Jump to content

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Rejected/2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EdBoy ← EdBoy002

[edit]
Note:
But nothing happens unless we ask for consent, right? Otherwise, what's going on on the rest of these pages? ~EdBoy[c] 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point...the user name does have an email set and the rules do state the target username can give consent... -N 06:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm uncomfortable - but if they give consent then so be it. Secretlondon 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the sign thing up five days ago, but after emailing them they never replied. I think you would still consider that as no consent, right? ~EdBoy[c] 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- This usurpation would still appear to be outside policy. -- Cecropia 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazutoko ← Japanese Kazutoko

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
Clerk's note. Japanese Kazutoko (who is ja:User:Kazutoko) has explained on the opposite talk page [1] that he goes by User:Kazutoko on several other WikiMedia projects. He has made a statement on his talk page on the Japanese Wikipedia to verify this [2]. The target username, en:User:Kazutoko has made one edit [3] which claims he is ja:User:Kazutoko, but ja:User:Kazutoko states this is false. That edit was in January 2007. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can know User:Kazutoko isn't ja:User:Kazutoko if we do CheckUser about User:Japanese Kazutoko and Kazutoko in all Wikimedia Projects. Do you think that?--Kazutoko@jawp (Talk@enwp|History) 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your word on the Japanese wiki should be sufficient to know he isn't you, since you control ja:User:Kazutoko. Although a checkuser could check as well if they wanted, I don't see why it would be necessary. There are very few people who have checkuser on multiple projects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't keep checkuser data that far back as far as I know. The account still has edits which means it can't be usurped as per policy - however it is clearly impersonating you. As you only have en-1 I presume you are not going to be contributing here and it is all about the imposter. I am going to block User:Kazutoko for having a misleading username. Secretlondon 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Rename would appear to be against policy, and the bad faith account has been blocked by Secretlondon. -- Cecropia 03:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The edit pattern of the impostor suggests it was done by so-called "Shadow warrior", a known vandal affecting on zhwiki, jawiki and viwiki since the late 2006. There are information on meta about him. I asked blocking of impersonificating or harassing accounts in several times on this wiki, so it is supposed to find other impostors. I recommend CU strongly, if possible, to detect other imposters. --Aphaia 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy ← Magnus animum

[edit]
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 an email address set, and an email has been sent by a clerk or bureaucrat to notify them of this request.
  • This user was previously renamed from User:Steptrip on 18 April 2007 [4]
– WjBscribe 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be such a burden, but now I do not wish to be usurped. My current username is fine and I don't know if I even had a good reason to change it. Sorry everyone! —« ANIMUM » 18:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, withdrawn. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggler ← Smug6

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
– WjBscribe 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- per 'scribe -- Cecropia 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggler inc ← Smug6

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
  • As your account is very new, it is unlikely you will be allowed to usurp any account. I suggest you look for an account that isn't on Special:listusers (ie. one that isn't taken) and make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username if you really want to be renamed.
– WjBscribe 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- per 'scribe -- Cecropia 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyBot ← SkyBot 1

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.

 Not done, withdrawn. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Δ ← Betacommand

[edit]
Note:

 Clerk note: The target account was blocked indefinitely by Pgk for username policy violation [5]. WjBscribe 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, But since that time WP:U has changed, prior to recently non-Latin character in usernames were reason to block. But since SUL is coming that policy has changed and that username is now allowable per policy. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, someone with a unicode shape as a username. That would be unique. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe (but have not rigorously verified) that it is a Greek letter Delta (Δ). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is one meaning of the symbol, In science and math it means the change in or simpler change' Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..I was going to ask, then why doesn't Betacommand just become the greek letter beta, but then I realized it looks exactly the same as the letter B (regular B and greek Β). Anyway, that explains why that symbol was unicode. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actualy the geek beta is β which is close to but not exactly like the B. But I dont like the way that Beta looks I like the delta symbol better. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not renaming a controversial editor to an untypeable username (that some may only see as a square anyway). I can see NO benefit to this change at all and lots of problems. Secretlondon 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- affirm Secretlondon and mark -- Cecropia 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest this. There have been other users who have a controversial past that have been renamed. this username does not violate WP:U so I would like an explanation besides IDONTLIKEIT thanks Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I agree. If the name isn't violating policy, then I'd have to say your own opinions on it aren't really important. It's a basic unicode symbol, right? Wikipedia is practically unreadable if it isn't in UTF encoding, so people shouldn't have problems. Either way, they can still click on the name to see who it's referring to, just as if it were a name in hiragana, which have been allowed --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Betacommand should have his Δ. ♠TomasBat 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a delta, it's a mathematical increment symbol, U+2206. Delta is U+0394. -- Tim Starling 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a valid explanation that isn't IDONTLIKEIT Δ 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked Secretlondon on her talk page? -- Cecropia 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that Secretlondon be excused from this issue because of a personal issues with non-Latin characters and that a second non-biased Bcrat look at this Δ 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a bureaucrat, but I object to the usurpation. Usurpations are reserved for very limited circumstances, particularly in non-controversial cases. This is a controversial case, as you have been sanctioned in a prior request for arbitration. Since this is getting quite long here, and will probably get longer, I suggest moving this thread to a different page, such as WP:AN or WP:BN. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a bureaucrat either, but WP:U still seems to apply, since it asks that "confusing" usernames not be used. Since this symbol would be confusing (in my opinion, especially due to the technology limitations where it'll appear as a square), it should be rejected. It'd be unique and rather cool, but proliferating unreadable usernames would be a Bad Thing(tm) in my opinion. Wyv 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I think the username would be nice to have, I'd have to say it would be "unduly difficult to identify this user by their username". Plus it would render incorrectly in some browsers causing even more confusion. Your current signature (posted a few comments above) is a good example of why it would be confusing to new readers. --Android Mouse 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relucatant oppose. I like you and all, Beta, but there's no good reason to have a username that is impossible to actually type. It's one thing when we're talking about proper names that use extended ASCII, but this is a bit too far. (I think the opposes based on Beta's history are silly; it's not as though it conceals who he was in any real way.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So everyone above is in agreement that WP:UN#Non-Latin_usernames is a load, right? --Laugh! 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that those opposed to Betacommand's request are applying WP:IAR to WP:UN. It's worrisome that, in this instance, the "rule" which is being ignored was already extensively discussed (leading to the consensus, now policy, on non-Latin usernames). If the username "Δ" was otherwise not already taken, any user could register it (or ε, ζ, η, or so on). So, in fact, the hypothetical "Bad Thing™" (as Wyv put it above) isn't hypothetical; it's real. The only reason that Betacommand doesn't already have username Δ is because it was already taken, hence throwing up this extra (pardon the inevitable pun) bureaucratic step, in which several bureaucrats are exercising their right to WP:IAR, and not carrying out an otherwise unobjectionable usurp due to their disagreement with WP:UN.
All of that having been said, WP:UN already considered the impact of non-Latin usernames and the possibility of non-printing characters (those darned little boxes). The prescribed recommendation is to have a Latin doppelganger account mentioned in your signature, which can then redirect to your actual non-Latin userpage. Could Betacommand agreeing to follow said recommendations of WP:UN sway any present bureaucrats to also honor said policies of WP:UN?   user:justen    talk   14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with that, and the char that I want is in the character box that allows you to insert special characters. ∆ 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to A Man In Black) Er, no. The reason I brought up the ArbCom case is that for controversial cases, you have to bring up a really good reason why an account should be renamed or usurped. (Right to vanish, for example, is a good reason, as well as to obfuscate real life details.) WP:ILIKEIT is not good enough. The delta is almost of no concern to me. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betacommand, why not usurp User:Delta (it has no log entries as far as I can see), and then just sign with the delta. It's substantially the same thing. And then this whole issue is moot. To be honest, I'm not crazy about you having a username that I can't type. Further, assuming you want the mathematical symbol rather than the delta, are we then obliged to prevent anyone from registering as a delta as it would be too confusing?Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the symbol to the Greek letter, I made an error when choosing. As for registering User:Delta is not the same as that symbol has special meaning for me. and its not un-typeable if you look at the special character box below its the 20th from the left under the Greek set. ∆ 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to Flyguy's suggestion, this might be heading towards the point of insanity, but...
  1. ...what if he was able to successfully usurp Δ ← Betacommand, and...
  2. ...create, say, Delta (usurper), and successfully usurp Delta ← Delta (usurper), and...
  3. ...his signature could then be something to the effect of:    ∆    (Delta  Talk) 
I know the second usurpation would be a bit unusual, given that the Delta (usurper) account would essentially be an unestablished one, but given that it could be part of a larger plan, maybe that could be another instance of WP:IAR? Anyway, sorry to Betacommand and to everyone else for this ridiculous level of elaboration, but I hope there's some middle ground to be found somewhere here...   user:justen    talk   14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the intent of WP:U is to accommodate users from non-English speaking wikis, who may need unicode symbols to correctly render their names. I don't think the intent of WP:U was to encourage people to change their usernames to obscure symbols that they think are cool. How long before we have User:☀, User:☁, User:☂, User:☃, User:☄, User:★, User:♞۩✈۞? No way. That'd be a mess. Item 1 of WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames is "Confusing usernames." It is confusing to have names that are just random symbols. --JayHenry 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JayHenry. Username changes aren't just for shits and giggles, they're supposed to be useful and understandable. That said, delta is a letter and a mathematical symbol with meaning, unlike say ☃ which looks like some kind of weird cat or something. Andre (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just going to make it hard for people to contact you. I object to the proposed rename. Rlest 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Given the amount of opposes to this proposal, and the fact that several bureaucrats have indicated they do not endorse this rename, this request is rejected. --Deskana (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim ← Tim.bounceback

