Wikinews talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 1

Template?
OK... should probably have brought this here first... sorry!

anyways I propose adding a template simpler to the following on the page:

Username
Description of why you nominate this person. If you are nominating yourself, describe why you believe you should be an administrator.
 * If you've been nominated by another person, support (or deny) the nomination here

Questions/Answers
Wikinews users may ask questions for the nominated user here.

Wikinews Community Voting
similar to what we have on other pages (like Requests for Interview and Request for accreditation), any comments? terinjokes User Page / Talk 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems a little bit instruction creepy. I don't have any objections, but really, is their a need. Most people would be able to create an admin request without looking at a template. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We use a template for requests for accreditation, i understand their are differences between there and here, but still see no reason we shouldn't have a template. Do you? terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do; there's no need for one, so why introduce one. Dan100 (Talk) 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to bring some order to the process too, but indeed it instruction creep.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No reason not to have a template, but we are not Wikipedia. Personally, I say if you wanna ask questions, put em on the user's talk page. Then provide a link to prevent cluttering it. Thunderhead - (talk) Congrajulations to Kat! 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a template, but make it easy like RyanB88 .--RyanB88 - (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Half are inactive
Just under half of all administrators are inactive. --Nzgabriel | Talk 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to impliment a process like this on Wikinews.  Thunderhead  ►  02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, as those who have left no longer need admin features, and if they come back they can ask for them back again, and we take into consideration that they once had them. --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support this. I will be writing up a policy, and call a vote on it. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. I'll vote.  Thunderhead  ►  03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Inactive Policy Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it to make everyone happy. Nyarlathotep 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Car


I was given this temporarily when I became an admin, and no one has taken it since. I'll park it here for anyone's use. -- Zanimum 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually a couple other people also took it for a spin with the car after your adminship passed. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, I thought there was only one... --  Zanimum 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinstatement
I think it should exist, it is still at the descretion of the beaurecrat.--Ryan524 - (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dislike the reinstatement policy. There is no harm in waiting a week and letting the community decide again. --Cspurrier - (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, if you give up adminship willey-nilly (or lose it some other way I geuss), you should be prepared to not have adminship. Otherwise we'll get people stepping down and picking it back up repetitively. If you're trusted, etc, you'll get it again anyways (eventually, maybe not on the first try, but you will get it again). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think if someone was doing that the b'crats would not allow it. But I agree waiting a week is no big deal, we'll see what others say, if thats seems to be the consensus than so be it, IMO it dosen't matter either way but I thik its nice to have.--Ryan524 - (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think in all circumstances it is appropriate to have a discussion, as Cspurrier says, waiting a week isn't going to cause any problems and any issues which surrounded the removal of rights can be discussed. I don't think we should hold our bureaucrats solely responsible for determining whether a past administrator is fit to have the rights again. There are a broad range of issues to consider. Adambro - (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On a wiki like this, I agree with Bawolff. The RfA process here isn't broken like enwp's yet :) Daniel (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm more neatural than anything on it, nobody else has voice an opionion in favor of keeping it...--Ryan524 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who has given up adminship on Wikinews a couple times... I prefer getting approval from the community before regaining the bits. -  Amgine | t 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki nl
Hello, could someone please fix the interwikilink to the nl-Wikinews page? Changing the old link from nl:Wikinews:Sysop to the new one: nl:Wikinews:Moderator. Thank you!! Greetings from the nl-wiki! NL-Romaine (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cirt! NL-Romaine (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The mystery two
Who are the two sysops that are included in the total on WN:RC, but not listed on this page? --Brian McNeil / talk 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per this list User group:sysop, I believe the two are and . Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Neat page on Meta
Here is a neat page on Meta-Wiki, perhaps we should add a link to it on WN:A. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Wikinews

