Jump to content

Wikinews:Requests for permissions

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Previous requests have been archived, and contain some common questions, comments, and objections made during the process.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

Interface Admin

[edit]


Administrator

[edit]


Bureaucrats

[edit]


CheckUser and Oversight

[edit]
To add a nomination for CheckUser

Gryllida

[edit]

Self nominating due to issues with BigKrow, Lofi Gurl impersonator accounts and related discussions at wN:AAA. I think previous checkuser is Acagastya who was away for a few weeks. This is a self nomination. Gryllida (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]

Questions and comments

[edit]

I have the following questions:

  1. The documented process for requesting permissions was not followed fully for this request. Can you explain your understanding of the correct process, what went wrong in this case, and how you would ensure procedural accuracy when handling CheckUser actions?
  2. There have been past disputes regarding page protection during a discussion you were involved in[1], as well as concerns about policy-compliance during reviewing activity. How do you reflect on those incidents now, and what steps would you take as a CheckUser to ensure strict adherence to CU policy and avoidance of conflicts of interest?
  3. In one case, you removed talk-page access from a blocked user during what others considered a constructive discussion.[2] How do you approach decisions about restricting TPA, and how would you balance preventing disruption with allowing space for block clarification or appeals in future cases, especially in light of this advice from you?
  4. CheckUser duties sometimes require timely response to sockpuppetry or abuse reports. Given past concerns about availability and responsiveness, what level of availability would you commit to if granted CU rights, and how do you believe the community should evaluate whether local CU coverage is even needed versus relying solely on global Stewards?

