Requests for Comment/Global renamers

Currently, global rename requests can take up to a week, and sometimes even two weeks, to be processed. The creation of a separate "Global renamers" group would help reduce turnaround time for global renames by reliving pressure from the Stewards, who currently are the only users capable of performing renames.

Please note that without passage of Proposal 1, all other proposals are rejected. Also note that Proposals 2.1 and 2.2 are mutually exclusive, and as such cannot both be adopted. The only change between each is the support ratio of 80%.

Proposal 1.1 (Revote of Proposal 1)
Forgive me for doing something strange, but please humor me; due to the odd support ratio and changed circumstances, I would like to re-poll the voting base for Proposal 1 instead of close this RfC outright. This is because the consensus was at least somewhat in favor of the group and I think valid concerns were raised (primarily "we're looking good now but what about in the future?"), but the circumstances have changed heavily since the initial votes were put in and merit discussing + decisiveness. I placed this on top for accessibility. What you're voting for (creation of the group) in this is the same as before and is instrumental to anything in this RfC happening or not.

For your consideration:
 * With two additional stewards, the need has changed. Both stewards are excellent 'clerks' who get little things done quickly and check the rename queue more closely any day than I previously did, not to mention have reduced work in general on top of a few routine tweaks that make it easier for any steward to check or be reminded. Initial votes were based on me being the only one to proactively check every so often and the late steward Dmehus checking whenever he was online, and other Stewards very intermittently after that. Still, that doesn't disregard a futureproof argument and perhaps you'd see other merits to having the group available.
 * Since the 15th of June there have been 27 rename requests. The longest turnaround from then when it was myself and Doug doing most renames was 8 days; a few were requested on the 19th and I didn't get to the queue until the 27th. That delay was unfortunately common. Since the 29th of June there have been 10 requests that have been approved on the same or the next day. I expect as time goes on the vigilance might slip a bit but I would be surprised if we reached 3-4 days, let alone longer for turnaround. I can look back further or provide different, though anonymous data as requested.
 * There's been enough time to sit that any other arguments be it merit, principle etc can be found below and are unlikely to have changed much.

Courtesy ping of participants in the initial vote:. Revotes aren't compulsery, previous votes won't be dismissed unless a change is made on the record below. I'm thinking a week to let this incubate unless a heavy enough ratio forms before then. --Raidarr (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Support (1.1)

 * 1)  I believe that creating this usergroup will only have a good impact. AlPaD (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (1.1)

 * 1)  per my original opposition on proposal 1 and per recent new developments. Turnaround times are pretty good now and Stewards can handle renames just fine. As a current Steward, I feel that a new group would be an overkill for a little task like this. Additionally, as I noted in my original opposition, there are conventions which need to be agreed upon and formally incorporated into a guideline which I would like to see get done first before any group is formed.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per
 * 3)  When I think about it now, 29 requests have come and I am among them. I think it's not necessary right now, if 600-700 requests come, maybe the permission group can be considered, I'm voting by joining @Agent Isai and giving it here.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Nothing have really changed when I have oppose to this, so I continue to oppose. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 08:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  I believe that a revote is quite an unusual way to deal with this since it is most likely that only active users will vote in it while the less active users will not necessarily return to this RfC page even if they have been pinged. My original comments stand regarding the substance of the proposal. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) With the statistics of global renames now available, and the new stewards, I now view this usergroup as unnecessary. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Group)
Create a local group on Meta with the identifier "global-renamer", to be titled "Global renamers", with the right "centralauth-rename", which Stewards will add and remove.

