Wikinews:Requests for permissions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page enables bureaucrats to handle requests for granting administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions, and revoking them on this wiki. Please be aware that we can only alter permissions for this wiki. To change permissions for any other wiki, check your local policies, or go to Meta.

For urgent requests, please join our IRC channel at #wikinews, and type !admin@enwikinews.

For requests for reviewer rights, use Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions.

Requests for adminship[edit]

  • 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.

  Add a new nomination  

  • 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.

Green Giant (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

It is an honor for me to nominate Green Giant as administrator/sysop on Wikinews. Not only do I trust Green Giant with the tools, but I also feel this user has a strong need for them, given the type of work undertaken at Wikinews. Green Giant has spent a lot of time hunting for spam and unused images and other inappropriate content which Green Giant could speedy delete given the authorization to do so.

Green Giant also has a strong Wiki resumé. Green Giant has been contributing to Wikinews since July 2015 and was awarded a tireless barnstar by Acagastya in September 2015 and a Exceptional Newcomer Award by Pi zero in October of the same year. Green Giant is already a Reviewer here. Elsewhere, Green Giant is an Administrator over at Commons and a Rollbacker at Wikipedia. Additionally, Green Giant is a Curator at Wikiversity and a Reviewer at Wikibooks.

Green Giant has my full confidence. I thank you for considering this nomination. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been informed that Green Giant is also a Steward. --SVTCobra 02:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
... and OTRS volunteer. --SVTCobra 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Questions and comments[edit]

