Requests for comment/Revoking J ansari's global renamer rights

The following request for comments is closed. Global rename permission will be removed, per unanimous comments. --M/ (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

---

J ansari (talk · contribs) was promoted as a global renamer back in March 2023 after unanimous support. At the time, they were a rather trusted user; however, since then, they've developed a lengthy history of poor renames, with many users voicing their concerns.

Some of the voiced concerns include:

1. In April 2023, one of Ansari's renames resulted in quite a bit of confusion on huwiki, the renamed user's home wiki, regarding how page moves/redirects were handled. Ansari did not respond to the message.
2. In May 2023, Ansari actioned an enwiki rename request intended to impersonate someone the requesting user was engaged in a dispute with. Ansari was asked to undo this, but they did not respond to the talk page message; ultimately, the rename was undone a month later by a different global renamer.
3. In August 2024, Mykola7 raised various issues with them via email over concerns about Ansari's ukwiki renames. Ansari, once again, did not respond to Mykola.
4. In January 2025, Ansari processed a request previously declined by a (now-removed) steward, declined for obfuscating sockpuppetry. Unlike the previous three, Ansari actually replied, noting that they'd be more careful in the future.
5. In February 2026, Ansari processed a request left on hold, for a user who also had similar socking concerns.
6. In June 2026, they processed a request that was placed on pure misunderstanding. Any competent GRN would have likely recognised that the filing user's confusion arose around signatures, and the user did not need to be renamed to "See my text below". The rename was then reverted by Vermont, and they never responded to the concerns.
7. Earlier this week, Superpes15 warned Ansari about renaming a user that clearly should not have been renamed to what was essentially a random incomprehensible string. I have been waiting for their response, but it's been over 96 hours and still nothing.

It's perfectly fine for someone to make a few mistakes, especially when they're a new renamer, but you're supposed to learn from those mistakes. Ansari's poor communication has meant that they have yet to actually learn from their mistakes; 3 years on, and that number only keeps increasing. It pains me to have to open this removal request, but given Ansari's continued poor renames and poor communication, it leaves me with no other option but to open this RfC. //shb (t • c) 10:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement from J ansari

Over a decade I'm contributing on Wikipedia as volunteer. I renamed lot of applications, if I did something against rename policy I take responsibility. But always try to do best. I'm thankful to all who supported me in Wikimedia movement and rename right. I'm agree of community discussion whatever comes. If I did wrong I will try to improve that. The right can't stop my wiki journey. Best regards -J. Ansari Talk 11:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove, sadly, as nominator. //shb (t • c) 10:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove per nominator. This was discussed numerous times among stewards and there was some doubt, but I sadly think the time has come. Yes, making mistakes is fine, but the main thing is learning from them, which Ansari has not done despite numerous concerns and warnings. We have to make it clear that GRN is a sensitive right and we have a policy on how to use the rights for a reason. EPIC (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Now that J ansari has responded to this RfC; I appreciate the civil comment, but I feel it doesn't really address the issues raised here. At the same time I would be happy to accept a future SRGP request should things improve. EPIC (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Remove, unfortunately, I don't see any learning curve. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 10:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Well, I somewhat expected the 24-hours related removal request when I sent out this reminder, but didn't expect this (well, even bad, I guess) to happen. Should be removed at this stage. — regards, Revi 10:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• I never like this to be the solution, but I admit that, knowing Ansari's experience, I wouldn't have expected such a superficial and serious mistake, and I was even more surprised to see that Ansari had been notified for the same reason a few weeks earlier. I'm even more surprised—and this is the serious thing—to see that Ansari often doesn't take accountability, since he almost always didn't reply when asked. The really serious thing, and what leads me to sadly say Remove, is precisely this, compared to the errors that can occur when you perform a large number of renames. In this case my feeling is that Ansari performed these renames a bit superficially, without carefully consulting the reasons and the users involved, when, as I've always said, quality should prevail over speed. --Superpes15 (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove Unfortunately, the problems described above do not provide me the trust I would expect from a global renamer. I agree that the mere fact that someone makes a mistake is not in itself disqualifying for the right, but repeated inability (or lack of concern) to learn from one's own mistakes can and perhaps should be, in my opinion, considered disqualifying in such cases. --V0lkanic (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove Per nom. That's really unfortunate. --𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 11:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• I appreciate all the renames you've done over the years, but I think all the mistakes mentioned above come down to your poor English and communication skills. You've had many chances to improve, but you haven't. I don't think that's going to change anytime soon unless you genuinely acknowledge the issue and make a real effort to improve. So I think this is the right time to Remove your rights. You're, of course, very welcome to make a new permission request in the future once you believe you've improved enough and can avoid making the same mistakes that led to the removal of your rights. I believe the community will always welcome someone who has made a genuine effort to improve. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove, but only because the renamer has barely responded to the concerns raised in the past. While some of the links indicate seriously poor practice, misunderstandings happen, and I'm not sure that alone is worthy of removal. However, especially given the potential for these misunderstandings, I think it's important that the renamer be responsive to any concerns raised. That's not acceptable, especially since these kinds of issues have the potential to result in improvements from all sides (i.e, including the wiki that raised the concern). Leaderboard (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove; mistakes happen, we all make them. Never responding to questions regarding these mistakes, and requiring other renamers and stewards to clean up after you, however, is an issue. CoconutOctopus talk 11:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove. I have come across many requests that J. Ansari handled excellently, and I am very grateful to him for his work. However, I am concerned about the points raised above, and especially the disregard of the messages he received - which prevents learning and improvement of the activity. Neriah - 💬 - 11:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove per nomination above. Codename Noreste (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove. Sadly. Reckless. I see they renamed for more than one language. While I applaud the enthusiasm, I have found it to be unwise to handle requests written not in my mother tongue. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  And, as the old adage/cliché says, sometimes less is more. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Remove Pile on. Per nom. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove. We are not perfect and are never expected so, yet not responding to or learning from mistakes is not acceptable. I agree with EPIC that his response is not sufficient to address the issue, yet we would welcome his rejoin should he learn from the experience being a renamer and apply that to other contributions.
  However, the reason @Deepfriedokra gave for the removal of the right leaves a dangerous risk of misunderstanding. Renaming not in his mother tongue is not a problem in itself, and renamers do work on such requests especially when they pile up a lot (that's why we allow non-native speakers to work on vanish requests, with a waiting peroid); it is, however, a problem that no sign of even the slightest attempt to understand the context is shown, and mistakes are not corrected or coordinated promptly. 1F616EMO (on zhwiki) 16:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I am closing this RfC accordingly to unanimous remove requests, as an uninvolved Steward, since any further piling up cannot be useful. Thanks to @J ansari for his long help with this global right. Removal requested. --M/ (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)