Jump to content

Talk:Global renamers/Archives/2014

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


In the membership section it says Users who have held local bureaucrat rights on a WMF project and not lost them in a negative situation, and who have performed at least 25 renames in their tenure may pass a request for global renamer rights after 5 days under the same conditions as above. 25 renames? That would make it possible that a crat could just do some fake renames to shorten the time. Generally, I don't like the sentence at all. 25 renames or any other arbitrary number is totally meaningless. Declinings and other rename related things might be more important than 25 renames on accounts with maybe 10 edits. -Barras talk 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You have valid points. How would you prefer to measure it then? Or perhaps have all requests last five days and let the community decide on a case-by-case basis? Ajraddatz (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally would remove that sentence at all. Two weeks for everyone seems very valid in delight of the effect that usergroup has. Steward elections or global sysop elections aren't shorten just because some user has done an arbitrary number of some sort of action. -Barras talk 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
We want experienced bureaucrats to be populating this group, which is why I think it makes sense to promote that. But I've removed the line, since you are right that an arbitrary number doesn't reflect experience. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
True, however, now you changed the page to have elections only run for one week. Of course we want experienced bureaucrats for that job but only one week seems not enough for such an important position. Compare it to global sysops. We also want experienced admins for that position and have elections running for two weeks. That group doesn't even effect all wikis etc. Global renamers will have much more power and will be able to do rather bad things (renaming just someone around could cause a lot of drama and damage). I think that we should stick to the two weeks to give really everyone the chance to comment on candidates. Also there is no rush and no need to really shorten the time. -Barras talk 19:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
IMO global sysop votes should also last for a week. There is so little activity on requests after the first week that it is barely worth it. However, I know others are also set on making candidates wait a week longer from volunteering to being able to help out. I've changed it back. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if we will keep this criteria for the next years. As the possibility of renaming will be removed from 'local' bureaucrats, with time, there will be no more candidates fulfilling this criteria. I understand it is safe to require that for now, but if we want new global renamers, it has to be changed to add users with no previous renaming experience and being a bureaucrat may not mean too much on that.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As it is, anyone can apply; their requests just take two weeks. The easier process is in place temporarily for bureaucrats to ensure an easy transition (plus see various arguments on the ML) Ajraddatz (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
For transparency, I'll give my reasoning behind proposing this - it's an attempt to balance the concerns about having bureaucracy for bureaucrats applying pun intended, something that attempts to be fair to all candidates (and where it is not, the rationale is defensible), and the ability of the community to object to a nomination. Sure, there will probably be bureaucrats with 3 renames applying, but the process can filter that out. --Rschen7754 05:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


This right has to be assigned locally, as also for stewards. Otherwise global renamers would be able to rename from any wiki, not only from meta. Vogone (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I prefer to have this splitted: centralauth-rename for a local metawiki account, the rest for a global account. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the page to reflect this. Good catch. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
We should make sure that the devs know this too... @DGarry (WMF): --Rschen7754 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Then, the last comment is obsolete which is why I removed it. For that reason, we should request ob bugzilla the creation of a local group “global renamers” on metawiki which has the centralauth-rename right assigned. —DerHexer (Talk) 21:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Filed as Bug 69651. Vogone (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is overkill; a note like I added should be sufficient to ensure people only rename from Meta. It's much too tedious to have one group's rights split into a local and a global group. It's annoying enough that that is already the case for stewards. --MF-W 23:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no need for a "global" global renamer group apparently, as centralauth-rename covers everything you need for a global rename already. Vogone (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
For the interim they still need local renameuser rights to do usurpations (and all the rights associated with that). The global group can be removed when SUL finalization is complete. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Why can't local bureaucrats assist stewards with this task until SUL finalization? (asked that already on IRC but only got rather pissy responses) Vogone (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of reasons stewards and WMF staff members in charge of SUL finalisation see but you don't accept (which is fine). Anyway, stewards can easily do usurpations with their global steward account if a global renamer really gets into issues (which I can hardly think of). Therefore, I have change the proposal accordingly. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Very good. Is it confirmed that move rights, supressredirect, etc. are not needed for moving the userpages of the people you rename? --MF-W 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It is. (diff) Vogone (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
To directly answer the Vogone question, because they continue to break SULs and create more issues that need to be resolved at SUL finalization. Best minimize the damage by moving to renaming from a global perspective now. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Global renamer user group

Just for your information, a local "global renamer" user group with "centralauth-rename" rights has just been created. (154440) Vogone (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting that right on SRGP

I don't believe this is the right place, technically. As also for centralnotice, this right is not a global one. For consistency, it should thus also be requestable at Meta:RFA, otherwise it may confuse requesting editors. Regards, Vogone (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WM:RFA would also be the wrong place for it, since that page is for requests handled by local bureaucrats and sysops. It should at least be a "Steward requests/" page; and creating a new one just for this would also only just confuse people. --MF-W 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: Yeah, I was also already thinking about this problem, but I can't find any evidence that Meta:RFA is for requests to admins/bureaucrats only, but rather "that this page is for access on Meta only". And the global renamer right is access granted for metawiki only. Vogone (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a steward request, so it belongs in SR. It is a right that is applied globally, so it could be said to be GP. Purists may argue, however, as it is the only place in SR/.. that people votes/opinions are invited to take place on issuing roles, it makes sense to me to include it there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Usurpation of accounts

Different projects have different standards with regards to granting usurpations. I thought I'd read that that usurpation of local accounts would remain with local projects. Is this still the case? –xeno 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Local usurpations don't make much sense these days if the requesting account made edits on more than one project. Currently, Stewards do not usurp other global accounts (at least, I haven't heard of that before) but will consider this during SUL finalisation. Next step for that should be making all acounts global so that only usurpations of global accounts (on a global level) would happen. Additionally, account merges will be possible soon. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that answers the question - I am more asking about the decision process on usurping a particular target. On en.wiki, accounts with significant history may not be usurped except in certain cases. On de.wiki, accounts with more than a few valid contributions cannot be usurped at all. In a global regime, this will change? –xeno 19:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly from a year or so ago, in cases where there is conflict between users with the same name:
  • The owner of the SUL has preference; everyone else gets renamed
  • If there is no SUL, then the user withe the most edits gets the SUL, and all others get renamed
Once SUL is implemented, to usurp a name requires thatt he target be gone from WikiMedia in toto, not just one local project. In those cases, I would hope that the if the steward/global renamer sees that a target has a significant history on a local project, that they will seek advice from the project in question. -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I think they are talking about such example: DerHexer2 wants to get renamed to his real name Peter Müller which is already registered on dewiki with 2 article contributions and on enwiki with three. While enwiki crats would not move Peter Müller away so that it can be usurped by DerHexer, dewiki crats would do so. Now two scenarios could happen: Peter_Müller@dewiki and Peter_Müller@enwiki both own the global account Peter_Müller@global. Currently, we were able to rename Peter_Müller global to Usurped_account241231@global and DerHexer@global to Peter_Müller@global but are not doing. And they are looking for criteria if we would do that and under which criteria: if they don't have article edits, less than X edits, etc. But they're right that we have to nail that down. The other scenario would be that either one of them or currently none has a global account. Then I'd wait to get them global during SUL finalisation so see which global account we have to usurp. So we can either wait before we usurp accounts in general or create some criteria. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Usurping accounts will need to be done by stewards as global renamers cannot move the unattached account, so that will need to resolved by a steward prior to a rename. If a community has a set of criteria, then I would think that stewards would utilise that guidance at this point of time. So that would be helpful as a summary. After full SUL, that guidance would become mute, as usuping accounts becomes redundant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How does it become redundant? –xeno 10:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Because all accounts will be global then, and usurpation can only be possible when two people have the same username on different projects. --MF-W 10:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
So if someone registers a desirable username but never uses it, years later someone won't be able to request that name? This seems suboptimal. (i.e. there are other reasons to usurp than unification) –xeno 10:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, see my comment above. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
A namen that is taken is taken. --MF-W 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
At least accounts with zero edits should be usurpable after some time, imho. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, as also passive account usages are legitimate. "A name[] that is taken is taken" said by MF-W above is a great sentence I would fully agree with after SUL finalisation is done, and if we state that clearly, there will also be no demand for suspicious 0 edit SUL account usurpations. Regards, Vogone (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For reasons other than SUL/Unification and impersonation issues .What is the need to allow users to Usurp others accounts in most cases where an editor has stopped editing.A large number of requests are simply I like the other username more than mine.You can simply ask them to choose a new username. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, reasons mentioned above by xeno or myself. Stewards are currently discussing how to handle these usurpation requests. I'll let you know at this place about the progress. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Can we limit this discussion to usurping local accounts?

