This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
May I request for permission? -- Ftsw ( talk) 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Inka 888 ( talk · contribs) had his Twinkle rights removed from lack of knowledge of the different uses of it. Instead of giving him the large set of tools in Twinkle, I believe he is ready for the rollback permissions. I was going to put this request on the main page, but a person cannot nominate another person. So I, Intelati, as Inka 888's mentor, believe he is ready for Rollback.-- Talktome( Intelati) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks -- Talktome( Intelati) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Helpful-Administrator(s)-or-Other-Users-Who-May-Be-Reading-This:
I am interested in viewing certain deleted text available only to "administrators" and "researchers." What is involved in getting the "researcher" permission? How does one go about that. I'm a relatively new editor, but did do some IP-work before joining, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the policies. Have consulted WP:RESEARCHER and that didn't answer all my questions. Not sure where to turn even for more information, much less to request the permission itself. I would appreciate any help from anyone who can point me in the correct direction. Thanks very much for your time. Saebvn ( talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Some users have been informally clerking. I say informally, because obviously WP:PERM does not have formal clerks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, for example, and of course, being an administrator is paramount to actually closing a request for the same reason that an administrator without checkuser cannot execute a request for it at WP:SPI. More often than not, those clerking have disambiguated that they are not an admin, at least. Anyone got any comment on this? WilliamH ( talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Should a note be given at the top of the page explaining that move or edit requests can be made by adding the appropriate template to the article talk page?
Anyone know why requests are not being archived. Anyone know what is the problem is? ➜ Gƒoley Four (GSV) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether it makes sense to require such a large number of previously created articles is being discussed at WP:VPP#Autopatrolled - reduce number of qualifying articles. You are invited to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I try to add a request but every time I do so, my text comes up in some latin looking language after I click preview. Im not sure why, anyone know what Im doing wrong? Creation7689 ( talk) 13:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion at the village pump, a list of potential candidates for Autopatrol has been requested here. It is hoped that giving Autopatrol to these candidates will help reduce the burden at WP:NPP. The list is likely to be several hundred users long, so I am proposing that the list be placed on several sub-pages of this talk page in the form of Autopatrol candidates X where X is a number like this " Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Autopatrol candidates 1" and that each page contains some number (50, 100, whatever) of candidates. The list will be formated with the standard {{ RfP}} template and look similar to this. Then, reviewing Admins could go through the list as they have time and assign Autopatrol to the these candidates if they meet the requirements. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Below are the lists. I will be adding to this as I have time and when the new report is ready.
Thanks HJ Mitchell for the reviews. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks HJ Mitchell and Acalamari for doing these reviews. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Worked through the list to get one more page. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Page 5 is the last from the old list of 05 March 2010. The next page will be from a new list that I requested at Wikipedia talk:Database reports. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that this is a low priority task and can be done as free time is available. Thank you.
I am starting to post a new list of 2,000+ users in batches of 50. There are a couple of changes. First, this list has the {{ RfC}} template substituted instead of transcluded, so you can click the edit link next to the username instead of having to edit the whole page.
Second, there is a new (leave "granted" note) link in the comments section. The link will bring up the user's talk page with a preloaded message ( HJ Mitchell's Autopatrolled notice). The preloaded message is only for users that are granted the right. All you need to do is click the save button on the talk page. The title of the message, the message itself and a signature (~~~~) are automatically filled in. No typing is necessary, just click "save".
The new list starts on page 6. Please let me know if there are any problems and I will fix them. Thanks for your help. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm proposing the removal (or something to rectify this situation) of the "search an, ani, cn, an3" links at the end of the request palette when you submit a permission request. The reason being is that the user account hosting the tools on the external website has expired, resulting in a bad link (404). As I said before, removal would be an option, not the only one. Angelo ♫ 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, it's almost been a year since my bot started archiving the requests, and I've hoped it's proved to be helpful :). I just wanted to say a big thank you to those of you who are carefully making sure requests are correctly tagged for the bot. You may also be interested in the templates which can be used to control the bot, which are explained at User:KingpinBot#Archiving permissions page. Anyway, what I really came here to say is I've placed a searchbox at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive to allow for easier searching of archives. It can be a good idea to search for previous requests when reviewing a new request, so I hope this is useful. All the best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*{{Usercheck-short|UserNameOfUser}} [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled]] <sup>[[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1|link]]</sup>
. So everything would be the same format except the link link would point to the whole page instead of the individual edit. Also, I would only do this for the declined users in order for a future bot to scan for them and remove them from an auto-generated list if they were recently declined. Oh yes, any input you have for an automated process is most welcome. -
Hydroxonium (
H3O+) 08:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"and have reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia" (in the section 'Permissions' in the bullet point for 'Reviewer') should be "and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia". — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Clicking the "add request" link results in the request being added to the redirect page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Filemover instead of this one. Kelly hi! 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
creating userboxes isn't really 'my thing', but it might be nice for people to have a filemover permissions userbox if some enterprising wiki-artist felt like making one. just a thought. Kaini ( talk) 03:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Should we set the page for auto archiving as the request list is piling up? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. I'm leaving a note here for anybody that might be interested in commenting. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 13:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should really slow down in the handing out of the filemover right. Changes like (cur | prev) 04:41, 17 March 2011 Ktr101 (talk | contribs) (127 bytes) (moved File:Reflected refueling mission.jpg to File:94th Fighter Squadron being refueled by a jet from the 128th Air Refueling Wing with a helmet reflection.jpg: More descriptive file name.)
is not really necessary, and from what I see, is getting more common. And after all, the number of files should actually go down, after the
mass moving ends. 150+ filemovers is actually more than enough to deal with files here IMHO. Just saying.
