Wikivoyage:User rights nominations/Archives/2025

← 2024 User rights nominations archives for 2025 (current) 2026 →
Archives by year
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Wauteurz (extension of temporary Interface Adminship)

Hello all. Half a year ago I expressed hope that Vector 2022 would be better fit for us by now. Judging by the update log of the skin, however, nothing significant has changed. I assume that Vector 2022 as it sits now is the long-term version we'll keep, but I do also still have a couple of changes to our Main Page templates in the pipeline that should make Wikivoyage's landing page's appearance to new and non-signed in readers more appealing (namely tweaking Mapbanner and the JCaroussel). Implementing those, assuming they get a solid consensus, would be helped by retaining this role. Currently, my Interface Admin role expires on June 10th, and I'd like to have that extended by another half year to ensure that nothing breaks, and to further improve Wikivoyage's appearance in the skin.

Please chime in with your opinion below. I'm of course available for questions if needed :)
― Wauteurz (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: after a unanimous vote six months ago, Wauteurz was granted temporary Interface Adminship. No complaints were made about their use of these powers. Is there any need to waut 14 data on this, or can we make this an immediate renewal, which would ve cancelled if there were any objection, which there won't be? Ground Zero (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As their rights won't expire in these 14 days (actually 7, for temporary with no objections), there is no difference between waiting and renewing conditionally. If we are to revert the renewal in case of objections, there is no point in not waiting. On Swedish Wikipedia, most admin rights renewals (the term is one year only) end 30-0, 30-1 or so, but we feel it is important to keep this renewal procedure. Making exceptions may lead to not making an exception feeling as a statement – better keep to the rules with no drama. –LPfi (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. I don't know if we have any rules about votes for extensions of permissions, but it seems like because we already agreed the user in question is trustworthy, it should be unnecessary to be as rigorous as when making the initial decision. I see LPfi's point, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; though I think we can extend this such that it will be another 6 months from when Wauteurz's perms expire, not when this nomination closes. //shb (t | c | m) 23:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's logical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SHB2000 for checkuser

SHB2000 is both an experienced bureaucrat on Wikivoyage and highly knowledgeable on technical issues behind the scenes. We've had increased instances of sockpuppetry on the website but we don't have the critical tool in-house to combat it: the checkuser tool, which enables its user to check accounts' IP addresses to see if they match. This role is solely to fight long-term abuse, per Wikivoyage:CheckUser.

For full transparency, we need two checkusers approved by 25 votes each to implement checkusers on Wikivoyage. I recognize that's a tall order, but we should at least try to reach that number given the assistance this tool would provide us in fighting constant vandalism and doppelgangers. I'm happy to vote for anyone else who puts themselves forward as a second checkuser candidate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination :). For the record, I accept the nomination and have signed the wmf:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy. //shb (t | c | m) 00:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support – A reliable contributor and a responsible administrator. Ground Zero (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Both are trustworthy. Thanks for volunteering to do this, guys! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support A reliable contributor, and some edits yesterday made me think that we now need a checkuser. AlasdairW (talk)
  4. Support Jianhui67 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support To be clear, in addition to my nomination I am also voting in favor. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Dedicated to the site and its mission. Mrkstvns (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Gerode (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support ― Wauteurz (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Just noticed this now, as I looked at Recent changes. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Having a local checkuser is important. --Alexander (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I support you. Nvdtn19 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support – a long-term user here whose name I know well. Certainly has a need for the tools. Graham87 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support but I would strongly encourage adopting a flexible policy that allows stewards to process routine CheckUser requests as is the case with my home wiki. That way, stewards can continue to handle cases without having to unnecessarily contact local CheckUsers, and local members of this community can ask the stewards if, for instance, the existing checkusers are inactive. Leaderboard (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed something like that at Wikivoyage talk:CheckUser#Stewards – I think that's what the enwikibooks policy is as well? (to my understanding, at least – we're usually very positive to global rights holders here anyway) //shb (t | c | m) 06:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, nice to see that there's already support for the plan. Leaderboard (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I'm happy to back someone that the others here trust. Jamar0303 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Globally trusted user with whom I've had several good interactions over several years and who shows good judgement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Of course. Ibaman (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Sophocrat (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Asamboi (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Why not? Brickguy276 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Someonehere12345 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support ANormalWikiEditor (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Vidimian (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I'd trust him with my life so yes, of course.--A09|(talk) 22:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support JakeOregon (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I've had some conflict with this user but have no problem trusting them for this. Pashley (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Has been helpful to me as a beginning wiki user. Oak lod (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Gizza (roam) 23:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support ~2025-30186-02 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support ~2025-30344-55 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Done by Aramil. //shb (t | c | m) 21:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SelfieCity (checkuser)

