AARoads:User rights requests

From the AARoads Wiki: Read about the road before you go
Jump to navigation Jump to search
AARoads logo.svg User rights requests
A subpage for the AARoads project

User rights requests is the venue where a user may request advanced permissions on the AARoads Wiki. Whether these rights are granted is subject to the community's determination that user requesting them is sufficiently trusted to wield them according to the policies and norms of the wiki.

Available user rights that may be requested here include:

  • Patroller, who can mark changes patrolled and revert vandalism using the rollback tool (which automatically reverts a page to the last revision made by a different editor than the current one, and can thus easily lead to unintended behavior).
  • Bot, a user right applied to accounts used only by automated editing tools, which allows users to exclude their edits from the recent changes and watchlist pages.
  • Uploader, which grants the right to upload images locally to the wiki (which is only to be used to house images that cannot be displayed on Wikimedia Commons for whatever reason).
  • Interface administrator, can edit pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, which controls the text and code used to generate the wiki interface.
  • Administrator, which has the abilities included in the patroller and uploader rights, as well as the ability to block users, delete pages, hide revisions, and protect (lock) pages against editing plus granting patroller or uploader rights and AWB/JWB permission.
  • Bureaucrat, which has the abilities included in the administrator right, as well as the ability to add and remove any of these user rights to any account.

Additionally, there is one user permission that is requestable:

  • AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) or JavaScript Wiki Browser (JWB), a semi-automated editor designed to make tedious or repetitive editing tasks quicker and easier. Access to this permission is included with the administrator or bureaucrat rights.

User rights requests discussions will generally remain open for 14 days; however, bureaucrats can close a vote starting at 7 days if there is an obvious consensus. Both adminship and cratship require a two-thirds majority of Support votes in order to pass. Deadminship requires a two-thirds majority vote in order to demote.

To request one of these rights or permissions, create a new section on this page with a heading in the form YourUsername (rights/permissions you're requesting), as well as a short summary justifying the request.


BMACS1002: Interface Administrator

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was pass 5–0. (Closed by Rschen7754, I'm just adding this fancy new close template I just made.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:13, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

Though functionally I've had intermittent interface administrator access through the site's creation phase, I wish to have this access in perpetuity. I've already proven that my edits to the namespace have been a great help to the foundation of the wiki, most notably the Bluelinker and several key aspects to the Map gadget and constructing the associated template. I believe my particular set of skills would be best utilized in this position by expanding upon the work I've already demonstrated, as well as to be a resource for other users who wish to make those same areas of the site better in places where admin access may not be their calling card.

  • Support --Rschen7754 14:14, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support, you've done good work in this area before and you having this right would make things more efficient. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:32, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support—past work speaks well and another person with this toolkit would be good. Imzadi 1979  20:56, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support I concur. –Fredddie 22:43, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support We could use some more blackjack and hookers. TCN7JM 23:31, 14 September 2023 (EDT)

Closing this one as promote at 100% support. I don't think we need to wait a full 14 days for interface admin. --Rschen7754 10:58, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

Dough4872: Administrator

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was pass (5–0). —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:50, 26 September 2023 (EDT)

As someone who has had over 16 years experience on Wikipedia, I feel I am capable of handling the administrator tools on this wiki, which is a much smaller editing environment then Wikipedia, and would not abuse them. In being able to have access to the administrator tools, I would not need to ask other editors to perform moves that I feel I can perform myself. I would also get the uploader tool as part of this which I feel would be good to have in case I need to upload a fair-use image to this wiki that can’t be hosted on Commons. Dough4872 09:04, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

  • Could you outline the cases in which you believe it would be appropriate to block an established editor for a period of time, or indefinitely? --Rschen7754 14:06, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I would block an editor if I feel they are repeatedly engaging in bad behavior such as vandalism, spam, or arguing heavily with other users and have been warned multiple times to stop their behavior. Dough4872 17:04, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • In Discord, you seem to have a habit of frequently asking questions that could easily be looked up. Wiki administrators are sometimes called upon to act quickly and decisively in order to minimize damage by a bad actor. How would you prepare yourself to be able to respond to an incident in the event that you were the only administrator active at the time of an incident? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:21, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I would take the administrator role on AARW seriously and make the best moves to protect the articles and other editors and would apply common sense to stop a situation such as a vandal, spam account, or dealing with a dispute. I am a very intelligent person and have seen how issues are dealt with on Wikipedia and feel like I can handle the task on a smaller wiki. Dough4872 17:04, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support I'll cast the first vote since no one else seems willing. Dough's been here for a million years and knows the ins and outs of the project better than just about anyone. Admittedly, there are times when I don't trust his judgement, but I have a hard time thinking of many such instances that directly relate to onwiki behavior or proceedings. Worst comes to worst, the bit isn't permanent. If he screws up bigtime, it can be removed. But I don't think he will. TCN7JM 23:27, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support. I've been kind of on the fence, but Eli summed up my thinking in a way I wasn't able to, which led me to believe that a support vote is the logical conclusion. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:05, 17 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support—I've know Dough long enough to feel some comfort in giving him access to the tools for reasons TCN7JM expounded upon already. I'd also feel comfortable pulling him aside to caution him if there was a misuse use of the tools in the future should one of those rare situations occur. As TCN7JM also said, the bit can be removed. Imzadi 1979  00:29, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support For as much as I sometimes disagree with Dough off-wiki, I've always known him to be a dedicated and reliable editor on-wiki. And to reiterate what everyone else has been saying, I think he'd be receptive if he did make a mistake with the tools, and the tools aren't permanent if worst comes to worst. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:23, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm going to ask you an odd question, but since I'm familiar with your line of work, I think it could demonstrate your thought process on a tough issue. How would you handle a streaker at work? –Fredddie 22:53, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
    • Fortunately this has never happened to me. However if a streaker showed up at work I would order them to leave the store, and if they fail to comply I would call the police and have them removed from the store by law enforcement. Dough4872 20:26, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
      • Moving my comments down so my vote will be in order. I had the same doubts that others have expressed, and I think they've been assuaged. As I've said elsewhere, the tools are NBD, so I'll support. –Fredddie 20:39, 21 September 2023 (EDT)

