Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Steward requests/Permissions

< Steward requests
(Redirected from RfP)
Shortcut:
SRP

This page is for requests to have stewards grant or revoke administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights on Wikimedia projects which do not have a local permissions procedure. Minimum voting requirements are listed here.

Old sections are archived. The list of archives is below.

  • Requests for bot flags are handled at SRB, and requests for global permissions are handled at SRGP.
  • If you are requesting adminship or bureaucratship, and your wiki has a local bureaucrat, submit your request to that user or to the relevant local request page (index).
  • For urgent requests, such as to combat large-scale vandalism on a small wiki, contact a steward in the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel. In emergencies, type !steward in the channel to get the attention of stewards. Otherwise, you can type @steward for non-urgent help.

Other than requests to remove your own access or emergencies, please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community.

Quick navigation: Administrator | Interface administrator | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Miscellaneous | Global permissions

(translate | edit)

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page

edit

1. Place the following code at the bottom of the appropriate section below: 

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- Don't change this line -->
 |domain    = <!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

2. Fill in the values:

  • domain: the wiki's URL domain (like "ex.wikipedia" or "meta.wikimedia").
  • user name: the name of the user whose rights are to be changed (like "Exampleuser"). In case this is for multiple users, leave this field blank and give a list of these users in your remarks.
  • discussion: a link to the local vote or discussion about the rights change (for example, "[[ex:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#ExampleUser]]"). This should normally be for at least one week, but no more than three weeks (if so, you'll need to restart the process).

3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

Confirmation of signing confidentiality agreement

edit

Certain permissions (notably CheckUser and Oversight) additionally require users to sign a confidentiality agreement. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also sign the confidentiality agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. The request is placed on hold temporarily, until the receipt has been formally confirmed by the Office.

Requests

edit

COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below: 


==== User name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
  |status     = <!--don't change this line-->
  |domain     =<!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
  |user name  =
  |discussion = 
}}

Administrator access

edit

See Administrator for information about this user group.

  • MediaWiki interface translations are done at translatewiki.net. Please do not request administrator access solely for that purpose; your request will be declined.
  • Stewards: Please use {{Systmp}} for approved temporary requests.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

Please start a new discussion about requesting the permission on the local village pump, administrators' noticeboard or a designated page for requesting permissions each time you request or renew adminship.

  • Discussions should be open for seven days. Please request adminship here seven days after discussions started. This page is not the place for any discussions or votes. (For wikis with few active users, it is OK to have no comments.)
  • If you only want adminship for specific tasks, please state for how long and for which tasks you need it. Otherwise stewards will decide whether to assign permanent adminship and the duration of adminship. See Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements.

