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?)

There aren't really any formal policies on what's required. Use common sense &mdash; there is no entitlement to any permissions, but if you're trustworthy and your services are in need, there's no reason not to make permissions changes.

Requests for permissions

 * User:jldupont: I'd like to be part of the bureaucrat group please.

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)