Wikipedia talk:Usurpation: Difference between revisions

• I'd support this... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto, with the provision that the b-crat (for verifiability purposes) tries to contact the account to be usurped for at least <period of time (week/month)> before usurping the account. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that myself, which is why I left that part ambiguous. But it's a good idea; I've changed it accordingly. --maru (talk) contribs 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could just be using the account for a watchlist too. Even if you wait a month after trying to contact them, what if they come back and still want their account? It seems to me that this proposal has plenty of problems and very little benefit. Kotepho 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it matter to them what username they have? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you here; how does one use an account for a watchlist and not make any edits? --maru (talk) contribs 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could use it only to watch pages for changes; I think, however, that if it's not important enough for him or her to respond to attempts to contact her or him, then it's his or her problem. If (s)he does respond, we can simply change the user's name whose current name is targeted for usurpation to something else (won't matter to him since he doesn't use it to stay in contact with anyone or participate with editting) and then usurp the target name. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind even if they are using the account for something, from their perspective, the only thing that will change is their account name, so it really isn't all that disastrous, once they realize they have to log-in under the new name. --maru (talk) contribs 15:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do they know they need to login under a new name though? If they don't have an email set and are away for they come back, try to login, and get incorrect password. Also, I could see someone not wanting to change their name even though someone wants to usurp it. What if someone had their name changed as a result of right to vanish and recreated the old account (and never edited) so that no one could impersonate them? There just seem to be a lot of what ifs and things that could go wrong just to oblige someone that wants a particular name. Kotepho 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're grasping at straws. If they use an account (but don't edit even once), and if they don't have email set, and if they login less than once a month, and if they don't check their user talk manually... As for your second objection, that can already happen, can it not, if a user renames their account and someone else takes the now vacant name. Both seem very theoretical and unlikely to me, and there is real and demonstrated demand for usurpation. --maru (talk) contribs 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC people either remake the old account or have it indef blocked most of the time. Yes, people want this, but no one has shown that there is any value in this proposal. Kotepho 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What people want is of value. --maru (talk) contribs 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the proposed policy is a good idea (give users in good standing something of value to them) with little practical risk. Thatcher131 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally support. Many of them are created by mistake. Or when creating them a "can not connect" error has and they are locked up. User:Ems has been unused for over 5 months for sure (because that was when I first tried contacting it). I have made many attempts to contact it (by email and talk page). Its clearly unused yet the bcrats will not give it to me until there is such a policy. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Careful! -- It would seem to me that this must be done very carefully, if at all. A user might login to Wikipedia only once a year, yet that does not reduce their right to a username they have selected, unless you are to propose that all usernames that are dormant for (insert your chosen period of time) are deleted. I can also imagine that someone may create an account (without an email address), and then forget the password -- they may not wish the name to be used, yet be unable to use it themselves. In any case, I would think that the minimum requires would be:

1. No logins for at least 1 year;
2. An attempt to contact on user page and by email (if an email address supplied);
3. Any objection by any user (including anonymous ones) is sufficient that the account is not usurped.

Just my opinion. -- Gnetwerker 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker's opinion makes more logical sense on this matter. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we even get login information? Anyway, a year is a bit long. --maru (talk) contribs 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: A year *is* a bit long. Half a year sound better to me.

Point 2: "Any objection" by "any user"? So if someone says "nah, I don't think so, you weren't nice to me the other day so I don't think you should be allowed to usurp that account"? I think we *definitely* need to qualify the "any objection" part if we want to use Gnetwerker's proposal. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even half a year is still a bit long- and is about six times the max length I proposed. 3 months seems like a reasonable compromise for maximum period. --maru (talk) contribs 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I defend 1 year as the length: I know plent of people who only log in to Wikipedia every 6-9 months, and it establishes that the usurper is a Wikipedia of good character and reasonable length of tenure. As re who can object: I envisioned the usurpee, as an anonymous user, logging in to say (e.g.) "I lost the password but don't want you to take my account". That is pretty isomorphic with "anyone". -- Gnetwerker 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But... if they've lost the password, didn't register an email, and never made an edit- what right do they have to the name? --maru (talk) contribs 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What right do you have to that name? What if they registered the same name across multiple projects? Kotepho 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does that have? I don't demand on every website on the Internet that they reserve "Maru" or "Marudubshinki" just for me, even if I never contribute in any way, shape, or form, and can't even be bothered to add an email. --maru (talk) contribs 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Policy has my support. --InShaneee 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy has my complete support. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support a version of this proposal as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this JonathanEllis 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. If the account is not used (including watchlist use), there is no point in it. This is actually not only useful, but also necessary to prevent intentional mass-registration of usernames. This is done with Internet domains, and is likely to be done here, as our registration process is very simple.

