Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight
To request oversight access for yourself or another user, please input the relevant name into the box below. If there has been a past request, successful or unsuccesful, please follow add a number − "Example 2" for a second request, "Example 3" for a third, and so on.

Old requests go to the archive.
Requirements for oversight

To be promoted the following requirements must be met:

  • Nominations remain open for two full weeks.
  • Only existing local administrators can apply.
  • All successful candidates must be at least 18 years of age, or age of majority in the jurisdiction in which they reside, and be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • To pass, the user needs:
    • at least 25 support votes, and
    • at least 80% of support or higher in pro/con voting
  • Only registered users can vote. Unregistered users can leave comments in the comments section.
  • Candidates should neutrally link to their candidacy on mail:wikidata-l, project chat pages, and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard.


RfP scheduled to end at 1 June 2020 14:18 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to present Kostas20142 as a candidate for oversighter on Wikidata. He is an active contributor and admin on Wikidata, also a global rollbacker and admin on Meta. Kostas20142 is also often available on IRC. He has signed the required agreements with the Foundation and understands the privacy and oversight policies and is reasonable in his actions on wikis. It's important to have active oversighters so the requests are processed quickly. His timezone is UTC+2 (+3 in summer) so he can fill some gaps. --Stryn (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: It's a great honor for me to accept this nomination. Should this RfP be successful, I will mostly be available to handle requests from 06:00 UTC to 22:00 UTC either at IRC or via email --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. Support as nominator Stryn (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support would be good to have another OS or two, and the candidate is trusted enough to use the tools properly. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support --Epìdosis 14:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support --Rschen7754 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Leaning support recent, but confident —Eihel (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support, no concerns. Competent and trustworthy. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 03:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Support --Alaa :)..! 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Support --Sotiale (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Support We badly need more oversighters to not overburden the existing team.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  12.   Support MisterSynergy (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  13.   Support --Fralambert (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  14.   Support Sure, no concerns.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  15.   Support almost forgot to add me here.-BRP ever 13:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  16.   Support, thanks for volunteering! Bencemac (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  17.   Support Competent and trusted. Minorax (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  18.   Support · Sure! -- CptViraj ( ) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  19.   Support No concerns. ~riley (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  20.   Support ミラP 19:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  21.   Support Esteban16 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  22.   Support - Premeditated (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  23.   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  24.   Support--باسم (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  25.   Support Flixwito^(•‿•)^ 04:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  26. Support. —Hasley 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  27.   Support --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  28.   Support --Nehaoua (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  29.   Weak oppose Kostas20142 has only been an administrator for two months and doesn't hold any privilege higher than sysop on any WMF site. While I don't place much value on Jura's comments because Jura is very good at finding fault with other editors, I think I want to see a longer period of sysop activity before endorsing Kostas as an oversighter. Deryck Chan (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    1.   Support Nnadigoodluck (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)not eligibile to vote due to less than 100 local non-automated edits.--GZWDer (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  30.   Oppose per user:Deryck Chan "has only been an administrator for two months" (I don't care about other WMF sites like Deryck seems to do) and per mass deletions as described by user:Jura1. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


