This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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? – Pee Jay 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)

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)

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)

In the past, requests have been granted to users who don't normally qualify for usurpation when they are unifying names cross-project. I suggest creating a placeholder account here, and then making the request, noting that this is what you're doing. Whether or not it will be done, however, is up to the bureaucrats, so it might be best to wait until one of them comments here before doing that. I (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then i'll wait for a bureaucrat to comment before i do anything 83.108.123.72 ( talk) 11:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Soleil has it right. Merry Christmas, by the way. -- Deskana (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the process of the usurpations, i've read the instructions but a bit confused. When i registered i wanted to use SKYNET as my username but had to use Yun-Yuuzhan, i've checked Skynet log's and he hasn't made any edits since last February. But am wondering whether my current entire contributions will be transfered if i place a request to use that account, will it or will i have to start from scratch again or will they allow me to change my username to SKYNET. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Accounts which are eligible for usurpation must have no contributions (but if they were against the GFDL, i.e. reverted as vandalism), that maybe allowed. They must have no deleted contributions, either. As Skynet has contribs, usurpation is not appropriate here to 'take over' that username... Qst 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, i just wanted to check anyway, i'm fine with this account. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 16:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic, if you have the name SKYNET in all capital letters, then you could be renamed to that, because SKYNET is not an existent account, while Skynet is. However, whether or not you would be allowed to be renamed to an account name that is only different in the capitalization is iffy. The Skynet account is relatively inactive, but a bureaucrat would need to tell you authoritatively. I (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But to be honest i've tried to register an account with SKYNET in caps lock on but it declined because of the user Skynet, and what about all of the contributions i've made will it be re-transferred to SKYNET. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Only an administrator would be able to create that account. But you can be renamed to it if you choose. And yes, all of your edits and userpages would be transferred to the new username. I (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good i've placed a request for it to be changed and I'll tell EVula to change the adoption tag if it does get change. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with more technical ability than I modify the template to make a paramter whereby one can make note of a username on other projects with a siginificant amount edits? Also, the bureaucrats might want to decide now if there is convention about whether or not significant edits on other projects matter, and not make it up as it happens. I (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added an interwiki=yes param as well as a place to link to the user's userpage on the wiki:

Note:

• This user has made contributions on another Wikimedia project (yes), this may be a barrier to usurpation.

but it could use some fine tuning -- Chris 02:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the template. To modify the interwiki part edit Template:interwiki exists. Alex fusco ⁵ 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

edit I have changed the parameter so you specify the user page in the interwiki=link to interwiki userpage so to produce the above you would type {{CUU|interwiki=meta:User:Chris G}}

Note:

• This user has made contributions on another Wikimedia project (meta:User:Chris G), this may be a barrier to usurpation.

Hope this works Alex fusco ⁵ 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good. As a side note, is there a particular reason CHU has arrows that point → way, but here they're ← way? I (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know maybe WJBscribe knows. I'll ask him Alex fusco ⁵ 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When a name is usurped, all edits made from user name X are transferred to user name Y. So how comes we can't again transfer user name Y 's edits to another account? We could then easily allow usurpation of old accounts that have GFDL significant edits but no recent edits (say 2 years?), because the person would still be credited for their edits. I'm probably missing a very simple flaw... Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We can reattribute the edits from a usurped account to a new one. However, in order to comply with the GFDL, the edits must be atributed to the username that they were initially made under. See the explination when I asked this question a while back. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)They are. For example, if X was renamed to Y, then Y would be renamed to Y (usurped) or another generic username. A good actual example is User:Alison and User:Alison (usurped). XENON54 | talk 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank-you both :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a request on this page for a name that isn't already taken, please move it to WP:CHU for the user, changing the format of the request to that for a simple rename. Thanks, WjB scribe 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I always do, but I think its the newer clerks that don't. Although, I can see where you are coming from, WJB, on this matter. Qst ( talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm guilty here on a couple of occasions. I've just about got the hang of it now, though. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I know this is unusual, but I would like to usurp a name for my secondary account, which would be used only for userscripts: I want users to be able to use short and simple importScript("user:js/scriptname.js"). I already created account "uss" for that purpose, so the question is, do I have chances to usurp (no contributions account) user:js ← user:uss or my request most likely would be denied? — AlexSm 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would most likely be performed at a bureaucrats discretion as long as the target username meets the requirements for usurpation Alex fusco ⁵ 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is one that may, the non-link one, but I'd figure I'd ask better minds: Avi ( talk · contribs). Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking if the edits of that account would prevent usurpation, almost certainly. A bureaucrat could break convention, but I can't think of any precedent. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, difficult one. Those are good faithed edits (I assume they're valid links), but it would be rather difficult to assert that one has copyright in the addition of an external link - there's no creative process you see, just the copying of a string of words that already exist. So legally I don't think we need to attribute those, no. The account has been inactive for 3 years and it would cause problems were it to edit now. Avraham has signed as Avi for so long that it would probably cause a lot of confusion if someone else edited with that name. On the other hand, we haven't really been allowing the usurpation of accounts that have made good faithed edits to the project. Usurpation is technically feasible, there are some good reasons for it but it would be outside was has been done before. I think I'd need to consult with interested users and other bureaucrats before I made a final decision on that one. If you filed for usurpation I'd probably raise a question on the crat noticeboard and see what the response was come the end of the week when the request was due to be performed. WjB scribe 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've got one that I'm curious if the edits require attribution. The information added by the user has since been removed (not by a revert), so I'm wondering about it, since I want to usurp this user name. The user is Red Phoenix ( talk · contribs). Thanks. Red Phoenix ( Talk) 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Doppelification?

