Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Millennium bug (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 28 January 2014 (→‎Eduardofeld@pt.wikipedia). 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:

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

Administrator access

Steward requests/Permissions/Sysop-header

Guycn2@hewikinews

Status:    On hold

Please give me sysop rights in the Hebrew (he) Wikinews (there're no bureaucrats).

The community is small, so there is no point to make a vote, since no one participate it.

Thank you, Guycn2 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community is small, but it's preferred to make a local announcement, as requested in instructions, and to wait for comments at least for 7 days. --M/ (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you, Guycn2 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
he:n:Project:מזנון#מינוי למפעיל מערכת. Guycn2 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please wait until Feb 1st. --M/ (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. thanks again, Guycn2 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

Steward requests/Permissions/Crat-header

CheckUser access

Steward requests/Permissions/CU-header

Htonl@enwikisource

Status:    Done

Hesperian 01:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending identification. Ruslik (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment instructions sent. Trijnsteltalk 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done (will do the other stuff too). Trijnsteltalk 12:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb@nl.wikipedia

Status:    Done

EvilFreD (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment: permalink to the announcement — TBloemink talk 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --MF-W 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight access

Steward requests/Permissions/OS-header

Removal of access

<translate>

  • 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 [[<tvar name="self-discussion">Talk:Steward_requests/Permissions/2011#Self_requests</tvar>|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 [[<tvar name="crat-rem">Bureaucrat#Removing_access</tvar>|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 [[<tvar name="aar">Admin activity review</tvar>|Admin activity review]] applies.
  • See the [[<tvar name="usage">#Using this page</tvar>|instructions above]] for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.</translate>

Urdutext@ur.wikipedia

Removal of access ur:User:Urdutext from ur Urdu Wikipedia Administrator to normal user.

Status:    Done

I convey my regards to all the users, I hope you are doing well and are enjoying good health. The subject matter of this topic must have been clear by now as you go by page title (i.e. removal of adminship from user:Urdutext). Before stating the disputed matter, I would like to draw your attention towards the brief wiki introduction of the subjected admin. Mr. Urdutext is a senior user and admin of this encyclopedia, moreover the oldest in this present active admin panel. His contributions towards this wikipedia, especially in the field of mathematics have been worthwhile (although this is an altogether a different aspect, as to his use of self created language and terms are so painfully abstruse that most users tended to avoid them). To crystallize the picture as clearly as possible, I would like to inform you that when at the time he was chosen as an admin for his services, the users were few and very little in number. As the conditions were, back then, he was given away the adminship without much considerations and voting; and as well because uptil then the rules and regulations regarding the adminship were not completely compiled on Urdu Wikipedia. This was the brief introduction of his previous activities and role; now here on Urdu Wikipedia, from quite some time (after having remained inactive for a long period) he has been engaging himself in anti-wiki activities, like: Instead of guiding new users on proper use and referring them to the guideline pages and wiki directives, he has been sabotaging their rights with the baton of rules. Unjust in using his authority by taking unfair steps against the active users. Being scornful and making personal attacks on users (e.g. he commented on this talk page attacking one of the respected wiki user as: جن اصحاب نے سائنس پر سرے سے کچھ لکھا ہی نہ ہو، یا سائنس کی الف بے سےبھی واقف نہ ہوں، اور صرف لمبی لمبی بحث کرنے کے شوقین ہوں، ان کو کیا جواب دیا جائے؟ those who never wrote anything on science or do not have even a faintest idea of its basics and fundamentals, but like to propagate their conjectures through never-ending debates, what would be an answer that should be given to them? While that user keeps writing articles in one of the most prominent urdu scientific journal). Use of self created scientific terminology and abstruse language in the wiki articles and their titles and moreover forcefully imposing on others the same. Most of the users have shown their discontent with him for his rough and rude behavior! Etc.

Verdict in English

  • In favor of removal of adminship: 19
  • In opposition: 6

--Tahir mq (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is there a policy on ur.wiki that covers the removal of admin rights? That is, can you provide a link to a policy that says (for example) an admin will lose their rights if x% of editors vote to remove them? If not, we will act on the consensus, but it would be helpful if there is a formal policy. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy معزولی - Deposition
معزولی - Deposition
Translation
Those Administrators who are not active for a year can be ousted from the administrative post. Non active administrator will be contacted on their talk page and E-mail (if available) and will be informed that you can be nominated for the ouster of administrative post because you are not active for a long period.
A Poll to deposition an administrators can be started only by an bureaucrat. Option to deposition an administrator is with Wikimedia Steward. After ouster vote a Wikimedia Steward on Meta-Wiki is contacted, and as per the result of the voting Steward is requested to demote the administrator from his position.
Note: In this case ur:User:محمد شعیب has started the voting, who is a bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia.
--Tahir mq (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry that took some time as I needed to read and understand the policy and all the votes. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is no formal policy for admin removal on ur.wikipedia. The "policy" page referred above is likely creation of user:شعیب or user:Tahir themselves (possibly a translation from en.wikipedia) to which no one paid heed as many pages are translated/copied routinely from en.wikipedia.
  2. Urdu wikipedia was created 10 years ago but to date there are only 25K articles. The reason is easy to understand. Most of the writers in Urdu on the web have been of religious bent espousing their particular sectarian creed and hate message. Many a times these "religious nuts" have tried to take over control of the ur.wikipedia. But user:urdutext and some other older admins had prevented that. But the takeover attempts have been becoming more sophisticated in recent years. The present campaign against user:urdutext was spearheaded by a religious fanatic (see his articles on his father's religious ideology on ur.wikipedia) in which he skillfully garnered support of others who had a longstanding dispute over Urdu nomenclature in scientific articles.
  3. The stewards should use exercise better judgement than just looking at a poll result on a wikipedia with low activity.