Reh
man 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
My request added to rollback rights, which I"ve already had and had permission.I requested autopatroll rights and it automatically moved to Rollback rights.Can someone fix this?-- Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Update:Problem solved.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to separate the wiki page for Chad Steelberg & Ryan Steelberg into two separate pages. I created this a few years ago and thought one page would work for both men but now they would like their own pages. The content can stay the same.
Ksnolan ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments would be more than welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NoomBot 7 - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be nice to add {{
anchor|rollback}}
to the page right before the transclusion of
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Adding the above code will create an HTML anchor, thus allowing
WP:RFRB to point directly to the requests for rollback instead of just to the page as a whole. — Preceding signed comment added by
Cymru.lass (
talk •
contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I requested Reviewer status three days ago and have had no feedback on this request.
Please accept my enquiry to see if it may be possible to receive this permission before Friday? I would appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, but it would seem prudent to enquire as I would be thrilled to receive this flag, sooner if possible rather than latter if ever...Kind regards User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett ( talk • contribs)
Thank you Pedro you are a star!
User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
( moved from village pump to generate more consensus)
This is a proposal for a new user right called the pagemover
. Propose that this new user right would be able to move pages that have been move protected (move
) and the ability to suppress redirects (suppressredirect
). Those are pretty much the main idea I have but it was suggested that the movefile
user right be include which is something i am not totally for. I would also like for move-subpages
to be included which would give users with the pagemover user right to move pages with their associated subpages. As with any user right, there must be baseline requirements. What I propose is that the requirements for the pagemover right is that:
Let me just brief you of the benefits of having a pagemover. It would make the job of administrators a little easier by having someone else to userfy pages. It would also give users other than administrators the exclusive right of moving pages with their subpages. I myself am in opposition to the idea of pagemovers having the ability to move files as there are already two groups that can do that and their is no need for three. This could be done in a trial (Of Lord, the evil Trial word comes back) to see if it is a good idea or not. And with that I leave it to the community. maucho eagle ( c) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
suppressredirect
), and up the requirementsThis version would only allow suppressredirect, as moving protected pages seems like a bad idea. The requirements would be:
As one of the more prolific filemovers (currently knee deep in a list of 3000 files that all have to be renamed) this user right would allow me to do my job better, and would save the admins that I work with a great deal of time. If it's never been used in an article, there's no need to keep as a redirect a page named File:DSC01234.jpg or File:IMG02468.jpg when the image itself has been moved to something that's more descriptive. There are plenty of other people that work in plenty of other areas that could all benefit from this.
I do not, however, see any reason why allowing non-admins to move a move protected page around is a good idea. For the very tiny number of instances where it would be constructive, an admin is just a template posting or IRC chat away.
Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
move-subpages
right?
maucho
eagle (
c) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One possibility which might be useful is to allow editors to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a (userspace draft) page out of their own userspace into mainspace. That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. This would require a software change of some sort, but once done it wouldn't require any management. Rd232 talk 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to name names, but a few admins have been giving this right out like candy. I've seen one user with 0 edits in the file namespace get file mover, and several with only a dozen or so edits in the file namespace get the right. Just because someone has autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer does not mean they are qualified for this. The amount of damage that can be done is low, but that isn't an excuse. The ideal candidate would have solid, demonstrable experience with the file namespace, and knowledge of image policy. As is constantly demonstrated with rollbacker, the amount of knowledge in relevant areas a user has is directly proportional to the amount of good that the user having the right generates, and inversely proportional to the amount of headaches or damage causes. I'm not saying everyone has to have 500 file namespace edits and encyclopedic knowledge of the policies, but some more checking needs to happen.
Once a file is moved and the pages that use that file are editied to skip over the redirect, if the old name is bad, the old name should be deleted, period. One admin declined a number CSD G6 tags for badly named images because those names were used for years. I'm sorry, but the name DSC00379 (and other DSC##### names) is utter garbage. Searching for it is impractical, and it gives no information at all to anyone. The entire lot of imaged following the DSC##### format need to be renamed, delinked, deleted, and salted. To say that because it is an older name it should be kept ignores the basic fact that the name is useless. By that logic we'd allow a redirect from HUMAN00317 to George Washington if someone started the article at HUMAN00317. It makes no sense to do so with articles, why so with files.
Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
User:In fact removed his request for rights with this edit. I reverted since this would result in the request not being properly archived, however, he reverted me stating that another admin said he was welcome to do it. If we want a consistent archive, we need to make sure this isn't allowed. I would simply restore and manually archive but I don't want to screw up the archive bot's processes.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Admins handling permissions, please be aware of User:In fact. He has applied for the permission two days in a row, and has shown disregard for the feedback he recieved (essentially that he did not yet qualify for the right). Because resolved requests are archived so quickly after being processed, such tactics are not always apparent.
Based on this attitude and the lack of experience, I would caution admins against giving him the file mover user right for the foreseeable future. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
User Sven Manguard has made a personal attack on me by saying :"I view your experience is minimal, and your trustworthiness and maturity are pretty much zero." or by saying: "I wouldn't support giving you anything past autoconfirmed." In fact ( contact ) 10:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to call your attention to Template:RFP2. Please click on it to see the usage. It should make declining (or possibly accepting) requests a bit easier. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 09:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It would make sense to only allow tool users to grant the account creator flag. I think that it's pretty much this way already, but it wouldn't hurt to make it a guideline. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Can users who are already autoconfirmed become confirmed users? mysterytrey (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a process for removing autopatrolled from users, or is it just done ad-hoc? bobrayner ( talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Do not simply edit this page and add your request, or it may be removed." This is redundant as the page is fully protected and only admins can edit it, who don't need to request permissions.
Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it (and its use) are pretty self-explanatory... see User:Bwilkins/95 ...suggestions and edits are welcome. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Stumbled upon articles created by auto-patrolled User:Assassin's Creed who is creating many poorly referenced articles on non-notable subjects. He should have his auto-patrolled revoked so his articles will be properly reviewed upon creation. Appealcourt ( talk) 04:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
For autopatrolled page, instructions say "Fill in the form below, replacing "Username" with the desired username, and "Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights" with a brief reason for requesting the right" but what the user get is:
{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
Gerardw (
talk) 03:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
with the following {{subst:rfp|UserNameOfPerson|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
and changing "UserNameOfPerson" to the username of the person you are requesting the right for. -
Hydroxonium (
T•
C•
V) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the Wikipedia page entitled 'N8 Group' to 'N8 Research Partnership,' as the name of the group has changed to this. Here is evidence: http://www.n8research.org.uk/about-us/.
GaiaHudson ( talk) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
subst:requested move|N8 Research Partnership}}
on
Talk:N8 Group and it will be categorized as a
requested move. —
Bility (
talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Is it possible that this tool might be not recording articles created recently? I've actually created 43 of them and it is only showing 38.-- Jetstreamer Talk 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to bring up a point about Wikipedia:Requests for permissions it is too often there are very unnecessary (Non-administrator comment)'s It has been suggested that editors be discouraged from making comments such as:
These comments are not needed, they become annoying and the requests become cluttered. Also comments like "this editor does not have enough experience", these are things to be determined by the Admin, and will not be assumed to be correct by an Admin anyway. This does not mean an editor should not post serious issues that might not be readily obvious such as recent controversies with an editor, etc. Nearly all Admin's do their own evaluation before granting a request. The (Non-administrator comment) comments should be held to a very minimum.
As a side note as in "this is my own opinion "Editors who have just themselves received a flag or are new to the project should not be commenting at all.
Overall thoughts?
Mlpearc (
powwow) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(The statement above is paraphrased from another editors concerns, for whom I'd like to thank)
Mlpearc (
powwow) 15:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been creating a standardized response template for Requests for Confirmed. Please see {{ RFPC}} and let me know what you think. I have added parameters for some of the more common responses ... let me know if you want others! ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible for non-admins (such as myself) to request the suppressredirect permission? Though it's not something I'd use in high volume, I'm really no stranger to semi-frequent CSD R3 requests after page-moves, and have often thought that the ability to suppressredirect could at times help me be a bit more efficient, and a little less wasteful of admin resources. I assume this talk page is the best place to ask, as I'm not sure if suppressredirect can even be split out as a stand-alone permission. -- WikHead ( talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've read many times the user-level help page and i still don't get which are the prominent differences between auto-confirmed and confirmed users. I'm autoconfirmed (since four years ago) and i have this little quation burning in my mind asking myself if i need to upgrade my status to confirmed or if i'm not correctly understanding the point. If somebody could explain me, i'd really appreciate the help. Thanks. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter if an article that you have created was not expanded by you? Till I Go Home talk edits 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have updated the page where user permissions are assigned (or rescinded) to include a list of useful template notifications, which you can see here. I er, trust this is useful. Let me know if there's anything else that would be helpful. WilliamH ( talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would like any type of lock for the page Falling in Reverse to stop people with out accounts editing it, there has been numerous amounts of vandalism, e.g A lot of people keep removing alot of the former members, they keep messing with the genres, and they also keep writing things like "this band is guy" "does anyone on actually like this band" "Falling in Reverse are a gay hardcore mainstream band" , this vandalism occurs mostly in the sidebox, in the template, in the first chapter titled "The Drug in Me is You and Record Deal" but the thing is its only people without accounts that do it Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Besides the fact that it looks like pending changes will go live in December, the reviewer user-right user group is being used for the Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool, which will apparently go live in 2 weeks, and they're apparently hoping to see lots more people with the abilities therein.
So I would suggest being prepared for a lot of new requests. - jc37 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm slightly concerned tghat neither the WP:AFT5 or WP:RVW pages have anything about this new use for the reviewer right on. It means that, unless you know where to go, this will pass you by. Could someone more in the know that I am please add something to both pages? Also, do we have any procedure for adding this right at the moment? ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change name of article " Ali Mansuri" to "Kalāteh-ye Manşūr" which is the real census name of the village (kalateh meaning small village in Farsi). The former is a name used for a person (for example it is similar as calling the village of Smithville as John Smith) and therefore incorrect.
Solielwave ( talk) 07:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done:. The page you want to move is not under any protection. You can move it yourself, see WP:MOVE. Be sure to cite a reliable source for the name, and read the policy on WP:COMMONNAME. Also, edit requests go on the talk page of the article you need help with. RudolfRed ( talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I only realized the downside of non-admins closing requests after I posted those (Non-administrator comment)'s. It's not considered biting because I'm not new around here, but I'd prefer if you could please not bold statements directed at another editor and comment on content, not a specific editor. I'm not saying that you violated any policies here, I'm just saying that you as an admin should hold yourself to a high level of conduct by not commenting on other editors. Saying I'm off to a "bad start" is not true as I've never made a bad closure here. I already clarified my role here multiple times above. Anyways, that comment didn't really help us out here and I think that in light of Chip's closures yesterday, we should set strict, official guidelines on when a non-admin should be able to close a request. Here are my thoughts, please Support or Oppose them and comment on them. What's been done has been done, but let's keep in mind not to reference specific people here at all costs.
