Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship)

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 22:39:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Purge


Current requests for rollback

User:Adelaideslement8723

I have been making good edits, reverting vandalistic edits, and my account is old enough for the requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelaideslement8723 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done I don't think you have quite enough experience just yet, you have only been actively editing for a couple of weeks, but please don't let this discourage you away from the good work you have been doing. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thank you for your opinion! I will keep up with the edits then, and I will kinda be active more, but not fully active because I have school and all that. But thanks again for your opinion! Happy Editing! 💜 𝙹𝚊𝚢𝚍𝚎𝚗𝙹𝚘𝚑𝚗𝚜𝚘𝚗 💜 19:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravensfire

Hello. I would like to nominate @Ravensfire for rollback rights. Ravensfire is an experienced and active user (also has a rollback flag on enwiki), and makes a great contribution to the fight against vandalism and warning editors. I think Ravensfire as a rollbacker could even more benefit simplewiki in the fight against vandalism. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Correct me if I wrong but I'm pretty sure the user themself has to create their request if it's for a right like Rollback or Patroller.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FusionSub: I don't think that's true - the policies don't prohibit nominating other users, and it is not a bad practice either (at least I think so, based on observations in other projects). BZPN (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay either way on this - I use Twinkle which does everything rollback does (from a user viewpoint, not behind the scenes) and the main reason I have rollback on enwiki is for a script that requires it. Good either way on this, but appreciate the thought from BZPN that I'm trustworthy enough for this! Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lionel Cristiano

Hello, I didn't make much changes here but I know the rollback rules very well. Regards, Lionel Cristiano (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done We only grant rollback after a period of constant activity here. Just to make sure you are familiar with all the local policies as some of them might seem different from other wikis.--BRP ever 11:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From: WP:ROLLBACK If you have rollback elsewhere, or admin rights elsewhere, the threshold for meeting this requirement is lower. So if you are already a rollbacker or admin on another Wikimedia Foundation project, please mention it in your request and it will be taken into consideration. Lionel Cristiano (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken that into consideration when I declined. The project you are rollbacker on are much different from this one. Also, the active blocks on two wikis makes it hard for me to grant this right without months of active involvement in this project.-- BRP ever 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will continue my contributions. Banned users seeking a return are advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects. I'm doing this. Regards, Lionel Cristiano (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BRP ever 04:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for patroller

User:BZPN

Hello. I'm back 50 days after my last RfP here :). I hope that during this time I have gained enough knowledge to become a patroller. As you probably know, I am most active on RC. I often see new pages and know what actions to take with them. I try to improve articles requiring basic improvement and mark them with appropriate templates. I also tag QD or report to RfD. I have read the rules for patrolling pages and know when to mark a page as patrolled. I think I could be useful as an active patroller. Also ping for BRP, if you7 would like to handle this request :). Thank you and best regards, BZPN (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Martial law in Poland can serve as an example of an article I created. BZPN (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done fr33kman 21:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman, thank you so much! I will do my best to use them responsibly :). Wishing you a wonderful Christmas and the happy New Year! BZPN (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a great holiday fr33kman 23:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BRP ever 11:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for transwiki importer

None at this time

Current requests for adminship

Griffinofwales

Griffinofwales (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 13:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


