Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page semi-protected
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts
"Wikipedia:RFP" redirects here. For requests for protection, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Archived requests

Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter
Rollbacker
Patroller
Transwiki Importer

Permissions

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators

There are many kinds of special permissions that users can be granted. These include:

  • Rollbacker is a user who can quickly revert changes by other users. See Wikipedia:Rollback feature.
  • Flood is a very short-term permission that a user can get from any administrator to make lots of small edits in a row. When using the flood permission, a user’s edits will be hidden by default from Special:RecentChanges.
  • Patroller is a user who can review new pages that other users make by marking them "patrolled". Any pages a patroller makes do not have to be reviewed by others.
  • Administrator (also called an "admin" or "sysop") is a user who can delete and protect pages and block users. Admins can also grant the rollback, flood and patroller permissions.
  • Bureaucrat (also called a "crat") is a user who can grant and revoke the admin and bot permissions.
  • Checkuser is a user who can see private information about editors (for example, their IP addresses).
  • Oversight is a user who can hide private information from everyone except other oversighters and stewards.
  • Transwiki importer is a user who has use of the import tool to move pages here from other projects. This is not to be confused with importer, who can upload XML files using the import tool. *Importer is not granted on this wiki.
  • Uploader is a user who can upload files locally on this wiki. This permission is granted temporarily and will be removed once the task is complete.
  • IP block exempt is a right given to trusted named users who may edit from an IP address that would otherwise be blocked through no fault of their own.

Adding a new request

Rollbacker

You must be an active member of Simple English Wikipedia, preferably with some experience in reverting vandalism.

Rollback must never be used to revert in edit wars, or to remove good-faith changes. Use the undo feature for this, and give a reason. Rollback does not let you give a reason when reverting. It must only be used to revert bad changes. It can and will be revoked if misused.

Click here to request rollback.

Flood

Requests for the temporary (short-term) flood permission should be made on an administrator’s talk page, on the #wikipedia-simple connect IRC channel, or at the Administrators' noticeboard.

Uploader

Requests for temporary (short-term) file upload permissions should be made on the Administrators' noticeboard. An administrator should be notified once the uploads are done so that the permission can be removed.
Image uploads are not allowed, this should only be requested for uploading other media (such as audio clips)

Administrator

Please read the criteria for adminship before nominating another user or yourself, to make sure the nominated user meets the criteria for becoming an administrator. You may want to look at the archives first so you can see why other people’s requests have succeeded or failed.

Administrator tools are there to better help the community. They do not make certain users better than others. To nominate a candidate for adminship, please follow these instructions:

  1. In the input box below, replace USERNAME with the username of the person you are nominating for adminship.
  2. Complete the fields given to you.
  3. Once the user has accepted, add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<insert name of person nominated>}} underneath the Current requests for adminship heading below, at the very top of the list.
  4. Optional: Add {{rfa-notice}} to the candidate's userpage.

Notes: This is not the place to get "constructive feedback from others", if you want feedback from others in a less formal environment, please see Simple Talk. If a candidate is successful, an administrator or bureaucrat should add them to MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.js.


Bureaucrat, Checkuser, or Oversight

For the bureaucrat, checkuser, or oversight permission, a user first needs to be an administrator. There are special requirements at Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship for these users.

Current time is 12:36:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Purge


Current requests for rollback

None at this time

Current requests for patroller

None at this time

Current requests for transwiki importer

None at this time

Current requests for adminship

None at this time

Current requests for bureaucratship

Fr33kman

Fr33kman (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 02:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)



We don't have a lot of bureaucrats that are active as evidenced by a recent RfDA. In that case only one active non-involved crat had the ability to comment since someone had to be able to close the request. Whilst the number crats is high, the number of crats that are active is very low. We further need to address the lack of the semi-active crats and see if they are going to engage more activities or not.

Self nomination fr33kman 02:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions

Support

  1. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I thought he already was one. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, he is a CheckUser. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't see much of a problem with granting fr33kman the crat flag, since he used to be one and the majority of my concerns at his last RfP was exclusive to that specific group, rather than him as an editor.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. fr33kman has my full support. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Used to be one and I don't see the problem with them becoming one again. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I don't really feel the need for more crats right now; ofc we need more active admins. Plus some concerns from previous request like the grant of flood flag makes me lean towards this side, sorry.--BRP ever 12:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. My reason for applying is the lack of active crats and that as I was one before it has long been custom to give the flag back upon the endorsement of two current crats. fr33kman 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, that is the very reason as to why I as a crat am unsure of which way I will swing on this request, either offering my endorsement or neutral. Stewardry shows we have three crats that have edited in the past two days and all but one have edited this month. I don't think 60% of crats counting as active is too bad, compared to the <50% rate of the admin group as a whole. In the example of the RfdA, I don't think Eptalon offered a comment on it because he was neutral and was probably willing to close it – that is why he usually doesn't get involved in RfAs. At the same time, I don't see any negative in offering the crat hat to you especially as a former crat, I just don't think there is a strong need. --Ferien (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When thinking about this request, I decided not to include the semi-actives because they are less visible to the community and rarely work on what crat actions do come up and not because they never use the tool. I do agree there is not a strong need and am cool with whichever way this ends. fr33kman 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Crat oppose I'm sorry, I was really wanting to overlook the last RfO BRPever mentions. The reason I opposed that was due to actions taken at the time that didn't align with expected use and quickly regaining the tool despite these problematic actions. A recent response to a CU request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Tata Socks convinces me you are still rushing into actions that you shouldn't be. Simply creating multiple accounts is not sufficient evidence of abusing multiple accounts and I would expect a checkuser to be familiar with this. Regardless of whether you are aware of this or not, the impact of these actions is identical to that of not knowing policy. I would continue to ask you to not rush into actions and slow down. I'm not sure who would determine whether my objection is valid or not (WP:CFB) but this crat objection transforms this into a full RfB in which the community can vote in, like a normal RfA. --Ferien (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Current requests for checkusership

