Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations/Archive 2

message: Just in case no one noticed, there's an ongoing discussions about clerking and its uses on the community's noticeboard. While I don't agree with everything that's being said there, I do wonder whether we need clerking for this page. I'd love to help out here, but as I'm not a clerk, I refrained from doing so so far. Maybe I should just be bold instead, since I don't see anything bad in being helpful.  --Conti|✉ 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes, we noticed.  Regarding general helpfulness, see below.  The people who need help here are the bureaucrats, and the kind of help they need is to not have to do all the grunt work for each request...but they remain responsible for the results of their actions, so I think it is reasonable for them to delegate some tasks to experienced users whom they are familiar with and are in communication with.  Now, if it was up to me, someone who created something as massively useful as  would immediately go to the top of the waiting list ahead of everyone who signed up and then wandered away to do other things.  Maybe that can be addressed down the road once the dust has settled on yesterday's kerfuffle. Thatcher131 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess more than enough people have noticed that thread by now. I never thought that it would provoke such strong reactions tho, and I really hope things calm down again. Anyways, I've added myself to the standby-list now, and gladly help out wherever I can as a non-clerk. --Conti|✉ 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about clerks 

message: I'm not sure about this. For example, there are three requests there now that I could check out and add this template to - indeed I am quite willing to help in this manner. I don't want to be treading on the Clerks' toes though, nor editing somewhere that it would be better that I didn't! Do let me know, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essjay has taken a break until the dust settles down from yesterday's discussion, so consider this a provisional answer.   It is very important that the bureaucrats, who will ultimately push the button and who will have to deal with the consequences of any mistakes, have confidence that the conditions for usurpation have been met.  They could do this themselves, but that would mean many fewer requests could be answered in the same period of time.  They could allow any user to verify requests, but they would have to double-check any reports made by users whom they didn't know well enough to trust without question.  (This is to prevent accidents due to careless or misunderstanding of policy, as well as deliberate misconduct, a possibility that, although hopefully rare, can not be ignored.)  Instead, the bureaucrats have delegated the task of verifying the conditions for usurpation to a few experienced helpers.  This is not to say that other editors can't do the same verification—obviously, most can.  But delegation to the clerks is how the bureaucrats can be confident that they are responsibily executing their function.  So it's not a matter of stepping on Clerks' toes, rather, what is the best way to help the bureaucrats do their job. So the short answer is no, please don't place the UCC template unless you've cleared yourself with the other clerks or the bureaucrats. Thatcher131 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for this clarification. It's pretty much what I thought. Someone in the discussion above mentioned that they had been helping out (on some other page) without the official designation of 'clerk', which made me wonder. Thanks again, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I allowed to place {{tl|CUU}} or not? 

message: Something isn't working out here. I filed my request on 5 February, and it was carried out 21:00 yesterday, 4 February. The message at the top of my section of the page said to expect usurpation no earlier than 8 March. I guess it depends how you count, but by my maths neither of these is thirty days from when the request was made.
I only bring it up because finding that you can't log in four days earlier than you are expecting it can be a bit of a surprise! Cheers, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry about that. I'm just working ahead a bit; I think the month-long waiting period is a tad excessive, and it's all reversible anyhow. Enjoy the new name. — Dan | talk 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, just a few seconds of confusion caused is all. Thanks for putting the work in! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waiting Period 

message: I filed my name usurpation request yesterday. Now, I note that the wait-time is a more manageable 7 days instead of 30 :-) I've re-edited my notice on the userpage to be usurped so they're aware of the shorter lead time. I'm tempted to do this for the rest of the outstanding requests to let those people know that it's no longer 30 days, so there'll be no surprises. Should I do that or should a clerk? - Alison☺ 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. That would be a big help. Thatcher131 00:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok - will do! - Alison☺ 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  .. done! Everthing's up-to-date now and the template has already been hit, so future requests should be okay - Alison☺ 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks terribly for your help -- I'm only just getting used to the working of this process. — Dan | talk 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad to help out. You've been doing a phenomenal amount of work on the whole process to-date. Well done on that! - Alison☺ 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  7-day wait period

