Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Page Support Oppose % End Last updated by Chris G Bot (talk) on 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrator

I would like to be an administrator.Receptie123 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Start by doing some work on this wiki! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's not likely someone would get to be an administrator when they're indefinitely blocked on another Wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unless the user has made mistakes in the past with the first few months or so to a newcomer at another wiki, and can apply as an administrator to an experienced person. Because that's what I have done. I would like to be an admin on this wiki in a few months, or once I have made over roughly 10,000 changes. curtaintoad | chat me! 10:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

CT, your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Also, the talk page stalker thing only applies on user talk pages. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, then should I say it in a different way then? And I will try to make it not complicated. curtaintoad | chat me! 06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to say it clear. If there was a newcomer on another wiki, and the newcomer made lots of mistakes for the first eg. 1 year, and then the user ran for administratorship 5 years later on this wiki, the user could say in the nomination "I made a lot of mistakes in my first year of editing on another wiki so I got blocked to it from another wiki, but I believe that over the past I have learned some good tools from my mistakes and now I can apply those policies/guidelines as an admin." And that's what I have done on en.wiki. So I would like to be admin in 6 months/1 year or so. Does that info make sense? curtaintoad | chat me! 06:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is usually not realistic to set a timed goal. As I have told Curtaintoad on other wikis, his primary reason for contributing to Wikimedia websites should not be gaining adminship or other permissions, but that does appear to be the case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jasper. Is your edit count the reason you started creating those redirect pages? I would say, don't do anything with the purpose of increasing your edit count. Let the edit count take care of itself. If you are nominated to be an admin, the community won't look at the number alone, but at what the edits actually were. If a lot of your edits are trivial, people will be less likely to support you in becoming an admin. Take your time to get familiar with how things work here and show the community that you understand. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Patroller

There are no instructions on how to request becoming a patroller. How do I request to become one? Nyanyanyanyan (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Nyanyanyanyan

Just add something under the "Patroller" heading. Include something about why you want to be a patroller, and anything else you want the admins to consider. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My Request for RB

I requested rb about 2 weeks ago and it has been on hold ever since. I would like to receive a  Done or  Not done and just get it over with. Thanks. A² 03:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you just tell @Glaisher: you thought you didn't know if you need it and you're not very active here any more? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Yes I did. I am not as active but still semi active. I would just like my request to be granted or declined. I don't care at the point what the outcome is since twinkle is working fine for me. That still doesn't mean I won't contribute here. A² 05:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrollers and rollbackers who haven't edited in a long time

We have patrollers and rollbackers who are not blocked but haven't edited in several years. The most I've seen in spot checks is this rollbacker who hasn't edited in 6 years. Since we've been known to deny these rights on the grounds that a user hasn't edited enough to need them over a period of weeks or months, do we want to consider removing rights from editors who have no edits for even longer? We prune inactive admins, and we could do the same with these lesser rights. Please give your comments, which could be different for the two different rights. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For me, it depends on the individual case. The example you chose was someone who never did edit much. But how about BG7? He was a valuable editor with huge experience. We never had a problem with his general edits, just (occasionally) with his action as a mop. He has already visited us once with good effect. All we achieve by taking away rollback rights is to make it less likely he will visit again. The situation is not a mirror image of granting rights in the first place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense that if patrollers are not active for a long period of time the right should be removed. It also makes sense to do this on a case-by-case basis as Mac pointed out. I would suggest that when it is determined that these rights are to be removed due to inactivity, that a notice be placed on their talk page to acknowledge the user's service and invite them to reapply, should they resume regular activity in the future. Rus793 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rus on that. It's especially true because to the extent that the culture, rules and approach here may evolve over time, someone absent a long while may or may not be in touch with that. With respect to rollback, on the other hand, that is really a tool for fighting vandalism. I see no reason for that to be removed, even from people who have generally gone inactive, unless (a) it's abused, or (b) there is evidence that the account has been hijacked. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Steven makes a valid point that rollback should not be removed from accounts unless abused or hijacked. I think that rollback flag isn't a huge deal if left on an inactive account since the undo button is given to every editor anyways. As for patroller rights, I agree with the comments above. eurodyne (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

While we are at it, we might also want to think of an inactivity threshold for removal of rights. 1 year of inactivity (zero edits, zero log entries), perhaps? Chenzw  Talk  03:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. Rus793 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I Agree that 1 year time length is a valid time frame. No edits in that time, and they should be removed. Also as a matter of housekeeping, users with rollback, should we consider, that if they are part of the Global Rollbackers group that they don't need to have the local right since the global right already has more, and should we clear off the flag? Enfcer (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) The one thing I don't like about removing redundant rights is what if they lose their global rollback? Then they will lose the ones they locally earned too. Krett12 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

1) I agree with Krett on that. 2) Rollback is the only right that would apply to, anyway. Stewards and global sysops are only supposed to use rights otherwise available locally in an emergency. Global rollback is the only global permission that is allowed to be used "normally" notwithstanding its availability locally. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect to User:Chenzw's idea, I think that's about right for patroller. After one year of inactivity (zero edits, zero log entries), an administrator or bureaucrat here can contact the user and notify him/her that if the person makes no contributions in the following 30 days, s/he will be deflagged. If the person even responds, that's an edit, and it will stop the clock. I think that's more than fair. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