LilianaUwU: Administrator

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was pass (5–0). —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:50, 26 September 2023 (EDT)

My whole thing on enwiki is pretty much whack-a-mole in regards to reporting vandals and spambots. I don't have much enwiki experience (barely a year at this point), but I've had experience moderating things all over the internet for the last half a decade or so, so it wouldn't be my first rodeo. And considering my usual hours (it's not rare I'm up late at night), I feel like this could be a plus. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:14, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

  • Could you outline the cases in which you believe it would be appropriate to block an established editor for a period of time, or indefinitely? --Rschen7754 14:06, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
In the case of a compromised account or to enforce a ban of some sort (whether a full ban or partial ban), it would be appropriate to place a block. Egregious conduct would also be a good reason, but in this case I'd rather limit myself to obvious cases (see my answer to Scott's question below). People who continue bad behavior after multiple warnings could also be blocked. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I believe your experience in anti-vandalism would make you an asset to the project as an administrator. However, I know that you (understandably!) have some pretty strong views on some topics that aren't directly relevant to the wiki's subject matter. Would you be willing to commit to enforcing policy impartially in cases where one of the involved users disagrees with your views and values? What steps would you take to make sure that the decisions you make would be viewed as impartial by the community? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:29, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
I don't plan on making actions if the issue at hand concerns one of the subjects I have strong feelings about, except if it's egregious enough (such as blatant transphobia), but even then I'd rather leave the action to another admin (or even have a discussion about the behavior of the involved user) if the opportunity arises. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
If you have no problem recusing yourself from situations you feel strongly about, I have no problem supporting your request. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:35, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Regarding your comment about blatant transphobia, do you believe that on its own is a blockable offense? Why or why not? –Fredddie 22:45, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
I would say it is, as those statements are harmful to trans editors and this may discourage people such as myself from editing. FWIW, the proposed content policy does explicitly mention that users shall not post discriminatory comments, which transphobia falls under. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:33, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm told by Scott that blatant transphobia has historically been a blockable offense on the forum, but what if it occurs externally of AARoads? –Fredddie 23:03, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
I think off-wiki transphobia is not in the wiki's jurisdiction, only on-wiki transphobia is. With that said, I would consider the forum to be related to the wiki, and if someone posts a blatant transphobic statement on the forum, they should be blocked on the wiki and vice versa. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:33, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
I should say that I'm not trying to give everyone a free pass to commit transphobia on Facebook. I'm more interested in the respect of boundaries between on-wiki and off-wiki. Your answers thus far have indicated that you do, so I'll support. –Fredddie 09:58, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support The concerns here seem to be that Liliana might get too heated in responding to incidents that involve people whose beliefs contradict hers (and, in some cases, her very existence). She says she doesn't intend to singlehandedly hand down punishment for edge cases in which she doesn't feel she can act impartially, and my interactions with her give me no reason to believe this is false. The stances she takes in her answers to the given questions largely mirror my own on the same issues. Additionally, she's built such a rapport with the wiki regulars that I have a really hard time believing she'd go rogue and set something on fire if she doesn't get her way. Easy call for me. TCN7JM 02:53, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support—hopefully there won't be too many moles for Liliana to whack, but she's got some anti-vandal skills to bring to the table. Imzadi 1979  00:30, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support No concerns from me, and her vandal-fighting skills are a big plus. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:25, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

TCN7JM: Administrator

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was pass 6–0.Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:55, 3 October 2023 (EDT)

I didn't originally intend to request this right so soon after returning from a half-decade+ break, but I've found getting back in the swing of active editing here to be much like riding a bicycle for the first time in years. Free from the shackles of enwiki nonsense, this community has quickly reclaimed a significant portion of my online life. As I have known most of the regulars here since 2012, I get the feeling the core membership of this wiki would trust me with this responsibility. I can spill more characters on my background if necessary but I think the wide majority of the current userbase knows my story, so I won't waste anyone's time unless asked. TCN7JM 04:44, 17 September 2023 (EDT)