Laura Fiorucci@es.wikiquote

edit
Status:    On hold

Abrí una votación, siguiendo las políticas de votación del proyecto, para solicitar los permisos de administradora en Wikiquote en español. Este proyecto cuenta con un burócrata que no edita desde hace más de un año y tampoco tiene habilitado el correo electrónico para informarle de la votación. Wikiquote en español cuenta solamente con una administradora activa. Solicito que se me den los permisos de administrador. Saludos, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Laura Fiorucci: Have you asked the local bureaucrat, who is able to grant the rights locally?
[Traducción automática/Machine translation] ¿Le has preguntado al burócrata local quién puede conceder los derechos a nivel local? EPIC (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC: El burócrata local User:LlamaAl no edita desde el 17:03 30 ene 2024 y tampoco tiene activado el correo electrónico. No hay manera de preguntarle ¿O te refieres a otra persona?. No hay más burócratas en Wikiquote en español. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Non-stew comment Please note that almost all votes come from users who have not been active for years (or never active or very rarely) on that project (this applies to both support and opposition). This is not what should be done for transparency, we have always said that for projects with few active users even no vote is enough, but it's not at all pleasant to see a procedure like this (let's say it's frustrating and doesn't help the work of those who have to decide on the flag). I don't see any point in a local policy that requires global edits as a sufficient requirement to vote for local admins, it's very dangerous, sorry for the OT! --Superpes15 (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  On hold Per above and after some information provided to me privately, I plan to discuss this internally first. EPIC (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon from the south. I would like to know and understand the reason for the delay.
I opened an election process using the Wikiquote community guidelines. I won the election. I'm not a newcomer; I've been involved with Wikimedia projects for 19 years, 15 of those years as a bureaucrat for the Spanish Wikipedia.
I was the founder of Wikimedia Venezuela. I'm a member of Wikimedia Argentina, Wikimedia Spain, and the groups Users of Latin American Women in Wikimedia and Wikimedians of Bolivia. I'm familiar with the Spanish-language editor community and the guidelines for several projects (see my global contributions). And I'm not a hat collector.
Most of the upvoters, including the Spanish-language Wikiquote administrator, are long-time users of Wikimedia projects, some of them are long-time bureaucrats at Spanish Wikipedia. Can you tell me why this is taking so long? Have you asked Wikiquote administrator @Jaluj: what she thinks of the process?
Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:EPIC, It's been 14 days since my request and I haven't heard back. Any updates or do I need to contact someone else? Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:EPIC,I am writing to express a serious concern regarding recent decisions affecting the autonomy of the Spanish Wikiquote (esWikiquote) project in the election and appointment of its administrators.
Until recently, esWikiquote had four administrators: User:LlamaAl, User:Ayagaures 0, User:Cookie, and myself. However, on 2025-03-24 at 00:13 (UTC), user EPIC removed both administrator and bureaucrat rights from User:Cookie. As a result, I am now the only administrator remaining on the project.
It is important to underline that esWikiquote is a project with its own policies and community, and we have made efforts to establish a functioning and autonomous local governance. In 2020, the community of esWikiquote voted on and adopted clear eligibility criteria for voters and for administrative elections, as seen here: https://es.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?oldid=401624#Requisitos_para_derecho_a_voto_en_Wikiquote
Although I personally voted against those criteria at the time, I have always respected and abided by the community’s consensus.
The need for an additional administrator is evident, as shown by the number of interventions carried out by global sysops. For example, see the contributions of User:Galahad: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/Galahad
User:Galahad is indeed an active and valuable contributor to esWikiquote. However, he has not been elected as a local administrator. We greatly appreciate his collaboration, but he is not a substitute for having elected local administrators chosen by our community through transparent and democratic processes.
This situation highlights the importance of reinforcing local administrative capacity. esWikiquote aspires to be an autonomous project, not one that must rely on global sysops to perform essential maintenance and administrative tasks.
Recently, a local vote was held to appoint a new administrator, and it met all the established voting criteria: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Candidaturas_a_administrador#Laura_Fiorucci
The candidate, User:Laura Fiorucci, received 14 votes in favor and 3 against (a support ratio of 82.35%), clearly surpassing the threshold required for approval. Yet, to our surprise and concern, the stewards have refused to assign her the appropriate flags. This raises an important question: Why are the decisions of the esWikiquote community not being respected by the stewards?
The reason Laura Fiorucci has not requested User:LlamaAl to assign the flags is that on 2024-03-14 at 18:03, User:Mykola7, a steward, removed his bureaucrat rights.
Regarding User:Superpes15, who makes this complaint, while we appreciate the work of global sysops, we must point out that he is not a member of the esWikiquote community, he has not contributed to the project in years (last action recorded on 12 April 2023: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/Superpes15), and his primary language is not Spanish. Therefore, his sudden involvement in local decisions is unexpected and difficult to understand.
In light of the above, we kindly and firmly insist on the autonomy of esWikiquote to elect its own administrators according to its internal policies and democratic procedures. We respectfully request that the stewards reconsider their decision and recognize the outcome of the community vote to appoint Laura Fiorucci as a local administrator.
We are confident that this request aligns with the values of decentralization, transparency, and respect for local communities that Wikimedia strives to uphold.
Thank you very much for your attention and understanding.--Jalu (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the rest of this, but LlamaAL does still have crat rights per es:q:Especial:PermisosUsuarios/LlamaAl contrary to your claim. Mykola7 revoked LlamaAl's rights on the Spanish Wikipedia, which has tighter inactivity policies, but not the Spanish Wikiquote. * Pppery * it has begun 03:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that the request is on hold mainly for two reasons. Firstly, there are quite strong claims of canvassing (es:Wikipedia:Proselitismo in Spanish) in this specific discussion which has also been noted to me through some off-wiki emails, and secondly, there is a local bureaucrat who is able to grant the rights, which in any case will delay a request like this for the stewards. EPIC (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EPIC:. The Wikiquote bureaucrat hasn't edited for over a year; his last contribution was on January 30, 2024, at 5:03 PM UTC. He also has disabled email. I wrote on his talk page on April 2, 2025, at 7:25 PM UTC, and he hasn't responded; in fact, he hasn't responded to anyone in over a year.
User Jaluj is NOT a bureaucrat; she's an administrator, and she can't grant me permissions.
I assume the accusation of proselytizing is from Meruleh, a user who has been working on Wikimedia projects for two years. Perhaps she doesn't know that when someone has been working on projects for 19 years and is also a bureaucrat on another wiki (like me), everyone knows about your actions, whether out of friendship or enmity. I haven't sent any emails to anyone, and I even refrained from notifying the Telegram channels I'm on because I know the rules.
As I said above: I respected Wikiquote's procedures (I can translate the rules for you if you'd like); I'm not a hat collector; you can check my overall contributions to see my commitment to the projects. Best regards, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all that said, what do my two years with this account have to do with anything? For the record, I’ve been contributing to Wikimedia Foundation projects for over twenty years, and for more than fifteen years to independent initiatives like Vikidia. Is this about trying to assert superiority? And yes, there was spam in the Spanish Wikipedia Telegram group, using phrases such as: “After 19 years of work on Wikipedia, 14 of which as an admin, I’ve decided to launch my candidacy on Wikiquote”, along with a link to the candidacy: ¿"and I even refrained from notifying the Telegram channels I'm on because I know the rules"?. That message was curiously deleted after almost a month, yet the original notice to the community remained, encouraging people to vote. While the voting policy allows users from other projects to participate, that doesn’t change the fact that the candidacy was openly promoted. The vote also included support from -jem-, the vice president of Wikimedia España, while you are the president. That user does not contribute to Wikiquote. Will you claim that this is not campaigning? There were votes from users who had been active in Wikimedia projects for less than a month. Others did meet the criteria, but many were affiliated with the Muj(lh)eres latinoamericanas en Wikimedia, which you co-founded with Jaluj. I mention this because I was once part of your council, and I resigned precisely because I did not share the values being promoted—specifically, these values. If I make accusations, it’s because I know what I’m talking about—I’ve seen it and verified it. No one wins by lying; on the contrary, what we lose is trust. And if you yourself have acknowledged that Wikiquote lacks a solid community, how did an unfamiliar group—most of whom have never contributed—suddenly appear to vote for you? —Meruleh {talk} 19:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've been involved with the Wikimedia Foundation for so many years. It's a shame it's not reflected in the project logs. The Telegram message is there as it was the day I sent it, Meruleh. It hasn't been deleted, and it was sent without a link to the vote. That Telegram channel on Spanish Wikipedia advertises a lot of things. Proselytizing is saying "go vote for me." And yes, I'm involved in many things: Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikimedians of Bolivia, Wikimedia Spain, Latin American Women, and Wikimedia Argentina, among others; in addition to providing editing training in different places... that's why many people know me and love me and know of my good work and commitment to projects. It's strange to ask for buttons to participate in small Wikis without even going through a notice in the Café, and other movements that I won't post here and that the some community itself rejected. The group that voted, both up and down (like you, who had 20 edits and had become very active when user cookie's buttons were removed, or the other user who came in just to downvote me, a single contribution on Wikiquote) is a diverse group, but it doesn't go against Wikiquote's rules. No matter what happens, I will continue contributing to the projects and, more than ever, I will be on the lookout for vandals, improving the projects, and pursuing hat collectors and those who want to take advantage of volunteer work or gain power in a horizontal project. Regards, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC:: For your attention. In accordance with the administrator appointment policy, the nomination of @Laura Fiorucci: has been dismissed on Wikiquote, as it does not comply with the relevant policy, which explicitly states: "Candidates should be submitted by veteran editors who are trusted by the community [...]". In this case, the nomination was not submitted by any veteran user nor by a local administrator, and therefore cannot be considered valid. The community has been informed accordingly. Regards, —Meruleh {talk} 05:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the OT
@Jaluj: I didn't intervene in any local decisions. I was just pointing out that almost all the votes are not from active users in the project (and this is a fact and honestly, from the outside, it's not a very nice thing to look at). In these cases I, when I was a steward, always assigned the flag for 3 months behaving as if the request had no votes (which is fine for stewards to assign the flag anyway) or, if there is a local policy as in this case, I always applied it, maybe suggesting to change something, in this case I'd say that imho it's too large, because users who are not active on that project should not be able to vote for that project (but it's just a single opinion). Basically it's more problematic to do canvassing than not having votes. Nobody is altering a procedure, there is a local bureaucrat first of all. Stewards haven't decided anything yet, so I don't understand why you said "the stewards have refused to assign her the appropriate flags", while they are still waiting for someone to try to contact the local bureaucrat LlamaAl, who is currently a 'crat (regardless of the fact that the project is likely not so big as to require bureaucrats, and having an inactive one only creates problems). Lately, I don't understand this desire to create controversy at all costs, saying that stewards don't respect local consensus, while all the functionaries are here to always look for transparent and clear procedures. Last thing, I'm just happy if you have one more sysop and I'm even happier if you elect 10 more, but if you don't want the global sysops and stewards to intervene or if you perceive them as an intrusion or a reduction of community power, just open a discussion on your village pump and ask for removing them without too many problems, instead of criticize global functionaries, as happened in other projects. Please note that I didn't comment as a global sysop here, but as a normal user, and I think it's sad that one could think the opposite or that I'm trying to show any kind of "power" or hat. Thanks for your understanding. --Superpes15 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  non-stew comment.

