Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations/Archive 1

message: *There should be a place on the  template where the link to the  addition can be added, or the provision that the link must be given should be dropped (otherwise, this link won't be added in a consistent fashion). --ais523 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the diff link requirement can be removed; the message should still be on the talk page, and we have a link to the talk page in the template. Essjay (Talk) 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it probably should, but that's probably better discussed on the subst page, as it will likely be one of those templates that has to be bot subst'd every so often. Essjay (Talk) 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Process tweaks

message: Are there going to be separate archives for this (different from CHU).  says no, but maybe this was just a C&P. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just make it a subsection of the CHU archives?  Redux 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I was thinking Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Archive1 etc. to match Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive1 for fulfilled, and Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Unfulfilled/2007/January to match Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2007/January for unfulfilled. I've been bold and fixed the links on the WP:CHU/U page - obviously, if no usurpations occur in January, which is very likely, /January will be redundant. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention was to add a section to the existing archive page when the policy went live; no need to cause confusion at this stage. Essjay (Talk) 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it was my intent that those would be the first to be filled, if they are still desired. They will, of course, have to follow the policy, but provided they do, they will have first chance on those usernames. Essjay (Talk) 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old request page 

message: 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)
replies: text: The earliest the page could be active is whenever one of us gets around to opening it up, which happens to be now. The earliest a usurpation could actually be performed is 31 days from whenever the first request is made. (Unless someone actually gets the user they want to usurp to agree to it, in which case it could be done immediately.) Essjay (Talk) 12:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will this be active? 

message: ...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 (UTC)
replies: text: I expected that to be an obvious exception; were we to annotate and include every possible variation, we would have to split the policy into a series of pages to keep it under 10,000KB. The point of the log provision is to prevent the usurpation of usernames that have been used for image uploads (and perhaps page moves, though that seems less likley). In practice, those of us who will be performing usurpations are wise enough to know to ignore anyone who tries to ruleslawyer with exceptions of this sort. (Not suggesting that is what you're doing, just pointing out that those who might will be ignored.) Essjay (Talk) 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:POINT and WP:IAR, exploiting loopholes in policies is a bad idea, so I agree that pointing it out shouldn't make a difference. On the other hand, if a loophole is noticed, it may as well be closed up. In this case, it's possible that the bold there are no exceptions to this rule might manage to confuse people who would otherwise be seeking usurpation into thinking that it was impossible unless the account was created before account-creation logging started, and I see no harm in clearing the matter up (it doesn't seem particularly creepy to me). --ais523 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to stick to my guns and say I don't think it's strictly needed, but if you'd like to change it, please feel free. Essjay (Talk) 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actions that are logged prevent usurpation... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I've added a note asking people to add new requests at the bottom of the list for each day.  Normally, when there's a list of due requests, we will go down the list, from the oldest to the newer requests — and especially since requests posted in the same day can be many hours older or newer than other requests, and those expiring sooner will be attended to sooner.  If a Bureaucrat drops by only when a number of requests are already ready to be acted upon, then the Bureaucrat will likely go down the list, using the rule "first come, first served" (that's not an absolute rule though, just a rule of thumb), so it makes sense that new requests should go at the bottom of each list.  I don't believe it is necessary to reorganize the existing list, but as of now, we will shift any misplaced requests to the bottom of the list.  Redux 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: 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:
* 
* 
* 
* The current owner of the target username has an email address set. 
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)
replies: text: Because I've got too much time and wanted to learn a bit about the esoteric template stuff, I've created one template for all this, , with the parameters "contribs" (yes, edits, logs, both, logs&edits; default is no), "message" (no/yes) and "mail" (no/yes). All three parameters can be left out if everything's alright, so that "" (without any parameter) can be used when the username can be usurped, has been notified and has a mail address. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for that Essjay. Have a great holiday time in CA :)Daniel.Bryant 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Conti; forgive my tinkering, but I've updated the template a bit (see documentation at template page). I'm thinking we may be better off transcluding this one, but I can make it mostly subst-friendly if we prefer. Luna Santin 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. I've changed the mail default option to "no email", because that seems to be the case most of the time. --Conti|✉ 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that I've applied it to all the old requests I'd have to answer a. :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to clerks 