Hi all, today I am here to nominate Griffinofwales for adminship. Griff is a former admin who has held the mop for many years and has shown right temperament and level-headedness needed to be a good admin. He also does WikiElf work that needs to be done but usually goes unnoticed. He is also active in IRC and frequently requests admin assistance. I think having him back as an admin will be net-positive for the project. He is very easy to communicate and coordinate with and having him back in the team is definitely going help in handling tasks that need the admin bits. Thank you for your time.--BRP ever 13:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: BRP, thank you for the nomination and the kind words. As someone who has held the mop a couple of times, I understand the responsibility that comes with this role and appreciate the requirements and understanding of policy & guidelines that it requires. If accepted by the community, I plan to continue the work BRP has mentioned, working in the background of the project, helping keep our administrative backlog down, resolving community discussions, and assisting in making our community even stronger. As an editor for 15+ years on this project and an administrator twice (stepping away for personal/work reasons), I am happy to see that the community has remained strong and hope I can continue to support you all again in the administrator role. Griff (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.   Support as nominator.--BRP ever 14:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely strong   Support.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support, trusted and experienced. Thank you for your contributions, and good luck! BZPN (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support per everything I said in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Griffinofwales 3. Welcome back! --Ferien (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --M7 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Strong support Why not? ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 17:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Raayaan9911 20:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support - goes without saying, but a fantastic editor. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support I trust Griffy completely fr33kman 23:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support – Lionel Cristiano (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support They have done a good job in their previous tenures, welcome back.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Lots of anti-vandalism work and previous admin experience, why not? Kurnahusa (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support - Griff is not only a fantastic editor but they're also an extremely helpful, patient, calm and level-headed person, They do their very best to not only help but to also resolve issues that arise. They also show a lot of empathy and sincerity in situations and they also help you understand situations or processes where sometimes situations and processes just don't make sense which goes a long way, Without a shadow of a doubt they would make (excuse my language) a bloody great admin again!!. There are not enough 0's in this world to support this nomination so I'll settle with "10000%" support :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Support i think he/she is a great editor since he/she fight vandalism. 179.109.143.218 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support! Unfortunately anonymous (un-registered) users cannot vote on RFAs but I appreciate your words. I encourage you to create an account so you can get access to the many tools available to registered users to help editing. Griff (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support – Has a history of doing great administrative work and has continued to do good work on here since then. They would be a great administrator to have with us again. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 20:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Anyone who has held the mop for so long and still been and to balance their work life with their contributions and time in Wikipedia, it's someone you want on your team. DaneGeld (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Ternera (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support I think we need more administrators in Simple English Wikipedia because we need to make Wikipedia better. thetree284 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support with best wishes! --Pot2156 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support as nominator--Ksy 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

May I please ask of @Griffinofwales: what has prompted the breaks in their periods of adminship on the site? Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valid question. The first time I stepped away as my life circumstances resulted in me not having the time I used to. I returned during the post-COVID environment where I had much more time at home. Unfortunately, my career later got much busier, requiring significant travel & time commitments that did not allow me to balance Wikipedia into my life. I now have a much more balanced role in my career where I feel I can provide the appropriate time to the community. Griff (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. It sounds like you have managed the balance of life and Wikipedia very well. You have my support. Good luck! DaneGeld (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


FusionSub

FusionSub (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 13:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Hi all, today I am here to nominate FusionSub for adminship. In his last RFA, I was the first one to oppose as I felt they needed more experience regarding simplewiki. After some months, now, I think they are ready. I have seen them active doing the much-needed anti-vandalism work, participating in the discussions in RFD and almost everywhere else. A lot of these areas could definitely use more admin participation. Also, having more active admins helping with anti-vandalism will definitely help us respond to urgent request quicker. Along with all this, they are also active in IRC and discord and we get plenty of requests there which they could respond to. I think they will definitely be a good addition to admin team. Thanks for your time.--BRP ever 13:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you for your kind words, I will accept this nomination. Feel free to ask me questions.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.   Support as nominator.--BRP ever 13:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Good luck. – Lionel Cristiano (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Strong support I trusted FusionSub because they Experienced Editor, I'd chosen Strong Support. Raayaan9911 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --M7 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support per nominator. FusionSub's actions on Wikipedia, discussion on community pages, and RFA responses show an understanding of Wikipedia's five pillars, rules, policies and guidelines. FusionSub has also shown a strong ability to communicate and maintain the trust required of administrators. Griff (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. support - I see no reason not to support this as a net positive to simplewiki. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support seems like a good thing to me! Ternera (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support – A good amount of experience and work done here; has proven themselves as a competent editor that would be suitable for adminship. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support Trusted editor, useful to admin team. Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support fr33kman 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support FusionSub has my full support after I opposed on the last RfA, this time around great answers to questions below that show proficiency in admin policy. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Definitely   Support. I must admit that I was waiting for this RfA ;). I trust you and believe that you know how to use the tools, and as an administrator you will certainly do much more for simplewiki. Good luck! BZPN (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support If we have more administrators in Wikipedia, then it will make Wikipedia a better place! So I would definitely choose support! thetree284 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

