Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for permissions/Archive 4

< Wiktionary:Requests for permissions

Requests for adminship

change

User:Hydriz

change

Hi, I am here today to request for adminship. I have the knowledge of how to use the administrative tools and I have made lots of constructive edits to Wiktionary, including edits to the Help: and Wiktionary: namespaces. See my contributions for evidence. —This unsigned comment was added by Hydriz (talk • contribs) .

  • Sorry, but no. Looking at your most recent main space contributions here (I don't really care about meta namespaces), the articles still need work. An admin needs to create entries that are complete and don't need much more work. Basics like transitive/intransitive and countable, uncountable and so on needs to be added. An admins contribs to main space need to be correct since they are autopatrolled. I wouldn't even give you the autopatrolled right now. You don't even have 300 edits at all. Out of those 122 are in main space. You just started to edit here actively on November 26. Not even two weeks yet. Show us that you are or going to be a long term editor and not just someone who gets adminship here and steps away some time later. -Barras (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the criteria for adminship is only a soft rule, which means that it can be forfeited. Hydriz (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can, but this is a !vote and I simply gave you my opinion on this request. I haven't had a look at the criteria page for ages. -Barras (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, I just wait? Hydriz (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think you're a great contributor and are very helpful, but I'd like to see you be around for a few more weeks. You haven't been here actively for even a month, and I'd feel more comfortable if you got used to our formatting rules a little better, like Barras says. Please don't get discouraged if this request doesn't pass! I'll probably support in another few weeks. We should not have high adminship standards here. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to take the opposing tack to Barras here... I am not worried about length or depth of contributions as long as the person demonstrates enough awareness of what the projects are for, how they work, and a dedication to the things that matter. Conversations with Hydriz on IRC have alarmed me to an overwhelming lack of that elusive "clue". A desire for change and implementing new things is not necessarily bad, but some things- say, creating VIP- are just not needed, and create extra bureaucracy. Additionally, things like numerous, in which the example sentence has dismal grammar, would be concerning edits to see from an administrator. Hydriz is an enthusiastic and bold contributor, but perhaps not cut out for adminship at this time. Sonia (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to point out that we should be getting more administrators that are helpful into this wiki since it is both small and has lots of errors that needs to be corrected. Hydriz (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain how the admin flag is required to correct errors? Pmlineditor ∞ 14:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The MediaWiki namespace has lots of errors. Hydriz (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, if you see errors in the MW namespace, maybe you could make a note of them at the admin noticeboard or ping individual sysops? I'm sure someone would be available to correct them for you. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Barras and concerns raised by Sonia. Ancient Apparition (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Barras and Sonia, I really don't think you are fully ready. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as unsuccessful After over one week with several people's input and noone supporting it is a very clear case to not promote the user to an admin here. sorry, but take it easy and try it again later. -Barras (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I did not know the community would oppose me. Better luck next time for me... Hydriz (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for bureaucratship

change
None at this time

Requests for rollback

change
 Y Done Thanks for your help. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done - have fun. -Barras (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done -Barras (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done -Barras (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done Tempodivalse [talk] 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I am new here but I have Rollback on Simple and English Wikipedia, as well as account creator, filemover, reviewer and AWB Access on English Wikipedia. I am a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team and use the Simple Wiki Counter Vandalism Channel for the Simple Wikipedia and I noticed that Wiktionary reports are in that channel as well so I thought I could help here as well. Than you, Jamietw (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jamietw (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


User:Vibhijain

change

I would like to get rollback rights to fight vandals on this wiki. This would help me if I find vandal here at SWMT. I am a amin on sa wiki and pi wiki and a rollbacker on commons, hi wiki an simple wiki. I will respect the community's decision, whether in support or oppose. Vibhijain (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Although you haven't edited here, I looked through your contributions on other projects and think you can be trusted. Please remember to only use rollback in cases of clear vandalism. Thank you for volunteering to help out! Tempodivalse [talk] 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:TBloemink

change

Recent changes patroller on the Simple English CVN channel, which monitors both Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and also rollbacker on simple.wikipedia, en.wikipedia and nl.wikipedia - TBloemink (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Please remember to use rollback only in clear cases of vandalism. In other instances it is better to use the "undo" feature with a descriptive edit summary. (Although I'm pretty sure you already know that.) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) - TBloemink (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hazard-SJ

change

I am a member of the SWMT, and am voiced in #cvn-simplewikis connect, the CVN IRC channel for recent changes here, where I patrol for vandalism, and would like the right to help with vandal-fighting. I am a rollbacker both on the Simple English and English Wikipedias, as well as a reviewer on En Wikipedia and Editor on MediaWiki.org. I know I have not been much of an editor here, so I'll respect whichever decision is made.  Hazard-SJ  ±  00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ±  15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frigotoni