Just as a sidenote, I run a community website myself, and we have a rule that all never used accounts registered older than three months are regularly deleted, and anyone can be renamed to account never used and older than half a month. For the six years we have this rule, there wasn't a single case of original account creator ever requesting the name, and not a single complaint, although we made at least a hundred renames to formerly registered but unused accounts. When cleaning the database, I always see a handful of accounts deliberately created to take control over pen-names existing in related communities, with multiple accounts registered by the same IP. I won't be surprised if the same is already going on here, and, if not, it will almost surely happen someday. Therefore, I see a policy allowing usurpation of unused accouts to be at least wholly appropriate, and probably required. CP/M 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I hope this can become policy sometime soon. Deleuze 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, when is consensus established? Who determines that for policy changes? Deleuze 08:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with the restrictions that the account has not been logged into for one year, and attempts to contact by talkpage and email have not been responded to for one month. – Smyth\^talk 16:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if this proposal is still alive. -ryand 06:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this if it's still active. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I support. Viridae^Talk 20:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Makes sense to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems perfectly reasonable. --tjstrf talk 20:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This sort of idea would never fly on any other registration website. Lack of use/edits/logs does not mean a person does not want their account. And allowing another user to take the account just because they want the name? Jesus christ. No good can come of this. --- RockMFR 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't take their account, just the name. And Wikipedia has a rather special situation given the sheer number of people tying up perfectly good names who have never edited. --tjstrf talk 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My use of "account" means "username" in this case. I see no reason why existing users should be able to usurp an existing username just because they want it. --- RockMFR 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do like Gnetwerker's idea of allowing any user to object any usurption. I would object to absolutely every attempt at usurping a username. --- RockMFR 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we know you don't like the proposal. You've made that very clear. However, the above comment seems to be very close to threatening to make a point. JoshuaZ 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock: That sounds like an excellent way to be blocked for disruption.

The bottom-line justification for this is that accounts exist to aid the encyclopedia. If you have never edited, ever, your username isn't helping the encyclopedia in any way whatsoever. However, giving it to another user might help the encyclopedia by, say, making their userpage more accessible to the average person by bringing their username in line with their nickname. --tjstrf talk 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can't see any drawbacks to this. Postdlf 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. —Nightstallion (?) 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the question becomes, what is n? --maru (talk) contribs 13:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh ok. Thanks for the info Essjay. Now off to find corruptible bureaucrats ... — GT 06:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that this needs to become policy - bureaucrats are already doing it. --maru (talk) contribs 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Usurpation" apparently means "wrongful seizing". ? Stevage 08:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have a related question, is there a distinction between article edits and userspace edits when considering GFDL? I understand the caution when talking about the main article space, but if an abandoned user (more than a year say) never did anything outside of his or her userspace are there any issues there? Rx StrangeLove 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd also strongly favour this being implemented... —Nightstallion (?) 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching; I'd like to wait for single log-in to finally be implemented, and then check its impact before doing this. Warofdreams talk 03:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this will not die the same way the "delete unused usernames" proposal did. ::sighs:: —Nightstallion (?) 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How and where? —Nightstallion (?) 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I have no objection per-se to this proposal, but I also don't see the point. Username preference should not be a big deal, and paving a path for people to make a big deal about it is placing a bit too much emphasis on self-expression, which isn't what the project is about (and is often very harmful to the project). --Improv 21:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Only usernames that have never been used for editing may be usurped. Any edit, to any page on Wikipedia, in any namespace, prevents usurpation. Actions that are logged (including image uploads and page moves) are considered "edits" for the purposes of this policy. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Does this include deleted edits? Conceptually speaking, it feels like it should on principle... Shimgray | talk | 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, question, is there a way to see a list of deleted edits for a user? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no easy way to see a list, but it's somewhat easier to see if there have been any (or, at least, it will be easier once the toolserver's back). It may be possible to produce some admin-only tool to see deleted edits by user. Shimgray | talk | 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - great minds) What happens if an account has made edits, but they've all been deleted? Does that count as having no edits? If so, what happens if someone undeletes one of the edits after the usurping? I would guess MediaWiki will correctly credit the edit to whatever name the "unused" account is moved to, however that account would now have an edit making it ineligible for being usurped. If deleted edits do count, what is the easiest way to check for them? I seem to remember there being a way in the past, but can't find one now. --Tango 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's tool used to do it, IIRC; it then just became a numeric listing of deleted edits, and then vanished when toolserver went west. Shimgray | talk | 21:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, if all of a user's edits have been deleted, there's usually some sort of evidence - messages on a talk page, mention of the user elsewhere, comments on AFD or what have you; give the bureaucrats a little credit here. Also, how often would this come up? --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 3 December 2006 (GMT)

This proposal checks to see if someone has no contributions before the username is usurped. However, if all the user's edits have been deleted we won't have any obvious way of detecting. JoshuaZ 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This concern seems to belong in this section, so I moved it here. Metarhyme 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this has been proposed before, but why not set a time limit that an unactive account can be registered for in the system/server? Let's say that if an account is not used after 30/60 days then it is automatically deleted from the server and the user receives an email (if he provided a valid one) that their account was deleted due to inactivity. The user's requiring a name change then can easily take it since it doesn't exist, anymore. Also as a little side note question, why not force a confirmation email before an account can be activated? It will make it a little more difficult for users to create non-sense accounts. - Tutmosis 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. There are very many reasons to have an account - browsing preferences, say - that don't mean we can read "editing" as "using". Deleting accounts willy-nilly like this would just prove annoying for all concerned... Shimgray | talk | 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much more far reaching proposal; this only affects accounts if someone cares enough to look it up and request and meet the various conditions, but that would affect every account ever, basically. Let's be realistic - if you really want, you can always propose that later. --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 3 December 2006 (GMT)