Project:Requests

Use this page for requests for:


 * Renaming
 * Promotion (to sysop, bot, bureaucrat, transwiki, etc.)
 * Anything else bureaucrats are needed for (is there anything?)

One thing to keep in mind is that unlike most Wikimedia sites, this site presently appears to be controlled by the MediaWiki developers, not the community. Being a developer (someone with commit access who uses it to maintain code that runs on Wikimedia sites) automatically entitles you to at least sysop status, and a long-time developer won't find it hard to become a bureaucrat. If you're not a developer, you do have to give some good reason to get any privileges; you should not expect to ever be made a bureaucrat; and if you are, you might want to stick to renames and leave promotions to developers. Something like a third of sysops and a quarter of bureaucrats are non-developers, however, so it's not like you shouldn't bother asking.

That said, there aren't really any formal policies on what's required: you just have to convince a bureaucrat. Use common sense ― if you're trustworthy and your services are in need, there's no reason not to promote you to sysop at least, but don't ask for sysop without giving a concrete reason (unless you're a developer). Being personally known to a developer or having sysop or higher status on a major Wikimedia project are two ways to be deemed trustworthy.

Asking for transwiki, bot, or rename is fine without demonstrating that you're trustworthy, since those can be revoked at will and don't do much anyway.

Requests for permissions

 * User:jldupont: I'd like to be part of the bureaucrat group please.
 * With one or two exceptions that snuck in somehow (at least one because the devs were too lazy to do the work ;) ), all the bureaucrats here are long-time developers of MediaWiki: at least a year of development of the core software used on Wikipedia, with substantial participation in the development community (including commits, offering support, discussions on #mediawiki and wikitech-l, etc.). If you do not meet those criteria, it's best not to ask for bureaucrat.  So I'm going to have to say rejected until you can give a better explanation of why this is needed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be able to protect and manage some of the pages (e.g. Template:Pear) that contain my extensions published here, that's all. If you have another group more suitable for what I am trying to achieve, that's fine by me. Jean-Lou Dupont 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for renames
Could you please change my user name to Erwin. This user already exists but has no edits. Erwin is my user name on meta and my home wiki, nlwiki. I've put up a matrix on m:User:Erwin/Matrix. Thanks. --Erwin85 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Kylu 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Erwin 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
The seems to be some tension in this process right now, and I think at least some of it must come from the inconsistency between what's on the administrators page (which I could paraphrase as "ask and ye shall receive") and the criteria that Simetrical laid down and that have become the guidelines here. Looking at the logs, it seems like in the last few months the attitude on promotions has shifted from "if you seem trustworthy and know about MediaWiki, it's no problem" to "explain exactly why you need these powers."

I'm not trying to complain or point fingers: I'm just concerned that the de facto policy might be shifting towards one that's less open and trusting. (And I know this goes to the heart of debates over what adminship really means, but so be it.) —Emufarmers(T 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My involvement here was suggesting that I could help with SUL-related renames (of which we've had one, now), and failing to coherently explain that unless requested by either "real" bureaucrats or developers, I have no intention of promoting anyone. I mentioned the situation to a couple users with commit access and a shell user, and was told that in the absence of a backlog on request, there's no reason to promote anyone. I hadn't had any previous interaction with AnonDiss before this, though I'm a bit dismayed with both his and Majorly's reactions to the decision. I'm firmly abstaining from promotion-related discussion here for some time, I think. Kylu 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, partly this is a rift between sysop (somewhat stingy) and bureaucrat (extremely stingy). Let me clarify things a bit. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've clarified what I think at the top of this page. If any other bureaucrat disagrees, feel free to mess around with it.  I think it's useful to point out that this place is not community-run, but developer-run.  (Whether this is how it's supposed to be or not I have no idea, you'd have to ask Brion or the Board or something.  But it's how it is right now.)  Developers absolutely do receive special treatment here and this is important to note. Non-developers have always had to give some reason for promotion, at least when they've asked me.  For instance, I promoted IAlex before he was a dev, because he a) was a sysop on frwiki and b) wanted to localize the French system messages.  If one of those two had been missing, I never would have promoted him.  (Unless, admittedly, I knew him personally and trusted him, which is inevitably a way to get recognized in small communities like this.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)