Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts: WT:USURP WT:CHU/U

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4

{{CUU}} - Parameters:

"contribs", "logs", "new" - default is 'no' unless 'yes' is given
"dcontribs" - no, yes, check; default is 'check'
"notified" - no, yes; default is 'yes'
"mail" - no, yes, sent; default is 'no'
"interwiki" - no, wiki code:language code:User:username default is 'no' unless any value is given

[edit] Block log

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)

[edit] No edits

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)

[edit] User:Antonidas

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)

[edit] User:Kagee

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)

[edit] Process

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-Yuuzhan→ 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-Yuuzhan→ 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-Yuuzhan→ 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-Yuuzhan→ 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{CUU}}

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:

The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
This username has not been checked by an administrator for deleted contributions.
The current owner of the target username has been notified of this usurpation request.
The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
This user has made contributions on another Wikimedia wiki

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. Alexfusco⁵ 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:

The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
This username has not been checked by an administrator for deleted contributions.
The current owner of the target username has been notified of this usurpation request.
The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
This user has made contributions on another Wikimedia wiki

Hope this works Alexfusco⁵ 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 Alexfusco⁵ 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm misunderstanding something

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)

[edit] Clerk request

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, WjBscribe 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)

[edit] Usurping for a puppet

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 Alexfusco⁵ 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do the edits by this user require GFDL attribution?

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. WjBscribe 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Single User Login: thoughts?

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Single User Log-in, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Single user log-in, and Wikipedia talk:SUL/Consultation on renames

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. WjBscribe 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. WjBscribe 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:" WjBscribe 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:

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

[edit] 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. WjBscribe 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)

[edit] Wierd situation

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. WjBscribe 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Interwiki links

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)

[edit] Clerking

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)

[edit] Block logs

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)

[edit] My Request

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. Xenon⁵⁴ 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usurpation of a nickname?

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)

[edit] SUL tool open to everyone

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)

[edit] New section for SUL requests

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? WjBscribe 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. WjBscribe 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)

[edit] Question to Username

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. WjBscribe 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. WjBscribe 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] SUL Question (apologies)

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)

[edit] Question

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)

[edit] Another question

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. WjBscribe 09:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When a usurp is not a usurp?

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)