Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations

{{CUU}} - Parameters:

• "contribs", "logs", "new" - default is 'no' unless any value is given
• "dcontribs" - no, yes, check; default is 'check'
• "notified" - no, yes; default is 'yes'
• "mail" - no, yes, sent; default is 'no'

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)

Wikipedia: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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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 {{CUU}} to my own request? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(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)

{{CUU}}

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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] -- 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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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 ([7] and [8]), if anybody wanted to undo those. Just another option, we could use something like this:

• Can be usurped. Target username does not have contribs or log entries.
• 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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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 // ☯ // 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

VoABot duplicating page?

It seems to be duplicating the page. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(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 [9] 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:

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

Which do people prefer? WjBscribe 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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 ^ParlateContribs_@(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, Monkeyblue 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 ^ParlateContribs_@ (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 // ☯ // 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: [10] [11]. Doing that was a great idea... whoever suggested sure is smart. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 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 Wikipedia:Request an account, e.g.: Template:Account request 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? -- 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - 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 Wikipedia: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 ^ParlateContribs_@ (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. — 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 [12] and [13] 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.

1. But,User:Kazutoko isn't mine.The account must be Vandalism.
2. I want to create account"Kazutoko" and I want to use English Wikipedia as account"Kazutoko".

So,

1. Please block User:Kazutoko.
2. Please give me account"Kazutoko".
3. After 2. ,please lift blocking of account"Kazutoko".

--218.42.94.51(ja:User:Kazutoko) 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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. — 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 ^ParlateContribs_@ (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 ^ParlateContribs_@ (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 ^ParlateContribs_@ (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 — 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)

Objecting to usurpations

While there is a general notion that usurpations (and renames) must be uncontroversial to be performed, what would be the most proper way to lodge opposition to a rename? I've seen several cases where this has occurred, yet there's no general procedure to do so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say post it on the request thread on this forum initially. If it turns into a lenghtier discussion, we can move it to a more appropriate forum. Which one that might be would depend on the reason why the opposition exists: normally, the requester's talk page, but depending on the issue, maybe even the Administrators' Noticeboard or another similar forum. For the duration of the discussion, the request remains on standby, and we will add a link to where the discussion might be taking place. Redux 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The {{Usurpation requested}} explains how to do this, the easiest thing to do would be to edit your talk page and write no or something then the account has edits and can't be usurped. Qst 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the template explains how the owner of the account-to-be-usurped may object to the usurpation. I believe Titoxd means to ask how a third party may log an objection. Redux 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well I'm not sure as to why a different use would which to oppose a usurpation if they were not affiliated with that account unless the account requesting a usurp was being used for vandalism. Qst 12:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a reason. Also, there's users who are under ArbCom restrictions, etc. We have a case right now with Betacommand's request, in which two bureaucrats have already objected to the usurpation, so it brings up the question of what mere mortals like us have to do to object to one. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mhh, not you mention it sounds good... I'll have a little think. Qst 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurping a user name that is currently indefinitely blocked

I am interested in usurping User:A, since my English name begins with an A. However, it's indefinitely blocked by an admin who has indefinitely left Wikipedia. His contribution log is empty. So, as advised by WP:VP/P, I am asking the question here. Can I usurp his username?--Kylohk 13:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This username has been requested before, see Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Rejected/1#A ← NYC JD. I discussed it with Naconkantari at the time and he was unable to recall the reason for the block - its seems to have been a summary he used quite a lot at the time. Generally policy does not allow accounts with logged actions to be usurped and this block log entry will not move during the rename. The fact that an account has been blocked suggested they edited and policy does not allow the usurpation of accounts with deleted edits (they are also not reassigned during renaming). My instinct is that account is not available under the policy as it stands, but a crat may want to look into it and offer a more definitive answer... WjBscribe 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That explains why my old user name regained edits when bjadon was undeleted. :P -N 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question, let's say I want to usurp a username with only 1 edit several years ago, and he cannot be contacted by email. What can be done then?--Kylohk 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, nothing really. The present usurpation policy does not allow for accounts with any edits at all to be usurped. You could propose a change to the policy - but I suspect the next logical expansion would be where the account made no edits to the encyclopedia and those edits were several years ago (e.g. 2004 or earlier). Where edits are to an article, there may be a GFDL problem with usurpation (as User:Foo anticipated that his edit would be attributed to User:Foo in the article history, not to User:Foo (usurped) or similar). Usurpation was (and to some remains) controversial even where the account has no edits - any planned expansions of policy will likely have to be defended carefully. WjBscribe 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See the section below. We can now check if A has deleted edits. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

