Requests for Comment/Allow global sysops to globally rename users

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Proposal 3 is successful. John (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some reason, only stewards can globally rename users. Let's change this and let global sysops do this, as this will speed up global rename requests. —MarioMario456 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 1[edit | edit source]

Global sysops are allowed to globally rename users.

Support[edit | edit source]

  1.  Support Why not? InspecterAbdel (NLW) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.  Strongest support It is ridiculous to allow Global Sysops to lock accounts for Username Policy violation and not trust them with renaming such accounts. I can see opposes that basically state Global Sysops are supposed to be dealing with vandalism instead of handling these kind of requests. I do not think it makes any sense to say this when anti-vandalism work also includes usernames which sometimes intentionally contain insults, spam etc. There are some opposes saying stuff like "this is not Global Sysops' job" but that is why we are discussing this! We are here to determine if this should be their job or not! Now, Stewards are not really transparent about global renames so I do not know if additional help is needed to speed up these requests but I do not see any negative impact this may have. It will also be good to be able to reduce our dependence on the Stewards. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No one has ever asked for the figures so how do we know Stewards won't be transparent. There's no reason why they can't give stats. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 12:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • In addition to what RhinosF1 said, I did already provide some quick statistics in terms of the approximate average annual number of global renames completed per year based on the total number of global renames completed since Miraheze's inception nearly six years ago. I've just compiled a quick count of the number of global rename requests in 2021 (the past four and a half months), and there have been 68. A handful or two of duplicate, rejected, otherwise invalid, or withdrawn requests, but easily over 60 completed global rename requests this year. The vast majority of the requests are completed within several days of the request being initiated, and nearly all were completed within one week. This is, I would say, a reduction in the time to completion over the previous year. Note this would not include username usurpation requests completed, as those are done in Special:GlobalRenameUser, for which there have been two, as far as I can recall. Dmehus (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • In this case, transparent means making the rename queue visible to everyone. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Well, in fairness, that would be an upstream issue with the CentralAuth extension, as far as I'm aware. I did ask Reception123 about this last year, whether we could provide read only access to the Special:GlobalRenameQueue. Actually, now that I think about it, he or I even created a Wikipedia Phabricator feature request, but it was either declined or indefinitely pended as there was no appetite for the Wikimedia Foundation to provide this. Nevertheless, we could definitely try and provide regular semi-annual or annual statistics on global renames via wikitable somewhere on Meta Wiki. Dmehus (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Strongest support This would really be helpful for users who want to change their name but stewards are inactive. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Where is the indication that Stewards are inactive though? And I would like to re-emphasize that there's currently only one Global Sysop (me) either way. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I've recently changed my mind and now I have to agree with this now since I noticed global sysops already have most stuff stewards already have anyways. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral[edit | edit source]

Oppose[edit | edit source]

  1.  Oppose As a current (and the only) global sysop, I don't think this would be a necessary or good idea. I think that Global Sysops already have sufficient permissions and it would not be appropriate to have them also gain the rename permission. Global Sysops are supposed to assist Stewards but they are distinct from Stewards and therefore I don't think that they should gain another permission and slowly come close to being indistinguishable from Stewards. There's also not really any indication that renames are being done too slow as far as I'm aware. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.  Oppose per Reception123 above, certainly, but I also because policy defines Global Sysops as a chiefly counter-vandalism role, and I can't see how performing a global rename would constitute counter-vandalism. So, on that basis, I believe this is a significant expansion to the role that would require a larger discussion. In terms of that larger discussion, there's also a question of need. With some ~350 global renames in the past nearly six years, that's an average of only roughly 50-60 global renames per year. I think existing Stewards are capable of handling that level of work. If there becomes a need for further delegation, it would be better to create a specific purpose global-renamer group. Dmehus (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.  Strongest oppose Global sysops are meant to do the work of an administrator on wikis with little maintenance or on wikis that have a lot of clutter or vandalism and for some reason the bureaucrat (or owner, or other administrators) of that wiki do nothing about it. Global sysops should, in my view, only be traditionally endowed with the rights of a local administrator (as has been done now), and should not be given more responsibility. Renaming the user in my eyes hasn’t posed any challenges for Miraheze, so I really don’t support this. Stewards easily have time to rename users and that’s fine. --Anton (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.  Strongest oppose Sorry, but I'm afraid that it won't happen. Only stewards are allowed to do this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.  Oppose I agree with the reasoning expressed above. It does not make sense in my view to give this permission to the Global sysop role because that is not what the role is really about (in my opinion) and also because like it was discussed above we do not want to reach a point where there are not many differences between the two roles. I do not have any idea about how fast or slow renames are because there are no statistics about this but even if they are slow I do not understand what benefit there would be to adding this permission to Global sysops who would only be one extra person in the current format. The solution in my view is to try to find more volunteers instead of trying to change the permissions and rights of existing groups. I find it very regrettable that so many volunteers have resigned this year and my sincere hope is that this exodus will not continue. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6.  Strong oppose Global sysop is an antivandalism role, which is unrelated to renames. We shouldn't group unrelated permissions together simply on the basis of trust. — Arcversintalk 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7.  Oppose that's not the Global Sysops job User:Universal Omega/Sig  08:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  •  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 (talk • contribs) 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]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
        • 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)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]
      • (Copied from #miraheze-offtopic connect on IRC.) DarkMatterMan4500, oh no, I think you're a little confused because Reception123 is both a globalsysop and a sysadmin. When you saw Reception123 rename users who were under age 13, that was with his sysadmin hat, not his globalsysop 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)Reply[reply]
      • ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)Reply[reply]
        • 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)Reply[reply]
          • 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)Reply[reply]
            • 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)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
    Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Comment/Allow_global_sysops_to_globally_rename_users&oldid=277311"