Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request not being attended to?[edit]

I want to know why my request isn't attended to here I applied on the 28 February 2018 but everyone that has come below is attended to and the new one who applied today has been attended to. Please help what going on? Chabota Kanguya (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icem4k: someone will get to it - the Administrative backlog is huge. — xaosflux Talk 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

userRightsManager now allows you to enter an expiry[edit]

Hello all, I wanted to let you know that the userRightsManager script now allows you to enter an expiry. For now this is presented only as a date selector, which I hope will suffice? I suspect you rarely are granting for less than a day. If you want to also enter a time, I can make that happen (there's supposedly a DateTime widget), I just figured the simpler the better. I don't plan on hacking in a dropdown to select "1 day", "1 week", etc., unless you really really want that =P To grant the right indefinitely, just leave the expiry field blank.

In addition to this, I have modified {{account creator granted}} and {{rollback granted 3}} to accept an |expiry= parameter, so that the message left on the user's talk page will indicate it was granted temporarily. userRightsManager will pass in the value accordingly. Please feel free to copy edit what I've added, and add the code to the other templates too, if you want. Make sure to also update the template documentation :)

Pinging likely interested people, @Xaosflux, TonyBallioni, Cyberpower678, Swarm, Amorymeltzer, Mz7, and Beeblebrox. If you don't use this script, I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to sell it to you. So... try it! Especially at WP:PERM/NPR it is useful because it does the extra step of adding the user to the mailing list. Regards MusikAnimal talk 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @MusikAnimal: Just used it for the first time, works like a charm! Great job as always. Swarm 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking for consensus[edit]