Comment Green Giant became a reviewer after I had joined Wikinews and I have a fairly close look on their contribution on a regular basis. They had been inactive on the project for long stretches — looking at the contributions they might have lost reviewer bit on two occasions if PeP was taken seriously. And as someone who had to find admins on different IRC channels, go to cvn for global block request and sometimes even tweet to an admin for the ongoing vandalism/spam, I would expect all admins (even the new nominations) to be fairly active on the project — because number of admin/reviewer is misleading. Let them display frequent activity on the project for some time.
•–• 01:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with admins being active before and after candidacy, which is why I was going to wait a few months before nominating myself. I will point out that I’ve just recently become a steward, and for that reason alone I’m wary of standing for admin here so soon (I don’t want even the impression of hat collection, something I disapprove of). Partly I was able to stand for steward because I was quite active on other projects (mainly Commons and Wikiversity) during 2017 (and for a few years before that). Last year I was busy in real life but I now have more spare time for the foreseeable future. Acagastya, you can’t see them, but the first inactive period you refer to was broken by three deleted edits in March 2016 (not much of an excuse). However, you are correct that I should have lost reviewer permission at the end of 2017. As for being available, I’ve deleted hundreds of pages and blocked dozens of users vandals and spammers on Commons and Wikiversity over the last year, when I had a lot less free time. If I became a WN admin I would be at least as available as I was last year for Commons and Wikiversity. I hope that clarifies a few things, but please feel free to ask questions. After a short discussion with SVTCobra on their talkpage I will accept the nomination because I want to help Wikinews in any way I can. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Acagastya, it would seem to me that your anecdote about hunting for an admin would be an argument for more admins at Wikinews, and not for fewer and stricter enforcement of PeP. Even if Green Giant is periodically absent from Wikinews, chances are it is because they are busy (yet available) on a different Wiki project. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Not related to this nomination: I never said, or wish for more admins if most of them would hardly edit anything in months. I guess there are 20+ admins on the project but when the spambots were spamming, for months and all I could do is wait until pizero wakes up because there was no other active admin (not even editing-once-a-week admin) This is happening since 2016, or even before that. For the part about PeP; there should be a policy like that, I feel. Because if someone who was inactive for a decade (having the rights) edits again; them might not even know that there were so many changes on the project. If you feel PeP should not be taken seriously, vote for it and remove it. (Surprised to see your comment as you always point to policies for your points) I don’t want more number of admins because that is just an illusion. Just like the number of reviewers. For the record, pizero has admin rights on multiple projects but they don’t go missing from one project for long duration. You can say that I did not review enough articles last year; but look at the stats; I wrote ~35% of all the published articles. So in the end: regardless of who is the candidate, if I have to spend my time hunting for an admin while a vandal is set free; I would rather wait for pizero to wake up and deal with it. In 2016, I had thought about taking the mop in my hand; didn’t get to touch one. But having an admin who is hardly available for dealing with the mess is of no use. In any case, what Green Giant did recently, I feel {{testing}} would be helpful. There is a huge backlog to clear and the current admins who aren’t busy writing/reviewing should tackle that.
•–• 03:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
A few notes, regarding PeP. As I undertand it, the policy allows removal of rights, it does not mandate doing so. When we first applied the policy, I made a point of eliminating really old ones, from before the era of review, for which there was not some special consideration (in consultation with other Wikinewsies from before my time); and I was particularly interested to see that anyone who had left for the fork project and their activity lapsed would need to reapply since we had a couple of folks come back from the fork and abuse reviewer privs. Since then I've sometimes applied PeP, but not as aggressively unless there seemed some specific concern about the user involved. --Pi zero (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Question @Green Giant: do you really want this to go into consideration (or as you had said on talk page, you would like to wait for a few months before applying?) In any case, can you explain how are you going to balance your time (on-wiki) with various rights on different WM projects (it is directly related to your long duration of inactivity after becoming a reviewer [in late 2015?]) (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I do believe Green Giant answered both of those questions above in response to Acagastya's comment. --SVTCobra 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it does not answer the question about the balance. Nor it clarifies if they want to run for it or not. If they would like to accept nomination after few months, close this one and create a new request when the nominee feels ready. Re the balance — activity on Commons is different from Wikinews. Often there are media files which does not qualify for free license, which is to be taken care of. It crosses three digit figure easily.On Wikinews, the abandoned articles don’t reach that much and one admin can do it easily. There are not much admin things to do (admin+reviewer that is a different case). But purely admin thingy, like fighting vandalism, one needs to be really active — and I don’t want to be a “show-off” but I don’t think there are enough active editors as I am. And the amount of vandalism I had to watch (in last three years) silently, it outnumbers all the non-admin editors. Well but, since you didn’t have a great experience with me, I was not handed the mop. (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC) - I was going to delay the candidacy because of the 2017 inactivity here but as SVTCobra pointed out on their talkpage, the minimum requirement is two months activity (which is almost the case for my edits this year) and being trusted. I don’t think there is anything I’ve done in 12 years on Wikimedia that could be classed as untrustworthy or disruptive apart from a few instances of not understanding policies in early 2006. Indeed you’ll certainly find some angry messages from some users on my talkpages but usually they either didn’t understand policies or they were POV-warriors (point of view). I’ve generally tried to be diplomatic and polite, even with the angriest