Open main menu
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.



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.

Interface adminship

Add your request below under the interface adminship section. Please note:


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.
  • Limited adminship: If you need sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages), you may request limited adminship on Meta. If granted, the user understands that they will only be allowed to use the tools for the tasks they were approved, and not doing so will be grounds for immediate removal. Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month unless requested and granted otherwise.
  • 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
  • Patrollers
Global renamer permissions are handled at Steward requests/Global permissions.

WMF Office Staff and Contractors

  • If you are an WMF Official or Contractor and need rights on Meta-Wiki to perform your duties the process is different. Please have a look at the WMF Staff userrights policy on Office Wiki[restricted access] and follow the procedure described there. If in doubt, please contact Trust and Safety; or send an email to trustandsafety

Requests for regular adminship

Lofty abyss

Ending 19 July 2019 23:33 (UTC)

A decade ago I was a sysop for six years and a half or so; wasn't as focused locally at the end, so it lapsed, but I've become active again, and along with watching other venues and smaller wikis, I'd like to also directly act here, instead of tagging and pinging others in cases of active vandalism. There are regular occurrences of such, unfortunately, like yesterday, when the page blanking lasted for an hour and a half, nearly. I'd like, instead of pinging others twice, to be able to add meta again along with the other wikis I monitor in which I'm active, instead of passively templating. -- Lofty abyss 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support sure. You've been active since the SE debacle, we need more people on when you're on, and to be honest, I think the criticism of you in the confirms was less than fair (though, to be honest, you just made it worse by engaging and you'd probably still be a steward today if you had just ignored it...) My standard for all permissions on meta is whether or not the user is trusted on either their home project which is large or globally. As a former steward and functionary in good standing on, I think you pass that, even if the last confirm wasn't the best. Thank you for offering. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What is your interpretation of why many had concerns about your behavior at Stewards'_noticeboard/Archives/2019-03#GS/R_afterwards? Do you believe that it is appropriate behavior for an administrator? --Rschen7754 00:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the connection between local sysop and GS/R? Both were lapsed due to inactivity, but I'm not currently, and I don't plan to be. -- Lofty abyss 00:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I think the point that Rschen is hinting at, and that I mentioned was that your response to the steward confirms wasn't great, and the aftermath was also a bit dramafilled. I also don't think the "local sysop" argument is a good one: it's a silly distinction on meta since no one really has meta as a home project and everything here is pretty connected. I'm supporting you (obviously), but I do think asking you to explain the confirms/aftermath is fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
        • In hindsight there was more drama than in about a decade (comparable to enwiki's RfA, and even then there was likely more)... which I didn't necessarily want to create or participate in, but since the situation seemed arbitrary I attempted to advocate for some consensus, comparable to most other wikis (including meta sysop), but perhaps I did so too much. I actually don't inherently like or want to participate in 'drama'... rarely in the last many years, but I thought an arbitrary construct wasn't conducive to rational conclusions, per se; in the future, though, a singular statement seems to suffice (as this hopefully does), since causing drama really isn't my intention. -- Lofty abyss 01:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Being an administrator is more than knowing how to use the tools. I can accept that a candidate might not respond very well when facing criticism of the sort they received at the steward confirmation, but the response above is lukewarm at best when it comes to understanding what happened and committing to follow a different path in the future. Quite frankly, if it is unpleasant for me (or anyone else) to give constructive criticism to an admin candidate (at least remarkably more than it should be), they should not be an admin. --Rschen7754 01:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Although the response above isn't perfect, I feel as though Lofty's activity in the last few months since the steward elections has shown their capability to participate in crosswiki issues and anti-vandalism that is central in the work they intend to do as a metawiki administrator. It's evident that, in the last few months, they have spent a lot of time engaging with the global community on various projects, and I feel they are sufficiently knowledgeable to volunteer as a metawiki administrator and trustworthy enough to both handle the tools and ask for help or advice where they may need it. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I think, he is capable of it and as per Vermont. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - your responses on your steward confirmation were honestly ridiculous, but you've been consistently active since then and I don't doubt your ability to use the sysop buttons properly. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. While I'm not impressed with the bludgeoning and badgering of opposes, I see that they are active enough on meta. That spambot argument actually will be good for meta as we tend to have a lot of spambot issues. I will say that I support this but with a caveat, continue to be active like now or else if you fall into another inactivity removal, I think there'll not be another chance getting the mop back unless theres valid reason. With that, I wish you all the best in mopping here. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support largely per Vermont and Cohaf. The voters above summed up my thoughts pretty well. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The behavior during and after steward confirmation was indeed beyond the pale, but I have seen improvement since then both in terms of behavior and activity. He (rightly, I believe) did not pass confirmation, but he's quite qualified to be an admin here. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tony, Vermont and Cohaf. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear need for the permissions. Former steward who can clearly do the job. Some in the community were unimpressed by circumstances around both Stewards/Confirm/2019#Mentifisto and (per Rschen7754) discussion of the later GS/GR requests. However, I think both Lofty_abyss and some stewards were showing too much passion. Respect towards the other users went out the window a little. And that is hard when one side is a single user. We have a chance now to set aside those errors and grant a valid request for permissions --AGK ■ 10:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find Common activity unimpressive for an admin so sadly opposing. --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Lofty has done some good work since the confirmations - their activity and conduct has been fairly reasonable so no doubt they'll do fine with the tools again. Hiàn (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support meets the criteria of administrator and has been trusted by this community with tools. Has been managing many recent changes edits and suitably nominating deletion requests among translations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ajraddatz.--BRP ever 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Herby. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Hiàn and Billinghurst. --Defender (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as above. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. This candidate is demonstrably capable of sysop duties and is starting to pick up what they've left in the past years. I see what happened around the steward confirmation but the user has moved on and shown effort to improve. While this user may not be very active in some projects where they hold advanced rights, the user's activity here and overall cross-wiki activity should be used to evaluate this application. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 02:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Requests for limited adminship


