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====

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

@SVTCobra:, What in your opinion makes a contributor a good candidate for bureaucratship? Interested to know your insight, though I have already placed my vote. Thank you! --Gryllida (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @SVTCobra:  Comment Has been radio silent for some time now. Not sure what's up.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra:  Comment So badly want to support, but hasn't made a single edit in 90 days, so, doing that would be a tough decision to make.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment While I still have my sincere trust in the candidate's ability and commitment, I think that it would be interesting to somehow check that the candidate is still available, and has commitment, before altering the privs. --Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  • strong   Support
    •–• 03:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Seemplez
  •   Support - excellent track record. Will make an excellent bureaucrat. -- Green Giant (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral changed from support because only 39 edits or actions in about 8 months. Willing to change back to support if SVTCobra confirms commitment. --Green Giant (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Last edit was September 2020 (i.e. last year). Giving an inactive admin a bureaucratship is a huge risk to (this) small project, especially security-wise (see WN:PEP). --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support SHB2000 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you for volunteering! --Gryllida (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'll wait until he has more than 24 edits this entire calendar year. --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Bddpaux (talk · contribs) — bureaucratshipEdit

Bddpaux (t · c · b) has been a long-time 'newsie who has served in the capacity of admin and reviewer for ages (and is also an AR with scoop access). One of the most friendly and trusted candidates for 'crat whom I trust can serve well and would like to nominate them for b'crat, provided they accept the nomination.
•–• 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

StatsEdit


Questions and commentsEdit

  • I accept the nomination. Thanks!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What in your opinion makes a contributor a good candidate for bureaucratship? Interested to know your insight, though I have already placed my vote :). Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
CC @Bddpaux:
•–• 03:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, 99% of my answer to this question is based on how I saw PiZero behave. I hope (like he was), I can be a stoic, dependable person who keeps his mind on the larger value of this thing we are doing here: Citizen Journalism of the highest caliber. Keeping a sense of order and maturity here is a constant and never ending job AND I hope I can help develop and mentor some new blood around here too.--Bddpaux (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is actually starting to get comedic. I mean..... we (quite obviously) need more than 1 ‘Crat around here. What needs to happen to make this come to pass? I promise: I wont beg. I think it’s degrading (given my decade’s worth of devotion to this project) to have to quack like this.—Bddpaux (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  • Strong support as the nominator!
    •–• 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional   Support, if there is a commitment to lasting activity. --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per nominator. --Green Giant (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per the nominator as well —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support — There needs to be at least one more bureaucrat. — Gopher65talk 03:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, per the above. I appreciate your thorough attention to the content of the articles, as well as technical sides of how the site works. --Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Green Giant (talk · contribs) — bureaucratshipEdit

Green Giant (t · c · b) is one another one of the veteran Wikinewsies and Wikimedian in general. GG is a steward, an admin, reviewer, and holds many priv'd positions on several wikis. They are excellent candidate for 'crat whom I trust can serve well and would like to nominate them for b'crat, provided they accept the nomination.
•–• 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination accepted. Forgot to say so earlier! --Green Giant (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

StatsEdit


Questions and commentsEdit

  •   QuestionGreen Giant What in your opinion makes a contributor a good candidate for bureaucratship? Interested to know your insight, though I have already placed my vote :). Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gryllida: Thank you for the question. There are multiple qualities needed to be a good bureaucrat (although I’d say the same are needed for any advanced permission) but two that I think are particularly useful are good judgement and patience. Good judgement is needed for interpreting the thoughts of the community and guiding such discussions where necessary. Patience is needed for the times where opposing opinions might clash but a mature and "professional" approach would try to reduce tensions. --Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  • Strong support as the nominator!
    •–• 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support. How could you say no? --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per the nominator —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   SupportGopher65talk 03:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support. Excellent and dedicated candidate. Thank you for volunteering. --Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) — bureaucratshipEdit

RockerballAustralia (t · c · b) RbAus is one more long-term Wikinewsie, who has served as an admin and reviewer (while also being an AR with scoop access). They have been quite helpful, just like the other two candidates, helping new comers and even experienced editors alike. They are excellent candidate for 'crat whom I trust can serve well and would like to nominate them for b'crat, provided they accept the nomination.
•–• 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

StatsEdit


Questions and commentsEdit

Nomination happily accepted. --RockerballAustralia contribs 01:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! What in your opinion makes a contributor a good candidate for bureaucratship? Interested to know your insight, though I have already placed my vote :). (I am asking this to everyone today, to probably understand the key values and key points that are being considered important.) Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
A good 'crat should have a good understanding of Wikinews' core policies – namely WN:NPOV, WN:COI, WN:C. They should be on top of any policy they may need to apply before they need to apply it. They should also explain in as much depth as possible any decision they make as they are making it. --RockerballAustralia contribs 00:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  • Strong support as the nominator!
    •–• 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support. Clear commitment to the Wikimedia project. --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per nominator. --Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm sort of surprised Rockerball hasn't been one already —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 03:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per nominator. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you for your commitment. --Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Requests for removal of accessEdit

For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, "{{Remove}}" 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====