Hi, I came to Wikiquote in Spanish to add some quotes from Pope Francis and I found there a tremendous discussion started by Galahad and Meruleh. That's why I'm here.

Why are you hiding your comment @Superpes15: ? It doesn't seem off-topic to me.

Your comment, that you don't understand this desire to create controversy at all costs, is very interesting, since the one who created all this controversy was you. Everything was fine and very quiet until you came to this board to protest against Laura Fiorucci to be granted the permits and you protest that her election had not been transparent. The last time you appeared on Wikiquote in Spanish was on February 7, 2024, https://es.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Ayagaures_0&diff=prev&oldid=469060 to remove permissions from Ayagaures 0 because “the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis without an inactivity policy”. So, I assume that you are a steward. You do not belong to the Spanish Wikiquote community and yet you are very concerned about what is happening there. I really appreciate your interest, but I would like to explain a few things to you.

Only three people voted against Laura Fiorucci in a vote that respected the rules: Galahad, (his argument for voting against was that this work should be done by the Global Sysops), Meruleh (whose first edition in the project was two weeks before the vote) and Zafkiel GD, whose only contribution to the project was this vote against, while those who voted in favor, Jaluj has been contributing since 2012, Tefy Figueroa has been contributing to Wikiquote since January 2024, -jem- bureaucrat, suppressor and administrator of Wikipedia in Spanish has been contributing in Wikiquote since 2009, Marcelo, bureaucrat and administrator of Wikipedia in Spanish has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2016, Mentxuwiki has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2017, Althair has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2017, Imoisset has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2017, Caleidoscopic has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2023, Galahmm has been contributing to Wikiquote since January 2024, Aitor.SSM has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2020. That is to say, none of them were newly arrived upstarts. Please, I would like to see a local or global policy that states that an editor cannot vote if he or she has not edited for more than a year. What strikes me is that editors who never showed interest in the project before, Meruleh and Zafkiel GD, appear only to vote against Laura Fiorucci, but they have the right to vote according to the rules.

Galahad annulled the vote, which was carried out in a transparent manner and in accordance with our rules, in an abusive way and you filed the complaint here so that Laura is not given the permits. So, who generated this controversy?

Superpes15, you said that you don't see any point in a local policy that requires global edits as a sufficient requirement to vote for local admins and that it's very dangerous. Your intervention is very interesting because you did not protest when Meruleh was granted permissions on Wikiviajes without any type of vote because Galahad (the only permanent administrator in Wikiviajes) modified the policy so that the only permanent administrator could elect more administrators directly without voting and you did not protest when Meruleh was granted permission to be an administrator on Wikiversity without any type of vote and without a history of contributions to the project since it began to interest her in March 2025 and she requested the permits in March 2025. I found out about this because a Wikiversity administrator, Antur, a prestigious long term editor who has been contributing to Wikiversity since 2006, with 110.000 global editions and elected by vote as administrator and bureaucrat of Wikipedia in Spanish, responded to Meruleh's inflammatory messages on Wikiquote in Spanish against Laura Fiorucci by wondering how she managed to get those permits without anyone in the project having chosen her and without a history of contributions. The stewards did not demand an election from her as they are now demanding to take away LlamaAl permits, although three years have passed without any administrative actions: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/LlamaAl

I bring this up because the other person who is creating controversy on Wikiquote (see debates at the Noticeboard and here) is Meruleh, who only started to show interest in Wikiquote in Spanish on March 10, 2025, just after losing several elections. She insists on having more years of seniority in the project (here she said “I’ve been contributing to Wikimedia Foundation projects for over twenty years” but she has no way to prove it and no one believes it is true since she joined the movement on 2022-07-28 and she could never show an account that was older.