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
  • Lack of entry in the user creation log just means the account is older than the log
  • There is content at User:Tim and User talk:Tim which seems to result from an IP editor signing as User:Tim. This post: [6] and this page: User talk:Tim/email substitute suggest someone was under the impression that the account is one used by developer Tim Starling - I will drop him a note to make sure that isn't the case.
– WjBscribe 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- no further response >10 days later, so closing -- Cecropia 20:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

caward ← luvbug14385

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username has an email address set, and an email has been sent by a clerk or bureaucrat to notify them of this request.
  • This account has only 5 edits other than this request, usurpation is normally reserved for established users.
– WjBscribe 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Usurpation email sent. Qst Talk 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- User's only un-deleted edit is to this page. Andre (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cat23 ← tomcat23

[edit]
Note:
 Clerk note: This user has only made two edits, and one is related to this page. Usurpation is ususally reserved for established users. I  (said) (did) 07:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Andre (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P ← WODUP

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– WjBscribe 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: and once your done you can join WP:SLG --Chris g 05:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this usurpation request. I had to weigh what I perceived as the benefits of the pretty cool signature possibility ( : P ) and very easily remembered username versus the drawbacks of using computer and human resources on a frivolous usurpation, confusion regarding deleted edits that would still be attributed to the old username, and losing my identity; it can be difficult to remember which renamed user was who. I'm already the most popular WODUP on the internet; what more do I want? This usurpation just isn't for me. Sorry for the trouble. WODUP 06:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A ← Kylohk

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– FPT 11:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Consensus has not yet been reached on whether this username can be usurped as it has an entry in the block log. FPT 11:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Just to confirm that A has no deleted contribs. The blog log entry will not be moved during usurpation. Kylohk, could you confirm that you are willing to usurp this account even though you will inherit it s block log. WjBscribe 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will USURP the account, since I don't think it will make me look bad if I explained it carefully in the future.--Kylohk 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crat who considers this request should note the further discussion on the talkpage, including the possibility of deleted edits prior to September 2006 and the existence of the similarly named User:А. WjBscribe 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have left a message on User talk:Brian Hickey to inform him of the situation. --Chris g 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of User:А is a problem I think, under the similarity username policy. Andre (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SeekTruth247 ← Seektruth247

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.

– Fpt 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: While usurpation is usually reserved for established accounts, the fact that user creation log shows these accounts were created minutes appart is strong evidence that they were created by the same person - as such a bureaucrat may still be willing to perform this usurpation. WjBscribe 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- if the accounts were created by the same person, just use the one with the correct casing. You don't have any contributions of note, so it doesn't really matter. Andre (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemonster2k1 ← Neutralhomer

[edit]
Note:
Hello, I originally edited under the User:Orangemonster2k1 but was forced to abandon it due to an editors annoyance. I moved to my currect username and the "annoyance" editor tracked me down. So, I was wondering, is it possible to get my edit history and information from User:Orangemonster2k1 and have it transfered to my current and active User:Neutralhomer account. If so, I would appericate it. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't possible to merge contribution histories. You can have either (or both) of your accounts renamed, but the crats cannot combine account histories. I believe it is technically possible at the developer level but I'm not aware of any occasion when its been done (the devs are pretty busy as it is). WjBscribe 04:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger :( - NeutralHomer T:C 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. --Deskana (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux ← Noerrorsfound

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– WjBscribe 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Not sure I'm comfortable doing this rename. Had you asked to be renamed to "Microsoft Windows", for example, I would have definitely declined. --Deskana (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if though Linux is open source, if the name "Linux" is trademarked or not. So I checked, and found that the word "Linux" is trademarked. This means the username may not be usurped. Actually, now that I look, all I had to do was go to the Linux article and see the text "In the United States, the name Linux is a trademark registered to Linus Torvalds." I'm not going to decline this request though, because then I would somehow be wrong and Deskana would shun me :). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks R. I was going to post something very similar to this after my original note (we discussed the issue on #wikipedia-en-admins where the same conclusion was reached) but my internet connection went down :(. WjBscribe 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted.[1]

  1. ^ http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&rno=1916230
~ Wikihermit 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Linux is trademarked. Secretlondon 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something might need to be done about these, then: User:Macintosh, User:Mac --Noerrorsfound 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
McIntosh (disambiguation) - the name Macintosh has been around FAR longer than the computer company --Laugh! 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably add something to WP:U if trademarked names aren't allowed. IANAL (though I am the son of one), but it is my understanding that, at least in the United States (where Linux is trademarked), trademark infringement comes into play when selling products that are in a comparable industry or product type to the original trademarked brand -- which is why it's OK to have Dove soap AND Dove chocolate, or Delta the airline AND Delta the bathroom faucet. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to market Linux brand food products, for example, I could... and if that's true, a Linux username falls under that category as well. I also don't think Mr. Torvalds enforced his trademark or licenses it, which might make a case for it being genericized. This is probably too much discussion about one username change, so I'll stop now. Andre (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torvalds does not, I believe, that is the Linux Group or whatever they're called responsibilities. They have in the past told people to stop using the name, I'm 95% sure. And there's a big difference between preexisting terms, like Dove and Delta, and made up terms like Linux. Heck, Microsoft is just a combination of two words, and if you tried to market throw pillows with the name, you'd probably get your $67 million pants sued off your hide quicker than a Buggati Veyron on an autobahn. --Lie! 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently (like April), I'm pretty sure there was a prohibition of "Complex tradmarks" in WP:U. I'll have to check for a link. Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prohibitions on trademarks have come and gone from the policy. I think the last discussion on the subject is the one at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 6#Trademarks 2. WjBscribe 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maby you should change your name to Tux, he's cool! --Chris g 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one but I recall this being a topic of debate on some of the Linux mailing lists around 2000-2001. Larry is a very nice guy and I believe I remember him responding (well, he's obviously very much onboard with the OOS/FOSS movement) and being very cool about it but I think he did ask for attribution. I don't recall what the outcome of the trademark status query was but I know that there's a Tux, Inc. in DC (and no, I don't mean Mr. Tux ;). S up? 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Tux is an acceptable username, as it's a generic term for a tuxedo. Andre (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately  Not done I suppose. Andre (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey ← Monkey-in-waiting

[edit]
  • Comment: Sorry, but this is going to be declined. The user has made at least six edits. We cannot allow them to be changed if they have any. Also, your account is brand new, so we would normally avoid changing it's name anyway. --L-- 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
 Not done Andre (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leela ← LLeela Cejnar

[edit]
Note:
Note. You've only edited this page- renames (and especially usurpations) are usually reserved for accounts who have contributed to the encyclopedia. Please either create a new account or request a rename to a name that is not taken (i.e. does not appear in Special:Listusers) after having made some edits to articles. WjBscribe 11:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alekhya ← Deadlyninja

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
  • Your account is very new and your only edits are to your userpage. Usurpation of existing accounts is reserved for established users. You may wish to consider picking a username that isn't taken (i.e. does not have an entry in Special:Listusers) and making a request at WP:CHU instead.
– WjBscribe 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the target user an usurpation request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deadlyninja (talk • contribs).