Support (1)

 * 1)  Per my previous comment but decided to lean toward here. LetraSeca (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  There seems to be enough of a backlog to justify this but I reserve the right to change my vote at any time. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) This should help the stewards since they have a lot on their plates, by allowing another group to deal with some of the lower priority tasks. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  There is currently enough of a backlog—which I'm defining here in terms of turnaround time, not overall quantity of renames—to justify the creation of a separate group in order to combat the backlog. I appreciate Raidarr's proposal to combat the situation via a general increase in Steward activity, but I would need to see a far more concrete plan in that regard in order to oppose this course of action. — Chrs (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  With us having only a few Stewards, most of which are inactive, I think this is a good idea. Universal Omega (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  yeah this is not a bad idea, we can actually adopt it. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   19:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) As other users have addressed, there truly is no "need" at this time for a renamer group. The length of time between global renames are generally of no concern. This said, I do envision utility for this group. I believe the group would be an effective augmentation to qualified Global Sysops, and allows a pathway to better handle rename requests when faced with a steward activity lull. So, while not necessary, I do believe in the utility of such a group. While the utility is a benefit of its own, the group may also serve the community well if such a future arises in which steward activity is not sufficient to address requests.  dross  (t • c • g) 03:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  It's a good idea. AlPaD (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)   I believe the group benefits the community to let their requests to be processed faster. Aside from this, I also see no reasons to oppose this proposal. The opposes claim that the group to have limited functions, but this doesn’t directly address the proposal’s purpose, that is to lower the workload of stewards. -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 13:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  An ideal method to obtain global rename authorization will reduce the work of both Stewards.   Hey Türkiye  message?  20:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) This is pertinent and is already done at Wikimedia. We should follow them as well. —  Pixial  [Talk] 13:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

 * 1)  At this time, I'm rather neutral. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (1)

 * 1)  Even though I understand that there might not be many active Stewards currently renames have been getting done fairly quickly recently. I think this group would have an extremely limited function and that other groups (such as Wiki Managers) would certainly be more useful than global renamers who would only have 4-5 requests per week on average. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to regular oppose from weak oppose and add that now that myself and Agent Isai are Stewards I strongly believe that there is no need for such a group at all at this time. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There really is not so many GRR. We don't need contests who will rename a user first. We need to consider carefully whether to rename user or not.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m confused by what you’re saying. Are you saying that global renamers would not be competent enough to decide? Wiki creators do it all the time with regards to the Content Policy, I don’t why users wouldn’t be able to decide here. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  per
 * 2)  the the result from this proposal barely a year ago, as well as what others have said. There are not many global renames, and all global renames are actioned accordingly in a timely manner. Miraheze could do well to have a discussion for a   group, or even a   group, but a group for global renamers, when there's not many global renames, does not make sense. Dmehus (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  I echo Raidarr's sentiment on Discord, "adding a new group for it entirely is beyond overkill." We are not like Wikimedia, we don't get renames too often. If we got at least, say, 15, 20, 30 rename requests per day, I would totally support this but from what I'm told, there are some weeks where only one or two renames are requested. Wikimedia on average approves and actions anywhere between 30 to 50 renames per day (some renames are declined of course so thus the total number of renames requested per day on Wikimedia must be much more than the amount approved and done). The issue which severely slows down renames is that we don't have enough active Stewards to oversee the request queue. With the addition at least of one new Steward, I would hope that the current issues facing us are resolved. A sidebar link was also added for Stewards with a direct link to the rename queue so that can help Stewards check and resolve more rename requests faster. Renames also don't rally add too much on to the Steward caseload. From what I hear, they take little time to review versus other more complex functions. There are also some uncodified conventions for renames like not processing requests where the user is attached to X amount of wikis to prevent server strain, not processing more than 1 rename every 12-24 months to not strain MediaWiki and so on which would need to be taught to Global renamers and some standards would need to be fully agreed upon in order to ensure renames are not approved or rejected in a manner more haphazardous than our current wiki request system. For this reason, I must oppose. Sorry.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree with what is said by others above. While I do not have enough information about how many rename requests there are the rename log indicates that there is not such a substantive amount of renames being done that would necessitate an entire group dedicated to this. The two current open requests for Stewardship that have a somewhat good chances of being successful would make this group even less useful and just another hat that would be scarcely if at all used. I really do not think there is any need for such a group also because renames are very rarely something that is urgent or that should be done quickly as is the case for wiki requests. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per above HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments (1)

