Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfP)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived requests

Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter


See also: Wikipedia:Administrators

There are many kinds of special permissions that users can be granted. These include:

  • Rollbacker is a user who can quickly revert changes by other users. See Wikipedia:Rollback feature.
  • Flood is a very short-term permission that a user can get from any administrator to make lots of small edits in a row. When using the flood permission, a user’s edits will be hidden from Special:RecentChanges.
  • Patroller is a user who can review new pages that other users make by marking them "patrolled". Any pages a patroller makes do not have to be reviewed by others.
  • Administrator (also called an "admin" or "sysop") is a user who can delete and protect pages and block users. Admins can also grant the rollback, flood and patroller permissions.
  • Bureaucrat (also called a "crat") is a user who can grant and revoke the admin and bot permissions.
  • Checkuser is a user who can see private information about editors (for example, their IP addresses).
  • Oversight is a user who can hide private information from everyone except other oversighters, stewards and founders.
  • Transwiki importer is a user who has use of the import tool to move pages here from other projects. This is not to be confused with importer, who can upload XML files using the import tool. Importer is not granted on this wiki.
  • Uploader is a user who can upload files locally on this wiki. This permission is granted temporarily and will be removed once the task is complete.

Adding a new request


You must be an active member of Simple English Wikipedia, preferably with some experience in reverting vandalism.

Rollback must never be used to revert in edit wars, or to remove good-faith changes. Use the undo feature for this, and give a reason. Rollback does not let you give a reason when reverting. It must only be used to revert bad changes. It can and will be revoked if misused.

Click here to request rollback.


Requests for the temporary (short-term) flood permission should be made on an administrator’s talk page, on the #wikipedia-simple connect irc channel, or at the Administrators' noticeboard.


Requests for temporary (short-term) file upload permissions should be made on the Administrators' noticeboard. An administrator should be notified once the uploads are done so that the permission can be removed.


Please read the Criteria for administratorship before nominating another user or yourself, to make sure the nominated user meets the criteria for becoming an administrator. You may want to look at the archives first so you can see why other people’s requests have succeeded or failed.

Administrator tools are there to better help the community. They do not make certain users better than others. To nominate a candidate for adminship, please follow these instructions:

  1. In the input box below, replace USERNAME with the username of the person you are nominating for adminship.
  2. Complete the fields given to you.
  3. Once the user has accepted, add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<insert name of person nominated>}} underneath the Current requests for adminship heading below, at the very top of the list.
  4. Optional: Add {{rfa-notice}} to the candidate's userpage.

Notes: This is not the place to get "constructive feedback from others", if you want feedback from others in a less formal environment, please see Editor Review. If a candidate is successful, an administrator or bureaucrat should add them to MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.js.

Bureaucrat, Checkuser, or Oversight

For the bureaucrat, checkuser, or oversight permission, a user first needs to be an administrator. There are special requirements at Criteria for administratorship for these users.

Current time is 02:17:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Current requests for rollback


Rollbacker on enwiki, recently noticed a large spike of editing tests and vandalism on Simple. Twinkle's okay but rollback makes things a lot easier, especially with Huggle. Also a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, so I'm familiar with global revert procedures and have read WP:RBK. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit, also noting IP vandalism spike e.g. here where a one-button revert would be easier. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Rollback experience on enwiki, and has been appropriately undoing and warning users. Vermont (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I have been reverting vandalism and undoing problmatic edits here on the Simple English Wikipedia for some time now. Although I am fairly new here on the Simple English Wiki, I do have rollback on the English Wikipedia and am very experienced with it, and can be trusted with it, both here and on the English Wikipedia. It would make undoing vandalism much faster if I can get rollback rights here on the Simple English Wikipedia too. I have also made reports to WP:VIP , I have throughly read and understand WP:RBK Thanks. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Editor is experienced, has been doing upstanding work on this project, and has rollback on other projects. Trusted user. Operator873talkconnect 03:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Operator873:unrelated but maybe you could help, I realized that the {{User2}} template in the "count" it shows the enwiki count not the simple wiki count, is it intentional? Thanks so much.--Cohaf (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I will check. Probably a side effect of an import. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Looks like I forgot to edit the config in the Module when I brought the Module over. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Djsasso.--Cohaf (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Since my previous request, I have been working on vandalism reverting constantly, and warning users. I have also edited here in the past as User:WikiImprovment78. I have rollback rights on the enwiki as well. IWI (chat) 17:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Good anti-vandalism work and rollback on other wikis; no issues. Vermont (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Current requests for patroller

