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 submit their own requests (self-nomination), or
  • Other users can nominate a candidate.

Administrator edit

Bureaucrats edit

CheckUser and Oversight edit

To add a nomination for CheckUser

To add a nomination for Oversight

Removal edit

  • {{Remove}} means "support removal of permission".
  • {{Keep}} means "keep permission".


Inactive for at least two years since 16 July 2021 (last edit). No recorded log since March 2021. Twice notified about inactivity; no response yet. Per WN:PEP, should be de-sysopped. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stats edit

Questions and comments edit

  •   Comment: For what it's worth, they've continued to edit at enwiki as recently as this morning. Heavy Water (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unsure how this counts. But thanks for the reminder, so I sent a message there. George Ho (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment: Yes, I've been away from Wikinews for a long while, I'm just busy in real life. Wikinews isn't like Wikipedia, since most articles are written mostly by one person with minor edits made by others. At least, that's it's always been to me. Wikipedia currently fits my workflow better in my busy life. I should note I was contacted by someone from the Foundation recently about the Wikinews Facebook account and trying to regain access to it because currently it is posting semi-NSFW videos using the Stories feature. Granted, I never had access and I think the person who had access was Brian McNeil, who as we know is sadly no longer with us. I will abide by whatever this RfP proposes, however, I don't think I should be de-sysopped for what it's worth. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes edit

  • Desysop Thanks for what you've done, but it seems like you've moved on. No prejudice against reapplying if/when life makes you available for service here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep: PeP is both something the community can choose to apply, with discretion and common sense, and a measure to prevent compromised admin accounts or admins unaware of now-significantly changed policy, not a punitive one for simple inactivity. It shouldn't be taken as "better revoke any permissions as soon as the letter of these requirements is met." TUFKAAP is active elsewhere, so the security argument is moot; and I'm aware of no significant changes in customs regarding the use of admin tools in the past two years. Additionally, I think what SVTCobra said at Special:Diff/4730161 about having a shortage of admins makes sense. I'd add, for context about what was meant by "[ceasing] to be familiar with current practice": When drafting PeP and pushing for it to become a policy in 2012, Pi zero and Brianmc specifically expressed a desire to utilize it to revoke the permissions of those who either became reviewers very early on (i.e., about mid-2008 through 2009), when the standards for publishing were much lower, or left for the fork and were aware of Wikinews standards, but openly stated they had a complete lack of care about such, and even which site they were on. Heavy Water (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is your general view about PeP, right? I don't see how this view helps us trust this admin to use the tools any longer. To clarify, why must your reluctance to enforce PeP and (supposed) shortage of admins be one of reasons to support this person as an admin? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is my view on enforcing PeP on TUFKAAP, and it's in line with my general view on enforcing PeP when the problems, listed above, that motivated the creation of PeP aren't present, especially at a time like this. As for the rest of your comment: WTF? I don't comprehend at all. Much of my vote was dedicated to explaining why those reasons make me inclined to oppose desysopping. I think one of the things you're saying is "you are reluctant to enforce PeP, but that should not matter, as it is policy." If it was like the review policy, you'd be right, but I go back to the first sentence of my vote, where I said PeP is "something the community can choose to apply, with discretion and common sense." Heavy Water (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I now recall you said practically the same thing to SVTCobra when he objected to your suggestion Gopher65 be desysopped, George. Heavy Water (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As you said, you have your reasons to oppose desysopping this person. Are they the same reasons to support this person as an admin? If so, I'd be flabbergasted, but whatever if the direction of the community heading toward your way. I have plenty of reason to oppose this person as an admin any longer, but if my reasons aren't enough for you, then... *sigh* George Ho (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Opposing desysopping is equivalent to supporting the admin remaining an admin, so yeah, they're the same reasons. Heavy Water (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, what are your views about this admin besides PeP? George Ho (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think they served well. I mean, I've never interacted with them, so I wouldn't really know, but. Heavy Water (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've not interacted much with this person either, and I honestly can't say much about this person's hard work. However, the past is the past. No reason to hold on the past too long in the present, is there? George Ho (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove Seeing that the admin in question has been inactive for years, is active on the English Wikipedia, has been pinged there, and still doesn't care enough to engage here. Pecopteris (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Doesn't care"? Why do you infer bad faith? TUFKAAP may well be too preoccupied in real life to respond here. But I find it highly unlikely someone with eighteen years' work on this project "doesn't care" about a request to desysop them. (To clarify, I'm not asking you to AGF — we have a guideline of never assuming good faith or bad, but drawing reasoned conclusions.) Heavy Water (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep, due to lack of sysop on this project. Lemonaka (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is that the sufficient reason to preserve this inactive admin's tools? George Ho (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Remove, but waiting for stewards regular check. Lemonaka (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]