Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
←Requests and proposals Steward requests (Permissions) latest archive→
Shortcut:
SRP
This page is for requests to have stewards grant or revoke administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights on Wikimedia wikis which do not have a local permissions procedure. Please check the sidebar to the right to see whether your request belongs better elsewhere. Specifically, bot requests, requests for CheckUser information and global rights requests belong on their respective pages.

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).

Interface translations are done at translatewiki. Please do not request administrator access for that purpose; your request will be declined.

For urgent requests, such as to combat large-scale vandalism on a small wiki, contact a steward in the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel (web client). In emergencies only, type !steward in the channel to inform stewards that you need help. Otherwise, you can use @steward to gain attention if the channel is quiet.

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 | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Miscellaneous | Global permissions | Unexpired temporary access
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page[edit]

  1. Place the following code at the bottom of the appropriate section below: 
    ==== User name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    =
 |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 you're requesting access for multiple bots, leave this field blank and give a list of these bots in your remarks
    • 'discussion': a link to the local vote or discussion about the rights change (for example, "[[ex:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#ExampleUser]]").
  3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

Confirmation of identity[edit]

Certain permissions (notably CheckUser and Oversight) additionally require users to confirm their identity. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also submit the relevant identification to the 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:

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

Administrator access[edit]

See administrator for information about the position. Requests for removal of access belong in another section. Admins doing cross-wiki work may wish to see IRC/wikimedia-admin for information about joining #wikimedia-admin.

If you are requesting administrator status to translate the wiki interface, this should be done at the translatewiki.net instead (see mw:localisation). You can ask questions in the IRC channel or on the mailing list.

If you are requesting adminship to handle one-time vandalism incidents or clearing a deletion backlog, please see Vandalism reports and Steward requests/Miscellaneous.

Stewards
Currently-active temporary permissions are listed at /Approved temporary; please use {{Systmp}} for temporary permission. Please invite new sysops to the admin IRC channel.
Archiving
Requests only need remain listed below for a few days, and may afterward be removed as long as they have been copied to the subpage. Users who archive requests on that page, please check if the request was correctly added to the temporary subpage before removing it from this page.

For permanent sysopship please provide a link to the local community approval. For temporary sysopship please state for how long and for which tasks you need it, and link to a local announcement.

Mjbmr@fawikinews[edit]

Status:    In progress

Temp access for three months, thank you.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 07:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The user has history of misusing the tool and being blocked in multiple projects, and in This RFA most of the votes are loan votes from fawiki and most of voters have no edit in faWikinews, I would like to mark this request as not done, but I would like to another steward take a look to this request Mardetanha talk 05:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Vote page has been open since 12th Dec to 19th Dec and is locked by local admin, no objection in this time has been made. btw no misusing has been done by me.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 06:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an existing problem between this user and a steward at the home wiki of the steward. This has resulted in statements, maybe accusations being made, and that are not relevant to a wikiworld; and noting that this user was blocked here for an extended period for continuing on that matter. I wish to know that in granting rights that these contentious matters are not going to occur in conversations on faWN.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm good at avoiding issues like this happen but sometime the person don't like kisses and hugs, if you don't think this grant should not be done, you better have a good excuse for local community.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 13:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That is called avoiding answering the question. The request was for a reassurance of how you would undertake the role and to not undertake contentious conversations/matters, not an inflammatory comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'll refrain from occurring issues of conflict. But I didn't mean to avoid answering your question, I meant this request is for a community not only myself, 'cause I'm looking to help the project.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 08:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I won't let the contentious matters happen in fawikinews, if is that what you asking, you have my word.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Bragi H@iswikibooks[edit]

Status:    In progress

As an follow up to Bragi H´s request to get an admin right on is.wikibooks (linked above), I would like to ask stewards to give him administrator rights. is.wikibooks does not have any beurocrats to give him this right.--Snaevar (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion that you link to is nearly a year old, and we would want to see a fresh or updated notice to the community. Once that is done, please ping this discussion, and stewards will revisit it a week afterwards to gauge any discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected][edit]

