Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 10

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012–20
2021
2022–
By type



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.



Acagastya (talk · contribs) — Checkuser

edit

I would like to nominate Acagastya as a checkuser. Acagastya is a very active contributor, reviewer, administrator and VRT volunteer. The reason for this nomination is that Wikinews needs local Checkusers because we have had an increasing need for checks specific to English Wikinews. You may or may not be able to see the Special:CheckUserLog but it shows that in the first six months of 2021, stewards have needed to carry out 55 CU checks as a result of vandalism, spam and other longer term abuse by a small number of users (both registered and unregistered). In addition to requesting a lot of these checks from the stewards on Meta, Acagastya has highlighted to me some problematic accounts over a similar period including over a dozen in the last few days. I have carried out CU checks on loginwiki for these and a number of others (for example multiple accounts operated by one person). If we had local checkusers, these tasks could be carried out more directly and quickly on the wiki. Those that are crosswiki would still need to be done by stewards or the local checkusers on other wikis. In Acagastya we have a strong candidate to carry out such CU checks quickly and act upon the data e.g. by temporarily blocking account creation from an IP or range. Acagastya has worked hard on creating filters to automatically stop creation of pages which match certain patterns. An example is the recent surge in "phone support number advertisements". Acagastya has helped with tackling this kind of spam and abuse but would be more able to help if given access to additional tools. Therefore I highly recommend you support this nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: do you accept the nomination? --Green Giant (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nomination and the vote, @Green Giant:, and yes, I accept the nomination.
•–• 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit
@Bddpaux: Checkuser permission allows them to search for the IP that another user edited from in the last three months or so. It is very intrusive, hence why it is treated as an advanced permission and the search must be justified. To give an example, let’s say User:Greener_Giant added some spam links to pages and was blocked. Then 20 minutes later User:Greenest Giant is created and starts adding the same links. You block that account but find half an hour later there is now a Greenest of the Green Giants adding more spam. Clearly they are linked but rather than guess their next account, a CU search might reveal they edited from the same IP or IP range. That IP could be temporarily blocked to prevent more spam accounts being created. I doubt most people have seen the search results but they look something like this:
  • Greenest of the SuperGreen Giants talk contribs block (CentralAuth) (Check) (22:00, 14 July 2021) [1]
301.302.303.304
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/537.36
  • Greenest of the Green Giants talk contribs block (CentralAuth) (Check) (21:00, 14 July 2021) [1]
301.302.303.304
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/537.36
  • The Absolute Greenie Meanie of Giants talk contribs block (CentralAuth) (Check) (20:30, 14 July 2021) [1]
301.302.303.304
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/537.36
  • Greener Giant talk contribs block (CentralAuth) (Check) (20:10, 14 July 2021) [1]
301.302.303.304
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/537.36
Obviously that is all fake data but such search results would be a strong indication that one person is creating multiple accounts for spam purposes. You could then block that IP for about a month. This would help limit the spam accounts.
The reason for the nominations is so we have at least two people who can carry out searches locally on English Wikinews rather than having to submit a request on Meta-Wiki and waiting for a steward to do the search. Separately from local CU searches, the stewards can also do searches at the LoginWiki, which gives a somewhat different set of results. I hope this clarifies the purpose of CU. --Green Giant (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good, clear answer. Thanks!!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bddpaux: Are you referring to myself or Acagastya? If myself, then yes you are technically correct. I am a steward, which means I have full access to all roles on every wiki. This includes being able to carry out Checkuser (mostly in an emergency). However I cannot use CU on any wiki where I have high levels of involvement e.g. Commons, English Wikiversity, English Wikinews, unless I pass a vote on that wiki and gain the CU role formally. --Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bddpaux: And if you meant me, I am an ombuds; that is separate from CU, and though I have CU tools at my disposal, I am not authorised to used them.
•–• 05:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Yes, I mean you. I think I'm understanding how all the roles between projects work vs. don't work.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bddpaux: on meta I have mentioned I am:
  • enwn admin (you know that)
  • enwn reviewer (you know that too)
  • commons reviewer (I verify licenses of media on commons)
  • commons file mover (I can rename files on commons)
  • commons rollbacker (I actually don't know this, I guess I can rollback edits?)
  • a Commons VRT agent (I can access emails sent to permission-commons@ and some other emails)
  • an OC member (Listent to complains maid by plaintiff if they feel their privacy was violated by a CU on any WMF-wiki)
I don't have CU privs anywhere.
•–• 14:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
Comment I had asked if you had glocked all IPs, a yes/no question, and when I said "you could PM me, as [I am] an OC" -- that was a joke. I know far too well that isn't what I am supposed to know. But I think I did clarify in the channel it is a joke almost immediately.
•–• 17:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment....and, well, jokes often get 'lost' in our strange little world here. Acagastaya can be, yes, often aggressive when it comes to dealing with vandalism and vandals at large....BUT, there are MANY individuals who like to treat English Wikinews like it is their little private graffiti wall for all manner of garbage and marketing whatever. So, just my two cents..... --Bddpaux (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya I'm sorry, but your first request was clearly asking me to publicly comment on an IP (if a given account edits from a given IP).
I'm happy to publish the raw logs so the community can consider it themselves. However, since it's IRC conversation, I shouldn't do that without approval from you. Are you okay with me publishing the logs here? Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said twice “I am not requesting access -- it was my way of saying -- are you sure there was just one IP, or were there many -- and maybe a range block might help me not having to deal with the as frequently as I do.” and “No, I am asking "hey, you checked for all accounts, right? I saw you block only one of the accounts -- please make sure you have blocked all, and if a range block applies, please do -- that will be very much appreciated".”
The LTAs were creating more pages and triggering some AFs while we were speaking, and they have created enough trouble for me, that I had to stay up past my bed time, just to get rid of their helpline support spam. Perhaps I could have worded it differently. Perhaps I could have said "Jokes aside, and my bad, not the best time to joke; however, please make sure you have checked all IPs because we are *still* receiving the spam as I speak and if they come in a range, that will surely help me divert my attention to more important things both on and off wiki." My apologies. I should have considered, it is not the channel or people where I frequently speak and the way I speak (the way I mean things) might be perceived it differently. I shall be more careful in future.
•–• 02:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya Could you please answer the question asked in my previous comment? Quoting: „Are you okay with me publishing the logs here?“ Thanks, Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2021 (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.