I spoke with WJB on this, who suggested that it would require a 'crat-wide discussion as it is irregular, but now that WP:SUL is a reality, my ultimate preference would be to have User:Avi renamed, and I would register it as a doppel account, but as there are some edits, I understand that may not be possible. Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 16:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the response is overwhelming -- Avi ( talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably raising a discussion here that has been exhausted elsewhere (although I cannot find any record of one at the moment), but are there any thoughts on how we are (vaguely) going to handle the implementation of Single User Login, which is due out quite soon? I suspect we cannot stumble along forever—it's going to come up sooner-or-later, and catch us unaware—so we may as well start, at least, thinking about it.

Particularly, I am interested in how we are going to handle the "close-calls"—e.g., the recently-rejected request, Stefan ← st-fl: a fully-established (and, in this case, administrator) account on a sister project, against an established (and, in this case, frequently editing) account on this project. Is it going to be bureaucrat discretion, or is a group going to be set up, or shall the developers handle it? Just throwing some thoughts around...

Anthøny 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a borderline case, imho. We simply don't allow GDFL-significant edits to be usurped. As for future situations, I see no reason to take an account away from an active Wikipedian simply because the person requesting is an administrator on a different project. However, I think a policy could be developed allowing usurpation of formerly active (and currently inactive) accounts for the purposes of SUL consolidation. -- Tim4christ17  ^talk 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that this case was someone with only 126 edits trying to usurp someone with 3,629 edits. That's someone 2 edits this year trying to usurp someone with only two less edits this year than the "usuper" has total. -- Tim4christ17  ^talk 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When SUL actually rolls around, administrators will have top billing (as far as I know); someone who is an administrator on one project will usurp the same name elsewhere, GDFL be damned, and regardless of how many edits they have on that project (unless we're talking about several thousand edits for both editors, in which case it will be a case-by-case matter, I would assume).

At any rate, once it happens, it'll be out of the hands of bureaucrats, and into the hands of stewards (to the best of my knowledge). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken I think EVula. Single login will unify all accounts owned by the same user, and ignore those controlled by someone else. It is possible to unify login and all projects except one for example. Usurping accounts to comply with SUL is being left to local community discretion. See unified login - Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account?. In particular: "If you want to usurp an account on another wiki, you should make a request to a bureaucrat on the problem wiki. Subject to local policy, the bureaucrat may be able to rename the target account." The question that is going to need to addressed is how far the English Wikipedia community wants its bureaucrats to go in renaming accounts to allow users to have the same username on all projects. WjB scribe 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone mark your calendars: I was wrong about something. Not likely to happen again any time soon... ;)
I'm still a bit fuzzy on some of the details regarding SUL. I think I'll just keep my mouth shut and head down until it actually rolls out; it doesn't affect me much anyway, since I've got my username on about half of all the WMF projects anyway. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

When you have an actively contributing user, why allow someone who hasn't contributed to the project - being an administrator elsewhere doesn't help this project - to take his spot? I honestly can't think of a better way to chase our established users away from Wikipedia than telling them that their Wikipedia identity could be usurped by someone who's a stranger to the project. -- Tim4christ17  ^talk 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One of my greatest concerns is certainly that users will be offended by their username being taken away from them and will cease contributing, whilst the new "owner" of it will continue being active on their own project and make little use of their account here. WjB scribe 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I think it would be useful to set up some sort of working group to put consider clashes, and advise of the best outcome; or, simply set up a 'crat chat system. Whichever way you look at, disputes are going to arise somewhere along the line, and we're going to need a medium through which adjudication will be available. Anthøny 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a group to actually rule on the requests; the bureaucrats were promoted for their discretion and judgment. I think it would be a good idea, however, to post this to the wider community and see what they think. The bureaucrats can take whatever the outcome of that discussion is in mind. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL is now active for all admins across wikimedia wikis -- Chris 09:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

