Requests for Comment/Allow global sysops to globally rename users
Add topicProposal 2[edit | edit source]
Create a "global renamer" global group.
Support[edit | edit source]
Neutral[edit | edit source]
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't know about that idea. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose[edit | edit source]
- 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)
- 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)
- This is not the first time this has happened, why is this a problem? Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose Unnecessary as the stewards have this well under control. — Arcversintalk 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose not needed. User:Universal Omega/Sig 08:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose There are very minimal rename requests, so the stewards can easily rename the users WikiJS talk 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
Proposal 3: Status quo[edit | edit source]
Only stewards are allowed to globally rename users.
Support[edit | edit source]
- Support see my comment above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above and my comment above. Dmehus (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongest support see also my comment above. --Anton (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongest support What's the point of this Requests for Comment section on this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per my above comments. — Arcversintalk 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support yes no need to change this. User:Universal Omega/Sig 08:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I don't see the need to change at this time. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 14:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongest support No need to change how it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJS (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Strongest support Per Reception123. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral[edit | edit source]
Oppose[edit | edit source]
- Strongest oppose per my "vote" in favour of Proposal 1. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments[edit | edit source]
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- MrJaroslavik Isn't the Interwiki administrator group still here as of the time I'm writing this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but GS are "very" trusted, so i cannot imagine request In which they would not be promoted to IW admin group. Also i only raised that this would make more sense than global rename permissions changes (addition to GS group/new GRN group).--MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- MrJaroslavik Isn't the Interwiki administrator group still here as of the time I'm writing this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- (Copied from #miraheze-offtopic connect on IRC.) DarkMatterMan4500, oh no, I think you're a little confused because Reception123 is both a
globalsysop
and asysadmin
. When you saw Reception123 rename users who were under age 13, that was with hissysadmin
hat, not hisglobalsysop
hat. That's changed now with the Trust and Safety team, so only Owen (Miraheze) and Doug (Miraheze) will be performing these actions. Basically, SRE was responsible for the Terms of Use (including Privacy Policy) until May 3rd, 2021, when the Trust and Safety team took over. Going forward, it should be clear as now Trust and Safety volunteers will use separate accounts from their community accounts whereas before SRE used their community accounts for ToU enforcement Dmehus (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)- Makes a lot of sense now, considering how confused I was on how Reception123 was able to perform a CheckUser on Terms of Use violating users without even being in the
stewards
group. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes. Technically, they had to add
userrights
anduserrights-interwiki
first to thesysadmin
group when performing an investigation related to a Terms of Use case. With the transfer of responsibilities to Trust and Safety, there should not be a need for system administrators to use the CheckUser tool, other than possibly testing new functionality ontest3wiki
before deploying or investigating bugs with the extension. Dmehus (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- But the question I should ask is this: How is RhinosF1 able to delete wikis without even being in the
stewards
group? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- DarkMatterMan4500 He's a member of the
sysadmin
global group, which includesmanagewiki
rights globally. Keep in mind, though, while he has the technical ability to use ManageWiki on any wiki, most requests are fulfilled by either local wiki bureaucrats or Stewards. In that example you're likely referring to, it was a Terms of Use case, so that's why he deleted the wiki. Now that transfers to Trust and Safety as well. Dmehus (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Dmehus Yeah, I see what you mean now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, that's great. Happy to help. :) Dmehus (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dmehus Yeah, I see what you mean now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- DarkMatterMan4500 He's a member of the
- But the question I should ask is this: How is RhinosF1 able to delete wikis without even being in the
- Yes. Technically, they had to add
- Makes a lot of sense now, considering how confused I was on how Reception123 was able to perform a CheckUser on Terms of Use violating users without even being in the
- Could someone at least close this Request for Comment? Most of us have already agreed that this is basically pointless. --DarkMatterMan4500 Talk to me Contribs 23:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- DarkMatterMan4500 I disagree with the latter part of your comment that it's "pointless." I've already updated John on the status of the two RfCs, and suspect he will close this some time tomorrow or Saturday. So, not to worry, we're approaching closure in the not too distant future. Dmehus (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dmehus Well, it may not be pointless to you or anyone else, but in my view, what's the point of having to request something that can't be undertaken? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hrm? It's a discussion worth having, regardless of whether or not the discussion results in the creation of a new group, a change to an existing group, or neither option occurring. Dmehus (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I mean, I've even people can discuss a community ban on users before. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hrm? It's a discussion worth having, regardless of whether or not the discussion results in the creation of a new group, a change to an existing group, or neither option occurring. Dmehus (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dmehus Well, it may not be pointless to you or anyone else, but in my view, what's the point of having to request something that can't be undertaken? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- DarkMatterMan4500 I disagree with the latter part of your comment that it's "pointless." I've already updated John on the status of the two RfCs, and suspect he will close this some time tomorrow or Saturday. So, not to worry, we're approaching closure in the not too distant future. Dmehus (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- (Copied from #miraheze-offtopic connect on IRC.) DarkMatterMan4500, oh no, I think you're a little confused because Reception123 is both a
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section