Status:    On hold

Here we come again for my 5'th application about getting the sysop extended :-) I've started a discussion. Thanks! (and Marry Christmas ;)) Simeondahl (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold until 2 Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected][edit]

Status:    On hold

Requesting an extension for my admin rights at Punjabi wiki. Thanks! --Babanwalia (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold until 2 Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access[edit]

See bureaucrat for information about the position. In principle, requests for temporary bureaucrat access are not granted.
General note
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the minimum number of votes and overall participation to promote users to bureaucrat at Talk:Bureaucrat/2010-02#Minimum number of votes (see also this RFC). Users are encouraged to assist in the development of a policy that allows stewards to not decide on whether a promotion is valid or not. Thank you.

Xavier Dengra@cawikibooks[edit]

Status:    Not done

Thank you. --Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 20:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done the very small community size and very small pool of administrators (only two administrators) do not qualify for granting the requested right, sorry. Snowolf How can I help? 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Snowolf: I'd be very grateful if you could provide us the requirements (if they do exist) that has to accomplish a community in order to have a bureucrat. Thank you very much, --Gerardduenas (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser access[edit]

To request CheckUser information, see Steward requests/Checkuser. This is the place to request CheckUser access. Note that temporary CheckUser access is not permitted and the temporary status is only used by Stewards.

Stewards
When someone asks for CheckUser status, please check the current policy before giving the status. There is an email template to request identification from the new CU. Do not grant CU access unless the user is identified to the Foundation. Breaching these rules may be cause for removing your steward access. When you give someone CheckUser, please list them on CheckUser, ask them to subscribe to checkuser-l, email checkuser-l-owner-at-lists.wikimedia.org so the listadmins know the person is allowed on the mailing list, and make sure they contact an op for access to #wikimedia-privacy and #wikimedia-checkuser.

NickK@ukwiki[edit]

Status:    On hold

For the Arbitration Committee, Yakudza (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have sent the identification email to secure-info — NickK (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have received a confirmation from Philippe that ID process is completed — NickK (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
just for the record (so that the decision is made knowing all (not) important facts and this matter cannot be brought to light as an unpleasant surprize): the Arbitration Committee has not followed the established procedure. the details are here (in Ukrainian) --アンタナナ 01:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this discussion is at leat partially an attempt to mislead the others. The procedure is here: uk:Вікіпедія:Арбітражний комітет. The two threads on the discussion page are about the following:
  1. Per policy, arbitrators should accept or reject the arbitration request. In this request, arbitrators have just placed link to the previous discussion where they accepted their submission instead of copying their votes once again.
  2. All arbitrators have signed the decision with just --~~~~, while User:Base wants them to sign with Support--~~~~. There is no reason why arbitrators should sign the decision in a particular form, and it has never been a part of the established procedure.
(The comment above is in my capacity of ex-arbitrator of ukwiki, not as of a checkuser candidate) — NickK (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
But why the arbitrators removed Base's and my comments? It looks like they want hide abuse. It is not difficult to put Support near the signature. But they did not do it, and remove comments instead.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the main reason is that this page was not an appropriate place for comments, as comments were ultimately moved to the talk page. While I agree it is not that difficult to put Support near the signature (except that all arbitrators have to go back to this page and make this edit, while they probably have other things to do), is there a fundamental reason for doing this? Should arbitrators make one more edit and write, for example, <span style='color: green'>Support</span>--~~~~ instead of just Support--~~~~ if someone asks them? — NickK (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So, if you agree, let wait when they put 'Support' or 'Oppose' and then put this request.--Anatoliy (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do they need to do it? This comment from an arbitrator makes it clear that all four available arbitrators supported this request. If you like gaming the system and assuming bad faith — yes, you can go ahead and ask arbitrators to confirm, but I don't see any point in it — NickK (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am initiator of this Arbcom request, and I want that my request will be processed according correct procedure. And I see no reasons to remove comments from request page. It was allowed in previous cases like here or here. That's why I consider that arbitrators here want hide their abuse and removed comments. Arbitrators abused procedure two times but did not correct themselves and removed comments instead. You say that it is not difficult to put votes, so let arbitrators do it. And please restore removed comments on the request page (it is allowed as I confirmed by links above).--Anatoliy (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anatoliy 1) It is not true. Formally, I am initiator of this request. 2) According to CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser CheckUsers can be appointed by the Arbitrators only. After agreement, a member of the Committee should simply list the candidate on Steward requests/Permissions. Arbitrators agreed among themselves? Yes! What do you want more? --Pavlo1 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here is the first request for CUs for ukwiki: [3] (and the only request) --Rschen7754 06:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Please take your discussion elements back to your community and resolve there. I will put this on hold while you hold your discussion. Time2wait.svg on hold while community resolves the discussion around their valid process until 2 January  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you please confirm what exactly is needed from the community? It seems to be clear that all arbitrators supported the decision (and two of them, Pavlo1 and Yakudza have commented above), the discussion is primarily around the very important issue whether they arbitrators are to sign it with --~~~~ as they have done or with Support--~~~~ as User:Base (and now also User:Ahonc) want. As this discussion could last for ages, could you please confirm what exactly is needed as a decision of local community? Should all arbitrators sign here, for example, should they sign a new decision or what else should happen? — NickK (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
And why they cannot sign on ArbCom request page? I did not get answer yet.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oversight access[edit]

To request to have content oversighted, ask in #wikimedia-stewards, or, for requests regarding English Wikipedia email oversight-en-wp-at-wikipedia.org. This is the place to request Oversight access. Note that temporary Oversight access is not permitted and the temporary status is only used by Stewards.

Stewards
Do not grant Oversight access unless the user is identified to the foundation, which will be announced on the Identification noticeboard. When you give someone oversight access, list them on Oversight.

Removal of access[edit]

If you're requesting the removal of your own status, make sure you're logged in to a global 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 status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. All discussion must take place on your local wiki. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted person from that wiki should provide a link here to the discussion, a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion.

In either case, copy and paste the following text into the correct section (see instructions above). Please post requests at the bottom of the section.

However, as the bureaucrats of a few wikis may remove users from the administrator or bureaucrat group, please see also a separate list of these specific wikis.

==== username@domain ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    = 
 |user name = 
 |discussion= <!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
}}
Your remarks, etc. --~~~~

Wiki13@global[edit]

Status:    Done

Please remove my global sysop right. I am currently too busy in real life, so that helping Wikimedia projects is on such a low priority for me, that resigning would be best for now. I would like to retain the global rollbacker right. Already thanks in advance! --Wiki13 talk 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and thanks for helping! --Rschen7754 21:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

یوشیمیتسو@fa.wikinews[edit]

Status:    In progress

Remove his sysop right, he is inactive for more than two years and he is not responding to emails, and messages on his talk page.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the link to the inactivity policy for the wiki? --Rschen7754 17:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
ویکی‌خبر:مدیران#بازپس‌گیری اختیارات در صورت عدم فعالیت. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This was a page that you created in 2011, I'm not so sure about this. --Rschen7754 18:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a policy and it's acceptable by local community. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 21:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Look how many times it's linked, you're just denying local policy as a steward. He is a great guy I'm sure he can collect votes if he really wanted to be active again and help the project. I just don't wanna inactive users have a sysop access, @Nemo_bis left him a message in the September 'cause he was in sysop list but he didn't respond and that's how we lost local uploads. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Just because you say something is policy does not make it so. Can you point to a community discussion about this "policy"? --Rschen7754 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm on it. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 10:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Without an existing local policy, I would suggest that it waits for the forthcoming global process of admin review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, local policy exist but there is not discussion made about it since 2011, so now I'm asking local community to comment and vote about it 'cause you guys don't accept that. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 11:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected][edit]

Status:    Done

It is kindly requested to remove a sysop access of the mentioned user due to inactivity since more than one year despite of several warnings. Best regards, --Qarakesek (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests[edit]

Requests that don't fit in other sections belong here. Import rights can be granted on most wikis by stewards only, not bureaucrats, so the automatic list of local bureaucrats is irrelevant for this. Please gather community consensus before placing a link to the discussion here.

