Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Majora (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 27 March 2020 (→Majora@commonswiki: final comment). It may differ significantly from the current version.
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 requirement 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

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

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

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

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

Administrator access

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.

Reke@szywp

Status:    On hold

Sakizaya Wikipedia have just created on November 22 2019. We wish that there can be some temporary administrators to service for the project.

  1. User:LamiHung is an active editor of szy.wp and yet she isn' a native speaker of Sakizaya language. We hope that she will be the first permanent administrator after some practice.
  2. I work for WMTW more than 5 years and support to the Sakizaya people to incubate their Wikipedia in these 3 years. I need help LamiHung in the follow days when she have some problem. If I can get the permission too, the work will be easier.

I also want to know is there any limited of the number of temporary administrators? NCCU-ALCD (the main promoter of incubating Wikipedia for all Taiwanese aborigines) hope they can assign their 1 staff to be the administrator of szy.wp too. If the person can also get the permission, it can be the seed teacher to help the other 15 peoples of Taiwanese aborigines.--Reke (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You need a local discussion about your permission. Please provide a link to local discussion or start local discussion. --Sotiale (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess it need take some time because they discussed this by out of Wiki. I can tell them do this again on some pages and wait, however, could someone answer me about how many administrators can we apply in the first time?--Reke (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will be difficult to tell by numbers how many admins are appropriate. This is because the amount of pages and the amount of activity on an individual wiki must be considered comprehensively. However, at least the two requests you submitted, including you, can be accepted. The current request will be held until local discussion proceeds. --Sotiale (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reke: Have you started a local discussion? Thanks much.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This place is not a place where the actual "Request for Permission" take places; that should happen on the wiki where you are requesting permission for - because people on the wiki where you are requesting permission for knows you far better than us, and this page is actually more of "Hey! I have this RFP, please look at this and flag me!" zone. Therefore local discussion (be it form of "announcement of intention to serve as an admin" or actual "request for permission" format) is a nonnegotiable condition for any request on this page, with the exception of self-resignation.
That being said, if you are not starting a local discussion, we cannot flag you. If you don't open one in 3 or 4 days, I will close it as not done. — regards, Revi 18:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that we do not accept off-wiki discussions (definition: any discussion happening outside the wiki itself, e.g. Telegram, IRC, etc etc) as a required "discussion". It must be documented on the wiki. — regards, Revi 18:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@-revi and Sotiale: I sort of found the discussion, although I hate to be the one helping someone to find, but this time I did an exception. @Reke: please confirm is the discussion correct (I had link above). I will also be linking below the other applicant discussion.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reke: Can you confirm. The RFA is due today as what I can read. And can you confirmed the link is correct. Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: Thank you and the link you added is correct.--Reke (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LamiHung@szywp

Status:    On hold

See the application of Reke@szywp above.-- Reke (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reke: Was there an on-wiki discussion about LamiHung's adminship? Please link it here. Putting on hold until the dicussion is provided.--Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help found the discussion. Per comments under Reke section, I hate to help finding but since Reke is not around, I shall do it this time. @Martin Urbanec: I guess this is their discussion.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berko74@yi.wikisource

Status:    On hold
 On hold Given there is very little active users, please announce the intention to gain adminship at a village pump or similar place locally at the project, wait a week and then post a link here. We'll grant temporary adminship, provided no opposes were raised. Does that answer your question, Dovi and Berko74? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and yes. They will write about their intentions and request at the local village pump. Dovi (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dovi: Has the discussion happened? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

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.

Bureaucrat access

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.

Vajotwo@vec.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Given that in our Wikipedia there is only one bureaucrat who unfortunately has been absent since December 2019 and given the above discussion in favor of my appointment as a bureaucrat, I am asking to be appointed bureaucrat of the Venetian Wikipedia. I hope you can approve my request. I'm available for more information. Thank you --- Vajotwo (post) 00:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be rather an announcement than a full election. I'm reculant to grant bureaucrat rights - a project with no bureaucrats of this size probably wouldn't be granted one. I believe it would be better if bureaucrat's duties are performed by stewards for this timebeing. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you but I respect your opinions. In this case then I leave you all the decision. But at this point it would be better to revoke the bureaucratic rights even to the only present absent from December 2019. What do you think about it? --- Vajotwo (post) 12:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And then, honestly speaking, I don't think it is the case of having to bother you for every little thing to do on our project. If I were a bureaucrat I could take care of it personally. It would be the best thing in my opinion, both as regards the assignment of new flags to users and their revocation and for other things. --- Vajotwo (post) 20:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser access

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

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.

Removal of access

  • 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.

Danny B.@skwikt

Status:    Not done

New rules for adminship were approved on January 23 in a vote linked above. Vote was 2:1 in favor plus one vote past deadline bringing the total to 3:1. One user challenged legitimacy of the whole vote (see discussion). The newly approved rules require admins to request reelection every year. Danny B. was pinged on January 23. He did not reapply for adminship during the last 30 days nor did he post any comment regarding renewal of his adminship. Per the new rules, admins who do not reapply automatically lose adminship. — Robert Važan (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vote of the proposer usually is not counted. So, the result is 2:1. In addition, I find it is strange the proposer closed the discussion that he himself initiated. Ruslik (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: Hi Ruslik. I am starting to feel like you are the only steward here :-) Anyway, to the point... I would love to have there a community large enough to meet these standards (not counting proposer's vote; vote closed by someone else; defined voting rules; strict eligibility criteria; etc.). The community is unfortunately small and most editors do not participate in most votes and discussions (see past discussions and proposals). I sometimes get thanks on top of votes, but that probably doesn't count. If it helps, I can add that this removes admins who obtained adminship in votes with legitimacy no higher than this one - they just voted for each other with help from some socks. — Robert Važan (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just accused a number of long-term users of socketpuppetry without providing any evidence. However, looking at the discussion for this new policy a saw that strange things happened. The discussion was initially supposed to run for a month and should have finished on 29 December but nevertheless was not closed until 23 January, which by curious coincidence is just two days after Cetiletý pedone-marciatore voted for you. I looked at this account and discovered that it had lain dormant since April 2019 but then reactivated on 21 January, voted (among other edits) for the proposal and finally made some more edits on 22 January. After that it disappeared again but on 23 January you closed the discussion as I said above. Does not this pattern look like sock-puppetry? Ruslik (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: That's a lot of questions. Let me explain one by one. Those three "long-term users" you are talking about have less than 5 edits in skwikt mainspace and two of them have just a small number of edits globally (1 2 3). It's 1 sock and 2 cross-project invitations for canvassing by my judgement (which I have somewhat incorrectly summed as socks above). The vote about the new rules was closed on January 5 where I have also offered two weeks of extra time for people to propose tightening of voting rights. Since nobody proposed anything, I did the final close on January 23. You can see in the discussion that I transparently invited everyone showing some activity on skwikt. User "Cetiletý pedone-marciatore" doesn't appear to be a sock, judging by content of his edits and his global edit count. Nevertheless, if you suspect sock account, do a UserCheck. — Robert Važan (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still the discussion was finally closed just as the last vote appeared. In addition, why was not the opinion of Lenka64 taken into account? He was obviously against this proposal. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The temporal correlation with the last vote is just a consequence of this vote being encouraging. Lenka64 is a woman. Her comments regarding the proposal itself are on the negative side but still ambivalent, definitely not "obvious". She is challenging legitimacy of the whole vote instead (as mentioned above). Also, I am refraining from guessing people's voting preferences, because there would be no end to speculation if we went down that route. I have nevertheless listened to Lenka64 when she objected to the lax voting rights by adding basic voting right requirements and leaving time for her to propose her own. — Robert Važan (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can not just ignore people who challenge legitimacy of the voting itself. For all practical purposes they are against this proposal. And by the way I do not believe in improbable correlations. Based on the three arguments mentioned above I am not sure that I am going to recognize this policy as legitimate. Ruslik (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ignoring Lenka64. I have adjusted the proposal based on her feedback. I tried to argue with her reasonably. I have also mentioned her objections to legitimacy of the vote in the original comments for this request. It is up to you whether you interpret such objections to the vote itself as equivalent to negative vote. The problem with such interpretation is that you could as well start counting the two thanks I received for closing the vote and related updates to project pages as positive votes. As I have said, there is no end to speculation once you start guessing people's preferences. Nevertheless, this is indeed a low turnout and tight majority vote and its evaluation is up to you. Since this vote was intended to solve the problematic situation on skwikt, rejection of the vote results on meta will likely lead to my attempt to resolve the problems on skwikt via RfC. If you don't consider the vote, then at least remove sysop rights from Zdenekk2's inactive account. — Robert Važan (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rights of Zdenekk2 will be removed in due course when the time comes. Ruslik (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zdenekk2's case is neither important nor urgent, but read Nota bene point 3 in the policy you linked. Zdenekk2 should lose adminship under both the old or the new local rules. Keeping his adminship would signal you consider both the old and the new rules illegitimate. — Robert Važan (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, give me a link to the local policy. Ruslik (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: This is the previous version of the page about admins role, talking about 6 months inactivity period. New policy is at https://sk.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikislovn%C3%ADk:%C5%BDiados%C5%A5_o_pr%C3%A1va_spr%C3%A1vcu. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is again a "may be" policy. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no actual policy provided with regards to the inactivity rules. Therefore not done. — regards, Revi 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User JAn Dudík@skwikt

Status:    Not done

Reason is the same as for Danny B. above. — Robert Važan (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Danny B. — regards, Revi 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Zdenekk2@skwikt

Status:    Not done

Reason is the same as for Danny B. and JAn Dudík above. In case of Zdenekk2, there is an additional reason of inactivity. Zdenekk2 made his last edit globally more than a year ago. This is a reason to lose adminship even per the old rule about 6-month inactivity that was controversial but nevertheless respected by stewards. — Robert Važan (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Danny B. — regards, Revi 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuyifei1999@commonswiki

Status:    Done

Please remove all my rights on Commons. Loss of trust, confidence, and interest. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see this.  On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. — regards, Revi 06:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello people, this page is not a place to signal whether you support or oppose this removal requests. Please refrain from such comments. If you have something to say, you know where to go. (their talk page) Thank you! — regards, Revi 15:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you think the talk page is the better place to make a request for this request, please see: [1] --Schlurcher (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Already he responded to e-mail(he did edit here), and did not require time to change his mind or think. It may be painful to ask someone who wants to leave to stay here. Thank you for your service and good luck. --Sotiale (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khamul1@cs.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please remove my administrator rights. Thanks in advance. --Khamul1 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. --Sotiale (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you for your service. --Sotiale (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majora@commonswiki

Status:    On hold

Please remove my sysop bit from Commons as well as my global OTRS user group. I am retiring from Wikimedia. If allowed by policy could you please lock my alternate account, User:Majora's Incarnation, as well as this account when you are finished. I won't be coming back. Thank you. Majora (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Majora. I haven't said explicitly, but I need to make sure you know my retirement has barely anything to do with your post on AN/U. Don't feel guilty about it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to the stewards for this message as it probably doesn't belong here. I will be brief. This has very little to nothing to do with you, Zhuyifei1999 although I do appreciate you thinking about me. I firmly believe that people should be accountable for their actions. I always have. That is one of my core beliefs and forms quite a large part of my personality. That is what I have always strived for. The recent events show the complete and utter lack of accountability amongst, supposedly, some of the most trusted members of the Commons community. Ignoring requests for comment and wheel warring were enough to make me question my presence here. The responses by other administrators to sweep even attempts at accountability under the rug and away from the community is what finally broke me. I told myself a long long time ago that if Wikimedia ever became more of a hobby, if it ever affected me in a way that causes undue distress, that I would immediately step away and not look back. That day has unfortunately come. I won't be responding to any other inquires. Clean breaks are easier to accomplish after all. --Majora (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

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

Frank Murmann@de.wikipedia

Status:    Done

I would like to request import rights for the German Wikipedia to assist the few existing importers in fulfilling import requests by import upload. --Frank Murmann (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure for requesting import rights in German Wikipedia? Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, dewiki already has 13 XML importers - seems a bit heavy, is there much of a backlog at w:de:Wikipedia:Importwünsche? — xaosflux Talk 17:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page for XML-Upload is de:Wikipedia:Importwünsche/Importupload. There are currently mostly only two XML-importer active. Best regards, Luke081515 18:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Linked discussion sounds to be good for this privilege. Frank Murmann has already shown dewiki trusts them, because they're a sysop. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=19932294"