 Not done Andre (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R2 ← Rebelguys2

[edit]
Note:

 Bureaucrat note: I don't think this is a good idea. We already have R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Opinions, people? --Deskana (banana) 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deskana. Having two pretty active users with such similar names is likely to cause confusion. Especially as R will no doubt apply for adminship again at some point in the future. WjBscribe 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a (nonusurpation) name change to User:RG2? — Rebelguys2 talk 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, better idea :-). ~ Wikihermit 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, user instead was renamed to RG2 -- Andre (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briarpatch ← Wikibriarpatch

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
Note: Usurpation is usually reserved for established accounts with an edit history because of the resource-intensive nature of the process. While I have no doubt that you will be an excellent wikipedia editor, your only edit so far is to this page. You may wish to try for usurpation later after you've gotten more edits. -U 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per the above. --Deskana (banana) 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skedaddle ← Skidaddle

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
– WjBscribe 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Markadet ← Markadet fr

[edit]
Note:
"He" has made only one edit, and it was me (but I forgot the password). I must take this name because of the m:Help:Unified login... (I have more than 30.000 edits on fr:Wikipedia with the name "Markadet") Markadet fr 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you will win the global Markadet account. Although usurpating now wou will directly merge on the account your en: contributions. Platonides 20:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, no way to prove this claim unless the account has an email set. -- Andre (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunato ← Fortunato.luchesi

[edit]
Note:
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lingesvaran ← Linges1982

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– Anthøny 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Usurpation is usually reserved for more established accounts, and you didn't put the notice on the target username's talk page. -U 00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC
Note. Please note that the notification was left by AGK on August 14 2007. I am therefore moving this request to the section for that date. WjBscribe 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done --Deskana (banana) 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cenafan16 ← Hornetman16

[edit]
Note:
I guess, then, we shall have to wait for a bureaucrat to weigh in on whether or not you can usurp the name, and unblock you so that you can confirm it. Although you could confirm it on the talk page of that account. i said 03:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which I just did at the top..check it!--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now it is just a matter of whether or not the bureaucrats will allow you to usurp an account you, according to your blocklog, abused as a sockpuppet. i said 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly thrilled about the prospect of renaming a user with a fairly extensive block log. What do other people think? --Deskana (banana) 09:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with doing it. VoL†ro/\/Force 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see how the block should affect the renaming of the account to the name requested. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you realise block logs don't move when accounts are renamed, right? WjBscribe 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that is applicable to our view? My reply was merely stating I personally don't see an issue that would cause a problem to rename the user. Sure, it may be undesirable and some people may not agree purely based on the principle, but the user's blockings don't seem terribly bad, and they have a reasonable amount of good-faith edits (from what I can see through a quick skim through). I don't support or oppose the rename (neutral vote), but I don't see a strong reason to state opposal. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: I wouldn't do it. Renaming is for editors in good standing, or to deal with problems. I see no benefit to the project from doing this - and much confusion from doing it. Secretlondon 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Strongly agree with Secretlondon's sentiments. --Deskana (banana) 15:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. Don't rename. ~ Wikihermit 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why? Anthøny ん 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic user. ~ Wikihermit 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of my reasons for the move is to start over basicly with a clean slate.--Hornetman16 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask to have Cenafan16 unblocked to be used as your primary account and put a hatnote that you used to edit as Hornetman16, and just abandon Hornetman16? And if you truly want to start afresh, unencumbered by your past, just register a brand new account and start editing with it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you cannot really start over with a clean slate; there will be a blocklog with the account, possibly both (I dont know for sure which will be on the account after a rename). And you can still be connected to this account, because it will be logged. Like Flyguy said, if you really want a clean slate, create an entirely new account. I also agree with Secretlondon and by extension Deskana. i said 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose renaming - problematic user. If this user decides to use another account, I will be adding a note in the block log linking back to the block log for the Hornetman16 account. Please inform me if any change of username, either via the interface or simply starting to use the Cenafan16 account, occurs. Daniel 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean if he usurps a username, or if he registers a totally new one? If you meant the former, the block log should transfer, I think. As for the second, do we usually add notes to block logs for offenses on other accounts? i said 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No... we don't. WP:BLOCK#Recording_in_the_block_log. Navou banter 14:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: I see no reason why Hornetman16 shouldn't just abandon his account and start editing as Cenafan16, if he wants to have that name. If that happens, rather than a 'crat renaming Cenafan16 to CanafanRenamed (for example) and then renaming Hornetman16 to Cenafan16, then the only differences will be that he loses the Hornetman contributions and he loses the Hornetman block log. If he's worried about the former, he can put something about it on his userpage. If others are worried about the latter, the admin who unblocks Cenafan can put something (preferably not humiliating) in the block log like "Wishes to edit from this account. Has abandoned the account Hornetman16." And Hornetman can be blocked indefinitely with a log entry that says "Own request. Is now editing as Cenafan16." There's absolutely no need to rub it in by putting in Cenafan's block log that he "was blocked several times under another user name". Just saying who he is would suffice. In any case, I think his behaviour has improved, and I suspect that several admins would be keeping an eye on Cenafan, just in case. If Deskana, Alison, and Riana (all of whom have been firm but fair and helpful with Hornetman) agreed to that, I'd see no reason why we couldn't allow it. If not, then I shan't persist. And by the way, Hornetman, if we do allow it, please do not come back in two months' time with another name change request. I suspect that it mightn't go down well. ElinorD (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's had a lot of interaction with User:Hornetman16, I endorse the above summary. This sounds like about the fairest compromise for all concerned. The guy has improved immensely of late and deserves a chance - Alison ☺ 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Elinor's summary (with some trepidation - it seems our 'final chances' are abused quite frequently). I suppose let this be the final, final chance? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If moved I would like to make the user page and talk page a redirect page--Hornetman16 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to register my opposition to placing a note in the new account's block log; blocks on Wikipedia are meant to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not punish a user. Such a note does not assist Wikipedia in any way, and thus there is no need for it. Anthøny ん 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. It's not as if he's sneaking in and nobody knows. If he starts editing under a new name, in accordance with his request here, whether it's done by usurpation or (more likely) by abandoning one account and having the other unblocked, at least five admins who are likely to watchlist his page and to know what he's up to will be aware of his previous identity; some non-admins will know. If he misbehaves (let's assume good faith and believe that he won't!), then it will be discussed at AN/I, and more and more people will know. If he behaves, then most people will forget, but there's no reason why we'd want them to remember in that case. He's really not going to "get away" with bad behaviour just because he has changed name. Besides, he was only blocked three times, and his behaviour was improving. Whoever unblocks Cenafan16 can just give as a reason in the logs that he has abandoned Hornetman16. That will suffice. ElinorD (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is his behaviour improving? This, this, and this (especially this), all in the last couple of days, show no sign of improvement. Because this use is likely to be blocked again unless he stops edit-warring, and as previous blocks are taken into account (per the Arbitration Committee: "...block logs can often give an insight into previous disruption by a user"), I would hope that it made clear that any further blocks take into account previous disruption. Furthermore, the concept of adding a note into the block log of problematic users with recent, upheld blocks was one employed by the bureaucrats themselves; a quick search revealed a number of exmaples like this and this, used when block logs didn't transfer. I would be careful criticising the bureaucrats' methods, given you come here to this page to ask for their assistance in the tools they've been entrusted with. Daniel 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So leaving a note is technically a violation of the policy? There are sensible exceptions to be had, here. They're not making notes in the block log so much as saying "The block log is really here". It's not like by putting those notes in, we're making some sort of note like "This guy sucks". It's basically a redirect. I don't see a problem with it. But I'd prefer if block logs just transferred. --Deskana (banana) 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Daniel, those diffs simply indicate that it's a user that a couple of admins should keep an eye on, not that it's some terrible, vile, evil editor whose past history must be known to every administrator on Wikipedia in order to prevent some terrible, terrible damage that he might do. If he changes to Cenafan, I'll know who he is, you'll know, Deskana, Alison, and Riana will know. I'm quite sure we'll all be watchlisting his page, we'll know if he gets into trouble, we'll know of his previous history, and we won't hesitate to block him if it turns out to be necessary.
As for criticizing the bureaucrats, I don't know them all, but my experience tells me that Deskana and Andrevan would welcome civil and respectful disagreement. Besides, I'm not here to ask their assistance. My suggestion is just that Cenafan16 should be unblocked and Hornetman16 should be blocked, to allow him to transfer to the account that was once his sockpuppet. I can do that myself; I don't need the 'crats to use their special tools. And in the examples that you cite, the accounts weren't already blocked, needing to be unblocked, so my idea of making use of the unblocking (rather than a blocking) to record, in a non-humiliating way, that a user has abandoned his previous account (with name) and wishes to use this account instead, would not have been an option. My suggestion would mean that the block log would have a wikilink to his Hornetman16 username (NOT a link to his Hornetman block log), which would allow any concerned admin to navigate easily to his block log, but which would not rub his nose in it.) If we have the option of giving someone a little more rather than a little less dignity, without placing the Project at unnecessary risk, I think we should certainly take it. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the annoying situation that will occur when someone clicks on the userpage link in the new block log, and will end up back at the new userpage, I'd be happier if the block log included a link to Special:Contributions/Hornetman16 as well (to which the block log is one click away, and far easier to access). I'd be fine with that. That being said, I'd still like some clarification about how people believe Hornetman16's behaviour has "dramatically improved". Daniel 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was much worse before, don't you think? But if he wants to try to turn over a new leaf, it doesn't really serve much purpose to start discussing his past sins! I'd have no problem with a link to Special:Contributions/Hornetman16. Actually, as you've pointed out that the redirect would point to Cenefan16, I'd say it would be best to use a pipelink to make Special:Contributions/Hornetman16 link to Hornetman16, like this [[Special:Contributions/Hornetman16|Hornetman16]] and not link to his old user page at all - like in a rollback edit summary. I think we can do that as soon as Hornetman16 confirms that it's what he'd really like. ElinorD (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
("undenting") I wouldn't do it. Renaming is for editors in good standing, or to deal with problems. I see no benefit to the project from doing this - and much confusion from doing it. Secretlondon 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I think this sums it up clearly. All of the discuss above is further proof of the confusion and problems it would cause. I'm opposed to a rename. ~ Wikihermit 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change but I don't want to lose my sub pages...solutions?--Hornetman16 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're renamed, they move with you. ~ Wikihermit 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if the name change is the unblocking of the Cenafan16 account, which seems to be the easiest way, I don't see why you (or an admin if they're move protected) can't just move the user subpages from User:Hornetman16 subspace to User:Cenafan16 subspace. As Elinor noted, at this point this doesn't seem to require usurpation. And to everyone else, the block log for Cenafan16 already hints at abusing multiple accounts. Clicking on "What links here" from User:Cenafan16 reveals the relevant RFCU subpage. It's not like his past will have disappeared. It takes a couple of clicks, that's all. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done. Clearly no improvement in behaviour, see this. --Deskana (banana) 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: User:Hornetman16 has now been indefinitely blocked for abusive sock-puppetry - Alison ☺ 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micah ← Micah2