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

[email protected][edit]

Status:    Not done

This request is about Editor right is Persian wikinews. Per local grant policy any sysop can grant any user editor right by their request, my request is in archive back in October 2010 but I requested to remove them (from me and Mjbmrbot) 'cause I was about to fall apart and I activated again some weeks ago, as I've an open request in this same page but it has unknown status for some days. My request for regaining access is denied by only local active sysop, he said he is not willing to respond to permission requests.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It is not the stewards' role to override a local admin's decision. --Rschen7754 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Local admin didn't deny the request, he denied to respond to the request. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 18:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Still, this is an administrator responsibility, not ours. --Rschen7754 18:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure stewards can assign local permissions. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 21:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not for anything lower than administrator. --Rschen7754 23:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Actually giving the rights to Mjbmr is too risky, because of the all the issues he have had before, with some admins in fa.wikinews & also fa.wikipedia, BUT as this user is not blocked definitely, so, now if he do proper edits & contributions then he may be granted any user editor rights, I just have told him that I can not gave him back the rights which is taken from him by other admins previously BUT he may go throw the normal process of gaining access just like any other normal editors.
The user has history of problems with Wikipedia and being blocked in multiple projects,
As an example:
When one of the Stewards told that, in his "RFA most of the votes are loan votes from fawiki and most of voters have no edit in faWikinews", he emphasize on that's because RFA have been open from "12th Dec to 19th Dec and is locked by local admin"!...
Here is the poll which he made for his adminship[4], Good, No problem. BUT what is interesting is one of his supporters puts a start and an end time for the poll [5]. Here the same user just ended the poll[6]. And here Mjbmr himself also finished this poll as a <<<"successful request for adminship">>>. [7]. So Of-course this is considered as an end... Then also after that, in the same day, he made this request [8]. SO, his RFA votes problems, is not because a local admin locked the page!
Best Regards, --KhabarNegar 08:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@KhabarNegar What do you mean, look at your own block log in fawiki, I though you're familiar with the wiki. also I asked Florance not to close that page I just fixed the template, putting a start and a end date is per policy but I asked him also not to so I can collect more votes for permanent adminship. btw you're not doing anything with your sysop right your just deleting pages. you don't wanna help the project. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 09:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
KhabarNegar being blocked in fa.wp is not related to this case. Why are you holding this against him/her? The way you talk is not civil. About the case: Mjbmr is right that فلورانس (Florence) closed the RfA as successful but I can't understand why. Is he a 'crat? Not even admin (Florence is a cross-wiki hat collector, see his edits in small Wikis) and closing a RfA with 5 supports (and mainly loan from fa.wp) is weird for me but it's up to stewardsAmir (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I know what you all trying to do, do your thing, I'm out. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 09:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
hi, for all- Mr KhabarNegar- Sorry for writing, your comment has no capability of documenting, if I requested for him because there is no active admin in that project . and this user Mjbmr I didn't know him that this much and I didn't know him before and you're an admin and I don't expect you for not recognizing this. and if I put date for it and closed it because if a poll cross it date it's not acceptable in meta and I didn't do anything wrong. and if I closed it was because there is no active admin in that project and edit on it its not approving or denying qualification of that user.
Mr Aminr , my activities shows for what I'm editing, from you as a bureaucrat I didn't expect commenting like this . i,m like save project and help to this big encyclopedia colection and admin or other right tools for me. I don't need hat or admin right so I will be unable without them. where ever needed and I can cooperate with wikimedia I'm ready. but I laughed hard for you calling me a hat collector. I hope you don't loose your hat!!. --Florence (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See also[edit]

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · SUL problem solving · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · an account on WMF wiki · CheckUser information (local)

Cooperation requests for: comments · translation · logos

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=10851921"