According to that tool, User:A does not have any deleted contributions. WjBscribe 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 Declined. If the block log isn't moved with the rename, and this user was blocked for something but nobody can remember what, I'm reluctant to do the rename. --Deskana (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana. I disagree with your action. Thanks to this new amazing tool, we have found out that User:A doesn't have any deleted contributions or regular contributions. That basically means the account was blocked for no reason at all, which is probably why the blocking admin doesn't remember. I suggest unblocking it and performing the usurpation. It's your decision though. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

After consultation with the clerks, we believe a request on CHU/U should be created so this matter can be considered. Unfortunately, Template:Undeclined doesn't exist. :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've written a usurpation request for User:A at the bottom of the page right now. Cheers.--Kylohk 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know as the reason for the block in the block log was rather vague, the reason the account was blocked is becouse it is the unconfermed alterate account of User:Brian Hickey. --Chris ^g 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Unconfirmed alternate account"? What does that mean?--Kylohk 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it means we block accounts that we think might be alternate accounts of someone else even when there's no evidence... Ssary, especially since alternate accounts are perfectly acceptable – Gurch 15:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case User:Brian Hickey create A's userpage with a message that it was his alternate account but A has not confirmed this so this account was blocked until it is confirmed, this has also happend when an account clams to be the alternate account of an other user but the other user has not confirmed this. This can be avoided by creating an account while logged in. --Chris ^g 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The account may have deleted edits, as the deleted edit logs only go back to September last year. The distinct User:А requested usurpation of the account before this was permitted. While User:А has been inactive for over a year, the similarity of names may be an issue. Warofdreams talk 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:DeletedContributions

Admins can now tell if a user has deleted edits by going to Special:DeletedContributions! This will be a great help with CHU/U. Maybe we should add it to the request template. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The bad news is a few clerks (ie. me) are not admins so we can't check if the user has deleted contribs. --Chris ^g 11:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just assume I (or one of the other admins who sometimes look at this page) will double check. None of the requests at WP:CHU/U have deleted contribs. WjBscribe 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you clerk someone, and can't check the deletedcontribs page, just leave a message and one of the admins that visit this page will do that check for you. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Change to {{CUU}}

Using my absolutely nothing knowledge of parser functions, I was able to copy, paste, and replace existing parser functions of {{CUU}} to add parts to include deleted contributions. I've tested it and it seems to work! (yay!). By default, the CUU template will say the username must be checked for deleted contributions. However, you can later (or at that time if you're an admin), put "|dcontribs=no" , which will say it doesn't have deleted edits, or "|dcontribs=yes", which will say it has deleted edits and cannot be usurped. If the latter is used, it will be the only line displaying on the template, like how "logs=yes" makes only the "usernames with logs can't be usurped" line appear. Feel free to fix, because like I said, I have no knowledge of parser functions. I just copied, pasted, created some new templates, and replaced. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have done it, you are to be congratulated. But I cant see a change in your diff of the template, strangely. I have a bit of knowledge of parser functions, mostly the #switch: and #if:, if there are mods to be made. Once again, if you have done it, then good job, especially for someone who hasnt used PFs before. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't see the changes here?. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I can now. Somehow I must have misclicked the diff or some weird thing. Anyway, good job. You will now need to inform the documentation and make the necessary updates to any related pages recording usage of the temp, if you havent already. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to rely mostly on WJB to go through all the usernames that now need to be checked :). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! Infuriating admin-only access! :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out checking for deleted contribs. By the way, if someone types {{CUU|dcontibs=check}}, should I change |dcontribs=check to |dcontribs=yes/no or should I just leave a note at the bottom of the request saying that I've checked it? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

