Are there going to be separate archives for this (different from CHU). [1] says no, but maybe this was just a C&P. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a few [occasional] problems with the proposed process: 1) Regarding the e-mail to the owner of the account-to-be-usurped, I'm thinking most of the times this will not be possible, because the user will not have enabled an e-mail account, particularly if the accounts to be usurped are those that were created a while back and never used; 2) Perhaps we should extend the possibility of usurpation to accounts that were used shortly and almost immediately indefblocked for performing clear-cut vandalism — why allow a vandal to hog a (presumably) perfectly usable username because he registered it, vandalized Wikipedia a couple of times with it and then got indefblocked? It would have to be a small number of edits, all vandalism, and the user must have been indefblocked, perhaps for a preset minimal period of time, so as to ensure that the ban will not be reviewed, or already has been and was maintained.
Regarding the first point, I'm thinking that, if it is not possible to email the user, the request would have to remain posted for a somewhat longer period of time (45 days, maybe 60?).
Redux
13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
$wgRenameUserQuick
setting is set to false. Apparently, the English Wikipedia has it set to true. You will need to persuade a developer to change it.log_type log_action log_timestamp log_user log_namespace log_title log_comment protect protect 20070112054349 2 0 Main_Page Main Page [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading] delete restore 20070112034340 2 2 Blblblblbl 1 revisions restored: retest renameuser renameuser 20070112034218 2 -1 Renameuser Renamed the user "[[User:Blblblblbl|Blblblblbl]]" (which had 0 edits) to "[[User:Vandal test 0001|Vandal test 0001]]" delete delete 20070112034007 2 2 Blblblblbl content was: 'YOU ALL SUCK' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Blblblblbl|Blblblblbl]]') block block 20070112033946 2 2 Blblblblbl {{vandalism}} newusers create 20070112033850 5 2 Blblblblbl protect protect 20070111020023 2 4 Community_Portal testing cascade protection [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading] delete delete 20070111015641 4 8 Yourvariant No longer required
UPDATE `mw_logging` SET `log_title` = '(new username)' WHERE `log_type` = 'block' AND `log_title`='(old username)'
Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp
Will these requests be given priority in the event someone else requests the username through the process before the person who first expressed an interest is able to file the necessary request, if so, then the old request page should be protected to ensure nobody can change previous requests and linked to the proper request process. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this may seem annoying but I was wondering when this page was planned to be active? Yonatanh 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
...but nowadays, creating an account is logged. This needs to be changed to give an exception so that creating an account doesn't prevent the username from being usurped (otherwise, no account could be usurped, because all accounts have been created). -- ais523 11:41, 31 January 2007 ( U T C)
Shouldn't the header at Template:Usurp be the other way around? I just filled my request (wohoo!), and my first impression was that I did something wrong as I read "Conti → ContiE". That looks like the user Conti wants the username ContiE, IMHO. -- Conti| ✉ 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, a note whether new requests should go on the top or on the bottom might be useful. I added mine to the top, others added theirs to the bottom. And the "diff link" on "The user must provide a diff link to this message when making their usurpation request." ( Wikipedia:Usurpation) should be changed to "permalink", since it's not possible to create a diff when there's only one revision on a page. -- Conti| ✉ 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To the RFCU clerks who have been wrangled into clerking this page as well:
It would be helpful to have a confirmation that all the points of the policy have been met. To that end, I've created a couple of templates for flagging requests that don't meet the policy, and one for those that do. They are:
Also, it would be helpful to know two more pieces of information: Has the talk page message been left, and does the username being usurped have an email set. (We don't need clerks to actually send the emails, just check if they have an email set.) To this end, I've also created:
{{subst:usurpation requested}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the username being usurped. {{
no message}}Adding those for each request would help a lot. It should be fine to do a bulleted list below the request, i.e.:
Thanks clerks! Essjay (Talk) 08:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this be applied retroactively? Or only to new requests? Luna Santin 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:)
Michael Billington (
talk •
contribs)
10:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Added one, for the use of bureaucrats who have emailed the user:
The current owner of the target username has an email address set, and an email has been sent by a clerk or bureaucrat to notify them of this request. {{
user emailed}}.