Re usurption of SUL accounts, ie. for reasons other than unification, may I suggest that this component be noted and left unresolved for the moment. I see that usurping of global accounts falls outside the remit of the global renamers group, and outside the establishment and functioning of this group at this point of time.

Available usernames and reuse of (unused) usernames is a bigger, broader discussion, and deserves its time in the sun through an RFC, not tucked away here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Like on Requests for comment/Global usurpation policy. I'd at least want to establish a process which now allows users to usurp 0 edit global accounts as it is done on most projects to date. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that what is needed is some clarity, as it would seem that there has been some language ambiguity. Here it seems that you are talking about a standard policy that covers all wikis that allows usurping of a local account to someone who has the SUL account of that name, and looking at the conditions that would allow that. Which would be different from usurping a global (SUL) account which had zero or minimal edits. So I presume that we are discussing for those users who have a SUL account, how they go about aligning their accounts to the same username, and how they manage the difficulties at certain wikis, and what is considered the cutoff point at any particular wiki to stop a usurp progressing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We have a couple valid requests presently at en.wiki to usurp an unused en.wiki account that is the only attachment to a global account. In the past, I would perform the local usurp and request a steward to delete the then-empty global account so that the new claimholder could create the SUL. Should I now simply do both steps of the usurpation as global renames? (I would only do this where the only attachment is en.wiki (+loginwiki, I guess-whatever that is), since a global usurpation policy does not yet exist). (Example: en:special:permalink/624223454#Agentfll) –xeno 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    At first, I'd only do this with 0 edit accounts. But two global renames would be the best solution for that purpose, indeed. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Unattached accounts

As can be seen from Special:CentralAuth/Maxim, my global account situation is a trainwreck (28 wikis unattached plus incorrectly attributed edits on th.wiki). I intend to request the global renamer userright; how will the status of my global account affect that? I haven't bothered solving this global account trainwreck largely because of a lack of pressing need and the scale of the problem. Maxim(talk) 21:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On a technical level, if you don't have an attached account and you "need" one to move pages on the wiki where you're renaming a user, we'll try to autocreate one, and if we can't do that, it'll just use the username "Global rename script". So everything will work, it just won't be as pretty. Legoktm (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For those curious to see an example: [1][2]. Maxim(talk) 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Special nomination provisions until end of January 2015

I would like to open a discussion on the special procedure section. I find that 24 hours are so short that most people would not even have the time to comment or raise objections. Yes, the people allowed to bypass the process in this way are bureaucrats, but that hardly matters. No such major permission should be granted without allowing the community an appropriate time period to comment. 24 hours would allow nobody but a few meta insiders who daily monitor the page to comment, it is hardly in the best interest of Wikimedians at large. I suggest that a week without objection is a more acceptable timeframe. Snowolf How can I help? 00:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See the extended discussion of this on the mailing list... I'd very much like to keep it the way it is. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* Well, on the mailing list we had people who had opinions of a wide spectrum. This was proposed as an attempt to compromise. We can't please everyone... --Rschen7754 00:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If the mailing list being referred to is wikimedia-l, I've never read it, and would appreciate a pointer to the appropriate thread. If the referred to mailing list is stewards-l, then please provide here the reasons why you object to the proposed change, as nobody but a few stewards have access to that list and global policies which affect all wikis should hardly be decided behind closed doors. Snowolf How can I help? 00:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, candidly I have to ask, where were you during the discussion? There were reasons given as to why this was discussed on the list (which I can't disclose, because of the nature of the list). I have given my personal view a few sections above. --Rschen7754 00:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the process for creating the policy wasn't the best. It was done to ensure that a policy was actually made in time, and was successful in doing so. But if you (Snowolf) are just going to make a big fuss and blanket oppose all candidates, I don't see there being any sort of even field for actual discussion on the issue, so I'll let you do your thing. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am a steward. Yes, I have access to stewards-l. I could look up the reasons why this section was introduced two weeks ago. But that's not how policy is made on Wikimedia. In my years here, we've prided ourselves as Wikimedian on being open and transparent, on involving all parts of the community in the decision making process. This is at this stage, a proposed policy, where Wikimedians are expected to comment on and discuss, and I would image, eventually it will be approved by a formal global RFC as usual. I also understand that, due to necessity, we've had to sometimes operate under draft policies, as the time for fully approving and consulting before a policy is done is not always there. That's fine. But we're about to approve global renamers not even two weeks after a clause was introduced into the draft. A clause that really reduces community oversight on a permission to an extend not seen before for global permissions. I am only seeking to discuss the matter, as has been normal under all other global policies. I'm not even disputing that in the meantime the policy should be applied. Yes, I formally opposed the current candidates to allow more time to review the matter, but it's only 48h from when I opposed it. It shall go by quickly and the two candidates will be approved. Nothing really wrong with that, but in the meantime, and in parallel, I think it's worth discussing the provision itself. Rschen has kindly pointed to their comment above where they expressed their view, that's helpful. Ajr, could you possibly indulge me and give me a quick idea of your thoughts on this? I genuinely read the above, but there's not much. Any help to understand it would be really appreciated. I mean this very sincerely. I'm only trying to figure out why this unsual provision was added. And if you feel my tactics are unwise and unacceptable (the oppose) and as such do not wish to waste time with me, I will understand that too. Hugs to you all and thank you for the work you've done on this, Snowolf How can I help? 01:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) [Late to be starting the discussion on opening day]. The purpose of a shortened period was that these are already community approved members (admitted locally) WITH experience in renames. Yes, it is more likely that it will be more likely that a comment will come from a regular meta reader, and these are generally those who deal in global/xwiki matters, and more likely to identify issues of concern. A week is too long, and for experienced local bureaucrats it is not meant to be a high hurdle. How about we compromise on three days?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Snowolf, I don't think you would have liked the original proposal... and that's all I'll say onwiki. --Rschen7754 01:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You already said too much. From your line alone in context with those above I could easily conclude that "secret" proposal was toappoint global renamers without any discussion. As that alone wouldn't make too much sense, I guess this discussion-less procedure would only apply to bureaucrats and let's say those who have a certain amount of renames already. That would finally explain why a page like User:DerHexer/Crats by users renamed was needed in the first place. Please correct me if I am totally wrong with any of my speculations, but I don't believe "proposals" are things which need to be secret. They are not even enforced. Vogone (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As with anything that is new and with aspects of the unknown/uncertain, a range of things were discussed about various means in which we could progress; some were low maintenance, some high maintenance; some were quicker, some were slower; some were onerous, some were easier. In the end, the proposal that came about that was thought reasonable for the (short) available time frame when 'crats rights were going to be turned off and is what you see, and from the conversations had, it was considered that there was something with elements of compromise, and something towards a consensus. Nothing has been secret, and this matter was discussed in a manner at Stewards' noticeboard for a while, the stats are public, and form part of any decision-making. Stewards do have conversations, and it should be allowed that some of our discussions are held privately, and some are held openly, and there is a balance. There is an expectation that stewards treat conversations in our mailing list with confidentiality, and that is a respect matter; which is different from secrecy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I fully understand your point and was merely referring to Rschen7754's comment above. If someone says A he should also say B. Regards, Vogone (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but Some Stewards don't think that anything should be mentioned off the mailing list, period. --Rschen7754 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Why weren't you able to raise your concerns during the weeks when we discussed it on steward-l or here on metawiki and why do you have to torpedo the easified election by opposing experienced users just because you alone don't feel pleased by this compromise? Hundreds, probably thousands of users were invited to comment on this proposal at this very place and no one had problems with this compromise until you appeared out of the blue. I see no useful way to change the proposal when we have a couple of users who apply under its conditions and opposing the users themselves because you feel overlooked when you (and others) had a fair chance to raise their voice is just trolling. Stop doing that. … And where proposals are prepared does not matter at all as long as people are invited to give feedback and that's taken into account (as it was on steward-l and metawiki as well). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As a local bureaucrat, for me there is no difference between 1 day or 3 days. 15th of September is far compared to these few days, so we could wait a little bit longer for responses. I feel the other problem more important (the guideline is not yet finalized and not yet complete). I will have some questions about it soon. Kind regards, Samat (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I support Snowolf's comments here, even though I might have thought differently before. The speed, and massive flood of requests make it impossible to guarantee a proper choice within only 24 hours. To have a fair process, I think we can't permit this. I also find it risky considering many policy points (scope of activity, renaming guidelines, removal because of inactivity, ...) have been fully defined. Noting as well that for the current batch, local rename rights will not yet be removed, AFAIK. Savhñ 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually agree, and appreciate your ability to bring up the point in a mature and appropriate manner. With the influx of requests, I don't think that 24 hours provides a reasonable time to comment on the candidates, and a longer time period would be appropriate. But let's have that conversation, instead of posting sanctimonious textwalls and making POINTy edits on the requests. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a steward, so my opinion may be ignored, but I fully agree with Snowolf's comments above. One day is not nearly enough for this right. Meta insiders (including stewards) should not be the only ones commenting on these candidates, especially with this (IMO bogus) 24 hour rule. (Off-topic, but have village pumps been notified of this?) PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK the foundation notified all local bureaucrats on their talk pages. Anyway, I can understand where that 24 h idea came from, as this is about retaining a permission, not about extending someones abilities. Vogone (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Zomg, a wall of text appeared overnight. I have no problem with changing 24 hours to 3 days or so either; more time makes it easier to get the chance to look at all requests and see if one has to bring up opposes. In copying the policy from Meta RfBs obviously nobody thought of it that there would be a high number of requests in the first days. About the drafting of the policy, I don't think it was problematic that there were discussions on stewards-l about different possibilites of changing the draft (and what was said there isn't really anything that needs to be kept secret out of its very nature, it's just that obviously it's not acceptable to publish comments other people make on private MLs without their permission). The policy was drafted on Meta, everyone could see and change it and discuss it on the talk page. --MF-W 14:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I remembered that I added the initial version of the speedy process. The edit summary probably (at least by now) makes it clear where the "cabalish talks" about adding that happened. However, by using the summary I never wanted to give authority to the change of the draft, but only give attribution to where the idea came from, since obviously "cabalish talks" can only give ideas for policy changes, they are then made and can be discussed onwiki by everyone. --MF-W 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
So can we "officially" change it to 3 days then? And stop with the POINTy opposes? --Rschen7754 15:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll start a more extended discussion in a few minutes. --Rschen7754 19:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How the right works?

