Meta:Requests for adminship

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Requests for adminship)
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Requests for adminship on Meta Archives
This page hosts requests for administrator access on the Meta-Wiki; for requesting administrator access on any other wiki, please see the index of request and proposal pages, where a Steward can do the job if required. Bureaucrat, checkuser and bot requests are also made here. Before making a request here, please see the administrator policy.

Requests should be listed here for at least seven days; bureaucrats should only close after this minimum time. Discussions are not closed early. Adminship will be granted by a support ratio of at least 75%. If a request hasn't been addressed by a bureaucrat after a lengthy period of time, please leave a note at Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Requests may be extended, or put on hold by bureaucrats, pending decision or finding of consensus.

Requests for temporary adminship and bot requests may be less formal and often go for a shorter duration if consensus becomes clear after only a few days of discussion.

All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate in any request and give their opinion of the candidate. However, more active Meta editors' opinions may be given additional weight in controversial cases.

See below for information on prerequisites on submitting a request, and how to add a nomination.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit


Note that this page is for access on Meta only. See the Steward requests/Permissions page for adminship/deadminship requests on other projects.

Regular adminship

  1. Before requesting admin access, please ensure you meet all of the minimum criteria:
    • Have a user page on Meta, with links to the user pages on other participated projects. This can state that SUL is activated or be provided via a Wiki matrix if that is not possible.
    • Have a valid contact address (either a confirmed email address in preferences, or a valid email address on the user page).
    • Be a currently active contributor on Meta. This is a subjective, not an objective, measure and there is no official post count.
  2. As Meta has a cross-wiki role, admins here are expected to have cross wiki experience. SUL confirmation or a matrix will ensure that editing on other wikis can be easily seen. It would be expected that those seeking adminship here would have both reasonable experience here and on other wikis.
  3. Given the multi-lingual nature of Meta, {{#babel:}} information will be of use to others.
  4. Place a request on this page, by transcluding a subpage, for example {{Meta:Requests for adminship/Example}}. Please put the newest request on the top. Bear in mind that even if you do meet the criteria above this does not mean that the community will automatically approve a request. Please add a minimum ending date to the election, allowing a full 7 day period from the first timestamp:
    ''Ending {{subst:#time:j F Y H:i|+1 week}} UTC''
  5. Please note, past administrators who have given up their rights must meet all criteria at the time of the new request. There is no separate process for reinstating past administrators.

Please note: Ill-considered nominations for adminship can be draining and deflating to both the community and the candidate. Any successful candidate will need to be able to demonstrate sufficient experience within the Wikimedia community, in addition to a familiarity with Meta-Wiki. If a candidate is not already a local administrator or holder of advanced permissions on a Wikimedia content project, he or she is less likely to pass a request for adminship here at Meta-Wiki.


Add your request below under the bureaucratship section. Please note:

  • Only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after at least 6 months of regular adminship.
  • User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves here.

If you fail any of these requirements, you will not be assigned the bureaucrat flag. For more information see Meta:Bureaucrats.

Other access

For these types of access, create a subpage just as you would for regular adminship and add it to the appropriate section of this page.
  • Temporary adminship: If you need temporary sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages), you may request temporary adminship on meta. In this case, adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of what they asked for. Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month.
  • Bot: Please read the bot policy. This wiki allows global bots and automatic approval of certain types of bots; for other bots, add your request below under the bot section, in the same way as an admin request.
  • CheckUser: please read the CheckUser policy and add your request below under the checkuser section, in the same way as an admin request.
  • Oversight: please read the Oversight policy and add your request below under the oversight section, in the same way as an admin request.
  • Translation administrator: please read Meta:Translation administrator and Meta:Translate extension. No fixed time limit for these requests is defined, and there are no particular requirements; if you provide a valid reason your request will be granted.
  • Centralnotice administrator: was added as a way to avoid granting the full administrator rights package to those who primarily only need to edit banner campaigns. Because of the potentially huge impact of banners on the wikis, this should be granted carefully and sparingly.
For these types of access, just ask on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.
  • MassMessage sender: please read about MassMessage, and provide a clear reason for requesting access. Specify a duration, or specifically request ongoing if needed.
  • Uploaders
Global renamer permissions are handled at Steward requests/Global permissions.

WMF Office Staff and Contractors

Requests for regular adminship

The following discussion is on hold and should not be acted upon yet: Vote period is over, deciding the outcome in a bureaucrat chat on the talk page. —MarcoAurelio 12:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Ending 18 October 2016 20:35 UTC