This only applies by requests for File Mover, Autopatrolled, Rollbacker, and Reviewer.
I've seen you use the {{Not done}} temp a couple of times. What I'm trying to say is I have been told what I can and what I can't do by a current admin on RPP. This is PERMS, so lets not bring other things into it :)-- Chip123456 ( talk) 11:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've been informed on my talkpage that "trainee clerks" have now been appointed for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Apparently they are appointed by User:Armbrust and User:Bwilkins, and they are "allowed" to make non-admin closures of rights requests. (Indeed, anyone could before, especially if frivolous or obviously ridiculous.)
I'm wondering if this is widespread knowledge, or if the trainee clerk concept was discussed somewhere before being implemented? Especially given the previous discussions about an excess of non-admin commentary on rights requests. Also, is there a listing of trainee clerks somewhere? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to clutter the page, but here's the section:
what Electriccatfish2 and Bwilkins and Armbrust talked about
|
---|
WP: PERM Hi! I see that you help out at WP: PERM, even though you're not an Admin. I help out at AIV, too as a non-admin and would like to know how I can get involved in clerking there. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
Thanks so much! Did I close
this correctly? Also, while I sometimes make (Non-administrator comment)'s at WP: PERM, I'm not going to use the (Non-administrator comment) template because it's a closure, not an observation. Regards,
Electriccatfish2 (
talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC).
Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
Posted by ElectricCatfish2, collapsed by me. I'm really not seeing how this can be interpreted as someone being "a trainee clerk" "under" Bwilkins? Could someone explain, please? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
−
Related to the above and going back to this now-archived request, but why is there now an excess of comments on a lot of requests? While I don't mind potential problems being pointed out on some requests, I see no reason for three users or so to all state the same thing (I mentioned this in these places: [2] [3] [4]) or give support/opposition comments. Why also the rush of non-admin closures, such as the ones done in the past several minutes? Again, I don't mind troll requests being closed by anyone, but I think admins are still better off answering the vast majority of requests (I should also note that the non-admin closure template being used here is for XfDs, as Wikipedia:Non-admin closure deals with XfDs, not any type of non-admin closure.) Acalamari 13:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I just saw it and it looks like it is getting totally out of hand. I strongly oppose Non-admins closing requests here unless they are obvious. I mainly work at confirmed, which isn't a problem, and I only close requests for rollback if the user obviously won't receive t (new user with barely any edits, blocked user, etc.) and leave the more borderline ones up to the admins, after all, they can grant it and I cannot. If there is an established editor who I feel will not get it, I'll post an (Non-administrator comment) and won't close it outright. When closing requests here, I go by the cases where a non-crat can close an RFA- By a case of SNOW, NOTNOW, blocked users, and by withdrawn requests. The others I leave up to admins. I hope that nobody objects to when I close a request. I have very specific criteria and will ask BWilkins (an Admin) to close ones for established editors. Regards, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC).
Hello, maybe this is the wrong place to ask this but I was hoping to get a discussion on the possibility of adding a permission to users via WP:PERM. I believe it would be beneficial to allow a permission which let's editors request to be able to delete pages without being an admin. Now I realize that this may be a controversial subject for this reason: Admins are admins for a reason. They have shown the community that they are trusted with a multitude of high level tools to maintain Wikipedia. Allowing a user to gain access to this control and then finding out they abused it could seriously damage the reputation of those who currently admin Wikipedia. But there is a good side to this: maybe by doing this people who actually have "good" knowledge (yes, we'll have to define good later) of CSD's and pages that fail at AFD could delete them without and thus remove the lag time of waiting for an admin. Another possibility would be making the admin request a tiered process. Such as an admin would have let's say 3 levels of controls. For this discussion, we'll label 3 as the highest and what every admin has today. Admin 1 would be able to do things such as delete pages. And a full admin such as an admin 3 would have the power to block and do everything that an admin can do at AN/I now. Thoughts? Thank you! Keystoner idin (speak) 05:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
After dealing with requests at WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, I'd like to suggest a banner (not the page notice, something to be seen before editing the page) at the top akin to the following:
I didnt want to get into too much detail between free/non-free images, as the assitants at FFU are very good at sifting through that quickly! This is only a suggestion, much open to revision/suggestions/corrections/additions/etc. Skier Dude ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Last year the file mover right was introduced at the enwp. I just wondered that at the beginning nobody asked for some file name work nor the use of {{ rename media}}. Is that really necessary? I mean, do we want to handle this right out similar to the admin bit? Trying to create perfect machines before they actually able to use the bit? mabdul 11:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that many rollbackers are requesting the reviewer right to be able to help out with AFTv5. Please note that rollbackers have the same access. Electric Catfish 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, please see Wikipedia talk:Account creator#Updating policy per my note at Village pump. So we can keep it together would you mind commenting there please. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks. Theopolisme (coord of CVUA) and myself were looking to see if we could get a page notice at the top of RFR. It will include a recommendation to sign up to the WP:CVUA before requesting rollback. Of course, it wouldn't be compulsory, just a recommendation. We see so many denied requests saying 'little or no experience'. Having this banner will hopefully reduce the amount of those we get here and give requesters that head start on vandalism here. Please let us know what you think. -- Chip 123456 18:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! What does everyone think about constructing a talkback template for users who are asked a question at WP: PERM/C? Electric Catfish 14:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
May I request for permission? -- Ftsw ( talk) 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Inka 888 ( talk · contribs) had his Twinkle rights removed from lack of knowledge of the different uses of it. Instead of giving him the large set of tools in Twinkle, I believe he is ready for the rollback permissions. I was going to put this request on the main page, but a person cannot nominate another person. So I, Intelati, as Inka 888's mentor, believe he is ready for Rollback.-- Talktome( Intelati) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks -- Talktome( Intelati) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Helpful-Administrator(s)-or-Other-Users-Who-May-Be-Reading-This:
I am interested in viewing certain deleted text available only to "administrators" and "researchers." What is involved in getting the "researcher" permission? How does one go about that. I'm a relatively new editor, but did do some IP-work before joining, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the policies. Have consulted WP:RESEARCHER and that didn't answer all my questions. Not sure where to turn even for more information, much less to request the permission itself. I would appreciate any help from anyone who can point me in the correct direction. Thanks very much for your time. Saebvn ( talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Some users have been informally clerking. I say informally, because obviously WP:PERM does not have formal clerks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, for example, and of course, being an administrator is paramount to actually closing a request for the same reason that an administrator without checkuser cannot execute a request for it at WP:SPI. More often than not, those clerking have disambiguated that they are not an admin, at least. Anyone got any comment on this? WilliamH ( talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Should a note be given at the top of the page explaining that move or edit requests can be made by adding the appropriate template to the article talk page?