Hi! I would like to clarify some important details about how the right and the tools related to it work, avoid unwanted misunderstanding.

mw:Help:Extension:CentralAuth/Global rename says:

  • "The current user must have a global account." - What should we do, if (s)he has no global account? Nothing, only asking him/her to do it himself/herself? (I know, it is a temporary issue, but in the next months surely will come up.)
  • "There cannot be a global account at the new name." - What should I (as a local 'crat and a global renamer) do if there is a global account already for that name? Refuse the request as it is not possible? Address him/her to the stewards noticeboard?
  • "The new name must be completely unused on all wikis." - What should I do if there is at least one edit on at least one Wikimedia wiki? If the new name has no global account (otherwise the previous question) should (s)he go through first the usurpation process(es) either on the local wiki(s) or on meta with the help of stewards? Or?

Which is the most preferred process (flow) for the (short term, medium term) future?

  1. There is a local rename page on local wikis and user
    1. can decide whether (s)he want to go though the remaning process on the local wiki or on meta OR
    2. should go though the process on the local wiki and at the end if there is a local 'crat who has global renamer right will do the renaming, otherwise should address the request to meta
  2. There is a no local rename process anymore only some instructions to redirect local users to meta

I think it would be useful to discuss these cases and questions before we start the work together :) Samat (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Point 1: Guide them to Special:MergeAccount on their homewiki and let them return when they have a global account. Point 2: Yes, currently we refuse that and ask for a non-existing username but there's an ongoing discussion if usurpations of accounts should be possible and when and how. Point 3: Even if the global account has no edits or a local account that is not global yet, we cannot rename the requesting user to it; but we could move it away to make place for the requesting user (see link before).
For short term I'd go with 1.2: That is why I changed the template on German Wikipedia (see here) so that stewards and global renamers will be able to take action from this page, too, as long as a permalink will be provided in the summary (which applies to dewiki). But we stewards haven't discussed this yet and I want to listen to crats/global renamers in this regard as well what they think would be the best workflow. We also have to take into account that if not all requests will made on metawiki, we wouldn't become aware of local refusals which should have been handled instead. Medium term is mw:SUL finalisation/Renaming requests design. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear DerHexer, thank you for your detailed explanation, it helped a lot (and I think, not only for me). Only a comment to Point 3: if a user has no global account, neither the local 'crats or global renamer can move the name away anymore, but I know, it will be solved in months as every account will be global. Samat (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The actual global rename policy#Requesting a global rename says that "Most global renames should be requested through Steward requests/Username changes following the directions there." which is different than you explained above (as workflow we would use solution of 1.2). And the section is talking only about stewards (for example, the global renamers won't be on the stewards' mailing list, I suppose :)). Samat (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Samat: Global renamers won't be able to do all the requests due to the restrictions on the right, and local actions that have been in the hands of stewards for small wikis, and handled by current crats at the large wikis, so such cases should be notated for stewards' action, and hopefully some statement on what is required. I think the scenario setting that you are mentioning is of value, and we probably should build such scenarios into an easy to follow guide for GRN, and maybe a simple FAQ for candidates for rename.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Re your comments. The design of global rename is to push users to a single page to be managed, that said, if someone asks on a local wiki, and they are a simple rename based on predominantly the home wiki, then I think that stewards are not going to fuss for a (short) period if it is handled through the local request as long as the rename processing clearly identifies where the request took place, and is able to be found by following the link in the logs. We do want to migrate requests to the one page, though we accept that there will be a transition period. Re the stewards email, that is our OTRS queue, and we thought that at this stage we would keep it simple and utilise that for requests, though if it swamps the mail queue, and continues that way, then we will most definitely look to change (think "hasten slowly").  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
While I understand that the "global rename" of course has to be logged here, I wonder about the feasibility of a unique request page. A lot of people in need of renaming do not speek engliche veree whale (if at all). They won't come on meta for a renaming, even if they want or need one : on top of the language barrier it's intimidating for newcomers. How about we let people ask where they can (local page, 'crats page, on the dedicated meta page, you name it), and whoever does the global renaming adds a short entry to the meta page explaining the circumstances for archive purpose ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This was discussed before somewhere (probably mailing list) and the consensus was that we should be willing to fill requests from anywhere so long as they provide their current and desired username. You're right that not everyone would want to go through the gross SRUC page for any number of reasons. I'll update the policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Btw., I don't think that it's necessary to explain the circumstances each time on metawiki as long as permalinks are provided in the global rename log. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What will happen to the usurpation requests on the local wikis after 15th of September, in case of the new name holder has no global account? Global renamer can not rename them. Are stewards able to do that? Samat (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, stewards will be able to deal with such requests. Vogone (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought the plan was to eventually attach every account to a global account, when is this happening? @Keegan (WMF): @DGarry (WMF):xeno 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the plan for the next couple of months. People have to be notified before forced renames can happen. See Single User Login finalisation announcement/RenameUser announcement for the next step(s). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion as to length of candidacies

There has been some concern regarding the short candidacy times for bureaucrats that have no substantial opposition. (I don't get the sense that the rest of the proposal is controversial). Thus, I would like to start a discussion regarding the length of time that the candidacy of a bureaucrat with no substantial opposition should last. Thoughts?

