Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Completed/6

< Wikipedia:Changing username | Usurpations

bobbo ← Redconverse

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 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda ← Lindacious

edit

I would like to change to this name because... it's my first name! It looks like the person who registered it has never used the account. I added the usurpation request template to the user's page per the instructions. Thank you for your help. --Linda 05:22, 3 December 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.
— Qst 11:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rael ← Rael86

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
This user is Rael on the Italian Wikipedia. WjBscribe 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip ← The_undertow (Undertow Love)

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 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Bureaucrat note: I have received an email in relation to this request - it should be considered "on hold" and shouldn't be performed without confirmation from The undertow (talk · contribs). WjBscribe 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I usurp now? Undertow Love (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip (talk • contribs) [reply]
  Done per decision of The undertow that he will use Chip as an active alternative account but wishes to continue using The undertow (talk · contribs) as his main account. WjBscribe 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnyboy88 ← JDitlevson88

edit
Note:
  Done. WjBscribe 02:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Samus ← slangman

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 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintman ← Paintman.en

edit

Unification across multiple Wikipedia projects

Paintman.en is an eswiki sysop, by the way. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 does not have an email address specified.
  •   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.
User:Paintman has one image upload logged that has been deleted for lack of source or license info, but that doesn't appear to me to cause any difficulties with this request. WjBscribe 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 01:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timmeh ← Tim62389

edit

I want to usurp this username because it would be much easier to type and say. The numbers in my username have also been annoying me.

Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
— Qst 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirocks ← Wikirocks2

edit
Note:
I believe it has been a week. Can I have the username now? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beano ← BeanoJosh

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 11:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknerd ← Wiki_flight_simmer

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 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--KelvinHOwiki flight simmer(talk) 17:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previously rejected as not confirmed. The editor has confirmed the request. I have moved it back to the appropriate time, which is the 16, as that is the day the tag was placed on the talk page of the requested account. The user only has 181 edits, so may not qualify for usurpation. I (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I have my username changed now? (Dec. 24...?)

--KelvinHOwiki flight simmer(talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. WjBscribe 00:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher ← Thatcher131

edit
Note:
Well, I've checked and there are no deleted contribs... Thatcher131 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel ← Rebel2

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 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked there is no deleted contribs. --WinHunter (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Secretlondon (talk) 20:26, 25 December 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.
—Qst 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -- Andre (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kagee ← KageeNo

edit

Kagee has been inactive since he created his account on the 26 of March 2007. He has no edits, blocks or logs (none that i can find, except "New user account"). I do not have any contributions on en.wikipedia, but i created this username on en.wikipedia as per suggestion, and i have the username Kagee (and contributions) on both no.wikipedia (no:User:Kagee) and commons (commons:User:Kagee).

Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
— Qst 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your account is very new (at least here, at the English Wikipedia). Usurpation is generally used for established contributors, in order to make sure popular usernames will go to good usage. However, as you seem to be an active/semi-active user at Wikimedia Commons and another language Wikipedia, this requested may be complete; however, it is at the discretion of a bureaucrat. Qst 20:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i know my account i new, but i do this in an attemt to get the same username on all 3 wikipedia's. Only 1 day to go, looking good so far. KageeNo (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -- Andre (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! You won't regret it! Thanks! Kagee (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMG ← Pmgpmg

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. I (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Taylor ← Ryan57

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.
  Done. WjBscribe 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azure ← Ampersand2006

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 14:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deleted contribs. Maxim(talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constants ← Gentlyfloatingabout

edit

My wiktionary username is constants.. I'd like to make that consistent with my wikipedia account.

Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
— Qst 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deleted contribs. Maxim(talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer ← Sseballos

edit

Note by Sseballos: User:Spencer has only made one edit, to his userpage, more than five years ago.