...eh? I just tried logging in on a wiki I have no account on (an increasingly smaller number), and couldn't log in. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you unified your login though? Its an option in the first page of "my preferences" under "Global account status:" WjB scribe 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Remark for EVula—note, you can only unify your account whilst logged into an administrator account on a public wiki (that probably means enwiki for a lot of us). Then, follow WJB's advice, above, and you should then be able to log in on other sites, including (I think?) those that you had previously not had an account on. Regards, Anthøny 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty. I'm going to hold off on that; I'm currently waiting for word about a rename on the one wiki where I wasn't able to register as "EVula" (due to someone else registering "Evula"). Once that account is renamed, I'll run it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As Tim4christ17 mentions, GFDL attribution is a very important concern -- our content is licensed on the basis that we'll attribute these people as authors based on the name they've provided while editing. In the case of old and forgotten accounts with no edits, or no GFDL-significant contribs, I'm quite happy to leave this whole affair to bcrat discretion, and favor a pretty liberal approach. When it comes to usernames which do have edits, things are going to become more complicated. – Luna Santin ( talk) 11:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This should really be discussed at m:Help:Unified login. As long as I have followed this, the plan has been to eventually make the tough decisions and fully unify the login system. The current plan is:

"Accounts that have not been merged after a certain period of time will be forcefully renamed by the software. The date for this is not yet finalised."

At the least, this may inspire improvements to the user renaming code so that renames move various logs along with the name. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 11:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another SUL thread? See also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Single User Log-in
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Single user log-in

Trying to keep discussion in one place... WT:SUL failed to take off. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL and renames

Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames

The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjB scribe 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start running the SUL lookup tool ( http://tools.wikimedia.de/~vvv/sulutil.php?) before usurping accounts here if they exist with many (or more) edits on other projects, otherwise the account may get smashed in SUL. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the account didnt have any edits and all that but after I posted the usurpation request on the talk page I realised somebody already had posted an usurpation request. Does that mean I have to withdraw? The old one is over half a year old and the person isnt on your list anymore. They must have forgotten about it or given up. Can I still go ahead? -- Camaeron ( t/ c) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The request was denied [1] and the account that made the request hasn't edited since May 2007. No reason why it should stop you getting the name. WjB scribe 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick response! -- Camaeron ( t/ c) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

With the advent of meta:Unified login, people will be looking for usurption pages and policies on other wikipedias, and looking for interpreters to help them make requests. Could people help by updating the interwiki links for this page, and providing translation help where requested? I'm trying and failing to find the French usurption page. What is the French for "username change" or "usurption"? :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 09:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

w:fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur -- Avi ( talk) 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried something a bit easier for non-french-speaking users : fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur/Usurpation. Blinking Spirit ( talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The non-francophone world thanks you, Blinking! -- Avi ( talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also should be easier on your collective eyes than our babelfishing requests. -- Avi ( talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry that much ;-) all fr-bureaucrats are, if not fluent, at least good enough in english to understand this kind of request. Blinking Spirit ( talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent): I'd appreciate a similar translation/request page on Italian Wikipedia. Thanks. — ERcheck ( talk) 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