Also, I would like to kindly request that stewards wait until the consensus from this discussion is clear before granting the right, as a measure of goodwill. --Rschen7754 19:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I applaud this attempt at reaching a solution. As I have stated elsewhere, I personally find the 24h period far too short, considering the great amount of diverse nominations and the difficulty in establishing global approval. Considering the approaching end of local renamings, currently planned for the 15th (?) of this month and the benefits of a transition period, I would personally choose for a week (7 days). How shall we work this out? Savhñ 19:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 24 hours is far too short now. Especially when it not an official policy. I suggest at least 5 days as with Global rollbacker or a week going up to 2 weeks (Global sysop) at maximum. I would like to endorse Rschen's request for stewards to avoid granting users the right for now. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
3-5 days works for me, and I agree that we should hold off granting rights until this is sorted out. Thanks Rschen for being proactive and trying to get a solution going here :) Ajraddatz (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Originally, I thought that 24 hours would be enough, because all you do is look at the rename log, and any problems detected there would cause opposes to bring the candidacy into the two-week stage: [3] While the community of course saw some of the comments made above on the page, not enough efforts were made to engage the community in the overall discussion process, in hindsight, and I think we should have made more efforts to do so. This was largely due to working on the WMF's timeline, but we still could have done better, in my opinion, and for that I apologize.
Anyway, due to the number of applications, I don't think 24 hours is a good idea anymore, and I get the sense that most people who supported that don't anymore. My preference is 3-7 days, though I would weakly support 14. --Rschen7754 20:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The good news is that this will be the only part of this process where there's a tight-ish deadline :) I greatly appreciate everyone's patience. Anywho, in my message to the 'crats the timeframe was still up in the air which is why I said the process "could take as little as 24 hours to complete," could being the operative word. Whatever y'all choose for the timeframe is fine by me, this is a community decision. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
5 days sounds good. --Stryn (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we in a hurry? Is there an urgent need for global renamers? If there are enough stewards around to handle the current requests, there should be no harm in letting the nominations run a bit longer. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Basically not, but it would be fine to have enough global renamer until 15th of September (ideally minimum one on every larger non-English Wikimedia project). It would be a big surprise (if you feel these requests as mass load) if every rename requests would land here on hundreds of different languages from all the Wikimedia wikis after middle of September :) Samat (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Since stewards are lazy (tm), we want the people who currently do lots of renames (i.e. active bureaucrats) to be able to continue to rename users. --MF-W 20:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) There are currently 23 requests at SRGP. Even if the requests run for two weeks, there should still be plenty of global renamers by that date. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 3 days seem acceptable to me. The speedy process should, in my opinion, really only be for uncontroversial bureaucrats who "know how to rename properly" already from long experience. Everyone else can go through 2 weeks. Inversively, 3 days should be enough to find out if someone is uncontroversial & knowledgable or not. --MF-W 20:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 7 days seems a good compromise. While I agree in theory that experienced bureaucrats could be expedited, I'm a bit concerned that the question "who is an experienced bureaucrat" may go off the rails. Is it 2 years and at least 100 renames? Do we sum across projects? -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As long as the global renamers get appointed before 15th September, I'm fine with any time span. Though, I don't see the big deal here. Bureaucrats had the right to rename users before, and will have this right after appointed as global renamers as well. The only difference is a different interface used, the required trust/expertise is around the same level, if not less as "global rename" cannot break SUL as local "renameuser" does. They don't even get "more power" or the like. Regards, Vogone (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand why people who were entrusted by hundreds of users (e.g. on de:Wikipedia:Bürokratenkandidaturen/Itti) to handle the even trickier local renames and who are experienced in doing this shouldn't be autopromoted to continue their work in order to compensate the removal of their rights when we are putting even more obstacles in their way and why you couldn't raise your concerns before the voting started which caused now so much confusion, evoked pointy opposes, etc. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, but until now the local bureaucrats had no problem with a longer (reasonable) discussion period, while some of the community members had objection against the 24 hours time. If we would choose some days longer time, everybody could be satisfied, we could close this and the previous long discussion and we could focus finally on other, more important tasks. I would recommend 7 days. Samat (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @Samat, Stryn and Stefan2 Hard to give an unbiaised opinion since I'm a candidate, but I think 3 days would be more than enough : most interested parties give their opinion in the first 24 to 48h in such procedures, usually, and I think everyone would benefit from a longer transition period with both local and global renamer rights. My opinion would be different without the deadline of the 15th, but as it stands, I know I would feel more at ease. Best regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Per DerHexer. We are talking about people who are already community approved (though local), and with the fact that a significant number of renames are required to get a guernsey here that means that these users are approved by big communities or multiple smaller communities. I was comfortable with one day, though can see that more days would suit more people, so three days is still suitable, five days is okay, and seven days to me is excessive. To me, no one has made a case how seven days is better. Simple fact is the controversial are going to be identified quickly and they get changed to 14 days. The evidence in the current batch of nominations shows that nothing new is coming out after a couple of days.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You want some reasons, so here you are:
  1. First, how do you read that „bureaucrats who are experienced with the rename rights“ is meaning bureaucrats in „big communities or multiple smaller communities“? If you have made 20 renames, you can be experienced with that, but don’t have to be bureaucrat in a big community, so this is not clear at all. Some think bureaucrats are experienced, if they made 100 renames, some think otherwise, there is no fix number for that.
  2. Second, other users may apply the rights within 2 weeks, so it seems appropriate for bureaucrats with some renaming experience to apply within a shorter term of 1 week. It seems to be a good compromise between just appointing experienced bureaucrats without candidacy or within a short period and the longer period of 2 weeks.
  3. Third, not everyone is looking every day at Meta, and not every community sees this whole process here now, it takes time. So, it would be better, if 1 week shall be the absolute minimum time for candidacies for global rights. See also Meta:Snowball. And here also is no opt-out of any wiki, global renaming applies to each wiki, this right is more critical than e.g. global rollback. I’m seeing absolutely nothing excessive in 1 week.
  4. Fourth, 1 week is enough time before the 15th of september, so there’s no problem with it.
  5. Fifth, it has already been said above that the policy isn’t approved yet and still is in discussion. So, it isn’t quite clear for the new user group, under which conditions they shall use the rights. Therefore, it is good to have some extra time now for that discussion instead of the discussion here about the short applying period. Then there will be at least the possibility to have a policy that doesn’t need much further discussion, while global renamers already act by this policy which wouldn’t be very good at all.
  6. Sixth, it is better for the users who will be global renamers according to this process, when they will have a quite normal candidacy in which a lot of people can post their opinion. If someone will look backwards in the future and dig into those candidacy archives, it will show more confidence in those new renamers, when they will have more support by more users in a longer timeframe.
  7. Seventh, those global renamers are not supposed to do renames just on their home wikis, but may also do this on other wikis in the future, when they are more experienced with the new tools, see Global renamers#Scope: „Global renamers should focus on requests from their home wiki, with the potential to expand to requests from other projects as they gain experience with global renaming.“ So it’s not the case that they only can do renames on their home wikis in the future. It can also be more, and there is no need to shorten the applying period too much now, for there won’t be a new applying process for renamers, if they want to do renames on other wikis, this is the candidacy for that cases. They may also rename on wikis (in English), where they don’t know the language, if there is no other renamer or steward who can do that and if they know the rules how to do that there, or on other wikis in other known languages. It is not the case that they have the same right as before or even less.
Conclusion: I think there are quite a lot of reasons for a longer period for the candidacies. And one week is in the middle, it has no bad effect and seems to be appropriate for this. And there are no objections except that people think, it won’t be necessary, but I think it should be necessary, cause there is no need for that hurry at all. And all discussion should better focus on completing the policy in time, so that after those 7 days which are already in 5 days, the rest of the policy will be discussed enough for being used by the new renamers. --Winternacht (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Winternacht: Re: your points.
Re 1) There is some measure applied to renames, and without enough there is already comment that someone has insufficient for the quicker allocation. That comment appears quickly, and their nomination gets re-allocated to +14 days. There is no need for 7 days for that feedback.
Re 2) These are people who already have a rename right, it is being expanded for one part of that existing 'crat role, and generally the non-controversial component. This is not a vote, it is feedback for stewards, and there is no evidence that 7 days is any better, that is a feel good number. It is not about compromise, it is not about giving every person an opinion where the person is already doing a similar role, it is about given stewards an evidence base to make a decision. Also, it is not an EITHER situation, it is abridged process unless there is concerns, at which stage we then extend to +14 day full assessment.
Re 3) Again not every wiki needs to have an opinion on every nomination for existing renaming-experienced 'crats. The meta-denizens are actually the most likely to have exposure to xwiki activities of 'crats, and locals have best exposure to local actions of their 'crats. This is not global rollbacker, this is not global sysop, it doesn ot involve the consensus consideration of locally giving rights, it does not affect any specific edits at a wiki. It is the username aspect of a rename applicant. The evidence is that the feedback for nominees comes in quickly.
Re 4) The cutoff of 15 Sep is hardly relevant, this is a process that will last to 31 January 2015, at which point, we then fallback to 14+ days.
Re 5) If the policy isn't clear to nominees, then it isn't clear to voters, and the length of 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 or 14 days to consider an nomination is irrelevant. If the policy is that unclear, then we should simply stop this process of nominations and appointments, as the period of the nomination is irrelevant. If the policy is that unclear, then stewards should stop renaming too, as that is to what we are operating to at this time.
Re 6) If you want a normal candidacy, then we do away with the shortened provision, and just have normal. Stewards in proposing the shorter period wanted to give credit to the experienced 'crats who have been successfully doing the role up until now. Re confidence in global renamers that will come from their actions, not the nomination process. Otherwise, see earlier comments.
Re 7) I understand the role, and the trust that we are putting into global renamers when they are outside of their language community. That said, I don't see that extending the period of nomination gives any more certainty of the right actions. In fact, I would have more confidence in an experienced renamer getting it right, than someone new to the fold. Demonstrated diligence and competence in association with Google translate, will always win for me over a popular newbie who knows multiple languages. The trust in knowing when to _not_ do something and exhibiting that reluctance is what I believe experience brings, and that is more likely from the experienced 'crats.
Conclusion: I feel we are looking for an effective process to appoint people who already have the role locally and have demonstrated competence, and putting trust in their use of that role. We are not after an exhaustive process to get every opinion on each candidate, we are after an opinion on whether someone can do the role globally. There is an abbreviated assessment which (easily) will be extended to a full assessment if there is sufficient concern.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A fact: my request nearly 3 days old, but nobody touched it later than 7 hours after I created it. Just for the record: I would recommend a longer, 7 days discussion period (mainly because of reasons explained by Winternacht) as I wrote already above. Nobody can have any problem with this time then, and our election will be more legitimate (which is better also for the future global renamers). Samat (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, 7 days defeat the purpose of the speedy process entirely. Then we could have 7 or 14 days for everyone. Anyway, if we continue discussing, soon this will be moot if 7 or 14 or whatever days have passed on all candidacies :P --MF-W 11:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
People seem to be ignoring the reason for this in the first place: We aren't just creating a new right here, we are taking away an existing one which crats have held for years. The point here is to make it very easy for experienced crats to continue their work, and a 24 hour period is perfect for that. At no point was this meant to be a full fledged vote that allowed the entire global community to participate, because there is no need for that in this case. We are dealing with users who have already been elected to the position of highest trust on their home projects (or highest community position anyway). There is no need for the extra scrutiny in most cases. And when there is, this process already accounts for that by making the request two weeks long. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I saw the discussion three days ago (late 1 sept) and thought 3 days was the majority, granted some rights today, and then remembered to check if there was an update on this page. I saw there was, so I stopped. Hope this clarifies my actions. Matanya (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been noticed that I had been granted the right, but it does not change anything for me as I am a bit overwhelmed IRL for the moment... So feel free to (temporarily, I hope :-) ) remove it if the conclusion of the debate is that the duration was too short: I wouldn't miss it :-) Litlok (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
While I could use it -_- instead of coming twice a day to translate and clarify on Steward requests/Username changes what confused users write on fr.wp... Esprit Fugace (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally would suggest a 7 day duration, which is still significantly shorter than the full application, but would afford enough time for non Meta-insider to comment, especially once the publicity of the first rounds has waned off. It would also still allow plenty of applications to be processed before the rename rights are removed from local 'crats on the 15th, which a two week period would not. Snowolf How can I help? 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I read the discussion so far, I see the input so far this way: 7 days is favored by 5 people; 5 days by 1; 3 days by 2, 1 day by 2. John favors 5 to 14 days, Rschen 3 to 7 days (weak on 14), Vogone anything under 14 days. I don't think I missed anybody but I apologize if I do. It seems to me that at this stage, even before my comment, 7 days seem like the consensus, but I think as we are not in a hurry it's probably worth to wait a bit before determining what the number should be changed at, and see if more people would like to comment. Snowolf How can I help? 17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    With Trijnstel's comment below, this brings the tally to 7 days = 5 people (7 with rschen and john); 5 days = 1 person (3 with rschen and john); 3 days = 3 people (4 with rschen); 1 day = 2 people. Snowolf How can I help? 17:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For this first round of global renamers I think it's best to have the three-day-rule, thus I support this change by MF-W. Later on, after Jan 2015, 14 days is fine imho. Trijnsteltalk 17:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dears, you have really fine election rules here. Even some candidates has yet got the rights, you still do not know how long wou should vote. Nice decisions. If I would decide this way one block only on dewp. I would have immediately a desysop. Regards, -jkb- 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We had a compromise, a consensus and we would have dealt with but. But unfortunately, some people who didn't feel heard although they were invited and their feedback taken into account as well forced us to discuss it again by giving provocative opposes to trusted Wikimedia users. Now we can see the shambles. Snowolf, you missed Billinghurst and mine 0 days. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your last sentence with the 0 days, maybe an "insider" from the mailing list that’s not open for all? And I don’t understand, how you can say that one day can be a consensus, while it is very clear at this point that it is not? I can’t even see a consensus for 3 days either, cause there were many more who felt better with a longer timeframe. And some of the first global renamers have now gotten their rights after just 2 days (and not even 3 days) which isn’t any compromise or consensus at all. This whole process about these candidacies wasn’t good. And I think there is no need to blame just a few people for this who felt that one day isn’t the consensus or a good compromise, when it has been shown that it isn’t. Then you could also make no open elections/discussions at all, that is making not much difference, but it is an intransparent way to do, and it wouldn’t be good, even if you think so. Sorry that I have to say this. And I don’t see a problem with an open process either, if it’s a few days longer, so people can participate. We have a lot of not-participation with the WMF already, does it always have to be this way?? I even don’t see any discussion about this length of candidacies at the top of this page either. It first began, after the first candidacies already began. That said, I really appreciate your engagement in this whole process. But I hope, you will also notice other people’s arguments about that. Kind regards --Winternacht (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The original plan was to automatically appoint global renamers without any discussion. This is where the special provision was created to meet both sides half-way. I say again, the point of the special process isn't to gain consensus or to open the candidate to wide community review. These are the most trusted users across Wikimedia, and all we are doing is giving them the ability to continue the work that they are already able to do, but that we are taking away from them for technical reasons. This isn't something that needs consensus, this is something that needs some basic thinking which seems to be nearly absent from these discussions. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree as per Ajr. There was a consensus to easify the elections for long-trusted crats. Two people raised the fear to strenghten their position and they succeeded and obviously convinced some more people to change their mindds. That's fine. They got their will and harmed those who reached the consensus and still adhere to it. Breaking a consensus for making a point is never valid at all. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 07:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Those global renamers haven’t only the right to rename user names in their own home wiki, but: „Global renamers should focus on requests from their home wiki, with the potential to expand to requests from other projects as they gain experience with global renaming.“ It is in fact not the same user right. So if it is more than what has been done by now and not the same, then an election process for such a global right is the best way to do so. And that can’t be 1 or 3 days only. This isn’t any candidacy for any global right anymore. "Global renamers" are not local renamers anymore, they are global renamers, and they may rename users globally, in any wiki they feel comfortable to rename. So, I don’t understand repeating that there is a right taken away, there is also a new global right given which they didn’t have before. Otherwise, you can also give all German editors (reviewers, „Sichter“) the global rollback right without candidacy, because they also have that right locally. That is making no sense to me. But also there, you can easily see, if they were using the rollback right in the right way locally.
And there wasn’t a consensus. There even hasn’t been a discussion on this very page before those candidacies (a discussion in a mailing list can’t replace an onwiki discussion). Hexer, the users whom you are blaming here for breaking a rule (while ignoring that under this discussion candidacies were already ended within 2 days which has no consensus here anyway), those users felt that it is an appropriate way to discuss that openly on this page, so that there can really be reached some kind of consensus. And that is a valid way to reach consensus. So I don’t understand these hard words about "got their will" (no, they didn’t, just a discussion has been made which is a good way) and about breaking whatever consensus which isn’t there. Please calm down a bit.
Yes, there are experienced crats, but also then it is better to have a normal candidacy for a global right. This doesn’t have to be 2 weeks then, alright with that. But I think, that 1 day can only be a joke, but nothing that leads anywhere. If there would be one or no day at all for any candidacy, what difference does that make? And also 3 days are not suitable for a global right. And it is in fact a new global right, even if some crats never want to use it outside of their home wiki. It’s completely ok that they continue their work (on their home wiki). And if they have done that in a good way in the past, then there will be no problems with such a candidacy for a global right also for renames on other wikis. Then they have this trust also here. So why bother about candidacies being too long? I don’t get that, sorry. I also don’t agree that anyone has been "harmed" by such a discussion here. And I’m sorry that you feel this way. --Winternacht (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me, but is it the duration, the problem, or the number of people from any local community coming here and stating their support ? 'cause if it's the second, it could have been resolved in any number of ways other than "3 days or a week". There has been no community announcement on local wikis. I've tried to keep my community up-to-date concerning the SUL process, but didn't even mention there was an election going on, since it wasn't presented as an election. When stewards are elected, there's a sitenotice everywhere - if there had been one in this case, you would have had in 3 days much more votes than in even two weeks without sitenotice. The candidacies being too long is annoying because 1) they weren't presented as formal candidacies, more like "if there's no problem, it's done in a day", 2) They created a feeling of unfairness, since there are now 5 global renamers and the rest of us are still waiting, not out of any lack of support, but just to satisfy a condition that was created on the fly during the process, 3) There is work to do. I've relayed here 8 renaming request so far which I could have handled if I had the tool. The stewards who did them were nice and quite fast, but each time I had to do the same checks they would do (what are the states of the past and requested accounts ? Is the desired name acceptable ?), then describe here a situation that was clear for me, but not always fast to explain, then provide the links, each time feeling that was a waste time, both mine and theirs. It is a bother, and it irks me to see people deny even that. Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you’re wondering, and I’m wondering, too. Because if it is the case, that there is the workload now and not in the future (15th), then why is the whole election process (or discussion, whatever) now and not weeks or a month before now already? Then there would have been more time for this. I don’t understand that this is now such a hurry. And why this discussion here hasn’t been about 2 months ago and the candidacies one month ago yet. It has been more than a year since it has been announced that SUL finalization should come soon, so it has been clear it would come. That’s what I don’t understand. I think that presenting this candidacy as "done in a day" is a problem, but I also read that Keegan apologised for that, and I don’t think this might be a big problem. Closing candidacies while discussing the length of the candidacies is a bigger problem because of that feeling of unfairness. I don’t see, how a fair discussion can take place, while already candidacies are being closed meanwhile. There could have been a better, more open discussion here from the beginning and not after the start of the candidacies. I don’t get this feeling, why candidacies which take a few time more should be annoying. This is the normal way for candidacies up to now. I’m a bit astonished about this. It’s just about a few days more for discussion of candidates, nothing more. This is no tribunal or something like that. I’m really wondering, what is going on here.
And I don’t think that we need any site notices for this. This is no steward election. Also global sysop elections aren’t announced on local pages. It’s up to the communities itself, what they want to post about it or not. I announced this, as I noticed the candidacies here, in the German template which a lot of users notice and is used by some well-noticed pages. This is the normal way, how also local elections for sysop or crat rights are announced. Because of that, there is some more participation of the community here, and I think this is good. So it isn’t true that there has been no community announcement on any local wiki. Elections for global sysops or other global rights normally aren’t announced at all. This could also be done in another way. Perhaps it would need discussion, because they aren’t elected at the same time. But global sysops may not do things with their global rights in those big communities, so this is something else. --Winternacht (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Winternacht: we all wish the world was perfect, and followed ordered lines of our own timetable [well actually I wished that the world followed my timetable, and you lot stopped complaining about it (that is a joke FWIW)]. Sometimes, we play the hand with which we are dealt. The summation would be that resources were made available within the WMF to get this the universals done after a long hiatus, and there is some lead up work that is required, and the first of those was the global rename tool. So we now have the tool, which stewards are using and the situation that local bureaucrats are currently breaking SUL accounts with partial moves that are a right PITA to fix. So the stewards made the recommendation that we escalate the closing of local tools, and that meant escalating global renamers (or having stewards do all the work, and having all the control). Stewards felt that this was an existing community role, and reasonably non-controversial, with long existing draft documentation. Stewards already get the occasional comment about "our" controlling, or "doing" in local wikis, hence we are where we are today. So I see it as either a) we take away the role, and stewards do it all, or b) we have global renamers where the existing rights holders who have experience in doing renames come together as a team and undertake this role in a shortened time frame. So we have the balance between looking to perfection, or we have a reasonable and practicable outcome that employs the trusted and experienced people. In the end, we chose the wiki-way, and will fix up the 1 to 2% of things that aren't perfect, rather than waiting for 100% perfection before progressing.

