Talk:Global rename policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Global rename policy Talk:Global rename policy Archives


This page is for discussions related to the Global rename policy page.

  Please remember to:

  For older conversations you can see the archive index.

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

To conceal or obfuscate bad conduct[edit]

As an old Wikimedian I don’t see in this request any intent “to conceal or obfuscate”. The policy gives a reasonable provision, but stewards and global renamers should apply human wisdom, not just count blocks. A clarification should stay here that the “conceal or obfuscate bad conduct” clause should not be interpreted in a way that any wiki may—by hands of some local dick^W incompetent sysop—ruin wiki career of a user trying to establish him/herself in some other Wikimedia project. If the current username demonstrably leads to trouble for a project where the user is active, then stewards and global renamers have to be instructed to proceed with renaming instead of denying the request on various minor pretexts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Being blocked itself shouldn't be grounds to deny an otherwise reasonable request (i.e. a one-off, good rationale, etc). That line of the policy prevents renaming where it might confuse the local community as to who the user was. This could include requesting multiple renames or requesting that redirects not be left. To be safe, a reasonable request from a blocked user could be made, and you could notify the local community at a central admins' noticeboard or similar place. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Notification is a reasonable step when the user to be renamed is likely known to the community in question by username. But when the user made a half-dozen edits, received a rogue indefblock, and is not known to interact with the community afterwards, then who cares is him “Commons User” or “The Salvator”? Redirects from the old user: and user_talk pages are enough in most cases, but generally a guideline should exists to distinguish strangers to a site S from users significantly involved with S. In this sense, a “stranger” to S is a user making causal edits, usually just because S belongs to Wikimedia, but without significant interests in S apparent. A typical stranger’s edit is adding or replacement of an image; another case is manipulation with interwiki links in rare cases where they still exist. A significantly involved user is such who makes several essential or controversial content edits to S, or interacts with the community. Generally, projects to which the user is a stranger IMHO should be generally ignored and there is no merit in special notifications to these. On the other hand, projects with significant involvement may not be ignored and it’s irrelevant whether is the user currently blocked or not. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to prevent sockmasters to rename themselves?[edit]

I am quite dismayed to find out that sockmasters like en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive are able to request global renames of their sock accounts despite of being blocked in other projects, which makes future checks extremely difficult. Is there nothing to prevent this kind of practice from happening? Shouldn't there be a policy to prevent user from requesting global rename in places other than their home wiki? Alex Shih (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: in places other than what? Which of three or four likely wikis is the home of one Incnis Mrsi, for example? And can you propose a general definition of home that would be helpful in complex cases? IMHO better to forbid renaming of sock puppeteers without obtaining consent of injured sites, independently of current blocks of said puppeteers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The policy discourages renaming a user who is blocked anywhere. Which ones in particular are you talking about? – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

  • @Ajraddatz: I am talking about Rajmaan renames ([1]). They were able to hide their original account by doing the following previously:
  • 23:08, 5 October 2017 Litlok (talk | contribs) globally renamed Rajmaan to Incrassate (per request)
  • 00:36, 6 October 2017 User account Rajmaan (talk | contribs) was created automatically
  • 21:52, 24 March 2018 Masti (talk | contribs) globally renamed Incrassate to Frowardem (per request) ([2])
  • 23:52, 24 March 2018 User account Incrassate (talk | contribs) was created automatically

After Bbb23 blocked 32 of their sock accounts on enwiki, they were able to do the following again:

  • 09:07, 13 June 2018 Tarawa1943 (talk | contribs) globally renamed Rajmaan to DregerClock (per request on eswiki)
  • 05:01, 14 June 2018 MBq (talk | contribs) globally renamed Frowardem to Milktaco (Per request on dewiki) ([3])

Now there is no longer any account at "Rajmaan" and "Frowardem". The sockmaster account history is now located at Milktaco, which was the old account name of what looks to be unrelated account ([4]). What do you think about this, and how can this kind of practice be reduced? Pinging the global renamers involved for more input. Do global block logs not show up when doing renaming? I am genuinely curious about the procedures here. Alex Shih (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. - Seems I did that renaming without proper checking of the xwiki account - my fault. This information doesn’t show up by itself in our renaming interface, but of course it’s not far away. I do apologize. - Do you want me to change Milktaco back to Frowardem? (In any case, I‘ll try to be more heedful.) —MBq (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Part of the issue here was that the master wasn't blocked for a while (see the SPI archive). Global renamers, whether on other wikis or enwiki, wouldn't necessarily know about misconduct without a local block. That said, once he was blocked, global renamers should be checking for local blocks and declining requests unless there are other circumstances (e.g. someone is indef blocked on enwiki but they have a pressing need to change their name and are not intending to hide their past conduct or identity, as with a recent case). We can undo any errors that were made. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, thanks for the information. And MBq, thank you for the input too; I think it's unnecessary to change the user back at this point, no need for apologies – I just wanted to ask for clarification. Thanks again, Alex Shih (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)