Project:Requests

From mediawiki.org
Information

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 administratorAdministratorInterface administratorBureaucratOther user rights
Please fill out the form below to request rights, and then add the template here. If you have had a previous request, Please add a number to the end of your username to create a separate request, example: MyUserName (2)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

N Not done for lack of consensus. Nemo 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Actually counting votes is specifically not the definition of consensus. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, it's often an usual initial starting point, and James' question remains valid. Leaderboard (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]