Wikipedia talk:Usurpation

Watchlists

How about adding a clause in the policy that you can't be usurped if you have a bunch (TBD) of pages on your watchlist? That's an indication that somebody really wants to use the account, but might just be taking a wikibreak. Matchups 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't be taking a wikibreak if you've never edited.--tjstrf talk 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In any event, is there any (existing or theoretical) way of telling how many pages a given account has watched?--Chaser T 08:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is some way to determine if someone is using their watchlist, then that would be a good extra condition. Although, simply requiring the account not to have been used for a long time would probably have the same effect. --Tango 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If we could even tell whether they'd actually ever logged in, we'd have a fair idea. Stevage 11:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe we have a way to tell either, though I could be wrong; perhaps someone could drop an email to wikitech-l and ask? Essjay (Talk) 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's technically doable: run a SQL query on the watchlist table (it shouldn't take that long, as wl_user is indexed), and if it returns empty, then there's nothing there. The hurdle to overcome is the Privacy policy. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia actually has something like this, limited to staff use; I doubt it would ever be approved for Wikimedia, however, due to the privacy issues. Essjay (Talk) 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki doesn't reattribute deleted edits correctly

After Raul654 helped me conduct a test of MediaWiki, I'm not sure this is such a great idea. The software doesn't appear to reattribute edits correctly. The first edit on User:Kchase02v was originally by User:Kchase02v, but when the page was deleted and the account usurped, the restored version of the page indicated that the edit still belonged to User:Kchase02v, instead of User:Kchase02vold, which the account name had been changed to. The easiest way to verify this is by looking at the page's deletion log and Raul's rename log.--Chaser T 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Actually, an easier way to verify it would be looking at these contradictory pages, but either way, it doesn't work.--Chaser T 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case we either need a way to ensure the account has no deleted edits or this proposal will violate the license. --Tango 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for testing. That's what I was trying to say above. --Ligulem 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a bug that could be corrected by having deleted edits reattributed as well; I'm no programmer, but from the little I've learned listening to the devs, I suspect it would be a matter of pointing the renameuser extension at the database table that holds deleted edits. We should file at bugzilla request to have this done, as it is a problem regardless of usurption: Anyone who is being renamed is losing thier deleted edits, which could cause major problems down the road. Essjay (Talk) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Special:Version lists User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason as the creator of the Renameuser special page, so I suggest asking him directly as bugzilla is such a huge pile of things (having an influx of about 50 posts every day, gee). Maybe creating an entry on bugzilla (search first if there is already one!) and then asking Ævar with a pointer might be the best strategy. However, the proposal should probably changed to treat deleted edits equally with not deleted edits. Which would probably require a method to a least get a count of the deleted edits of a user. --Ligulem 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more of a problem with usurption than regular renames. With regular renames we can just place a disclaimer saying "You will lose credit for any deleted edits you've made. If you do not agree to this, do not request a rename." which should be enough (and should be done promptly now we've realised the problem). With usurption, we don't have the editors permission to uncredit them. With regular renames, doesn't the old name usually redirect to the new name anyway (so as not to break old talk page signatures), so it's not an issue? --Tango 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re "doesn't the old name usually redirect to the new name": Redirects of user pages are an entierly unrelated matter. User X can edit the page User:Y and redirect that to User:X. Anybody can do that. It's just editing a page. I'm not aware of a concept of "username redirection". --Ligulem 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the redirect should be protected to prevent fraudulent claims, but we use links between articles to make sure the right people are credited all the time (merges for example). --Tango 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users aren't required to keep the redirect, they aren't even required to move thier userpages. The bigger problem here is that once someone is renamed, the name is available for use by someone else. If a new registration is created for the old username which still has deleted edits, that user will be credited/responsible/blamed for those edits. That needs to be fixed. Essjay (Talk) 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, this is strange... I just tested it out on a local wiki, and I got the opposite results. Let me check SVN for any changes since then... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be hard at all. The revision table has a format similar to the archive table and the hidden table required for oversighted edits, so Special:Renameuser could do similar SQL queries to update the ar_user_text field, not just rev_user_text without major hassle. File a bug on BugZilla so devs know about this issue. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bug that it doesn't happen, and it's not odd that Titoxd noticed his wiki *was* updating. The RenameUser extension will skip "hot" tables like recentchanges, and will also skip the archive table if it is configured to do so; specifically, the default is whether or not MediaWiki is configured to run in "miser mode", caching expensive queries etc. This is obviously switched on for Wikimedia wikis. 81.156.126.223 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that when I played around with the code to try to fix the block log issue in bug 7011. If $wgRenameUserQuick is set to true, then it will bypass the archive table as well. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy

