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask to have Cenafan16 unblocked to be used as your primary account and put a hatnote that you used to edit as Hornetman16, and just abandon Hornetman16? And if you truly want to start afresh, unencumbered by your past, just register a brand new account and start editing with it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you cannot really start over with a clean slate; there will be a blocklog with the account, possibly both (I dont know for sure which will be on the account after a rename). And you can still be connected to this account, because it will be logged. Like Flyguy said, if you really want a clean slate, create an entirely new account. I also agree with Secretlondon and by extension Deskana. i said 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose renaming - problematic user. If this user decides to use another account, I will be adding a note in the block log linking back to the block log for the Hornetman16 account. Please inform me if any change of username, either via the interface or simply starting to use the Cenafan16 account, occurs. Daniel 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean if he usurps a username, or if he registers a totally new one? If you meant the former, the block log should transfer, I think. As for the second, do we usually add notes to block logs for offenses on other accounts? i said 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No... we don't. WP:BLOCK#Recording_in_the_block_log. Navou banter 14:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: I see no reason why Hornetman16 shouldn't just abandon his account and start editing as Cenafan16, if he wants to have that name. If that happens, rather than a 'crat renaming Cenafan16 to CanafanRenamed (for example) and then renaming Hornetman16 to Cenafan16, then the only differences will be that he loses the Hornetman contributions and he loses the Hornetman block log. If he's worried about the former, he can put something about it on his userpage. If others are worried about the latter, the admin who unblocks Cenafan can put something (preferably not humiliating) in the block log like "Wishes to edit from this account. Has abandoned the account Hornetman16." And Hornetman can be blocked indefinitely with a log entry that says "Own request. Is now editing as Cenafan16." There's absolutely no need to rub it in by putting in Cenafan's block log that he "was blocked several times under another user name". Just saying who he is would suffice. In any case, I think his behaviour has improved, and I suspect that several admins would be keeping an eye on Cenafan, just in case. If Deskana, Alison, and Riana (all of whom have been firm but fair and helpful with Hornetman) agreed to that, I'd see no reason why we couldn't allow it. If not, then I shan't persist. And by the way, Hornetman, if we do allow it, please do not come back in two months' time with another name change request. I suspect that it mightn't go down well. ElinorD (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's had a lot of interaction with User:Hornetman16, I endorse the above summary. This sounds like about the fairest compromise for all concerned. The guy has improved immensely of late and deserves a chance - Alison ☺ 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Elinor's summary (with some trepidation - it seems our 'final chances' are abused quite frequently). I suppose let this be the final, final chance? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If moved I would like to make the user page and talk page a redirect page--Hornetman16 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to register my opposition to placing a note in the new account's block log; blocks on Wikipedia are meant to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not punish a user. Such a note does not assist Wikipedia in any way, and thus there is no need for it. Anthøny ん 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. It's not as if he's sneaking in and nobody knows. If he starts editing under a new name, in accordance with his request here, whether it's done by usurpation or (more likely) by abandoning one account and having the other unblocked, at least five admins who are likely to watchlist his page and to know what he's up to will be aware of his previous identity; some non-admins will know. If he misbehaves (let's assume good faith and believe that he won't!), then it will be discussed at AN/I, and more and more people will know. If he behaves, then most people will forget, but there's no reason why we'd want them to remember in that case. He's really not going to "get away" with bad behaviour just because he has changed name. Besides, he was only blocked three times, and his behaviour was improving. Whoever unblocks Cenafan16 can just give as a reason in the logs that he has abandoned Hornetman16. That will suffice. ElinorD (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is his behaviour improving? This, this, and this (especially this), all in the last couple of days, show no sign of improvement. Because this use is likely to be blocked again unless he stops edit-warring, and as previous blocks are taken into account (per the Arbitration Committee: "...block logs can often give an insight into previous disruption by a user"), I would hope that it made clear that any further blocks take into account previous disruption. Furthermore, the concept of adding a note into the block log of problematic users with recent, upheld blocks was one employed by the bureaucrats themselves; a quick search revealed a number of exmaples like this and this, used when block logs didn't transfer. I would be careful criticising the bureaucrats' methods, given you come here to this page to ask for their assistance in the tools they've been entrusted with. Daniel 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So leaving a note is technically a violation of the policy? There are sensible exceptions to be had, here. They're not making notes in the block log so much as saying "The block log is really here". It's not like by putting those notes in, we're making some sort of note like "This guy sucks". It's basically a redirect. I don't see a problem with it. But I'd prefer if block logs just transferred. --Deskana (banana) 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Daniel, those diffs simply indicate that it's a user that a couple of admins should keep an eye on, not that it's some terrible, vile, evil editor whose past history must be known to every administrator on Wikipedia in order to prevent some terrible, terrible damage that he might do. If he changes to Cenafan, I'll know who he is, you'll know, Deskana, Alison, and Riana will know. I'm quite sure we'll all be watchlisting his page, we'll know if he gets into trouble, we'll know of his previous history, and we won't hesitate to block him if it turns out to be necessary.
As for criticizing the bureaucrats, I don't know them all, but my experience tells me that Deskana and Andrevan would welcome civil and respectful disagreement. Besides, I'm not here to ask their assistance. My suggestion is just that Cenafan16 should be unblocked and Hornetman16 should be blocked, to allow him to transfer to the account that was once his sockpuppet. I can do that myself; I don't need the 'crats to use their special tools. And in the examples that you cite, the accounts weren't already blocked, needing to be unblocked, so my idea of making use of the unblocking (rather than a blocking) to record, in a non-humiliating way, that a user has abandoned his previous account (with name) and wishes to use this account instead, would not have been an option. My suggestion would mean that the block log would have a wikilink to his Hornetman16 username (NOT a link to his Hornetman block log), which would allow any concerned admin to navigate easily to his block log, but which would not rub his nose in it.) If we have the option of giving someone a little more rather than a little less dignity, without placing the Project at unnecessary risk, I think we should certainly take it. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the annoying situation that will occur when someone clicks on the userpage link in the new block log, and will end up back at the new userpage, I'd be happier if the block log included a link to Special:Contributions/Hornetman16 as well (to which the block log is one click away, and far easier to access). I'd be fine with that. That being said, I'd still like some clarification about how people believe Hornetman16's behaviour has "dramatically improved". Daniel 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was much worse before, don't you think? But if he wants to try to turn over a new leaf, it doesn't really serve much purpose to start discussing his past sins! I'd have no problem with a link to Special:Contributions/Hornetman16. Actually, as you've pointed out that the redirect would point to Cenefan16, I'd say it would be best to use a pipelink to make Special:Contributions/Hornetman16 link to Hornetman16, like this [[Special:Contributions/Hornetman16|Hornetman16]] and not link to his old user page at all - like in a rollback edit summary. I think we can do that as soon as Hornetman16 confirms that it's what he'd really like. ElinorD (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
("undenting") I wouldn't do it. Renaming is for editors in good standing, or to deal with problems. I see no benefit to the project from doing this - and much confusion from doing it. Secretlondon 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I think this sums it up clearly. All of the discuss above is further proof of the confusion and problems it would cause. I'm opposed to a rename. ~ Wikihermit 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change but I don't want to lose my sub pages...solutions?--Hornetman16 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're renamed, they move with you. ~ Wikihermit 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Clearly no improvement in behaviour, see this. --Deskana (banana) 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)And if the name change is the unblocking of the Cenafan16 account, which seems to be the easiest way, I don't see why you (or an admin if they're move protected) can't just move the user subpages from User:Hornetman16 subspace to User:Cenafan16 subspace. As Elinor noted, at this point this doesn't seem to require usurpation. And to everyone else, the block log for Cenafan16 already hints at abusing multiple accounts. Clicking on "What links here" from User:Cenafan16 reveals the relevant RFCU subpage. It's not like his past will have disappeared. It takes a couple of clicks, that's all. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: User:Hornetman16 has now been indefinitely blocked for abusive sock-puppetry - Alison ☺ 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neskaya ← Leitzan