One year sounds like a reasonable period of time. Omni Flames (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with one year on patroller, and with it being unneeded on rollbacker. Because of recent changes to notifications, if the user is active on any Wikipedia project, they will see the message if it is posted to their talkpage here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

They'd see it only if they have the option turned on. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with one year on patroller with notice on their talkpage. Rus793 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Disagree Patroller is only meant to be a case of we don't think their edits need to be watched. That was the reason we were originally giving out that right. It wasn't so much about the active patrolling and really it still isn't. It was really do we trust this persons edits to not need to be patrolled. We wanted to make sure that the truely new editor edits stood out in the patrol log so people who actually patrol (The maybe 2 people) don't have to wade through the edits of trusted users. And I believe that is the case until the point they show that trust is no longer warranted. Rollback should definitely not be removed. Only reason we prune admin accounts etc is for security issues. Those don't really exist for rollback and patroller. Neither of those permissions do anything that can serious harm the wiki. Rollback is easily enough reverted and someone marking a bad page as patrolled doesn't really hurt anything as it will likely be noticed anyway. I also don't think policies change so much that people can not tell the difference between an acceptable new page and a non-acceptable one, that hasn't really changed in the 10+ years I have been doing this. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If our right were autopatrolled rather than patroller, I'd fully agree with DJSasso. But the actual right is patroller, and that's different in some ways.

As to whether policies change much, that's also a good point. There is a difference between our wanting to make sure people are experienced enough to patrol here in the first place—the general reason we are selective at all—and worrying about whether people need to continue to use the rights actively. We might be able to find a middle ground on this question in the following way: Make the no-edit period two years, and allow a deflagged patroller to regain his/her rights on request. This way, if there have been any changes in policy, the reflagging admin can point them out in the process. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't talking about autopatrolled. That obviously we wouldn't take away. The patroller right actually had some visual changes to the logs as well. Whether or not that still is the case I don't know. I was thinking it was Osiris that asked us to start giving it to people but looking back the first search result is BG asking that we add it after he stopped being an admin. That being said I don't really care that much, I just think its silly taking away a flag just cause. If we trusted them before we trust them now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I totally realise what it was now. We only enabled autopatrolled in 2011 for Patrollers Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_90#Autopatrol_flag specifically bugzilla:27875. Prior to that only Admin were autopatrolled and the patroller group was added to act as autopatrolled for only the most trusted. So yes this is about autopatrolled as that is only enabled for Admins and Patrollers. See Special:ListGroupRights#patroller But meh whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

<-I found this discussion randomly while also going down the same rabbit hole as Auntof6. At this point, these same editors (of which number over 100) have over 10 years of inactivity. While there is no necessary harm in keeping them, there also isn't really much harm in removing it, as rollback is already scripted through Twinkle. The true question is do these editors have the knowledge/trust to use the rollback tool after that many years away. While our policies don't change much, they do change, as does general practice. I don't think it's too controversial to say that after 10 years away, rollback should be removed and you should go through the same steps to get it back. While misuse or a compromised account is a remote possibility, so is the harm to the project from a user having to select undo instead of rollback, and will also flag to other editors that this user is newly back with us. This also applies to patroller, which as noted above, is different from autopatrol. Our standards (from personal experience) have changed a lot in that time, and users should be expected to show they are aware and can follow the new ones. Griff (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No, rollback is one that there is no point in ever removing. The standards for that pretty much have never changed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Qualifying for RB

Could I qualify for RB? If I could, then can I apply for it? Dingothegorg 19:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. You have quite a lot of anti-vandalism experience and good changes here. Feel free to apply for it on WP:RFP/R. Ferien (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! Dingo ^{Τ • Χ • Σ} 19:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How flood can be requested

I propose adding about requesting in the #simple-english-wikipedia channel on Discord for flood at #Flood. While Discord is still less used than IRC for off-wiki discussion, use of it is growing and it seems to be the more popular choice among newer editors, probably because it is a little easier to use in general, especially with creating an account, usernames etc. and is much more popular outside of Wikipedia. According to this page, you can already request flood on IRC so I find this relatively uncontroversial with requesting off-wiki as there is another off-wiki option, and the benefit with Discord: simply joining the server will give you access to every conversation that has happened on there, but with IRC you cannot see what happened before you connected. Thoughts on this? --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Completely fine with that. Griff (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I see only one issue with off-wiki requests. Accountability. I know chat logs are there for IRC and email leaves a paper trail that can prove it happened. As long as it can be proven on discord, I see no reason to not accept it as a valid form of communication. --Creol(talk) 22:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it could be convenient.

Concerns (may also apply to IRC):

• Not all admins are on Discord, so possibly fewer admins would be available to respond to requests. However, this could be a risk an editor takes when they decide where to make their request.
• Requests and replies would not be in one place for historical purposes, even short-term historical purposes. In the case of short-term purposes, for example, an editor could be denied on Discord, then ask on-wiki where some admins wouldn't have seen the reason for denial. (The reverse is probably also true, but I think on-wiki is a default.)

Just some thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there are certainly downsides with requesting off-wiki. I'm not sure where the consensus for having flood requests on IRC was but if we have IRC requests right now, my opinion is why not Discord too? --Ferien (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not an Admin, but I'd like to express my thoughts here. reflecting to what Auntof6 mentions above, doing these requests off Wiki makes it hard to log them, or view past requests for historical reasons, etc. While most Wikipedia users nowadays use discord or IRC, it is important to note that this does not apply to all Wikipedia users. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 00:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)