Requests for Comment/Allow global sysops to globally rename users

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
  •  Oppose GS fight vandalism. Yes they can help Stewards with locking accounts which can involve bad usernames but that's clear cut. Rename policies aren't clear cut and that's what makes it a Steward job. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 14:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest oppose The Global Sysop is mainly for counter vandalism, so this permission is out of scope of the purpose of the user right. WikiJS talk 20:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest oppose As mentioned above, it is a stewards job to do these kind of request and honestly CVT does not really need the permission to change usernames CVT's main focus should be on vandalism and giving them permission to change nicknames is just not something they should focus on --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose As mentioned all above me, I do not believe this should be in the Global Sysop's toolset. They are here to help with counter-vandalism...at least that is how I see it. It wouldn't really make sense to give them the ability to globally rename users. For those reasons I oppose this being add to their toolset. Hypercane (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest oppose Now that I think of it, Reception123 is right. I mean, global sysops already have most stuff stewards have anyways. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Proposal 2[edit | edit source]

    Create a "global renamer" global group.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    Neutral[edit | edit source]

    1. Part of me is strongly in favour of this and another part of me thinks Miraheze needs more capable volunteers for other roles at the moment. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. I'm not sure that's there's justifiable need but I don't see anything swaying me to explicitly oppose. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 14:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3. I don't know about that idea. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1.  Strongest oppose I see no need for that either, because we still have Stewards who carry out these tasks. There are not even enough requests that there is a need for even a separate group of users at all. --Anton (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2.  Oppose per above; this also shouldn't have been added after the RfC was started and voting already underway. Dmehus (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3.  Strongest oppose I'm afraid this would mess EVERYTHING up. Sorry, but I don't really see how this could somehow pass. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4.  Oppose per above, there's absolutely no evidence that this is needed at this time, there are currently four stewards and quite few renames. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5.  Oppose Even though I do not have any statistics about the rate of renames I have not seen any complaints about the rate so far and do not think this group is justified. Another question that is related to my arguments above is: who would be a member of this group? My point is again that creating extra groups and permissions does not help; more volunteers would. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    6.  Oppose Unnecessary as the stewards have this well under control. — Arcversintalk 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7.  Oppose not needed. User:Universal Omega/Sig  08:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) |
    8.  Strongest oppose There are very minimal rename requests, so the stewards can easily rename the users WikiJS talk 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    9.  Oppose I believe we do not need a 'global renamer' group at this time because I feel confident that the current stewards can handle this. It is just unneccesary for the time being and that is why I oppose this proposal as well. Hypercane (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Proposal 3: Status quo[edit | edit source]

    Only stewards are allowed to globally rename users.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    1.  Support see my comment above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2.  Support per above and my comment above. Dmehus (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3.  Strongest support see also my comment above. --Anton (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4.  Strongest support What's the point of this Requests for Comment section on this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5.  Support per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    6.  Support per my above comments. — Arcversintalk 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7.  Support yes no need to change this. User:Universal Omega/Sig  08:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) |
    8.  Support I don't see the need to change at this time. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 14:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    9.  Strongest support No need to change how it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJS (talkcontribs) 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    10.  Support Honestly, if it ain't broke...don't fix it. This applies here too which is why I support the status quo. Hypercane (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    11.  Strongest support Per Reception123. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Neutral[edit | edit source]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1.  Strongest oppose per my "vote" in favour of Proposal 1. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Additional comments[edit | edit source]

    1. When the time is right for me, I might make an RfC on something that could be added, not pointless filler like this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I do not think that it is fair to designate someone's RfC as "pointless filler". It may be so that a large majority of the community do not like the idea but people should be entitled to propose any changes and get the opinion of the community on them. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      DeeM28 The reason why I am calling this pointless filler is mainly because this was made between the gap of this request which was made exactly hours before this Request for Comment was suddenly made like that. Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of reasons to make a Request for Comment, but this one isn't one of them (at least to me it's not). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. There really is not so many GRR. Better would be add for example "interwiki" permission to GSs as interwiki changes are requested more often, but not this. I thought about it some time ago.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3.  Comment: Oh, and one more thing, the only time that a Global sysop would have to globally rename a user is if either they are underaged, or for other Terms of Use enforcement reasons. Besides, Reception123 is the only Global sysop that can activate this by the use of the CheckUser tool (even with that being a Steward-exclusive tool), making this request pretty much pointless. --DarkMatterMan4500 Talk to me Contribs 22:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section