Wikipedia talk:Usurpation/Archive/1

message: I'm active since 2002 as User:Avatar throughout many Wikimedia projects (for more info see my german user page). I'm admin in WP-DE and the commons, but active as user in several more projects. Problem: the only project I'm not registered as 'Avatar' is WP-EN. So (regarding towards the single sign-on coming hopefully soon) I really like my username renamed from 'Avatar-en' to 'Avatar' here in WP-EN. But I can't use the formal procedure at Wikipedia:Changing username because the user Avatar already exists.
If this would be a "normal" user, I would just keep my username Avatar-en and shut up - but it isn't a normal user. The account seems to be more than 2 years old and has no single edit. 
So, not very surprising, I also support this proposal ;-) --Avatar-en 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto! See this and this, the only difference being that somebody deliberately created the account literally hours before I could do it.  Further to this identity theft, the account was blocked, but what now? Alex lbh 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to m:Help:Unified login the accounts would be merged with non-editing matches automatically, and you would get Avatar, if they never edited. I think this plan should wait until unified login occurs, the issues overlap a little too much. - cohesion 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is entirely possible that that other user shares the same name as you. --74.70.46.70 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with anon. My real name is no big secret (and can be found on another wikimedia project -- but not here), but I've met at least 2 other people with my name (except for the middle name), and I've heard about one with the same first, middle, last name. And my name is not that common. If someone gets curious and finds my name, please don't post it here. I don't think that anybody should be required to provide proof to the Wikimedia Foundation of their name: that violates some pretty sacrosanct principles I and others have, but it would be a necessary outcome of your proposal. Your name might be rare, but almost certainly isn't unique in the world. You therefore can't claim sole ownership to it, in my book. --Storkk 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Pedant, did you read the proposed policy? If they aren't using the account, and it is also someone else's name, doesn't seem fair that the active user get the name, when the first person hasn't even so much as made a single edit? --Gwern  (contribs) 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real world example 

message: I'm not going to tell you my name, but I will tell you that my full legal name is being used by another user as his or her username.  I think that it would be appropriate (if I wished to be known by my real name, which I do not) for me to usurp the user who is using my real name.  I'm not voting for or against the policy, just pointing out that maybe a LOT of users have taken other people's real names as their username... would we allow all of them to usurp? Pedant 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely possible that that other user shares the same name as you. --74.70.46.70 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with anon. My real name is no big secret (and can be found on another wikimedia project -- but not here), but I've met at least 2 other people with my name (except for the middle name), and I've heard about one with the same first, middle, last name. And my name is not that common. If someone gets curious and finds my name, please don't post it here. I don't think that anybody should be required to provide proof to the Wikimedia Foundation of their name: that violates some pretty sacrosanct principles I and others have, but it would be a necessary outcome of your proposal. Your name might be rare, but almost certainly isn't unique in the world. You therefore can't claim sole ownership to it, in my book. --Storkk 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Pedant, did you read the proposed policy? If they aren't using the account, and it is also someone else's name, doesn't seem fair that the active user get the name, when the first person hasn't even so much as made a single edit? --Gwern  (contribs) 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one 

message: If this page is ever going to become policy, it's about time we nail down some of the specifics still hanging out there, particularly the time frames. I suggest, from the above discussion and my personal opinion, that we require an account to have made no edits in at least three months since it was created before it is considered for usurption, and that we give the owner of the account two weeks after contact through email and/or talk page before the account is renamed. This would let most current requests qualify in a short enough time (compared to how long they've been waiting at least) while allowing a more than reasonable amount for objection. I don't know how many people are still watching here, but I'll make the change with no objection. --Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather you didn't. You are suggesting a major change- for good reason I wrote the current policy to allow only usurpation of accounts with no edits, since this keeps us on the good side of the GFDL and is more praticable. Your change would quietly modify it to "any account dormant for three months is fair game", which was not the intention at all. --maru   (talk)  contribs 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that wasn't what I meant. I just meant any account with no edits that is at least three months old is fair game. Not a major change. :) Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time specifics 

message: Does this actually exist? I heard about it at one point, but then I thought the devs announced that limit didn't exist. But it isn't listed on Wikipedia:Changing username anymore, anyway. If it is a real limit it should be mentioned there. Sarge Baldy 21:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understood it, it wasn't an actual hard software limit, but a rule-of-thumb limit intended to avoid hammering the servers too hard during the rename. --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20,000 edit limit? 