it:Wikipedia:Cambiare_il_nome_utente/Riassegnazione appears to be their usurpation request page -- Chris 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anybody want's to know: at sv.wiki requests such as these can be done at sv:Wikipedia:Begäran om åtgärder#Begäran, although this page is for any administrative request (not only usurpations). MiCkE 08:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It may just be me, but taking a look at all the clerknotes many of them say the the target account has been notified while their talkpage is red linked. I'm going to go over all the ones now but just for future reference remember to check that it has been notified and if they haven't please place {{subst:usurpation requested}} ~~~~ on their talk page -- Chris 09:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there weren't as many as I thought (Just WjB's half renames tricking me :P) but there was still a few which where marked as notified when they weren't -- Chris 09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For the public record, block logs for renamed accounts now move with that account to its new title, rather than remaining behind (see: r32816, bug 7011). This should, presumably, make the changing username and usurpation processes easier to administer, particularly with regards to whether an account should have its new log "annotated", and whether or not a requesting editor does wish to take a new account, when the previous account holder has a non-empty block log. Regards, Anthøny 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been 7 days, and my request seems to meet the criteria... So, when can i expect this to be done? Please reply on my talk page... Thanks! — Catz ^{[ T • C} 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Catzrthecoolest. Xenon ⁵⁴ 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of a strange situation, but bear with me... I've been using the account User:Eve Hall for over a year, and very soon after registering I noticed the account User:Eve was inactive with no edits. Since I'd not heard of usurpation at that point I just changed my signature to sign myself 'Eve', knowing it wouldn't cause any confusion since User:Eve had no edits. But now User:Dutch_Eve has put in an usurpation request for the name 'Eve'. Of course she has just as much right to usurp the name as I do, but I'm worried it's going to cause confusion - there are a lot of posts floating round out there that appear to be signed by 'Eve', and it's not immediately obvious that points to User:Eve Hall.

I'm not getting territorial, I'm just not sure what the etiquette is in this situation. I'll leave a note for Dutch Eve letting her know I've posted this here, but what is the best way to sort this out? If the usurpation goes ahead, is there a way to change my sig on all my old posts so Dutch Eve doesn't get tarred with my past mistakes? Sorry to cause trouble! Eve ( talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than doing it yourself, there is no way to change your old sigs. I think there are some bots that can search the entire Wikipedia for all instances of "Eve Hall|Eve" and change it, but I've never gotten into bots myself so I don't know which one(s) to recommend or how to use them. Also, I remember somebody kind of got screamed at for doing that once, but I think that was because some of what his bot changed was things that other people had said when they were talking to him. Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it solve these problems if I'd put "NL" in my sig (something like Eve^NL for example)? - Dutch Eve ( talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds a good idea! I've already changed my sig to Eve Hall ( talk), so it won't be a problem for new posts. And having looked at it more carefully I doubt we're going to have too much trouble anyway, as we've never edited the same kind of topics. As long as you don't mind the small chance that someone might attribute some of my previous bad karma to you, then we're probably ok. Eve Hall ( talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta-dah, problem solved! Now all I need to do is figure out how to adjust my sig ;-) never mind, got it! Eve^NL 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for the 'crats + clerks that frequent the renaming/usurpation boards: the SUL tool is (as of writing this) open to everyone, including non-sysops. This may lead to an influx of requests (usurpations especially) as people rush to unify their accounts. Just thought that I'd let everyone know. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:58, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

Noted; a wise move, notifying everybody. I'm standing by with my clerk hat, at least, and I'm sure a number of editors are too. :) Anthøny 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been two in the last few minutes alone! Looks like SUL may cause some headaches for bureaucrats! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:28, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

Yay. This is going to be fun... Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another? Rudget ( Help?) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If this keeps up we'll get a month's worth of requests in a few days! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:38, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

Then let's either wake the bureaucrats up or create some more, or even both. :) Acalamari 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling its going to be a long night :) Rudget ( Help?) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be doing fine. :) No need to panic, just yet. Anthøny 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as we know where our towels are, there's no need to panic anyway! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:09, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

SUL requests no longer need to wait a week to be performed. Could clerks please assist in moving these from the dated sections to the new "SUL requests" one at the top? WjB scribe 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, should we put a link on the main page saying 'if you're requesting for SUL, click here' with a link to the SUL section next to the main 'click here to request' link to avoid the clerks having to faff around moving requests (not that I mind!). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:02, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile setting up a separate archive for the SUL requests? Or, is it definitely desirable, that they are archived along side the rest of the Usurpation requests, at (for recent requests) Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Completed/9? After all, if there's a change of heart later, and it is decided that SUL requests should be moved to a separate archive, it's going to be very difficult identifying in the existing archives, what requests are for SUL and which are ordinary request. Thoughts (especially from bureaucrats, if any are available)?