On December 2024 Meruleh wanted to be a global renamer: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global_permissions&oldid=28039863#Global_rename_for_Aopou. Rejected. Meruleh even had a sockpuppet account to vote for herself: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meruleh&diff=prev&oldid=28039226

Meruleh claimed that user:Horcus was her partner https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EPIC&diff=prev&oldid=28102785 and that he was actively participating in the Spanish Wikipedia, but user Horcus first edition on Wikipedia in Spanish was on December 23, 2024, https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Contribuciones/Horcus&target=Horcus&dir=prev the same day he voted on Meta for her¸ https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global_permissions&diff=prev&oldid=28017711

After that they happen to be editing the same articles and both have voted the same way on Wikipedia:Selección de artículos buenos/nominaciones (Wikipedia:Selection of good articles/nominations): https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Horcus&users=Meruleh&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=eswiki&allusers=on

It was only on January 23, 2025 that he put in his UP that they share IP https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario:Horcus&diff=next&oldid=164949105, just after she was reported on Meta and a checkuser had proven the relationship. An editor who claims she had the capacity to be an administrator, checkuser, or global renamer didn't know that two accounts that share an IP address can't vote together in the same election or vote for one another? Because this was her argument when she was discovered, that she didn't know that.

In this candidacy she launched strong accusations such as that “Wikipedia in Spanish judges users harshly during candidacies or that we are losing more administrators due to poor management and that candidacies fail to gain sufficient support and are often judged for minor mistakes”. Well, that's not true. I went to look and discovered that https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidaturas_a_bibliotecario/Rafstr, Rafstr was elected administrator by a percentage of the 94.7% on November 2024, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidaturas_a_bibliotecario/MiguelAlanCS MiguelAlanCS was elected administrator by a percentage of the 100% on December 2024 and https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkusers/Candidaturas BetoCG was elected chekuser by a percentage of the 93.42% on March 2025. This proves that if the candidate is recognized as a good editor or user by the community, people will vote for him or her. If she was rejected in so many elections, there must be a reason. I am sorry but users do not trust her.

On January 2, 2025, Meruleh announced her candidacy for checkuser on Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkusers/Candidaturas/Aopou Rejected. She was forced to withdraw it due to the discussion it generated.

On January 19, 2025, Meruleh launched her candidacy for administrator on Wikipedia in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidaturas_a_bibliotecario/Aopou Rejected. Yes, her name was Aopou on February 2025, and before her user name were Jazpinncito, Nanu~Versace, Milkout, Lana del Reno and Zorvoth. During her two years of contributions she changed her names 7 times. Why? In her own words, because she didn't take the project seriously enough; she saw it as something childish: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_discusi%C3%B3n:Candidaturas_a_bibliotecario/Aopou&diff=prev&oldid=164851985

In that same election, she promised that there would be no more changes and that Aopou would be her permanent username: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_discusi%C3%B3n:Candidaturas_a_bibliotecario/Aopou&diff=prev&oldid=164851985 Two weeks later she changed her name to Meruleh. In this vote, Meruleh was accused of being a hat collector.

This whole story is the context in which Meruleh comes to protest against the vote that gave Laura Fiorucci the win and the same context for which she does not want LlamaAl's flags to be taken away, because she fears that some bureaucrat will recognize the vote and give the flags to @Laura Fiorucci:.

Moreover, why Meruleh has made changes to Wikiversity’s administrator policy pages without following proper procedures or asking the community to vote? https://es.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversidad:Administradores&action=history

This history is extremely interesting because Meruleh has questioned @Jaluj: about her making changes to Wikiquote's policy without consulting the community, which is why Jaluj decided to revert all her edits (Jaluj’s edits), and despite that, Galahad and Meruleh insist on not recognizing Laura Fiorucci's election, which was done in accordance with the official policy.

Meruleh only started showing interest in Wikiversity on March 9, 2025. Meruleh only started showing interest in Wikiquote in Spanish March 10, 2025, just after losing the elections on Wikipedia in Spanish and Meta, however, she was granted administrator permissions on both Wikivoyage and Wikiversity. So, Superpes15, in your opinion, it's very dangerous to give permissions to a prestigious long term editor with 129.000 global editions who is already an administrator and bureaucrat in Spanish Wikipedia because she won the vote, voted by 85% of users in Wikiquote in Spanish, but it's not very dangerous to grant permissions to a newly arrived editor - who lost several elections in other projects - without any kind of vote?

I don't believe that Laura Fiorucci did canvassing because I didn't receive any notification of the vote nor did I vote, because a user with her prestige and history doesn't need to collect hats or campaign, and because it seems perfectly normal to me that users found out about it through the noticeboard on Wikiquote, the mailing list, and Telegram. That's what the policies ask for. What I would like to ask @EPIC: is why he decided to presume good faith towards a new editor whose first contributions are on was on December 23, 2024, (both in Wikipedia and Meta) in order to vote for Meruleh -that's what he said, that he was going to presume good faith - but not presume good faith towards Laura Fiorucci and her election as administrator. If you have evidence of Laura Fiorucci's canvassing, please show it. Saying that everything is in private emails, that is in fact a lack of transparency.

@Superpes15:, you came here to create this controversy and now you're upset because Wikiquote users are protesting because the vote is not respected? It was the least expected that this would happen. People never like their rights trampled on.

I am not and was not part of the conflict since I did not vote in the elections and I do not care whether Laura Fiorucci wins or not, but I am interested in respecting the autonomous decisions of a project in which I participate since 2018. If you read this discussion https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Caf%C3%A9#Propuesta_de_pol%C3%ADtica_para_administradores you will see that I am not the only one concerned.