You asked for questions, I tried to deliver:)

  • If given the administrative tools, how do you plan on using them?
  • When would you use the RevDel tool and in which cases would you send the action to an oversighter?
  • What criteria would you use to determine if full or semi-protection is appropriate for an article?
  • Are there occasions when warning a vandal is not appropriate? If so, when?
  • When reviewing a request for rollbacker or request for patroller, what would be your review steps to determine if a user should be assigned those rights?
  • Are there times when a rollbacker or patroller should have their rights removed? If so, what are they and how would you do it?
  • A member of the community has reported a user for a ONESTRIKE violation. How would you respond? I've included an example to help guide the answer.
  • An editor has posted a message to your talk page questioning the quick deletion of an article a different administrator has deleted. What steps will you take and what guidance do you provide this editor?
  • Is it appropriate for administrators to close discussions they are involved in (for example, a RFD)? If so, when?

Thank you for offering to become a part of the administrator team, it is not an easy role. I have appreciated all your work on the Wikipedia and BRP made an excellent nominating statement. Griff (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these questions, and I do agree that BRP did an amazing job when writing up the nominating statement. As for the questions:
1) I plan to be active in places like RfD and DRV as well as dealing with vandals if I catch them in the act :). Most of my planned areas of administrative involvement also require consensus determination which is something I believe I have improved upon since my first RfA.
2) I'd probably use Revdel sparingly outside of the explicit cases mentioned at RD. As for when I would send actions to oversighters, that would involve PII. If it is loacted in an area of decently high traffic, I may revdel it when waiting for oversighter action to surpress it to lower any risk associated of the data's continued accessibility to the public.
3) Full protection shouldn't really be used in articles (even in extreme circumstances), so by default, if I determine protection needed, I would almost certainly semi-protect the page.
4) If the vandal is a known Long-term abuser, they shouldn't really be given any warnings as they've been made aware that they break policies many times but they continue to try and get around it (and most of them are lock evading anyway so they should be reported somewhere like m:SRG immediately instead of going through the regular warning system).
5) First of all, I would review their edits in relation to the right (so undos / reverts for rollbacker and page creations for patroller) to make sure that they meet the requirements before looking further into it. If I'm dealing with Patroller request I would also look into if the user has been involved in any disputes, as their actions in a dispute would show how they act in such scenarios, which is something that would be important in showing if the user might be considered a "trusted editor". As for rollback, I would investigate the editors work in other parts of anti-vandalism (like warning users and reports) to completely confirm that the editor knows their stuff in that sector. If I am uncertain after reviewing the users actions I would ask for a second opinion before making any decisions on the granting of the user right.
6) There are some cases where I see removal of rollback/patrol rights warranted, such as if the user consistently misuses it after being let know that they are misusing the right (e.g "Hey, that's not how you do that." or "Hey, can you please stop doing that, that's not what Insert right is for."). If I do see that the user is misusing the right and others have said stuff along the lines of the example texts in the brackets, I would first reach out to them before taking any action to make sure that they are aware. If they continue to misuse the right roughly a week after my notification I would reach out again like "Hey, maybe stop doing that as that is misuse of the tools. If you continue to misuse the tools your right(s) may be removed.". If they still continue after my second message to misuse the right I would remove it with a notice.
7) First of all, I would make sure that ONESTRIKE would actually be applicable to avoid accidentally enforcing one strike on an editor in a case where ONESTRIKE wouldn't apply. After verifying that ONESTRIKE could be applicable on the user I would investigate the infraction that could trigger ONESTRIKE and see if it is a case where it actually triggered a clause in ONESTRIKE. If it did, then I would apply the appropriate punishment (e.g perm block with TPA to allow for an appeal). If ONESTRIKE wasn't triggered in this case I would simply leave a message saying "ONESTRIKE doesn't seem to apply here" and leave it at that.
8) First of all, I'd check to see if the article was deleted and for what reason to make sure it isn't a trolling attempt. For example, if I agreed with the deleting admin's decision I would say to the editor "Sorry, but I won't restore it as I agree with the argument that the deleting admin." but would also follow up with some advice (for example if the page was deleted under A4 I would recommend them to put what they believe makes the subject notable enough in the page during the creation process). However, if I see potential in the article I would see if the user would be willing to work on their article in their userspace and get another editor to review the page to make sure that it wouldn't break any rules before moving it into mainspace.
9) In most cases I probably would say that involved admins/editors should not close a discussion they have been directly involved in, unless that involvement was minor (e.g striking the !vote of a sockpuppet or performing maintenance work on the discussion page) or it is agreed by multiple editors that in that specific case, it would be acceptable.
Thank you for these questions and sorry for the chapter of text that is my response. This took me a proper hour to write out so I hope it serves its intended purpose :).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a slight aside for q7 I thought I'd mention, one-strike and whether it's applied is done at admin discretion. The amount of requests for one-strike applications has picked up lately, but is / should be generally done without a request - of course, the way you'd handle such a request on AN is still correct. --Ferien (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, too bad I only saw this now due to my wall of text.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