message: Is it worth adding a place to link to the message on the talk page of the desired name to the  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)
replies: text: The clerks will indicate, through their symbols, if a user hasn't been notified; as such, this would be moot. Daniel.Bryant 08:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add desired name talk page diff to template? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suppose we could take the opportunity to discuss it now if need be.  Currently, policy disallows those from being carried out.  In my opinion, that is reasonable.  We should not submit the servers to not just one, but two renames (which is what it takes to usurp a username) if the requester hasn't established an identity on Wikipedia yet, and when we have no way of knowing if the user is even going to stick around and contribute continuingly after getting the username.  Redux 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a clerk, I'm entirely neutral regarding that and would treat such a request no differently from any other. As a member of the community, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Redux. There may come a time when somebody needs to decide what exactly an "established" member is, for the purpose of the currently existing policy, but so far it seems to have been pretty clear. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It strikes me as strange that a new user should sign up and file a request for usurpation within ten minutes. I suppose it could be long-term readers that had decided not to sign up until they were able to get their desired usernames, but that seems a bit far-fetched. Otherwise, it must be established contributers wanting a scokpuppet in a specific name. Obviously, I don't want to sound like I'm throwing accusations around or anything - it's not really a problem - I'm just trying to get my head around whats going on in these cases. I guess if these are established contributers wanting socks, they perhaps have more of a basis to request usurpation from. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thinking about it, maybe people that have signed up for an account and promptly forgetting the password wanting their accounts back. I guess it's probably not as clear cut as I'm making out. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm... it's a thought; I'd personally just as soon let it be a seperate note (as we can see on WP:CHU/U, we generally have a seperate signature line where any special notes could easily go). Unless we don't think that'd be obvious enough. Looks like we have one such request, right now, so will give a demo; without any bcrat say-so, I'm currently assuming the decision is in the acting bcrat's hands (clerks making those decisions aren't neutral clerks, after all; pointing it out is no harm, though, I think). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New users requesting usurpation 

message: 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. Grandmasterka 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be fine.  All we might require would be a post made from the doppelganger account here, to confirm the situation.  Currently, we are even forgoing the waiting period if the owner of the account-to-be-usurped consents explicitly.  Well, I guess it doesn't get any better than a user "consenting" to her/himself to "usurp" his/her own account. ;-)  We are, of course, talking about the typical doppelganger: clearly identified as one by the owner, who will have declared, in advance (at the time s/he created the account in the first place) that the account exists as a doppelganger.  Redux 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it has been our policy all along that if you want a given username and the current owner of that username agrees to give it to you, we will perform the change. I don't really consider these usurpations; usurpation has a connotation of force, so a change-by-agreement doesn't really fit. Essjay (Talk) 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurping doppelgangers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diff ← -Slash- 

message: Hi all:
I'd like to ask the non-bureaucrat observers of the page to please refrain from tagging requests with  and . 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  and  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)
replies: text: A question though: Raul654 asked the clerks to tag requests as  or  after he cleared the main WP:CHU page a few days ago, would this be considered a legitimate reason for non-bureaucrats to use the templates? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a bureaucrat specifically requests a clerk to assist them in tagging, then that is fine. My concern is about users doing so on their own authority, which usurps the role of the bureaucrat staff, creates confusion on the page, and encourages other users to do likewise, worsening the problem. Essjay (Talk) 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging requests 