I ask @EPIC:, can I open a vote according to https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Candidaturas_a_bur%C3%B3crata so that Wikquote in Spanish can elect a new bureaucrat? Because that would resolve this controversy, because if LlamaAl doesn't show up we need a second bureaucrat. Or do I run the risk of Galahad coming to boycott that vote and annul it, as he did with Laura Fiorucci's election?
j--Esperelopeor (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand—are we talking about my candidacy or Laura Fiorucci? Because you’re focusing more on me than on what the actual issue should be about. Since you want to lay things out, then let’s lay them out. I find it highly suspicious and striking that an account registered for six years with only 112 global contributions somehow knows so much: so much protocol, so much supposed reputation. With all due respect to the stewards, allow me to appeal to common sense here. First, regarding my global request—it is mentioned. Since 2021, 23 admin candidacies have failed, either rejected or withdrawn due to public scrutiny. That alone should show my stance: we are losing administrators. In fact, less than 24 hours ago, we lost another admin because of what's going on in the community. Second, regarding Horcus, I have nothing more to add. I already discussed it with EPIC on his talk page and offered the necessary apologies to the community. I'll just add two more things. First, I became an administrator through a proposal made by Galahad. He nominated me, and his community supported the proposal. I received support votes from two experienced users with years of contributions, so I don’t see what’s so surprising there. As for Wikiversity, I followed the correct procedure. I self-nominated, posted my request in the appropriate space for seven days, and no one commented. Then the request remained open here for another two weeks. Since there was no opposition, the stewards approved it. I did follow the proper protocol. Also, I didn’t modify any policy. I merely added descriptive text to explain what we do. Everything else remains unchanged—the nomination process, the procedures, the voting, etc. So don’t come at me with false accusations. I am not like that group you defend—those who make arbitrary policy changes and then pretend not to notice, those who can’t even agree on whether something is a policy or not. I don’t campaign for support. I don’t spam other projects’ groups. You’re very mistaken about me. And don’t lump me in with those who “just showed up to vote against.” I had already been editing for a full two weeks before that. And I didn’t even come across Wikiquote by chance—Jaluj spammed my own talk page on February 17, inviting me to help out on Wikiquote. So no, I didn’t land here out of mere curiosity or just to vote against something. She also spammed the WikiSP group again in March, inviting me to Wikiquote there too. So, yeah—let’s be clear. Also, you should really investigate more thoroughly. No one is accusing anyone of being a new user or not. What’s being pointed out is the presence of suspicious voting patterns. There are users with fewer than ten contributions over five years or more who suddenly showed up just to vote in favor of one candidacy—and now against a policy. I'm sorry, but you’re way off base here. —Meruleh {talk} 00:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Esperelopeor: I don't have time to read all your long comment rn, but just 2 clarifications, they are obvious things to me but but maybe not for everyone:
  1. A flag can be granted even WITHOUT any vote, while canvassing is counterproductive to this purpose. I repeat and I won't stop repeating that my original comment (that was just a simple note for stew and I had no idea of private conversation between third parts and stews) was intended to indicate this, when I was a steward I treated elections on small wikis in which there had been suspect canvassing (which meant several votes from users not active on that project, maybe notified elsewhere, maybe on a social network and btw always in good faith) as null (aka without any vote) and guaranteed the flag for 3 months, the minimum (only if the requester was a very trusted user and in any case warning him that canvassing was not necessary at all). If it's not clear that, from a steward point of view, it is not necessary for there to be votes to give the sysop flag, well, imho it's likely because the policy are not read at all.
  2. The comment is boxed because discussions are not allowed here, which is where the stewards grant the flag, discussions on the vote should be done on the local page.
Thanks and hope this clarifies Superpes15 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babitha Shetty@tcywikisource

edit
Status:    On hold

Requesting to extend my admin rights and add interface admin right to my user account.Babitha Shetty (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold I have sent you instructions regarding your interface admin request via email. I have gone ahead and renewed you regular adminship for now. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KonstantinaG07 can this request be closed already? Is it done or not done? AramilFeraxa (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is done for the admin part and on hold for the IA part, as @Babitha Shetty: has not completed the emailed instructions yet. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Djile59@pcd.wikipedia

edit
Status:    In progress

After discussion for a temporary period of 3 months Djile59 (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badak Jawa@id.wikiquote

edit
Status:    Done

Hello! I have re-applied to be the administrator of Indonesian Wikiquote because the project still lacks administrators Badak Jawa (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2026-04-27. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. AramilFeraxa (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

edit

See Interface admin for information about this user group.

  • If you are requesting adminship and the interface admin at the same time, you can file one request in administrator section and state you want interface adminship as well.
  • MediaWiki interface translations are done at translatewiki.net. Please do not request interface administrator access solely for that purpose; your request will be declined.
  • Since the end of 2018, all interface administrators are required to have two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled. Please, enable it before posting your request here.
  • Stewards: Please use {{Systmp}} for approved temporary requests.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

Please start a new discussion about requesting the permission on the local village pump, administrators' noticeboard or a designated page for requesting permissions each time you request or renew interface adminship.

  • Discussions should be open for seven days. Please request interface adminship here seven days after discussions started. This page is not the place for any discussions or votes. (For wikis with few active users, it is OK to have no comments.)
  • If you only want interface adminship for specific tasks, please state for how long and for which tasks you need it. Otherwise stewards will decide whether to assign permanent interface adminship and the duration of interface adminship. See Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements.