Closing this a passed with 25/25 votes -- a cent per cent record, congratulations, @Green Giant:.
•–• 04:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant (talk · contribs) — Checkuser

edit

I would also like to nominate Green Giant for CU privs. Green Giant is the most active admin who has been looking after the many various activities which require the mop-and-the-bucket. Green Giant has been a steward, a sysop and a reviewer for many years now, and knows ins and outs of CUing and dealing with the (LT) abusers. In the recent days and weeks, with the increasing spam and abuse received on-enwn, I have been creating various AFs, and requesting CUs by stewards on meta; though Green Giant can't do it, because stews can't CU on projects they are active on. It is a shame we cannot (until now) utilise help of someone who is one of the most competent Wikimedians to deal with this thing, and granting them this privs will really help save too much of friction that happens making CU request on meta, back and forth, and deal with things quickly, and minimise the time lost behind that. I would urge you to support this nomination. Cheers!
•–• 14:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant: do you accept the nomination?
•–• 14:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and thank you for the nomination. -Green Giant (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit
@Bluerasberry: I don’t have stats on vandalism to hand but the largest proportion needing Checkuser attention is spam. A good indicator would be the 75-80 new accounts blocked by the Abuse Filter over the last seven days or so. Also there is a list of earlier accounts which I dealt with a few days ago through loginwiki. --Green Giant (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2021 (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.