TDKR Chicago 101

TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


Hello. I would like to nominate TDKR Chicago 101 for adminship. There is no need to write much here, because TDKR is known to almost all active users. He has been with us for 12 years and is one of the users with the greatest contributions to simplewiki. He has a lot of experience and a huge contribution to creating new pages. TDKR is also the main active editor in DYK. After 4 previous failed RfAs (although he was very close to getting the flag), it seems that it is time for a successful one. We definitely need such an admin (and more active admins in general), and the flag will also make it easier for him to work in DYK. Thank you for considering this request. Good luck! BZPN (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:

  • I am honored by this nomination and I am deeply humbled by BZPN's remarks and kind gesture. It's true I have been here for twelve years and in those twelve years I have learned from many mistakes and made a few Wiki-friends along the way. For these twelve years I have seen the role of admin of one with great responsibility and pride. I've also seen it as a role that could guide other editors, maintain a respectful quorum and be willing to accept accountability, different opinions and changing times with respect and an open mind. In the past few years, the idea of me being an admin was tempting, however I've always felt that I was a bit unworthy to be one (so to speak). In my twelve years I have been guided by great admins and I understand that there's big shoes to fill should I be honored with this title. In the end of the day, I hope that all of you know that my edits and intentions on this Wiki (as it has always been since I joined in 2012) was to be productive, helpful and respectful. I humbly accept this nomination, will answer any questions (I do ask for patience/clarity) and be humbly grateful to all who participate in this RFA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.   Strong support as nominator. Good luck :). BZPN (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support fr33kman 11:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support I am happy with the answer. I see no reason not to support.--BRP ever 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support – Lionel Cristiano (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Trusted & Active editor.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Strong support More than a decade of experience, trusted user, very active, knows the Simple English Wikipedia very well. I actually wanted to nominate him myself since the administrators said that there weren't enough admins (Autumn 2024), but I am not good with words, so I am very glad someone else nominated him. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Strongly support He very active in DYK. I trusted this editor because he was more experienced editor. Raayaan9911 10:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support lgtm. Ternera (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support, BigKrow (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

