Wikinews:Requests for permissions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page enables bureaucrats to handle requests for granting administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions, and revoking them on this wiki. Please be aware that we can only alter permissions for this wiki. To change permissions for any other wiki, check your local policies, or go to Meta.

For urgent requests, please join our IRC channel at #wikinews, and type !admin@enwikinews.

For requests for reviewer rights, use Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions.

Requests for adminship

  • Requesting adminship: You may be qualified for adminship if the following conditions are true:
  1. You've done at least two months' work on Wikinews.
  2. You are trusted by the community.
You can view some of the latest requests in the archive, where you can also see some common questions, comments, and objections made during the process.

  Add a new nomination  

  • Requesting de-adminship: Local project bureaucrats are able to remove administrator privileges. They, however, will not deadmin unless there is community consensus for this to happen, or at the request of the administrator in question.

After seven days, a bureaucrat will turn those users into sysops who have consensus support from the community. Do not list as administrators people who have not been granted the appropriate permissions by a bureaucrat!

See Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive for old requests. Don't forget to inform the Wikinews community of your RFA.


Bddpaux (talk · contribs) — adminship

Self-nom. for Admin. I've been here for about 4 years. In that time I've contributed 46 articles, about 30 with OR. I've been a reviewer for about 18 months and have reviewed about 20 articles during that tenure. Overall, I've made about 4000 edits here and try to encourage new contributors. I really believe in the "new wave" of citizen journalists and I also know that we're at the very crest of that! --Bddpaux (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats


Questions and comments

Votes

  • Support. Reviewer is more of a big-deal to Wikinews, and Paul's handled that well. I read this brief, unassuming self-nomination as, "yeah, I could do some of the janitorial work 'round these parts too." --Brian McNeil / talk 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]



The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billinghurst (talk · contribs) — adminship

I am nominating Billinghurst for administrator. They are an administrator on Wikisource and do a lot of of work on meta. The user hangs out on wikimedia-stewards and has been providing a lot of assistance with spam related content. As a contributor to a non-Wikipedia project, I believe they would respect local rules. The purpose in nominating them is so they can assist with spam filters, read deleted edits to fix things, etc.--LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billinghurst has global steward rights. This explains the low edit count. --LauraHale (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats


Questions and comments

  • Question Does the nominee accept nomination? --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If the nominee does accept nomination, what does the nominee have to say about how they would and would not use the privs? I'm concerned not merely with the nominee's intent (which I have no qualms about), but with the nominee's understanding of what not to do. (Granted, a contributor to a non-Wikipedia project is more likely to appreciate the need for caution.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, this was a little unexpected. Can we pause this request in this format, and instead look at this in terms of the outcomes that you would like to achieve, rather than step into straight admin discussion, as it is obvious I am not an active member here. FWIW 1) Yes, I know which buttons to press, and basically know not to press them. 2) I would generally decline adminship as I am not fully conversant with your rules, and recently declined adminship at WD for similar reasons.

If the help that you are looking for here is the means to actively allow someone to add/amend abuse filters then there are alternative two directions that your community can take. 1) Allow stewards (of which I am one) to do so, and that is simply a policy decision here (and to note that this I did with some consultation with some of your community a couple of days ago); or 2) Look to the ability to directly assign and remove abusefilter rights independently (enWS allows admins to assign this right to users) This would be done via a bugzilla request. You would be looking to have changes made to settings in the wgAddGroups and wgRemoveGroups sections to have 'abusefilter' by sysop or by bureaucrat, compare Special:ListGroupRights and s:Special:ListGroupRights where the extra group exists.) This would allow you to assign the right to whomever you wish via whatever process you define, though not to see deleted contributions, which is a separate right within the wiki system.

To note that as a steward I can already see deleted contributions, and the back-of-house for 800 other wikis. If the end route you require me to take the adminship route to give the assistance that your community desires, I can happily promise to keep my fingers out of the main ns pie, etc. Billinghurst (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though it would keep me out of your PENDING queues. <lol> Billinghurst (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requests for bureaucratship

  • Bureaucrats are trusted users by the community, that can handle requests for adminship and/or bureaucratship, remove these rights and rename users, amidst other rights.

To add a nomination:

  • Put the new nomination just below the "just below this line" comment.
  • Suggested format:
==={{User|USERNAME}} — bureaucratship ===

NOMINATING COMMENT HERE  --  NOMINATOR'S SIGNATURE WITH TIMESTAMP

====Stats====
{{RfP/stats|USERNAME}}

====Questions and comments====

====Votes====


Requests for removal of access

Remember: For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, " Support" means "support removal of access rights", and " Oppose" means "oppose removal of access rights".

Note that we have a Category:Admins open to recall, which may offer a route to a request for reconfirmation.

To add a nomination:

  • Put the new nomination just below the "just below this line" comment.
  • Suggested format:
==={{User|USERNAME}} — remove RIGHT-TO-REMOVE ===

NOMINATING COMMENT HERE  --  NOMINATOR'S SIGNATURE WITH TIMESTAMP

====Stats====
{{RfP/stats|USERNAME}}

====Questions and comments====

====Votes====


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Housekeeping; inactive, privileged accounts

The below have all been actioned; good to see one or two with little time pop up and say a few words.
The following are a list of users who have elevated privileges on Wikinews who qualify for de-privving under the proposed inactivity policy.
  • I am working to build this list, and will take time to ensure efforts are made to contact these individuals via email, their talk pages here and any talk page they may indicate as a home project.
Unless otherwise indicated, this move to de-priv should (with the exception of reviewer rights) allow a speedy regaining of privileges should these individuals become active again. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: We don't need the proposed inactive policy. We have an enacted Privilege expiry policy, which already covers reviewer, and which does not require prior notification (though it doesn't forbid it either). --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action the lot?

