Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use this page for requests for:

  • Promotion (to administrator, bot, bureaucrat, etc.)
  • Anything else bureaucrats are needed for (is there anything?)

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.

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.

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

Requests for permissions[edit]

Archives: Autochecked userEditorAdministratorBureaucratOther user rights
Please fill out the form below to request rights.

User: Epok[edit]

Requested user-rights: Translation administrator.

I was actively working on french translations these days, and I've encountered a limit on what a user can or can not do. When dealing with translations, the process is limited to translating what's on a page at the day a translation administrator marked the page for translation. When going a little further, i.e., editing the original english page (such as this edit I made), you can't translate your own edit until a translation administrator marks the page as translatable again.
This is why I would like to gain the translation administrator right, as I think I may encounter such a limit again in the future. Moreover, I could use this status to help updating translation status on other pages that need such an action.
I also have one question, and I will use this opportunity to ask it: I've encountered different approaches in the way the namespace is translated on the title page item. Two approaches are used: e.g. for a page named Project:Example, one will translate it to Project:Exemple (leave original namespace), while other will translate it to Projet:Exemple (translate namespace). I've been using the second approach, believing that it's better to have a kind of "virtual namespace" according to the language of the page you're reading. Furthermore, it is more like Wikipedia's wikis (even if MediaWiki is not Wikipedia), in which the namespaces are translated. But I may be wrong, and did not find any information on that topic.
Have a nice MWday, Epok (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's ok to translate the namespace (and I agree it's preferable for help pages for instance). If one doesn't want the namespace translated, they can ask the translation administrator to prevent title translation.
As a translator you shouldn't normally need to remark pages for translation yourself. I see we now have 394 out of 3413 potentially outdated translatable pages right now, while they used to be very few. Probably the translation administrators have not noticed that Shirayuki has taken a break from his outstanding quick service. :-)
Back to your request: do you have any example of pages you marked for translation according to the page translation manual? --Nemo 10:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Thanks for the info.
I did not mark any page for translation, as this require to be translation administrator. Did you mean tagging? If so, I haven't yet, but I've noticed a few pages which I want to migrate from the old raw translation page to the translation extension.
Epok (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we say "prepare for translation" for the operation which includes tagging. Please let me know when you have prepared some such pages for a migration to Translate then. Thanks! --Nemo 11:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's right, I'll do soon. Do you have a specific page in mind that would require being translated? Epok (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No, but Project:Language policy links some suggestions at Project:Language policy/Migration list and the first section of Special:PageTranslation probably contains some pages whose preparation is not complete yet. If you have trouble finding something to do, let me know. Nemo 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, enough choice in these pages I think!
I'll let you know when I've carried on a preparation.
Have a nice MWday, Epok (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, @Nemo bis:
I've made a test using the Transclusion page. But as I had some doubts, I didn't published it yet. The diff can be seen here.
As a main concern, I wanted to know about <tvar> variables naming. I encountered some repetitive content I wanted to put into vars ("includeonly", "noinclude" and "onlyinclude" tags). So I named the var the same each time I encountered the same content. I was wondering if this is correct behavior or if it requires different variables names?
Thanks in advance, Epok (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Any remark on the above concern about redundant tvar naming? Epok (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, I have marked the page for translation. MacFan4000 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. The tool seems not to bother about the duplicate tags. I've commited the translation tags to the original page. Epok (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Epok, sorry for missing the updates here. From your diff I can't tell whether you understood the impact of newlines on translation units. Can you please prepare another page for translation, given you probably got more experienced in the meanwhile? Thanks, Nemo 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Nemo bis:,
It's OK, as I've not been very active recently... Thanks anyway for considering my request.
I've tried preparing the page Extension:Parser function extensions for translation, although I'm not sure about how to handle the big table: if I put it into a single translate tag, will the software be able to separate the cells by itself, or do I have to manually handle each wikilink?
Thanks again,
Epok (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
In that table there is nothing for translate, except headings. All content non wrapped by translate tags will be copied to translated versions of page. --wargo (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the links' text is translatable. Well, at least built-in, the other texts being extensions names.
Epok (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi again,
After some time, I think I do not have now the will I initially had to work on this Wiki.
I thus cancel my request. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Have a nice wiki day, Epok (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Zoranzoki21[edit]

Requested user-rights: Administrator.