R is telling the story here. As far as I can see, the Parser #default is check, so theres no need to type it. If you've checked it, you should know whether there are dcontribs or not, as far as i can tell. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Change it to yes or no. And you don't need to do {{CUU|dcontibs=check}}. Though you can, it default to that, so simply typing {{CUU}} will still say that deleted edits must be checked. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I wonder though if we need a message for "no deleted edits" (currently {{no dedits}} - would it not be simpler if the parameter "dcontribs=no" didn't add anything extra, just removed the note that an admin needs to check for deleted contribs? WjBscribe 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just put it in because it shows that it's been checked, and it can't be checked by everyone, so people would probably want to know it's definitely been done. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WJB. There is no need to clog the clerking when there is really nothing to say. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All done I've fixed it up, if you don't like it revert me. --Chris ^g 02:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Hi. I would like to get some information about date sections on this page. Should the bureaucrats put in the dates or the users who want to usurp names? Is template which inserts the current date and the deadline date or should it be done with copy and paste? I would be grateful also if this information would be added to the help part at the top of the article. Thanks in advance:) Woodchuckk 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

With the dates anyone can update them, but normaly the clerks (ie. WjBscribe :) do the updates and there is no template that I am aware of. --Chris ^g 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Username changes for admins

I'm sick and tired of seeing "new" usernames who are admins, and having no idea who these people are, only to discover after digging around that the person in question has changed username and was formerly well known under a different name. Often this is accompanied by absolutely no disclosure at all. Adminship involves trust, and how can I trust somebody who has changed username and doesn't even bother to disclose that fact?

I would like to propose that we do one of the following:

1. Stop migrating sysop bits with username changes
2. Require people who have changed username to disclose this in a prominent fashion on their user page
3. Stop username usurpations altogether, as it is a process which is causing confusion and taking up bureacrat time with little useful return.

--kingboyk 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well all username changes are in the rename log, so transparency is available. Admin renames that do not involve a privacy consideration are documented at: User:NoSeptember/admin username changes. In response to your various specific suggestions:

1. That's just punitive - there are many reasons why sysops change names. Sometimes there are privacy concerns, sometimes its to simplify the name to make it easier for people to find the sysop (e.g. Picaroon9288 → Picaroon). Old usernames are usually kept as redirects to the new one.
2. In my experience most already do - unless the rename was for privacy reasons. All you probably have to do is drop a note on their page asking them what their old username was... is that so unreasonable?
3. I can't see how usurpation is more confusing than ordinary renames. The fact that people have usernames they are more happy with is a fairly useful return - its a volunteer project after all and our contributors are not robots.

All in all, I can't see any serious problem with how the system operates at present. WjBscribe 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as usual with WJBscribe and I think kingboyk's comment is generally lacking in merit. Andre (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also on the topic of number 2 many users I know who had their names changed leave a note in their sig (And I myself have a note of my name change on my user page even though that was months ago.) A good admin example is The Rambling Man. --Chris ^g 07:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a lowly editor (and a casual one at that), but I think it would be nice if the history of each Admin (name changes, and RfA history, as well as any de-sysops and re-sysops) were clearly presented in one place and not buried somewhere. Transparency is good.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, NoSeptember has done a very good job recording many many useful things about admins and RfA's etc atUser:NoSeptember/The_NoSeptember_Admin_Project. Hope this helps. i ^{(said) (did)} 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous word choice

I've noticed that pages associated with Usurpations that the phrase "account with edits cannot be upsurped" crops up frequently. This sounds like there is some sort of technical restriction on renaming account with edits, for the purpose of another account to take that name. Just a thought here, but isn't "may" a better choice of wording? I distinctly remember "can" confusing me, when this system was introduced. Comments?

Anthøny 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to switching to "may" and indeed a more qualified wording may be needed to bring it in line with WP:CHUG. In particular the crats do seem more willing to allow the usurpation of accounts with edits of no GFDL consequences - e.g. vandal edits that were reverted. Not sure how best to phrase this clearly. WjBscribe 23:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"account with edits will not be upsurped"? --Chris  G  12:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Username change question

Is there any limit on how many times that you can change your username or usurp a username? — E ^talk_bots 07:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHUG doesn't really say anything. On the talk page, Andrevan and Deskana were opposed to putting a number on it,but letting it be discretionary based on each user. There wasn't really a consensus for a quantification, or what that number would be. It's really bureacrat discreation I believe. i ^said 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the b'crats normally stop at about three unless you have a good reason for the change. --Chris  G  01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing it a whole lot is obnoxious. There is no codified definition for "a whole lot" nor need there be. Pick a good name and stick with it. — Dan | talk 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Doppelganger usurpation?