Anthøny 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any need to keep SUL requests archived separately. I think we're OK continuing as we are. WjB scribe 09:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agreed there. I just wanted to check to see if anybody had possible justifications for archiving separately, so a change in the archiving system could be made before too many SUL requests had been processed and archived. Matter resolved, methinks. Anthøny 11:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

do I really need a username on EN to ask for renaming an other person? I'm active in other wikipedia languages with a global account. On EN I edit always as IP. So I only need that the other person with the same name is renamed, then I could log in with my existing global account. -- 92.194.86.27 ( talk) 08:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, just let me know which account you need renamed. WjB scribe 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm de:Benutzer:Steffen2, Users with name "Steffen2" on Wikimedia projects. Sorry that my english is not so good, I hope you could help me. -- 92.194.86.27 ( talk) 09:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You should now be able to sign in as Steffen2 here. WjB scribe 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- Steffen2 ( talk) 10:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there's currently a page that documents the consensus as to what to do with SUL usurpations and how the standards differ from "normal" requests. If there's not shouldn't the process be formalised now that unified login is available to everyone? Should requests like this one be fulfilled even though there are clearly GFDL significant edits like creating and then significantly expanding an article? I realise that this isn't exactly a new discussion but since the process has been expanded wouldn't it be worth opening up the discussion to the community to formalise any new standards? From above I realise that there have been discussions in the past but I can't seem to find any kind of clear outcome from them, apologies if I've just overlooked it. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Does a usurpation mean that when the target account is made available my current edit history would be transferred to it, like normal renaming? Just wanted to clarify this. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would: your edits would be transferred in a usurpation, just like in a regular rename. You won't lose all your edits. Acalamari 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh cool, thanks for the quick response. Another thing, I hope this isn't 'against the rules' but ages ago I registered the account Athos but immediately forgot about it and made no edits under it. Later I became re-interested in Wikipedia and set up this account, but I feel that the previous one is better now. Should I go through the same process here and just log in the account and say 'I agree to be usurped' or something? Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Andre ( talk) 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are users who attempt to usurp an account that already exists asked to repost their request at WP:CHU? Surely you can just do a rename here and save them the trouble. Stifle ( talk) 09:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked clerks to move such requests to WP:CHU. If I come across them I usually do them and them move them to WP:CHU so they end up in the right archive. That said, there are a lot of requests coming at the moment due to SUL and it would help enormously when I (and other bureaucrats) work our way through them if they are in the correct place and use the right templates. WjB scribe 09:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've answered this question before, but I'm wondering if it is possible to usurp a username but not actually move my edit history there? I'm thinking I'd like to be able to set up Katr ( talk · contribs · logs) as a doppleganger account. I often go by just "katr" and it would be nice to have the username associated with me so there is no confusion. I've attracted some imposters lately, hence the concern. At some point I may opt to move my account to the potential doppleganger account, but not right now. Thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is over a month later, but hopefully this reaches you: this would probably be possible since there's no accounts on other projects using that name, but it would probably be advisable not to link the name to a SUL and deprive other projects of that name if you don't plan to edit with it. – xeno ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'll think about what I want to do. (I find the SUL doesn't work too well anyway, BTW.) Katr67 ( talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He or she has only contributed on his/her own page twice (it means that "Meow" didn't do any GFDL contributes), and he/she hasn't been active for 5 years. I don't understand why I cannot do userpation on this account.-- Meow ✉ 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've left a note on the request. You may also have to remove that cat image from your signature, per guidelines. Rudget ( logs) 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we either remove these altogether, or work on making sure they are accurate, because, currently, they are just not being added and it is leading to gross inaccuracies date-wise on the page. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a job for the bot. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just talked with Cobi on irc and he said he would add this functionality to the bot -- Chris 10:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Cobi^{( t| c| b)} 12:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How long will this take? Electrical Experiment ( talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually about a week, which it says in the instructions. — Dan | talk 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to rename my account, but I would like to usurp User:Yngvar for doppleganger purposes. It was created about a month ago, but has no contributions. Is this possible? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, due to the SUL collision (the no.wiki editor, mostly). Can't hurt to try, though. – xeno ( talk) 00:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I have an account (jboriott) that I created a while ago. I just went to log in, but can't remember the password. When I ask wiki to send the password, it tells me there's no eMail address associated to the account. I'd like to use that account so that I can eMail articles and such. I never have, and don't plan on editing articles.

Is there a way for me to reclaim my id? It's been a good while since I've used my account.