Ending 21 July 2019 18:29 (UTC)

Hi, as a member of the tech team of WAM, I am currently working on organizing the pages of the project on meta, some of the previous events pages are quite mixed up, I'd like to request a limited adminship on all Wikipedia Asian Month pages and subpages including but not limited to content pages in /Wikipedia Asian Month ?.*/, template pages in /Template:WAM ?.*/ until such time when I am no longer a member of WAM project team. This may also include pages of Wikipedia Asian Month User Group until such time it formally approves a bylaw to have a separate team or when I am no longer a part of WAM team. Thank you. Viztor (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Question: Can you please clarify why do you need admin tools to organize those pages? If you want to delete some pages or suppress some redirects, you can continue to request at meta:RFD (though they are currently backlogged) or tag them with deletion templates. I believe you are in good faith to make this request but I am afraid the community would not give you the bit (though limited) just for stuff like that. However, if you do have some complex tasks to do, please let us know and we may consider it. Thanks.-- 94rain Talk 19:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, granted, requests works, just slow, however, I believe it is standard practice to authorize someone from a project limited adminship to that project so we can just do all these things on our own. Specifically, in addition to deletion, I need to split content of some pages which was used in different years of WAM, which can be quite complex and difficult to explain, in other cases where I simply need to move some pages, I bump into rate limit easily, which is not ideal as I'm housing-keeping for the project. 94rain, I hope this clarifies your questions. Viztor (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarification. Sorry I was not familiar with those standard practices. I do not want to bring up other issues but I do not think they would misuse their tools for unauthorized tasks as doing so will be grounds for immediate removal according to the policy. So I   Support.--94rain Talk 04:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC) After reading comments below and searching through previous RfLAs, I still do not think I am clear about how limited adminship actually processes, what these standard practices really are. Neither is my support that determined from the very beginning. I guess I'd better not participate in these discussions and now withdraw this vote. --94rain Talk 14:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support seems like a good reason. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Proceedural question: Do we grant limited adminship to people who are non WMF sysops? Questions to @Viztor:. Firstly, how can you assure us that you wont misuse the rights as your Pending Change Reviewer right was stopped in enwp after several wrong acceptance , I dont know are they wrong but the people deemed so. I also see lots of issues on your enwp talkpage. Secondly, what specific tasks do you need the mop tool for? Lastly, how long you need the tools for. Limited Adminship is 1 month by default, do you need it longer? Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I've stated it pretty clearly in my response to 94rain's question. Cohaf, let me know if any of these is unclear to you, thanks. Viztor (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I will like you to confirm you are asking tasks regarding WAM and related pages, as long you remain part of WAM team. For moves and history splits. I wish to know do you read the administrator guide on how to do history splits and also to be very honest, rate limits can be solved by giving account creator. I am inclined to support but then the way you handle other tools such as PCR will make me hesitate as meta sysop is very powerful and can be prone to lots of issues. The last time I supported someone for Limited Sysop for a specific task didn't turn out that well for community, and they have that experience in other wikis and seems very competent. --Cohaf (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, the requested scope is all WAM related pages and if the circumstance do not change WAMUG-related pages as well. It's unfortunate to hear someone who you voted for has misused that permission, and I share your concern, it is desirable if you wish to be more prudent when casting your votes. Viztor (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I would say that the previous person I supported just didn't know community norms, not misused the permission. They did not misuse any permissions. --Cohaf (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose time unlimited access to tools for someone with no administrative position on any wiki where that person has unlimited vision of deleted pages/files, related histories, abuse filters, etc. seems both unnecessary and out of scope for what is being requested.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This is an application for limited adminship, not a general one. Had meta had a different set of conventions I would have not applied. I also have signed confidential agreement with WMF for other reasons, and I do not need to access these you mentioned, had a more limited role been designed, I would not have applied for this one, and you're welcome to propose. Merci beaucoup. Viztor (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Billinghurst mentions "time unlimited access". I'm not sure that's being requested in this request for limited admin status. How long is WAM running? When would you anticipate being done with cleanup and being able to relinquish the tools? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