While you strive perfection and would like something different, which I can both accept and appreciate, can you show me that this process is actually broken, and would achieve a markedly better or markedly different outcome?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Winternacht, you are right that it is a new right, but you are wrong that it is a different one. This is just the next incarnation of how users can change their account name. That ability has always rested with local bureaucrats, which now has to be changed due to no fault of their own. It is also worth noting that this right has less potential for misuse as it is centrally used and logged, and doesn't allow for the breaking of SULs as the local renameuser right does. I imagine you will continue to argue here, but I'd strongly encourage you to start seeing this as the unique case that it is rather than making the same incorrect argument over and over again (that this is just another global right basically because it isn't). Ajraddatz (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
One last thing, I'm getting really sick of hearing that there was "no consensus" on this issue before. Because of the hastened timeline, we weren't able to do any global RfC - that is true. But what we did do is consult with WMF, consult amongst ourselves, consult those users who would be affected by the change and left multiple public messages on bureaucrat noticeboards globally. We made changes to this public policy and left it up for discussion. I understand that some people really love global RfCs because they get to have long-winded and useless debates over relatively small technical issues like this one (and yet still get the input of less than 1% of Wikimedia users - not sure how that is more legitimate that what we did), but I would argue that it is possible to get consensus (definition: a generalized agreement) without going through the usual steps in a special case like this. We were dealing with a limited time-frame and had to make something work. So stop saying that there wasn't consensus. There was. You might not like how it was achieved, and that's a valid concern, but this was not a decision made entirely behind closed doors. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Winternacht, there are people who prepared this for years and months, who wrote timetables and workflows, had discussions with all parties involved for a couple of times, tested the tools, prepared the policies to have at least something to discuss, sought consensus on many places and found agreement of many parties within a very short timespan as the WMF will only provide developer support for this long-requested feature for few weeks (till end of September to be exact) and would have pushed policies and workflows if some stewards would not have prepared them on their own. While people who barely cared about the whole process and whose input was sought and put into account as well (!) disrupted the election which was a result of these engagements by making a point on a pure formalistic issue without respect to the agreement which was made before (and nobody likes which is typical for a consensus as long as people are able and willing to accept that), the long-trusted users who were completely confused by challenging the election process and their interest in helping stewards, without reflecting the temporal and technical situation, etc. which results in confusion and delays where not necessary. Do you still think that we should have let it the WMF enforce it or have it postponed again for even more years if we weren't able to do our part?
We all knew that bureaucrats will lose some of their rights during this process and it is imho only fair to compensate long-trusted users who got more support than they could ever get on a metawiki vote while at the same time we get them involved in metawiki, are able share knowledge about renames etc. As I can live with disagreements to my opinion and look for a consensus to take all arguments into account, I rejected auto-promotion of these and supported the proposal to make this process as easy as the meta crat elections, a long-established process on meta. There was no indication that anyone could not live with that, either stewards or crats, until two meant to express their disagreement in an ongoing process by opposing users not for their qualifications but for the sake of making their point. This is disrespectful for all parties involved, people who spent hours of preparing that and long-trusted users who were invited to help us and whose fault this wasn't (but of the ones who did not participate in the process). Ofc, I would have prefered long-running discussions about each and every point but that was never feasible. After SUL finalisation was cancelled last year due to termination of the developer involved, it was unclear if or when they would get contingents again for continuing this process. Out of the blue, WMF appeared in July with a new product manager, a developed global rename tool and barely an interest in involving the stewards deeply into their process but a time frame until September for preparation of SUL finalisation. With a lot of work esp. by hoo and myself together with WMF's Keegan in late July/early August we were able to bring managers, developers, stewards, and bureaucrats together at one table in order to take SUL finalisation forward, and to get agreement on all tasks stewards should take the lead of (e.g. preparing policies for discussions, getting meta pages ready and so on). Just to let you know a bit more about the process and why pointy disruptions (esp. within ongoing processes where people stand up for elections) weren't the best way to deal with that. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion: discussions should be open for at least 2 weeks (as is the case for global sysop candidates). Not all global rename candidates are experienced and trusted, and even if they were (and they are not), casual users with experience on other projects should have enough time to first of all realize that a discussion is taking place, and then to express their possible concerns (if any) about the candidates. Requiring just a few days before closing the discussions makes this impossible. Global bureaucrat-like rights should never be awarded this quickly. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