Note:
  •   The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
  •   The target username has no deleted edits logged.
  •   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.
  •   Clerk note: I think that the 'crat has discretion here.
Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the 'crat has descretion, but how does a single edit five years ago, to his own userpage, simply saying he exists count as a GFDL- significant contribution? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might not; the bureaucrats have sometimes granted requests where the edits were to one's own userspace, or quickly reverted vandalism. This is one of those times, hence Greeves's note that a bureaucrat could exercise his discretion in this instance. I (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see now. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do have a chance, considering it was one edit to a user space 6 years ago. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Bureaucrat note: Given that the edit was made to the account's own userspace there aren't any GFDL issues with granting the request. As we're talking about a single edit many years ago, I would be willing to perform the request provided the target account does not object in the required period. WjBscribe 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note by Sseballos: I emailed him based on the email address on the website he listed. No response yet. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 11:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer (talk • contribs) [reply]

Poiuyt Man ← Poiuytman

edit

I created both accounts. I normally put the space in the username, but didn't know it was allowed at the time of creation.

If you sign in with that account and post here confirming that you own both accounts, then the usurpation can be carried out immidiately. I (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is me too. Poiuyt Man (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 06:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LatinoMuslim ← JuanMuslim

edit
Note:
Although, due to similarity in usernames, is there a chance you own both accounts? I (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a username I want to use instead of my current username but in order to request a username change you must request a username that does not exist. I should have requested a username change, so now I am requesting to usurp the username I just created. --LatinoMuslim (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, as this has been confirmed with both accounts, it can probably be carried out immediately. I (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is great news. As far as GFDL significant edits, I had only editted this page, the main page and talk page of my LatinoMuslim username. --JuanMuslim 1m 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. WjBscribe 06:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party ← PAArty

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
No deleted contribs. Singularity 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user requesting usurpation probably does not qualify for usurpation with ~200 edits in the past two weeks. I (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the ursup request is done, i'm doing newpages, that's why the count is low. --Party (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still too low, and you are still too new anyway. Patience is the key here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also you have had a rename from FadedSoul --Chris 07:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having the username Party will reflect who i am better, because i love to party! :) And as for wikipedia experience, i've been editing many articles under many IP adresses... I have like 100 edits that weren't reverted. --Party (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, and no matter what you say, the above still stands. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camaron ← Camaron1

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. --Chris 09:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islander ← TheIslander

edit

'Islander' is a completely dormant account, has not been used at all since creation. It is the account I wanted at creation, but was unable to obtain. I think it's been dormant enough for me to usurp (assuming there's no reply, of course). Thanks, TheIslander 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  Done. WjBscribe 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thom ← Daisy-berkowitz

edit
Note:
  Done. WjBscribe 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgone conclusion ← Bwowen

edit

I wish to return to a higher level of anonymity (this username is my first and middle initials and my last name), and this is a phrase I use quite often. Thank you for your time and consideration. bwowen talk•contribs 14:44, 4 January 2008 (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.
— Qst 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— No deleted contributions. Maxim(talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 03:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlin ← Carlinlord

edit

Carlin is my name and I would prefer to be known as that rather than by this moniker. The account I wish to have usurped has made edits, however they appear to be nothing more than vandalism and edits to their userpage, additionally they have not edited since March 2006. ~ Carlin U T C 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  •   The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
  • Technically, the user has made edits. However, most of them were promotional vandalism, but I think the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles edit may not have been. This would be a case where a bureaucrat would need to act with discretion. I (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was reverted 34 minutes later. ~ Carlin U T C 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 does not have an email address specified.
  •   Clerk note: request will be performed at bureaucrats discretion Alexfusco5 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - I've given this some thought and can't see any real GFDL problems here. The edits are unhelpful - the only one that may not have been vandalism (though I'm not sure I take as charitable a view as Soleil) was still reverted. Had the edits been part of a good faithed attempt to contribute to the project, I would have been more reluctant, but in this case it seems obvious that the owner of the target username wasn't interested in contributing constructively. WjBscribe 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thank you very much! ~ Carlin U T C @ 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yun-Yuuzhan ← Vorta