message: I'm curious as to if we're ready to set some hard numbers and develop a consensus for this process yet. There's no pre-existing method to determine how often a user logs in, so as I see it the best method to determine if the account is vacant is to place a message on the desired user talkpage and (if enabled) send a message to the email address for that user. If there's no response in (n) days, the usurpation can be processed. Thoughts, opinions? ~Kylu (u|t)  03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. —Nightstallion (?) 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the question becomes, what is n? --maru   (talk)  contribs 13:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurpation: Is it time? 

message: It looks like Werdna648 was able to take over the unused Werdna account. Was this a special case or is usurpation permitted now? — GT 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a case of a bureaucrat who does not subscribe to the "no usurptions without policy" pledge doing a namechange; it is occasionally done, but each bureaucrat would have thier own cause for doing so. The bureaucrats who generally handle namechanges (myself being the most active until this week) don't do usurptions because there is no policy for doing it. It's a policy that was inherited from Angela, if I remember correctly, who argued persuasively against doing usurptions. Essjay (Talk) 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok. Thanks for the info Essjay. Now off to find corruptible bureaucrats ... — GT 06:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: More evidence that this needs to become policy - bureaucrats are already doing it. --maru   (talk)  contribs 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already in place? 

message: Hello.
As you may be able to tell, I'm currently operating under a pseudonym (Or two). My four tildes sig says Logical2u, but takes you to User:ArdoMelnikov. Whooooaoa! I'm an impersonator? No. If you check User:Logical2u, it is my alternate account. And the emails are both the same for both of my accounts.
However I used Logical2u to edit a sandbox (once) and my userspace for appropriate tagging concerns (4 times) for a total of 5 edits.
My question is how is taking User:Logical2u, deleting all of its page, and moving its username to something that would be indefinitely blocked anyways (IE: 124583910340954023958032, or something along those lines), and then moving User:ArdoMelnikov's stuff into User:Logical2u's stuff against the GFDL or "Fraught with peril"? It seems pretty simple to me. Heck, indefinitely blocked user's stuff should likely be moved into a naming "bin", like IndefUser1904:WoWSock183 or something like that. Save a bit of userspace?
So questions go here now in a clear format: How and when will this policy be applied? Why is it dangerous to move User:Logical2u, when it is clearly me, to another account? Why is it against GFDL?
Sincerely, Logical2u 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you logged in as Logical2u, and asked all the pages you created to be speedied as per creator request, and you had only editted pages you had created, then the account wouldn't have any edits and presumably could be usurped so far as I know. --maru   (talk)  contribs 13:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not what usurpation is about. Just request a bureaucrat to rename your old account to something, and to rename your new one to Logical2u. You don't need to delete anything or invent schemes, since they are both your accounts, I think no problems will arise. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Perhaps a line needs to be added to the effect that "USURP is WP:NOT a method for switching among accounts you already own." --maru   (talk)  contribs 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did the same thing for me, I used to be Flameviper12 and foolishly created Flameviper. Now I'm a happy datcha. ~ Flameviper 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounts with edits provisions 

message: "Usurpation" apparently means "wrongful seizing". ? Stevage 08:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it can be used in the sense of forcefully seizing something when the someone possessing the something has not explicitly assented; that's the case here. --maru   (talk)  contribs 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Wouldn't it be better to wait for that proposal to be carried out? Most of the usurpable accounts would be gone after the proposed pruning, so there's no need to use a different set of standards to usurp than to delete an account. --Thunderhead 12:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already waited a long time, and my reading of the discussion there is that it is unlikely to be passed anyways. --maru   (talk)  contribs 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will likely be implemented soon, apparently, but this does not prohibit us from getting this done, as well. —Nightstallion (?) 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days]] 

message: This page states, "An account with any edits should not be usurped, as that is possibly against the GFDL and is also fraught with peril." Can this be explained a bit more? I don't quite see the peril, in an instance where an account has a very small number of edits. For example, if there were a User:Bill who made 4 or 5 (non-deleted) edits in 2005, couldn't we just move that account to User:Bill_2005 (or something along those lines) and open the original up for usurpation? Does that conflict with the GFDL?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userpages are covered under the GFDL. However ... even if 0 edits are required, I  think there way be some situations where a given user's edits can be made 0. User pages are a good example of this: if User:Bill's only edits were three or four changes to his own user page two years ago, we might as well delete the userpage, which would leave him with 0 remaining edits, and thus a candidate for usurpation. Likewise if all of his edits were, for instance, reverted as spam or vandalism—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain? 