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
 Clerk note:The user requesting usurpation is new, however, he is Neskaya on Wiktionary. I would assume that he is unifying his usernames on all WM projects, and thus it is usually accepted for this even though this account here is new. The Neskaya account on Wiktionary was created July 8 of this year. i said 06:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 23, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than August 31, 2007.

Bucho ← Bucho457

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
This user is Bucho on the Spanish Wikipedia. WjBscribe 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 24, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than September 1, 2007.


Randommelon ← Rachmaninoff123

The account 'Randommelon' was created by me because I didnt like my account name 'Rachmaninoff123'. I only found out later that you could request for your name to be changed. If necessary I can sign in as 'Randommelon' and prove it. Rachmaninoff123 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign into the account, and sign here that it is you. i said 04:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Randommelon 06:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Since the user owns both accounts, this request can be done without waiting the 7 day period, and notification and deleted edits, if they exist do not matter. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stephen Shaw ← Shaw, Stephen

Yes please. Just sign this request while logged in to the other account. Then the renaming can happen straight away. WjBscribe 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that it's me Stephen Shaw 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Since the user owns both accounts, this request can be done without waiting the 7 day period, and notification and deleted edits, if they exist do not matter. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 15:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 25, 2007

Requests left here will be filled no earlier than September 2, 2007.

wikicat ← wikicat (temp-2k7)

Humbly requesting waivers as follows:

  1. "...account must have no edits or log entries"
    * The user signed up, immediately made one short comment on a talk-page (4 edits in 2 minutes), and has done nothing since, in 2 years (-15 days).
  2. "...do not request usurpation if your user account is less than several months old"
    * All contributions HERE have been anonymous, pending the long-awaited release of this inactive username. However, contributions to several other Wiki are as a registered user, (and to a few other wikilets as anonymous). Details emailed to Admin on request. Also applicable: "Harmonising with usernames on other projects".
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.

 Clerk note:He has made several contributions. I am sorry, but this part of the policy is quite firm. I'm not sure this can be "waived". -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:This may be allowed, since the only edits are to a talk page, and not article space, however, your account's only edits have been to this request. If a crat is willing to do it, they will tell you to make some edits first. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&oldid=153629099"