1. As explained many, many times above, this is a different case than global sysop rights. 2. For people without experience, the request process is two weeks. 3. We are just allowing bureaucrats to continue to do what they are already able to do with this change. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, what makes you think you have the legitimacy to award such GLOBAL bureaucrat-like rights without notifying local communities and without giving them enough time to have their say? Because that's what they are, right, GLOBAL rights? Or is it just for the local wiki in which they were elected however many years ago? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the fact that they are centralized global rights which can't break SULs actually makes them less abusable than their local equivalent. How account renaming is done on Wikimedia is being changed; on the 15th, local bureaucrats wouldn't be able to do it locally any more. So while this is a new right, it is a continuation of their previous ability to change the name of an account. There are no more global implications here than before - with local renameuser rights, bureaucrats could break the SUL of a user. Now they can change it, but it is always maintained and logged in a single place.
Local communities have been notified and had their say in the process. Not for every candidate, but for the process as a whole. If these bureaucrats are so untrusted at their home projects I don't understand why they are still serving in that role there. Ultimately I agree that some review is needed, hence why there is a discussion period at all for these users. That wasn't part of the original plan. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The only global right that is notified to all communities is stewards' elections, and it is not reasonable and practicable that we notify all communities about each global renamer nominations (noting that it is not global 'crat nominations). To the remainder of the commentary, it is well-covered in the components above.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@DanielTom: No, it is not a global right and both the group name and the page name where this right can be requested are misleading, as already pointed out by myself at some other place. The right merely allows you to change the name of a SUL account on metawiki, so "CentralAuth renamer" or "Global account renamer" would probably describe even better what the right does, rather than "global renamer" which indeed implies a global right. But this concern was thrown away as too unimportant. Vogone (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Language coverage

