Wikinews:Requests for permissions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from Wikinews:RFP)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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Previous requests have been archived, and contain some common questions, comments, and objections made during the process.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.


Administrator

[edit]


Bureaucrats

[edit]


CheckUser and Oversight

[edit]
To add a nomination for CheckUser

Bddpaux

[edit]

Nominating myself. One of ours is 100% in-the-wind and the other is about 98% in the same category. We need at least one CU active and checked in, although I am heavily focused on Reviewing and developing Reviewers (primarily) at the moment.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this request. Any Administrator: Take action. Close this as withdrawn.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]


Questions and comments

[edit]
  • I guess you've brushed up on the technical knowledge needed? (I ask since you asked Acagastya last month what CUs' duties are.) Also Acagastya is still fairly responsive to CU-related inquiries, not that having another CU would hurt. Heavy Water (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, yes. We really need 2 active and involved here.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
I have withdrawn my vote because the requester has announced a long-term break from the project.[2] I think this request should be closed as it is no longer supported by the requester given their stated, long-term break. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I am not entirely convinced that this wiki should have local CUs. It's really too inactive and underserved with admin support to justify having them, and I think this can be taken over by stewards sooner or later, who are quicker to handle CU requests most of the time. However, this wiki does get quite a bit of abuse to the level where I think it does somewhat justify having local CheckUsers, and if there is someone relatively active who wants to help out, then that's positive. EPIC (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the issues pointed out here; I am not sure what to think. I need to think about this for a while. EPIC (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Very active and experienced editor, already advanced permissions, we need another CU, disclosed identity, etc. Also, this user makes up more than 20% of this entire wikis editing, and is the main reason it hasn't totally fallen apart. Well deserved.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The fact that you don't know what consensus is, and launch personal attacks and are not civil, and fail to comply with don't assume is getting me close to requesting removal of some of your current tools. If I'm that far, yeah I'm definetly not supporting you get more. We don't need checkuser being abused for personal arguements. See User talk:Cromium for more details.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose... reluctantly – A post at my user talk page (begging to support the nomination) and subsequent replies (no.1,no.2), which clearly reveals emotional response, make me wonder whether to trust Paul with the CU tools. I appreciate his frustrations about current policies, like the RFP policy. However, alternatively, he should've raised the concerns at the policy talk page before self-nomination. Furthermore, begging for support reeks desperation, IMO. There are no current local rules against canvassing, but begging for a vote is a lot to ask. Also, hostility toward stewards, especially from "oppose" "support" votes, due to their perceived inexperience with Wikinews sites smells like an attempt to maintain the project's autonomy. I appreciate those wanting to save this project, but giving him the CU tools merely to improve or save the project is hardly a reason to support the nomination. Sorry. George Ho (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC); corrected, 20:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are way out of line using the word "begging" and I don't appreciate it one single bit. I am engaged in news work and try to move that forward here. You show up here, flog about re: various permissions (who has them and who doesn't) and then quack crap of this nature. You can oppose and that is fine. Consensus matters around this place - but you'd better check yourself using the word "begging" whenever it comes to me. I hope to help and build up this place, (maybe to return it to some remnant of its former glory days)and little more. My desire for CU is only built around that end.--Bddpaux (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Bddpaux:, I think George has a point here. Your actions did seem like closer to "begging" than what's normal. I'm not opposing you; I think you would do good as a CU, but you need to be a bit more patient. Leaderboard (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my initial thoughts could be wrong about being asked to favor the nomination after reading this. I really do honestly wanna support the nomination when Paul asked, but the replies and frustrations amid the nomination pushed me toward the opposite. George Ho (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This and that and that at someone's unsuccessful reviewer nomination now reaffrim my opposition to this CU nomination: assuming there was a "consensus" (when such assumption was challenged), (sarcastically?) trying to close this as "successful", and saying that the person not becoming a reviewer is the last thing Paul needs. Furthermore, I can't help wonder how Paul would treat someone accused of sockpuppeteering and other anonymous editors. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho:, wasn't the first two diffs before Cromium challenged the consensus? Leaderboard (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the history log, the diffs must've been. George Ho (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - I have tried to be supportive but this user has made a mess of a request for reviewer by failing to realise there was no consensus, granting the permission but not closing the discussion. When criticised, this user resorted to describing others as "quacking and barking”, which I assume means that he thinks they are animals. After I tried to find a solution, I concluded there was no consensus after several weeks and closed the discussion. This user has responded by leaving an angry message on my talk page], blaming me for the mess he made. For years, we have put up with his incompetence and rudeness. He has no respect for anyone that disagrees with him. He has no regard for any guidelines or policies, often describing them in disparaging terms. The warning bell was when I read that until recently, he had no idea what a Checkuser does. I have lost all confidence in his ability to handle any challenging tasks such as carrying out checks of IPs. [24Cr][talk] 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add a nomination for Oversight


Removal

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=4785168"