gudn tach! (Hi!)
Same procedure as 2014 (RFA III.):
I'm admin at w:de and (partly) admin at w:en. I've been admin here at meta since 2008 (first a temp admin, after that a regular one, see RFA I. and RFA II.).
Because of rules I didn't make, I got my rights removed for not editing enough per time.
In fact, I won't be here often in future, maybe just a few times per year. However, the major time here at meta I spent and will spend at the spam-blacklist pages. My edits, although they occur seldom, were helpful to the projects, and I'd would like to continue with that work, so it would be great to be admin here again. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lustiger seth (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose After now already 3 removals, it is pretty obvious the admin rights in their usual scope are not needed and do not fit here. I remain at the position I had in 2014 and would either suggest to grant an exception like it was done for Dschwen (single-purpose limited adminship) or not to grant this permission at all. The occasional 6-7 edits to the spam blacklist per year can surely be done by one of the dozens regular meta admins as well. --Vogone (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    I guess, this is the second removal (and not the third), @Vogone. However, edits like this one can't be done easily by anybody. Of course, I can paste the stuff in my user name space and ask Dirk Beetstra or billinghurst to copy and paste all the stuff. But actually this would generate more work and I would really dislike it if obstacles were put in the way of those who just want (and are able) to help. I don't understand your objection. If I made a lot of mistakes, then I would understand. If I would offend anybody, then I would understand. But I really don't understand, why it should be a problem to anybody if I edit rarely. -- seth (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Please read my comment for a second time and you will see I do not oppose your work. I oppose full adminship for a clearly limited task which causes these repeated permission requests every few years. --Vogone (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    If the alternates exists then we can offer those, but they don't exist. With regard to the removals, maybe we need to look at our removal policy and more align it with the global policy, and realise that in the mature developed meta, that our rules based on 8-10 year ago are now in need of review. Many admins pick up specialty roles, and there is quite a limited set of admins managing the global blacklist, and Seth does take a crosswiki approach to spam management. The skills, tools and approach that he brings are exactly what are needed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    This is not true, we have such an exception in place for Dschwen. --Vogone (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Hi, I think we could create a local group with editprotected and autopatrolled rights for cases like this, I mean users who only need admin rights to edit the spam blacklist or another protected page, I'm also thinking on MER-C. By the other way if Lustiger seth wants to recover the admin rights I have no objections.--Syum90 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Please don't. We don't need more fancy usergroups. We trust our admins and temporary admins to stick to the policies and the scope for which they were elected. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with MA, and would prefer to use the groups we have instead of creating more. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Vogone. The spam blacklist has been edited only a few time, imho not enough to re-grant the sysop flag again.--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I'd support this as a temporary adminship with a an indefinite expiration (temporary related to the only topic they are concerned with) (indefinite, subject to normal activity requirements). — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Seth has clearly demonstrated that they can utilise the tools successfully and without any concern of misuse.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Some of us are just not as active as others, Lustiger Seth is a welcome addition to a corner of Wikipedia that is hardly edited, and where we should try our best to keep all capable hands. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I know it is procedure, but I do think that the removal should not be automatic without consulting the editor - as long as they still hold administrator rights on other wikis, and they have not done anything wrong, I strongly oppose totally automatic removal (as was applied here). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for clarify, my vote is a Support Support.--Syum90 (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I like Xaosflux's idea. I was concerned last time with the inactivity process getting them, and I maintain that concern. So the obvious solution is to let lustiger seth continue to edit the blacklist as needed, and indef temp adminship might accomplish that. As a side note, it's a bloody website on the internet... why can we not allow for a bit more common sense in situations like this? What a waste of volunteer time. Please note that I'm not directing this comment at anyone in particular, more just general frustration with stuff like this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    More of a general reply but I think we can use Meta talk:Administrators/Removal and Meta:Babel to discuss in which aspects we don't like the current policy and attempt to fix it. There has been some comments over the years, but no serious attempt to amend the policy has ever happened, so obviously we continue to apply it the way it was approved. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Xaosflux and Ajraddatz (Support Support only for indefinite limited adminship). Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    You wish to support full adminship in case limited adminship is not going to be approved? Or how can we interpret the "support" in the brackets? --Vogone (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    Made my support more obvious. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for temporary adminship

Requests for bureaucratship

None currently

Requests for CheckUser access

"Meta:Requests for checkuser" redirects here. To request checkuser information, see Meta:Requests for CheckUser information.

None currently

Requests for Oversight access

None currently

Requests for translation adminship

Tulsi Bhagat

Namaste Everyone, I am a volunteer member of Maithili Wikimedians User Group (a recognized wikimedia user group). We are actively organizing meetups, events, outreach programmes etc. Thus, we creating & updating all those activities pages here in meta. It would be great, if users can read that pages in their own native language. This tool will help me alot in marking pages for translation and also for housekeeping tasks. There is no any TA in my native language. So that I would like to request translation administrator user right. Additional: I'm a sysop on newiki & maiwiki, also autopatrolled here on meta. I carefully read and understood all the relevant TA policies and Translate extension as well mediawiki docs. Thanks for your consideration.TBhagat (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Neutral Neutral Past interactions1, 2, 3 with the user prevents me from supporting at this stage, but maybe he's okay now. —MarcoAurelio 10:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I apologies for the past interactions. :(TBhagat (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Good understanding of Maithili and Nepali languages. +his work seems good here on meta.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 15:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Murbaut (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support I support a temporary adminship for this user. He looks like a trusted user in his native language communities. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you realize that he requests translation adminship, not normal adminship? --MF-W 03:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Having good knowledge of Maithili languages. —JuniorX2 ChatHello! 10:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi! I've looked through some of the pages that you tagged for translations and they aren't really okay (e.g. Maithili Wikimedians/Outreach/Premier Secondary Boarding School & Maithili Wikimedians/Outreach/Little Flower Secondary School). Could you please try to prepare them correctly, so that we can make sure that you know how to do it? thanks for helping :-). Matiia (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Matiia: Hi, Is it okay? 1 & 2 Best Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks :-). Matiia (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for CentralNotice adminship

None currently

Requests for bot flags

None currently

See also