Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions

(Redirected from Wikinews:RFP)
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012–20
2021
2022–
By type

Requests and votes
Accreditation
ARBCOM
AWB
Bots
Functionaries
Reviewer

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.
I
Please read the policy before making a request for permissions. See also the global permissions policy.
Previous requests have been archived, and contain some common questions, comments, and objections made during the process.
II
Create your request for permission:
  1. Add your username in the box in the relevant section below and click the button.
  2. Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.
  3. Transclude your request page at the foot of the relevant section by adding the title of your request page, enclosed by curly brackets e.g.:
    {{Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/YourUsername}}
  4. Then inform the Wikinews community of your request.
III
Questions

You may be asked questions by other users so they can review your request. Please try to provide full answers.

IV
Community decision

The request must remain open for at least one or two weeks (depending on the permission sought). A bureaucrat will close the request and will also grant the appropriate flag, if the minimum criteria have been met. For CheckUser or Oversight, the bureaucrat will request the flag at Meta. Closed requests are moved to the Archives.

Interface Admin

edit

Gryllida

edit

Nominating myself as sysop who is frequently available to assist with editing pages in MediaWiki namespace if needed. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T378519 I can help with maintaining software and I also wanted to write a guided tour for new users. Thanks Gryllida (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Thank you for your request for additional privileges. I appreciate the effort you're putting into improving Wikinews.

That said, I’ve noticed there are currently 48 pages marked for speedy deletion, 35 protected edit requests, and over 20 published articles awaiting archiving—tasks that require admin attention but seem to be falling behind.

I have three questions:

  •   Question As an existing admin, how do you see your role in balancing these routine maintenance tasks, which are crucial to keeping the project running smoothly, with the development of new tools or features? Do you think prioritizing one over the other better serves the current needs of the community?
  •   Question Has anyone volunteered to use your IRC bot that provides a similar, guided function?
  •   Question You mentioned helping with technical issues. We currently utilize Flagged Revisions to control/protect published articles. However, Flagged Revisions is no longer supported (as mentioned here). Do you have any ideas for moving us away from Flagged Versions?

Thank you, —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Should be brought up at AAA. Someone else did these things before, and I was not involved. For example, I did not archive anarticle before. I am traveling so if a request was made within last 6 days I would not be aware. I will be at computer in about three days. If nobody asks at AAA then I do not have an awareness of what needs to be done.
2. A few people used it. Only once. It is pretty big barrier for a contributor to join IRC. Then once joined it does not save progress in the case the user has bad internet. Besides, almost nobody knows the IRC bot exists. If there is interest, we can make a page with a list of software that requires beta testing. Then the page could be advertised in sitenotice.
3. The linked discussion is too long, please give me a more specific link about flaggedrevs specifically.
3a. As far as I know enwp and ruwp used it before to prevent vandalism as it is more efficient than edit protecting pages in some cases. Gryllida (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Update: Speedy deletion mostly cleared; 'stale' is not a valid speedy deletion reason, whereas 'abandoned article with two days warning is' (as far as I know). Remaining inquiries: remaining speedy deletion requests, protected edit requests, and articles archival. Gryllida (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. update: cleared speedy deletion category Gryllida (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Thinking about it I'm not even sure a vote is required for this because it is just an add-on to being admin. But now that it is created it might as well be done properly. Since Gryllida is the one requesting the right it might be best if someone else closed this request. According to Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Policy says the request have to be open for 2 weeks and have at least 5 valid votes and 80% support. I think those requirements are met. I will therefore ping User:RockerballAustralia hoping for a closure so Gryllida can fix what needs to be fixed.

It is correct that there are special risk involved with InterfaceAdmin privileges. So it would be good practice only to give the rights to someone when they need it. But since Gryllida is a Bureaucrat it will not help much to remove the right because if some hack the account of Gryllida they can just add the right and break stuff. So the only reason to remove the right could be that doing so Gryllida will get a clear warning that "Hey you are about to change something important".