  • Support without hesitation. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:01, 17 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support as well. Imzadi 1979  00:06, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support TCN7JM has been doing a great job laying the foundation of the new wiki, and I think he'd put the tools to good use. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:28, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support. He's one of the few people in my wiki travels who I've actually met in person, and he's a good dude. You can consider this a personal reference for the job. –Fredddie 20:43, 21 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support - TCN7JM can be trusted for the job. Dough4872 18:30, 26 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Support, if he can be in the Discord cabal despite not being admin then he can clearly be trusted with the tools. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:32, 28 September 2023 (EDT)
    I was offered original adminship for this reason back in June but I declined it because I didn't know how active I would be on this wiki. Then I got incredibly active, so I figured what the hell. TC (Eli) 13:51, 28 September 2023 (EDT)

ran4sh: Administrator

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was fail 0–5.Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:35, 27 November 2023 (EST)

I've been an editor at Wikipedia for almost 2 decades now, and while I've never been an administrator there, I have enough familiarity with the role to be able to handle it on this wiki. I would use the tools to assist where needed such as moving/deleting pages, blocking users for spam/vandalism, etc. My recent article work on here has been mostly to help in cleaning up things such as red links, broken redirects, etc. Thank you Ran4sh (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2023 (EST)

What's your username on Wikipedia? Ran4sh isn't registered on there, so I assume it's something else. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:36, 10 November 2023 (EST)
I have edited under several names, but most edits have occurred as w:User:All in, w:User:Latish redone, or w:User:The owner of all Ran4sh (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Oppose You were blocked for sockpuppetry for over a decade [1]. While I'm for second chances, I think giving out admin rights is too much of a risk here. --Rschen7754 23:54, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Oppose. per Rschen. Maybe after a while we can revisit, but for now I'm not comfortable either. –Fredddie 00:16, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Oppose per concerns brought up by Rschen7754 over past behavior on Wikipedia. Dough4872 00:20, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • I am impressed by the frank admission of past. That does hint to me a genuine desire for a clean re-start. As such I won't explicitly oppose. However, I would strongly encourage you to work with this community and gain some experience. This site is still in its infancy and there's a lot of work to be done that doesn't require any administrator status to do. There's plenty of chances to help out and become a trusted member of the community despite the past.Dave (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Oppose I'm not saying there need to be strict thresholds for activity onwiki before these rights become appropriate, but I think it's reasonable to want admins to be established members of this community, which overlaps with that of the forum but is not identical to it. Having experience on the English Wikipedia is only partially helpful; it's good to know how wikis generally work, but it's also necessary to understand that we are not enwiki (for what should be obvious reasons). I have nothing against you personally, but I'd like to think you understand that you should probably have more than 23 contributions to any community before thinking you can be trusted to administrate it. TC (Eli) 14:54, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • With the forum, I probably would have been a member earlier if not for technical difficulties. I believe my forum account was registered in the mid 2010s but it took until the late 2010s before I started actually making posts with it. I understand I only have 23 contributions to this wiki, but if you're saying the forum overlaps, then surely some of my forum contributions should be considered also. Ran4sh (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Oppose Echoing Rschen, I'm also uncomfortable with giving admin rights to someone who was blocked long-term from enwiki. You also don't have a lot of experience on this wiki yet (and I don't think forum posts count as contributions, even if the forum is under the same umbrella). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 17:09, 12 November 2023 (EST)

ran4sh: AWB/JWB

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


This has sat stagnant for two months and the user in question also hasn't edited this wiki since November so I'm gonna go ahead and close this as unsuccessful. TC (Eli) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (EST)

I've been an editor at Wikipedia for almost 2 decades now. On this wiki I've already made some edits to clean up things such as red links, broken redirects, etc. I think having AutoWikiBrowser and JavaScript Wiki Browser would be helpful tools in making certain edits. Thank you Ran4sh (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • Query—what kinds of things would you do with AWB/JWB access? Imzadi 1979  17:32, 12 November 2023 (EST)
  • Probably things like correcting common misspellings, fixing links, etc Ran4sh (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (EST)

Bot5114: Bot account

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Permission granted. --Rschen7754 23:18, 3 December 2023 (EST)

I have created a bot account at User:Bot5114. I request the bot flag for this account, and intend to operate it using the Perl MediaWiki::Bot package. I would further like to request that the bot be approved for fully-automated creation of redirects. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:29, 19 November 2023 (EST)

  • Support. It seems a little silly that you would even have to request this as vice overlord of the universe but I suppose it's good practice. TC (Eli) 02:34, 19 November 2023 (EST)
    • Giving the vice-overlord of the universe free reign to self-approve things only makes sense so long as you trust the vice-lord of the universe. :) If at some point there's an untrustworthy vice-overlord... Also, it's a good idea to have each bot approval looked at carefully by the community, regardless of the requestor; for more complicated tasks it would be entirely justified for someone to want to see at least pseudocode of what the bot is proposed to do. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:43, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • Support. Per what Eli said, and I will be very grateful if it means we don't have to create all the farm-to-market road redirects manually. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:56, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • Support - Useful bot to have. Dough4872 18:14, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • Support. Go for it. –Fredddie 23:06, 3 December 2023 (EST)