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

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)

Restricting renaming while a renamee is blocked somewhere[edit]

Yesterday, I found that a user who abused multiple accounts are renamed by global renamers.

  • 18:38, 17 August 2018 Céréales Killer (talk | contribs | block) renamed user Irvi Hyka (82 edits) to The199206 (per request) [5]

I think this rename can't be justified because renaming while the renamee is blocked could be used for concealing bad conducts and make confusions to local administrators. I'd like to propose that username change be restricted while the renamee is blocked somewhere. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kwj2772: while I think it may be worth to look out, I can't see this as a brighline rule. For example you have 730 accounts and blocking policies may vary widely across projects. — xaosflux Talk 13:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
There's is also a discussion about this rename on mailing list. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Kwj2772 and 1997kB, may I ask if there were any conclusion to this concern? I am asking because it's strikingly similar to the concern I had in the thread above; but more troubling in nature as the user in question was definitely already blocked on multiple projects prior to this rename. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: As per global rename policy - The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. generally request from blocked users can be rejected, but in this case they indicated to take legal action. That's why we have discussed with legal team and they said that is upto renamer's decision to accept or reject such request, but if they reject they have support from legal team. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This sounds very strange to me: even if a rename request is against the said policy above, renamers are free to go ahead and process the rename based on their own discretion? Alex Shih (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, that policy does not say "blocked users cannot ask for a rename" but "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct" and that an user is blocked does not by default entail that they want to hide anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, As Jo-jo said that all the blocked users do not requests with same intentions, but some LTAs does and if they indicate that they gonna take some legal action (like in this case), we can reject the request. Ultimately the decision should be supported by global rename policy. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
True, but the line of distinction is pretty ambiguous I think. There should be a policy to require global renamers to at least ask for more clarification on the intended purpose of the rename request if the user is blocked on other projects, because I am seeing many of these rename requests contains one sentence or less (sometimes with no rationales), which neither conceal nor not conceal anything. I hope this makes sense. Alex Shih (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and it's a stance I've taken many times (especially recently). Other global renamers are too forgiving or don't even bother to check the accounts. Legal has stated that they would stand behind any decision global renamers make in situations like these (whether to rename, reverse a rename, or deny a rename) as long as it is supported by policy. However, policy gives renamers a lot of leeway and leaves it mostly to our discretion. That being said, anyone trying to invoke legal rights or anything similar are to be directed to legal for formal procedures. That being said, this rename should not have been processed and more care should have been taken before doing so. Nihlus 00:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)