Is someone keeping track of language coverage for the global renamer group? The subpages of Administrators of Wikimedia projects could be used for this purpose, perhaps. As for Italian, I don't plan to monitor the situation of permissions and rename requests continuously; if in few weeks there is no Italian-speaking global renamer, please poke me, I can probably help. --Nemo 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) P.s.: I find the above discussions much less important than the still-undecided issue of Talk:Global rename policy#Local request pages.

I've created {{List of global renamers}} with a 'languages spoken' column. --Glaisher (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it is really useful. Samat (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Building some guiding principles a.k.a. operational instructions

Some operational instructions that manage expectations of renames would be useful IMO. I would like to keep these to a series of simple sentences that set out the guiding principles, rather than be a corpus of blackletter law. Add what additional thoughts you believe should govern renames. Wording can be amended, though rather than deleting a dot point for something with which you disagree, please start a section below that refers to the dot point and identify your concerns. Probably something similar for those points that you see as more pertinent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Guiding principles for global renamers with renames

  1. Abide by Global rename policy.
  2. All renames are documented with a pertinent [[Special:PermanentLink/xxxxxx]] or [[Special:Diff/xxxxxx]] to the on-wiki request, or a ticket number for requests received via OTRS system.
  3. User name changes are user initiated, and where issues are identified with the target name, these concerns should be referred back to the user.
  4. Global renames can be requested at SRUC though that should not prevent renames being undertaken from other sources (as a temporary measure).
  5. Where an account needs to be usurped at a local wiki, please identify that a steward needs to action; advice always welcomed, and the request page is SRUC as well.
  6. Accounts should have a total edit count of no more than 50 000 edits (tallied across all wikis) in normal circumstances.
  7. Requests for rename from accounts with very few edits can be considered at the discretion of the user performing the rename. Some have valid reasons, others are frivolous and can be declined.
  8. When renaming an account name which is not in a language that you speak, running it through Google Translate is always a good idea. There is no way to catch every inappropriate name, but that can help. If you are ever concerned about a rename request because of a language issue, it is a good idea to contact a user that speaks the language (be it steward, global renamer or otherwise) to confirm.
  9. Finally, if you are uncertain, then it is better to do nothing. Consult, or leave it for others.

Notes: Where user pages are not to be moved, or suppressions are required, these should be left for stewards.

Support Support, I specially agree with the second point and suggest we implement it immediately, as I feel clarity with such global actions is essential and I feel it should be mandatory to have a permanent URL in the log, though I'm personally more favourable of linking a diff instead of a PermanentLink. Agree as well with the desire to centralize all requests on meta, but allowing (temporarily or excepionally, for insance if the user is blocked on meta, ....) requests to be processed through other ways/pojects. In addition to point nr. 9, I'd also like to remind the users that, in case of doubt, best is to do nothing, but that's fine for now (since I also agree it's best to keep it short). Another point which IMO also requires clarification is the use of GlobalRename to globally usurp a user name, when users should or shouldn't be usurped. Cordially, Savhñ 13:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Added point 9. With regard to usurps, the above says to leave them to stewards. There is indeed a need for that clarification, and DerHexer has pointed to another conversation in one of the preceding sections.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a code that will automatically add permalinks to the reason field at Special:UserRights when the UserRights link on sr-user template is clicked on (used at SRGP and other SR pages as well).--Glaisher (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(I misread it earlier :O. This doesn't do what no.2 says. The template used at SRUC does it). 17:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glaisher (talk)
I did the same on huwiki, including a link to the section with the particular request. Samat (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been told by User:Legoktm that there is no upper limit for the number of edits, and that the actions are just queued. --Rschen7754 02:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, there is no limit. We just would like if you do rename an account with more than 50k edits (just an arbitrary number, can/will be increased as the tool is used more) that you have either myself or hoo watching the rename in case something does go wrong. Legoktm (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. --Rschen7754 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: The policy statement is specific about developer support for these moves and there is an html comment, here I had just kept the text simple. As that seems too definitive and liable seen as a hard cutoff, I have added some weasel words "in normal circumstances", though if you have something better that is to the point, feel free to interchange. I feel that the principles should be concise, and easy to understand.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Q: group permitted to move user subpages automatically?

