Wikinews:Requests for permissions

(Redirected from Wikinews:RFA)

Requests for permissions (RFP) is the process by which the Wikinews community decides which users can have access to the administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions. Users can either submit their own requests (self-nomination) or be nominated by other users.

This page also hosts requests for removal of access and for reconfirmation.

See also:

Requests for adminshipEdit

  • 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.
  • 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.


Requests for bureaucratshipEdit

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

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) — bureaucratshipEdit

Hi. Blood Red Sandman has been one of the most important editors on Wikinews. BRS was away from the project for several months, for genuine reasons, and now they are back. They lost the b'crat bis due to PeP. A trustworthy editor, an AR, reviewer and admin; I trust BRS with b'crat rights and would like to nominate them to regain these privs, provided they accept this nomination. --•–• 07:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

StatsEdit


Questions and commentsEdit

  •   Comment I accept, in principle, although I don't suppose it's too urgent to get them right now. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  •   Support as nominator.
    •–• 07:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose didn't meet the activity requirements of an administrator or reviewer (see Wikinews:Privilege expiry policy); before June 1, 2020 no edits or log actions since February 2019. The rights weren't removed, and the user may be active again (I say may to avoid assuming anything, noting that so far all of their edits since returning have been related to the creation of a single category) but until they are a more active participant in the community again I cannot in good conscience support granting more rights, especially in light of the fact that wikinews' need for bureaucrat actions is quite low. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Update to reiterate oppose after it was noted that this is regaining the privileges: policy says that "A period of re-acclimation with the project, being active, becoming familiar with current policies and observing current use of said privileges may be followed with fast-tracked request for the rights to be reinstated." - no such period has yet to take place as far as I can tell, so this request may not be timely. That being said, the fast-tracked procedure requires "at least two users currently trusted with similar or greater privileges", as well as "no doubts [being] expressed nor expected", and thus does not apply here as doubts have been expressed (by me) and there is only 1 user with similar or greater privileges (bureaucrat). --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Policies regarding b'crat did not change during the time of BRS's inactivity. So a "said period" is not warranted. We do have two users with similar or greater privs. As far as "no doubts" is concerned, expressing concerns over not-spending-enough-time learning updated policies when the relevant policies were not change is not a legitimate doubt.
•–• 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The policy says that a period of re-acclimation is called for - policies can be changed, but for now this is the policy. As for whether my doubt is "legitimate", my doubt was about not being an active member of the community, not about learning updated policies. There is no criteria in the policy for what is a "legitimate" doubt, nor does the word "legitimate" appear in the policy at all, and I resent the misrepresentation of my concerns, and the mischaracterization of them as illegitimate. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: To better understand your position (without taking any position on any of this myself, atm): is your objection solely about activity level; and if so, does that imply that there is a level of activity at which you would withdraw your objection? --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
My biggest objection is regarding activity, but it is not my sole objection. That does imply that there is a level of activity at which I would withdraw that objection; I can't say what that level is, but w:I know it when I see it --DannyS712 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  Comment None of what was said above has anything to do with regaining the privs. But let's wait for a few days.
•–• 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
True, but the nomination did not at the time specify that they were regaining the privileges (I responded at Special:Permalink/4567478#Blood_Red_Sandman_(talk_·_contribs)_—_bureaucratship, before you changed the nomination statement in Special:Diff/4567481) so it would make sense for what I said not to have anything to do with regaining the privileges, because that was only first mentioned afterwards. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Had to update because you did not know BRS's history on this project, and very likely did not see their talk page.
•–• 08:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I've no doubt whatever about the suitability of the nominee. --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Competent candidate, without doubts, from my perspective. --Gryllida (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to see an old hand around -- and a trustworthy one. Tyrol5 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I have known BRS for more than a dozen years. A highly valued member of the Wikinews team if there ever was one. --SVTCobra 01:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Gryllida (talk · contribs) — bureaucratshipEdit

Gryllida is one of the valuable and trusted Wikinewsies. Gry's skillsets extends to wonderful support for user script and gadgets. Currently, they hold admin rights, reviewer rights; they are on the Commons' OTRS team, and they are accredited reporter. I trust Gryllida, and would like to nominate them for b'crat, provided they accept the nomination.

StatsEdit


Questions and commentsEdit

VotesEdit

  • strong   Support --•–• 03:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gryllida deserves b'crat. They are one of the editors I have seen that are consistently working to make Wikinews a better place. Seemplez 12:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support An absolutely rock-solid candidate. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Altogether suitable. --Pi zero (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

SVTCobra (talk · contribs) — bureaucratshipEdit

I would love to nominate a long time Wikinewsie and current admin, ArbCom member and reviewer SVTCobra who, imho, will be an excellent 'crat.

StatsEdit


Questions and commentsEdit

VotesEdit



Requests for removal of accessEdit

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====






Requests for reconfirmationEdit

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 OversightEdit

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 sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. 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====