message: Several years ago, I evidently created User:Philippe and dabbled in Wikipedia for about a day, then promptly never logged in again and forgot about it.  I did have edits under that username.  Then, a few months ago, I tried to create an account under the same name, and then created this one under my current name.  I have about 2700 edits using this name.  
Today, I decided to see if User:Philippe could be usurp'd, checked out the user page and the user contributions and realized they looked like articles *I* would tend to edit.  So, I tried to log in to that username and lo and behold it worked (I should really change my passwords more often, huh?).  So, I have control over BOTH accounts, and have redirected the user page and the talk page from User:Philippe to User:Philippebeaudette.  
I'd really like to use User:Philippe as my primary account, but don't want to lose the 2700+ edits on this account.  How should I accomplish this?  Philippe Beaudette 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could get a username change from Philippe to an unused name, say Philippe2 (or something equally arbitrary). Then the name Philippe will become free, so you could have Philippebeaudette change username to that. I think! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, just log in to 'Philippe' and verify that you wish it to be usurped by 'Philippebeaudette'; then make a request on the usurpation page, mention the circumstance, and link to the diff in which you verify your ownership of the name. Very easily done. — Dan | talk 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Combining the edits is a whole different ordeal, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Process Question

message: OK, so I've put in my usurpation request for User:Stephen, but only because User:Steve has *ONE* edit made in September 2001.  Is that really enough for me to be locked out of usurping that one?  Here's hoping! --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His edit was not valuable, and was immediately reverted; I don't have any qualms about giving this account away. — Dan | talk 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'll amend my usurpation request --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One edit in 6½ years

message: I joined the clerk group, and it seems that the template only has a "no e-mail" or "has been e-mailed" option. Does that mean that we should e-mail them, or should a b-crat do it? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  19:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past it was done by crats only, maight be worth checking with Dan that this is still the case. In any event, you'll find emails being enabled on accounts with no edits to be exceptionally rare. WjBscribe 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my current understanding of the clerk role is that we just check if they have an email set or not, and leave the rest for the bcrats. At one point there was some discussion about having clerks do it, if it became backlogged, but given that the number of usurpee accounts that have emails set is really, really small... *shrug* – Luna Santin (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only crats are e-mailing, how come the yes option for the template says that a message has been sent, instead of the user has an e-mail address. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  19:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. It says "set" not "sent". I misread it. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't consulted with anyone else, but I don't imagine that the Bureaucrats would have any problems with a clerk e-mailing the target account.  The bottom line is just that we need to be able to be certain that if someone says "e-mail has been sent", that it is indeed true.  Unfortunately, we could not be certain about that with just anyone and everyone who requests a usurpation.  But naturally, if a clerk says that s/he has e-mailed the target account, I'm going to take his or her word for it.  So yes, if you don't mind, feel free to e-mail when necessary and if a Bcrat hasn't done so already.  Although, as it was already said, this is mostly academic, since the vast majority of those target accounts are not going to have e-mail enabled.  Redux 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a standard-form message available that should be sent, as opposed to us writing our own messages? If not, should we create one.... WjBscribe 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Fair enough. If we do want clerks to start emailing, I'd propose two things: (1) put up a form letter, somewhere -- probably base it off , or even just use that as the form letter (2) add a third option to the email parameter on , so our options are yes, no, and sent; I'll do that later if things are headed that way. Then, if we want any guidelines on what to do or say when/if these people actually reply. With the more open clerking system, there'll be a bit of a trust factor, on this, but I'm not aware of any problems yet, and I'm hoping it stays that way. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started something at my sandbox. Feel free to add and change. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  19:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mailing users 

message: Usurp requirements say the user cannot have made an edit, but the notification says go to your talk page to tell the b-crat what you want to be usurped to. Does this mean that there can be edits, but only to the user's talk page. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits that express a willingness to be usurped don't count wherever they are. An account with edits can be usurped if it agrees to this. WjBscribe 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why does this page say the account must have no edits? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most accounts will not comment on their usurpations- so the no edits requirement is important. But if an account agrees its actually two renames, not a usurpation. So for example: Account X was to usurp account Y. Account Y agrees. Account Y is renamed account Z with its consent (doesn't matter how many edits it has for this). Account X is the renamed account Y (as there is no longer an account Y). Usurpation is used as the shorthand for the process, but it is in fact two renames not one. In a traditional situation (account Y never commented on the request) the first rename is involuntary, hence the name. WjBscribe 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thanks. I already knew the 2 rename part, but don't get what you mean by "hence the name" part. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essjay explained the name as alluding to some use of force- i.e. a renaming without consent that would present in most cases. WjBscribe 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Edits Can Be Made Contradiction 