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– WjBscribe 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you account is very new and that you have only made 4 edits to the project - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a few months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is new, but I am not that new to Wikipedia. I have made a number of contributions in the past anonymously as I didn't see the need to have a username since I just wanted to improve things but had no desire to take credit for them. Now that I've realized some of the benefits of having a username (specifically so I can be notified of changes to pages I am interested in, and engage more actively in discussions on talk pages), I've decided to settle down in an account. I actually have had a number of accounts in the past, but deactivated them due to this reason. I'm now intending to maintain this account's status and continue edits as this user, rather than anonymously. --Micah2 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any accounts/ips you have edited as? --Chris  G  09:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be by email for privacy reasons? What do the Clerks and Bureaucrats think? -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Micah2 can email me or any other Clerks/Bureaucrats who have an email set. --Chris  G  01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no, I cannot do this. As I said above, my edits have been anonymous so there are no accounts I can list, and I do not keep track of the dynamic IP addresses that I'm assigned by the various ISPs that I've used over time (does anyone do this?). Additionally, I didn't mention this above, but one of the reasons I haven't edited as anything but anonymous was because the username that I typically use was not available and creating an account with something arbitrary tacked on the end that wasn't very inspiring or memorable wasn't very motivating (case in point, this username). --Micah2 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: If you edit for a month or two under this name there will be no problem with renaming you. Secretlondon 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done come back after you've edited a bit. Secretlondon 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

justsomeguy ← somefrigginguy

[edit]

Somefrigginguy 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. Like said before, it was suggested that he change his name, so his lack of edits should hopefully not be a problem. 09:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Somefrigginguy is not established yet, so usurpation can't take place. –sebi 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, this is the case. However, there was a RFCUN about his username, where it was requested that he change his name. In light of this, I think it might be a bureaucrat's discretion to waive this. i said 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: He was requested to change his name, which obviously we will do. The issue is the usurption, we expect you to be an established editor to take over a previously registered username. Secretlondon 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you refusing this request, and we should direct him to CHU? i said 06:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am unless anyone else wants to do it. Secretlondon 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Secretlondon. --Deskana (apples) 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikicat ← wikicat (temp-2k7)

[edit]

Humbly requesting waivers as follows:

  1. "...account must have no edits or log entries"
    * The user signed up, immediately made one short comment on a talk-page (4 edits in 2 minutes), and has done nothing since, in 2 years (-15 days).
  2. "...do not request usurpation if your user account is less than several months old"
    * All contributions HERE have been anonymous, pending the long-awaited release of this inactive username. However, contributions to several other Wiki are as a registered user, (and to a few other wikilets as anonymous). Details emailed to Admin on request. Also applicable: "Harmonising with usernames on other projects".
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.

 Clerk note:He has made several contributions. I am sorry, but this part of the policy is quite firm. I'm not sure this can be "waived". -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:This may be allowed, since the only edits are to a talk page, and not article space, however, your account's only edits have been to this request. If a crat is willing to do it, they will tell you to make some edits first. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done come back in a couple of months. Secretlondon 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigrao ← Mariosperry

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– WjBscribe 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you account is very new and that you have only made 4 edits to the project - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. Given the problems with your current name, you may instead want to chose a username that isn't already taken (i.e. does not appear on this list) and request a rename at WP:CHU. WjBscribe 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also you did not leave the Usurpation message on Tigrao's talk page(which I have now done for you). --Chris  G  09:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: I think your account is far too new for a usurption as you've only made 4 edits. You will have to change your name as you are either writing about yourself or are a fan, in either case you need to choose a neutral name. Please come up with one that hasn't been taken and we'll rename you. Secretlondon 08:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Secretlondon 08:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bgt ← Bgtbgt

[edit]

bgt is my common nickname in internet. If you do a Google search on bgt, you will find my personal home page (Tomi "bgt" Mäntylä) come up on the first page. (On the web page, after the disclaimer page, you can find my e-mail address on the bottom right corner, should you need confirmation.)