Please advise. Jboriotti ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jim B Jboriotti ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go through the usurp process described at WP:USURP. – xeno ( talk) 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have a quick question about the usurp template. Why doesn't it have a reason field? I don't understand what makes it so different from CHU that a reason field is omitted. It's basically a regular rename where the new account already exists, so why no reason field? I noticed this when I was moving a request from USURP to CHU. X! who used to be Soxred93 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable question. I'll raise it at WP:BN -- Dweller ( talk) 10:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently mugged a name; might I have my talk page moved to the usurped name as well? ~ Jafet• work• play• watch 12:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved. ~ Jafet• work• play• watch 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a dummy account? I can imagine people willing to register this username for fun to do real contributions with it. -- Prince Kassad ( talk) 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I started getting interested in making an account on Wikipedia a couple of months back, when randomly something popped up on my screen about how I need to stop "making malicious edits" to one thing or another; since I have not done that, I figured this IP-only thing was not working out so well. The problem is that the only handle I ever use on the Internet is already registered here--and, in fact, is banned for being a "sock puppet." Would it be possible to subsume such an account? Or due to the controversial nature of the banning, would it be seen as a somehow dangerous step? Thanks in advance for your help. 70.108.164.252 ( talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Im not quite sure where to go. In about 2006 I have had installed an account did tree (in words: 3) edits and the next time I come in, the password didn't work any longer. Even a reset doesn't work. What to do? By the way: My user name is User:Lantus and I own several accounts around wiki: SUL around wiki. Who can help me? I am glad to get any help in the cause, but please be so kind and answer me here, because I don't get in here other than with an IP! (Excuse me please: reading is much better than writing ;-)) — 93.128.78.118 ( talk) 12:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hullo. I own the target account that I want to usurp (danceswithzerglings). It is new, so I cannot take it via the usual method. Can I still usurp it if I prove ownership of it? Mmartins ( talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should post a new request, supplying proof that you own the target account. For example, make a test edit from the target account to its own user page with an edit summary "I am mmartins and I want to usurp this account" then link to that edit. ~ Jafet• work• play• watch 14:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I have made such an edit on the target account user page ( User:Danceswithzerglings). Mmartins ( talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I put a link to this edit on this page? Mmartins ( talk) 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you own both accounts, use the Usurp request template but place it on the regular request page ( WP:CHU). Just explain the situation in your request, and we'll process it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, it's now been done. Danceswithzerglings ( talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I forgot my password and some link from a guy (Name: Philosepher or something like that, I forgot.) He said I could possibly acess my old account (Not able to get the password because I didn't provide an E-Mail adress.) or at least use the same name if I went here. My username is User:Ace Shadow if that link doesn't work just Ace Shadow. Please see what you can do... :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.6.27 ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have now noted on your userpage, you should be able to usurp the account (although I can't guarantee it). However an usurpation is NOT going to be granted until you are an established editor. You should create an account and start editing. After several weeks or months when you are an established editor, try reuqesting an usurpation according to the process outlined on the page Nil Einne ( talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, given your edit history and continuing vandalism, I would suggest you wait a while before bothering trying to usurp anything Nil Einne ( talk) 08:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I got a usurpation back in November. However, I notice my talk page now says: "Talk: Dasani (usurped)". This does not fit with my user page, which simply reads: "User: Dasani". Is there a way to change this? It's turning out to be somewhat of a hassle, as I cannot "receive" new messages even if others manage to post it. Not to mention, I do not enjoy the red link tab. ★ Dasani★ 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with the way your usurpation was handled. Your old talk page User talk:Lady Galaxy should have been moved to User talk:Dasani however this was not done. Instead you appear to have copied and pasted your user talk page onto the redirect target User talk:Dasani (usurped) but unfortunately this was not the right thing to do (the page actually belongs to the usurped user and in any case copy and paste moves are a bad idea). While it is possible for you to sorta resolve the problem by simply copying and pasting the content onto User talk:Dasani ( [2]) please DO NOT do so. The correct way for this to be handled will probably be for User talk:Lady Galaxy to be moved to User talk:Dasani and for the history of User talk:Dasani (usurped) to be merged back. Unfortunately this requires the attention of an admin which I am not Nil Einne ( talk) 10:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request here Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen Nil Einne ( talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not touch it at all. The moderator did everything... ★ Dasani★ 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We can institute this template so that we'll never have to add or remove date headers ever again. I'll just need to notify to botops. — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found several flaws with the idea, unfortunately. Forget it. — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to usurp an account that has edits, but never contributed any content? Such as accounts that only reverted vandalism, did some formatting or fixed typos? And what about accounts with good faith deleted contributions, that might in theory be restored? Note that I don't want to usurp anyone, I'm just curious about what "GDFL significant" actually means. 86.130.127.245 ( talk) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think - and don't quote me on this - that GDFL significant means "not vandalism or copyright". Could be wrong... we'll see what other, more regular people think.  GARDEN  21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to the best of my knowledge, fixing a type is considered a GFDL-significant contribution. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 19:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know where my request went. I searched the archives and couldnt find it. -- Bws2cool ( talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is stupid how someone who hasnt made an edit in 6 years cant be Usurped. -- Bws2cool ( talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it, either. Must have been accidentally removed somewhere along the line. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is not our fault. All user's contributions are licensed under the general free documentation license (GFDL), so if a user has made significant edits, they cannot be usurped. Although it is technically possible, it will not be done for GFDL and licensing reasons. Please bear that in mind. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not like their account is deleted. It is just moved. I dont get why it cant be done. -- Bws2cool ( talk) 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• FYI some of the other language wikis will still perform usurps on users with GFDL significant edits (no.wiki, for example, see no:Special:Contributions/Xeno (SUL)). Is this because they are in violation of the GFDL, or do they have a more lenient interpretation of it? – xeno ( talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's because for people with SULs we tend to be a little more lenient about it. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, ok, I didn't realize we had some leeway there. Must pay attention to the SUL subpage. – xeno ( talk) 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I used to be User:Erikster, and I usurped the username User:Erik. Today, I noticed that Erikster became a new user account in May 2008 and that it made contributions last year. I was wondering, should I remove redirects for User:Erikster and User talk:Erikster? I'm not clear on if there was a misstep somewhere or this is just old junk to ignore at this point. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that these edits were indeed yours? Occasionally, renames will leave chunks of a contribution history to the old account. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the edits are not mine, and there is no one who could have edited on my account or anything similar to that. What does this mean? It's not much an issue now, but I was thinking that it could be misleading. We don't have to act on it; just was wondering if there was an explanation for this set of contributions. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Has there been a decision about usurpation of dormant accounts for doppelgänger purposes? In my particular case, User:Avi has been dormant for years, and I have redirected the user and talk pages to the corresponding User:Avraham ones. However, for security purposes, I would like to usurp the account and ensure that it cannot be password hacked and then used to impersonate me. I'd rather get a feel here as to whether or not the request would be accepted before actually posing it, especially in that I do not want User:Avraham renamed into User:Avi; rather I would prefer the current User:Avi renamed to User:Avi_usurped and then I would register User:Avi as a doppelgänger account. Any and all opinions would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the dormant account is actually secure, so is your concern really to ensure the rest of the SUL is equally secure? -- Dweller ( talk) 08:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes; and also I do not know how secure the password on the current User:Avi and I am concerned about a password hack attempt. -- Avi ( talk) 15:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any significant opposition or reason for me not to go ahead and usurp the account? -- Avi ( talk) 05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Appears not :-) . Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 04:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Kingturtle ( talk) 06:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this the way? { {subst:en:usurpation requested}} I tried that, but I do not speak (nor read ;) jananese. Can you help me?