Thank you in advance for your answers. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Michael.C.Wright
1a. I am not aware of substantial procedure error about this request.
1b. A CU action would arise from a request on-wiki. Policies for handling it are documented. Ideally a connection with an existing CU, including possibly that from another wiki, could help for questions if needed; as the CU here is away. As far as I know overuse of CU can result in serious issues and its use should be limited as much as possible, i.e. only when really required. In such a transparent wiki logs are available to see what action was done.
2a. I have not had a conflict of interest issue here in the past that was handled incorrectly.
2b. Already discussed at my talk page. TLDR; best to ask me about a specific published article before 24 hour window closed and I will be happy to work on a solution immediately and then on notes what was missed. Second best is to annoy me with this at time of archival. Both of those should happen at article talk page in the first instance, with added new section at my talk page to link me to a discussion. If this process is not documented then should be. Process to query my reviews is now documented at my user page. --21:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
2b.i. This could be displayed at a published page just to post a new section at article talk as some news sites have a "error found? Select it and Press alt+enter" feature.
3a. Unlike Wikipedia in Wikinews there is a lower tolerance to meta discussions. They take away valuable time for working on news. This has been the case for a while and is well documented.
3b. I consider that TPA revocation acceptable as of my position today. The user was not being constructive and it was dragging other users into the discussion. I believe one item could be done better there, that is, a note pointing to a email to admins. This user could use that to query to get unblocked eithout entertaining whole wiki. Some wikis have a way to email to admins only via a mailing list. This function is probably either not setup here or is out of date, as I am not on it.
3c. "This advice from you" link leads to a paragraph that is consistent with what I wrote above I believe.
4. Recently I am available every day (though not every day active on wiki) and have a bunch of social media contacts on my user page which can be buzzed if a request is time sensitive. I will have breaks from time to time. They are posted on my user page and during these breaks I remain online, even if not fully replying until the break ends except for urgent issues, in these social media and email. Gryllida 20:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I’ve numbered my comments to correspond with yours for clarity.
I have not yet reached a final view on this nomination. The following points are intended to assess readiness for the role and, separately, to consider whether there may be a broader structural issue for the project. Given our past disagreements, I have focused on policy and observable conduct rather than interpretation.
1a. CheckUser is a sensitive role that requires close attention to procedure. Your self-nomination was created in April but was not properly transcluded for eight months; it was later added to the voting page by HKLionel, and a SiteNotice update was requested only recently by Codename Noreste. Under Wikinews:Never assume, intent is not the issue. The fact remains that required procedural steps were not completed for an extended period. CU depends on precise and timely adherence to process.
2a. Wikinews:Protection policy states, “Do not protect a page you are involved in a dispute over.” During our dispute regarding Wikinews:Plagiarism, you moved the page to User:Brian McNeil/Wikinews:Plagiarism and applied full protection. Separately, you declined to follow WN:REV while proposing changes to it; the related RfC was initiated only after concerns were raised. REV is central to our identity as a journalism project. In both instances, established policy was not followed while you were directly involved in the matter. For a role entrusted with nonpublic data and advanced permissions, that is directly relevant.
3b & 3c. You have stated that users may ignore others who are “being a fool.” In the case of Me Da Wikipedian, talk page access was revoked immediately after they asked when they could again participate. Revoking TPA is a significant restriction, as it removes the user’s ability to seek clarification regarding their block. CU requires careful judgment and proportional use of authority.
4. Wikinews is a volunteer project, and no one is obligated to contribute time. However, CU requires dependable responsiveness. Your recent administrative activity appears intermittent in areas such as WN:AAA and counter-vandalism. Of the twenty most recent admin action requests, you participated in one, and you did not engage in the discussion titled “Check User.” For this role, demonstrated responsiveness to requests is especially important.
More broadly, the CU policy requires “at least 25 users’ approval,” and it is unclear whether we currently have 25 active, eligible voters. One existing CU is semi-retired, and the other has limited recent activity. If the threshold is not realistically attainable, that structural issue should be addressed independently of any nomination. In that context, the community may wish to consider whether relying on global CheckUsers is the more workable arrangement for now.
@Acagastya and @Cromium, with appreciation for your service, would you be open to discussing whether retaining local CU flags remains necessary while this broader question is evaluated?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 02:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. I saw that and did not consider it urgent at that time. On the scale of eternity it takes to get 25 participants to comment in this section, a few weeks delay with transclusion does not cause major issue. I do believe however that requests for permission should be hanged into SiteNotice as a key item, when you have time. I did note your comment for my future reference.
2A.1. I considered that page was necessary to be kept for historical reasons. As you may know, Brian McNeil was project leader previously and then was deceased. I consider it harmless to keep a copy in their user space if desired. If you had issue with it, I can move it to my user space.
2A.2. I do not agree about 'declined to follow WN:REV while proposing changes to it'. I provided my argument previously that interpretation of WN:REV that I have got is consistent with past practices and context. I do believe that one has to rely on context and on existing practices as well as on the text of the policy. I do not consider the position 'RFC was created only after issues were raised' accurate in that case. I consider that RFC was opened because I wanted to get confirmation from other reviewers about their existing practices and thoughts about these given contexts. Unfortunately with reviewers being away this is hard to get that task done. I continue to have the position that practicing a policy does not merely rely on what is written but also on the context and the existing practices and comments from other users.
2A.2.1. I do not believe that would be an issue with usage of CheckUser if I were approved here; as noted earlier, if in doubt I would be able to query whoever group EPIC referenced on-wiki recently who could do CU for here while CUs are missing - that group is active, experienced, and having access to such a group is something I do not have here as a reviewer as when everyone else is away I have to make my own judgment call.
2A.3. I think I did not wish to discuss the issue of compliance with WN:REV until and unless it applied to a specific ongoing article. I do not wish to comment on this any further until a question about a particular and current article was brought up.
2A.4. Separately, I opened a request to comment on User:Gryllida/ATPG which is an article talk page guideline (maybe partly should be renamed to just talk page guideline not only article talk) where I proposed that (to put it strongly) meta discussions are a capital offence and work should be towards publishing a particular story report item.
3. Decision was made to revoke TPA of that user because it was dragging other users into that discussion. That is a 'meta' aspect that was making a net negative impact on news related work. I already stated that earlier.
4. Ok, I can work out how to increase my responsiveness on weekend. Currently it is close to nil.
Hope this is helpful. Gryllida 00:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a procedural note, stewards generally do not perform checks on wikis with local checkusers, except in emergencies or if local policies explicitly state so (though to my knowledge, only enwikibooks and enwikivoyage allow stewards to perform non-emergency checks). As for whether this wiki should have local CUs or not I'm not in a position to determine, but I do want to note that there have been multiple instances on this wiki where stewards have been hindered from "doing their job" and performing local checks since this wiki had checkusers, and that several requests have been forwarded to us throughout the years since local checkusers have not been active to process requests in a timely manner (which we've had to decline for the reasons mentioned above). That being said, should this wiki not regain local CUs the stewards will happily continue to process requests in our capacity. EPIC (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apart from weekend, I am here 16 hours a day. About weekend, I have setup mobile phone notification. Notification says "Wikinews page [name] has been changed by [nick]" which should be sufficient, if it mentions AAA or CU page, something is on fire. Gryllida 19:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The checkuser permissions of Acagastya and Cromium have now been removed. Since there must be at least two checkusers, this nomination cannot succeed without a second nomination, even if 25 supports is reached (or relaxed), unless one or other of the former checkusers returns. DrKay (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Ternera was recently closed with no consensus after less than three months and only three votes. This request has been open for nearly a year and has not reached the required 25 approvals. Should it now be closed as unsuccessful?
At present, CheckUser support is provided by several stewards, offering broader and likely faster coverage than two local CheckUsers would.
Since 2017, only four requests have been made at Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser, and one was later deemed unnecessary—after receiving timely and useful advice from a steward.
Given the limited demand and existing steward support, would it be more productive for the community to focus on improving the rate of article development, publication, and archival?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 23:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
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=4997389"