Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page semi-protected
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts
"Wikipedia:RFP" redirects here. For requests for protection, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Archived requests

Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter
Rollbacker
Patroller
Transwiki Importer

Permissions

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 by default 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 (autopatrolled). See Wikipedia:Patroller.
  • 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 and stewards.
  • 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.
  • IP block exempt is a right given to trusted named users who may edit from an IP address that would otherwise be blocked through no fault of their own.

Adding a new request

Rollbacker

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.

Flood

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.

Uploader

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.
Image uploads are not allowed, this should only be requested for uploading other media (such as audio clips)

Administrator

Please read the criteria for adminship 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 Simple Talk. 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 Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship for these users.

Current time is 21:11:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Purge


Current requests for rollback

None at this time

Current requests for patroller

User: Sir Banking

Hi, I would like to request patroller rights.

I have been actively contributing by creating multiple articles and improving existing content. I consistently aim to follow community guidelines and ensure the accuracy and quality of the information I add. I have gained the understanding and familiarity with policies required to identify good edits and spot potential issues. I am interested in helping maintain the quality of new contributions and supporting the community by patrolling recent changes.

Thank you for considering my request.

 Done having gone through your contributions I can see that you create new articles often and that is one of the requirements for patroller. fr33kman 00:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, it is a pleasure to be able to share my experience. Sir Banking (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that now with patroller rights, your new articles are usually not overseen by other users. I just checked your most recent articles. Please always make sure that they are simple and have categories and that they are tagged as stubs as needed: Special:Diff/10412054 & Special:Diff/10412058. That was pretty much the reason I did not hand out the right automatically upon reviewing the new pages feed. -Barras talk 07:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always learning and appreciate your feedback sir. Your suggestions often highlight things I might miss, and as a patroller, I'll make sure to follow Wikipedia's guidelines even more closely from now on. Thanks for trusting me with this responsibility, I really appreciate it. Sir Banking (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bobherry

Hello, I am requesting patroller be added to myself. I have made many articles from the simple wiki and have experience with patrolling pages already on enwiki and informally on the simple wiki (tagging pages connecting to wikidata etc). I understand the policies and guidelines associated with this. Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 13:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I checked some of the pages you created, and they seem to require a significant amount of work or tag to be marked as patrolled. One of the things about this right is that it automatically marks the assigned user's page as patrolled. I think you should read some of our very good pages to learn more about how the content work is done here. Thanks, --BRP ever 13:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for transwiki importer

None at this time

Current requests for adminship

Ternera

Ternera (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 20:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)


Hello everyone! I'm here to nominate Ternera for adminship. Ternera has helped a lot of this wiki and is active in a few different areas, primarily focusing on anti-vandalism but also helping out at RfD and with article cleanup. They applied for adminship back in 2024 and withdrew as it was too soon. I was the first to oppose that request, but since then I have seen them get more experience and show an improved understanding of admin policy and norms around here. Better still, they are also a metawiki and global sysop so they can clearly be trusted and have experience using the tools. I think Ternera would make a fantastic administrator. I hope the community agrees and wish them the best of luck in this RfA! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination and look forward to hearing input from the community. Feel free to ask me any questions! Ternera (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support fr33kman 21:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support upon reviewing their work, I can't see any reason to oppose. There is a huge backlog, the community could do with another. --IWI (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I mean the RfD backlog. --IWI (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trusted and experienced user. -Barras talk 10:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. alr have the support of three (former) admins. I don't see why not --Cactus🌵 hi ツ 10:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Trusted elsewhere, with good results. --M7 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I don't see why not. I have been too busy, else I would have nominated them myself. Also, noting that the previous concern of limited experience has clearly been addressed at this point.-BRP ever 13:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support While I understand the issues set forth by those abstaining and opposing, I personally see a larger use for the tool in anti-vandalism (for the record I also didn't have a lot of articles created when I was sysoped).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per BZPN, C&W and Bob - Truth be told I'm just not seeing a need for the tools. other than reverting vandals and !voting in RFDs they've not done anything that makes me say "Yes, they definitely need the bit". I appreciate RFD participation is still considered "adminny areas" but for me it's not enough. Anyway article work appears to be tagbombing and vandal work is via SWViewer (my point is I revert vandals on-site not externally and 9 times out of 10 improve/update that article after reverting vandals which ofcourse neither are requirements here just my preference). Anyway I'm not seeing a need for the tools and would agree this is a WP:NOTQUITEYET but don't want to outright Oppose as don't think we're at that stage either, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 18:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Moved from Comments/Abstain to Oppose per Ferien below). –Davey2010Talk 12:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Abstain: overall, I see a lot of positive work from you in various spaces. What I don't necessarily like, however, is the fact that you contribute very little to the articles – 25 articles created in total, only a few of which this year, and some of them, I'd say, are not of the best quality. So, good luck, I'll abstain for now. BZPN (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about being concerned about lack of content contributions; however, I will say that simply counting the number of articles created isn't the best method. A good content worker can expand upon existing articles as well. I'm on the fence because I see good work in areas that admin tools are used. I know that content work isn't a prerequisite to adminship. But, of the last 500 live mainspace edits, 177 were Twinkle based edits, 145 were rollbacks, and 98 were adding categories with HotCat. That means that only 20 of the last 500 mainspace edits dating back to April 19 were not tagging articles, rolling back vandalism, or adding categories. Do I see reason to think that they will abuse the tools? No, I don't. So I lean support, but would like to see more efforts to article work. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I agree with the above, I see good work however I want to see more article work also. I lean towards WP:NOTQUITEYET. I abstain for now, good luck and keep up the good work. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to go badger the abstentions as I understand people prefer to see more content, but ftr we do have quite a few admins who had no content experience when they actually became an admin. So this isn't massively unusual as admin work and content work doesn't really intersect – and many content-heavy candidates often fail RfAs for this reason. Also I'm a bit confused why people are "abstaining" nowadays instead of being neutral, as it's quite confusing (abstaining can also mean avoiding participation entirely) but that's a discussion for another day. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Cactusisme