Anyone know why requests are not being archived. Anyone know what is the problem is? ➜ Gƒoley Four (GSV) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether it makes sense to require such a large number of previously created articles is being discussed at WP:VPP#Autopatrolled - reduce number of qualifying articles. You are invited to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I try to add a request but every time I do so, my text comes up in some latin looking language after I click preview. Im not sure why, anyone know what Im doing wrong? Creation7689 ( talk) 13:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion at the village pump, a list of potential candidates for Autopatrol has been requested here. It is hoped that giving Autopatrol to these candidates will help reduce the burden at WP:NPP. The list is likely to be several hundred users long, so I am proposing that the list be placed on several sub-pages of this talk page in the form of Autopatrol candidates X where X is a number like this " Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Autopatrol candidates 1" and that each page contains some number (50, 100, whatever) of candidates. The list will be formated with the standard {{ RfP}} template and look similar to this. Then, reviewing Admins could go through the list as they have time and assign Autopatrol to the these candidates if they meet the requirements. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Below are the lists. I will be adding to this as I have time and when the new report is ready.
Thanks HJ Mitchell for the reviews. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks HJ Mitchell and Acalamari for doing these reviews. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Worked through the list to get one more page. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Page 5 is the last from the old list of 05 March 2010. The next page will be from a new list that I requested at Wikipedia talk:Database reports. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that this is a low priority task and can be done as free time is available. Thank you.
I am starting to post a new list of 2,000+ users in batches of 50. There are a couple of changes. First, this list has the {{ RfC}} template substituted instead of transcluded, so you can click the edit link next to the username instead of having to edit the whole page.
Second, there is a new (leave "granted" note) link in the comments section. The link will bring up the user's talk page with a preloaded message ( HJ Mitchell's Autopatrolled notice). The preloaded message is only for users that are granted the right. All you need to do is click the save button on the talk page. The title of the message, the message itself and a signature (~~~~) are automatically filled in. No typing is necessary, just click "save".
The new list starts on page 6. Please let me know if there are any problems and I will fix them. Thanks for your help. - Hydroxonium ( H3O+) 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm proposing the removal (or something to rectify this situation) of the "search an, ani, cn, an3" links at the end of the request palette when you submit a permission request. The reason being is that the user account hosting the tools on the external website has expired, resulting in a bad link (404). As I said before, removal would be an option, not the only one. Angelo ♫ 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, it's almost been a year since my bot started archiving the requests, and I've hoped it's proved to be helpful :). I just wanted to say a big thank you to those of you who are carefully making sure requests are correctly tagged for the bot. You may also be interested in the templates which can be used to control the bot, which are explained at User:KingpinBot#Archiving permissions page. Anyway, what I really came here to say is I've placed a searchbox at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive to allow for easier searching of archives. It can be a good idea to search for previous requests when reviewing a new request, so I hope this is useful. All the best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*{{Usercheck-short|UserNameOfUser}} [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled]] <sup>[[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1|link]]</sup>
. So everything would be the same format except the link link would point to the whole page instead of the individual edit. Also, I would only do this for the declined users in order for a future bot to scan for them and remove them from an auto-generated list if they were recently declined. Oh yes, any input you have for an automated process is most welcome. -
Hydroxonium (
H3O+) 08:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"and have reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia" (in the section 'Permissions' in the bullet point for 'Reviewer') should be "and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia". — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Clicking the "add request" link results in the request being added to the redirect page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Filemover instead of this one. Kelly hi! 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
creating userboxes isn't really 'my thing', but it might be nice for people to have a filemover permissions userbox if some enterprising wiki-artist felt like making one. just a thought. Kaini ( talk) 03:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Should we set the page for auto archiving as the request list is piling up? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. I'm leaving a note here for anybody that might be interested in commenting. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 13:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should really slow down in the handing out of the filemover right. Changes like (cur | prev) 04:41, 17 March 2011 Ktr101 (talk | contribs) (127 bytes) (moved File:Reflected refueling mission.jpg to File:94th Fighter Squadron being refueled by a jet from the 128th Air Refueling Wing with a helmet reflection.jpg: More descriptive file name.)
is not really necessary, and from what I see, is getting more common. And after all, the number of files should actually go down, after the
mass moving ends. 150+ filemovers is actually more than enough to deal with files here IMHO. Just saying.