edit
  • Current username: Vorta (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  • Target username: Yun-Yuuzhan (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
  • Datestamp: 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For bureaucrat use: Email target username   (1)  (2)
    Yun-Yuuzhan use to be my account but lost the password and had to create this account a few days ago, i couldn't e-mail a new password because i haven't included an e-mail address, but wouldn't mind having my account back and regaining all of my contributions including main space edits, if this is possible. no-response from my old account will be made because i had to have this account, is it possible to change the username back to my old account and regain my contributions and main space edits. Vorta What do you want 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know if there is precedent on a situation like this. He claims that the account is his, but unfortunately we have no way of confirming this. Obviously we want to assume that this is the case, but the requested account has a significant amount of mainspace edits, if this request was in bad faith, could cause problems. At any rate, this usurpation would not be allowed due to the newness requested account, and edits by it. I (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So dose that mean i can't have my old account back, i regretted losing my password from my pc, and feared i couldn't have my old account back through this routine, dose it mean i'm stuck with this username. Vorta What do you want 19:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please i want to use my old account Vorta What do you want 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to check for sure w/o getting someone to check your IP (which isn't going to happen). It's up to the 'crats to decide what to do from here. Mønobi 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose a checkuser could be done. But it is probably up to the bureaucrats to ask for one. At any rate, there isn't much more that we can do; a bureaucrat would need to decide. I (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother going into the trouble I'll just stick to this username from now on. Vorta What do you want 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done as a self-usurpation. Alison has confirmed through checkuser that both accounts are the same person. WjBscribe 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivo ← SV-Vivo

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 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean I have to wait until he/she replies on his/her talk page? SV-Vivo (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means they have until the 16th to object to the rename. If they don't say anything (or agree to being renamed), either myself or another bureaucrat will perform the rename. WjBscribe 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! SV-Vivo (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 08:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve ← Liquidfinale

edit

As I am becoming more involved with Wikipedia beyond that which I originally intended, I would like to move away from my current username, which is a little childish, in favour of my actual forename. The user has made just one edit, in September 2001, which upon closer inspection appears to have been to replace the Meteorology page with borderline nonsense. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 16:17, 9 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 target username has no deleted edits logged.
  •   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.
— Qst 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection, the edit is not nonsense, it was actually improving the article. Qst 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously didn't look close enough. Thanks for your time anyway. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you are withdrawing this request? Qst 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. My apologies. I assumed you were a bureaucrat, formally denying the request. I guess today isn't my best day for paying attention to things. Let's see where this goes. Thanks, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Largely unfamiliar as I am with the processes, I have no idea whether this makes a difference or not, but I would note that the user's edit, which I was indeed uncharitable towards earlier, was (eventually) undone. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was undone, someone might still be using permalink(s) to that edit, which is GNU FDL significant. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
Understood. As I say, I am largely unfamiliar with the process and merely saw fit to present a similar argument to the one used here in a similar circumstance, with no knowledge on my part as to the weight it would ultimately be given. All the best, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only just noticed you referenced to my request, however I am also unfamiliar with this process and the weight details, such as the edit being reverted, holds, just as I am also unsure if the fact that, in my case, the edit was reverted 34 minutes later makes it hold any greater significance over your example, in which the edit was reverted 363 days later. Just as I am unfamiliar with this, I am not sure if I am allowed to have any input into another individuals case - however, if I am not, it can be easily removed; I disagree with QST's evaluation of the edit, to me replacing a paragraph of text with "Meteorology, by definition, is the study of stuff falling from the sky" is vandalism (note the word "stuff", that is not a definition), the only reason I can see that it was not reverted sooner is that in September 2001, Wikipedia was still in its infancy and thus was not as active. Again, as I am unfamiliar with this process I do not know if my opinion will alter the outcome in anyway, but goodluck with your request. ~ Carlin U T C @ 02:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I should just say that QST's implied admonishment was completely correct; I should have assumed good faith on the part of the editor. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Whether the edit was vandalism or not, it was unhelpful and ultimately reverted. The length of time before the revert I think just reflects the early days of the project and I don't attach great weight to it. It seems unlikely that anyone will choose to link the version containing the edit, the added words "Meteorology, by definition, is the study of stuff falling from the sky" are hardly copyrightable and the rename log provides a degree of attribution in of itself. In light of these factors I have decided to perform this request. WjBscribe 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say before this is archived: many thanks for your assistance. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas ← Strothra

