Requests for comment/Usurpation policy/RFC

There is a logic error, point 4 would allow users eligible for usurpation due to point 3.2 to prevent a rename, which is probably not intended. Besides, I disagree with points 3.1 and 3.3 and likely also with 3.2, since I think a user name which has been taken once should not be taken by another user, except if there is explicit consent by that user (i.e. I agree with point 6). --Vogone (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the comment section. --Stryn (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support being able to usurp accounts, but IMHO the current text is outdated and would prefer a new proposal. —Marco Aurelio 15:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know should we even allow usurpations anymore. What are the benefits of usurping global accounts just so that another user can take the name? I don't know any other site/forum where user could take a username that is already reserved to another user. --Stryn (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. --Vogone (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least it should be possible to usurp vandalism-only accounts straight away. For example, on fiwiki there’s persistent troublemaker who now likes to create accounts with names like [Some well-known user]BOT. Some legitimate users may need those usernames in the future. –Ejs-80 03:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, blocked accounts should be an exemption, at least in cases like this. --Stryn (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to also have the opinion that (forced) usurpations should be severely restricted, if not be disallowed completely except for obvious special cases like troll-created accounts. At least accounts where the user was active in distinct periods of time with more than just a few bad edits should not be renamed without their consent. --MF-W 01:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]