  • With Pi zero having reminded me of WN:PeP, all of these technically qualify for privs being downgraded. Is there anyone who wants to comment on the merit of doing so? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although all of these may technically have expired, there is no harm in politely informing them via usual channels, waiting for a brief period of time (48 hours? a week?) before acting. Remember, these are people who are not involved and not using their privileges, so there should be no need to rush.
    For future expiries we may wish to drop a reminder note a day or two in advance of technical expiration. "We noticed you have not been active lately, and we know life may get between a Wikinewsie and the wiki. Just so you're aware, after {time period} of inactivity your {privilege type} will be reduced from {X} to {Y}." - Amgine | t 14:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yah. I just had a little chuckle at the thought of processing one of these a year after the prior priv went (tomorrow). --Brian McNeil / talk 14:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth pointing out to people that privileges can be regained with the greatest of ease where inactivity was the only reason for removing. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 14:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussed idea was not reminding people in advance, as "We don't want people coming back to make a token edit because they were pre-notified" (wording of Pi zero, copy pasted from the talk page I linked). Gryllida 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think we're going to agree on the "token edits" issue..." same talk page. Echo chambers do not a consensus make. - Amgine | t 10:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a lawyerly reflex there, Amgine? :-)
At the time we enacted the policy (as I recall, much of the discussion on that particular point was on other pages), we'd had several examples in recent memory of folks from the fork returning abruptly with egregiously policy-violating reviewer actions. So we crafted the policy with a similar spirit of admin's discretion in it as in our —imho, extraordinarily sane— blocking policy. When I applied the PeP on a large scale shortly before New Year's, I chose not to inform anyone in advance, because there were some on the list whom it would have been a bad idea to inform in advance and I had no wish to single them out by informing others. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. However, any such action taken without attempting prior notification is, by definition, uninformed consent. Which, I'm sure, you would not normally wish to accurately be applied to en.WN dev actions. While I understand the arguments in favour of such a policy, I do not feel their potential, even probable, benefit outweigh the certain harm. That was and is my opinion, and not likely to change. It costs very little to correct an error, much less than to repair a project's reputation. - Amgine | t 14:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
That's specious, since there's no consent involved (though sadly I'd not be surprised to see some legalistic... nonsense... conjured to claim otherwise). --Pi zero (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's clearly a point at which we are unlikely to agree. You have the policy you are comfortable with. It does not prevent you from dropping a note to inform, neither does it require it. - Amgine | t 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. So there is something on which we agree. ;-)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About 10 days passed, I think; I would perhaps suggest taking this action in bulk, as planned. Gryllida 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All below changes actioned; closing, and will notify via talk pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Calebrw (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Cartman02au (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Chiacomo (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Cocoaguy (talk · contribs) — remove Admin, Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Divol (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Eloquence (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Foxj (talk · contribs) — remove Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Juliancolton (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Peter.C (talk · contribs) — remove Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Phearson (talk · contribs) — remove Editor

Questions, comments

I am deeply sorry that I have not been active. I have been struggling with a health issue and time away from the computer is neccessary. I intend to resume recording voice for articles tomorrow. Phearson (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phearson! Take care of yourself, first. When you are able to take up the mop again, there is an expedited process for getting your buttons back again. - Amgine | t 08:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Votes

Pmlineditor (talk · contribs) — remove Admin, Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Ragettho (talk · contribs) — remove Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Terinjokes (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

The wub (talk · contribs) — remove Admin, Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Voice of All (talk · contribs) — remove Editor

Questions, comments
Votes

Wackywace (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes

Zanimum (talk · contribs) — remove Admin

Questions, comments
Votes
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requests for reconfirmation

Any user in good standing may request a reconfirmation of an admin who has marked themselves open to recall here. Any administrator who would like a confirmation that he has the continued support of the community may also list themselves here. If you are requesting reconfirmation due to inactivity, click here.

Please use Support if you believe the listed administrator should retain their administrator privileges, or Oppose to vote for their removal. ---

Requests for CheckUser and Oversight

Confirming your identity

These rights require users to confirm their identity, and be at least 18 years old. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also submit the relevant identification to the Foundation. The request is placed on hold temporarily, until receipt has been formally confirmed by the office. All requests for CheckUser and Oversight must go through Meta, and should be made by a trusted administrator or bureaucrat following a clear successful vote.

Access and consensus for tools
  • Per Checkuser policy and Oversight policy at Meta, checkuser and oversight candidates must gain consensus of 70-80%, with a total of at least 25 supports, in order to be given access to the tools.
  • Checkuser and Oversight rights discussions should stay open for at least 2 weeks.

To add a nomination:

  • Put the new nomination just below the "just below this line" comment.
  • Suggested format:
==={{User|USERNAME}} — REQUESTED RIGHT ===

NOMINATING COMMENT HERE  --  NOMINATOR'S SIGNATURE WITH TIMESTAMP

====Stats====
{{RfP/stats|USERNAME}}

====Questions and comments====

====Votes====


Requests for bot status

See Wikinews:Bots.

Requests for reviewer rights

See Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions. Please add requests to that page!

Requests for Wikinews:Accreditation

See Wikinews:Accreditation requests.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=2102187"