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
  • Firstly, Strothra's blocklog might be a concern, and if the usurpation is allowed regardless, a note in the new one would probably be in order. Secondly, a usurpation note was placed several months ago, and one would assume that there is no need to repeat the seven day delay period for each request, given that one has already passed; thus the request might be able to be performed immediately. I (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for changing my username isn't due to my blocklog, but due to the fact that the username is connected to my actual identity. In fact, if you actually take the time to look at my contribs, I have a long history of positive contribs that involving cleaning up articles, old AfDs, article creation, etc. Anyway, I learned from both blocks (the first is a year old) although I still don't think that the second block should have been acted upon the way it was. --Strothra (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no offense; I was merely pointing out anything that could be relevant to this request, such as your blocklog. I only mentioned it as it could possibly be relevant, but it could very well be of no concern. I (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks :). --Strothra (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this users contributions and their talk page history - I say 'history' because they have a habit of blanking everything ever posted there, with edit summaries such as "again, this is not a warnable offense". This user has vandalized a userpage and been involved in multiple revert wars. One must ask if this username will be put to good use, regardless of if this user is attempting to escape their history with a namechange. -- 125.238.96.203 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Leaving this comment whilst logged out to prevent flak from the allegations, I will be more than happy to reveal my identity, privately, to an admin if they desire.[reply]
Note that I just started blanking my talk page due to privacy reasons when I began the process to change my username. Further, there was no vandalism to any userpages per WP:USER. --Strothra (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone care to take an action on this? Again, I'm trying to change my username due to privacy reasons - so it's either this or WP:VANISH. --Strothra (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. A couple of 3RR blocks aren't a major concern. Any other behavioural problems can be dealt with whatever name Strothra edits from - I'm not convinced that there's enough there to decline a rename. WjBscribe 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric ← EHM02667

edit

My (EHM02667's) reasons:

  • Eric is my name, I didn't think out my current (original) username too well, and the change would give me more anonymity.
  • The current user has only eight edits, all made over the course of ten minutes on April 9, 2002: 6 were to add personal observations on the Eric (disambiguation) page (later reverted), 2 were to add the username to pages listing Wikipedians. -Eric (talk) 17:37, 11 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 target username has no deleted edits logged.
  •   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. Alexfusco5 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if I'm meant to comment on notes here, and not sure what constitutes significance under GFDL, but I'd be surprised if the user's edits were considered significant by any definition. Please note my 2nd reason above. -Eric (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Bureaucrat note: I'm not worried about the GFDL significance of the edits - it seems the user mistook the page for their own userpage and the edit could easily be moved to the right place. However, a user already has the name Eric on the Spanish Wikipedia (where he as over 15,000) and Wikimedia Commons. If plans to harmonise usernames across projects produce results (for example single user login) he probably will have the best claim to using the name Eric across all projects. Do you still want to be renamed to Eric given the risk that, should usernames later be unified across projects, you may need to be renamed again at that stage? WjBscribe 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. WjBscribe 00:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -Eric talk 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warko ← Warko2006

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. Mønobi 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk note:Email sent. Mønobi 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to note this, as there is no parameter on the template, but there is a username on eswp that has 12k contributions. I (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk note: User left a message on my talk page and said he has the username on eswp Alexfusco5 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, I think he needs to confirm it with that account, not just say it is with this one. I (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know and I already told him to do that see his talk Alexfusco5 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See es:Usuario:Warko --Warkoholic 2007   01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir ← IamMarkBlake

edit
Note:

  Bureaucrat note: A user already has the name Sir on the German Wikipedia where he is an administrator and has just under 40,000 edits [1]. If plans to harmonise usernames across Wikimedia projects produce results (for example single user login) he probably will have the best claim to using the name Sir across all projects. Do you still want to be renamed to Sir given the risk that, should usernames later be unified across Wikimedia projects, you may need to be renamed again at that stage? WjBscribe 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, simply because my primary goal at this point is to reduce the visibility of my real name. So if at some point we start harmonizing across the Project I'll just come up with something more creative. But I'll cross that bridge when we get to it. So I'll go ahead and run the risk of having to change my name again. IamMarkBlake (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 07:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Librarian ← Librarianofages

edit
Note:
  •   The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
  •   The target username has no deleted edits logged.
  •   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.
  • Although, a bureaucrat might be willing to disregard the two edits and perform the rename anyway. I (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Bureaucrat note: As the two edits in question are to a test page and the account's own userspace respectively, the rename raises no attribution issues. I am willing to perform this usurpation request provided the target account does not object in the next 7 days. WjBscribe 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. WjBscribe 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himm ← Hello world! 66

edit

Note: Himm is my username on Commons. Helloworld! 66 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
  •   This user has made contributions on another Wikimedia project (Commons:User:Himm), this may be a barrier to usurpation.
  • The user does have edits on Commons with this username, but only ten, and he would not normally qualify for usurpation here. I do not believe there is precedent on how active a user must be on another project to use the unifying cross project as a reason to waive the lack of edits on en. seresin wasn't he just...? 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! How many edits do I need to have? I use Wikipedia every day! I don't often fix things. Helloworld! 66 02:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Angela. 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TED ← TEDfr

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 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! TED (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tex ← SGT Tex

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 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk note: A user has accounts on other wikis all linking back to their french username fr:User:Tex. However they have made very few edits and their last one was in 2006, so I don't think it will be an issue, however if anyone here has a french account could you try to contact them by email? if they have one --Chris 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted him on his talk page and by email (maybe wait a bit longer than the 25th). -- lucasbfr talk 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is not his account, he thinks the account was already registered on en:wp when he arrived. -- lucasbfr talk 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean I'll be able to usurp the account? Will that happen today or over the weekend? Thanks, everybody. SGT Tex (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much point since when single user login arrives, the French user would be the most likely to get the name. Angela. 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Bureaucrat note: As Angela points out, if plans to harmonise usernames across Wikimedia projects produce results (for example single user login) he probably will have the best claim to using the name Tex across all projects, and indeed this may happen automatically regardless of whether he wants an account on the English Wikipedia. Do you still want to be renamed to Tex given the risk that, should usernames later be unified across Wikimedia projects, you may need to be renamed again at that stage? WjBscribe 10:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I would like to get rid of the SGT portion of my username. If/when the single user login takes affect, I will choose something different. Thanks. SGT Tex (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon ← NASCAR Fan24

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
  •   There are 2 edits both to the mainspace however one changed nothing and the other removed symbols from the article. Due to the minority of the edits, request will be performed at a bureaucrats discretion Alexfusco5 02:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done. Although these edits aren't GFDL significant, the gap between them is considerable. It suggests that this account has not in fact been abandoned and that the owner may wish to use it again at some point in the future. I'm therefore not going to allow usurpation in this case. I am happy to rename you to Xenon54 if that is still your prefered alternative. WjBscribe 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. NF24(radio me!) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WjBscribe 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! XENON54 | talk | who? 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terra ← Dust Rider

edit
Note:
How long will this take Usurpation request take. →Dust Rider→ 13:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A minimum of seven days. This is so the person who created the account you wish to usurp has time to contact Wikipedia. If everything is successful, then you should be renamed on 31st January (UTC). NF24(radio me!) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, at least i asked so i know in the future. →Dust Rider→ 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest once i get renamed to Terra which is today would it be possible to create redirect links to my new user, just so it doesn't cause confusion.  Dust Rider  Talk  12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot ← SquelchBot

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

  Done. Raul654 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widescreen ← LOBSTERbrain

edit
Note:
Seven days are over. Did I forgot anything? LOBSTERbrain ® 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. There probably aren't any bureaucrats on Wikipedia right now. XENON54 | talk | who? | 03 Feb 2008 17:00GMT
Difficult to imagine in de:wiki! :-). LOBSTERbrain ® 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Widescreen ® 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zil ← Cperroquin

