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

Note about local projects[edit]

I added this to the background section of the policy just now. I don't mind reverting if people feel it needs a formal RfC, but I was adding it as a general best practice more than anything else. The immediate cause being this rename/reversal which had been discussed on the list,(pings to PlyrStar93, 28bytes, and Nihlus, all having been involved on it) but there have been discussions about the same concept for around 6 months now and it was what motivated Sakretsu's application for renamer. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Should probably have some sort of community discussion, but I agree that it's a necessary addition. Vermont (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, since the addition was not to the policy itself, but to the background section as a documentation of what amounts to the advice that is given to anyone when they apply or that we eventually end up with when there is a controversy on the list, I thought the "boldly post and see if there are objections or tweaks that can be made" method could be effective. Often these type of discussions happen without anyone ever really updating anything ever, and I think this is a relatively uncontroversial idea where some sort of proof text might be helpful. The policy remains unchanged, but the background reflects what we current best practice is and documents it without imposing any new requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree with TonyBallioni addition here (special:diff/19039962), and I suggest making this a hard policy for every Global Renamer to follow.--AldnonymousBicara? 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair and sensible, but do reckon community consensus need to be obtained. Here is fine or maybe a RFC will be more preferable. However, we must be aware of people who are unjustly blocked on projects, or username blocks. In addition, we do need more active Renamers if such a process is going to be the norm as we do have some inactive Renamers which cause some projects to be affected in a way that Prima Facie, they have Renamers but can't be reached in time. --Cohaf (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Of course, I support the addition. I think it's just common sense to put it in writing since discussions have shown we are more or less on the same page about this matter.--Sakretsu (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
On Cohaf's point, I think leaving this thread open is likely fine for community discussion. As Sakretsu has pointed out, anytime there is a controversy/discussion/disagreement, the outcome is almost always "If you don't know the language/project, and it looks controversial, let someone else handle it."

When a reasonable time has passed and people think it's fine, could someone mark this addition for translation? I would, but I'm less than good at fidgeting around with translations. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Cohaf, TonyBallioni, etc. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this policy being ignored?[edit]

At SRM (Special:Permalink/20359970), I have suggested to a user, who wanted to "vanish/disappear", to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest in order to request the renaming to a random sequence of letters. I did this because I see renames to random names happening all the time, without being aware of what this policy actually says. It so happened and now there is — rightly — a great brouhaha. Of course, looking at the policy, such a name is neither carefully selected, nor duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict or blocks when the suppressredirect function is used in renaming, nor is the user not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. But looking at the Global Rename log, such renames are happening all the time. Random examples:

So, what's going on? My point is not that the request mentioned in the beginning should be OK if these were done as well, but rather that these should not have been done either if we take the policy seriously. --MF-W 03:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think such usernames are any issue. Right to vanish suggest to choose a username in similar format (i e. Renamed user XYZ). And as I have seen Vanished user XYZ or Renamed user XYZ has been in trend for all requests related to vanishing.
However redirect should be suppressed or not is totally depends upon the judgement of renamer. IMO redirect should be suppressed if user is in good standing and do not want to link their old username or in cases of privacy issues, but that should be carefully checked first.
Now interesting issue is that GlobalRenameQueue receive request from all wikis and renamers handle those request are from different projects. So if someone from enwiki request a vanishing, and renamer acting is from different project than they might not aware of these issues—so such renames happens.
We also had rough consensus on not handling controversial requests from other languages/wikis than homewiki of renamer but as "global renamer" is truly global we can't stop every renamer.
To summarise this is a complex situation or we can say limitation of SUL and GlobalRenameQueue doesn't show much information about account either and everybody doesn't go and check local talk pages/block logs, so these situations arrives. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)