I would like to create a new account (named whatever) and have it renamed to BigNate (talk · contribs) (logs), usurping that user (which seems to meet the criteria to be usurp-able). I intend to continue editing as BigNate37, but I would like to have the name without the 37 suffix as a doppelganger account. Would this be a legitimate request, and should I make said request on the new account or from this one? BigNate37_(T) 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Its just about legitimate. My main worry about letting people usurp accounts they don't actually plan to use is that it stops those names being used by someone who'd make edits with them. However, I doubt we'd let anyone else usurp "BigNate" given the similarity to yours. That just leaves the fact its a bit pointless - BigNate isn't going to use his account (if he we're we'd let him keep it) and your not going to use it if you usurp it, and we wouldn't let anyone else usurp it - so you usurping it doesn't make much difference. If you did make a request, you should sign it with both the account you wanted renamed and your main one. Any reason why you don't want to be renamed to "BigNate"? - seems easier for people than trying to remember if you're BigNate37, BigNate36 or BigNate38... WjBscribe 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gotten to like the three-tone signature, and I've parked BigNate37 on commons and wiktionary (though looking now, commons:User:BigNate and wikt:User:BigNate were both available). Plus, changing a name can be confusing when looking at old talk pages and comments made about me, and my userspace includes several templates (some of which see use). I see what you mean about it being pointless—with respect to impersonation, I don't see User:BigNate as having the potential for trouble. I've had the whole User:BigNate thing in the back of my mind since around the time it was being discussed whether usurpations would be allowed, and I'll probably think on it some more before acting. The assurance that nobody else will be able to usurp User:BigNate is nice; from what I've seen I'm the most prolific bignate variant and perhaps the only active one. That alleviates one of my bigger concerns. BigNate37_(T) 19:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Malformed requests

Are they fixed or removed? If fixed, do we just move the signature and datestamp? i ^said 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Yes. If someone posts a usurpation request but the account isn't taken, move it to WP:CHU and switch it to the appropriate template if necessary (you may need to juggle some of the info around) and link to where the request was originally made. WjBscribe 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Usurp}}

On this template, would it be a good idea to add a link to the requesting users' edit count? It may not be important, but I usually check them just incase. i ^said 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I usually just check their contribs. If it's on more than one page of the 50 edit display, they usually have enough edits. Edit count really isn't needed. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 05:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

May not be needed, but it might not go amiss. Might be a good idea. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the generally accepted prerequisites for filing a request (ie. several months of editing etc.) might need to be made more clear. Already today, two requests have been from users who are very new and have made very few edits. Perhaps if there was a separate section for the "prerequisites" (or however it is preferred the section be named), this little problem might better be avoided. Any other ideas? Comments? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"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." at the top of the page seems pretty clear. I've made it bold so it stands out more... WjBscribe 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but it seems like it is getting ignored or missed out a fair bit. The two requests I referred to, made just today alone, are evidence of this. Still, maybe bolding will help. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the page should be semi-protected. Since anon's can't change their usernames, there's no need to have them editing this page. Semi protecting would stop non-autoconfirmed users from adding their requests (for a few days), if their account was created only to go to usurp a name right away. We seem to get plenty of people whose accounts were just created and whose only edits were to this page. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But that would stop people who edit on other wikimedia wikis. --Chris  G  10:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for any changes. Volume is still low enough that we can put up with a few newbies. — Dan | talk 08:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Downtime

No requests since the 6th. This is odd.... *shrugs* -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Be Approved

I was wondering if we could add a "will be approved" feature for usurpations that will be approved as long as the target username's owner does not object within seven days of the request. Cyanocittacristata 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that is implicit in the standard template added by the clerks. They also note when accounts are asking for usurpations that may be problematic, such as a too-new account. I'm not sure this is necessary.-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

See, that's why it is necessary. When it'll be approved, it'll say so. -Cyanocittacristata 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrats decide whether to approve or not, it doesn't happen by default. The template doesn't actually consider whether the requester is eligible anyway, just whether the name is suitable for usurping. Secretlondon 09:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Usurping long-abandoned accounts