Reh
man 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
My request added to rollback rights, which I"ve already had and had permission.I requested autopatroll rights and it automatically moved to Rollback rights.Can someone fix this?-- Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Update:Problem solved.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to separate the wiki page for Chad Steelberg & Ryan Steelberg into two separate pages. I created this a few years ago and thought one page would work for both men but now they would like their own pages. The content can stay the same.
Ksnolan ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments would be more than welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NoomBot 7 - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be nice to add {{
anchor|rollback}}
to the page right before the transclusion of
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Adding the above code will create an HTML anchor, thus allowing
WP:RFRB to point directly to the requests for rollback instead of just to the page as a whole. — Preceding signed comment added by
Cymru.lass (
talk •
contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I requested Reviewer status three days ago and have had no feedback on this request.
Please accept my enquiry to see if it may be possible to receive this permission before Friday? I would appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, but it would seem prudent to enquire as I would be thrilled to receive this flag, sooner if possible rather than latter if ever...Kind regards User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett ( talk • contribs)
Thank you Pedro you are a star!
User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
( moved from village pump to generate more consensus)
This is a proposal for a new user right called the pagemover
. Propose that this new user right would be able to move pages that have been move protected (move
) and the ability to suppress redirects (suppressredirect
). Those are pretty much the main idea I have but it was suggested that the movefile
user right be include which is something i am not totally for. I would also like for move-subpages
to be included which would give users with the pagemover user right to move pages with their associated subpages. As with any user right, there must be baseline requirements. What I propose is that the requirements for the pagemover right is that:
Let me just brief you of the benefits of having a pagemover. It would make the job of administrators a little easier by having someone else to userfy pages. It would also give users other than administrators the exclusive right of moving pages with their subpages. I myself am in opposition to the idea of pagemovers having the ability to move files as there are already two groups that can do that and their is no need for three. This could be done in a trial (Of Lord, the evil Trial word comes back) to see if it is a good idea or not. And with that I leave it to the community. maucho eagle ( c) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
suppressredirect
), and up the requirementsThis version would only allow suppressredirect, as moving protected pages seems like a bad idea. The requirements would be:
As one of the more prolific filemovers (currently knee deep in a list of 3000 files that all have to be renamed) this user right would allow me to do my job better, and would save the admins that I work with a great deal of time. If it's never been used in an article, there's no need to keep as a redirect a page named File:DSC01234.jpg or File:IMG02468.jpg when the image itself has been moved to something that's more descriptive. There are plenty of other people that work in plenty of other areas that could all benefit from this.
I do not, however, see any reason why allowing non-admins to move a move protected page around is a good idea. For the very tiny number of instances where it would be constructive, an admin is just a template posting or IRC chat away.
Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
move-subpages
right?
maucho
eagle (
c) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One possibility which might be useful is to allow editors to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a (userspace draft) page out of their own userspace into mainspace. That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. This would require a software change of some sort, but once done it wouldn't require any management. Rd232 talk 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to name names, but a few admins have been giving this right out like candy. I've seen one user with 0 edits in the file namespace get file mover, and several with only a dozen or so edits in the file namespace get the right. Just because someone has autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer does not mean they are qualified for this. The amount of damage that can be done is low, but that isn't an excuse. The ideal candidate would have solid, demonstrable experience with the file namespace, and knowledge of image policy. As is constantly demonstrated with rollbacker, the amount of knowledge in relevant areas a user has is directly proportional to the amount of good that the user having the right generates, and inversely proportional to the amount of headaches or damage causes. I'm not saying everyone has to have 500 file namespace edits and encyclopedic knowledge of the policies, but some more checking needs to happen.
Once a file is moved and the pages that use that file are editied to skip over the redirect, if the old name is bad, the old name should be deleted, period. One admin declined a number CSD G6 tags for badly named images because those names were used for years. I'm sorry, but the name DSC00379 (and other DSC##### names) is utter garbage. Searching for it is impractical, and it gives no information at all to anyone. The entire lot of imaged following the DSC##### format need to be renamed, delinked, deleted, and salted. To say that because it is an older name it should be kept ignores the basic fact that the name is useless. By that logic we'd allow a redirect from HUMAN00317 to George Washington if someone started the article at HUMAN00317. It makes no sense to do so with articles, why so with files.
Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
User:In fact removed his request for rights with this edit. I reverted since this would result in the request not being properly archived, however, he reverted me stating that another admin said he was welcome to do it. If we want a consistent archive, we need to make sure this isn't allowed. I would simply restore and manually archive but I don't want to screw up the archive bot's processes.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Admins handling permissions, please be aware of User:In fact. He has applied for the permission two days in a row, and has shown disregard for the feedback he recieved (essentially that he did not yet qualify for the right). Because resolved requests are archived so quickly after being processed, such tactics are not always apparent.
Based on this attitude and the lack of experience, I would caution admins against giving him the file mover user right for the foreseeable future. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
User Sven Manguard has made a personal attack on me by saying :"I view your experience is minimal, and your trustworthiness and maturity are pretty much zero." or by saying: "I wouldn't support giving you anything past autoconfirmed." In fact ( contact ) 10:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to call your attention to Template:RFP2. Please click on it to see the usage. It should make declining (or possibly accepting) requests a bit easier. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 09:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It would make sense to only allow tool users to grant the account creator flag. I think that it's pretty much this way already, but it wouldn't hurt to make it a guideline. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Can users who are already autoconfirmed become confirmed users? mysterytrey (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a process for removing autopatrolled from users, or is it just done ad-hoc? bobrayner ( talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Do not simply edit this page and add your request, or it may be removed." This is redundant as the page is fully protected and only admins can edit it, who don't need to request permissions.
Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it (and its use) are pretty self-explanatory... see User:Bwilkins/95 ...suggestions and edits are welcome. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Stumbled upon articles created by auto-patrolled User:Assassin's Creed who is creating many poorly referenced articles on non-notable subjects. He should have his auto-patrolled revoked so his articles will be properly reviewed upon creation. Appealcourt ( talk) 04:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
For autopatrolled page, instructions say "Fill in the form below, replacing "Username" with the desired username, and "Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights" with a brief reason for requesting the right" but what the user get is:
{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
Gerardw (
talk) 03:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
with the following {{subst:rfp|UserNameOfPerson|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
and changing "UserNameOfPerson" to the username of the person you are requesting the right for. -
Hydroxonium (
T•
C•
V) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the Wikipedia page entitled 'N8 Group' to 'N8 Research Partnership,' as the name of the group has changed to this. Here is evidence: http://www.n8research.org.uk/about-us/.
GaiaHudson ( talk) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
subst:requested move|N8 Research Partnership}}
on
Talk:N8 Group and it will be categorized as a
requested move. —
Bility (
talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Is it possible that this tool might be not recording articles created recently? I've actually created 43 of them and it is only showing 38.-- Jetstreamer Talk 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to bring up a point about Wikipedia:Requests for permissions it is too often there are very unnecessary (Non-administrator comment)'s It has been suggested that editors be discouraged from making comments such as:
These comments are not needed, they become annoying and the requests become cluttered. Also comments like "this editor does not have enough experience", these are things to be determined by the Admin, and will not be assumed to be correct by an Admin anyway. This does not mean an editor should not post serious issues that might not be readily obvious such as recent controversies with an editor, etc. Nearly all Admin's do their own evaluation before granting a request. The (Non-administrator comment) comments should be held to a very minimum.
As a side note as in "this is my own opinion "Editors who have just themselves received a flag or are new to the project should not be commenting at all.
Overall thoughts?
Mlpearc (
powwow) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(The statement above is paraphrased from another editors concerns, for whom I'd like to thank)
Mlpearc (
powwow) 15:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been creating a standardized response template for Requests for Confirmed. Please see {{ RFPC}} and let me know what you think. I have added parameters for some of the more common responses ... let me know if you want others! ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible for non-admins (such as myself) to request the suppressredirect permission? Though it's not something I'd use in high volume, I'm really no stranger to semi-frequent CSD R3 requests after page-moves, and have often thought that the ability to suppressredirect could at times help me be a bit more efficient, and a little less wasteful of admin resources. I assume this talk page is the best place to ask, as I'm not sure if suppressredirect can even be split out as a stand-alone permission. -- WikHead ( talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've read many times the user-level help page and i still don't get which are the prominent differences between auto-confirmed and confirmed users. I'm autoconfirmed (since four years ago) and i have this little quation burning in my mind asking myself if i need to upgrade my status to confirmed or if i'm not correctly understanding the point. If somebody could explain me, i'd really appreciate the help. Thanks. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter if an article that you have created was not expanded by you? Till I Go Home talk edits 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have updated the page where user permissions are assigned (or rescinded) to include a list of useful template notifications, which you can see here. I er, trust this is useful. Let me know if there's anything else that would be helpful. WilliamH ( talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would like any type of lock for the page Falling in Reverse to stop people with out accounts editing it, there has been numerous amounts of vandalism, e.g A lot of people keep removing alot of the former members, they keep messing with the genres, and they also keep writing things like "this band is guy" "does anyone on actually like this band" "Falling in Reverse are a gay hardcore mainstream band" , this vandalism occurs mostly in the sidebox, in the template, in the first chapter titled "The Drug in Me is You and Record Deal" but the thing is its only people without accounts that do it Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Besides the fact that it looks like pending changes will go live in December, the reviewer user-right user group is being used for the Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool, which will apparently go live in 2 weeks, and they're apparently hoping to see lots more people with the abilities therein.
So I would suggest being prepared for a lot of new requests. - jc37 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm slightly concerned tghat neither the WP:AFT5 or WP:RVW pages have anything about this new use for the reviewer right on. It means that, unless you know where to go, this will pass you by. Could someone more in the know that I am please add something to both pages? Also, do we have any procedure for adding this right at the moment? ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change name of article " Ali Mansuri" to "Kalāteh-ye Manşūr" which is the real census name of the village (kalateh meaning small village in Farsi). The former is a name used for a person (for example it is similar as calling the village of Smithville as John Smith) and therefore incorrect.
Solielwave ( talk) 07:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done:. The page you want to move is not under any protection. You can move it yourself, see WP:MOVE. Be sure to cite a reliable source for the name, and read the policy on WP:COMMONNAME. Also, edit requests go on the talk page of the article you need help with. RudolfRed ( talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I only realized the downside of non-admins closing requests after I posted those (Non-administrator comment)'s. It's not considered biting because I'm not new around here, but I'd prefer if you could please not bold statements directed at another editor and comment on content, not a specific editor. I'm not saying that you violated any policies here, I'm just saying that you as an admin should hold yourself to a high level of conduct by not commenting on other editors. Saying I'm off to a "bad start" is not true as I've never made a bad closure here. I already clarified my role here multiple times above. Anyways, that comment didn't really help us out here and I think that in light of Chip's closures yesterday, we should set strict, official guidelines on when a non-admin should be able to close a request. Here are my thoughts, please Support or Oppose them and comment on them. What's been done has been done, but let's keep in mind not to reference specific people here at all costs.