Essjay
(Talk)
03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth adding a place to link to the message on the talk page of the desired name to the {{ usurp}} template? It's necessary for every request to include this diff, so it may as well be there. Also, as a few people seem to have forgotted to link the diff, it might serve as a prompt. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Should brand new users be allowed to usurp other accounts? According to the usurpation policy, users should be "established contributors" to request usurpation, which new users obviously are not. Two users ( AndHab and Rabollig) created their accounts to request usurpation of other accounts recently, and one other ( Kumbi) has very few edits. -- Conti| ✉ 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Would a new option for {{ CUU}} like "established=yes/no" be useful for the bureaucrats and clerks? Something like "This user has very few/less than 50/100/500 edits.", whatever the threshold for being an established user should be. -- Conti| ✉ 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is one allowed to usurp one's own doppelganger accounts? I used each of mine to make a single edit to the doppelganger userpages before I confirmed them, and I would of course consent to having one moved somewhere else to usurp it. I'm not interested in it for myself right now, but I think this should be allowed even if the doppelganger account made an edit. Grand master ka 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There has been a number of tentitive objections raised over this username, related to the MediaWiki feature. A very quick ask-around indicated to me that there is no concensus to whether this username is suitable; hence, I bring this discussion forward to, well, discuss this request. I do so here to avoid any clutter of the main CHU/U page, as requested by Essjay (who indicated he would prefer any discussion here, for which I agree). This discussion has been noted under the request on the main CHU/U page, with a link. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As -Slash- has withdrawn his request (above) I have marked it not done. It will be archived in due course. Essjay (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi all:
I'd like to ask the non-bureaucrat observers of the page to please refrain from tagging requests with Done and
Not done. These two templates are used on the main CHU and the CHU/U page to trigger the archiving bot, so adding them causes requests to be removed from the page; this is a problem, because the task of deciding whether to perform a rename or not is specifically a bureaucrat task, and forcing an archive of a request without us being able to see it first leaves room for a lot of problems. I have no doubt that those who have done so here and on CHU have done so in good faith, as a convenience in obvious cases, but it really does create problems, as we slowly slip towards non-bureaucrats making calls on not-so-obvious cases, and those with ill intent using the templates to vandalize.
Some time ago, I specifically asked the RFCU clerks to keep an eye on these two pages, making sure that requests were properly formatted, that nobody was trying to fool us into renaming someone else's account, and that no vandalism was taking place. They are concerned, and I share their concern, that it is becoming much more difficult to do this because we're getting just a bit too much help. So, I'd like to ask specifically that only bureaucrats use the Done and
Not done templates (due to thier sensitivity, described above), and I'd like to encourage those who aren't RFCU clerks to please be very careful in what is being done here, as it really does have an effect on our ability to keep the page in order and make sure that all the renames we perform are done correctly and with due regard for policy.
Everyone's assistance is greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe contacted me regarding this request; he's concerned that it may not be appropriate under the username policy. The way we handled the previous such discussion worked pretty well (see Slash/Diff discussion, above), so let's try that again unless anybody objects. Beyond starting the section, I should probably let WJBscribe speak for himself. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. WjB scribe 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Ebola (disambiguation), I see three posibilities. As the name of a disease, it would be inappropriate. As the name of a river, perhaps less so, but we do prohibit the names of countries. As the name of a rapper (who is presumably a famous person), it would be inappropriate. Unless the user can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve any of these, I'm afraid it's going to have to be considered inappropriate. Essjay (Talk) 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there going to be separate archives for this (different from CHU). [1] says no, but maybe this was just a C&P. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a few [occasional] problems with the proposed process: 1) Regarding the e-mail to the owner of the account-to-be-usurped, I'm thinking most of the times this will not be possible, because the user will not have enabled an e-mail account, particularly if the accounts to be usurped are those that were created a while back and never used; 2) Perhaps we should extend the possibility of usurpation to accounts that were used shortly and almost immediately indefblocked for performing clear-cut vandalism — why allow a vandal to hog a (presumably) perfectly usable username because he registered it, vandalized Wikipedia a couple of times with it and then got indefblocked? It would have to be a small number of edits, all vandalism, and the user must have been indefblocked, perhaps for a preset minimal period of time, so as to ensure that the ban will not be reviewed, or already has been and was maintained.
Regarding the first point, I'm thinking that, if it is not possible to email the user, the request would have to remain posted for a somewhat longer period of time (45 days, maybe 60?).
Redux
13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
$wgRenameUserQuick
setting is set to false. Apparently, the English Wikipedia has it set to true. You will need to persuade a developer to change it.log_type log_action log_timestamp log_user log_namespace log_title log_comment protect protect 20070112054349 2 0 Main_Page Main Page [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading] delete restore 20070112034340 2 2 Blblblblbl 1 revisions restored: retest renameuser renameuser 20070112034218 2 -1 Renameuser Renamed the user "[[User:Blblblblbl|Blblblblbl]]" (which had 0 edits) to "[[User:Vandal test 0001|Vandal test 0001]]" delete delete 20070112034007 2 2 Blblblblbl content was: 'YOU ALL SUCK' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Blblblblbl|Blblblblbl]]') block block 20070112033946 2 2 Blblblblbl {{vandalism}} newusers create 20070112033850 5 2 Blblblblbl protect protect 20070111020023 2 4 Community_Portal testing cascade protection [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading] delete delete 20070111015641 4 8 Yourvariant No longer required
UPDATE `mw_logging` SET `log_title` = '(new username)' WHERE `log_type` = 'block' AND `log_title`='(old username)'
Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp
Will these requests be given priority in the event someone else requests the username through the process before the person who first expressed an interest is able to file the necessary request, if so, then the old request page should be protected to ensure nobody can change previous requests and linked to the proper request process. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this may seem annoying but I was wondering when this page was planned to be active? Yonatanh 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
...but nowadays, creating an account is logged. This needs to be changed to give an exception so that creating an account doesn't prevent the username from being usurped (otherwise, no account could be usurped, because all accounts have been created). -- ais523 11:41, 31 January 2007 ( U T C)
Shouldn't the header at Template:Usurp be the other way around? I just filled my request (wohoo!), and my first impression was that I did something wrong as I read "Conti → ContiE". That looks like the user Conti wants the username ContiE, IMHO. -- Conti| ✉ 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, a note whether new requests should go on the top or on the bottom might be useful. I added mine to the top, others added theirs to the bottom. And the "diff link" on "The user must provide a diff link to this message when making their usurpation request." ( Wikipedia:Usurpation) should be changed to "permalink", since it's not possible to create a diff when there's only one revision on a page. -- Conti| ✉ 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To the RFCU clerks who have been wrangled into clerking this page as well:
It would be helpful to have a confirmation that all the points of the policy have been met. To that end, I've created a couple of templates for flagging requests that don't meet the policy, and one for those that do. They are:
Also, it would be helpful to know two more pieces of information: Has the talk page message been left, and does the username being usurped have an email set. (We don't need clerks to actually send the emails, just check if they have an email set.) To this end, I've also created:
{{subst:usurpation requested}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the username being usurped. {{
no message}}Adding those for each request would help a lot. It should be fine to do a bulleted list below the request, i.e.:
Thanks clerks! Essjay (Talk) 08:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this be applied retroactively? Or only to new requests? Luna Santin 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:)
Michael Billington (
talk •
contribs)
10:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Added one, for the use of bureaucrats who have emailed the user:
The current owner of the target username has an email address set, and an email has been sent by a clerk or bureaucrat to notify them of this request. {{
user emailed}}.
Essjay
(Talk)
03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth adding a place to link to the message on the talk page of the desired name to the {{ usurp}} template? It's necessary for every request to include this diff, so it may as well be there. Also, as a few people seem to have forgotted to link the diff, it might serve as a prompt. → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Should brand new users be allowed to usurp other accounts? According to the usurpation policy, users should be "established contributors" to request usurpation, which new users obviously are not. Two users ( AndHab and Rabollig) created their accounts to request usurpation of other accounts recently, and one other ( Kumbi) has very few edits. -- Conti| ✉ 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Would a new option for {{ CUU}} like "established=yes/no" be useful for the bureaucrats and clerks? Something like "This user has very few/less than 50/100/500 edits.", whatever the threshold for being an established user should be. -- Conti| ✉ 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is one allowed to usurp one's own doppelganger accounts? I used each of mine to make a single edit to the doppelganger userpages before I confirmed them, and I would of course consent to having one moved somewhere else to usurp it. I'm not interested in it for myself right now, but I think this should be allowed even if the doppelganger account made an edit. Grand master ka 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There has been a number of tentitive objections raised over this username, related to the MediaWiki feature. A very quick ask-around indicated to me that there is no concensus to whether this username is suitable; hence, I bring this discussion forward to, well, discuss this request. I do so here to avoid any clutter of the main CHU/U page, as requested by Essjay (who indicated he would prefer any discussion here, for which I agree). This discussion has been noted under the request on the main CHU/U page, with a link. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As -Slash- has withdrawn his request (above) I have marked it not done. It will be archived in due course. Essjay (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi all:
I'd like to ask the non-bureaucrat observers of the page to please refrain from tagging requests with Done and
Not done. These two templates are used on the main CHU and the CHU/U page to trigger the archiving bot, so adding them causes requests to be removed from the page; this is a problem, because the task of deciding whether to perform a rename or not is specifically a bureaucrat task, and forcing an archive of a request without us being able to see it first leaves room for a lot of problems. I have no doubt that those who have done so here and on CHU have done so in good faith, as a convenience in obvious cases, but it really does create problems, as we slowly slip towards non-bureaucrats making calls on not-so-obvious cases, and those with ill intent using the templates to vandalize.
Some time ago, I specifically asked the RFCU clerks to keep an eye on these two pages, making sure that requests were properly formatted, that nobody was trying to fool us into renaming someone else's account, and that no vandalism was taking place. They are concerned, and I share their concern, that it is becoming much more difficult to do this because we're getting just a bit too much help. So, I'd like to ask specifically that only bureaucrats use the Done and
Not done templates (due to thier sensitivity, described above), and I'd like to encourage those who aren't RFCU clerks to please be very careful in what is being done here, as it really does have an effect on our ability to keep the page in order and make sure that all the renames we perform are done correctly and with due regard for policy.
Everyone's assistance is greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe contacted me regarding this request; he's concerned that it may not be appropriate under the username policy. The way we handled the previous such discussion worked pretty well (see Slash/Diff discussion, above), so let's try that again unless anybody objects. Beyond starting the section, I should probably let WJBscribe speak for himself. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. WjB scribe 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Ebola (disambiguation), I see three posibilities. As the name of a disease, it would be inappropriate. As the name of a river, perhaps less so, but we do prohibit the names of countries. As the name of a rapper (who is presumably a famous person), it would be inappropriate. Unless the user can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve any of these, I'm afraid it's going to have to be considered inappropriate. Essjay (Talk) 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)