My point is like this: ====:en:Oashi → :ja:Oashi====

• Current username: [[User::en:Oashi|:en:Oashi]] ([[User talk::en:Oashi|talk]] · contribs · logs · block log)
• Target username: [[User::ja:Oashi|:ja:Oashi]] ([[User talk::ja:Oashi|talk]] · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Datestamp: 11:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• For bureaucrat use: SUL report ( old • new) | Email target username   ( 1)  ( 2)

Franta Oashi ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And for wikimedia as well. See my SUL: [3]

I have looked for the equivalents of the page Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations, like ja:Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations, but it does not work... I need your help. Thanks. -- Franta Oashi ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, you need to go to each Wikipedia sister project individually and request a change or usurpation there. An en.wiki name change is valid only for the en.wiki. A ja.wiki name change will be valid only in ja.wiki. Go to ja.wiki to make ja.wiki name changes. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, you understood my point, OK. But I also said, that I have already tried to reach the two remaining sister projects, and that I have a problem with rachnig these: The interwiki does not exist for :ja: version, even more, I have no idea, how to get to the proper wikimedia "change username" page, as there is no interwiki possible at all (as far as I understand iw).

So, you sent me to go to the sister projects, OK, I did, but where exactly shall I publish my usurp request?? I need help. -- Franta Oashi ( talk) 12:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

{{ Help}} -- Franta Oashi ( talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The help template should be used on your user talk page. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are instructions in English at ja:Wikipedia:利用者名変更依頼. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, OK, thanks both, for your comments.

