Requests for comment/Revoking Metaverse's global rename permission

The following request for comments is closed. The community supports and endorses the removal of the global renamer permissions of User:Metaverse for the reasons stated on the Stewards' Noticeboard thread and this RfC. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Situation

5 days ago, on the 10th of May, I revoked the global rename rights of Metaverse (talk · contribs) for vanishing an account without permission to take the username over. When asked for clarification on their talkpage, they acknowledged the message and just stopped editing from that point on globally. I and others at Stewards' noticeboard thought this constituted abuse of the permission and that is why I removed the right. I am now creating this RFC per policy when it is removed. -- Amanda (she/her) 14:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support Clearly misuse/abuse of GRN flag. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jcb (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reasonable explanation. --SCP-2000 17:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I regretfully Support revocation of the renamer flag: it's necessary for all advanced permissions holders to answer reasonable questions about their actions. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I am unsure as to the utility of the policy forcing a RFC unless the removal is contested/appealed. --Rs chen 7754 06:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that it should not be a unilateral decision of a single user, even one as highly trusted as a Steward. Some times the urgency requires taking action first and asking later, but they should always ask. 93.172.252.36 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will rather use Endorse as like an after-action review following emergency removal after abuse that is not accounted for properly by the user under the cloud. Support can work but I think endorse is better termed IMHO. Yes, per Rschen7754, I think there is scope for such removals to be just notified on SN than a full RFC, if they contest yes, but if they don't, I don't think we need an RFC. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since normally these requests for comment are done beforehand before removing the access I'm also tempted to use Endorse here instead of a "support". As for the action, sounds reasonable when user simply refuses to answer the question in a timely manner. --Wiki13 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion regarding the renamer flag is same as Martin's. But what concerns me is the rename itself. It doesn't appear that the proper procedures were followed, so even if the original owner of the username (in this case, the vanished account) tries to log in, they won't be able to. That being said, the username seems suitable for usurp, so I am not sure what the best course of action here is.-BRP^ever 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever I think one possible way is to temporary revert the rename, and then follow the due process for usurp, and if they don't object within 1 month, then we rename back. This will ensure policies are followed and the original owner have a way to state their cause and will be notified. And their new username won't be some random vanished account but the proper usurped account. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to CM, this should not be treated any differently. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I had sent an email to this user about this, and unfortunately have so far not received a response. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, barring further updates from Metaverse. While this does appear to be very much a blatant abuse of an advanced permissions, it's not totally fair for us to assume they are intentionally attempting to avoid accountability by not editing (after all, life just happens sometimes). Perryprog (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per reason given by Amanda. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a misuse of right. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Victor Trevor (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and, like Perryprog above, since "Metaverse" has not responded, I don't see how we can reasonably oppose this. Barring a very good explanation, this LGTM (the revocation of the global renamer permission for "Metaverse"). Additionally, global renames should be reverted. Dmehus (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 05:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Serious misuse —MdsShakil (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sorry but this action is abusive. AlPaD (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both for the acual action taken and the faliure to respond when queried. NightWolf1223 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support inappropriate use and lack of participation after being challenged. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the action. Clear abuse of advanced permissions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Eta Carinae (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]