Wikipedia talk:Usurpation/Archive/1

Votes

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 <time period> 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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

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

• 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)

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

• Support Makes sense to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, seems perfectly reasonable. --tjstrf talk 20:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• That logic is fundamentally flawed. One username is no better than another. Nobody here has presented any arguments justifying why a user would NEED another person's username. And yes, my comment was very pointish. That was the point. --- RockMFR 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I can't see any drawbacks to this. Postdlf 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Seems well thought-out.--Kchase T 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per my reasoning below ([1]) --Ligulem 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a very good idea, there are tons of unused usernames tied up. There seems to be much agreement on this, what will it take for it to actually get implemented? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are people voting when there is still discussion going on? Policies aren't determined by votes, they're determined by consensus (as everyone should know). A vote is only taken once everything has been discussed and only if there is not a clear consensus one way or the other already. Having "Vote" as the first section of the talk page is nonsense. --Tango 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to wait for the release of the unified login mentioned below before this is decided. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely agree. --- RockMFR 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - no reason for names to be tied up if they are not be used. Skyemoor 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks to be well thought-out and useful. Can't see any major problems here, and I suppose the bureaucrats will fix any snags that might appear along the way... Sandstein 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this is as good as it can get in the theoretical stage; I'm sure there are a few issues that will come up once it is in play, but we can't find out what those issues are without moving it into the real world. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - This is obviously a great policy - except that there unused account must have to be unused for some reasonable period of time - two or three months I'd say. As it is, someone could create an account with a view to editing an sprotected article (requiring a wait of several days) - only to find that their account as been usurped before they have a chance to use it. At least a couple of months should have to elapse. But other than that - this is a perfectly reasonable idea. SteveBaker 11:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: - though even an account open for a day can be usurped, there is a 30-day period between notification of requested usurpation and actual takeover of a user account, so someone setting up a new account to edit semi-protected pages would still be able to do that (for better or worse) should this policy is adopted.
• Support. Seems pretty civilized and well thought-out, now that I know it'll be a part of the name change policy. To SteveBaker, this proposal already includes a mandatory one-month waiting period after making all reasonable attempts to contact the usurpee. That gives them fair warning and a chance to establish themselves. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Conditional support, per SteveBaker. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Complete Support per above. With Wikipedia's growing popularity, we're almost certain to have a situation (if it doesn't already exist) where future users are restricted to strings of nonsense characters for usernames. This isn't a matter, as some are hotly maintaining, of a username being usurped. It's a matter of a username that has never been used being claimed. I am completely indifferent to the purported emotional disturbance projected to be suffered by squatters never once before active on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, especially since this will not be implemented. Dar-Ape 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'd personally prefer a simpler policy - no edits within the first 60 (or 90 or whatever) days of opening an account results in automatic deletion - but since that apparently isn't going to happen (for whatever reason), this policy is better than the status quo. John Broughton | Talk 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Real world example

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)

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)

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)

Another one

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)

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

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)

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)

Time specifics

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)

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)

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)

20,000 edit limit?

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)

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)

Usurpation: Is it time?

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)

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

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

Already in place?

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)

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)

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

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

Accounts with edits provisions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Naming

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

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)

Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days

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)

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)

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)

Explain?

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)

---

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)

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)

Hello?

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

• 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)

Reactivated

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)

Deleted edits.