Is it at all conceivable to usurp an account with very few edits (less than 10) which were all made more than two and a half years ago over a period of only 3 days? If not, is it due to technical restrictions regarding reassignment of contribs or due to having a bright-line distinction of which accounts can and which cannot be usurped? — aldebaer⁠ 12:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read above that it requires two renames, which makes sense. But how could an abandonded account agree to a rename? Does that mean such accounts with edits cannot be usurped unless the user can be contacted and subsequently consents to the rename? The account I had in mind has no e-mail specified. — aldebaer⁠ 12:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, it depends heavily on which spaces have been edited, in the case of an account with very few edits. However, policy is fairly strict on this; even accounts with even a few edits several years ago may often be impossible to usurp. If you could point towards the username in question...? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cornelius. — aldebaer⁠ 13:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that that name is likely to be rejected. It has made edits to the encyclopedia, to the mainspace.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — aldebaer⁠ 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would reject. Secretlondon 09:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Due Date

Once the date for the usurpation has come, how long does one generally have to wait until the usurpation happens? Sorry if I seem pushy or impatient, but mine has come.-Cyanocittacristata 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation is not really a priority task of the bureaucrats. They usually get to them soon after the 7 day wait, but it may take a day or so afterward. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't happen within a day or two, is it okay to contact a bureaucrat?-Cyanocittacristata 02:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would wait it out. The bureaucrats have people that help out with name changes, so if it gets too far behind, I'm sure one of them will let someone know. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

7 day waiting period

If there is a request for usurpation placed on the user's talk before a request is made here, can the change happen right away once it's placed here if the request has had more than seven days to respond? For instance,here? It wasn't done then, but Andrevan was a two day old bureacrat, and may have not done it because he was new. Also, just out of curiosity, why do any edits whatsoever bar usurpation? I presume it in in some archive somwhere, but there are lots of archives in lots of different places. i ^said 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure the answer to your first question (but I would guess that it could happen right away). I can, however, answer your second question. When a user registers an account and makes edits with it, that user agrees to have those edits attributed to the username they selected. To rename an account with edits without that person's consent would not properly attribute the author of those edits, which is required by the GFDL. WODUP 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I don't understand. The system retroactively changes the name of the user who made the edit. So all edits made by, for instance, John Doe would now say John Doe (usurped), thus satsifying the GFDL, as the author is attributed. Granted, my rationale is based in a primitive knowledge of the GFDL. i ^said 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:John Doe agreed to have his edits attributed to "John Doe", not "John Doe (usurped)". WODUP 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I see. Thanks. i ^said 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this works?

Can anyone please explain how does this usurpation works? What's the whole procedure? I'd like to introduce to the Malay Wikipedia, wonder anyone there heard of this. Can anyone please introduce to Yosri, who is a bureaucrat there? Thanks a lot! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins clerking, and then admins later coming and adding "dcontribs=no/yes"

Resolved

– Anthøny 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a waste of time for non-admins to clerk with a missing piece of information, only to have sysops later come along and fill it in. Wouldn't it be easier just to leave the clerking to sysops? Because non-admins just can't obtain the whole quota of information. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, but the only response seems to be to ask all non-Admins to refrain from Clerking here, which is (a) unfair, seeing as we have many helpful contributors here, who are non-sysops; and (b) would drastically increase the workload on Administrators (in that, each request would have 4 fields to investigate, rather than 1). Anthøny 09:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not unfair when they can't completely do the job. Their contributions here, as far as clerking, are superfluous in that regard. Its just an edit that will later be effectively overwritten. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine ether way this goes as long as you don't remove me until 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC). --Chris  G  09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh - don't be so sure Chris; it could turn around at any time ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to be optimistic! :) --Chris  G  10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AGK that admins will only have to check one criterion if someone else has come by and filled the rest. If Joe User clerks for a request but skips deleted contribs, and Joe Sysop checks for those deleted contribs and fills that field, why would Joe Sysop need to re-check the other things if Joe User has already? WODUP ^(?) 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose that is a valid point, but its not like it takes a large amount of time to check each field.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Every second counts :) is there any reason why you're opposed to non-Admins clerking? I remember the time before my RfA, and this sort of thing was actually quite disheartening. We should be doing everything we can to include non-Administrators in our responsibilities - there is already an excess of locations they are excluded from. Anthøny 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the principle, no. I just find it to be superfluous, when they can't get that extra bit of information, and when it is so easy for a sysop to check the fields anyway. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of making any task admin-only unless we really have to. If a non-admin can do 90% of the task then it seems unfair to ask them not to just because there's a bit of the task they can't do. Ultimately even if no admin ever looked at it, the crat who performed the request would know it met all the criteria but had not been checked for deleted edits. They then could look at that. If a non-admin clerk I trust has done everything except look for deleted edits, I'd just do that - which is less time than having to check that everything else is right too. So while I agree there's a bit of duplication going on - if non-admins want to do this, I see no harm in letting them. The traffic on this board is slowing quite a bit anyway so there's not a huge amount to do... WjBscribe 12:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I agree with that. In the end, I don't care either way, I just was wondering what USURP regulars thought about this recurring duplication. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with AGK on this matter, not allowing users to clerk her and provide assistance just because they are not administrators, would be unfair. Clerking here, is a positive thing to do and stops users from getting themselves into edit wars/conflicts etc. However, on that note; I can see your point, Anonymous Dissident about all of this :) Qst 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So I assume that we can say that non-Administrators are not only permitted, but indeed encouraged, to contribute to clerical activities here. However, as a group we recognise Anonymous' point on Administrators having to go back and finish the task that non-sysops cannot complete, but conclude that it is not a drastic enough problem to alter the method of operations we have had up to this point? Anthøny 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, 100% agree, Qst 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, partly agree with what Anonymous Dissident says; although I'm against leaving clerking to admins only (leaving me out :( ) but I do think it's a little bit of a time waster of non admins adding the template then admins coming along and "completing" the request. Qst 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good thing to have a bit of duplication, every one makes mistakes and it's good to have a bit of double checking. --Chris  G  09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we all agree then. If there are any further issues, then by all means raise them in full - this is, after all, an important process and we should award it the scrutiny it deserves. However, in the meanwhile we can threat this as {{resolved}}, and I've tagged it as such. Anthøny 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging alternate accounts with main account