ones. As far as time management is concerned, certainly for the next couple of years I have much more flexible real-life work arrangements including being able to work from home two days a week. In 2016 and 2017 I had a lot more out-of-town assignments, often in areas with poor internet access, but I managed to keep up admin work on Commons. Last year for example I had 10,000 edits (with a break in August) and 7,000 admin actions on Commons. I tend to use recent changes to watch what’s going on and often I have recent changes open for several wikis. I can’t predict what this year will bring in terms of vandals and spambots to WN (quite probably the same as last year), but I envisage being able to devote more time to WN for at least the next couple of years. In case it isn’t clear, yes I want to run for admin now (there’s not much point in delaying now) and yes I will be able to balance my activity between wikis including reviewing some articles. Green Giant (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@ If you are who you talk like you are, why are you turning this nomination into being about you? And why is it so difficult for you to be logged in? It makes conversations extremely excruciating. In the two months your nomination was open before I cast my vote, you had managed to garner one opposing vote and no supporting votes. So, no, I don't believe my vote was the deciding factor. --SVTCobra 21:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Long overdue (should have commented two weeks ago): There are two questions: should Green Giant be an admin? Do we need another admin? Well, I am leaning towards support is that answer for the first question. For the second, it is an enthusiastic bold "yes". Green Giant has done more work these days as compared to most of the other admins, and the only thing that was the problem was that they could not edit the protected pages otherwise a lot of editprotected and category request would have been processed and marked completed ages ago. Without being an admin, their work for the infrastructure and tying things together was better than almost every admin. TL;DR leaning towards Support.
•–• 23:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Support per my own nomination. --SVTCobra 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Since Green Giant has said they aren’t delaying the nomination — NOT RIGHT NOW. I do not find the user active enough on the project — long inactive period gives false hopes — which is what I have received over the last three years. I expect more activity, which is ought to take many weeks, probably months to change my decision. Other editors might disagree — but I have never felt that Green Giant has shown frequent editing. This is not undermining their contribution for other projects, but I cannot say “I support” just because they have similar rights on other projects which work differently.
    •–• 22:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
You are free to vote as you see fit, I just want to point out that there are over 100 edits in 2018 that you can't see because they all involved tagging pages for deletion. For comparison, you have five such edits in the same period. --SVTCobra 22:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I have just voted as “not right now” — I just saw the user contribution (which I don’t believe is the best way to — since I sometimes write articles in a single edit; and some takes more than five, for a paragraph); Green Giant’s main space activity is 320 — too low, considering they first edited in 2007; and got reviewer rights in late 2015 (why don’t you take that time range in account, SVTCobra, who many edits did I have, in that duration? — even if the count excludes my edits from static college IP, which I had used for my first OR). Okay so main space edits are not everything. One would have to do categorisation work, archiving, page protection — but I cannot think of those instances where I found Green Giant doing those things. I had attempted for a centralised dashboard for that work. Let’s consider the deleted edits since their first edit — that number is still 157 less than what I did, in my first calendar year, using this account. I don’t think any active editors would disagree about the degree of activity of Green Giant on the absolute or even the relative scale. So shall we stop discussing about the stats which anyone can see? Let the user first display serious degree of commitment to the project.
•–• 23:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for strong language, technical knowledge and dedication to the project, and attention to detail. It is a great honour that you are volunteering your time to the project, I really appreciate it. --Gryllida (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Can Green Giant be appointed immediately? The need of serious reviewers is very urgent here at the moment. De Wikischim (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This nomination is about adminship, not reviewership. Green Giant is already a reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
OK - thanks for clarifying. Anyway I still vote in favour of this nomination. De Wikischim (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Support. Marshmallych 16:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship[edit]

  • 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 ===



====Questions and comments====


Requests for removal of access[edit]

Remember: For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, " Support" 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 ===



====Questions and comments====


Bawolff (talk · contribs) — resign Oversight[edit]

This is just to let everyone know, I intend to resign oversight permissions in the near future (by dec 15). I'm really not active here anymore, and I believe oversight like permissions should be held by people who are active. Additionally, the last time I used oversight was over 2 years ago (And the last time Cspurrier (t · c · b) did was roughly 18 months ago). Given how rarely its needed, I wonder if we should just let the stewards handle any oversight requests that come up. But that's for the current community to decide.

To be clear, I intend to retain adminship (Assuming of course that's ok with everyone). I occasionally poke at local js in mediawiki namespace.

Thanks everyone Bawolff 20:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Questions and comments[edit]

  • Comment Thanks for the heads-up. For my part, I see no problem with your keeping privs here that you're comfortable keeping. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Requests for reconfirmation[edit]

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 Oversight[edit]

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 submit the relevant identification to the Foundation. 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:



====Questions and comments====


Requests for bot status[edit]

See Wikinews:Bots.

Requests for reviewer rights[edit]

See Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions. Please add requests to that page!

Requests for Wikinews:Accreditation[edit]

See Wikinews:Accreditation requests.