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

I don't know how often it would come up - it's hard to tell how many invisible deleted edits there are around since they are, by their very nature, invisible. If an admin on newpage patrol deletes a nonsense page that a new user creates and forgets to post the usual warnings (easily done) then there will be an account with edits which are very hard to find out anything about. I wouldn't be surprised if that's quite common. --Tango 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also can see this coming up quite frequently. Many vandals create accounts, have their vandalism speedy-deleted and immediately move on to other disposable accounts. Sometimes the deleting admin remembers to slap a note on the vandal's Talk page but often it's not worth the trouble. In the meantime, the vandal has tied up multiple usernames - theoretically forever. While there may be some evidence of the vandal's action somewhere, that evidence may be prohibitively difficult to find. I wouldn't want to put that kind of investigative burden on the bureaucrats. They already have too much to do.
Assuming that you can find the deleted edits, I'm torn. On the one hand, I hate "rewarding" these vandals by letting them keep the username. Those names should be put back into circulation if a good editor wants them. On the other hand, I would not want to see the good editor tarred unfairly if there ever were an investigation that called up the deleted history. Can the process include the reattribution of all the deleted edits to some placeholder account? Rossami (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not overlook the possibility that many deleted edits are not in any way nonsense or vandalism. Anecdotal evidence: After making my first edit, I didn't make my second edit until almost 6 months later. It turns out that that first edit was to add to a list of songs, which later lost an afd for being listcruft. Since I wasn't creating a page (nonsense or otherwise), nor was I vandalizing, there's no evidence of my first edit. So, if I had never come back after making that first edit, would my account be eligible for usurpation? We should definitely decide whether deleted edits "count" under this policy, and not leave it ambiguous. Dave6 07:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Right. If deleted edits of an usurped username are restored (through undeletion), the contributions that were made before the usurpation get credited to the wrong person. That alone makes this proposal a no go. Or at least we would have to additionally require that there are no deleted contributions before usurpation of a username. --Ligulem 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem, what are you basing these assertions on? I haven't heard that before. --Gwern (contribs) 01:30 5 December 2006 (GMT)

I'm basing this on my own original research and reasoning, which you might confirm by thinking about it yourself. Provided you have understood the use case. --Ligulem 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're sounding pretty arrogant there, Ligulem. As it happens, I did think about such a case (long before I began promoting this) and I couldn't find anything in the documentation to indicate that when a user is renamed, only non-deleted edits would be reattributed. --Gwern (contribs) 14:23 5 December 2006 (GMT)

It was not my intention to sound arrogant. I just fail to see how "haven't heard before" addresses the concern I brought up. --Ligulem 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a problem. The current process proposal says the bureaucrat will rename the dormant account to something distinctive and leave a message informing the user of the change.--Kchase T 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? Well folks, I suggest you carefully study your facts before you try to implement something that doesn't work. At least consulting with a MediaWiki developer might be good idea. --Ligulem 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way doesn't it work? Crat renames DormantUser to DormantUser2 and then renames ActiveUser to DormantUser. All edits are reattributed correctly at each stage and everything is fine. Which bit doesn't work? --Tango 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you test a scenario with deleted edits as I wrote it? Last time I checked deleted edits were not reattributed when changing usernames. --Ligulem 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How could we test that? Neither Tango nor myself are bureaucrats, nor (I think) admins. But where did you check and how? I don't know how we can test your scenario if we don't know what you are doing or reading to believe that. --Gwern (contribs) 18:58 5 December 2006 (GMT)

Let's just find a 'crat to test it. If it works, it'll put all doubts to rest. I'll go find a friendly 'crat.--Kchase T 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gwern: You could do a test install of MediaWiki on your computer. Or ask someone to do it. A bureaucrat could test it on this wiki (as Kchase wrote). And I bet you won't find the answer in any documentation, so please don't ask me for a reference. MediaWiki and this install here of MediaWiki isn't that well documented. On another note, please accept my apologies for my snide language above. In some ways I do lack the patience to fiddle with this convoluted process proposal here. Maybe I should have better shut up anyway. As you might have guessed, I'm not a fan of this proposal anyway, which might explain my snappy wording. I just wouldn't want to use this process here just to get a Nifty Name (tm) and risking being connected with the edits of Some Bad Guy (tm). Also bothering the bureaucrats with this truckload of red tape is a waste of resources. I fail to see how this process here helps to make a better encyclopedia. I'm sure everybody can find a name which is not yet taken. So why bother? (that was a rhetoric question). --Ligulem 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• As to whether it is possible to determine whether deleted contributions are available; yes, it is possible. Try SELECT ar_namespace,ar_title FROM archive WHERE ar_user={{user's id}}, and if that returns anything, then the user has deleted edits. (Ask your friendly neighborhood developer to make a Special page that shows that). However, it should not be necessary. Using a local copy of MediaWiki running SVN HEAD (the latest available version from Subversion), when an account is renamed, the edits in the archive table from the renamed user are reattributed properly, even while still deleted. When the edits are undeleted, they point towards the new name of the user, as they should. What is not reattributed properly is the block log, as it stays behind at the old account. The user creation log is reassigned correctly, though. I didn't test the oversight log, but I assume as it is not a part of the MediaWiki core, but rather an extension, that it will not work there. Poke Brion or Avar about it. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal to fix the same problem