  • Hi! My question can be seen as difficult but I think it is an important question to ask. What makes this RFA different from all other previous RFAs? What has changed since then? Thanks--BRP ever 10:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @BRPever:. The first three RFA (between 2014 to 2020) I'd consider to be a learning curve and were very serious in terms of me becoming an admin. The last one (number 4 in 2022) I withdrew because I had some second thoughts of my frequency in terms of being an active editor here. There was a lot going on with my life, but I'd like to think I found a rhythm that could properly balance my personal and wiki life so to speak. Speaking about the first three RFAs, I'd consider myself as a rookie (although the 3rd one I had been around at Simple Wiki for six-ish years at the time). During the first three RFAs, I haven't been using the proper tools, taking more engagement outside of my shell which was Deaths in 20xx pages and the DYK noms. Since those RFAs, I've started to patrol more pages, taken part in RfD (if not start some discussions), tried answering question from incoming new users (to the best of my ability/if time allows me), fixing up GA articles, taken part in more Simple Wikipedia-based discussions (and at English Wikipedia; don't think this is relevant here, but I thought it's worth mentioning). What makes this RFA different than the others is that I've grown more experienced, helped newer editors, broaden my activity scope, used more tools and tried to be more engaging (not to mention I've gotten older and hopefully wiser with age lol). Hopefully I've answered your question and please let me know if I could be more specific / clear about anything :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I think your extensive experience on this project is a huge plus for Wikipedia and you are a valued member of the editing team. I can relate with many of your comments as I have also matured during the years I have spent on Wikipedia and recognize the difficulty it is to balance personal and Wikipedia life. I have a few questions drawn from recent edits and your previous RFAs.
  1. Page protection - When is full protection & semi-protection appropriate for articles? If it is appropriate, what measure would you use to determine the length of protection?
  • Hello @Griffinofwales:! I'm actually glad you brought this up because it is something I forgot to mention in my comment above. In recent years, I have turned to the admin page here requesting for certain pages to be protected on a semi-basis. I've done the same at English Wiki as well which I feel my efforts there / awareness of when a page needs protection could translate over here. In terms of semi-protection v. full protection, I've found that one thing to focus on is the level of activity the respective page is receiving in terms of vandalism or in the news. For instance, I recently requested that Sean Combs and Jimmy Carter receive semi-protection given their attention in the media. Now, let's say should I have the tools and authority to protect these articles for a month, it is very important that I monitor the page's activity shortly before and after protection ends. Should vandalism proceed then I would warrant a longer protection period. Now in terms of long term full protection, I feel it would be appropriate to implement this when an article is receiving multiple vandalism edits (especially immediately after semi-protection ends) persist to continue. I think that multiple semi-protection requests should just lead to full protection. Now, let me expand for semi-protection requests, for one, an article would have to receive constant vandalism from unregistered user (depending on the severity or frequency it could be from one or more IPs) and the user would have to be warned as well prior to semi-protecting as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify that you know what full protection is? 2601:644:907E:A70:6102:D339:5958:92DB (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection means an article would be protected indefinitely in which only admins can edit the article. This might be a tool to use to stop edit wars or ongoing vandalism from occurring. Semi-protection would prevent unregistered users from editing an article. I sometimes (just a personal thing) refer to articles that are protected indefinitely as full protection and articles with temporary protection as semi-protection (I know this isn't the proper terms, but somehow that's how my mind identifies them lol). Obviously as admin, I know that full protection means admin only and semi-protection means unregistered users / users without a lot of edits can't edit a page :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to use the correct terms, especially if you become an admin. I was confused why multiple semi-protection requests should lead to full protection. For example Adolf Hitler Uunona, has been vandalized a lot and is now indefinitely semi-protected, but no vandalism has occurred since it was semi-protected six months ago. 2601:644:907E:A70:6102:D339:5958:92DB (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I totally understand. As stated above I know the terms, it's just that my mind has "self-produced" some meanings. For instance, see Jimmy Carter's article. It says it's semi-protected until a given date, I've seen articles like that which is why my mind kinda created this notion that semi-protected strictly means limited protection (when it obviously doesn't as there's more to semi-protection status). Thank you for bringing up Adolf Hitler Uunona. That's a great example that fits perfectly in which I was trying to convey to Griffinofwales above. The article itself has received substantial amount of vandalism, a large amount from unregistered users. While it has received a limited semi-protection in August I believe, there was a discussion that led to the article being permanently semi-protected due to the fact the article had a history of constant vandalism from unregistered IPs. The fact that the article hasn't been vandalized since it was semi-protected means that the decision to semi-protect the article is indeed working. Registered users can edit the article, not unregistered users given the article's history of unregistered users vandalizing the article as noted in the protection discussion I linked. In instances like this, where an article will constantly receive vandalism from unregistered IPs, permanent semi-protection is needed. However, as noted in the discussion, had there been more vandalism from registered users also, then a full protection would have been warranted. Please let me know if I need to clarify/explain anything further :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining! 2601:644:907E:A70:6102:D339:5958:92DB (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Please let me know if you have any more questions / comments :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Automatic/preventative protection - Should pages be automatically or preventatively protected prior to any vandalism occurring? If so, when?