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
I note that your account is very new and that you have only made 5 edits to the project - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a few months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 07:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few edits before, but only registered now as I noted that creating a new page requires registration. If it's of any importance here, I have significantly longer history in WikiWikiWeb, which (I'm in understanding) is the first wiki system of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgtbgt (talk • contribs) 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWikiWeb is not a part of the wikimedia foundation, so the rationale of the SUL doesn't apply here. ~ Wikihermit 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speak in acronyms. No new user (and many established editors) will know what SUL is. Secretlondon 08:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: You are too new. You need to edit for a few months under this name and then request usurption. Secretlondon 08:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Secretlondon 08:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bekah ← -.-BekahB-.-

[edit]
Note:
Your account is very new and that all your edits to the project are in connection with this request and the WikiPeace page - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a few months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Sorry you are too new. Edit for a couple of months with this name and then come back. Secretlondon 08:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Secretlondon 08:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johan ← Quadratus

[edit]
Note:
 Not done Name not available. Secretlondon 01:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name_To_Usurp ← Current_Name

[edit]

 Clerk note: malformed. Please re-read the instructions. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It looks like they want to go from User:RV@RoseannaVitro.com to User:Jazzflamer1@Yahoo.com. They were recommended to change their username as it contained a email address. They only have one edit (which looks like self promotion) and their suggested new username is also an email address. That name doesn't need usurping and they don't qualify for usurption anyway. Secretlondon 11:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaBot ← HermesBot

[edit]

Comment. I think there are problems with this request. The account was clearly created by the owner of fr:User:AlphaBot [7]. I think notification of the request needs to be given to fr:Utilisateur:Korg, who seems to be on a Wikibreak but has an email set. AlphaBot has 8417 edits on fr.wiki. Given that SUL is now not far round the corner, I think we should take into account the fact that the fr.wiki account is the dominant one across all Wikis and would gain rights to the username on this project. Our crats would then have to rename Wikihermit's Bot again. WjBscribe 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Bureaucrat note: The French bot hasn't actually edited since October 2006, the en account last edited on 18 March, 2007 which was just to its userpage. It has no non userpage edits, and doesn't seem to be a current bot on fr. If think we say 6 months after creation in the guidelines then the earliest this could be usurped is 18 September. Secretlondon 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is if we ignore SUL. Secretlondon 19:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJBscribe: I'm afraid the current AlphaBot would have to be renamed, HermesBot has more edits.
If this is too much of a problem, it doesn't need to be done. ~ Wikihermit 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah screw it. I'll withdraw because I'll have to update every account and scripts for the bot. ~ Wikihermit 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Withdrawn. ~ Wikihermit 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta ← Backsigns

[edit]
Note:
I note that your account is very new - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a few months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Your account was created on 25 August, 2007. It's far too soon for a usurption, sorry. Come back in a few months. Secretlondon 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neo ← neo.

[edit]

I checked all logs. The username 'neo' does not exist. Few months ago, I had seen this username 'neo' in log and it was dormant at that time. Please rename my username to 'neo' because if someone take it, it will create confusion. neo 13:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.

I do agree that I have relatively few contributions. My official responsibilities, use of cell phone to access internet put restrictions on me. Also it was my mistake to use two usernames to post. Otherwise you had seen more contributions on my username. But I am looking forward to stay on wikipedia for long long time and surely contribute lot.

I have placed 'usurpation request' on talk page of user 'Neo'.

I hope you will assume good faith in me and approve my request.

neo 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As I'm sure you appreciate neo is a well sought after name. You don't have much of an edit history (less than 100), most of your edits are to your userpage or to your User:AbhiJeet account's userpage. Very few of your contributions in the article space seem to have been useful as well. Usurption is reserved for users who will put the name to good use, as you have a name that is *almost* what you want I'd stick to that. Secretlondon 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra ← Cobra711

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
I note that your account is very new - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a few months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You are far too new for a usurption - sorry. Come back in a couple of months once you've demonstrated you'll stick around.. Secretlondon 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas ← Moro

[edit]
Note:
 Not done. You have not spent enough time on Wikipedia for us to consider usurpation. Please reapply again in a few months if you still want a new username. --Deskana (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ← Jbeach56

[edit]
Note:

 Clerk note: The account requesting usurpation has been here only ~8 days, and made 29 edits. Usurpation is generally reserved for more established editors. — i said 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not an established editor - far too new. Secretlondon 03:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaz ← Zaz-en

[edit]

Dearest Wikiwizard: Long ago, I wished most intensely to join in this most auspicious endeavor. Nearly as much, I wished to contribute under the "handle" that I had created for my cyberspace endeavors back in the BBS days over eleven years ago: zaz. The great Wikilogin god would not allow this and I could not discover through much searching why this was so. I created user:Zaz on Wikinews with no trouble, and settled for the expansion Zaz-en, tested with a minor edit (which trended the article nicely, I might say) and later attempted to engage an Administrator to help change to the preferred username, but was unclear and subsequently became too occupied in my offline existence to press further. Since then, I have only had the time to occasionally "dot i's and cross t's" without logging in. But I so want to build both the Wikipedia and a reputation that matches the nature of my character which I can attatch to the concise username of Zaz, an appellation I have grown very fond of. I beleive there may be a difficulty as the user who was somehow successful at obtaining the account under "ZAZ" is not entirely free of edits and seems to have been impugned in some fashion. Perhaps I could be switched to Zaz (with only the first z uppercase,) which would be my preference anyway, as it would match my Wikinews account and be closer to my favorite all-lowercase name. Again, it seems trivial but for me it has been as The Matrix's Morpheus described: a splinter in the back of my mind. One more thing that wasn't entirely clear in Changing username/Usurpations: if this change comes to pass, do I simply log in with the changed name and my current password?

  • Comment. You can't have ZAZ (talk · contribs) as that account has made edits to the encyclopedia. Zaz (talk · contribs) exists but has no edits so could be usurped. However, to make sure that popular usernames are put to good use, usurpation is generally reserved for established users (roughly speaking, its expected someone will have been around for a couple of months and have made a couple of hundered edits) Some exception is made where users are seeking to harmonise with other accounts with the same name on other projects. Do you want to request Zaz? If the request is rejected because your are too new, you can always ask again when your account here is more established. And yes, you would log in with the same password but the new username. WjBscribe 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you!. It's ironic that in my ignorance of the finer points, I have refrained from serious editing while logged in, not wanting to put too much weight on a username that I was hoping to change. If you'll note, I entered the Zaz-en account in March 2006, but have not logged on to it in all that time. To be honest, I've been very busy and have only been able to contribute minor spelling and grammar corrections found while not logged on at my workplace. In any case, yes, I want to request the username Zaz, and withdraw the request for ZAZ. I left the obligatory notice on the Zaz talkpage, but there's no info on withdrawing the old request, shall I just edit this request, replacing ZAZ with Zaz? - Zaz-en 00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– WjBscribe 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I'm not willing to do this with such a substantial lack of contributions. Please consider contributing more and reapplying in the future. --Deskana (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K ← Onnaghar

[edit]
Note:
Does that mean I'll be unable to have the desired name? If so, what could I do? Onnaghar talk.review 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd say that, considering it was one edit made 5 years back, you still have a chance of being accepted. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using improper language, Cool. :] Onnaghar talk.review 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Good luck. In the past, some of these types of cases have been accepted, so it is down to the crat's decision. If no, then you can just pick another name and submit it here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. I've now decided on a new username idea. Thanks for all the help anyway. Remove this section when appropriate. Regards, Onnaghar Editor Review 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - withdrawn. WjBscribe 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky God ← Angel David

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. i said 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done User has only edited their userspace - not actually a contributor to the encyclopedia. Secretlondon 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marfan ← adhalpern

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
I note that your account is very new (all your edits are in relation to this process) - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in several months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Far too new, sorry. You need to be an established editor to be able to usurp a username. Come back in a few months. Secretlondon 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer ← Rune Boomer

[edit]

On Uncyclopedia my username is Boomer, and I would like my name here to match. I have posted the usurpation warning on the current user's talk page and the only contribution is vandalism to John Hancock.