message: There doesn't seem to be any activity here. Are the 'crats going to do this? If so, why not? -->Radiant< 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno if any are watching. If you really want an answer, bug'em on the mailing lists or on their talk pages. -- Gwern  (contribs) 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also strongly favour this being implemented... —Nightstallion (?) 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope this will not die the same way the "delete unused usernames" proposal did. ::sighs:: —Nightstallion (?) 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that it has. Proponents of this proposal are encouraged to "bug" the 'crats and devs for it. Solliciting the input of further editors doesn't appear to be very useful at the moment. (Radiant) 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How and where? —Nightstallion (?) 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This policy is interesting. It would allow me to get rid of the "0" since User:Canderous has no edits. :) Canderous Ordo 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: I was asked on my talk page if I could help breathe a little life into this policy. I have done so, but would like to make the following points:
*I don't have a view on the adoption of this policy, and never have. If it is adopted, I will perform usurpations, if it is rejected, I will not.
*My intent here has been to remove the ambiguity in the original proposal; much of it was worded as "will do something, maybe this" and "will wait some time, between a couple minutes and a decade." Hopefully having the specifics nailed down a bit more will make it easier to decide on.
*The process end of the policy reflects how we perform username changes now, and how to (in my opinion) best split up the workload while maintaining the accountability we need.
I've asked the individual who brought this up to me to publicize the policy again in all the usual places. With luck, this will spark renewed discussion, and at any rate, a decision will be able to be made. My view, as I explained it when asked, is that the discussion so far has shown support, but not wide suppport; I feel that republicizing the policy gives the community notice and opportunity to comment on it. If there is renewed discussion, great, if not, it can be adopted based on the support already shown without any worry that the community has not been informed. Essjay (Talk) 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactivated 

message: Is there any reason we would need to do this before unified login occurs? If not, it might be better to just wait, so we're not dealing with a lot of overlapping problems. - cohesion 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified login 

message: The proposal says, "Any user who is subjected to usurpation due to no response will be permitted to request a new username, should they return, regardless of number of edits."  I don't get it.  Edits of what?  Obviously the returning user has no edits, or they couldn't have been usurped. Matchups 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Often namechanges are denied if one has too few edits, this clarifies that you get one even if you have none. Though if you have 0 contributions I don't see the point. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my addition, and HighInBC has the impetus right: We frequently say "just register a new account" if someone has only a few edits. My thinking in adding this was that if your username was usurped, it would be tramatic enough to come back and find it had happened; no need to add to that by saying "Oh, and just get a new account." It's a little bite of WP:BITE; we're already taking their username, we should at least give them the option of being renamed on thier return. Essjay (Talk) 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the usurpee 

message: If this proposal gets implemented, new users should probably be notified of it when they create an account.  If users know that if they make no edits, they risk losing their username, wouldn't many just go ahead and make one edit just to "lock" their account and protect their username from usurpation?  So instead of thousands of accounts with no edits, wikipedia has thousands of accounts with one edit.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a good argument NOT to notify new users of the policy.  They will, after all, get a posting on their talk page, an email if they've provided an email address, and 30 days to log in and notice the talk page posting, before their account is usurped.  John Broughton  |  Talk 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible future bump in the road 

message: When I chose my username, the shorter, simpler one I really wanted (used in my sig) was taken by someone that has made zero edits since they registered in March.  I don't necessarily need to change my username again, out of concerns over server load.  But, I would like to take that other name if that person never returns and have the userpage redirect to my actual userpage. --Aude (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the point of this proposal; if it is supported, users will be able to take over usernames that have never been used for editing. Just taking userpages isn't generally allowed, however, as if that user begins editing, it could prove confusing for others. Essjay (Talk) 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forget who it was, but there was a case where User:Person1 was signing their name Person2, while User:Person2 himself signed as something totally different. The account ages were comparable, and the two did not edit similar pages, so there was no imitation involved. They resolved the situation by putting a disambiguation hatnote on User:Person2's userpage stating "User:Person1 signs their name as Person2. Their userpage is at User:Person1." Maybe that would work? --tjstrf talk 08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userpage usurpation

message: integrate this into Wikipedia:Changing Usernames? Why must we create a whole, new policy for this one issue? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 13:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be integrated into Changing usernames, if it is adopted. However, changing usernames is much simpler than stealing someone else's username, so there is need for a bit more process than there is at CHU. Additionally, we can't integrate it until it's been accepted by the community, and there isn't a way to do that without having a page where we can discuss adoption, vis-a-vis, this page. Essjay (Talk) 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't we just...