咽頭べさ@mnw.wiktionary

edit
Status:    In progress

I would like to ask a question about the Interface administrator, I applied for the Interface administrator position but it's been almost a month now, why isn't it finished yet? See ဝိက်ရှေန်နရဳ:ညးကောပ်ကာဲ--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 04:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related requests:
This advice [2] apparently wasn't followed [3]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

edit
See Bureaucrat for information about this user group.
  • In principle, requests for temporary bureaucrat access are not granted.
  • A small project does not need bureaucrats. Currently whether a promotion is valid or not is decided by stewards. See here for a guideline.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

CheckUser access

edit
See CheckUser policy for information about this user group and the policy governing the use of this tool.
  • To request CheckUser information, see Steward requests/Checkuser. This is the place to request CheckUser access.
  • One-time CheckUser access is not permitted and temporary access is only used by Stewards or when the mandate of the CUs has an expiry date specified in local policies.

Oversight access

edit
See Oversight policy for information about this user group and the policy governing the use of this tool.
  • To request to have content oversighted, ask for a steward in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect and contact a steward privately. This section is for requesting access to the Oversight tool.
  • For contact details about oversighters across the wikis, refer to this page.
  • Note that temporary Oversight access is not permitted and temporary status is only used by Stewards .
  • When a new user is assigned to this group, please add them to this list.

Miscellaneous requests

edit

Requests for permissions that don't fit in other sections belong here. Importer rights can be granted on most wikis by stewards only. Please gain local community consensus before posting a new section here.

Note that the following types of permissions requests belong on separate pages:

  • SRB — Local or global bot status
  • SRGP — Global permissions

Removal of access

edit
  • If you're requesting the removal of your own permissions, make sure you're logged in to your account. If you have multiple flags, specify which you want removed. Stewards may delay your request a short time to ensure you have time to rethink your request (see previous discussion on 24 hour delays); the rights will not be restored by stewards once they are removed.
  • To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, provide a link to the discussion, with a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion. However, as bureaucrats of some wikis may remove users from the administrator or bureaucrat group, please see also a separate list of these specific wikis.
  • To request the removal of another user's permissions for inactivity, link to your local inactivity policy. If your site does not have inactivity policy, the global policy Admin activity review applies.
  • See the instructions above for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.

LlamaAl@eswikiquote

edit
Status:    Withdrawn

Please remove his sysop and 'crat rights. LlamaAl does not have a mail account enabled, being a mandatory requirement according to local policies. Thanks. Leoncastro (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  non-stew comment: Just a clarification: the rules mentioned are not official policies. They were never approved or rejected by the community, nor were they ever put to a vote—something that still hasn't happened to this day. Therefore, it's invalid to treat such a requirement as mandatory, since it originates from a proposal that is over 20 years old. —Meruleh {talk} 22:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy was created in 2005 including its requirements from its origin. In those days everything was different, as it was always a small community with few users. In these origins one administrator was enough to create a local policy. No one has rejected it since then, since twenty years. The user LlamaAl was designated administrator in 2013 according to that policy and its conditions, with three favor votes. Yes, this is a small community. I think it is ok to invalidate the conditions of a local policies in conflict with global ones, but this is not the case. If the conditions of a local policy are invalidated simply because it was not voted on twenty years ago, would have to be invalidated almost all rules, even the most basic. Most importantly, if a local policy is not going to be accepted, then it should be clearly reflected locally and with the global policy that override it. -- Leoncastro (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  non-stew comment: If we go by that standard, you're essentially admitting — or rather, we're admitting — that it was arbitrarily enforced: no approval, no consensus. — just added by an administrator and left like that. Almost 20 years have passed, and it was never properly discussed. Stewards cannot act against a user based on something that was never officially approved, especially when it was unilaterally labeled as "policy" just because someone wanted it to be. By reading the pages, the discussions, and the edit history, it’s clear that everyone involved was fully aware this was being imposed without a proper process. It was edited and modified over time based on consensus between administrators — not the community. What’s more, it’s telling that in one of those supposed "policies," the administrator who created it left an edit summary saying: “Enough time has passed, this proposal now becomes policy!!” What does “enough time” even mean, if there was never a vote or any formal deadline defined? This clearly shows these “policies” are not legitimate — they are just proposals. And you cannot request the removal of a user based on a proposal that was never officially approved. Saying "the community is too small" is not a valid excuse. It’s also suspicious that this request for removal comes even though the user has had the feature disabled for over 10 years. Could this be related to the fact that they are the only bureaucrat (afk) and refused to promote a user whose admin candidacy had suspicious votes? In any case, there is no excuse: if there was no vote, then this was never — and still isn’t — a valid policy. It won’t be one until there is a proper vote. The size of the community or the time that has passed is irrelevant. That’s all from my side — this isn’t meant to be a full discussion, just a clarification for the steward handling the case: this is not a policy, and it cannot be used as a basis for removal. —Meruleh {talk} 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious votes like yours (with just two weeks old and less than twenty editions in the project at the time of the vote). I have not voted with five years old and half a hundred editions, so I do not know what you are trying to accuse. Yes, there were also people with even fewer edits than you (some made their first and only contribution by voting), but the voting policy —which I do not agree— was approved by consensus in 2020. I have no relation with Laura Fiorucci, and I do not know if I can agree with her or not. But I respect the policies (de facto or de jure) even if I do not agree with them. Is this request related with the other one? Yes. Because I see that our bureaucrat was almost inactive for the last five years, that does not use the rights for the last two years, neglecting their job and even worse unreachable. Which should be sufficient reason for removal. -- Leoncastro (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Meruleh. It's very unfortunate that you're mixing one request with another. It's also very rude of you to accuse me without naming me, preventing me from defending myself; an accusation that, moreover, is out of place in this thread. The bureaucrat, I assume you're referring to LlamaAl, didn't "refuse to promote me"; he simply hasn't been active on any of the projects for years and deactivated his email. Ergo, he's unreachable. The voting policy was respected; you may like it or not, but the active procedure was respected. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  non-stew comment: Laura Fiorucci: How could I not connect one thing to the other? This is clearly related to your recent candidacy. He’s the only bureaucrat, and you’re depending on him to permissions. If it weren’t for that, I highly doubt Leoncastro would have come here to request the removal of a user based on a non-official policy arbitrarily enforced by a former admin. I don’t need to mention or name you here — I already did so explicitly on your candidacy page, and here’s the link. I assume you haven’t seen it yet, but yes, I did raise the issue there, because your candidacy is clearly suspicious. And apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so — someone from the U4C already pointed it out, and I assume it's also being reviewed by the stewards. It also clearly states there that he’s refusing to act because he’s "AFK" (Away From Keyboard). This is not about personal preferences — it’s about a case of canvassing. In any case, I don’t need to elaborate further. As an administrator, you should know very well that this is not the place for a debate — this is not the Café. That’s what the discussion pages are for. And you had more than enough time to address this when I first pointed out the suspicious votes you received in a project that, even you admit, lacks a solid community — and yet somehow, people mysteriously showed up just to vote. That’s unusual, Laura — unusual for the project. Again, from my side, this ends here. This is not a Café. I don’t need any explanations — you can give those to the steward handling the matter. —Meruleh {talk} 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit hesitant about actioning this request. The page indeed mentions that the admin needs to have email enabled, but also nothing about what happens if an admin doesn't. There's no mention of any removal criteria in such cases (e.g. removal a certain amount of days after being notified), and no mention of any requirement that such an admin should be removed if they do not meet it. I'd rather either see a confirmation voting for the administrator in question, so that the community can evaluate whether they should retain their rights (if the issue is rather one of inactivity), or a clear community decision on what to do with admins who do not meet the requirements. EPIC (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC, the local policy states that email enabled is a requirement to be sysop. Obviously if the requirements are not meet it is a clear reason for removal. For eample, 2FA is a requirement to be steward, but stewards policy has no mention of such removal criteria. Also 2FA is a requirement to be interface administrators and the MediaWiki system software automatically removes this rights if does not meet this technical requirement. In this case, disabling the mail does not automatic trigger the removal, but is still a non-compliant requirement to be solved here. In addition, the practical inactivity of the sysop does not help in this case. No administrative actions in the last three years and only one edition in the last five years. A single edit just to bypass the inactivity policy. Seems that the user does not want to help with their rights, but simply wants to keep them. -- Leoncastro (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  non-stew comment: I support the request of @Leoncastro.