Cactusisme (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 11:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)



Hi everyone,

I’ve been active here for quite a while, mostly working on simplifying articles (one Good Article I helped promote is Dog), patrolling new pages (User:Cactusisme/QD log), reverting vandalism (undos and rollbacks), and helping new users whenever I can.

Lately, I’ve run into many situations where admin tools would be useful — such as deleting pages or blocking persistent vandals, including LTAs and block evaders. Often, when I’m editing, no admins are around, and sometimes there’s a fair amount of disruption or backlog that needs urgent cleanup. I’d like to be able to respond more directly in these cases.

My previous RfA (linked here) mainly did not succeed due to limited experience at the time — I had only been active for about three months. It has now been 11 months since then, and I’ve gained significantly more experience and insight into the project.

I’m happy to answer any questions or comments. Thank you for considering my request.

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nom

Support

  1. I want to Support especially for your enthusiasm. This is also a moral support for you to continue your effort in what you do around Wikimedia projects. Keep editing, be cautious, while continuing to like and always improving your work. Ciao, M7 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I've had several interactions with Cactusisme that make me question their fitness for adminship. This conversation in particular is the one that I came back to in their archives. They made a non-admin close of an RFD after the nominator withdrew the RFD. Cactusisme only closed the RFD discussion; they did not go back and remove the RFD from the article or add the historical RFD banner to the article talk page. When I pointed out that they needed to follow all steps they said: "Hmm, I pretty sure I didn't have the time to do it, since we are all volunteers and the RFD tag is removed l, I don't see any issues." I also wasn't impressed with this discussion about a script that they made; they offered no real explanation as to what the script it and why we should want to use it. Other minor things like closing good article discussions early or inserting themselves into an unblock discussion and encouraging the use of AI to write unblock requests leave me feeling like they would not be able to handle the admin tools and the interactions that come with the community as an administrator well. Additionally, based on what I've seen in their writing at noticeboards and talk pages, I get the feeling that the answers to questions below are aided by AI and not genuine responses. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  (change conflict) Oppose I am sorry but I think there are many areas where I see that you need more time and experience. Not just in terms of editcount but in terms of actual understanding of those things. I was going through some changes and I saw this. 'Things' is a better word there as 'page' on simple can generally be misunderstood with article. Bolding words in the middle of sentences makes it very hard for people to read. Previous bolding are already causing quite a bit of problem for readers. This aside, I have observed many poor comments on RFDs from them. They improperly closed a PGA mid-consideration a while back from what I remember.-BRP ever 13:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am going to have to agree with the above user. I see issues with their interactions over time and I also have concerns that the below answers were ai generated replies. For this reason, I am going to have to say Weak Oppose Bobherry Talk My Changes 13:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose sorry but I think you need more experience so it's a NOTNOW, but I can see me supporting you next time provided you can address the above concerns fr33kman 18:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per everyone above, On a few occasions the candidate has been borderline disruptive by commenting on things that don't concern them and when people reply saying why they shouldn't comment the only reply they get back is "ok" (I used to be the same but I realised I was beginning to be more of a hindrance than of help which is why I stopped), I'm also astonished they'd use AI to answer RFA questions of all things in the world!, The general lack of understanding is also a concern. All in all given my concerns and those above I cannot support this RFA at this present time. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I was originally inclined to support this nomination, but I'm afraid issues brought to light above mean I don't (at this moment) think the user should have admin tools. Still, I hope they keep up their good work and continue to learn. --IWI (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Agree with those above me, WP:NOTNOW.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions from Ferien

Hi Cactus, firstly thanks for volunteering, it's very much appreciated! I just have some optional questions for you.