Note
  • As this account has made 1 edit, it does not meet the standard requirements for usurpation. Given that edits was vandalism and was reverted, there are no GFDL or other issues with this request. A bureaucrat may therefore be willing to perform the request as a matter of discretion.
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia that are now deleted. Usernames with deleted edits only can usually be usurped.
  • The current owner of the username has been notified of this usurpation request.
  • The current owner of this username does not have an email address specified.
I note that your account is very new (you have been editing about 2 weeks and have fewer than 50 edits) - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a couple of months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Usurption is reserved for established editors and you have been editing here for less than a month. Please come back in a couple of months. Secretlondon 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha ← IamMcLovin

[edit]

The user in question hasn't been active for more than three years, and it was only 13 edits within a period of less than two hours on April 6, 2004. IamMcLovin 05:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • Comment. I just researched the user Buddha's edits during the two hour period on April 6, 2004 and 10 out of the 13 edits he/she made were immediately reverted. The remaining 3 edits were on his user and talk page experimenting. IamMcLovin 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Unless you can prove you are a Buddha it's a breach of the username policy. Secretlondon 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, actually the name of a religious figure IS NOT a "breach" of a username policy. To quote it, "Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.)" My intentions are none of these. I'm simply professing my "religion", not forcing it upon anyone else and it is not disrespectful in ANY way, distasteful or provocative. Please reconsider. Kevin 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: You are claiming your edits are those of an enlightened being? It's very arrogant and I don't believe a genuine Buddhist would wish to claim their works were those of a Buddha. Your picking up of my breach typo isn't exactly compassionate, and your current username seems childish and to have attachment issues. Also on your userpage you claim to be an apatheistSecretlondon 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew anything about Buddhism, you would know that it is a largely atheistic religion. ::I'm not referring to myself as one, silly. It's simply my religion...It is what I follow and I simply think that is the best name for me, as it illustrates what I believe and the fact that I choose it as my username doesn't mean that I am being arrogant. I'm not saying that all of my edits are those of an enlightened being, quite the contrary. As I said before it is a simple expression of "faith", nothing more. I'm not shoving it down anyones throat. None of it is against the username policy. Kevin 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully the username policy is up to us to interpret, and not you! I am rejecting it as I see your username as offensive. There are other bureaucrats and they may see the policy differently. Secretlondon 04:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well thats too bad, I didn't know that policies were made to be broken. How about the dozens of other user names that are actually proclaiming themselves to be a prophet, god or a messiah? Are you offended by those? Apparently usernames like "Allmighty God" and "MessiahAndrw" aren't offensive to you, while my simple expression of "faith" is offensive. I don't know how to take it, to think it is discriminating against my beliefs, because you seem to think the name of the founder of a philosophy thousands of year old is offensive, when Allmighty God and Messiah Andrw seem to get a nice welcome and a pat on the back? Would you reject someone for wanting a username like "Vishnu" or "Shiva"? Because there ARE usernames out there. Do they offend you then, or is it because I simply asked for a username that professes my "faith" and you seem to think thats offensive? Got any ideas for something that wouldn't offend YOU? Figures, and I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased! Kevin 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, please assume good faith and be civil; you haven't been singled out. The username you chose isn't appropriate, and neither was Allmighty God, who was blocked on sight. User:Messiah Andrw doesn't exist, so that's not a good example either. WODUP 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry its no spaces, its User:MessiahAndrw. I just thought the username policy mattered when it came to things like that, guess not. Kevin 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just blocked it for a breach of the username policy. It's not edited since 29 March, 2007, and has only edited 4 times. I guess we missed it. Secretlondon 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you find any more please report them to Usernames for administrator attention and I'll block them. Secretlondon 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buddha actually has a warning on their talk page dating from 2004 that their username was inappropriate. Secretlondon 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph ← IamMcLovin

[edit]

User made one edit, a spelling correction, on October 26, 2003. It can be viewed here.

 Not done. User has contributed to the encyclopedia. Users with edits to mainspace cannot be usurped. --Deskana (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query Why Not? It was four years ago and was just spelling correction, which wouldn't cause any GDFL issues. Kevin 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts with edits cannot be usurped, even though it's just one edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very flawed, but i guess i'll look for another one. Kevin 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So even an accountw with one mainspace edit that wikifies one word means that it cannot be usurpsed, either? Trying to decide who to usurp here... hbdragon88 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niss carol ← NEcents

[edit]

typo on miss so...

Um do you want to change your user name to NEcents? --Chris  G  11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: As well as what Chris G pointed out above, this is also your first edit, usurpation is generally reserved for established editors, in order to make sure popular usernames go to good use. However, this decision will be performed at the discretion of a bureaucrat, however it is unlikely, you will be renamed. Qst 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, NEcents is not an exisiting account; thus there is nothing to usurp. If Niss carol wishes to be renamed to NEcents, we can move her request to CHU. i (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Well it's the wrong way round as Niss carol is the current account and they wish to be renamed to NEcents. However this is their only edit so they can just make the new account. Secretlondon 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Only has 1 edit, just make the new account. Secretlondon 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandman ← Tyler Warren

[edit]

Pyracantha ← Rodhullandemu

[edit]
 Not done...
  1. Your account is too new. You must have been editing for a few months to have the priviledge of an usurpation performed for you. If you do not wish to wait, please consider picking another name that is not currently registered.
  2. The target username has edits. Usernames with any edits to mainspace cannot be usurped
--Deskana (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IceBot ← This is a dummy username, need to get it changed

[edit]
I am intending to make a bot account with this username after I submit my request and get it approved. The account user:IceBot fits the requirments for usurpation. This is a dummy username, need to get it changed 07:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Who is the op of the bot? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the sockmaster of user:This is a dummy username, need to get it changed, I am currently building a bot and I am almost finished with it now. I plan on submitting the bot authorization request in a day or two, I needed an account first though because it mentions in the bot guidelines that you should have an account ready for your bot. -Icewedge 07:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then create the IceBot account. It remains unregistered. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um.....just create the account.... Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"IceBot is to similar to the account "Icebot" so I cannot register it myself, it will turn up an error message. -Icewedge 07:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I can create it for you but I need your email to set the password. --Chris 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - I created the account and emailed the password via Special:Emailuser/Icewedge (as the 'master'). Under any other situation where a second account didn't exist, you'd be right, but we can avoid posting an email on-Wikipedia in this case. Cheers, Daniel 11:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Resolved. --Deskana (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pallida Mors ← Pallida Mors 76

[edit]

Motives: I tried to create the target account, but somehow was unable to finish the process. I got a new account when the old one showed unaccessible. I didn't know what else to do at that time. I'm aware of the fact that I'm a relatively new user, but both accounts should have my data. Sincerely, Pallida Mors 76 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– Anthøny 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Your account is too new. Please consider either choosing something that is not already taken and requesting renaming on WP:CHU, or waiting a few months and getting some more edits. --Deskana (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I would like you (or any other bureaucrat) to reconsider this decision. I understand I am asking for an exception (though not an impossible one).
I would like to point out that the conditions for usurpation are (except for user antiquity) completely met; in fact, I assume you could trace the data of target account so as to see I was the creator of both accounts.
In any case, I assume it will be just a question of time and some work in here. Sincerely, Pallida Mors 76 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All requirements need to be met for the usurpation to be performed. In addition, our server logs are only kept for a short amount of time (a few months maximum), so unless you can log into the target account and verify that you own it as well, then the usurpation will not be performed. I am sorry, but were we to make an exception for you, we would have to make an exception for everyone. --Deskana (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Of course I understand your point. Unluckily, I can't access the target account, because I couldn't even put an email direction in it. Anyway, thank you for your time. Pallida Mors 76 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surfdog ← I wanna be the SD

[edit]
Alternately, I could settle for User:Surf Dog, or User:Surf dog
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia that are now deleted. Usernames with only deleted edits can usually be usurped.
  • The current owner of the target username has an email address set.
  • The current owner of the username has been notified of this usurpation request.
  • The current owner of the target username has an email address set.
-- Jack 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Your account is very new - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a couple of months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. Alternatively, Surf Dog (talk · contribs) doesn't exist so you could request to be renamed to that now at WP:CHU. WjBscribe 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Too new. However is available. If you want that go here Secretlondon (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt T ← Matt T2

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
– Anthøny 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Your account is very new - usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. If this request is declined on that basis, you may wish to ask again in a couple of months when you have made more contributions to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably will be, but I can try :P Matt T2 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, you can try, but I highly doubt it will be performed. Qst 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Too new, sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uyu ← Esimal

[edit]
Note:
Thanks - you are right! Secretlondon (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Sorry your account is too new as you have only been active since 13 November 2007. Also the username you request is too newly created. Come back in a few months when you are more established. Secretlondon (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

manatella ← ischau

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.