message: 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)
replies: text: My concern is fairly straightforward; username policy presently prohibits "Usernames mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions". Ebola seems to fall within this category. WjBscribe 09:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Allow: As noted at WP:RFCN, the virus is named after the Ebola River, so the disease is not the only possible referent. -- Ben 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've notified AndHab about this discussion but I note that he was only active on Wikipedia from 11 Feb to 13 Feb so may not reply. WjBscribe 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Ebola River is not a country. The country there is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is not a username under discussion here. I note that naming a child or oneself after a river is not unprecedented. -- Ben 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you were confused by my statement; the phrasing was intended to raise discussion of whether the reasons for not allowing country names as usernames would also apply to rivers. Witness "As the name of a river, perhaps less so, but we do prohibit the names of countries." which points out, three words in, that it is, indeed, the name of a river, and goes on to point out a similar prohibition, that of country names. Essjay (Talk) 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no way in which the prohibition on country names could reasonably be extended to rivers, mountains, and other natural features. The reason for that prohibition is that no username should imply its user is speaking officially on behalf of a nation; we prohibit company and trademarked names for much the same reason. There is no reasonable risk that anyone will be thought to be speaking officially on behalf of a river, mountain, or other natural feature. "", "", "", and "" would all be unobjectionable usernames. -- Ben 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly need the reasons elucidated for me; I have been here for a few days and do have some semblance of an idea of what's going on. I simply meant to jog the discussion on the appropriatness of the username. Essjay (Talk) 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please clarify your comment above, "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." A river-name (which was one of "these") isn't inappropriate. Or should "" and "" be usernameblocked too? -- Ben 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, as Essjay said the problem is that it isn't just a river as those are. If it were only a virus and a living rapper we wouldn't need a discussion- it would be invalid. If it it were only a river we wouldn't need a discussion- it would be valid. Its because it is all three that a discussion is needed. WjBscribe 12:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WjB, the problem is that Essjay included the river-name among the invalid ("inappropriate") meanings: he listed all three, and then said, "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." (emphasis added) That declares the river-name meaning inappropriate too -- which is the only thing I'm disagreeing with. -- Ben 12:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also a mixed drink named "Ebola", made with tequila, vodka, dark rum, gin, whiskey, and sweetened pineapple juice. -- Ben 13:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not have an exception to username rules for names that are also cocktails, please. Otherwise we'd have to allow "screaming orgasm", "sex on the beach", "slippery nipple" etc. WjBscribe 13:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an intriguing proposal, WjB, and I must admit I gave it some consideration. At first blush, such names would certainly liven up the edit histories of any articles to which they contributed. Who could resist looking at their diffs, to see what sorts of changes they put in? But then the sad and inevitable realization sank in, that if they were going to stick around as editors, most of their contribs would be like most of anyone else's, prosaic, ordinary, and even humdrum matters of correcting spelling and grammar, requesting or providing factual citations, processing secondary-source information into encyclopedic format, and dealing with the online "office politics". Once-thrilling phrases like "screaming orgasm" and "slippery nipple" would lose their piquancy and charm, and become unremarkable, everyday, hardly noticeable -- like the sight of nudity to lifelong members in a society of perpetual nudists. No. No, that simply wouldn't do. There is a point and a purpose to taboos. We must forbid such things, so that they can retain the thrill of the forbidden. -- Ben 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here from RFCU to give an opinion but ended up being entertained...thanks Ben. You do indeed have a unique way with words.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ... and a font, and a computer game, and some server software, and several different bands (not counting the rapper, and not counting "Ebola Joy"), a bunch of blogger IDs (including "Fweng Ebola").... -- Ben 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's extremely unlikely that anyone using wikipedia has a loved one who has died from Ebola, since the number of recorded deaths is not as significant as those who have died of AIDS. If we're going to follow that line of reason, User:Fire should also be disallowed. --AndHab 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Chris, the problem is that these hemorrhagic-fever filoviruses are named after the places they were encountered or identified. The Ebola virus is named after the river in the region it was discovered. One strain, Ebola Reston, is named after Reston, Virginia, for a similar reason. The related Marburg virus is named after a city in Germany. In each case the place-name came first.  By the standard you propose, no place-name username would be safe, because a new strain or related virus might be identified there tomorrow, any place in the world; and suddenly the place-name will also be a disease-name. -- Ben 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not to mention the human names that have become names of diseases, due to the doctors who identified them (e.g. Alois Alzheimer) or the notable victims (e.g. Lou Gehrig). Is the username  impermissible because of Bright's disease?  Tomorrow a doctor or victim surnamed "Kreider" may become the namesake of a disease; would your own name become impermissible here as a result? -- Ben 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is not a situation that is black and white as describved above.  IF his name was dr. ebola, or john ebola, or ebola river or ebola xever i would no problem with it.  Stated as it is, Ebola is innapropriate per username policy (IMHO). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Odd you should mention it, but there actually is a User:Dr. Ebola, and no-one's usernameblocked him. I guess that "Dr." in front of one's name really does make a difference! Also a User:Ebolarocks, likewise never blocked. Yet both of them, unlike User:Ebola, actually have contrib histories and user pages, leaving footprints on Wikipedia. () -- Ben 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *You've made a compelling case. Should your name be sent to WP:RFCN or straight to WP:AIV? -- Ben 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *But seriously, no. "Banning this person for their username" is not at issue. AndHab has asked to "usurp" the unused-but-registered name "Ebola". If that's disallowed, AndHab won't get that name, and either will remain AndHab or choose a different name (whichever AndHab prefers to do). But no-one's proposed to block or ban AndHab, whose current name is not a problem. -- Ben 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Within the first three-to-five long words there, I got lost, The Behnam. If an interpretation is policy-violating, how can it be reasonable, and why should it take precedence? Could you rephrase that a bit more clearly and concretely? Please? Thanks! -- Ben 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think The Behnam's statement could be written that "a reasonable interpretation that the username violates policy takes precedence ...." — ERcheck (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebola ← AndHab