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)

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)

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)

Whether it's a good or bad idea, it gathered consensus before, but implementation was rejected. See Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days.--Kchase T 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - discussion continues, two sections below. -- John Broughton | Talk 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unified login

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)

Why not just delete all unused user accounts?

Isn't this a bit silly requiring a 30 day notification + waiting period before taking the username of someone who has never edited, and in all likelihood, never will? Wouldn't a simpler solution to this whole problem be that if someone doesn't edit within 30 days of creating their account, then their account is just deleted? What do we gain from having all these unused accounts, regardless of whether anyone else wants their accounts or not? It would be a lot simpler, and less work for bureaucrats. Stevage 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Usurpation doesn't "delete acounts"; it renames them. The accounts still exist, but their usernames are freed up. The reason behind this is that it's perfectly sensible for someone to register an account, set viewing preferences, and never edit - indeed, we recommend this. The specific username doesn't matter for this, as no-one will see it, so we don't feel too guilty over renaming - but keeping the account in existence does.

Given these kind of accounts, it's a fallacy to assume that the only people "using" an account are those who edit with it - it's possible to use an account regularly and never edit it, just not in any way visible. Deleting all these accounts would just cause a lot of hassle for a lot of people for no real gain - username usurpation is a nice idea, but it's a cosmetic thing, and not worth carrying through if it has detrimental effects. Shimgray | talk | 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, replace "doesn't edit" with "doesn't login" - if someone doesn't login within 30 days, they don't need an account. Or, rename all non-editors - presumably if they aren't editing, it doesn't really matter what their account is called. We could simply suffix these accounts with "_non_editing" or something.

For the few that really want an account with a specific name for some reason, they can edit their user page to say so.

I fear we're going too far to protect the rights of people who actually really don't care. Stevage 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed and essentially gained consensus, but its implementation was rejected. See Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days.--Kchase T 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right: Brion Vibber rejected its implementation, though, and closed the bug. So instead of setting up an automated system that is simple and straightforward, we now have this propoosed, complicated process that takes at least 30 days before the user (maybe) gets a new username, and which requires someone interested in changing his/her username to be aware in the first place of the policy. What happened to trying to avoid instruction creep, which is a meta policy? (This new policy/process is essentially an extension of the existing process for requesting a new username, so it IS creep - labeling it a new policy/process notwithstanding.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I would be keen to know *why* Brion rejected it. Stevage 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I say... it would be nice to see a system that deleted abandoned account (unblocked accounts with no log-ins for the past 90... 180 days?) ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a funny feeling it's about single user login, but I'm just guessing. MER-C 09:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Brion either, but I think this had to do with potential issues caused by gaps in a relational database. Still, it's only a wild guess. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't single user login actually an argument for deleting abandoned accounts: deletion would simplify getting consistent user names across wikispace, yes? And once simple login is implemented, if a similarly name account exists elsewhere, that elsewhere account will "own" its comparable, unused en.wikipedia.org user account anyway, so there is no need for someone to "stake a claim" to a user name by setting up an unused account on English wikipedia. John Broughton | Talk 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Single user login will chomp up unused accounts iff, if I've read the documentation correctly, someone on another wiki has the same username but has edited. See this presentation for more details. The local unused accounts will remain local accounts e.g. example@wp.en or similar. MER-C 03:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Return of the usurpee

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)

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)

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)

Possible future bump in the road

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)

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)