I'd like to request administrator right. Reasons for it are:

  1. I can not to delete translation pages as a translation administrator
  2. When I notice vandalism, I can not react without that right
  3. On Wikipedia we have rollbacker/patroller rights. Here we no have that rights.

Too, I am active volunteer contributor on gerrit and Phabricator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced by this request so am not leaning towards granting this. Do you often need to delete translation pages? Are our current admins insufficient for dealing with vandalism? I don't understand the third point. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Krenair: I often need to delete translation pages, but I can not because I am not administrator. As for current administrators, there are only couple that are active. The third point refers to patrolling and rollbacking changes. There are no user groups on this wiki called patroller and rollbacker. Only administrators can patrol and rollback changes. Since, as I said, there are only a few administrators who are active, I want to help with patrolling, rollbacking, dealing with vandalisms and other things. I hope I gave a reasonable answer. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • weak oppose: I appreciate all you are doing here. However, I feel like your activity is not quitesufficient enough for admin rights without demonstrated need andI am unconvinced that you actually have much need for these rights. Sorry. Bawolff (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I plan to be more active in the coming period. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Status of that? @MZMcBride, Peachey88, Mainframe98:? Zoranzoki21 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Leaderboard[edit]

Requested user-rights: Administrator.

I often notice pages (especially userpages) which contain spam content or otherwise clearly unsuitable for MediaWiki. Currently I need to request speedy on the talk page (can't do it on userpage as I get hit by the abusefilter). I would appreciate if I could receive admin rights here so that I can do that myself.

I also plan to import some of the abusefilters from the English Wikibooks (where this type of spam is combated very well).

Note that I'm also a sysop on the English Wikibooks.

Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Special:Abusefilter/57 is the problem. Membership in the autopatrol group would suffice to allow editing these pages. I just wanted to point this out, I'm not against the request for adminship. Additional abusefilters would probably be nice considering the amount of vandalism that we get here. --MGChecker (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Dinoguy1000[edit]

Requested user-rights: Administrator.

I'm not super-active here, but do sometimes come across vandalism before a current admin does. I've been an admin on Wikipedia since 2009, and on several other sites for as long or longer (I can provide detail if desired), so I know my way around the tools already. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Daimona Eaytoy[edit]

Requested user-rights: Administrator.

Hi, I'm requesting sysop rights because I'd like to help maintaining Abuse Filters. I probably won't have much time to do any other admin action, but I'd be glad to help with what I can do. If I understood correctly the header on Project:Requests, I should be automatically eligible since I hold +2 on AbuseFilter repo. Should it help, I'm also sysop on itwiki (check). Many thanks, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If I read that page correctly, you souldn't even have to do this:

Any new flagging to +sysop should have an associated subpage, except for [those] who [have] 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.

Support Regardless, I +1 your proposal based on your work that I've seen on Gerrit. Mainframe98 talk 17:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Absolutely clear to me. --MGChecker (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Other requests and requests for comments[edit]

Archives: Other requests and Requests for Comments

Proposal to remove long-term inactive administrators[edit]


I was wondering if the views of the community would have changed since the last discussion took place on whether we should stablish a mechanism to remove long-term inactive administrators. The easiest solution for me would be to add this wiki to the list of projects where AAR is applied. I feel it is quite a conservative policy in which it requires 2 years of absolute inactivity plus one month warning to the community and the user before any kind of removal can take place. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a decent amount of people in the statistics list that apparently haven't edited the wiki in a few years, but are still active on IRC/Gerrit/Phabricator. We shouldn't desysop those people. Legoktm (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The good thing about m:AAR is that for every admin detected as inactive it requires both community and user notification. If the user replies that he wish to keep their rights, policy mandates that rights should be kept unless the community rules otherwise. That's why I think it's a kinda straightforward and conservative policy in that regard. Thanks for your input. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge the User:Rafaelalves and User:Rafaelpeque accounts?[edit]

Hi, for some reason I don't know why, I just noticed that I have two Wikipedia accounts, both linked to the same e-mail. The user names are Rafaelalves and Rafaelpeque. I have given contributions on both accounts. Is it possible to merge them?

-- Rafaelalves (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2018‎ (UTC)

I believe that that is not possible, sorry. (The right place for this is m:Steward requests/Username changes where they might know more.) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
WMF does not seem interested in making Extension:UserMerge work, so it's out of the table for the foreseeable future. Sorry about this. — Revi 07:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)