Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by MarcoAurelio (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 31 March 2016 (→‎Mjohnson (WMF) and I JethroBT (WMF)@meta). 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.

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 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]]"). 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.

AYST201

Status:    Not done
  • Motive for request: I want to try tools adminst or bureucrat, I was reading guideline before. And to try edit interface on mediawiki. Thanks you.

AYST201 (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done test wiki has local crats so you need to request for this right in here. Furthermore, seeing your block on outreachwiki I think you should first read and understand what we do in Wikimedia. You can start from here ~ Nahid Talk 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Дагиров Умар@cewikipedia

Status:    In progress

I request bureaucrat rights in Chechen Wikipedia. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that five votes is enough. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continue vote? --Дагиров Умар (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can, of course, continue. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I see 16 supporting votes and 0 opposes on the request now. There's no global policy establishing a minimum number of votes as there is for CheckUser and Oversight. If we want to set restrictions for granting bureaucratship on small wikis, I think a RfC should be opened to discuss that. I don't think it is appropriate for stewards to override community consensus without a good reason. Defender (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the 16 users supporting the request, only 7 are members of the community there. Unfortunately, I don't think that this is a sufficient threshold to support indefinite bureaucrat access, given the past problems that the project has had. Also worth noting that this is basically a line-by-line repeat of an RfB by the same user a few years ago, which was rejected due to the canvassing of voters to the request. So there really isn't any excuse this time. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, from your side I think you are right. CheWiki does not seem to need a B now. If somebody needs admin rights, we will apply here. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Mean time for me to retire. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Umar, you are a good user:) We'll just continue working as sysops. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
There are many small wiki where there is a bureaucrat. The decision of the Chechen Wikipedia community is not respected. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is what you define as the Chechen Wikipedia community. Well over half of the votes there are by people who aren't members of that community, who only came at either your or someone else's request to vote for you, and aren't going to contribute beyond that. That said, the number of local users supporting is now up to 8. Maybe that is enough; I don't want to interfere will local project autonomy, but I am concerned with a) the past issues the project has faced, and b) the use of canvassing to gain support, since it has happened before on RfBs and will probably happen again. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to grant bot flags because we will have a grammar change from the government. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eldomm@lmo.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Elected as Burocreat Sciking (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just two votes? I do not see a sufficient consensus. Ruslik (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that lmo.wiki is a very small community and the actually active users who participate to the community life in this period are just five, two of them voted in favour, one of them forgot to vote but after the term expired said that he also is in favour. Another one of the five users never participated to decision taking discussions, and the last of the five is the same cadidate that didn't want to vote for himself. --Ninonino (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the wiki is too small to have local 'crats. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we were not aware of this rule, where is it published and where have this rule been discussed and approved? Again, I am a burocrat of lmo.wiki since 2012: if this is the rule, I am abusively covering this role, should I be removed then? --Ninonino (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry current active bureaucrats will hold their position until resignation/inactivity/etc. anyway I didn't put {{not done}} because some other fellow steward might want to review the situation since lmo.wiki already has/had 'crats. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. --Ninonino (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't enough of a community to warrant local 'crats IMO. That said, Ninonino could just make the user a bureaucrat as a local 'crat. Given the active bureaucrats on the project I don't think it's our role to act in this case either way. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as not done since project has two active crats. ~ Nahid Talk 02:03, 30 March 2016 (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.

^musaz@wikipedia.it

Status:    Done

^musaz has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thanks. Euphydryas (msg) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Trijnsteltalk 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Pajz@dewiki

Status:    Done

Group right the removal of which is requested: administrator. Thanks, — Pajz (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for 24 hours, as per standard practice. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if confirmation is required, but, at any rate, I stand by my request (@Ajraddatz). — Pajz (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erl., Danke für Ihre Arbeit. Gruβen. —MarcoAurelio 11:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biologo32@ptwikipedia

Status:    In progress

Please, remove oversight access from Biologo32. According to local policy, both oversighters and checkusers should be confirmed through a vote every once a year; otherwise they will have their access removed. Biologo32 told me a week ago that he is not interested in keeping this permission for another term. Thanks in advance, RadiX∞ 00:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BetaBot@frwikinews

Status:    Done

Please, remove temporary sysops rights from BetaBot expired since March 18 (discussion). See also the local policy about Temporary administrators. Thanks. SleaY (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RadiX∞ 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjohnson (WMF) and I JethroBT (WMF)@meta

Status:    In progress
Status:    In progress

Temporary adminship for both users expired. —MarcoAurelio 11:40, 31 March 2016 (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

User Aydinsalis@azwiki

Status:    Not done

(Those who start discussion about administrators' actions and who express negative views about their actions are being blocked In the last few days there have been 3 blocks ([1], [2], [3],). like that.Those who organised the discussion are being blocked without time limits. In addition to that, those who participated in the discussion are being blocked without time limits as well ( User:Cekli829: " Hesab edirəm ki, müddətli bloklanan qərəzçilərin blok müddətinin müddətsiz blokla dəyişdirilməsi ilə bağlı da konkret fəaliyət ortaya qoymalıyıq."; User:Sortilegus: " Bu məsələnin təşkilatçıları da təbii ki, bloklanacaqlar, çoxu onsuz da dediyim kimi blokludurlar.. ). Aydinsalis (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want from us? Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sysops who disrupt the work in az.wikipedia, who is busy with inequitable edits, who does vandalism and brakes rules should be subjected to temporal or non-temporal blocks. There should be a referendum held on sysops' credibility and it should be made clear to the admins that they shouldn't do anything to prevent this referendum. Aydinsalis (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Start another RFC I suppose. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example? What they have: On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia (2016), Sysop abuse on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (2015). Would you solve the problem? --Aydinsalis (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid request thus marking as Not done. The situation sholud be handled either in local wiki or through meta RFC if appropriate. ~ Nahid Talk 16:20, 30 March 2016 (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=15489294"