Hi! In this discussion on dewiki, someone raised the question weather global_renamers without local sysop rights will be able to automatically move the user's subpages. Shouldn't global_rename rights include (move-subpages)? (Or do they include it? The new group is not viewable in Special:GlobalGroupPermissions.) Greetings, --MBq (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that for global-renamer that it is going to be move (on and automatic). The options I see when I go to move are Move user pages (ticked) and Suppress creation of redirects (unticked). That probably indicates that where the pages are not to be moved, or obviously suppressions need to be left for stewards to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@MBq: 'centralauth-rename' assumes you have all rights necessary for a rename, including to move user (sub)pages and to suppress redirects. Regards, Vogone (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Diff from the documentation page on mw.org. Vogone (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And Special:GlobalGroupPermissions is the wrong place to look at as 'global-renamer' is no global group but merely has a misleading name (see also [4]). You may have more luck to find the group at Special:UserGroupRights#global-renamer. Regards, Vogone (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you --MBq (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi! I just wanted to inform that I started the #wikimedia-renameconnect channel on IRC, as an effort to allow coordination and discussion between global renamers (and stewards). Please feel free to join, though, even if it is public for the time being, I'd personally discourage users not involved in renaming to join. I thought it might be useful and I don't have the impression it does any harm. See you, Savhñ 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Simplify to "renamers"

Simple proposal. Change it to "renamers" as there are no other renamers than the global ones.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 18:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are local renamers, but now only Stewards. I think global renamers should remain as is to distinguish from legacy renamers (i.e. bureaucrats), stewards, and global renamers. –xeno 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Names which would be unambigous and correct would be "CentralAuth renamers" or "Global account renamers". "Global renamers" has always been a misleading name, but still the technical name "global-renamer" is not going to be changed, I believe. Vogone (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Either of those would be better than "renamer". –xeno 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of the people that request to be renamed have no idea what "centralauth" means... and global doesn't add too much despite making some sense, not to mention how terrible this proposed expletive terms would become when translating that. There was never a "local" renamer group. Renaming was a permission given to a group called 'bureaucrats'; never refered as "renamers". There is no other renamer group, so I can't see where is the ambiguity. I will be refering to this group as "renamers" no matter what title are used on group's page as I am sure there would be no confusion on that. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to think beyond this project. On other projects if you refer to just "renamers" they are going to be confused. –xeno 10:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Your first sentence is right and that is why I am proposing it to be simplified. Please, explain to me how adding "centralAuth" to the name of the group will make it better understandable for users on other projects.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Global account renamers, if global renamers is a problem. –xeno 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Global renamers mailing list

Hi everyone. Besides the IRC channel (#wikimedia-rename) we also have a private mailing list now: mail:global-renamers. Every global renamer and steward has to be subscribed in order to communicate with eachother, discuss problems, questions etc. And also when important technical information has to be shared among everyone. So, please subscribe. :) Savh and myself are the list admins; please send us an email so we can confirm the subscription. Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 14:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Global renamers should focus on requests from their home wiki"

I wonder if this line should be reworded or removed. The home wiki might not be the wiki upon which the global renamer holds bureaucrat rights. And it seems some global renamers aren't really following this guidance anyway. –xeno 03:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

From a stewards' point of view, "home wiki" means where you have the advanced rights, not a symbolic system return of a name, especially as it appears that the symbolic naming is soon to disappear as an anachronism that it is. If global renamers are acting outside of the guidance, then that should be addressed by stewards to the mailing list about the requirement to follow process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are multiple users who are responding to rename requests on other projects than those where they have crat rights... Guess that's what Xeno means. Trijnsteltalk 10:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if in homewiki GRs have not many requests, why can't they help in other wikis or on Meta?--Anatoliy (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not giving an opinion; just saying there needs to be consensus. The line should then either be removed or followed. Trijnsteltalk 11:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The line has also a second part: "with the potential to expand to requests from other projects as they gain experience with global renaming". So you can't say global renamers aren't following it really, they just consider themselves experienced enough to fulfil a request from another wiki. Vogone (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
In part because they haven't been appointed by local users on those projects to work on those local pages, and they may not be familiar with the local processes. And it creates extra work for the local bureaucrats on those projects who have to double-check the work of these well-meaning but non-compliant actors against their local policies and guidelines. I know I've come across at least one enwiki request that was fulfilled by a non-bureaucrat global renamer that should have at least prompted an additional query to the user about their requested name prior to fulfillment. –xeno 11:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
But crats cannot rename users now. I think that pages should be maintained by users who can rename users. So, policies should be changed.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
And my belief is that local process pages should be maintained by those who have been appointed by local users to do so, and that global renamers should follow the policies that have been set for them. –xeno 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you Xeno. The purpose of the GRN feature is to allow a reasonable continuation and approximation of the previous status quo with renaming; it is not about load shifting, nor load balancing. If something isn't done after a reasonable period of time, then sure, take it on.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree also - eventually I'd like to see a move away from per-wiki request handling, and that will probably come after SUL finalization when there is a special page interface for requesting renames. But for now, taking the rights away from 'crats and creating global renamers is designed to force people to consider renaming from a global perspective. This way we get the best of both worlds; 'crats can still rename if they want to and have enough experience doing so, but are no longer able to break SULs in the way they could before. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How will future 'crats become global renamers?

How will it be possible for future bureaucrats to become global renamers? From the requests that I've read on SRGP, the community seems to want the candidate to have previous experience with local renaming. If future bureaucrats do not have access to the rename function, they'll have no way to get experience, and the community probably won't trust them with global renamer. This will result in no new global renamers being elected. --Biblioworm (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That is potentially true. After time, I'm hoping the group will evolve to allow any users with considerable experience enforcing/dealing with username policies will apply. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Though, functionaries (incl. crats) should be preferable. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Current preference under current circumstance cannot be used to predict future circumstance. There will always be a need for renamers into the future, and as the systems evolve, and as needs are identified the community will express their expected standards at the time, and modify their processes and opinions to suit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Add autopatrol to the global renamers user group

Hi, I realize this might be a trivial change, but is it okay when I request to add the autopatrol right on meta to the global renamers group? Right now almost every global renamer has autopatrol added to their account, apart from a few, and also those who already have it as part of their local adminship. Global renamers can be trusted (hopefully ;-)) and thus I don't see why we cannot do this. See also Special:ListUsers/global-renamer. What do you think? Trijnsteltalk 14:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I agree renamers should be trusted with autopatrol rights, but I don't see where the harm in the separated flag is. As Meta:Autopatrollers also states, the right is to be granted to users who create new pages in a useful manner, while renaming global accounts is in my opinion not equal to that kind of participation. All in all, the right "autopatrol" is so minor that I wouldn't mind it to be assigned to all renamers, but I don't see the need for it either. Vogone (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to see it assigned to the global renamer group or removed entirely. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
We should switch off the nonsensical patrolling and remove the autopatrol group. --MF-W 23:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me as well, but that discussion should take place elsewhere I think... (RfC maybe?) Trijnsteltalk 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: The autopatrol is not nonsensical, and enWS and other WS utilise the patrol flag and this right extensively and very usefully. That others may not, is related to their community setup, so don't damn the flag compared to how some use/misuse/abuse it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure this refers to the autopatrol group on Meta; as we are not a content wiki, the situation is a bit different. --Rschen7754 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I commented about Meta rights, not groups somewhere else. --MF-W 20:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't see that it is necessary to assign autopatrol, they are only adding (by moving) user/user talk pages, and let the communities decide whether they patrol. I see no point in patrolling them, that is a community decision. Stewards don't have that right, and we manage okay with it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No issue adding the right to the group, but that's no excuse for sysops to be lazier at adding the flag where appropriate. ;-) --Nemo 23:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)