...I am not really interested in the JA-WP, but the Commons. Well, but that should be the way, so thanks again. I will check it out. -- Franta Oashi ( talk) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the bot (when I haven't blocked it) is only programmed to archive requests tagged as {{ done}} or {{ not done}} by a bureaucrat, in which case there is therefore no point in others tagging requests as such. WJBscribe (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, could it be re-programmed to recognize all {{ done}} or {{ notdone}} templates, not just those assigned by bureaucrats? It would certainly make it easier for clerks and 'crats alike. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would work, except I've seen users that are requesting name changes use the templates in the past. Perhaps we could add the current clerks to the list of users the bot would recognize? Or, perhaps it would just be easier to leave the {{ done}} {{ not done}} marking to the 'crats. We're just trying to help the 'crats, of course, but having two templates on a request is a tad superfluous. →javért ^breakaway 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, generally I would prefer that requests were rejected by bureaucrats only in the same way as I don't think non admins should decline page protection requests or unblock requests. If you tag a request as " Done by User:WJBscribe" or " Not done as renamed by User:Kingturtle to something else", I believe the bot will archive it as it has the relevant template and a crat's name. In other cases, I would prefer it if clerks didn't rejected requests (though I don't have a big issue with it where the account has been indefblocked). WJBscribe (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as I know there isn't any real agreement as to whether or not clerks should be rejecting requests, aside from EVula's comment here. I like Javert's idea of having a set of designated clerks though. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the position when this board ( WP:CHU/U) was first created - Essjay asked the checkuser clerks (who were appointed by him and other checkusers at that time (see list if interested)) to clerk this page. When Essjay left the project, Rdsmith4 took over the process and did away with appointed clerks. Anyone who wanted to help out could then sign up at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Assistance on the understanding that crats would remove anyone who was more hinderance than help. It looks like most revisions of that page have included the statement: "Non-bureaucrats who comment on these pages do not have the authority to accept or decline requests. This authority lies only with a bureaucrat." Eventually, as the list of clerks was not regularly updated, it was done away with. I have to say that, like Rdsmith4, I am not in favour of appointing clerks for WP:CHU work. The gain (crats not having to tag requests as {{ done}} / {{ not done}}) seems to be outweighed by the negative (extra bureaucracy and creating an exclusive group of users which invites accusations of favouritism/elitism). Personally, I think I'd spend less time tagging requests as {{ not done}} in obvious circumstances than I would supervising and managing a group of appointed clerks. WJBscribe (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU Clerks was the old version of this proposal, but it seems to have changed since then in a haphazard manner. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that I agree with WJBscribe. Realistically, there's no need for an extra layer of bureaucracy, and there's no rush. We have a number of active bureaucrats, and they are the appointed functionaries of the process. Why have appointed clerks when we already have appointed bureaucrats? — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the bot hasn't been working for a month, I've gone ahead and collapsed many of the completed requests until the bot comes back online. MBisanz ^talk 05:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot was blocked. I explained to WJBscribe why it was doing what it was doing, but it appears he has disappeared. It is bad form for me to unblock my own bot, but feel free to do it, as the issue has been resolved, I think. -- Cobi^{( t| c| b)} 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Can someone help with the above usurp? It appears that the original user ( User:WRNstaff) has accidentally requested the usurp the other way 'round (although I can't see a listing in this page or the history).

• WRNstaff ( talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

to

• Repositoryhp ( talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

Cheers, Fribbulus Xax ( talk) 12:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens to the subpages of the old username? Do they get moved to the new username, or do I have to move them myself? ²³¹ ₉₁ Pa ( chat me!) 08:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They are automatically moved when renaming the user (up to 100 pages at least if I recall correctly). You don't need to do it yourself. Regards So Why 08:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. My rename request is not in the usurpation archive. Shouldnt all requests be archived? My account have been successfully renamed on 16 December 2009 by User:Anonymous Dissident. Regards. Rehman^{( +)} 07:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Solved. I found it in the archive. Rehman^{( +)} 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was my usurp request deletd by Weberty Moreira? I did everything I was told to, and my request was never rejected. What did I do wrong? A reason wasn't even given. Uber-Awesomeness  talk  21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but it's been fixed. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone hate me?! ='(

Now my usurp notice was deleted at Talk:Awesomeness!

I don't know what I'm doing wrong... *Sniff* Uber-Awesomeness  talk  12:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? Uber-Awesomeness  talk  22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I need a response before ClueBot cancels my usurp request. I don't want to put it back because I believe it was probably deleted for a reason. I can't see any reasons for why a talk page would be deleted though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber-Awesomeness ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The link you gave us was to the talk page for the article Awesomeness. User talk:Awesomeness still has the notice. — Ledgend Gamer 02:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I'm so stupid... XD Uber-Awesomeness  talk  —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC).