Talk:Global renamers
Add topicThis page is for discussions related to the Global renamers page. Please remember to:
|  |
Help
[edit]Subject: Request to unblock global rename
Hello,
I am attempting to change my global username, but I received an error stating that I am on a deny list for global renames. Could you please check why I am restricted and if it is possible to lift this restriction?
My current username is:[Vahid.m.b.y]
Thank you for your assistance Vahid.m.b.y (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- See DUPLICATE request at Talk:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Help_Help. — xaosflux Talk 22:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Proposed amendment
[edit]As a continuation of Talk:Requests for comment/Revoking J ansari's global renamer rights, I'd like to propose amending Global renamers#Removal to the following:
Global renamer rights can be removed immediately by a steward in the case of abuse or serious misuse, after which a request for comment must be filed. In other cases, a request for comment can be filed, and the rights removed by a steward after 1 week if it is closed with consensus for that course of action. Their rights will also be removed when they have not taken any action with the rights within a year. They may re-apply through the regular process.
That would hopefully fill in the grey area for any future removal request. //shb (t • c) 09:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- What is this trying to achieve? I'm guessing you want the RFC to be open for at least a week - not that after closure a steward would need to wait a week before enacting the results of the rfc? — xaosflux Talk 10:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm proposing that the RfC be open for 1 week. //shb (t • c) 10:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- The the policy should be about the RFC (the RFC may not be snow closed / must be open 'at least 1 week') - not about a subsequent enforcement action. Policy isn't the place to require volunteers to take future actions. — xaosflux Talk 13:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- That is - I think this should be stated as a restriction on the person closing the RFC - not a restriction on the technical enforcement component. — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- What part of the proposal made you think this was about technical enforcement? //shb (t • c) 13:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- You could change the wording to In other cases, a request for comment can be filed and remain open for a minimum of 1 week, and the rights removed by a steward if it is closed with consensus for that course of action. or something similar to clarify. As I mentioned on the RfC talk page I am supportive - while this was a bit of a unique case, discussions to remove someone's permissions should not be considered done after a handful of Meta insiders have commented within 6 hours. They should be properly advertized and the user impacted should be given time to consider the situation and prepare their response - doubly important for those without strong EN skills. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah that's much better wording – I'd support that over mine. //shb (t • c) 13:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is just verbiage stuff, not the main idea. Policies are strongest when they forbid/authorize actions. In this case I think the idea is two-fold: (a:the forbiddance) The discussion must not be closed earlier than one week; (b:the empowering) Stewards are empowered to enact the results of the discussion. Both of these seem reasonable to me. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- To avoid ambiguity I'd suggest an explicit "must" rather than the implied "can" in Ajraddatz's text: In other cases, a request for comment can be filed and must remain open for a minimum of 1 week, and the rights removed by a steward if it is closed with consensus for that course of action. - Cabayi (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Good suggestion! There was something missing in what I wrote haha – Ajraddatz (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- To avoid ambiguity I'd suggest an explicit "must" rather than the implied "can" in Ajraddatz's text: In other cases, a request for comment can be filed and must remain open for a minimum of 1 week, and the rights removed by a steward if it is closed with consensus for that course of action. - Cabayi (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is just verbiage stuff, not the main idea. Policies are strongest when they forbid/authorize actions. In this case I think the idea is two-fold: (a:the forbiddance) The discussion must not be closed earlier than one week; (b:the empowering) Stewards are empowered to enact the results of the discussion. Both of these seem reasonable to me. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah that's much better wording – I'd support that over mine. //shb (t • c) 13:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- You could change the wording to In other cases, a request for comment can be filed and remain open for a minimum of 1 week, and the rights removed by a steward if it is closed with consensus for that course of action. or something similar to clarify. As I mentioned on the RfC talk page I am supportive - while this was a bit of a unique case, discussions to remove someone's permissions should not be considered done after a handful of Meta insiders have commented within 6 hours. They should be properly advertized and the user impacted should be given time to consider the situation and prepare their response - doubly important for those without strong EN skills. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- What part of the proposal made you think this was about technical enforcement? //shb (t • c) 13:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- That is - I think this should be stated as a restriction on the person closing the RFC - not a restriction on the technical enforcement component. — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- The the policy should be about the RFC (the RFC may not be snow closed / must be open 'at least 1 week') - not about a subsequent enforcement action. Policy isn't the place to require volunteers to take future actions. — xaosflux Talk 13:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm proposing that the RfC be open for 1 week. //shb (t • c) 10:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- I was one of the people in the steward channel that agreed the closure of the mentioned RFC came too early. However, since there was no reason to continue piling on, and that the amount of people saying "remove" indicated that the user didn't have the trust required for the role, I also couldn't disagree with it. That said, since we currently have no established practice, I think a week is reasonable for next time, just like we would with for instance RfDAs. EPIC (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- I can go both ways on this. It just seems cruel to leave someone waiting a week to close when the outcome is obvious. Perhaps 48 hours for snow closes and extend to a week if any opposition arises. There is no perfect time determiner. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Nothing prevents the subject from resigning if they agree. — xaosflux Talk 14:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- I can go both ways on this. It just seems cruel to leave someone waiting a week to close when the outcome is obvious. Perhaps 48 hours for snow closes and extend to a week if any opposition arises. There is no perfect time determiner. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think this is needed. I was surprised to see the closure so quickly, but the consensus was not only unanimous, but the OP made a response to the RfC. Given how rarely these kinds of requests are filed, I don't think we need to add such a rule for the sake of it. Leaderboard (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)