This only applies by requests for File Mover, Autopatrolled, Rollbacker, and Reviewer.
I've seen you use the {{Not done}} temp a couple of times. What I'm trying to say is I have been told what I can and what I can't do by a current admin on RPP. This is PERMS, so lets not bring other things into it :)-- Chip123456 ( talk) 11:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've been informed on my talkpage that "trainee clerks" have now been appointed for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Apparently they are appointed by User:Armbrust and User:Bwilkins, and they are "allowed" to make non-admin closures of rights requests. (Indeed, anyone could before, especially if frivolous or obviously ridiculous.)
I'm wondering if this is widespread knowledge, or if the trainee clerk concept was discussed somewhere before being implemented? Especially given the previous discussions about an excess of non-admin commentary on rights requests. Also, is there a listing of trainee clerks somewhere? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to clutter the page, but here's the section:
what Electriccatfish2 and Bwilkins and Armbrust talked about
|
---|
WP: PERM Hi! I see that you help out at WP: PERM, even though you're not an Admin. I help out at AIV, too as a non-admin and would like to know how I can get involved in clerking there. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
Thanks so much! Did I close
this correctly? Also, while I sometimes make (Non-administrator comment)'s at WP: PERM, I'm not going to use the (Non-administrator comment) template because it's a closure, not an observation. Regards,
Electriccatfish2 (
talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC).
Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
Posted by ElectricCatfish2, collapsed by me. I'm really not seeing how this can be interpreted as someone being "a trainee clerk" "under" Bwilkins? Could someone explain, please? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
−
Related to the above and going back to this now-archived request, but why is there now an excess of comments on a lot of requests? While I don't mind potential problems being pointed out on some requests, I see no reason for three users or so to all state the same thing (I mentioned this in these places: [2] [3] [4]) or give support/opposition comments. Why also the rush of non-admin closures, such as the ones done in the past several minutes? Again, I don't mind troll requests being closed by anyone, but I think admins are still better off answering the vast majority of requests (I should also note that the non-admin closure template being used here is for XfDs, as Wikipedia:Non-admin closure deals with XfDs, not any type of non-admin closure.) Acalamari 13:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I just saw it and it looks like it is getting totally out of hand. I strongly oppose Non-admins closing requests here unless they are obvious. I mainly work at confirmed, which isn't a problem, and I only close requests for rollback if the user obviously won't receive t (new user with barely any edits, blocked user, etc.) and leave the more borderline ones up to the admins, after all, they can grant it and I cannot. If there is an established editor who I feel will not get it, I'll post an (Non-administrator comment) and won't close it outright. When closing requests here, I go by the cases where a non-crat can close an RFA- By a case of SNOW, NOTNOW, blocked users, and by withdrawn requests. The others I leave up to admins. I hope that nobody objects to when I close a request. I have very specific criteria and will ask BWilkins (an Admin) to close ones for established editors. Regards, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC).
Hello, maybe this is the wrong place to ask this but I was hoping to get a discussion on the possibility of adding a permission to users via WP:PERM. I believe it would be beneficial to allow a permission which let's editors request to be able to delete pages without being an admin. Now I realize that this may be a controversial subject for this reason: Admins are admins for a reason. They have shown the community that they are trusted with a multitude of high level tools to maintain Wikipedia. Allowing a user to gain access to this control and then finding out they abused it could seriously damage the reputation of those who currently admin Wikipedia. But there is a good side to this: maybe by doing this people who actually have "good" knowledge (yes, we'll have to define good later) of CSD's and pages that fail at AFD could delete them without and thus remove the lag time of waiting for an admin. Another possibility would be making the admin request a tiered process. Such as an admin would have let's say 3 levels of controls. For this discussion, we'll label 3 as the highest and what every admin has today. Admin 1 would be able to do things such as delete pages. And a full admin such as an admin 3 would have the power to block and do everything that an admin can do at AN/I now. Thoughts? Thank you! Keystoner idin (speak) 05:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
After dealing with requests at WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, I'd like to suggest a banner (not the page notice, something to be seen before editing the page) at the top akin to the following:
I didnt want to get into too much detail between free/non-free images, as the assitants at FFU are very good at sifting through that quickly! This is only a suggestion, much open to revision/suggestions/corrections/additions/etc. Skier Dude ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Last year the file mover right was introduced at the enwp. I just wondered that at the beginning nobody asked for some file name work nor the use of {{ rename media}}. Is that really necessary? I mean, do we want to handle this right out similar to the admin bit? Trying to create perfect machines before they actually able to use the bit? mabdul 11:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that many rollbackers are requesting the reviewer right to be able to help out with AFTv5. Please note that rollbackers have the same access. Electric Catfish 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, please see Wikipedia talk:Account creator#Updating policy per my note at Village pump. So we can keep it together would you mind commenting there please. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks. Theopolisme (coord of CVUA) and myself were looking to see if we could get a page notice at the top of RFR. It will include a recommendation to sign up to the WP:CVUA before requesting rollback. Of course, it wouldn't be compulsory, just a recommendation. We see so many denied requests saying 'little or no experience'. Having this banner will hopefully reduce the amount of those we get here and give requesters that head start on vandalism here. Please let us know what you think. -- Chip 123456 18:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! What does everyone think about constructing a talkback template for users who are asked a question at WP: PERM/C? Electric Catfish 14:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)