None at this time

Current requests for importer

None at this time

Current requests for adminship

TDKR Chicago 101

TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This user has been an excellent contributor on this Wikipedia for several years, with 87,000 edits. They have created many articles, and constantly maintain articles that need it. For example, they have been virtually the sole editor to Deaths in 2019, which otherwise, may not even exist. This demonstrates that they can ensure things are looked after and updated, which could be used for administrator tasks. Their last request here took place nearly 5 years ago, and it was a very close then result anyway. I think they are easily worthy of the mop (even maybe by enwiki's current standards, if they were editing there, which is saying something). IWI (chat) 23:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination in the hopes of having the great privilege and honor of serving as an admin here. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. Support - As nominator. IWI (chat) 23:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support - Competent and reliable editor, who be be a great asset to the admin team.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. Oppose for now. While I acknowledge that TDKR Chicago 101 has been doing some fantastic article work I haven't seen much anti-vandalism work (even then, not warning users) which is largely what the admin toolkit opens up. Furthermore their lack of comments on talk pages and other discussion pages don't instill much confidence in their ability to communicate with other users or make some of the decisions that admins typically have to do. Hiàn (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I have basically the same opinion as Hiàn. Lets give him rollback and see him doing some work with that if his main concern is vandalism. In fact I will give it to him now if someone didn't do it already based on the conversation below. But for me the biggest issue is lack of discussion on talk pages which basically equates to community involvement. This is very important for anyone that wants to be an admin so they have an understanding of community opinions on various things. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Perhaps ask the user of their understanding? They may be an observer of discussions, since their edits have never really raised concerns. IWI (chat) 01:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You can read everything on this wiki and, if you don't comment or discuss, there isn't community involvement. Vermont (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As Vermont mentions, even if you read everything that doesn't mean you have interacted with the community. He does good work creating articles, but being good at content work does not necessarily mean they are right for an admin position. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are both right but just because they are not involved, doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t understand how the community works, which is why I suggest asking them questions like "if you had this issue on a talk page, how would you behave" etc. IWI (chat) 11:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
In permissions requests, especially for administratorship, I prefer to see tangible evidence of community knowledge rather than quizzing. Vermont (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Some examples: Participting in RfD's, discussing on ST, bringing up issues on AN, discussing on talk pages (user and article space). Vermont (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, if they aren't taking part in RfDs for example how can we know/trust they understand how to close them or what is a valid/invalid comment. Asking a question in a RfA just means they will likely give a "book" answer so to speak. I prefer to see experience. The saying "It's not what you say its what you do" covers this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Can we move this entire conversation down as it's really too huge already? Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We could, but since its a response to a specific !vote it really belongs up here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