  • I am a firm believer of preventative protection especially when a high-stakes scheduled event is to be held. For instance, the 2024 election and their respective candidates, I had requested a preemptive protection for Harris, Walz, Trump, Vance, RFK and 2024 election article since they would be prone to high media and reading attention. Such articles would have been vulnerable to vandalism and, for lack of a better phrase, fake news being added. So, yes, some pages should be considered to have a preemptive protection (semi of course) when they will most likely be in the media and public spotlight again. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. RFDs - This RFD on enWP resulted in significant discussion and was not closed in the same way you commented (I chose this example specifically for that reason). If you were the closing administrator, how would you have approached this closure and how would you balance community comments with policies/guidelines on this project?
  • I might be interpreting this question wrong, so please let me know if I need to clarify, in the deletion discussion I thought it was best to keep the article for the reasons I stated. I think my recent discussion at DYK about nudity being permitted to appear in the main page shows that I always try to keep a balance of thought. Acknowledge both sides of the argument and see a common ground or respect the overall consensus as well (even if it's against what I believe is best). I feel that admins should play two roles here (one as a user and one as an admin). The user aspect could respectfully comment and say their piece, however the admin aspect should be neutral and respect the final consensus. Should I have been admin during that Biden discussion, I would have carefully read each argument and fully acknowledge the results/consensus of the discussion. I will always respect the final consensus when closing a discussion and make sure it reflects what the community wants. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. QDs - When is A4 appropriate and when should articles be referred to RFD?
  • For me, A4 is appropriate when it's quite obvious the article was written as a hoax or advertisement, there's no notability to the article and there's a Snowball chance that it's relevant / notable. Key things to look out for is if there's any references (especially reliable ones), the tone it was written in and if it has other articles. Now, when Rfd is appropriate is when there's some questionable things regarding notability such as the article doesn't appear to be a hoax, might come off like an ad or resume, but it has some references cited. Then, the RfD should be use for hear what other users think, maybe allow the page creator to say their piece and reach a consensus. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. VIP reports - What criteria would you look for when blocking a user reported to VIP?
  • I could translate my experiences from enwiki to here as well. I've reported some unregistered IPs and newly registered users to VIP on enwiki. When blocking a user, one must see their activity, see how frequently they've engaged in disruptive edits despite receiving warnings, they're engaging in edit wars or you could just tell they're trolling such as by responding immaturely / inappropriately to user's talk pages (I've seen this at enwiki). The bottom line, a user would have to receive a fair amount of warnings (unless they're being inappropriate to users).
  1. IP blocks - When deciding how long to block an IP user, how would you decide this?
  • Almost like my answer above, IP or non-IP users would have to receive a fair amount of warnings (2-3, I think that's protocol at enwiki), however like I stated above, should these users engage in inappropriate activity, such as vandalizing talk pages with hurtful/inappropriate comments then I'd consider blocking instantly.
  1. Revdel & OS - When should revdel be used? When should edits be referred to an oversighter?
  • I've been seeing an increase activity in revdel here at simple wiki and enwiki as of late. Obviously Revdel is needed when a vandalism edit contains personal info, copyrighted information, grossly inappropriate content and just edits that appear to be attacks to the subject of the article. To contact an oversighter would be in regards personal and sensitive material being posted / attacks towards an editor. These can be a sensitive ordeal and an oversighter would be best to respond and react whereas any edits that are simply attacks or inappropriate about an article's subject, that is when revdel is best. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 main criteria for administrators. Your content creation shows a strong understanding of article guidelines and you easily meet criteria 2 and 3. I have carefully chosen the above questions to reflect administrative tasks you are already involved in, and may be asked to participate in. I wish you luck with this request. Griff (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, thanks for running. I see that you have a long history of content edits. That's great, that's also what I do. However, you have over 90% edits to mainspace, and not a large amount of edits to Wikipedia and User space. A lot of admin tasks do involve interacting with users and dealing with requests - do you think this is something that would change if/when you get the mop, or would you continue the same amount of mainspace edits as you do now? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your feedback! Should I receive more tools and be given more responsibilities, then my priorities will absolutely shift. At this point, I've patrolled some pages, fixed up articles with sourcing issues, initiate RfDs, fixed/consolidated categories w/ HotCat, nominatd/prep articles for GA statuses, DYK work, etc. I see becoming an admin is almost like getting a promotion (more duties, more responsibilities, more tasks, more tools) and with such promotion, my priorities and attention will be shifted. I'll move away from creating articles like recent deaths/recent events to more oriented tasks. My main focus would be monitoring and closing discussions, protect pages and "stalk" user pages/block users if needed. Hopefully I've answered your question well and please let me know if you need me to elaborate on some things/clarify anything :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Current requests for bureaucratship

