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 08:56:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Purge


Current requests for rollback

User:Ieditrandomarticles

I've been reverting loads of vandalism with WP:TWINKLE and I've been editing a while so I think I am ready for rollbacker perms Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 01:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like to see more reverts, per this. But we will see what an admin says. --Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this for another admin to decide, but I will note your first edit here was about 2 months ago, although I haven't found any issues with your edits (minus the "Orange cat funny" incident) I still feel like rollbackers should be around for a bit longer.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit here was in January 20th, which was 5 months ago (see here). Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 01:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, still not sure if I'd give the flag but I'm certainly more satisfied with your time spent editing here.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally seen a lot of activity from this user including reverting bad edits and I'm more than happy to grant rollbacker at this time. fr33kman 20:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for patroller

None at this time

Current requests for transwiki importer

None at this time

Current requests for adminship

Barras

Barras (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 18:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)


Hi everyone, today, I am pleased to nominate Barras for adminship. He is a former administrator who has recently returned to activity after a break. Barras previously served as an admin on this wiki for about a decade, from 2009 to 2019, and it’s truly an honour to nominate someone with his level of experience.

During his previous tenure, Barras consistently demonstrated level-headed decision-making and a strong commitment to the project. I believe his return is a net positive for the wiki. Now that he has reacquainted himself with the processes and policies, I see no reason why he shouldn’t have access to the necessary tools to support the community more effectively. He is already contributing actively, particularly in patrolling new pages—an area where we are currently most in need of help. In our recent conversations, I’ve also updated him on the latest changes and developments. There is much more I could say, but I’ll keep it brief. Thank you for considering this nomination.--BRP ever 18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you very much for the nomination and the kind words, BRPever! I gladly accept your nomination. -Barras talk 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator.--BRP ever 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support happy to return :) Raayaan9911 18:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Hell yes! fr33kman 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support of course --M7 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm always delighted to see old admins return who used to be active here. Some things have changed, yes, but policies are mostly the same, especially compared to 2019. I think Barras, like Fr33kman, Griff, M7 etc, since returning has shown understanding of policy and a "need" for the tools since his return, and this thing is no biggie after all. Mistakes happen, and can always be corrected too, so long as they're not done en masse. Welcome back Barras! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Ternera (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. While I recognize Barras' past contributions and long-term admin experience (2009-2019), I believe that returning to adminship after such a long break requires a longer and more sustained period of re-acclimation. His recent activity, while energetic, began only on 24 May 2025, after over a year and four months of complete inactivity (last edit on 15 January 2023). That’s a significant gap in this project, where both community dynamics and policies may have changed. Although he’s made many edits since May 24, two weeks of activity is far too short to assess whether he’s truly re-acclimated to the project and its current conditions. BZPN (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Question - What is your understanding of "the latest changes and developments" between 2018 and now based on your conversations with BRPever and your editing experiences in the last 20-ish days? CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over the past years, I've noticed quite a few changes across the Wikimedia projects including simple WP — though I'm sure there are still things I haven't fully explored yet. That said, many of the core principles and basic workflows have remained familiar, which I actually appreciate. Some of the newer features, like the ability to block accounts in a more nuanced and differentiated way (instead of full-on blocks), are steps in the right direction in my opinion. I'm also really curious to see how working with the new temporary accounts instead of IP addresses will play out in practice — it's a big shift, but it could bring real improvements to moderation and privacy. I'm also glad to see that there's now a global Universal Code of Conduct team in place. Having a consistent framework for respectful behavior across all projects is something I strongly support. One major change I've noticed is the shift in how we deal with certain types of content. For example, articles that would have previously been deleted quickly under WP:QD#A4 are now more often discussed through RfD. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of that change — I feel it slows things down — but I understand the reasoning behind it and I'm happy to follow the current consensus. Truth be told, I'm not exactly sure what kind of answer you're looking for from me — but since I've been active on several Wikimedia projects over time, I’ve made a point of checking in on major policy changes, even over on Meta. And of course, when I’m ever unsure whether something has changed, I know where to look. -Barras talk 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as much as I want to support you only returned to the wiki on the 24 May this year, less than a month ago, so I can't really support at this time.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I have a few questions for you regarding the recent situation of the content on simplewiki:
    Hello BZPN. Thanks for the questions. I've been into eduction for years now. Since mid 2023 the educational system is suffering from the AI generated stuff—it's most likely the same for our projects. Generated things became better in the last year, but now it's getting worse again. Despite the fact that generated content is usually too complex in language for this very project, it also includes wrong information and wrongly cited stuff. I currently see no good way to include such articles in an encyclopedia without serious review. Therefor, I'd strongly support the implementation of the policy.
    The project currently suffers from AI content. I currently try to keep up with the latest newly created articles, and I'm sure there are some generated articles there. Many such articles are easily detected, because they typically don't follow our manual of style. If they've been adapted correctly, it's often harder to find them. However, they usually still use rather complex language and they are missing reliable resources. I'd personally say we should only quick delete clear cases of AI usage, and everything else should go through RfD. Barras talk 08:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BZPN: While the length of activity is a good indicator, the better indicator is, in my opinion, the activity itself. Barras has patrolled a substantial number of edits—so much so that even if we take the stats of the past two years, he will probably still come out on top. His comments on RFDs have been consistently policy-based, and I think there is quite a lot of indication that he understands the role. I do understand your concern, however; I struggle to see any downside to having him as an admin. He has demonstrated his ability to learn and adapt (e.g., with A4), so I see no downside to this. Our inactivity policies are strict; I think we need to be equally lenient with users who return. Tools are just tools to help contribute better in the end.—BRP ever 22:22, 12 June 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=10325601#Current_requests_for_removal_of_rights"