Hi, all. I am looking for consensus to add an additional rule to the guidelines for granting for Page Mover and Template Editor. I think the request for these two user rights should stay open for at least 3 days (with the exception that obvious unqualified requests should still be declined right away). I am not sure if a full-fledged RfC is necessary, but please voice so if that is the case. My rationale is that these two are sensitive user rights and should ideally stay open longer to potentially involve opinions from different editors and administrators, instead of relying on the discretion of a single administrator. I invite comments from fellow editors and administrators. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I am not opposed to the suggestion, count me in as a supporter. I think this discussion should be considered as well: Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Raise the bar?. It was a plain opinion discussion based though, which later became inactive. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Neutral. These permissions have scope to cause large scale disruption - especially template editor (e.g. Template:Infobox is template protected). The messes made by extended moves are more involved to tidy up, but disrupt on a smaller scale. However, at the same time, we're talking about user rights with less than 200 members each. I'm inclined towards NOBIGDEAL as a result... hence the strong neutral. Bellezzasolo Discuss 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, these are not "sensitive permissions" (though template editor would approach it). There is no evidence given of systemic misuse of the permissions that would be corrected by increasing the standards or requirements for granting the rights. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it also leaves room for turning them into a consensus making process like a mini-RfA where people go back and forth as to whether or not they think their friend (or on the flip side, the person they don't like) should be given the flag. Request for permissions is not a consensus based process. It is an exercise in individual admin discretion. At PMR and TE there is often more discussion than there is at other rights, and we do tend to be stricter, but any admin can grant them at any time if they feel the editor can be trusted to do so. On the flip side, there are plenty of requests that can and should be declined quickly without the need for discussion.
    I'd also oppose a quick fail criteria as a way to solve that last point: it'd be overly bureaucratic and unneeded. Page mover and TE work fine now. Page mover we've started getting stricter on collectively than we have in the past, which leads to more complaints for declines, but I don't see how turning it into a consensus based process would help that: instead you'd turn the page into a mini-RfA oppose section. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed to this, the guidelines are enough to ensure some basic checks, but I think we've got two things working in our favor. The first is that, sure, some damage can be done, but not too much too quickly, and it's really easy for any sysop to quickly remove a bit even as a precaution while things get sorted. The second is that the archiver doesn't go off for 72 hours after approval, which gives a few days for someone with concerns to comment. I generally think the system of rough guidelines, anyone can give out/take away works pretty well. I'm also wary of the RfA-ishness that Tony brings up. ~ Amory (utc) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think that template editor is such a sensitive permission. Also, per Special:ListGroupRights Page Mover is not by any stretch a sensitive permission. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Who decided that these were sensitive permissions? It seems that some are very protective of allowing certain roles without any evidence of them causing major issues. I can imagine that template editor could be misused (as unprotected templates were a few months ago), but allowing someone to move pages isn't going to throw wikipedia into chaos. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Page mover is sensitive because it allows the deletion of pages (which is what redirect suppression is) without any oversight. Whether that be through the RM process for moves between mainspace or through an admin having to view an R2 when sending something to draft. We have had users with no move experience use this in a less than competent way, which is why SMcCandlish raised the issue on the page mover page. While it may seem ridiculous to those who are not regulars at RM or RM/TR, things as trivial as capitalization can be very controversial (see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_March#Jungang_Line for an example of a capitalization case that is currently subject to a contentious move review.) The sensitivity here is that there are very few reasons to actually suppress a redirect, but it also gives people the ability to move around the standard community review process for moves with virtually no oversight. There is a reason those of us who are more active in RM are more cautious in granting it. Additionally, our standards aren't high: meet the guidelines and show an actual need, and not being able to move a page once is not a need. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope. Page mover only allows moving of pages, which isn't the same thing as deletion since a) the page is still visible just under another title and b) anyone can undo it. Even if a redirect is suppressed, the former title still prominently displays the move log (see Topic Disability for example) and where the page was moved to. Oh, and both are logged in the same place and show up on watchlists, histories etc. in the same way. A suppressed-redirect move can be scrutinized in the exact same fashion as a regular move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Redirect suppression is the exact same thing as speedy deletion: that is what it replaces from non-admins (see WP:PMRC). That is the whole point. You are preventing the creation of a redirect that would otherwise have to be deleted under a CSD criteria, or the case of round-robins you are replacing tagging a page for G6 or placing it on RM/TR for an admin to G6, and the number of requests that go into RM/TR that are declined and sent to discussion is not insignificant.
          Part of the point of the RM and TR process is that there are a lot of obscure pages on Wikipedia that do not have many active watchlisters. The article naming policies strive for consistency across titles among other things, and familiarity with what is and isn't controversial is needed to decide whether it would be better to take it to discussion (see the caps example above.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it is a specific type of speedy deletion that unlike others is seldom controversial (and easily repairable). Contentious moves are usually moves that are contentious, not leftover redirects. Move discussions can and are often closed by regular editors; no special permission needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
            • It's not just seldom controversial, it's required to be uncontroversial. Tony's point is that when someone with PM uses their permission, what they are technically doing is moving a page to a new title and deleting the redirect that is left behind under G6. It shouldn't be an issue (hence, the permission) but any pagemove&delete is definitely open to abuse; hence, for example, the prohibitions against such deletions in G7 and R3. I clearly think G6 is ripe for abuse, but I don't think you two are really disagreeing here, just swapping semantics. The end result is still a paper trail, but one that's harder to put back together. ~ Amory (utc) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
              • The issue isn't that it's technically dangerous, as much as that it gives the technical ability to preform potentially very controversial actions (both in terms of moves and in NPP) without much in the way of a second set of eyes. I think the change that we've seen recently at PERM/PMR is that instead of handing it out just on the numbers, we are now treating it more like other PERMs and looking to see if someone actually has put in technical requests beyond the one they put in 2 hours ago that made them think they should apply for this permission (when title changes are the stated reason for needing this).
                We do this at rollback with vandalism, we do it at NPR in terms of work with new content/AfD, and we do it at autopatrolled to see if the 25 articles would need a second set of eyes. Do I think that means we should make this a consensus based process? No, I think admins are perfectly capable of approving and declining requests on their own, and that we are capable of asking for a second opinion if needed or if the request becomes contentious. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted above making editors wait 3-4 days is a bit much and again as noted is similar to an RFA - I understand the whole logic behind this but to me if it turns out an editor is untrusted then they should have it revoked with the disruptive edits reverted. –Davey2010Talk 22:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for page mover, Neutral for Template Editor. PM really isn't that big of a deal, and it is already easy-go as needed by any admin (and blocking is always there for disruption). TE's can cause mass disruption to a lot of readers if misused, but I'm not seeing there is a problem to fix (admins too speedily processing these), in many cases TE requests are already left open for feedback, q/a, other admin inputs and the processing admins seem to be pretty good about this. Now here is the real kick for this, while it is the normal process, policy doesn't require these requests to go through PERM at all - so unless we are going to require that they are only processed via PERM, there is a gaping hole in this. — xaosflux Talk 03:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Xaosflux: True, and since the revocation criteria are clearly defined for both PM and TE, technically it should never be a huge concern (reverting the relatively rare misuse doesn't take much time usually). And I agree that the TE request process already receives adequate comments and attention. And the final thought is haunting; I think we should never require all process to go through PERM (IMO private requests usually involve users that the admin already knows well I think), so I am unable to address this concern. Alex Shih (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Wholeheartedly agree. ~ Amory (utc) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well intended Alex Shih, but I have to oppose on mainly two reasons: 1) It would turn PERM in to a RfA-style process with newbies themselves coming in to 'vote' like they already not infrequently try to do, and 2) the requests often need more admin eyes. I made a mistake recently (the first in 1,000s of requests I've processed here) by according someone a user right off-PERM, only to be pointed out that there was already a raft of admins opposing it at PERM. So I had to eat some humble pie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Page mover; Mild Oppose Template Editor. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)