change

Although I haven't edited here so much, I would like to get local rollback rights to fight vandals on this wiki, and it would help me through SWMT Irc channel. I'm active as a rollbacker on simple.wp, en.wp as well as es.wp. I would use the tool only in cases of cleary vandalism and I've already read your local policy. Finally I just say I’ll respect the community's decision, both in support and in oppose.Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89

change

I have rollback and patroller on both En and Simple Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a reason to have it here too? -Barras (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to fight vandalism... Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever used the undo tool here to combat vandalism? Addihockey10 (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited much here, especially not recently. I'm not sure having rollback on another wiki is sufficient reason for requesting it here as well. I'd be more inclined to grant this request if you'd been active undoing vandalism or writing entries. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katarighe

change

I have rollbacker in Simple and English Wikipedia and it would be good to have it here too in order to combat vandalism easily. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I said almost the exact same thing above and it was declined... Also, you have one edit in article space Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I haven't edited here so much because i'm semi-active, I would like to get local rollback rights to fight vandals on this wiki better, and it would help me through SWMT IRC. I'm active as a rollbacker on simple.wp, en.wp as well. I would use the tool only in cases of cleary vandalism and I've already read your local policy how to use it well and perfect. I say I’ll respect the community's decision, both in support and in oppose but i'm doing well in improving the dictionary. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(no admin observation)Hardly any change here, on en.wikipedia and on simple.wikipedia too with rollback tool. I think you are trying to collect flag, if I'm not mistaken. I dont' think it is a good idea, anyhow if you really used these flags, I agree with you, but for example I don't see you so often in IRC.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not collecting like a hat collection but this helps me combating vandalism cross-wiki. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not done - Help fighting cross-wiki vandalism? Being a steward mayself, I would have noticed you. This doesn't really look like much cw-work. Thanks for applying, but become active here first. -Barras (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for autopatroller

change
 Y Done Thanks for your help. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wpeaceout

change
  •  N Not done - things like the creation of mansess should not happen. Other examples of why you should not be an autopatroller: 1, 2, 3 and 4. For autopatroller you should be more familiar with the creation of entries. If you wish, I can look for more examples. As of now, you don't get this tool. -Barras (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for removal of rights

change

Desysoppings

change
End date of this discussion: September 7, 2011
Rules: at least 65% of the votes cast need to be in support that the users lose their tools. Less means they keep them.

I propose to remove from all these users their sysop flag. I don't see a reason for them to have the tools. They didn't use their tools for over one year now and are inactive. Also, there are no edits within the last year. I will now inform them about this. --Barras (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - May I put in my support as per my "nomination"? -Barras (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have a longstanding disagreement with the inactivity policy. What harm are these users doing? If they return, we'll probably give them +sysop back pretty quickly, so taking it away in the first place is unnecessary. What're the advantages of desysoping? The time taken for this vote could be better spent improving main namespace. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To only reply to the last part: Since no one is really active here anyway, this is a rather bad reason. No one would spend any time editing here, even if there would be no voting. -Barras (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken, that last sentence is an argument better suited to more active projects. However, the first part of my statement still stands and is, I feel, relevant. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What harm are these users doing?: They harm actually the global sysops. If they see many admins, and don't check for there activity, they may don't act. As we know, we need them sometimes to help here. If they return, we'll probably give them +sysop back pretty quickly, so taking it away in the first place is unnecessary.: Yes, we will just give them their tools back, without much controversy about it. It is done in less then one minute to grant this right, even if they have to wait 6 hours until one of us appears. What're the advantages of desysoping?: Global sysops may be more easily willing to help here when needed without them saying "Oh, there are plenty of admins.". Also, my very personal opinion: no use/activity → no rights. Hope that explains it a bit. -Barras (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that the number one harm is that they are artificially inflating the admin numbers, and since the GSysop right is based off the numbers, the project could well lose the protection of the GSysops. Also, which such a long period of inactivity, they present a risk of the account being hijacked (a small risk, but it's happened). I also feel that with such a long time away, they may not completely remember all the policies, and may make decisions which are based upon a policy that existed, but does not anymore. By removing the right, we ensure that the risk does not exist, at very little work for us. I support the removal. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the point that these users keeping their tools don't do much harm, but I am more concerned over the issues of (1) the accounts compromised and (2) the high number of sysops "driving away" the global sysops from helping out in this Wiktionary. --Hydriz (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Hydriz & comments above: Any admin account can be compromised, it doesn't matter if it's active or not. How often do you change your password? I'm guessing not much more frequently than a user who only edits a few times a year.
    The global sysop argument I can understand, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Wouldn't they be more likely to look at RC, and notice that nobody edits on a daily basis, than consulting the userlist? IIRC we can stay in the system by "opting in" even if we don't meet the >10 admin requirement for SWMT. *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk] 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no need to keep inactive admins, however they should be given their rights on getting active again after consensus.Vibhijain (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five votes, one in oppose and 4 supporting this. Makes a ratio of 80%. Admin access removed per WT:DEADMIN and this discussion. -Barras (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_4&oldid=210452"