  •   Question given that OS changes the visibility of revision, can you explain why you changed the visibility of the username at [1]. Was there a request for it? Why is the connected edit still visible [2], but can't be attributed any more? --- Jura 14:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The username itself (inappropriate username, has been blocked as a known lta) was the content that fell under the scope or the revision deletion policy, but as you understand I cannot be too specific without undoing the purpose of the revdel. The actual edit or the edit summary have no such content and thus remain intact. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
What was "inappropriate" about the username? --- Jura 06:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The username was an attack name against a steward. It is common practice (and allowed in policy) to delete those usernames, or even suppress them, as both a way of denying recognition to the vandal and removing negative/PI-revealing statements about a user from the archived revisions and automatically-generated lists. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is there no explanation in the log? We now have a series of edits that can't be attributed. --- Jura 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
What? There is an explanation saying Inappropriate username. And you are worried about giving attribution to vandals? But as Ajraddatz explained this is common practice and these edits are still attribute to same vandal account but not visible to public. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The edit is now disconnected from any other edits/account. --- Jura 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kostas20142: can you explain? Which part of the explanation given by Ajraddatz do you feel isn't something you could have given? --- Jura 16:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, you are asking about the log or the RfP? --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The comment given by Ajraddatz at 14:31, 19 May 2020 as you mentioned earlier (15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC) that you can't be too specific. --- Jura 16:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Ajraddatz's comment was not much more specific than Kostas20142's. Kostas' response is more than adequate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I don't feel very comfortable discussing many details on hidden content and especially in highly visible areas because it might have the opposite effect than the hide (by attracting more attention). So, since I considered the explanation adequate, I opted not to further elaborate. That doesn't mean however that Ajraddatz's explanation contains anything that shouldn't be shared per se.--Kostas20142 (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we know who the suspected LTA/vandal is? --- Jura 10:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1:, what does that have to do with the revdel? The username was hidden because it was inappropirate and offensive and all the admins who read your question have probably seen and verified that. I consider it highly inappropirate that you have highlighted a username that needed to be deleted because it was considered attack on someone. So, please stop giving it more attention than it has already got.-BRP ever 12:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's explained at the beginning. The discussion is about Kostas20142 experience, suitability and reasoning relative to the permission he seeks. As I don't recall the username, I can't really mention or highlight it. As I understand it the username was deleted not because of the username of the LTA/vandal, but the because of the reference to a steward. An understandable reason, Ajraddatz explained it above. Still, I don't see why the name of the suspected vandal/LTA (which can have a different name) would be a secret. --- Jura 12:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: And that's going out of scope of this right. Also we denying recognition as Ajraddatz mentioned above.-BRP ever 12:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So that point should be discussed elsewhere? --- Jura 12:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Considering someone may be offended because you are giving attention to the deleted attack on them, I recommend stopping it here. Knowing who it is doesn't make it more or less inappropirate.-BRP ever 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Please note that according to Wikidata:Deletion policy, this isn't mandatory; of course the appropriate procedure can be followed to change this. Also:
  1. All my deletions on 1 May 2020 unless have another rationale were completely empty item creations.
  2. All deletions that include RfD in log use prefilled rationale provided by the template.
  3. A handful of deletions are mass deletions. If not apparent by relevant block I have been adding more details but the feature doesn't support including labels.
I am always available to provide more details about a deleted item or Lexeme at my talkpage or at WD:AN. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you review your approach to deletions and ensure that going forward, the log includes the label? MisterSynergy, who frequently does mass deletions, might be able to help you configure this correctly. This avoid that you suppress information that is generally thought to be useful. --- Jura 08:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


RfP scheduled to end at 4 June 2020 18:12 (UTC)

Hi, as stated by some users that the project needs a few more oversighters, I would like to apply for this. I have been an administrator for more than a year. I am a global sysop and global rollbacker, and I understand Wikidata and Wikimedia policies. I can also be found on multiples channels on IRC. My timezone is UTC-5, and I am active at night, time during there are less available sysops/OS. I am a native speaker of Spanish and I am able to understand other Romance/Latin languages such as Portuguese, Italian and Catalan, in addition to English. I am committed to the project, and would handle this role efficiently. Thank you, Esteban16 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


  1.   Support MisterSynergy (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 22:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support what else. —Eihel (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support --Rschen7754 00:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Sure, thank you for helping. --Sotiale (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Support --Alaa :)..! 09:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Support ChristianKl❫ 12:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Support--باسم (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  12.   Support --Epìdosis 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  13.   Support --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  14.   Support ミラP 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  15.   Support Flixwito^(•‿•)^ 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  16.   Support. Thanks for volunteering and helping the team out in work! Bencemac (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  17.   Support --Minorax (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  18.   ¡Sí!Hasley 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  19.   Support --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  20.   Support --Nehaoua (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  21.   Support AFAIK active admin and contributor, knowledgeable about related tools, no canvassing issues. Thanks for contributing. --- Jura 16:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  22.   Support Trusted editor and regular offline meetup participant, can be trusted with private information. Deryck Chan (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  23.   Support, reliable and trusted user, no concern.-BRP ever 07:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  24. Of-course! Keep up the good works. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 02:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  25. Easy drive by support. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  26.   Support · Sure, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  27.   Support. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


  • What's the basis for the project needing more oversighters? How much oversight request exist currently that need too much time to be serviced? ChristianKl❫ 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: @Ajraddatz:, an existing OS, indicated the amount of requests is a little high for them, and either way, having more to audit each others' actions is good (Sjoerddebruin is inactive so we effectively have a team of only two). Better timezone coverage is also needed; with Sjoerddebruin inactive we have no one to cover the middle of Europe's day, an important time for availability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I think any project should have at least 4-5 OSes and CUs if they have any. Means that there is always adequate coverage and actions can be double-checked by others. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • ChristianKl: The amount of requests is not the only concern, but the coverage of the role as well. With very few OS, it is harder to act in emergencies. We have stewards to give us a hand in such cases, but we are a big project, and a considerable amount of local help is useful. Esteban16 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, having coverage is also a valid reason.ChristianKl❫ 12:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The three oversighters that we have are unfortunately not the most active editors. When I reported a case earlier this year, it took them almost two days to react and respond, and in another earlier case they were not much quicker. More (active!) users with OS rights would actually be very useful, given that this is a sensitive role. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)