        • The local organizers of WAM's work in October and ends in December, as the event is the full November. The international team's work starts a lot early and this year is in June. We've been working with WMF and preparing all the infrastructures for the local organizers to use, we expect our pages on meta to be updated relatively frequently till December when most of the local organizers finalize their work, then we may use an additional month or two to work on data analysis and finalize our statistics + project report to the Foundation and to the community. In addition, the User Group is approved last year and our affiliate report will be due this September, we may have additional work because of that though I have not specific details yet. StevenJ81, this is the rough timeline for this year's event and I hope you find it helpful! Viztor (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear need for the tools and experienced editor. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have given sufficient thought. Mainly per Billinghurst. I am of the view that they can use requests to move as necessary, and they are moving very old pages which can be just easily deleted per uncontroversial housekeeping, will not add much load to sysops. In addition, the rate limits can be overcame by account creator rights (temporary when moving), it's a less dangerous right rather than sysop. Lastly, the private information in filters IMO is the greatest barriers to obtain the right. I will not oppose if they are a local rollbacker in zhwp as they will have experience in filters, they are not unfortunately. Lastly, their tenure on meta is extremely short, if there's a user who isn't a sysop in a WMF wiki applying for this but have ample meta experience, why not do an IAR. I thank them for helping but sorry, it is way too much worries that I cannot support. --Cohaf (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Billinghurst. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question: should you be granted the tools, to what extent (in terms of amount of work) do you anticipate you'll be using the sysop tools? Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Most of them will be routine maintenance of the pages and subpages of the respective namespace, mass move of pages with/without redirect, delete unused pages, protect/unprotect pages, mark for translation, occasionally complicated task like splitting history of pages that were used in different years of project, also possibly other tasks for someone within the team limited to the scope defined in this application. Hiàn, most of them are quite routine work, and due to the on-going situation for the project, It can be difficult to estimate the amount of work as this is under an ongoing basis, at times, I may have few dozens, if not hundreds of edits resulted from these procedures and sometimes one would just do, I expect myself to delete hundred of pages in similar pattern that were created from moving a page specifically, hope this answers your question. Viztor (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the use-case doesn't seem sufficient to me, existing sysops should be able to manage this. If someone from the "WAM Tech Team" needs this for something, I'd be more supportive of Ле Лой having temporary access (as they are a functionary elsewhere with lots of contributions). — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, Ле Лой could even be a full admin if needed. If they need help to move pages, I can help too using the flags I have and I am willing to do so. Although that is IAR. --Cohaf (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Le Loi will continue to be the lead developer of Fountain, which is the main tool we use, and this year we're revamping the interfaces and user experience and most of the time we expect the team to be in active development. He is also responsible for the operational stability + db management of the tool, in addition to the API+occasional front end development, I will be responsible for most of the front end update, we're still discussing specific plans and we are likely going to conduct a survey soon, and I will working closely with other teams on our websites, emails, online storage, our portal here and other infrastructure that support their work, and Le Loi will take the head in the development of the tool, I hope this work division makes sense, obviously we have limited personnel, so we have to combine some roles. Anyhow, I don't see this to be a particular problem. If we subject people of limited adminship as we do full adminship then this role would never have existed in the first place. We're doing this project as a team, and this is what the team has worked out. Viztor (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Requests for interface adminship