 * 1) While it may be not necessary, it is a fact that creating this group can lower the workload of stewards and have no consequences (as far as what I have read from the opposes). I am surprised to see lots of opposes thus. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As a Steward, I find the need for a group dedicated to this to be nonexistent. Stewards can deal with this very well and the average turnaround time for requests is now less than a day. Having another group handle this too would be an overkill entirely. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2.1 (Appointment)
'''Users may nominate themselves or others for the role via a request at Requests for permissions. Once the nomination is accepted (if made by another user), the request must stay open for at least seven (7) days. Community members may ask questions to the candidate. A Steward will close the request and evaluate consensus.'''

Support (2.1)

 * 1) LetraSeca (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)  Now being undecided on which proposal. LetraSeca (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  This set of criteria is perfect. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Criteria is reasonable. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC) moved support to 2.2 --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (2.1)

 * 1)  Not sure at this point right now. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (2.1)

 * 1)  Per supporting Proposal 2.2, I would rather have ratios consistent with the other groups as that was the whole point of the previous RfC that was approved. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per Reception123 and I agree with Proposal (2.2). AlPaD (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  In favour of Proposal 2.2. Universal Omega (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  per UO
 * 5) This is a good idea, but it would make the renaming public which is something many do not want. —  Pixial  [Talk] 13:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2.2 (Appointment)
'''Users may nominate themselves or others for the role via a request at Requests for permissions. Once the nomination is accepted (if made by another user), the request must stay open for at least seven (7) days. Community members may ask questions to the candidate. A Steward will close the request and evaluate consensus, generally according to a support ratio of 80%.'''

Support (2.2)

 * 1) The 80% ratio is perfect, given the right should require users to be more trusted compared to wiki creators. The right has the permission to rename anyone to whatever they want, so to impose an 80% ratio minimum should show who the community trusts with this permission.  --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  In order to be consistent with other global groups. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Universal Omega (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  AlPaD (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per above and as the other global groups are. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I wouldn't really mind this change at all, as long as it is beneficial in the long-run. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  this request should definitely come, it will always be good to lighten the workload of stewards. I strongly support this application and I agree with those who support it.  Hey Türkiye  message?  20:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  this request should definitely come, it will always be good to lighten the workload of stewards. I strongly support this application and I agree with those who support it.  Hey Türkiye  message?  20:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (2.2)

 * 1)  I don't have a problem with using a support ratio should consensus be in favor of it, but it's not my first choice. — Chrs (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Unsure about a ratio that high. LetraSeca (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) The support ratio will be too high, I will definitely support if it can be lowered to 70%. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 13:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (2.2)

 * 1)  The 80% benchmark is likely too high, that benchmark isn’t even imposed on our wiki creators. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a greater right than wiki creator, so it makes sense. -- Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments (2.2)
Shouldn’t it be requested at Requests for global rights? I think it will make more sense as this rename users globally. Wikimedia also consider this as a global permission to request, although it is a local right at Meta. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.1 (Revocation)
Users may be removed from the position by a Steward if they repeatedly fail to adhere to the Username Policy when processing requests.

Support (3.1)

 * 1) LetraSeca (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree with this proposal. However, if and when a steward removes a global renamer, they should prepare a statement for the community outlining the infractions that were detailed and any actions taken besides removal. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is already pretty much what's expected. — Chrs (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) . — Chrs (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Universal Omega (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Makes sense. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  sounds like the recommended practice --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   20:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I agree with this proposal. AlPaD (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  Logical. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  This actually seems reasonable. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  This actually seems reasonable. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.2 (Revocation)
Users may be removed from the position via a successful (defined as 50% support) vote of no confidence by the community, opened in good faith.