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
However, the user requesting usurpation may not qualify for usurpation with 60 edits. seresin || wasn't he just...? 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zil (talk · contribs) has no deleted contributions. I have updated {{CUU}} accordingly. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - given the number of month the requestor has been editing, I think he counts as "reasonably established". WjBscribe 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balthazar ← Balthazarse

edit
It does exist, though. This obviously means the account was created prior to use creations being recorded in Special:Log/newusers. Qst 22:37, 27 January 2008 (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.
— Qst 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, would I sign in with Balthazarse still or Balthazar? Balthazar (T|C) 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the usurpation, the Balthazarse account would no longer exist. You would log in to Balthazar. NF24(radio me!) 13:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodona ← Burra

edit
I always used this name Dodona in my edits; I will appreciate if you let me to have this name in case that it is not currently in use. Many thanks--Burra (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2008 (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 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill ← BillPP

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 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No deleted contribs. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locutus ← LocutusMIT

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
However, the user requesting usurpation may not qualify with only 65 edits. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No deleted contribs. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adnarim ← Mirandargh

edit
Note:
Blocklogs do not move when renaming, so no need to be concerned about that. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gb ← Gilesbennett

edit
Wish to move away from using real name on-wiki. gb (t, c) 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
  Done. WjBscribe 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hercule ← Hercule bzh

edit


I created accounts in many wikis, for interwikis logued corrections. I renamed my account in fr (my principal wiki) and would like to have the same user name in every wikis. Hercule bzh (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (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.
  •   As the user has only made one mainspace edit, this renaming will be performed at the discretion of a bureaucrat. XENON54 | talk | who? 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efe ← BritandBeyonce

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. XENON54 | talk | who? | 01 Feb 2008 11:50GMT
No deleted contributions. I have updated the template accordingly. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. WjBscribe 00:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polly ← Pollytyred

edit
Note:
  •   The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
  •   The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified. XENON54 | talk | who? | 02 Feb 2008 23:12GMT
  Done. WjBscribe 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad ← Pv7721

edit

When I first joined en.wiki more than 2 and a half years ago, I would have wished to use the Vlad account, but it was already taken. As usurpation was not possible back then, but as it is possible today and the account was never used (he never made any edits), I wish this account name change could be done! Thanks! --Vlad|-> 15:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
No deleted contributions. I have updated the template accordingly. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Bureaucrat note: A user already has the name Vlad on the Romanian Wikipedia where he used to be an administrator and checkuser. He has about 18,000 edits [2]. If plans to harmonise usernames across Wikimedia projects produce results (for example single user login) he probably will have the best claim to using the name Vlad across all projects. Do you still want to be renamed to Vlad given the risk that, should usernames later be unified across Wikimedia projects, you may need to be renamed again at that stage? WjBscribe 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice from my English username page (check the interwikis), I (Pv7721) AM the Vlad on Romanian wiki and I've recently usurped the Vlad at French wikipedia, too (I used to be known as Pv7721 there too, precisely because at the time I joined Wikipedia in 2005, I could take Vlad at ro.wiki because not taken, but not at en or fr wiki as it was taken, and usurpation was not possible back then. In order to anticipate this harmonization I wanted to usurp Vlad here (that seem to have been taken only because it was cool to have such a short login which is a common first name). Please let me know if there is anything you want me to do in order to backup this claim (some sort of edits on my talk page on fr / ro?) Thanks! --Vlad|-> 11:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can also check the home pages at fr and ro wiki, they both point to user Pv7721 on the English wiki. --Vlad|-> 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - you're quite right, I should have checked those interwiki links. Sorry for the delay. WjBscribe 15:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian ← User:SebastianHelm who wants to be Sebastian

edit

Please do not disable my current account.