Anyway if this is to be temporary I think it would be a good idea to close this request with a clear permission for Gryllida to remove and add the right whenever it is needed (just like with the pseudo-bot-flag). I think it would be a waste of time if there have to be a vote everytime or if some other Bureaucrat have to change the rights every time. --MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
I now see that as a bureaucrat you can assign this right to yourself. I would like to update my support to state that I support the granting of privileges only if they are assigned temporarily and be removed on a stated date. This is based on the significant risk involved with InterfaceAdmin privileges and is not a judgement of your character or trustworthiness. In fact, the mere fact that you brought it here for a vote speaks well of both. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 19:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
usually pep expire after 2 years of unuse of a privilege is this not sufficient here? Gryllida (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we recently had requests: licence update on script, edut css for dark mode comparibility. i had optional: guided tours. seems like ongoing need, not a one off task. Gryllida (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PeP process is not initiated automatically, and its initiation does not guarantee the removal of privileges—it involves a discussion and consensus within the community.
Given the significant risk involved with assigning the right for an account to edit java script that is executed by the user's browser, I think it calls for significant precaution. With Interface Admin your account will have "the ability to edit sitewide CSS/JS pages (pages such as MediaWiki:Common.js or MediaWiki:Vector.css, or the gadget pages listed on Special:Gadgets). These pages are executed by the browser of wiki editors and readers as code..." Given the potential impact, I feel it would be more appropriate to assign such privileges with a clear, pre-determined timeframe for self-retraction, especially since these rights can be reassigned as needed and as accepted by the community. This approach would strike a balance between ensuring security and maintaining flexibility. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho

edit

Nominating sysop who is frequently available to assist with editing pages in MediaWiki namespace if needed. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T378519 Thanks Gryllida (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. user is not a sysop currently which i thought they were Gryllida (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Thanks, but I'm unsure whether I'm fully qualified for the work intended by the role. --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I accept this nomination, shall the role be permanent or temporary? On the safer side, I prefer temporary, like three months, six months, one year, or... —George Ho (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It stays on until WN:PeP. You may request another expiry if you prefer. Gryllida (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I request another expiry then? George Ho (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave a note here in this comments page, and I am happy to apply the expiry as you requested. Gryllida (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, are we voting to grant the InterfaceAdmin privilege temporarily and solely to address this Phabricator ticket? The request mentions "if needed," which raises some concerns. While this is not a reflection on George Ho's character or trustworthiness, it is worth noting that they have not been vetted by the community for any other elevated privileges. Given the significant power associated with InterfaceAdmin, I feel it is important to approach this decision cautiously.
Voters should understand exactly what InterfaceAdmin privileges include:

Interface administrators can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage [emphasis added]).

additionally;

Editing CSS/JS that gets executed in other users' browsers is very powerful and potentially dangerous in the hands of a malicious user.

For this reason, it is crucial that the request clearly outlines the specific purpose and necessity of granting these privileges. Alternatively, Gryllida, who is already a trusted Bureaucrat, could temporarily assign the InterfaceAdmin role to herself to address the Phabricator ticket, which seems like a more straightforward and secure solution to achieve the desired outcome (assuming this is strictly to address the existing Phabricator ticket). —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only for that ticket - for maintainance - as I cannot be the only one with access to edit essential site JavaScript. Gryllida (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be the only one - Acagastya also has it. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I please withdraw this nomination? I'm getting oppose votes, and the nomination likely won't pass. —George Ho (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that the individual is currently qualified to receive these elevated privileges, a point they themselves have acknowledged. Combined with their apparent lack of interest in holding such privileges, this suggests that it may not be the right fit for them at this time. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Michael lays out much of what is wrong with this. There also appears to be no requirement for a minimum of two concurrently serving interface admins — there's only one serving at the moment, in fact, which obviously means...there would be two if Gryllida granted IA to themselves. George Ho seems to have been, with no disrespect intended, randomly and unnecessarily selected. Heavy Water (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

edit

ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ

edit

I am nominating myself for adminship on English Wikinews to assist with maintenance tasks such as combating vandalism, managing page deletions, and ensuring smooth project operations. I am committed to upholding community policies, support collaboration, and addressing technical issues requiring administrative tools. Through my contributions to the Wikinews project, I aim to help maintain a reliable and well-organized platform. I appreciate your consideration and am happy to answer any questions. -- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

