Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/LivelyRatification

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)

LivelyRatification

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)

Stats

• Links for LivelyRatification: LivelyRatification (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

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)

• 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• Question An upset new user leaves a foul-mouthed tirade on your talk page because you deleted their unpublished article, which had been abandoned for five days.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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• The last one is a rhetorical question but feel free to suggest a number! Cheers. [₂₄Cr][talk] 11:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Clear (and, surprisingly enough, active) commitment to the Wikimedia project. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Notable devotion to the survival of the project. Henrymyman (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have no reason to object and believe LR can help out the project as an admin —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 05:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per decent answers to my questions above. You won’t know all the answers (I certainly don’t, despite several years of admin experience). What matters is that you tried to answer the questions and admitted where you were unsure. That suggests honesty, which is an important trait fit a good admin. In case anyone raises it, I’m not too bothered about the low edit count. [₂₄Cr][talk] 16:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support If she will stick to protection only, that's okay. (Btw: this edit prompted me to ask: [1]) If she will use other tools... well, I trust her. Thanks for the questions, Cromium. - Xbspiro (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Xbspiro: What edit are you referring to, out of curiosity? LivelyRatification (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  It seems that I can't give a difflink because of the special characters in the article's title. A user modified the categorization of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inaugurates the "Defence Development Exhibition 'Self-Defence-2021'" at 23:04, 23 October 2021. When this was reverted, it pushed the article to the top in DPL (like it would have been our newest one). This could have been avoided with standard protection. So, my point is, published articles should not be left without partial protection. - Xbspiro (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support no concerns. The last question there about the light bulbs question gave me a good chuckle...I'd counter that it would possibly be all of them...and a 'crat too. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

---

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.