– Qst 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is very new to Wikipedia, infact you only have one edit. Usurpation is generally reserved for established editors, so we can make sure that popular usernames will go the best usage. It is likely this request maybe declined on that basis. Sorry, Qst 20:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I'm sorry but you account is much too new. Feel free to ask again in a few months once you have made more substantial contributions to the project. WjBscribe 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinerd ← Wiki flight simmer

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
— Qst 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - target username has made non-vandal edits to the mainspace. WjBscribe 14:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argus Systems ← Argussystems

[edit]
This username is not registered, and thus should be at WP:CHU. However, the username might be in violation of the username policy.[8] I (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - promotional usernames are against Wikipedia's username policy. WjBscribe 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julf ← realjulf

[edit]

I would like to start contributing more actively on Wikipedia, but would prefer to use my nickname "Julf" that I have used on the net for something like 25 years now (and, in fact, "Julf" is actually a term in Wikipedia, pointig to an entry about me), but I notice the username "Julf" is already taken, but by an user that does not have an user page. That account might even have been created by myself at some point, but none of my "usual" passwords work, and I get no emails when I try the "forgotten your password" procedure.

Regards,

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
—Qst 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that your account is very new to Wikipedia (only one edit outside of this request). Usurpation is generally reserved for established users, so that "popular" usernames will go to good usage. I'm afraid this request is likely to be declined due to your account being new. We'll see what a bureaucrat thinks when the come along. Thank you, Qst 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I'm sorry but your account is much too new. Feel free to ask again in a few months once you have made more substantial contributions to the project. WjBscribe 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blake ← beelake

[edit]
Note:
 Not done as target has made non-vandal edits to articles. WjBscribe 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe ← Anonymous_Dissident

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (GMT)

L ← Lincalinca

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
— Qst 17:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user held the name "L" for over a month before being renamed to Lucid. I think that's long enough so that if someone came back with the username L, one would be confused. I don't think we have a precedent on changing usernames to ones that have already been held, but have since been renamed. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea (I know I would be confused). I think the bureaucrats should try to establish a precedent on this scenario. I (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: I say no, especially with high profile usernames like the single letter ones. Secretlondon (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I agree that renaming users to name previously held by other editors is likely to cause confusion. WjBscribe 00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, Can't say I didn't try. Guess I'll have to think of something else. --lincalinca 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vIQleS ← vIQleSthe2nd

[edit]

This is my account, but for some reason the password doesn't work (I know what it should be, unless someone changed it or blocked me for some reason). I probably screwed something up when I created the account. Do accounts expire? It's been a while since I created it and I'm not sure I've ever actually logged in. Rather than usurping (which I assume is a complicated process), you could just reset my password for me. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by vIQleSthe2nd (talk • contribs)

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
— Qst 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your account is very new; usurpation is generally reserved for established contributors, so popular usernames will be put to good and active use. However, if this is your account which you cannot access, this request might be okay. Qst 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed - those should both be lowercase v. I don't know how that happened - I'm pretty sure that I typed it in correctly. Is there a way of changing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.6.184 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All usernames start with a capital letter. Secretlondon (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: I'm slightly concerned that you seem to be using us soley to promote your magic club. We can't reset passwords and you can't prove you own the first account. I presume you didn't set an email address. Accounts don't expire and you've not been blocked. However I don't think I am going to do this as I don't see anything in your contributions that indicates you are actually contributing to the project. Secretlondon (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Too new, blatant self promotion. Secretlondon (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Presumably if i can prove in the future that i can be a valuable contributor i can request this again?

I originally registered ages ago, but having never recieved any confirmation / not being able to log in, i've never been able to contribute. I decided to do a page about the magic club which precipitated my trying to get my login working. I have a few more ideas for articles and i'd like to be able to add to/proof-read stuff as and when i can, it'd just be nice to have my proper login.

I'm pretty sure i can make some good arguments to prove that vIQleS is my username - if you do a google search they're all me, and i have a couple of email addresses that i can use to prove that i've always used this ID.

Tim ← Timmeh

[edit]
"Tim" more closely reflects my first username, "Tim62389", and I feel it gives a better impression. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 01:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 does not have an email address specified.
  • I do note that you usurped your current name quite recently. Be advised that bureaucrats will rarely rename you more than twice, so this will probably be the last rename. Whether or not it will be performed so soon after another usurpation is also up to a bureaucrat. I (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. When I first changed my username to what it is now, I didn't think Tim was available as I looked on the talk page and saw a usurpation request. It wasn't until today that I was browsing through the previous usurpations and didn't see any that involved that name. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: You requested a usurption on 9 December 2007 and were renamed on 17 December 2007. The reason we require people getting a usurption to be "established editors" is so that usurped usernames are put to good use. Usurping a username and then wanting to usurp another a username 10 days later isn't on. Secretlondon (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Secretlondon (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JT ← Jasont82

[edit]
Note:
    • Thanks for your input! I know that the guidelines for Usurpations states that an usurp is "probably" inappropriate, but do remember that it is just a guideline, and "not set in stone, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I am hoping that a case that involves someone who hasn't made an edit in six years, and like LincaLinca kindly pointed out, the edits that were made back then were not substantial, would be one of those common sense, occasional exceptions. I shall continue to wait patiently.  :) -JT 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive my intrusion, but no edits have been made by that user in over 6 years, and there's only like 6 edits in total. I don't think he's coming back. --lincalinca 14:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just upon closer inspection, the user appears to have dumped in a bunch of nonsense when he/she was here. He created one page (the original translation of the Book of Secrets or something), which was a bunch of drivel. He then overwrote the existing Book of Secrets article with the same drivel, and then created a short article based on an except from the same book, and made three followup edits to its formatting. I don't think in any way the user's contributions are substantial or valuable. Certainly, I can say that none are in use now and the way Wikipedia is operated now, I don't think it ever will be restored to his versions. --lincalinca 14:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, although the edits are somewhat dubious, they still exist in the page histories of the pages in question. Andre (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound like a douchebag, but how can you say that the edits are somewhat dubious, and not say that this is the exact type of situation the "not set in stone, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" language was put into the guideline?? -- JTHolla! 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the edits seem to be intended as useful ones, and potentially formed part of the development of the article. As such, they are covered under the GFDL, even if they seem a little odd. Andre (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I'll accept this and have found a different name to try and usurp. Thanks! -- JTHolla! 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubercool ← Mtchong

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
The user requesting usurpation has made no edits outside of this page, and thus does not qualify for usurpation. I (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. WjBscribe 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian ← Jasont82

[edit]

This account has only one edit, to his own personal space, and is admittedly a second account used just to park the name.

Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
— Qst 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this account does have one edit, but as it was four years ago (although the date does not necessarily mean it is no longer valid), it was to his/her userpage and it is a self confessed account created by an editor who already owned another account, so this request maybe okay; although it should be left to bureaucrat discretion. Qst 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: The above is true, and it is up to the crat. However, for accuracy's sake, I have added in "contribs=yes" to the template, which was originally omitted by Qst. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: on further consideration, I have kept the note there in invis only, but all the same. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given Wikipedia:Wikipedians, I believe that this username would be confusing/may imply that the user is "representing Wikipedians"/etc. and oppose renaming. On reflection, I would not oppose blocking this username if it started editing (the original account). There needs to be something which distinguishes this from being "official" or "representative" — possibly numbers at the end, or another word tacked on the end, or similar. But at the moment I think this falls afoul of our username policy. Daniel 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good point Daniel. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usernames "Wikipedian" and "Wikimedian" should be reserved like User:Example/example.com/etc. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, there's a very big list of users with "Wikipedian" in them that need to be removed. Some with active edit histories. -- JTHolla! 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with Daniel's comments, however we should leave this to the discretion of a bureaucat to make the final decision; yet users are still encouraged to comment here, should they wish to do this,. Qst 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jasont82, please re-read my comment where I explicitly say "There needs to be something which distinguishes this ... possibly numbers at the end, or another word tacked on the end, or similar". Daniel 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Someone using the name Wikipedian may well cause confusion - it could imply a role account, seems to have been used in the past as an example username, and doesn't really distinguish one user from another (everyone is a Wikipedian). I'm not really happy about about performing this request. I tend to agree with those above that it would be better were the username to contain another word or numbers. WjBscribe 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - per above. WjBscribe 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin ← Anakin101

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
— Qst 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Anakin, I believe that the reason as to why it's not in the account creation log, is that it's too new an account. Back in the day we didn't have an account creation log. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: There is a user who uses the name Anakin on a number of projects [9]. They have 3387 edits to the French Wikipedia, 274 edits to Commons and edits to mostly French language projects. Is that you or someone else? WjBscribe 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't me, this is the only Wikimedia project I'm registered on. That won't be a problem will it? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. There has for a while been a proposal for something called single user login to be implemented. That would mean that the same person gets the rights to a given name across all projects (and ideally only logs in once, rather than having to do so separately on each). Now this has been in the pipeline for several years and although it was fairly imminent a few months ago, seems to be again on the drawing board. No one is sure what the "rules" might be were two contributors to have the same name on different projects. In other words, who gets the rights to the name in the end - it might be determined by number of contributions, who first used the name, permission levels of the account. Its not something we've been able to check for before so your request is the first time I've considered it. If I did perform this request, you have to bear in mind that if single user login was implemented, the French Wikipedia user who uses the name Anakin may have a better claim than you. Do you want to take that risk and still be renamed to Anakin, or would rather not be renamed (or be renamed to something else) to avoid the hastle of having to be renamed again later. This is slightly hypothetical, but the developers are hard to second guess. I suppose the worst case scenario is that you're Anakin for a while but might have to go back to being Anakin101 (or something else of your chosing) sometime later if SUL is implemented. Let me know if you want to go ahead with this. WjBscribe 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I did get renamed to Anakin there couldn't be any going back after a while, or all instances of my signature made in the mean time would be pointing to the wrong user. It would look like somebody else wrote my words. Same caveat for all of the other numerous clashes which must exist, through no fault of their own. No robot could easily go back and fix them all either, as some pages like the Village pump are archived with specific oldids in the URL. Single user login sounds completely doomed really; besides the technical complexity and conflicting policies across projects, imagine the arguments that would brew over claims to the single letter usernames.
However, I've thought about this a bit, and the fact that the username is used on lots of other projects (Commons especially), makes it less desirable. So having thought about it, I've decided the three extra digits do not matter too much and I'd actually like to withdraw my request to usurp the other username. I hope this won't be seen as too disruptive, withdrawing the request after it's already been discussed like this. But I think a unique name is more desirable than a tidy one. I've also registered Anakin101 on Commons now, to help secure my claim to it. Is this okay, to take back my request? I'm sorry for being a nuisance... • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - withdrawn. No problem at all, you haven't been a nuisance. Much better to discuss it all now than there be problems later. Sorry the name wasn't available for you to have across all projects. WjBscribe 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake ← Jake R-12

[edit]
Note:

 Clerk note: The requester is fairly new, with less then 50 edits. According to WP:CHUG, accounts are suppose to be established. Mønobi 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, but I have been editing anonymously on a few projects for quite a while now, and oops, sorry, forgot to put that message on the talk page >:( Bad Me --Jake {talk2me} 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - sorry but you've only made 2 edits to articles. We require users who request usurpation to be reasonably established to try and make sure popular usernames are put to good use. I can image quite a lot of demand for this particular name. Feel free to ask again in a few months when you have made more extensive contributions to the encyclopedia. WjBscribe 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samat ← Samaten

[edit]
I am an administrator in the hu-version of Wikipedia as Samat and I use this username in other Wikimedia Projects too. Samaten (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
The target account has no deleted contributions. Anthøny 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: target account said "No" Alexfusco5 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done as target account refused. Note that this may need to be reviewed should single user login be implemented - unifying logins is likely to require the non-consensual usurpation of accounts, which present policy does not provide for. WjBscribe 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv ← Bradv15

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  • The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
  • The user requesting usurpation has made no edits outside of this page and the requested account's talk page. seresin || wasn't he just...? 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am requesting this usurpation is this is an account that I used about two years ago, and no longer have the password for. I created this account (Bradv15) in order to recover the Bradv username. I am assuming that this is the only way to recover a lost password when no email address is assigned to the account.
Because the target username is my old username, I am not expecting any opposition from it. You will notice that there is no user page, no talk page (save the message I posted on it this evening), and no contributions at all (for as far as the logs go back). So if its a question of who's more active, this new account has won already! Bradv15 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we need to know that the account will be put to good use therefore usurpation is reserved for established users. --Chris 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a checkuser to confirm if the accounts are the same this has bee done before Alexfusco5 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser is not nessary, Bradv has made no edits. it's just that Bradv15 hasn't made enough edits to usurp the account.--Chris 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I guess your right Alexfusco5 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also wouldn't matter because the Bradv acct has no edits to checkuser. seresin || wasn't he just...? 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Your account is too new. Usurpation is generally reserved for established users so we can make sure common names will be put to good use. There is no way to confirm that target account was created by you unfortunately. If you're still around and contributing in a few months, I'd be willing to reconsider at that point. WjBscribe 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cesario ← Dreamafter

[edit]
Note:
  • The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
Note: Actually, I have decided I don't want this now, as my family was annoyed I chose this name... Go figure... Sorry about that... Dreamy § 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - withdrawn. WjBscribe 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CG ← Cedar-Guardian

[edit]

I've always been using CG as a signature. I'd like to have a much simpler (and maybe less offensive username). CG (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
The requested account has made several edits to the mainspace and therefore can almost certainly not be usurped. I do not believe there are few enough for discretion, but we shall see. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - contribs by target account are significant. WjBscribe 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bongoman ← Boongoman

[edit]
Note:
Actually no contributions are made, just reverts. --Boongoman (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they are still significant under the GFDL Alexfusco5 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the user has made edits that were not reverts, anyway. —Random832 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant to the request but I should note that none of the mainspace edits ere not reverts Alexfusco5 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. This username has contributions, and I am not willing to usurp it. Please consider another name. --Deskana (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma ← Enigmaman

[edit]

Original account has made no edits since August 2003. Enigmaman (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
What makes them significant? There were 12 edits made in August 2003, and that's it. The user isn't coming back. I just thought that it isn't fair for someone to hold the rights to a name that they're not using and will never use. Enigmaman (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, they are edits that add content to the article namespace that haven't been deleted (and hence, are still visible by visiting Special:Contributions). These need to be attributed to the user due to legal reasons. In this case, there's a few, but they do exist. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esocid ← Esoxid

[edit]

I posted on the help desk about not being able to access my account due to my changing my contact email, and not receiving a confirmation email, then attemptimg to retrieve my password via an email message.[10] The title is "Have not received password retrieval email." Esocid was my previous account, which as you can see has been inactive.

Note:
  • The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
 Clerk note: Due to the nature of the circumstances surrounding this request, it will be performed at a bureaucrat's discretion. XENON54 | talk | who? 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a checkuser could be run to confirm or deny the veracity of the claim. If confirmed, the request can probably be done immediately. I'm not sure if a bureaucrat needs to be the one to request a checkuser, however, so we shall wait for a comment by one of them. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no checkuser data stored for Esocid. There's no way of verifying what the user says. --Deskana (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only edit that I am concerned about retrieving is the edit to Coral reefs concerning African and Asian dust. I own the pictures that are on the contributions so those are of no concern. The edit to Coral reefs was from a term paper/presentation, I also have access to the papers cited (I doubt that makes any difference) but if it is completely unverifiable I suppose I will have to live with the username Esoxid. Is there no way to check the origin of IPs that contribute to a username's contributions or do those cease to exist after registration?Esoxidt 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done -- Andre (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Rejected/2&oldid=1154367304"