@EPIC, why do we need a confirmation voting for LlamaAl or a clear community decision on what to do with admins who do not meet the requirements?

The last administrative action of LlamaAl was on https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/LlamaAl March 12, 2022. Three years have passed without administrative actions and given that the editor is missing in action it seems very strange that you insisted on leaving him the permissions.

As you can read on https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administradores in the Wikiquote community, there is no local policy for removing the privileges of an administrator or bureaucrat who has been inactive for a long time so the community agreed (https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Archivo_de_Caf%C3%A9/2013#Request_for_comment_on_inactive_administrators) to abide by Wikimedia's global policy. Only stewards can revoke these permits and no elections are required. Stewards have been withdrawing administrator permissions for a long time without community input. You have left this message yourself https://es.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Usuaria_discusi%C3%B3n:Cookie&diff=prev&oldid=481501 and removed permissions from an administrator whose last edit was on July 31, 2022, https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/Cookie, based on this policy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Admin_activity_review

Why do you have one policy for Cookie and a different one for LlamaAl?

According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bureaucrat a small community generally doesn't require a local bureaucrat, because stewards can easily handle the low traffic of requests from that wiki with little delay. So far we have had only one bureaucrat (LlamaAl) and Galahad has already made it clear that he will not allow the election of a second one, which would allow us to continuo having autonomy https://es.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Caf%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=485916

It is not clear to me why in one case the community decision is required (the withdrawal of Llama's permits https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Bur%C3%B3cratas) and in the other the community decision is ignored (Laura's vote was in accordance with the rules - https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Pol%C3%ADtica_de_nombramiento_de_administradores) - and abusively annulled by the Global Sysop Galahad https://es.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Candidaturas_a_administrador&diff=prev&oldid=485780, who is part of the conflict since he voted against.

I want to make it clear that I am not and was not part of the conflict since I did not vote in the elections and I do not care whether Laura Fiorucci wins or not. However, I find it very worrying that a Global Sysop who claims to perform maintenance tasks without having been elected as an administrator by us, a and a steward, make such important decisions that go against the autonomy of a project. No matter how small, our decisions deserve respect, and this constant updating of policies according to personal convenience and disrespect for democratic elections and votes goes against the guidelines of the Wikimedia movement.