  1.  Question: You come across an article about John A. Doe. The article content is the following: John A. Doe (born 31 July 1987) is a British singer. He is well-known for singing Cacti in the Desert, which he won an XYZ Award for in 2023. The XYZ Award isn't really anything special, in fact if we look further into it this XYZ Award was actually given to him by his wife Jane B. Doe, but that's not mentioned in the article. The article is nominated for A4 deletion. How would you proceed?
  2.  Question: A trusted editor in the community has been blocked with the reason {{checkuserblock-account}}. The community is outraged, with the trusted editor insisting they have only used one account and other editors and even admins joining in on the backlash. The explanation in the unblock request in front of you seems reasonable. How would you proceed?
  3.  Question: Finally, which policies/guidelines would you change and why?

Best of luck for this RfA, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q1. If I saw that article, the first thing I’d do is check if it clearly says why the person is important. That’s the main test for A4 deletion — does it show the person is notable?
The only claim is that he won an XYZ Award, but if that award isn't well-known and was actually given by his wife, it doesn’t really prove notability. The article doesn’t mention that connection, which could also be misleading.
If I check and the award isn’t significant, I would support the A4 deletion. If I were an admin, I’d still double-check the award first just to be fair. If there’s any chance the award matters or someone might want to discuss it, I’d take it to RFD instead.
Overall, I’d stay calm and kind (see Wikipedia:Be kind) and explain in the deletion summary or talk page why the article doesn't meet the notability guidelines.
Q2. I would not unblock on my own.
As an admin, I would:
  1. Refer the unblock request to a CheckUser.
  2. Calm the discussion by encouraging editors not to speculate and to wait for proper review.
  3. Request for checkuser to verify the users claim and proceed from there.
Q3. Most of our policies work well, but one thing I think could be better is how we explain notability and sourcing to new users. The rules like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability are really important, but they can be hard for beginners to understand—especially here on Simple English Wikipedia.
For example, a lot of new editors try to write about local people, small clubs, or topics they care about. But their pages often get deleted quickly because they don’t realize they need reliable sources or that the topic has to be covered by secondary sources to be considered notable. Even though the rules are there, they’re sometimes too complicated or detailed for new users. Having a simpler guide with easy examples showing what counts as a good source or a notable subject would help a lot. It could reduce confusion and help new editors make better pages.
Another thing I’d like to improve is making Wikipedia:Blocks and bans easier to find and understand. Sometimes people don’t know why they got blocked or how to appeal, and clearer info could stop a lot of frustration.
Another big thing is that some of these policies are from en and may not currently follow our current ‘’ways’’. I would try to fix this also.
I wouldn’t make these changes on my own — I’d talk about them first on Wikipedia:Simple talk to get everyone’s opinion and build agreement (see Wikipedia:Consensus). Cactus🌵 hi ツ 12:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to pile on, as I think you do a lot of good work here. I just wanted to point out that as a general rule with A4 - or I guess with quick deletion in general - if we are having to go off-wiki to figure out what to do, it's not eligible for quick deletion. Any award can serve as a claim to notability. The claim doesn't have to be significant enough to pass notability guidelines on its own, it just has to seem important. A4 is a messy criterion and one that even existing admins can get confused over. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 19:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from CountryANDWestern

You say in your statement that there are times where there are backlogs that require "urgent" clean up. Can you give examples of what kinds of things require an "urgent" cleanup and what backlogs you have seen? CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the question. There are times when long-term abusers repeatedly make disruptive edits or add inappropriate content, such as explicit or harmful information, to pages. These situations require prompt action, including blocking the users.
    Unfortunately, when no administrators are available, these problems can persist for longer periods. Pages with explicit content may stay visible, which is not ideal for readers or editors even if oversight was requested.
    Having access to admin tools would allow me to respond quickly to these urgent issues by blocking repeat offenders and protecting pages as needed.
    Another one is the RFD backlog, where requests open weeks ago can pile if there is not enough admins to handle them. Cactus🌵 hi ツ 13:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Bobherry

You mentioned that some of our policies are outdated and don't follow our current ways. What do you mean by this and how would you attempt to fix this? We do have WP:FOLLOW for this reason. Bobherry Talk My Changes 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the question! What I mean is that some policies on Simple English Wikipedia are copied from English Wikipedia but haven’t always been updated to fit how we work here. Sometimes the language or examples don’t match our community’s simpler style or our specific rules/regulations that we have.
    While WP:FOLLOW exist, we can rewrite parts to be clearer, shorter, or more relevant to our community’s needs.
    To fix this, I would start discussions on Wikipedia:Simple talk to gather input from other editors and admins. Cactus🌵 hi ツ 13:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Current requests for bureaucratship

None at this time

Current requests for checkusership

None at this time

Current requests for oversightership

None at this time

Current requests for removal of rights

None at this time
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=10409442#Current_requests_for_trans-wiki_importer"