message: I've left a note about this on VoA's talk page, but haven't received a response yet, and feel that this may be an important issue. Could someone please look at this diff and see if something is going wrong with the archiving? --Philosophus T 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely wrong. The bot should only archive requests tagged as  or . It shouldn't have archived the second request. Interestingly its edit summary suggests it thought it was only archiving one request. Also although it claimed it was archiving the request, it actually didn't add it to the archives. Needs to be fixed- and we may need to check if other requests have been lost in this manner. WjBscribe 05:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've manually archived the rejected request and restored the other (though it should of course have been made at WP:CHU, not here). The Bot's archiving of completed requests seems fine- I will check whether it has correctly archived other rejected requests.I suspect that the Bot was confused by the fact that the request used the wrong template and was headed ===Foo=== rather than ====Foo====. WjBscribe 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VoABot archiving issue 

message: While carrying out renames, we do have the option to move the user pages and subpages. However, the system does not allow us to move a user talk page to the usurped one since a message was already posted there. This can be rectified by admins through deletion and then moving. Some help here would be necessary. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving pages 

message: Hello, some months back, another user (User:Randfan) set up the account User:Kyoko as a means to guard against impersonation of me, without asking me first. I've been giving it some thought, and I think I'd like to move my account to there, because I'm getting tired of being called "Tachikoma". I think Randfan created the Kyoko account as a new page, the same way a new article is created, i.e. without making a password first.
I currently have a number of subpages that I would also like transferred to the Kyoko account. I plan on changing the subpages (anti-vandalism scripts, etc.) once they are there. I also plan on recreating the Tachikoma account for redirection towards the Kyoko account. That way, my old talk page messages will point to the new account.
Is usurpation fine in this situation, and also, would I need a new account password? Thanks for your help. --Kyoko 14:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Clerk response) The account seems to meet the requirements of usurpation as it has no edits. If Randfan agrees to the change and posts a message with User:Kyoko agreeing to it, it should be possible for the usurpation to be completed straight away. Otherwise you will need to wait 7 days for the usurpation to take place. A problem will only arise if the owner of User:Kyoko objects (but that seems unlikely in this case). WjBscribe 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the usurpation takes place, do my current account settings (password, skin, browser preferences, etc.) remain the same? --Kyoko 14:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is yes. Password definitely doesn't change, but I'm not completely sure about the others. I certainly have never seen anyone to suggest they do change. The effect of a usurpation from your point of view would be the same as any other rename, so you might want to ask someone who's been renamed "what it was like", so to speak :-). WjBscribe 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone recently usurped, yes, everything stays the same. The b'cat who did it moved my User and User talk pages over and left redirects from the old account. I had a bit of messing about with my sub-pages, but this was mostly due to confusing transclusions. I think I had to move these to sub-pages of my new user account myself, but that's no trouble really. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the input. Perhaps some of this info should be added to the main page. I'll contact Randfan about the name change, and I'll probably end up deleting some of my obsolete subpages prior to the transfer. Thanks again! --Kyoko 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I left the CUU notification on User talk:Kyoko, I removed the redirect to User talk:Tachikoma. Is that OK, or should I restore it? I'm asking because of the clerk note on the project page about incoming links. Thanks. --Kyoko 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirects and incoming links are no problem. Its something clerks check so its worth us having a note to make sure we don't do work someone else has already done. The main reasons for checking the incoming links are: (a) as a hint as to whether deleted edits have been made (not the case here) and (b) to warn if IPs have used the name in the past in e.g. XfDs for impersonation so that the user can change them if they want (again not the case here). But its not an prob at all- just me being a little too thorough. Keep the note on the talkpage and not the redirect. WjBscribe 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my situation: usurpation OK? 

message: According to this, my usurpation request is supposed to be done. But, it doesn't look like it as I can still log in with my current account and cannot with the new one. Am I missing something? --Kimontalk 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I may have missed that out. Done now for certain. Sorry for the trouble. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Kimontalk 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kimon ← Kimonandreou 

message: Can you usurp someone with original user's consent if he has edits or another account belonging to you? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you control the account whose username you want, you don't even need to post a usurpation request, which is a slower process, for security reasons.  If you control both accounts, just have them both post at the regular forum for renames, acknowledging the situation, and we can process the renames necessary (it is always helpful if you would indicate what other username the account that is being usurped would be getting).If you are looking to usurp someone else's account with the owner's express consent, that will usually be fine, and we can even dispense with the regular waiting period (if the owner of the account-to-be-usurped consents, the usurpation will normally be processed immediately).  However, rare as it may be, we will always reserve the right to examine the history of contribution of both accounts, and make sure that there are no problems there; should we find something truly problematic (history of vandalism, etc.), we may deny the request on those grounds.  I hope this answers your questions.  Redux 02:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consent and sock accounts 

