Wiktionary:Requests for permissions

This page is used for the requesting and removal of all tools on the Simple English Wiktionary. Please place whichever tool you want to request permissions for under the appropriate headers.

Administrator tools are there to better help the community. They are not a power. They also do not make certain users better than others. Jimbo Wales, the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, said that adminship "should be no big deal".

If you want to request rollback:- click here

If you want to request autopatroller:-click here

If you want to request removal of your permissions then :- click here

If you want to request a permission, request it here. Use the code below for your request.

{{subst:rfp|your user name|Reason here --~~~~}}

Please read the criteria for adminship before requesting the sysop flag.

Requests for adminship

None at this time

Requests for bureaucratship

None at this time

Requests for rollback

User:Vibhijain

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]

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

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]

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]

Requests for autopatroller

None at this time

Requests for removal of rights

Desysoppings

Wenli (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protects • deletes • moves)
Cromwellt (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protects • deletes • moves)
Coppertwig (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protects • deletes • moves)

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]