  Comment Withdrawing my request as the situation has improved—some admins are now active. I proposed this when it was necessary, but I don’t think en.wikinews needs more admins at this point. This can be closed. Thanks! --ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  • Elect, yes vote, please help wikinews, thanks. BigKrow (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me, but your username and userpage is unreadable on my laptop. Would you consider changing your username or providing instructions on which font to download so that your username is readable and not a bunch of squares? To be clear, this is optional. Leaderboard (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback! I've updated my userpage on Meta-Wiki to include a transliterated username for clarity and added a font rendering issue template. Most of the user templates I use should automatically switch between my native language on my native wiki and English or other languages when I work on different projects. This may require further collective translation work on Meta-Wiki, and I'll keep an eye on that. -- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka

edit

I'm nominating myself as a sysop on Wikinews, I've a sysop on English Wikiquote for a years and find there's lot of vandals here recently without being blocked on time. I'd like to help this project by becoming a sysop. I'm currently familiar with sysop tools and knowing the project's policy -- Lemonaka (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit
  Question As an admin, how would you go about archiving published articles? What are the decision points to be made and what steps need to be taken? —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for replying late, the process for archiving is on Wikinews:Archive_conventions, Any article which is published and dated no less than seven days from the current date should be archived per the process described below.
  1. Remove outdated tags such as {{expand}} and {{breaking}}. Once protected an article cannot be expanded and thus this is confusing.
  2. The { {{Archived}} tag should be added at the end of the article, preferably by putting {{Publish}}, {{Archived}} on individual lines, followed by the categories. Interwiki links to non-English Wikinews sites go last.
  3. Articles should be given a final check for format, small style errors, proper categorisation, spelling, and similar minor points. Since all changes are reviewed, there should be no major problems outstanding at this time.
As for the decision points,
When, during times of slow output, the number of articles shown on the main page has dropped to just ten, archiving is usually suspended until additional articles are published. Lemonaka (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  •   Oppose at this time. The thing is that I haven't really seen them around except in the last month or so, and hence I'm not seeing enough potential value right now. And for routine antivandalism alone, the global sysops tend to be really helpful in removing spam and vandalism so that makes their primary purpose kind of redundant. If their plan is to contribute by writing news articles and such, one doesn't need adminship for that. Leaderboard (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2024 (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.



Leaderboard

edit

I was encouraged to reapply for sysop by @Gryllida: on my talk page. I only intend to use the rights for routine antivandalism purposes (such as deleting pages - I've tagged hundreds of pages over the years, and have a fairly good understanding on what is and what isn't content plausibly suitable for Wikinews), and can help in technical stuff or abuse filters. I do not intend to create news articles or contribute on that front, however, though I may still make the odd copyedit or two.

P.S: I did apply for this back in 2019 or so with nearly the same rationale, but the community did not want an "anti-vandalism"-only sysop at that time. That's also why I didn't reapply for the right until now. Leaderboard (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request successful. You're now a sysop. Congratulations. This request may be closed. Gryllida (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Thank you for volunteering. We desperately need more active admins. I have two questions:

  •   Question Would you be willing to do more than just anti-vandalism work that is needed from admins? For example, we need admins to archive articles as part of routine maintenance.
  •   Question You mentioned helping with technical work. We currently utilize Flagged Revisions to control/protect published articles. However, Flagged Revisions is no longer supported (as mentioned here). Do you have any ideas for moving us away from Flagged Versions? —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright
  • That sounds like something that could/should be done by a bot flagged with admin rights, and indeed I think I should be able to code it up (for reference: I'm the author of a bot that runs on nearly 800 WMF wikis, namely the metawiki:Global reminder bot).
  • I don't think Flagged Revisions is the main issue - it's actually something that's extensively used on my home wiki, namely English Wikibooks and as you can see on the Phabricator thread, there's been significant work done in reducing the convolutedness of that extension. As a result, my feeling is that it's here to stay. Something that's more important is this project's use of LiquidThreads (or LQT - mw:LiquidThreads) - that predates mw:Flow which itself is in the process of being removed. The community needs to get rid of it urgently, and the simplest way is to replace with regular talk pages - mw:DiscussionTools has made commenting on regular wiki pages considerably easier.
Leaderboard (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The archive template says that archival is done by a bot. Is this not the case? Gryllida (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which archival template? Leaderboard (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the process: I randomly recalled seeing {{Archive-unreviewed}} on one of articles. I had another look and I see that this and many others were archived by hand. Can someone tell me the workflow for archival. What are the criteria? Is it supposed to occur 24 hours after publishing? Gryllida (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of a mess. I've seen the following:
  • User:ArchiveBot_(usurped) automatically protecting pages - this was stopped at around 2008 or so.
  • The article initially being semi-protected, and later fully-protected. This is how it works now, and it's completely manual. I think initially after publishing, it's semi-protected, and after a week or so, fully protected. That's the general approach.
Leaderboard (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit

Support BigKrow (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support We need more active and involved admins to support this project. The ability to code bots to do the tedious and mundane admin work is a force-multiplier. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support It is a pleasure for me to work with Leaderboard. There are reasonable responses above including about flaggedrevs without jumping to assumptions or conclusions. Leaderboard is a technically competent user with clarity in communication including in challenging situations. There was a previous request for adminship which highlighted lack of involvement with other parts than spam, which was frowned upon; I consider the persistent involvement in this wiki as an indication of knowing the workflows and having an interest in improvement of constructive content here. Gryllida (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I have no doubt that Leaderboard can be trusted with admin rights. And I think it is clear that Wikinews can use more active users with admin rights. --MGA73 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support no worries about making leaderboard a sysop here. Ternera (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per Michael.C.Wright - Wikinews needs more active and involved admins.--Pharos (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


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.



Leaderbot

edit

Pre-emptively requesting admin+bot so that I can start working on Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Leaderboard 2 and Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts#Requesting_edits_to_protected_pages_and_deletion_of_outdated_files amongst others as soon as possible; in particular, I prefer doing bot-like tasks on Leaderbot (rather than my main account). No issues if the community decides waiting is better, though.

Request successful. You're now a sysop and a bot. I recommend publishing source code and list of tasks somewhere, perhaps on user page. Congratulations. I'm closing this request. Gryllida (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Votes

edit
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.


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".


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.



Bddpaux

edit

I have given this project more than 15 years, but its time to face the facts. Wikinews is a failure. We hardly publish anything at this point and at this point we are not a useful news source. While I believe in citizen journalism, it's time for me to move on.

Could someone please remove my admin and reviewer permissions?

@Cromium, Gryllida, RockerballAustralia:

Closing this request created by an imposter account.
•–• 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Can the crats please hold off on actioning this? I'm pretty sure the requesting account (Bdddpaux — notice, they didn't sign this request) is an impostor's account, not an alt account, and have asked Bddpaux about this. All it's done is redirect its user and talk pages to Bddpaux's, and request the removal of his privs. It's odd to create an alt account, and next, an hour later, announce your retirement. Bddpaux's latest statement on his userpage, two days ago, seems decidedly optimistic, although I have to admit Bdddpaux does a pretty good imitation of some phrases Bddpaux commonly uses, like mentioning his duration of service to the project and saying that he still believes in citizen journalism even at times when he's disillusioned about the project. Heavy Water (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted it was Bdddpaux (not Bddpaux) who requested, with Bdddpaux being only several days old. Noting the message you left at Bddpaux's talk page to confirm. Taking no action currently. Gryllida (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If @Bddpaux: does not declare this as a sock account, I will be blocking this imposter + might warrant a CU as well.
•–• 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed with Bddpaux, it is not a sock. Gryllida (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
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.


Pathetic. Some people apparently need to get a hobby. This was not me. —-Bddpaux (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=4808348"