Fehufanga

Fehufanga (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 12:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


Hello, I'm Fehufanga. I've been an admin on Simple for just a bit over two years now, and an oversighter for over a year. I am here to nominate myself for checkusership. Over the years, Simple has been faced with serial sockpuppeteers, from vandals using throwaway accounts to UPE account farms creating promotional articles. I have relied on behavioural patterns to determine cases of sockpuppetry. The checkuser tool will help me with dealing with cases of sockpuppetry that are harder to track. I am knowledgeable in computer networks and am familiar with how IP addresses work. As an oversighter, I deal with personal information that cannot be shown publicly, I know better than to disclose these. I am familiar with and have signed the confidentiality agreement. I also have cross-wiki experience that is sometimes necessary when dealing with sockpuppets on this project. Thank you for your consideration.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Why not?--BRP ever 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Having another CU & OS admin would be helpful to review blocks made by both CU & OS reasons. I look forward to working with the new CU. MathXplore (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support Experienced editor, already an oversighter, no reason I can think of to oppose. However, I am a bit sceptical of the need for more CUs, hence why I am weak supporting.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We really do need another active CU. There is a lot of work to do. fr33kman 18:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Back when I was a global sysop before I was a steward, I found having CU here and GS went well together because I came across a fair few smaller wiki vandals that had also hit simplewiki and was able to confirm them as socks using our DB and then block their small wiki socks and/or report them to the stewards. All the best fr33kman 16:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support we apparently need more CUs, and I think that Fehufanga will do great and be helpful. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Peterdownunder (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Fehufanga, as an oversighter, has already helped me in an excellent way, so I trust him with private information. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Changed to Weak support Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Rather have too many than not enough, and Fr33kman has been busy of late. Fehufanga is already an oversighter, so trust is alrady there. I'll take them at their work on their networking knowledge. Ravensfire (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose per ferien Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cactusisme, if you have changed your vote, please move it to the relevant section. --Ferien2 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • @Fehufanga Aren't you a global sysop? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cactusisme I am, but I feel that that's not too relevant with my chcekusership request.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, just a question. Sorry Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 13:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cactusisme Global sysops don't have anything to do with checkusers (global or local).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the two roles can overlap as I mentioned above. fr33kman 18:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me stress that this is a brilliant editor for the role and I do not intend to oppose this request, especially not based on the candidate. If the checkusers say there is a need then I will believe them and agree there is likely a need, but I do understand the concerns from FusionSub. Should this request pass, a majority of administrators will also be checkusers (8 out of 15). I appreciate we are currently at a low administrator count overall over the past few years, but that is still a really large amount. It'd put as as the wiki with the third most checkusers of all Wikimedia projects, tied with MetaWiki, but they have 68 administrators. Itwiki have over 100 admins for 10 checkusers, and enwiki have 850 for 50 checkusers. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that we would have a disproportionate number of checkusers for our wiki, even accounting for the abuse we get from enwiki. It's not that I don't trust Fehufanga with the CheckUser information of course, but that that sort of information should be in as few people's hands as possible. --Ferien (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that there aren't enough people with the flag, it's that there isn't enough people using the tool. For RFCU it's basically almost just me and Eptalon servicing the requests. The semi-active admins may be editing but they're not using the tool. Bsadowski1 and Vermont are using the tool regularly but those uses are almost always xwiki/lta/SPI uses. I know Eptalon works full time and he's finding hard to keep up as am i. Each request can take minutes to over an hour to complete. Another CU working the queue will help out a lot. fr33kman 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a policy should be written that'd state what criteria would denote an in-active CU and when the tool should be removed as we did with the inactive admins policy. fr33kman 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fr33kman the policy globally is Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than one year will have their CheckUser access removed (m:Checkuser policy). If I remember correctly, local policies can be stricter, such as mandating a reelection every six month or so, I believe this is the case in some wikis. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know the global policy, I propose it be stricter policy locally. I can assure you that because of our closer relationship with enwiki we get more than should be our statical share of the CU actions per month. When I was a steward I noticed that wikis with similar size and language group gets far less investigations monthly. I think asking each user with the check user flag should be active enough to do at least one time using CU is not to much or unfair to ask in the spirit of our RfCU elections. The people taking park in the election expect that the user would actively use them. And not hold off 9 months or whatever doesn't have the time to take a case on RfCU now and again is unfair. I'm proposing that we RfDCU those haven't been an '''active''' CU during that time has not shown a need for the hat. You shouldn't have it. It's not a beauty contest , (joke)(joke). Seriously every CU could proform a set number of CU actions during 6 months .I proposed [[WP:Inactive administrators]] and that has deadmined a few admins. I hate to say it, "use it or lose it". It's not fair two or sometimes three people on average, have to exclusively service RfCU requests. We're volunteers 🙂 fr33kman 00:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the above. I would prefer/like to step down as CU as it is a role that has become more technically complex than I am prepared to deal with. I think it is a tool that requires a more active editor than I am able to do in the foreseeable future. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterdownunder you can always request the removal of your own permissions... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Current requests for oversightership

None at this time

Current requests for removal of rights

None at this time
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=9774826#Administrator"