message: I've denied some users the right to usurp an account which was created less than six months ago. I think this should be made official. Let me know what everyone thinks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan rejected a request from a user to usurp and account created on Feb 14th and suggested the request be made again in 6 months. So although he expressly wanted to decide it on a case-by-case basis it appears he had at least 6 months in mind as well. For my part I agree that 6 months seems a sensible timeframe- good reason not allow usurpation of such accounts and little benefit in doing it. Users requesting usurpation should be expecting to still be around in 6 months... WjBscribe 07:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up a note on WP:BN =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me.  We should definitely add to policy that the account-to-be-usurped must have been created at least 6 months prior to the posting of the usurpation request.  Redux 14:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a new parameter to , "new", that can be used in such cases. --Conti|✉ 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this only applies to time.  We don't want to get carried away with the restrictions since the process only involve a couple of mouseclicks, and the one month wait time is long enough.  I could site clutter, though.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurpation requests 

message: What is the reason for not allowing the usurpation of an account based on the presence of edits? Is it because of lack of functionality of the Wikipedia software? Gaclbusiness 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is based on limitations posed by our software that can create problems were the rename to be processed.  See this post by Titoxd for a more detailed explanation — he is referring to vandal accounts because that was the specific subject at the time, however the core point is that it would be an account with an editing history.  Redux 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-based Usurpation Denials 

message: Am I correct that an account having an entry in their block log prevents usurpation (either technically or in terms of policy)? WjBscribe 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the target account, then yes: if it's been blocked, either it edited — inappropriately, and this might not show in the record of contributions, since the edits might have been deleted or oversighted —, which prevents usurpation, or it is an inappropriate username, so there's no usurping it for someone else to use.  If it's the requester, like we do with any rename, we need to look into the block and see what happened.  For instance, if it was just a 24-hour block, once, some time back, for a 3RR violation without any significant repercution, then we can probably carry out the rename; if there's anything serious in the history, then we might deny it on those grounds.  Redux 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mean the target account. In this case . The reason for the block is unclear (though it was indef). Although the account requesting usurpation has now requetsed  instead, they would prefer . I have asked the Naconkantari to clarify the block if he can remember the reasons for it. For clarification- if the blocking admin confirms that the block was not in related to edits that are now deleted, would usurpation be possible? WjBscribe 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would definitely need the blocking admin to confirm the circumstances, and also for him, or some other admin, to check the deleted versions and see if this account has edited before and those edits were all deleted — although clearly it would take someone that recalls whatever situation took place, for it would be somewhat difficult for other people to locate deleted versions et al.  I would have pause reassigning a username that has edited inappropriately and had those edits deleted, mainly because the deleted versions are still accessible by administrators, and could even be restored at some point in time.  If the blocking admin can't recall the circumstances, and nobody else can be found that would clarify the situation (preferably with diffs), then we will not usurp the username.  In this case, we would need to be conservative.If Naconkantari were to say that he blocked because he found the username to be in violation of the Username policy, which is what I suspect to be the case, then we will reassess the situation, and if we arrive at the same conclusion, then obviously the usurpation would not be performed.  Redux 01:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have contacted Naconkantari by e-mail. He or she doesn't remember why. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can't usurp.  Naconkantari's reason for the block, plus my review of the user's page history seems to indicate that the account was never active, so it could have had something to do with some other problem, most likely with the Username policy.  Since we can't be sure, we can't usurp.  And matters here are complicated further by this.   Redux 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did the user do that. I'm looking at the HTML. Does that form A or something that looks very very close to A. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case, if there are deleted edits, then we're pretty much screwed. There is no way to currently list deleted edits (maybe there will be, when the Bitfields for rev_deleted work in SVN is synchronized from the repository to the live site, and if Extension:DeletedContributions is enabled), but for now, we can't do it. Also, note that if you rename the user, you do not update the user's deleted contributions - the code that can do that is disabled, and Tim Starling has indicated that it won't be enabled. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, all of this is still true. Blocked editors are a particularly confusing case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usurpation of blocked accounts

message: What should I do with the talk page of my former username, Cduffner?  Should I the discussion to my new talk page?  Thanks.  Christopher 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect it to your new page. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TeckWiz its not that simple, usurpations leave the talkpage at its old address (i.e. Cduffner's talkpage was still at User talk:Cduffner) and it can't be moved to the destination because there is already content there (User talk:Christopher used to have a usrpation notice, then became a redirect). An admin therefore needs to delete the the talkpage of the usurped account (here User talk:Christopher) and then move the old page (User talk:Cduffner) to that page - leaving a redirect. I have done this. WjBscribe 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page