Similar to above, SC was also happy to be nominated for checkuser (see discussion on my talk page). As the global CU policy requires a minimum of two CUs, I'm hereby nominating SC to be the second.

  1. Support as nominator. //shb (t | c | m) 00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – A responsible administrator and a reliable contributor. Ground Zero (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Both are trustworthy. Thanks for volunteering to do this, guys! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A reliable contributor, and some edits yesterday made me think that we now need a checkuser. AlasdairW (talk)
  5. Support Jianhui67 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Dedicated to the site and its mission. Mrkstvns (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Gerode (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support ― Wauteurz (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Ypsilon (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Having a local checkuser is important. --Alexander (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support – long-term dedicated user; I'm happy to do my bit to move this process along. Graham87 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Leaderboard (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I also support this nomination. Jamar0303 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Trusted user who has shown a good willingness to help the community here for several years and shown good judgement in my experience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Of course. Ibaman (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Sophocrat (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Long term dedicated editor --Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Asamboi (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Someonehere12345 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Vidimian (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support ANormalWikiEditor (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support of course.--A09|(talk) 22:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as a long-term editor. :) Dare2Leap (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support JakeOregon (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Pashley (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Nizil Shah (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Has been helpful to me as a beginning Wiki editor. Oak lod (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Gizza (roam) 23:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support ~2025-30186-02 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support ~2025-30344-55 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Done by Mykola. //shb (t | c | m) 01:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited (checkuser)

As per this discussion on the pub, I am nominating Ohana to be the site's third checkuser. The candidate has been a sysop here for more than 18 months now and has been a long-standing trusted admin on both enwiki and Wikispecies (where they are also a bureaucrat), and also has helped with anti-vandalism on this site. //shb (t | c | m) 04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I accept the nomination. I was a Checkuser clerk for English Wikipedia between 2008 and 2012 (and occasionally still guest appearance as one[1]). I hope I can put my previous knowledge to good use for the benefit of this project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as nominator. //shb (t | c | m) 04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Trusted. Just to clarify, though: Would they be a full checkuser or some kind of alternate who would become active if needed? Because the nomination seems to present the nomination as conditional ("in case either SelfieCity or myself go inactive"). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Full/regular checkuser – sorry, I should have clarified this in the nomination. //shb (t | c | m) 04:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support ― Wauteurz (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ANormalWikiEditor (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Ypsilon (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Gizza (roam) 23:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Ground Zero (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Mr. Snatch (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Leaderboard (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~2025-30186-02 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Support Ibaman (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~2025-30344-55 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Support Pashley (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Ferien (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gerode (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Someonehere12345 (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~2025-30519-41 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes made by block evading users have been struck (though they were bound to be ignored by stewards anyway). //shb (t | c | m) 22:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Jianhui67 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support-Tanbiruzzaman (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. aka User:Piotrus. If my work account is ineligible to vote, ping Piotrus and I'll resign with main account. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah we don't have any voting criteria haha :) – it's just those three temp accounts were confirmed to be that of a community banned user. //shb (t | c | m) 08:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Amusing, considering the CU context. Piotrus (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh it absolutely is. //shb (t | c | m) 05:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Rzuwig► 11:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support from JaventheAlderick (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Silver Dovelet (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support JakeOregon (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Mrkstvns (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support LGTM. Ternera (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Maresa63 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --~2025-31478-01 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CU blocked. //shb (t | c | m) 21:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Arlo Barnes (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll file a request at m:SRP, though I assume this will be on hold for a little while since we need to wait for Ohana's ANPDP signature, which needs to come through. //shb (t | c | m) 22:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Done by EPIC. //shb (t | c | m) 21:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]