Wikiquote talk:Changing username

Add topic
Active discussions

Past discussion:Wikiquote talk:Changing username/Archives/1

Usurpation: What if we revise?Edit

Now that we've handled with tens of usurpation requests since SUL was introduced, we can say safely we have a good amount of cases we review. What if we revise the current rule which was drafter in the pre-SUL era? One of things I wonder if better to revise is usurpation related to SUL accounts. In these years I cannot recall troubled usurpation request which was submitted by a SUL account holder. Please correct me if I miss a clear trouble (I admit I haven't been active not always). But if it has been without any trouble for years, why not just accept usurpation requests in case the target account is already integrated into the SUL system?

In general I wonder our current rule is a bit stricter then the real situation demands: so, for example, what if we accept all requests automatically unless the target account has edits (or in the strictest at least one edit) in the past certain months? Thoughts? --Aphaia (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing is not the sole barometer of use. Some people hardly ever edit, but have an account so they can occasionally log in and check their watchlist. I think it always make sense to ask the existing account holder before usurping their account. We might want to reduce the wait time, or make it contingent on the amount of activity the account has had (giving more time to respond to someone who has edited more frequently in the past). Cheers! BD2412 T 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me revive this topic. A recent request (and related VP discussion) make me wonder if we can think it "an uncontroversial usurpation". I agree there are people who have never edited and perhaps won't but find registration beneficial. It is decent not to disturb those quiet readers. So I withdraw my previous idea. But on the other hand, the recent discussion seems to shed a light on this topic. What if we accept usurpation requests on already indefinitely blocked accounts in general? Specially in case of impersonification? If the target account has no factual edits and blocked as sock/impersonification indefinitely, I think such usurpation unlikely controversial and it's not good for people to wait in a queue for weeks in such cases. Thought? --Aphaia (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We recently had just such a situation, where an editor sought to usurp one of Kalki's indefblocked sockpuppet accounts. Here, the situation was unusual in that Kalki is still around, and was able to quickly respond to an inquiry about the request. However, I agree in the broader term that it is pointless to require an editor to wait for a response from an indefblocked account, and such usurpation requests should be granted once that status is determined. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This ought to be a rare situation but, given that a single user has "reserved" hundreds of account names, I can see the appeal of a special rule for expediting cases like this. Still, I am a little hesitant to expand the policy for something that has only happened once, or for redressing problems created by a single user. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Changing username".