I ask @EPIC:, can I open a vote according to https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Candidaturas_a_bur%C3%B3crata so that Wikquote in Spanish can elect a new bureaucrat? That would resolve this controversy, because if LlamaAl doesn't show up we need a second bureaucrat. Or do I run the risk of Galahad coming to boycott that vote and annul it, as he did with Laura Fiorucci's election? --Esperelopeor (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second intervention. First of all, Galahad didn't even say he was against the idea. On the contrary, he mentioned that, for a new bureaucrat to be elected, there would need to be at least six administrators and at least fifteen votes — and that requirement comes from Meta. You're seriously mistaken on that point. If the community ends up having a bureaucrat, that’s actually a good thing — it saves us from unnecessary drama that mixes unrelated issues, like bringing in cases from Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, etc. Let’s stay focused. Here’s the bottom line: a bureaucrat cannot be removed based on a policy that was never voted on. If you can show a single diff where there was a vote or community consensus saying “Let’s make this an official policy,” then I’ll take back what I said and support the removal. But since no such consensus exists, I will not. As one of the stewards also pointed out, the information here isn’t even clear. I’ll repeat it again: we’re here to act fairly. If something was never voted on or made into an official policy, you cannot remove someone’s rights based on arbitrary criteria. I honestly don’t understand what’s unclear about that. That said, LlamaAl should be removed just like Cookie — through the Admin activity review (AAR) process —or at the very least, a dismissal to the active non-external Wikiquote community—. —Meruleh {talk} 00:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a response to some of the comments above; No, we aren't applying different criteria for different users. As eswikiquote has no apparent inactivity policy, AAR applies, which clearly states that advanced right holders with no edits or log actions in the last two years will be affected. Since this was the case for Cookie (but not for LlamaAl), they were removed for inactivity accordingly. Now that this has been withdrawn I would also, as previous mentioned, suggest establishing some kind of local consensus and/or inactivity criteria. EPIC (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Request withdrawn: The es.wikiquote project start to voting to clear what to do with admins and 'crats who do not meet the email requirement of the local policies (here) and for a specific possible revalidation of both LlamaAl permisions (here). This request will be submitted when, and only when, we have an inexcusable reason for removal. -- Leoncastro (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EPIC, thank you very much for your explanation. We will do it. You are very kind. I would like to express my concern regarding recent interventions by other Global Sysop in our local processes—specifically the deletion of the page es:q:Revalidación de administrador y burócrata/LlamaAl, which was created by me, an administrator, in response to your request. Who requested the intervention of a Global Sysop to eliminate the page that I created? The members of our community certainly do not. I invite you to read the open vote for Galahad es:q:Wikiquote:Café#Propuesta_de_política_para_administradores and the expressions of discontent from the rest of the community. In this context, this new intervention of LR0725 appears to have disrupted a legitimate local process. Our community is actively working to address internal matters and maintain a constructive environment, and we believe that giving space to local governance, particularly when administrators are acting within our mandate, will contribute positively to that effort. We ask for respect toward our local processes and leadership. Interventions that disregard these processes jeopardize collaborative work and damage the relationship between local communities and global roles. I have restored the page and I request the Global Sysops to refrain from intervening in this process. Thank you very much.--Jalu (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaluj the page wasn't deleted, you created it in the wrong namespace [4]. A global sysop later deleted the redirect which got automatically created while moving the page [5], I don't understand why you re-created the redirect [6] and protected the page, I've never seen a project using the main namespace for internal matters. Johannnes89 (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your mesage, @ Johannnes89 It was a Global Sysop who redirected the page, and it was another Global Sysop who removed the redirect. What happens to the project's autonomy and the administrator roles on Wikiquote en Spanish? The Global Sysop could have left me a message warning me about that or asking me why, but coming to delete the page I created in the middle of a heated debate in which we're discussing the project's autonomy and the interference of the Global Sysops doesn't help to improve the climate. That's what I'm trying to show you.--Jalu (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, Jaluj. I was the one who requested the deletion, and as an administrator, you can clearly see that in the article’s history. I find it quite surprising that you claim to be unaware of that. Anyway, I made the request to the Global Sysops because if we had to rely solely on the actions of a local admin, we could be waiting for days—or even weeks, as has happened recently. Secondly, neither you nor anyone from the community can question the actions of a Global Sysop. Global Sysops are democratically elected by the global community and are granted the authority to intervene in administrative matters when called upon or when needed. It’s one thing if they overstep their role—which can certainly be discussed—and another entirely when they are simply doing their job in response to a request from the community. In case you didn’t know, there is a request board on Meta, and they act based on those submissions. You’re in no position to tell a Global Sysop that they’re not welcome in a project, much less act against their intervention. In this case, the action taken was valid and appropriate: you created a vote page in the main namespace, which is incorrect and invalid. That’s why Galahad—who, as he himself stated, was acting as a local user with rollback rights, not as a Global Sysop—moved the page to the correct namespace. Since the old title wasn’t deleted, I requested its deletion via Meta, and I’ll continue doing so whenever necessary. That’s what Global Sysops are for: to step in when needed. You can’t disregard the decisions of a global community—one that is legitimate, trustworthy, and democratic. Of course, it’s possible to request a review of an intervention. But if the project is in trouble—with chaotic votes, misplaced pages, frequent vandalism, and administrators who show up sporadically—then these interventions become necessary. Let’s remember that we’re in a small project, not Wikipedia, where there are more than 100 active admins. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that I was the one who requested the deletion because you placed the page in the wrong namespace. And to remind you that Global Sysops are allowed to intervene—because that’s exactly what they were elected to do. Best regards. —MERULEH 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meruleh that's incorrect, global sysops „have no extra editorial control over content or the local community“ per policy, they are generally expected to follow local processes.
But again no-one deleted the page @Jaluj. You created the page in the wrong namespace, a community member (who happens to be a global sysop, but is also a local rollbacker) simply moved the page to the correct namespace where it still is [7]. The other global sysop only deleted the redirect (usually a routine cleanup task, given that the namespace is clearly wrong) [8]. I still don't understand, why you re-created that redirect [9]. Johannnes89 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannnes89, I recreated the page because I did not understand why it had been deleted in the first place. I'm a sysop on two projects for many, many years,, a bureaucrat on one, and nothing like this has ever happened to me. I was very surprised. According to our policies and templates, any user requesting deletion is expected to notify the author of the page with an explanation. In this case, the page was moved, requested to deletion and ultimately deleted without any kind of notification. I only discovered that the page had been removed when I noticed a red link on the voting page. Upon learning more about the situation, I now understand the deletion and I proceeded to delete the page. However, even if my original action could be unintentional error, I log in to the project daily, often several times a day and the way the situation was handled, by immediately involving a Global Sysop instead of a local administrator and without providing any notification to the author of the page, was not in line with the way we usually operate in the project. Local administrators are democratically elected by the Wikiquote in Spanish community through open and legitimate procedure and my goal is only to open the door to a more transparent and respectful process for future actions. Thank you Johannnes89 for taking the time to read and consider my message. Best regards, --Jalu (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also

edit

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=28622267"