Thoughts

The reason I'm not enthused about usurpation is I'm not enthused about username changing in general. I haven't yet heard a good reason why changing usernames outside of a very few reasons such as privacy or desire to edit under one's real name is worth the time taken up by it and the hit to the servers. But, if we restricted username changes to a few important reasons, then I see no reason not to allow usurpation (and I can't find where there apparently are good arguments against it in the archives somewhere). The recent step on WP:CHU to state that a good reason is needed is a good start, but specifying what the acceptable reasons are would be better I think. For more see [[2]] - Taxman ^Talk 04:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what "hit to the servers"? We're talking about users with no edits here. Stevage 08:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Transferring someone's account to a null account (one that has been created but has never made an edit etc) is work for the servers, particularly if the account doing the usurping has a lot of edits. So only non-frivolous reasons should be reasons for usurption. Proto::► 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have an answer out there on how big of a hit this is; I'm sure I've seen a dev say somewhere that it is a hit on the servers, but has any ever given an opinion on just how much? Another popular "Don't do it because of the server load" argument (I don't remember which one off the top of my head) went on for ages before it was discovered that it really wasn't a problem at all (when Brion said "Oh, don't worry about the server load, we have that well under control.") Perhaps this would be a good time to ask him about the exact nature of the server resources used. Essjay (Talk) 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked Robchurch and he said it was a very substantial hit to the servers. It's thousands of database hits for someone with a lot of edits. The phrase he used was something to the effect of it crushes them (the servers). But I'm really more concerned about the hours it takes out of valuable people's time. I'd much rather focus the resources towards articles, which is the only reason we're really here. Everything else should be minimized. - Taxman ^Talk 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be a problem, if it really were a case of time spent renaming = time that could have been used for articles. However, some of us don't edit articles; we're here to keep the place running so others can edit articles. I suppose, however, that in this line of reasoning, we're simply extraneous, so it all works out in the end. Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of renames and thier effect on the servers, I went directly to the source and asked Brion. His reply was that they aren't that bad, and will be getting much better, because the single-login implementation will involve a lot of them. To quote him (with permission):

[19:53] <brion> rest assured that making renames smooth is a high priority for me

[19:53] <Essjay> Is it safe to say "Brion said it's not that bad, and will be getting much, much better."?

[19:54] <brion> sure

Also, he asked that I make it clear he is not endorsing the policy; he is merely providing an answer to the question of the technical impact of renames. Essjay (Talk) 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposal clearly refers only to users with no edits, so any references to "hits" to the servers are spurious. Stevage 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The hits are when the user with edits is renamed to the now available username. --Tango 13:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about if this is valid

I'd like it if I could have my real name as a doppelganger account (or a valid sock puppet). However, someone once registered User:Mr. Eric Ventress and proceeded to vandalize my userpage with the account (which has long since been blocked). Would usurpation be valid in this case?

Actually, if I can just get User:Eric Ventress without usurping the vandal account, that'd be swell too. I just want my real name under my control.

I'm asking here simply to see if this would even pass as rationale for usurping account. If it is, great, I'll be happy to fill out the necessary stuff so it can go through process. If it isn't... well... shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the User:Eric Ventress name? Is it just that you're told it's too similar to Mr. Eric Ventress when you try and create it? If so, I'm told any admin can create the account for you and give you the password (which you can then change). --Tango 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The exact message I get (I just tried again, this time while still logged in) is "Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name." I'm assuming that nobody else has registered my name, and I sure as hell don't remember doing it, so I'm guessing that the only problem is its similarity to Mr. Vandal.

If any admin can create the account for me, I should just be able to do it myself. :-) Maybe its a 'crat thing, not an admin thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any admin can register it for you and give you the password. Essjay (Talk) 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused as to why I'd need an admin for this, since I've been one for a little over a month now. I'd love to just do it myself, but attempting to register the account nets me the above error. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was too similar it would say "too similar". It seems someone has created the account, in which case you need to wait for a Usurption policy to reach consensus. --Tango 11:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Poop. Thanks just the same. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage usurpation

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)

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)

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)

Can't we just...

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)

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)