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.



Done by Gryllida.
•–• 07:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian (talk · contribs) — remove administrator

edit

Inactive since 2017; last log activity was 2011. Enact WN:PeP. (Further note: Also inactive in enwiki for two years and Commons and meta for years. BTW, not to be confused with the deceased Wikinewsie, Brian McNeil.) --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2020 (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.


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.



Cspurrier (talk · contribs) — remove administrator

edit

Inactive since 2016; last log activity was 2014. Must enact WN:PeP (Further note: Also inactive in enwiki and meta for years). --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Vote

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.


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.



Closed as successful, privs granted by Gryllida.
•–• 05:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bddpaux (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

edit

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)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination, Acagastya. Actioned this request as successful now. This section can be archived. Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit
CC @Bddpaux:
•–• 03:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.



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.



Closed as successful, privs granted by Gryllida.
•–• 05:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

edit

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)[reply]

Nomination accepted. Forgot to say so earlier! --Green Giant (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination, Acagastya. Actioned this request as successful now. This section can be archived. Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit
@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)[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.



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.



  • Unsuccessful. Unfortunately, this has been open for too long. The candidate has not been active in three months. No response to recent questions. Denomination would be very welcome when candidate returns. --Green Giant (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

edit

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

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.



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.



RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

edit

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)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

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

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)[reply]
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)[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.


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.



Successful with six votes in favour of admin permission. [24Cr][talk] 10:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LivelyRatification

edit

I would like to nominate LivelyRatification for the admin bit, if she accepts it. Reviewers should have admin rights - so that they could semi-protect articles when they publish and protect when archival is due. I have also seen her to be active at hours when no admin was here to deal with vandalism. - Xbspiro (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Just putting it here that I accept the nomination. I recall Xbspiro reached out to me about this a while ago, and I'd also just like to apologise for not responding to that message, must have slipped past my mind - but, yes, I do think I've demonstrated appropriate commitment to the project, and if the community thinks I'm ready, I'd be more than happy to serve as an administrator. --LivelyRatification (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • We definitely need more administrators. However, the premise for nomination is not sufficient for having the admin permissions. There are a number of sensitive tools available to admins. It is a question not just of commitment but whether the candidate can be trusted to use such tools fairly and wisely. These include blocking/unblocking, abuse filters, deletion/undeletion, protecting/unprotecting, rollback, mass messages, adding/removing groups. @LivelyRatification: could you look at the following questions and perhaps give us your thoughts, even if you intend only to be able to involved with protecting?
  • Question An upset new user leaves a foul-mouthed tirade on your talk page because you deleted their unpublished article, which had been abandoned for five days. Without going into too much detail, how would you respond?
Generally I think the most important thing in cases like these is to keep a cool head. Don't stoop to their level, but just calmly explain what occured and the processes that were followed. If anything from the user crosses the line of spam or harassment, I'd ask another admin to intervene in appropriately disciplining that user. --LivelyRatification (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question You have recently deleted a Userpage that was tagged as spam/advertising; you’ve also blocked the user. They send you an email and it seems they misunderstood what to put on a Userpage. How would you respond?
With a swift unblock, most likely, and a brief explanation of how they can get involved in Wikinews. If it turns out they're just here to spam or self-promote, they can be blocked again, but in this case it seems like an honest misunderstanding. --LivelyRatification (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Wikinews is being plagued by fake articles promoting weight loss tablets. You feel the user accounts that created them may be linked. What actions can you take to try to stem this onslaught, apart from blocking users and deleting pages?
I'm not massively familiar with the technical details behind this, so forgive my ignorance, but an abuse filter could be good in this instance. Say, a tagging or warning of any edit that contains common things among these articles - the brand name of the tablets, say. --LivelyRatification (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many administrators does it take to change a light bulb?
Going to go with two! --LivelyRatification (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_10&oldid=4785164"