I have two alternate accounts (which I have now properly marked, with redirects to the main account) but have only recently learned how inadvisable this is, since the accounts don't serve any real pupose other than for my amusement. All three accounts have a significant number of edits. Is it possible for me to change the names of the alternate accounts to my main account name? Tim Ross 13:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not possible to do this; the tools we have only allow us to rename accounts to names which are currently available. I'd recommend sticking with one account from now on, and mentioning on all three userpages the relationship between the accounts to avoid future confusion. Warofdreams talk 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that, then. Thanks for the advice. -- Tim Ross (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Block log

Are blocklogs linked for every rename, or only ones where there are specific reasons for them staying (e.g. Arbcom sanctions)? I (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, "where relevant" would describe it. If there's one 24 hour block for 3RR some time ago (for an arbitrary example, one year ago), then I wouldn't bother linking. --Deskana (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No edits

Is it an absolute prerequisite that the username to be usurped has made no edits whatsoever? I am interested in changing my username to PeeJay, but that person has already made 41 edits. However, the last of their edits was made over 18 months ago. Is there any way I can get this person to consent to a name change so that I can usurp their username? – PeeJay 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, the account must have no edits. However, when the edits were quickly reverted vandalism, or to one's own userspace, the usurpation is sometimes carried out. In this scenario, I do not believe this would be permitted, as the user has made contributions to the mainspace. If you can get the user to consent to the rename, then it could be carried out, I believe. However, the account does not have an email set Special:Emailuser/PeeJay, so I don't see a way to attain the permission. I (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Antonidas

The user account Antonidas has been inactive since December 2006 and has no edits. I would like to usurp this user account for my own personal use. I don't have a username of my own, but if I have to register one to make a usurpation, I will (I just don't want to make another unused account, therefor continuing the cycle). Thank you. --72.187.89.100 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to usurp a username, first you have to have a user account (as you are editing anonymously), however before creating an account or requesting usurpation, there maybe another name which is not registered, but which you like more — so maybe you could use that. However, usurpation is used mostly only for established editors and people who have a wide range of edits to the project, so, unfortunately, this removes any possibility of a new user receiving usurpation, sorry. Qst 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

goddammit you guys --72.187.89.100 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil when commenting on talk pages. --Chris 11:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kagee

Kagee has been inactive since he created his account on the 26 of March 2007. He has no edits, blocks or logs (none that i can find, except "New user account"). I would like to usurp this user account. I don't have a username on en.wikipedia.org, but i have the username Kagee (and contributions) on both no.wikipedia (no:User:Kagee) and commons (commons:User:Kagee). Is this possible? / How would i do this? 83.108.121.243 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)