Support (3.2)

 * 1) LetraSeca (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  50% for a position like this seems reasonable. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reasonable. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  In line with most other groups we have. — Chrs (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Provides consistency with other groups. Universal Omega (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  Consistency with other groups. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  AlPaD (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  It makes sense to have this in addition to a Steward revocation clause. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  It makes sense to have this in addition to a Steward revocation clause. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Inactivity)
Global renamers who go six (6) months without making edits or logged actions on Miraheze will have the right removed for reasons of inactivity.

Support (4)

 * 1) LetraSeca (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per other user groups’ inactivity policy, this is reasonable. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reasonable. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  In line with most other groups. — Chrs (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Provides consistency with other groups. Universal Omega (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  it is reasonable.
 * 7)  Consistency with other groups. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   21:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  This inactivity policy is OK. AlPaD (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  As for the other global groups. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  This sounds fair to me. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments (General)

 * There is currently a minor issue with this when considering overall steward activity (myself roughly daily, then Doug very roughly weekly/biweekly, then the other two extremely intermittently) and the fact the global rename queue on our end is not very prominent and needs to be specifically hunted down (no sidebar link, notification, etc). Doug has been reasonably good at remembering when he does show up, so mainly the issue is me for the activity I have when I simply forget about it in the course of other things. Chrs has just added a link to the sidebar for the steward group, which I think strongly buffers both points and makes it harder to miss both for me and the other stewards when they are present. I feel an entire group for this is redundant and far too specific for an issue that can be resolved by a) me scheduling better and b) more stewards in general since I would say that's more reflective of a general steward activity issue, and what we're looking at here is a minor symptom in a much more problematic overall system that requires wider adjustments or more volunteers. Overall rename traffic is sufficiently low that I think it would hardly justify inclusion alongside IWA as a global bit. Renames also have specific conventions embedded in stewarding which I'm not sure needs to be split off. --Raidarr (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll also take this as an opportunity to solicit a few comments on renaming, since I am/have been going through them this evening (actually since the 19th there've been nearly a dozen, which is slightly unusual). There are a few conventions I employ which I've mostly picked up with backreading how they were processed in the past. These include:
 * 12 months preferred minimum before next rename
 * Requiring decently strong rationale/outreach for a rename taking place earlier than that
 * Presenting and treating renames as at least semi-permanent - they should be retained for a long time if not forever unless there is good reason to change to a new one, and if people want changes more often they should employ user flairs/customized signatures
 * Higher scrutiny for 'highly public' accounts (ie, users with global rights) and many account attachments (technical concerns), though the latter I've relaxed since the recent updates have massively improved rename performance to make even 1000 account attachments a trivial rename task
 * If any of this looks odd I'd like to know and if these should be different/ratified I'd like to know as well, because aside from the Username Policy these are the criteria I use in processing. --Raidarr (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That set of criteria looks perfectly normal. — Chrs (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging everyone who commented/voted previously, . — Chrs (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The criteria looks reasonable to me. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