None currently

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


I am a translation administrator on mediawiki, and would also like to be able to contribute here. There are currently (as of 10:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)) 1306 pages that have been changed since they were last marked for translation, including changes that were reverted, and I would help reduce this number by reviewing the new revisions and tagging them for translation again so that changes in English would propagate to other languages. I can confirm that I have read mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation example and mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration. Thanks for considering my request, --DannyS712 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support is an experienced user.--Turkmen talk 12:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose hat collector with no real need. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Are there some other examples of hat collecting? --MF-W 08:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose and strongly. Per TonyBallioni and I see absolutely no demonstrated need for this aside from another feather in your cap. Praxidicae (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Praxidicae and TonyBallioni: a week ago I posted a list of 32 links at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat asking for the pages to be re-tagged for translation. Of those, 20 still have changes that haven't been marked for translation, or have been changed since then. If there is an easier way for them to be remarked for translation, then I'll do that, but it seems that the simplest way to update the pages would be just tagging them myself. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)`
Quite simply, I don't trust you. You're a 9 month old account who has rushed to insert himself into every single process on all wikis on which you are active. On you take over any user script the instant a user retires and makes it your own, you lecture people who have been here longer than you and know more than you on how processes they're intimiately involved with work, and you're quickly accumulating rights that quite frankly, you have no need for but can give a facially valid reason at the time of request. It is when the entire pattern is considered that the issue becomes apparent. While meta may have a need for translations that need approval, I don't think you need to be the one approving them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Rschen7754 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral They are quite active in mediawiki translation namespace marking pages for translation, I have no doubt in their competency. However, I see no demonstrated need here (to be honest, those 32 pages not all needs updating as some of the pages may have non marked pages mainly due to vandalism (and they are highly visible pages - so no doubt these are edited frequently). I appreciate their many contributions in Translation namespace here. For me, I feel hat collectors should have the hat if they wanted as long as they show a clue on how to use it, and I can sense they will use it, I'm fine in granting flags that may just be hats. It's basically a risk-free candidate but there's no need for that flag at this present moment. I will not oppose based on hat collecting but will not be inclined to support (basically due to tenure - you need time to be familiar with this wiki) which places me here. --Cohaf (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above, except I would venture to say that a need for the right has been demonstrated. AGK ■ 09:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a need as the pages doesn't really needed to be marked (as the latest version doesn't differs materially with the last marked version that significantly). If they came here and ask for TA as they have a User Group to manage, or they are involved in some sort of campaign or edit-thorn I will see this as valid demonstrated need. Otherwise, I also agree with your comments below.--Cohaf (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. TonyBallioni (above) raises valid questions about the long-term utility of this user's right requests and about the user's motive for filing requests. However, I don't think we should be debating those questions on a request for minor rights. This user is experienced in translation and has a demonstrated need for this right. Let's grant the right and deal with the underlying concerns when it comes to be that they matter. AGK ■ 09:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support agreed with AGK on this one. The user has a need for the rights (has requested marking for translation in the past), and if they misuse the rights then they can be removed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per AGK and Ajraddatz. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per AGK and Ajraddatz. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as per AGK and Ajraddatz. Good luck! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - If they are really hat collectors, they are not the ones who just gather a hat, put it aside and then collect another one but they have been using their hats to benefit the community. (They have been actively using nearly all of their permissions that they have gained: PCR, NPR, responding to template edit requests, closing requested moves and MMS). Skimming through their contributions on enWP, however, what I see is not a hat collector but an enthusiastic editor trying to make the encyclopedia better from every aspect and then they came to help other projects, trying to have an influence on the Wikimedia Movement as a whole. There are hundreds of pages in Special:PageTranslation and I see some of them have been prepared but never marked for translation as well as ones that have been updated instead of just being vandalized. Other multilingual sites do not have such a long queue but meta does. Now a competent editor is offering services to eliminate the backlog and we should be glad to accept. In brief, I do not think they are a hat collector and I see no issues within the request itself. --94rain Talk 10:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support. Tony and Prax's opposition is pretty compelling but per the others I'm frankly not seeing any issues with such a minor right. Hiàn (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question: . Thank you for specifying that you have read the relevant documentation pages. Could you also provide links to the pages you have tagged for translation yourself so I and others could make a quick review of it? Be it on MediaWiki wiki or here. In fact I have tried to find one and encountered this edit. Are you aware that you should not add the translation markers (e.g. <!--T:4-->) yourself since they are added automatically by the extension when you mark the page for translation (well, unless you are marking for translation a revert etc.)? --Base (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Base: before I was a translation admin on mediawiki, I didn't know that the tags were added automatically, and so would prepare pages manually so that they would just need to be marked for translation. That edit, however, was made manually because I wanted to split the translation units to be more manageable, and had previously gotten into the habit of adding the tags manually, so it only took a minute to split. I'm unsure what you are looking for - the edit made by the extension when I marked a page for translation? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ajraddatz. Braveheart (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Requests for CentralNotice adminship

None currently

Requests for bot flags

None currently

See also