BRPever

BRPever (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 11:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


Hello. Today I would like to nominate BRP for bureaucratship. As we know, BRP often nominates admins, so now it's time for his nomination :). I guess he doesn't need to be introduced to anyone either, his activity is known to everyone, and he is a very trusted admin. Having one more bureaucrat is definitely more comfort and faster work. BRP could close RFAs, including those started by him. Personally, I don't see any reason not to award him this flag :). Thank you for considering this request. Good luck! BZPN (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator's statement: I am pleased to co-nominate BRPever for bureaucrat. In his 6+ years as an administrator, BRP has shown to be a friendly and calm administrator with a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have the opportunity to interact with him all over Wikipedia, and sometimes disagree with him, and he has consistently shown a skill for summarising community consensus and moving the project forward, skills that are helpful as a bureaucrat. BRP meets all the criteria for being a bureaucrat as a very active administrator, and through his cross-wiki community involvement and administrator actions, has shown he can be trusted as a bureaucrat to follow policy and confirm the consensus of the community. Since our active bureaucrat numbers are few, having BRP as an additional bureaucrat on the project will help share the responsibility and provide an additional protection to the project. I hope you can join us in supporting BRP as a Simple English Wikipedia bureaucrat. Griff (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Hi all! This nomination was a bit of an unexpected surprise for me. I just want to clarify that I will try to avoid closing requests that I started, or am actively part of, or have a COI with as much as possible. If other crats and community thinks having me as a bureaucrat will benefit the project, I am willing to accept this role. Thank you for your time.--BRP ever 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Extremely   Strong support. Trusted editor, 200% knows what their doing, no reason to oppose.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I do think this wiki would benefit from more crats (heaven forbid there was a close call and a cratchat was required), and this user would do the job well. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Strong support as nominator. BZPN (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support – Lionel Cristiano (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Crat support Bureaucrat is probably the admin-level role with the least amount of work that needs doing (compared to CU/OS), and all work now centres around permission requests of some kind, be it RfP or bot/IA work. We don't get that many of those types of requests, so generally it is not too big of a deal if there are only a few people able to handle it, and probably better for security reasons, which is why RfBs come up so infrequently. But 1) two of our crats are currently almost inactive and I'm trying to take a step back for the next six months or so, that leaves two active crats left, meaning there will be a greater need for a crat this year, and 2) BRP has done a great amount of work in recent weeks with our archival system on permission and other requests, helping implement SpBot on this wiki. Although I think the CU request was quite recent, I see no other issues, so I feel it's a no-brainer I support this request, with one more crat needed to fast-track the request. --Ferien (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support – Has plenty of experience here as an admin and former steward, and has shown themselves to be very competent overall. I believe they will be a great bureaucrat. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support MathXplore (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. easy no-brainer   Strong support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Raayaan9911 10:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support absolutely! Ternera (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support fr33kman 19:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support BigKrow (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Current requests for checkusership

None at this time

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=9995676#Current_requests_for_removal_of_rights"
  NODES
admin 96
chat 1
COMMUNITY 14
Idea 1
idea 1
Note 4
Project 15
USERS 34
Verify 1