Project:Requests for permissions

For requests for admin attention for things other than permissions, see: Project:Village Pump.
Information

Use this page for requests for:

Note that Requests for comment and other miscellaneous requests should not go here, but instead to the Project:Village Pump or Administrators' noticeboard if you want to avoid using Structured Discussions.

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.

Archives: Autopatrolled (formerly Autochecked user) • Translation administratorAdministratorInterface administratorBureaucratOther user rights, Other requests, Requests for comments
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)

User: Justman10000

Requested user-rights: Bureaucrat.

I would like to provide bureaucratic support here. This includes granting/revoking permissions and deleting/protecting pages. I have been doing a lot of translation work, and I hope that this will be enough to convince enough people

I realise that this is quite a lot of permissions, but I would really be happy to get a chance! Perhaps one could at least go about it with temporary bureaucrat status

  •   Strong oppose. Translation admin work has been controversial, and user has not shown sufficient maturity to have rights over others. See original request, and response to subsequent opposition, and (recently changed) old user page post-rejection of a prior request. --Clump (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand what you're getting at! Nothing linked proves anything! And translation work is something completely different from administration! I have system administered around 20 Minecraft and FiveM networks! These were only tiny to small networks, but still... Justman10000 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clump

    There? Justman10000 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "There?"? Anyway, 1) if you do not understand why declaiming legitimate corrections to your edits, and making petulant responses may be interpreted as less than mature then I guess that's the essence of the problem; 2) no actual evidence of need for admin (let alone bureaucrat) rights has been been provided; 3) your non-translation edits seem to mainly focus on enforcing an arbitrary, personal style irrespective of the cost to translation or the technical irrelevance of the changes. Finally, 4) your assertion that "translation work is something completely different from administration" contradicts your initial statement that your translation work should somehow be a convincing justification for administration rights, and 5) your external experience in network administration isn't relevant. --Clump (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to be a bureaucrat or an admin? The type of stuff you want to do suggests that you're actually looking to be an admin - users are normally expected to be an admin before requesting bureaucrat (which mainly just gives the right to assign a few extra permissions). I'm as a result not inclined to support this request either. Leaderboard (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, would love to be a bureaucrat! But if that's not possible, I would also be happy with administrator Justman10000 (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose for now. The links in Clump's post are concerning. They show that you should probably focus on improving your translationadmin work before pursuing other permissions. They also show that you have a tendency to over-reply in discussions, which might bother other people and indicate some room for improvement in your interactions with others. Finally, it is unclear why you would want to be a bureaucrat without being an administrator, which hints that you may not understand those two permissions well. You do seem like a hard worker though, which is great, so hopefully you find this feedback useful and hopefully you stick around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per above. * Pppery * it has begun 19:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User: Xaosflux

Requested user-rights: Administrator.
Mostly for processing occasional user local IPBE requests we get in the stewards VRT system when that would be the most appropriate way to handle a situation. Xaosflux (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a steward! You can just give yourself the rights? Justman10000 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards don't act on local projects that have working community governance processes. While I could use my overlapping access with the GS group here per the statement allowing it above, assigning groups to other users is not within the GS scope. Xaosflux (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The header at the top of this page says Other users in specialised global groups (such as global interface editors) are also free to use their rights on this wiki by default. I think that's clear in that you are welcome to use your steward/GS/etc. access to process IPBE requests. If you want to be an admin here I support that too, but I don't think it's necessary. Legoktm (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with Xaosflux being an admin here, but I find it surprising that a wiki with only active 15 non-anon-only IP blocks gets enough local IPBE requests to warrant this. * Pppery * it has begun 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Support I was going to say "just use your steward rights here" but then for local IPBE requests you need access to Special:UserRights which the global sysop toolkit doesn't allow. Also Pppery's comment is valid, as I never had to process a local IPBE request on this wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use case is generally someone with a fairly low xwiki footprint wants to edit here, but is hitting a global block. Yes, there is a suite of options, but in some cases a local exemption seems to be the most appropriate way to help an editor along. Sometimes we fix the problem with GIPBE grants which can be overkill. From a purely technical perspective stewards can issue local IPBE here via the central project, but for multiple reasons we won't do that (especially related to transparency and respect of local governance). Xaosflux (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That process doesn't make any sense to me. If someone qualifies to be exempted from a global block shouldn't they qualify to be exempted from it everywhere? And if that is the process stewards want to use for some reason it would make more sense to codify it by adding a local "exempt from global blocks" group on every WMF wiki with the expectation that stewards rather than local admins grant it. I'm sure Xaosflux will do fine as an admin here, but the processes involved are bizarre. * Pppery * it has begun 19:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: "If someone qualifies to be exempted from a global block shouldn't they qualify to be exempted from it everywhere" - usually my experience is that if it's only for one or two wikis, the stewards tend to prefer local IPBE instead. And to be fair, "local "exempt from global blocks" group" is IPBE, though I think it's OK if we update the policy explicitly allowing stewards to use Special:UserRights. Leaderboard (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between my proposed group and the existing IPBE group is that the latter also exempts people from local blocks. * Pppery * it has begun 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is really more for edge cases, where it appears someone may claim to want to do something like some translation work on one project but they are not really very established elsewhere. I'm likely the largest responder to the stewards VRT queue where we get the edge types of requests. Of course, if conceptually mw: never wants to exempt users from blocks locally I'd support those wishes.
@Leaderboard we almost always prefer to keep logs local so communities can easily tell what happened and why, and we can't use userrights locally unless we give ourselves steward locally - and we only do that for very odd edge cases (such as if the group doesn't exist on metawiki). Xaosflux (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: , would there ever be a case where we want to exempt people from global but not local IP blocks? It's not like this is en.wiki... and I understand Xaosflux's point. Leaderboard (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what global IP block exempt does. To be clear I have no objection to Xaosflux becoming an admin and granting local IPBE, and am just providing general feedback on how the process works. * Pppery * it has begun 15:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what we do sometimes -- but sometimes for fairly new users we won't grant GIPBE until they get a bit more established - these are normally proxy users who have a plausible, but weak claim. Xaosflux (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]