Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Ternera
- 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.
No consensus was reached at this time. Gryllida (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
The candidate is not a sysop and I would not want them to be necessarily involved in that. I am nominating for purpose of managing user rights as additional active Bureaucrat could cover me while I am away. This user appears to have integrity and availability on regular basis. I ask someone else to do addition of this request to other pages, if you have time, otherwise I will do it in a day or two. Gryllida 00:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ternera ^^ Gryllida 00:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I was asked to help in this area by Gryllida, which I am happy to do. If chosen, I will watch the request pages to help out when needed. Thank you. Ternera (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Stats
Questions and comments
Comment I am hoping the user not being involved as sysop at time of this request is not a big issue as I believe they are global sysop, have sysop experience from a sister wiki, and have been helping in global sysop capacity here when vandalism was obvious. If Ternera wishes to volunteer as local sysop then I am happy to also nominate for this, just do not wish to risk requesting too much. Gryllida 00:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- > The candidate is not a sysop and I would not want them to be necessarily involved in that.
Why do you explicitly not want them involved as a local sysop? What concerns do you have?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)- 1. Need to run a local vote and get permission.
- 2. That effort is time consuming. I do not wish to make that part of involvement compulsory unless Ternera specifically wishes to do this task. Gryllida 20:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- I already help with uncontroversial maintenance here as a GS, so I feel like local adminship would be redundant. I'm not opposed to running for it though if it should be a prerequisite. Ternera (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Ternera, would you like to comment on Microchip08's comment below? Is the workload currently too high, or not? There were a number of PeP actions required recently plus managing the local requests for permissions and closing them. I am wondering if you think the stewards should handle this here. Gryllida (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Gryllida, I think it would be best for stewards to handle matters here. It seems that the community is not in favor of this. Ternera (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Ternera, would you like to comment on Microchip08's comment below? Is the workload currently too high, or not? There were a number of PeP actions required recently plus managing the local requests for permissions and closing them. I am wondering if you think the stewards should handle this here. Gryllida (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I already help with uncontroversial maintenance here as a GS, so I feel like local adminship would be redundant. I'm not opposed to running for it though if it should be a prerequisite. Ternera (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- > The candidate is not a sysop and I would not want them to be necessarily involved in that.
Votes
Support as nominator. Gryllida 00:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose – Without much experience as a local contributor of this project, I'm not confident about making this user a permanent crat... or a local admin. Also, we already have had enough of absent local admins and crat already, and WN:PEP has been barely enforced literally, IMO. If this user becomes absent for two or three years after being promoted to crat... but then demoted to admin, must we invoke WN:IAR to just let this user continue being either one? Furthermore, I wonder why this user is a "global admin" instead of a "steward". —George Ho (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @George Ho - to answer your last question, I do plan on running for steward in 2026. :) Elections only happen once per year and I was not ready for the commitment last year. Global sysops only have admin rights on small projects with few active admins. Thank you for sharing your input. Ternera (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, global sysops do not have access to grant or remove user rights via Special:UserRights. Codename Noreste (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @George Ho - to answer your last question, I do plan on running for steward in 2026. :) Elections only happen once per year and I was not ready for the commitment last year. Global sysops only have admin rights on small projects with few active admins. Thank you for sharing your input. Ternera (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the main impetus is simply that we want a second semi-active bureaucrat, rather than because the workload is too high, the better approach to solving that problem would be to get rid of all our bureaucrats entirely, and cede the process to m:RFP. Microchip08 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2026 (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.