Migrate to Requests for permissions
Since there are no current RfA or other requests, do you guys think we should start migrating over to that page for the requests? Thunderhead 20:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that now is an excellent time to do that. At least/especially for all the requests for permissions that currently are performed on this page already - IMO for that process the move should not be controversial. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was odd the requests were held here. This page should be about administrators, and a list of them, but not the actual requests themselves. A permissions page is much better.  Majorly  talk  14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Def., I am completely in favor of that. The Mind&#39;s Eye (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There does not appear to be objection to this so I will make the changes soon if we have unanimous support for this change. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Might want to mention this on the mailing list. Thunderhead 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are already enough eyes watching WN:A, but I flagged this discussion and will wait a couple more days for input. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

✅. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwikis

 * I think there is repeating of interwikis. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's wrong, but the interwiki list isn't duplicated, while it appears on the page duplicated. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying is a problem. Can you try and describe it better - perhaps give an example article and detail where, and what you think the errors are? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On Administrators - the entire interwiki list is doubled for me (WinXP, IE7 if that helps). Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see the problem: as well as a list of interwikis, there's an inclusion of a subpage, Administrators/interwiki links. Going to do a quick investigation to see which one belongs. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, here's the deal: User:Daniel moved the interwiki links to the subpage in August. User:BOT-Superzerocool then readded them to the page in October. What do we want to do about it? Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the subpage, perhaps? That seems to be causing the problem. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right. It's easier than trying to work around the bot (which will presumably readd them if they're removed), and it doesn't really clutter up the page *that* much. Will do in a second. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New page?
Now that we have two more user rights, in addition to the four that were already available, I propose a single page for all of the rights, that is more clear than Administrators. Most of this page was blatantly copied borrowed from meta, but it's certainly a start, and I hope it will generate some discussion.

By the way, I'd like to say it's amazing that I still remember all of this wiki-code ;) Thunderhead 12:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dup?
See also Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions. (It may make sense to have that page separate as the discussions might take a shorter period of time.) Cirt (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's partly where I got the idea from - we should probably keep ed/rev and the bot requests separate, but pulling all of the others together was the idea I was going for. Thunderhead 12:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This way WN:A will get cleared up a bit. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this page a whole lot. The Mind&#39;s Eye (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thunderhead 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, we'd probably keep Accreditation requests seperate also. Thunderhead 13:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as that is a relatively different type of process. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for all these pages. They are all, except for accreditation, requests for permissions. They should all take place on one page, Requests for permissions. Spreading them out seems to me to be unhelpful.  Majorly  talk  16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We could have template magic to have the best of both worlds (people could choose between using this page, or the separate page). Bawolff ☺☻ 07:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the ideal way to go. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators
I think more of the consensus/approved instructions already in existence at Administrators should be copied over here. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The Mind&#39;s Eye (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied some stuff over from WN:A, feel free to copyedit. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates
Every time we get round to closing something like an RfA I'm left scratching my head about what templates are used. Can someone who has a memory longer than that of a goldfish please add closing instructions to the page? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously...
What on earth has happened to RfP? I suggested that we create the subpages thing in IRC - however I also asked that we leave it for now! RfP looks like a shambles now - it's cluttered, unorganised, and messy! PLEASE can we get this reverted - it needs to be developed before being released! -- Sken   my talk 09:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This rearrangement needs to be sent back to the drawing board.  It's too cluttered, making a nomination has become more technically tricky, and I think open discussions should be actually on the page itself, not in subpages:  It's fine to archive each discussion on its own subpage &mdash;preserving the chronology, of course, which gives the best of both worlds&mdash; but carrying out the discussion should happen on the page that everyone already has on their watchlist.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, it was supposed to be a complete re-organization of the archives in subpages, and a re-formulation of the way to do requests for adminship/bureaucrat, etc. It is based on Wikipedia, completely, so how can you think it is hard to watchlist requests for adminship AND the separate RfA page for XYZ. Just move your pointer over the star at the left of the arrow that is next to the search box, then click it. Not hard at all. Diego Grez return fire 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not hard, but harder than doing nothing. I don't really like the way they do this on Wikipedia, as it means only project page wonks participate in discussions.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The history of all of the archived discussions has now been completely lost --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What history? The most is still at Administrators and Requests for permissions if that is what you mean. Diego Grez return fire 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears previous archiving borked the revision history anyway so nevermind. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)