Project:Requests
Use this page for requests for:
- autopatrollers, uploaders or IP block exemption (which can be assigned by administrators)
- Promotion to sysop, translation admin, bureaucrat or anything not above (which can be assigned by bureaucrats)
- Requests for comment and other miscellaneous requests
Any new flagging to +sysop should have an associated subpage here, except for well-established developers, where a developer is someone who has had changes accepted to the MediaWiki core or a MediaWiki extension where the total number of changed lines in the relevant whitespace-insensitive diffs exceeds 100.
The autopatroller group can be assigned by administrators, too, but generally that is given when an admin notices that patrolling someone's edits does not add any value, and not based on requests by the user themselves.
One thing to keep in mind is that unlike most Wikimedia sites, this site is controlled by the MediaWiki developers, not the other users in this community. Being a developer (someone with merge access who uses it to maintain code that runs on Wikimedia sites) automatically entitles you to at least administrator 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. Something like a third of administrators 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 administrator at least, but don't ask for administrator without giving a concrete reason (unless you're a developer). Being personally known to a developer or having administrator or higher status on a major Wikimedia project are two ways to be deemed trustworthy. This is a wiki that has opted in to allowing global sysops to work here, and such users are free to use their rights on this wiki and do not need to separately request administrator. The same applies to global rollbackers, who are already autopatrolled on this wiki. Other users in specialised global groups (such as global interface editors) are also free to use their rights on this wiki by default.
Requests for permissions
- Archives: Autopatrolled (formerly Autochecked user) • Translation administrator • Administrator • Interface administrator • Bureaucrat • Other user rights
Other requests and requests for comments
- Archives: Other requests and Requests for comments
Move this page to Project:User rights requests
This page is primarily used for user rights requests and many discussions here, like the above thread, really would fit better at Project:Village pump. Hopefully renaming would clarify the scope and reduce confusion. * Pppery * it has begun 01:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I support this, it is an ambiguous title with this "Other requests" section implying any request which isn't a permission request. As someone who just posted in the incorrect place, if Project:Village Pump is the correct place for these requests, then the title should be updated to meet the scope of the page. Terasail 01:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support renaming --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note that I just created the Project:Requests for permissions redirect before reading this. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good idea. But it should be moved to Project:Requests for permissions instead which is more accurate. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support renaming in general to reduce confusion. Not sure how we should handle the local requests for comments though. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Declare the process defunct through lack of use. * Pppery * it has begun 01:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support moving #Requests_for_permissions, preferably to Project:Requests for permissions. We can keep this page as a Request directory and a place for handling other requests. 94rain Talk 04:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support moving to Project:Requests for permissions. Other types of requests can go to the village pump. Leaderboard (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Leaderboard, is there a version of Village pump that does not use Flow? --Base (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Base: Not at the moment, but (as you can see if you go to the village pump), there are active discussions on retiring Flow in MediaWiki. Leaderboard (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- In practice, Village pump is more about general discussions about site policies etc. that usually do not need admin attention. We probably still need a separate requests page for the latter. It's a bit wired that this discussion is happening here instead of Village Pump, and I saw an edit request posted on Village pump... 94rain Talk 07:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- The VP gets so little traffic that I don't really see a point in having a separate page for things that need admin action. Taavi (talk!) 09:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's true. We don't really have much on-wiki matters to discuss. I was thinking having separate pages will make it more convenient for future references. If no one thinks it's necessary, I am fine with just having one Village pump. --94rain Talk 05:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Base's request would have been fine at Project:Village pump. * Pppery * it has begun 05:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- The VP gets so little traffic that I don't really see a point in having a separate page for things that need admin action. Taavi (talk!) 09:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Leaderboard, is there a version of Village pump that does not use Flow? --Base (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I've just needed to use this page for a non-permissions request, I Oppose, unless a separate administrators noticeboard will be created. --Base (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Base. Permissions are not the only thing that need to be requested.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- And why can't those other things be requested at Project:Village pump instead? Neither you nor Base have actually answered that. It's currently extremely unclear what goes where, and the archives show this page is almost completely disused except for permission requests. * Pppery * it has begun 00:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- They can, but for example I don't really follow the village pump, while I do check Project:Requests every now and then in case there's some pending request I can handle. Just let people decide by themselves. Nemo 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- And why can't those other things be requested at Project:Village pump instead? Neither you nor Base have actually answered that. It's currently extremely unclear what goes where, and the archives show this page is almost completely disused except for permission requests. * Pppery * it has begun 00:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- (TODO) OK, given the external demand for us to have a non-Structured Discussions venue for stewards, I've re-created Project:Administrators' noticeboard with a note explaining that it's a secondary venue, so this move is now good to go. CC Pppery, Ameisenigel, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Ammarpad as first four participants. Jdforrester (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done for lack of consensus. Nemo 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis I don't see an absence of consensus here amongst active members of this wiki? I'm a bit surprised you've suddenly closed this topic. Jdforrester (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Suddenly"? It's been inactive for well over a month. At the moment I don't see a consensus here. A consensus may manifest later in a new discussion. Nemo 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: would you call ~8/10 (or 7/9 if you ignore 1234qwer's comment) "lack of consensus"? Leaderboard (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually counting votes is specifically not the definition of consensus. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Even then, it's often an usual initial starting point, and James' question remains valid. Leaderboard (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually counting votes is specifically not the definition of consensus. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: would you call ~8/10 (or 7/9 if you ignore 1234qwer's comment) "lack of consensus"? Leaderboard (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Suddenly"? It's been inactive for well over a month. At the moment I don't see a consensus here. A consensus may manifest later in a new discussion. Nemo 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)