As it's the second request, I've moved it. Vermont (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to note procedurally the first is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TDKR Chicago 101.--Cohaf (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no doubt that TDKR is one of the most prolific content creators on this Wikipedia, although I don't see a need for administrator permissions. Vermont (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The question I have is where they intend to help as an administrator? If they want to access the Mediawiki namespace and make editing easier, that can also be a need although an EP will be better. So hope to hear from them. --Cohaf (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted vandalism especially when they vandalize pages that I created in the pass. I would also often go to the recently created pages section and see if anyone created an article with the wrong content. For example, User:197.53.194 created Roman Catholic Diocese of Lae but the content is something weird like "ur mom weird". I would basically re-write the entire thing to reflect the pages true content. Though I do admit I haven't been active is reverting vandals, I have been re-establishing pages to prevent them from being deleted. Though I do promise if promoted, I will work harder to revert vandals and restore pages. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't take an administrator to do any of that. If you became an admin, you would sometimes have less time for non-admin things like that. Your response makes me wonder why you wouldn't "work harder to revert vandals and restore pages" without being an admin. Also, why the emphasis on reverting vandalism on pages you created? Other vandalized pages need it just as much. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I don’t see that the user will abuse or misuse their tools. People are protective over their creations naturally; I don’t think they were suggesting they would ignore all other vandalism. My question is what admin tasks will the user carry out; I think that is perhaps a more important question. IWI (chat) 02:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly I meant it as @ImprovedWikiImprovment: say. I promptly undo vandalism on pages that were created by myself because they are on my watchlist henceforth easier to catch. Once again, I go to my habit of monitoring the recently created pages section where I make sure to obscured pages are being created and if they're fixable, I will restore them. I said this as proof that I do look after vandals. I am already a mark newly created pages as marked as I am a proud patroller. As previously noted I to update and keep all Deaths in .... pages kept and well maintained. If I become an admin I also promise to do the same to other articles and Wikipedia needs to ensure that Simple English Wikipedia is running well through marking newly created pages, to fixing up newly created pages so they can stand on their own (not to be nominated for deletion), updating articles, implement tags on articles that has issues and to continue to undo vandals among others. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@TDKR Chicago 101: But what exact work will you do that requires admin tools, I think they want to know that. IWI (chat) 02:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I will delete pages that are simply disrupted or untrue. I will also implement protection status for pages that are frequently being vandalized (something that I have personally dealt with), block disruptive users and implement my rollback rights on pages that have edits that must be undone. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "delete pages that are simply disrupted"?
  • "Implement protection status for pages that are frequently being vandalized": how frequent would the vandalism need to be to protect? When would you use each type of protection?
  • "Implement my rollback rights": that is not an admin function.
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6:: First: For instance if someone created a page titled: "History of Chicago" but the content is either a complex copied version for English Wiki or with an unrelated content for example "yep this happened a long time ago", they would be deleted. If someone created an article of a controversial figure or event and the content is simply disruptive then I would delete it and notify the user who created it. Second: Usually articles that are being frequently vandalized that I've seen are based on controversial or current articles. For instance, during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, his article was being vandalized by either one or two frequent users. I would implement a temporary status for pages that are being frequently vandalized after I see the search history and its basically an edit war of edits being undone frequently. If I see there is no end to a constant back and forth reverting of a vandal's work, then that page would get protection status. For the rollback rights I meant is as an addition, so basically if I were to be an admin I would also implement my rollback rights on top of that. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You keep talking about frequent vandalisn, but you haven't answered my question about how frequent vandalism needs to be before you would consider it time to protect a page. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Just about the rollback part, I realise they didn't have rollback bit yet. If you still don't know, you can apply for that at RFP without you being an admin. --Cohaf (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback rights are definitely an admin feature, Auntof6. IWI (chat) 08:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there has been some confusion here? Rollback rights are/can be granted to ordinary users; the rollback feature is not reserved exclusively for administrators. Chenzw  Talk  09:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I know, but this user doesn’t have rollback, and would be granted it if they became an admin. IWI (chat) 09:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Although it's one of the rights that comes with being an admin, it's not an admin function. I'm actually a bit surprised that TDKR doesn't already have rollback. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Per my comment above I have now given it to him. So at the very least he now has rollback. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure if less talk page discussions is a sufficient argument to oppose, especially since this Wikipedia is relatively small. I see no reason they will abuse the permissions. If one isn’t looking for vandalism, one won’t revert vandalism. Perhaps he just left that to the admins intentionally. In any case, it’s unusual that there is more opposition here than the last time (the user withdrew their request last time); perhaps standards have risen? IWI (chat) 01:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The first before withdrawal was 5/3, now it was 2/2. Oppose in percentage is higher but not absolutely. --Cohaf (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We’ll see anyway. The concerns raised are valid but not deal-breaking IMO – that’s what I'm trying to say. IWI (chat) 01:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still deciding, and I think many others are. Hope you can have more patience. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I don't think it's helpful to guess what might be or might have been in TDKR's thinking. Maybe you could let him speak for himself more. (In fact, for me, letting another person defend him instead of speaking for himself is a point against his nomination.) As far as processes he hasn't been much involved with, it's certainly OK for a non-admin user to choose not to do anti-vandalism work, or not to participate in discussions. However, it's also reasonable for people to want to see how he handles those things before supporting his nomination. It may not be a dealbreaker for you, but each of us gets to decide for ourselves whether it's a dealbreaker for us. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
IWI. It is exactly because this wiki is small that it is important. Because we are so small the slightest miss-step of an admin is felt so much more than it is on a big wiki. Admins who were not aware of how things worked here have caused massive issue in the past. The same happens when editors come from other wikis and assume things here work the same as their other wiki. Having been here so long, and having had to deal with both smart and poor admin choices in my time here things like not getting involved is a pretty massive deal breaker. Perhaps one of the biggest. It is also not all that unusual to have less support the second time around. Looking at this wiki, history trends toward the more requests for admin one has the less support they get each time. It is why I always suggest people not self-nom incase they are not actually readry, because after the first request it gets that much harder to become an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a reason I included an "IMO" in my comment. I have patience, just voicing my opinion. IWI (chat) 03:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I haven't been active as much here because my college just began and I was adjusting to my ordinary cycle of assignments and time for the Wikipedia. I wanted to be nominated because it has always been a dream of mine to become the selected few who held the title of an admin. Though I appreciate the gratitude towards my work, I can understand that I still lack experience than I did in my first nomination. I have learned what I still need to do to still be admin. I express my gratitude towards those who supported my nomination and for those who opposed it I would also like to thank for praising my work, but also gentle laying down the groundwork I still need to be an admin. At this rate I doubt I won't be an admin after a second bid, but I am not withdrawing. Perhaps by 2022 (my ten year anniversary here) I will be ready to become an admin or possibly retire to focus on my potential life career. Regardless I express my gratitude towards the nominator, my supporters and those who opposed for being so gentle. I will work harder to become a more admin like while thanking the user who upgraded my status (I will be working to see how it works and how to use it wisely). I am letting the users who are undecided to know that I will work and I will be a value to this Wikipedia. Eventually when I see that this will become stale I will withdraw, but for now I will work with the following concerns raised all I ask if patience and to be very clear on questions and concerns so I may fix them or respond to them effectively. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Newbie remark, hope is acceptable here, I know I'm quite new here. I will acknowledge your impressive content contributons TDKR Chicago 101. This is clearly very commendable and I am really very impressive by it. This is very labour consuming and thank you for your service to this encyclopedia. I will also acknowledge your humility in your responses and willingness to serve. Not participating in discussions isn't wrong always, like if you don't understand an article, !vote Delete per nom is annoying as it does not add to the discussion. I have the following questions and hope you can answer. 1. Can you at least participate in a few AFDs in these few days? When should a page be protected, full , semi? Can we block this IP if they are misbehaving when the WHOIS is YISHUN SECONDARY SCHOOL and what block will that be and how long should the block be calibrated? What is the definition of consensus? And one, if a group of established editors revert a new user with the edit summary (f*** off), what will you do? Thanks for your willingness to serve and I look forward to your answers. gosh, why I am sounding like Senate Committee on Armed Services hearings. Must have watched too much of proceedings. --Cohaf (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Current requests for bureaucratship

None at this time

Current requests for checkusership

None at this time

Current requests for oversight

None at this time

Current requests for removal of rights

None at this time