When I first signed up to Wikipedia in January 2003, I wanted to use this name, but as it was already taken, I chose "SebastianHelm" instead, but always signed just with "Sebastian". I would like to fix this discrepancy. For the time being, I would just like to redirect from user:Sebastian to user:SebastianHelm. I may decide to keep one of these accounts as administrator, and the other one for situations where I do not want to log on as admin for security reasons. — Sebastian 04:43, 28 January 2008 (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.
So you only want to have control of the account, but not have your sysop bit and contribs moved to the new one? seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Bureaucrat note: Its not really very clear what you want done. Renaming doesn't "disable" accounts - it changes the name of the account, meaning that there is no longer an account by the original name. Do you want your current account (including all its contribs, logs, and its sysop flag) renamed to Sebastian? WjBscribe 10:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply would like to adopt the name User:Sebastian. If all you do is renaming the old account and notify me when it's done, I'm happy. (I mentioned "disable" because the instructions say "you [will] find yourself unable to log in to your old account." - does that not mean that old accounts are disabled?) — Sebastian 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still don't understand fully. You wish to have control of the Sebastian account, but you want to retain your edits and sysop bit on the SebastianHelm account? And technically the old accounts no longer exist. So if you do end up having your sysop bit and contribs moved, you will need to recreate the helm account to prevent impersonation. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to both halves of your questions. It's a pity that we have such problems understanding each other! If I understand you correctly, it's technically not possible to keep both accounts. Therefore, how about this new different idea: I'll just create a throwaway account, say user:SebastianHelm who wants to be Sebastian and then change this request to "Sebastian ← SebastianHelm who wants to be Sebastian". Could you then perform the change, please? — Sebastian 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created that account. — Sebastian 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, would you mind signing into that account and editing the userpage or something to confirm that you own it? I have updated the template to perform the rename as it is now requested, pending confirmation. It would also be possible to just rename the current Sebastian account to something else and have you recreate it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I should have thought about that myself. — Sebastian 15:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that account has been blocked because it obviously doesn't satisfy user naming policies. I could unblock it, but then I would start that account with a block log entry. If it's possible to do the other option you offered, renaming the existing Sebastian account, quickly, then I would prefer that. Sorry for the trouble - it's a learning experience for me! — Sebastian 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here I am with the temporary name. I just unblocked the new account and wrote a note on its user page so this misunderstanding shouldn't happen again. This gives you both options. I'm not too worried about the block log because I stand behind my actions. SebastianHelm who wants to be Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For security reasons, I prefer the option of renaming to the account I created. — Sebastian 17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocklogs do not move when a rename takes place, so there's no need to be worried about that. As for the request, as far as I can tell there should be no problem with a bureaucrat renaming the Sebastian account to Sebastian (usurped) and then renaming the newly created account to Sebastian, which gives you control of the account. We'll just wait for the fifth. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Bureaucrat note: I confess that I'm completely confused as to what is going in here - perhaps someone could explain? I am particularly looking to know whether at the end of this process the account that becomes User:Sebastian will actually be used. If not, this seems like a waste of a popular username (no doubt there are, or will be, many Wikipedia users called Sebastian who would like their usernames to be their first names). I have no problem renaming SebastianHelm to Sebastian but if I'm being asked to rename a different account, I would like to know what it will be used for... WjBscribe 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what he plans to use the Sebastian account for, but I think I know what's happening. SebastianHelm wants control of the Sebastian account, but he doesn't want to actually be renamed to it; just have control of it. He has since created an account called SebastianHelm who wants to be Sebastian, which he will use to usurp the Sebastian account. This will give him control of the account named Sebastian, since he has the password of the newly created account, and will therefore be able to access it, and use it for whatever he wants to use it for. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion. I wanted to keep my options open, but I understand that this is a sought-after name. I therefore have a proposal: There are about 45 user names beginning with "Sebastian" that have a user page. I could check which of these have 1000 edits or more and ask them if they would like to have that name. Would that address your concern? — Sebastian 05:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you didn't do that. We don't really have a mechanism to decide who gets the name if several express an interest. If you actually wanted to be renamed to Sebastian that would be no issue. I'm just not happy with the idea of people reserving their first names and maybe never making use of them. I would be reassured if you did have plans to make some use of this account after the renaming. WjBscribe 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite follow your concern. Even if the event that two established editors want the same name, we could just agree on a simple tiebraker - such as edit count. But I don't want to complicate matters. I herewith promise that I will use the "Sebastian" account habitually for at least two months. — Sebastian 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done on the understanding that some use will be made of the Sebastian account. WjBscribe 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Completed/6&oldid=1096913039"