Wikinews talk:Requests for permissions

Archives Archive 1

Access to information

I am sure few read this page, but I hope the right people do.

I was just looking at the successful new admin nomination and it occurred to me that if I was still involved in this project I would not be able to check this individual out becuase most of my interactions with them were on so-called abandoned pages which are now deleted. The only people with access to this information are those who are already admins here.

So, how many of those who voted Support have access to admin tools here? Just curious.Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Those who are admins have access to admin tools. You can see who all are admins by visiting WN:A.
•–• 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Yo|Acagastya}} I have no interest personally. I'll leave this up to those who are active on wikinews. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Care to rephrase?
•–• 16:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: out of eight voters in that nomination, five are already admins. -Green Giant (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Checkusers here at Wikinews

Hi all. Could we please try the procedure of electing checkusers for this wiki? How many votes from people with what eligibility criteria are required? Who would be nominated? Ping Green Giant, Acagastya. (Please also ping whoever else you would consider appropriate, I wasn't watching the wiki very closely for the last couple weeks). Thanks Gryllida (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Note: forked from this discussion...) Gryllida (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, 25 votes, gry.
•–• 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

meta:CheckUser policy#Appointing local Checkusers: 25 votes. - Xbspiro (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Would be very difficult to obtain the required votes IMO. Is there a large number of cases that means there is a compelling reason for local CUs? --IWI (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Would not be seeking if it weren't, IWI.
•–• 16:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to appear sneaky..........

....so, to that effect: I've asked a Steward over at Meta to look around on our Request for Permissions and possibly take some actions accordingly. I'm not demeaning anyone's involvement, this is, afterall, a VOLUNTEER project....so, y'know....... --Bddpaux (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

....and, contacted a 2nd Steward there too -- maybe someone will answer....?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed vote change

In the "Requests for removal of access" section, the first sentence introduces a confusion that I think is easily fixed. I propose to replace the word Support with the word Remove because it is clearer what is being voted for.

Current wording

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".

Proposed wording

Remember: For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, " Remove" means "support removal of access rights", and " Oppose" means "oppose removal of access rights".

We have two current votes where the Support template has been used, so the proposed change would be for future votes. Thoughts? --Green Giant (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds okay, @Green Giant:.
•–• 16:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I like it. Simple. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Done. --Green Giant (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Further proposed changes

{{flag}} Given the recent increase in RFP nominations, I propose that we change some aspects of the process. These are still rough ideas and would ideally apply to future nominations. I suggest we implement the following limitations in line with the page at m:Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements. Those guidelines apply to small wikis which need stewards to carry out the user changes but I think they provide a good base:

• For requests for administrator:
  • Runs for at least 1 week.
  • Minimum of 5 votes.
  • At least 80% support.
• For requests for bureaucrat:
  • Runs for at least 2 weeks.
  • Minimum of 15 (or possibly lower e.g. 10?) votes.
  • At least 80% support.
• For both of the above I also suggest we formally write into the page that neither anonymous IPs nor new accounts (users not yet autoconfirmed) are allowed to vote.
• For requests to remove a permission, I suggest they should run for the same lengths as above e.g. 1 week for de-admin and 2 weeks for de-bureaucrat. There should be the same number of votes and level of support for removal as above.
• Finally, to make things a little easier and clearer, I suggest that future votes should be made on subpages similar to the ones I’ve created for archiving previous votes. This would have the benefit of keeping the edit history of the voters rather than just one edit by me (as is currently the case).

What do you think? If there is a positive response here, I’ll create a formal proposal at the water cooler. --Cromium (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since it’s been two weeks with no comments or objections, I’m going to update the policy with these limits. If anyone objects, we can have a discussion. --Cromium (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Just getting to this: looks like a reasonable framework to me.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! I’ve gathered this into a subpage that people should read before requesting a permission and also the above criteria. See WN:Requests for permissions/Policy. [₂₄Cr][talk] 18:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer??

Why isn't Reviewer listed here??--Bddpaux (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's at WN:FR/RFP. Heavy Water (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)