At this point I'd push the brakes on this proposal (suggestion, not enforcement). If we gain two stewards as nominated, users who are well demonstrated in handling clerical things as it is and who maintain their activity, I think the entire premise this seeks to address will become negligible. --Raidarr (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Interesting problem that pointed out. How is this group gonna be dealed with the problem of server strain if a rename is for a user who has like ~1000 local wiki accounts? LetraSeca (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not had time to fully evaluate or think about this proposal in detail yet, and will leave my support/oppose rationales once I've made up my mind. Full disclaimer: I am a global renamer on Wikimedia so I have experience and insight into the process. Some of the opposes have been centered around the group being too limited in scope and not having enough things to do. For the second point, while it may seem like this is the case in contrast to Wikimedia, rename requests should not be taking more than a week to process—that's very long for a process that only takes a few button clicks and a few minutes of waiting! The only time rename requests should take longer to process is for usurpation requests, which doesn't appear to be policy yet on Miraheze (please correct me if I'm wrong). The other oppose, regarding the user right being too limited in scope, is somewhat understandable, but it sort of misses the reason why this user right is being proposed: to reduce the workload on stewards. On Wikimedia, stewards are busy enough, with enough other tasks on their own to handle. Having a few extra trustworthy hands who may not have the community support for stewardship but can still be trusted with the global rename tool can be of benefit to the stewards team. On another, also relevant note, are there any security requirements for the global renamer group? For example, requiring 2FA to be enabled before the tools are available? — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 11:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Usurption is a process that's only really been done/trailblazed by on Miraheze, including a few surrounding conventions including the usurpee being completely inactive and a minimum of a week to wait for response before doing it. It is not codified, and perhaps it should be.  I don't see 2fa in this request.
 * One big thing I'd like to consider is a broader group which is much more strongly regulated to do clerical tasks like rename, reopening wikis; allowing users to get into the tools and have a wider range suitable for the much smaller and more informal scale of Miraheze while not requiring steward-level discretion (things can escalate to them if they are at all unusual or out of the ordinary). --Raidarr (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1000 accounts isn't much strain at this point. I'd still want to do it with SRE available but it's tremendously faster to do than it used to be. --Raidarr (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Since its been 9 days, I would like to know if anyone proposed any requirements to attain this group (like min edits, account age, etc)? LetraSeca (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-rewrite comments/votes

 * 1) This sounds like a good idea, but is there any particular strong need for extra people who can do renames? Is there a big backlog on rename requests? FirstNoelle (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a special page to review global rename requests - Special:GlobalRenameQueue. Cigaryno (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything on that page, because I'm not a Steward. FirstNoelle (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) First, I would like to ask if you meant to tag this as a draft. Secondly, unlike Wikimedia, we do not have dozens of renames requested every day. At most, we sometimes have one or two per week and they usually get processed pretty fast. As such, I do not see the need for a new group dedicated solely to handling renames. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is utterly pointless. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve untagged the RfC as a draft, and instead have moved it to open as the RfC is in the main namespace. Not sure whether it was a mistake or intentional as a draft, but I’m about to leave a talk page message for the creator. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 15:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This group may be requested in the RFP page if created, in case someone is curious with the feature to globally rename accounts. Cigaryno (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any other reason for the creation of this group? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By default, all RfCs are marked as draft. Mainspace draft RfCs are also not uncommon which is why I asked the maker of this RfC if this was a draft. I would leave it as a draft as this is malformed in that it doesn't set out the criteria for being elected, for revocation, what it's scope is, what it's assigned rights are, etc. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Shouldn’t the comments be removed as well if this article is truly a draft? Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The right is gained with future requirements and revoked in case of abuse. Cigaryno (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure you’re understanding what Agent Isai and I are trying to tell you. Basically, in order for this RfC to even be considered actively, you need to form it so there are clear guidelines for when the right can be requested. For instance, read the Stewards page. There’s clear criteria for both election and revocation, and parameters for a steward’s responsibility. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Taking a look at the rename log, there are enough renames performed that I would consider the creation of a renamer group if, on average, global renames had a multi-day turnaround time. Thus, I'd like to see some statistics from the Stewards before voting. Back in April, I had a global rename, and it took about a day, but that's just my anecdote. — Chrs (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per comments on Discord from Raidarr, apparently rename requests can sometimes get forgotten and end up taking a week or two. Considering that, I think the creation of a group is probably warranted, so I'm going to work on rewriting this RfC into a proper state. — Chrs (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Cigaryno (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  It's a good idea, I agree. AlPaD (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) This should reduce stress of Stewards by allowing another group of users to rename users. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Not that much rename requests, but I don't see any point of this privilege being solely exclusive to stewards. LetraSeca (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * , but with a question to . How big of a global rename queue is there? Are the requests backlogged, or is there a consistent request and output in a timely fashion? Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 15:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)