A month having passed since the policy was streamlined and opened for new discussion with wider advertisement, the discussion here having been fruitful, and having demonstrated community consensus, I have marked this proposal as an adopted policy. I am asking that users please hold off on making requests until a system for handling them has been set up; I am volunteering to set it up myself (I will enlist the help of the checkuser clerks, who are already assisting on CHU, if necessary). My current estimated date for a system to be set up is no later than 1 week from today; I ask that users please be patient while we set this up. Until that time, users may continue to place requests on the usurption subpage at CHU, and we will determine how we handle those as a part of the new system. Essjay (Talk) 08:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have drafted a page at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations; I encourage users to look over that page and note any formatting issues they may notice on the talk page. Please do not use the talk page to discuss usurpation in general; that discussion should remain here for transparency and to keep the request page clear and easy to read. Essjay (Talk) 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Has the problem with deleted edits been fixed? I don't think this can go ahead until it is - we'd be violating the GFDL. --Tango 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of; I will ask about this. We still have some time before we start doing these requests (at least a month, as the process requires at least that long). Essjay (Talk) 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So what heppens with the historical requests still at Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp? Proto::► 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We can just notify them and let them decide whether they really want to request or not. There's few enough that a short bot run or a half hour by hand would probably do the trick. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 15 January 2007 (GMT)

Yes, that was my intent; send them all a bot generated notice to go to the new request page if they are still interested. I have messagebot code that I can run from EssjayBot to do this. Essjay (Talk) 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor wording issue

This is a small nitpick, but the opening paragraph says: "Current policy on the English Wikipedia does not permit bureaucrats to rename users without their consent, which is an essential element of usurpation, resulting in the rejection of any usurpation request." Since this proposal is now marked as policy, isn't it incorrect to say that current policy doesn't permit usurpation? I believe the sentence should simply be removed, unless I'm misreading it. Gwernol 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it should. That sentence was an important one while the policy was still a proposal, to prevent users being misinformed about it's status. It has been clarified with an "until January 2007..." note, and I have clarified further. Essjay (Talk) 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Established?

Hi, just wondering how many edits a user would need to be "established". I just tried to create a username to match mine on another wiki and it was already taken, and has never edited. Thanks --ScottchS 10:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Established in which sense? Users with any edits at all are established insomuch as their usernames are not subject to usurpation. With regard to who may make a request to usurp a username, a user should have a minimum of edits, perhaps twenty or thirty, and should have been active long enough for thier time here to be measured in weeks, not days. The only reason for this would be because usurpation requires far more process; a simple rename to an unused account is trivial, and there is no reason not to perform them for anyone, but a usurpation requires quite a bit more work, so it should be restricted to those who are likely to stick around. Essjay (Talk) 12:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibberish

What does this mean?

Any user who is subjected to usurpation due to no response will be permitted to request a new username, should they return, regardless of number of edits.

Does this mean any usurped user is allowed to create a new account if they return and decide they want one? This is obvious. But what on earth does "regardless of number of edits" apply to here? –Joke 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When an account is usurped, it is renamed to a new username ("UsurpedUser8" or something, probably). When the user comes back, they can have that account moved to a username of their choice. They're account is never deleted, so they don't need to create a new account. I'm not sure what the "regardless of number of edits" comment means. Accounts with large numbers of edits aren't usually renamed because it hurts the servers too much, but by definition a usurped account has 0 edits (or maybe a handful of edits made since returning). --Tango 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"No edits" rule.

I've been longing to claim User:Sagacious since I joined Wikipedia - and now there's a Usurpation policy - I want it even more. However, the username was created last year and the only contributions made were to Zinadine Zidane. I would like to know if the 'No previous edits' rule is a firm one, and whether it was included for technical or other reasons. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 10:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It was integral to this being accepted as policy, so don't expect it to be changed soon. As I understand it, tt's there because of the GFDL, which requires attribution. --Gwern (contribs) 23:34 8 February 2007 (GMT)

The process section

It doesn't match with the one in WP:CHU/U. I'm not fixing it because it has to do with policy, and I'm really not known for thinking things over before saving edits. {Slash-|-Talk} 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Logs

If a user only uploaded an image and that image was deleted (and the file is no longer viewable, even to admins), does that nullify the "no logs" rule? Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)