--Urdutext (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krinkle@nl.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

According to the local rules, Dutch Wikipedia administrators need to make at least 250 edits per twelve months to keep their sysop access. Krinkle made less than 250 edits in the past twelve months and therefore he does not meet this activity criterium anymore. Please remove his sysop access. Mathonius (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has more than 250 now that he did a few edits after this request was placed. Does that change anything?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 05:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to me, this makes no difference. At the time that the request was placed, the administrator hadn't 250 edits over the last 12 months. JetzzDG (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, Teles. I agree with JetzzDG. For certainty and clarity sake, this policy only lends itself for a strict interpretation, meaning that Krinkle lost his adminship the moment he didn't meet the activity criterium, and that anything that happens after the request is irrelevant. Otherwise, hypothetically speaking, the amount of time a steward takes to take care of a request becomes significant, and the activity criterium might become pointless if we'd allow admins to quickly perform enough edits each time they fail to meet the criterium. Mathonius (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's my homewiki so I obviously won't act, but I think it's important that one of the Dutch bureaucrats can confirm or deny this request. Trijnsteltalk 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've send an email to them via their mailing list. Trijnsteltalk 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold - Agreed, on hold pending confirmation of that request by a local bureaucrat. -Barras talk 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Teles: For the record, I didn't suddenly become active after this request was made. I've been active throughout all of 2013 (been active pretty much every month, and made edits, as can be seen in my contributions). Also note that this arbitrary criterium does not account for log actions (patrolling, un/deletion, un/blocking, un/protecting) which I've also performed as an administrator. As mentioned there on my talk page, I was indeed a lot less active than last year but started building up again already back in October 2013. I failed to catch up with the activity criterium in time, but as it has over the last three months my activity will continue to increase and the activity criterium won't be of much significance after that. Either way, I understand that the enforcement of the policy is separate from the policy itself and that technically I should've lost my rights on January 26th because on that day my "(last edit - 250)" edit was from January 20th 2013. If I do lose my rights I would soon enough sign up again and expect to be accepted again. I'll be curious as to whether we let the paper work get to us or not. Thanks, –Krinkletalk 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local bureaucrat here. (Although I don't see why my opinion should be valued higher than others just because I am a bureaucrat. The issue here is one of interpreting the rules - there's always a grey area there, and IMHO all opinions of active Wikipedians should be valued equally when discussing the grey area.)
The local rule states (my translation): "a moderator who performed less than 250 edits in the past 12 month, will lose its moderator status". Technically this was the case, and Krinkle should have lost it. Krinke is right in saying that this rule is arbitrary and might not perfectly reflect moderator actions (for instance, deleted edits do not count towards the 250). I fully agree with him on that point as well. However, this is the rule as the community has set, and this is thus the rule that should be enforced. It is true that by now, Krinkle again has 250+ edits, but not enforcing the rule, would create strange situations, as Mathonius sketched. The local rule clearly states "becoming moderator again can happen via the regular procedure". On the other hand, I don't like snowballing either. My suggestion, is to leave it to the Dutch WP-community. If a large enough part of that community feels Krinkle should lose his moderator rights because he was under the threshold for 1 day, that part can organise a desysop. Therefore, I suggest that, for now, no actions are required. (I would like to stress again that I feel uncomfortable if my opinion is preferred only because I am a bureaucrat.) CaAl (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. - Taketa (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to make the same point as CaAl to the fact that a bureaucrat on nl-wiki has an equal say in this as any other nl-wiki user. My own opinion is that strict interpretation of the sentence means that on this moment Krinkle has more than 250 edits and could therefore not be desysopped, but it is best to wait for an nl-wiki decision on this part. Basvb (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion that's a very strange way of looking at it. It's like saying to a police officer that has stopped you for speeding: "Sorry officer, at this moment I'm not speeding, and therefore you can't give me a ticket!" Trewal (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to heartily thank the 'crats who commented above. The reason why bureaucrat input is sometimes looked for by us is that bureaucrats are highly trusted users of one community who have been entrusted with the granting of the userright in question and who speak the language and would be very familiar with how the policies surrounding adminship are applied. I am marking this request as Not done as all three of the commenting 'crats thought it wise not to act on it until and only if the community decides otherwise. Please feel free to keep commenting in this thread if deemed useful. Snowolf How can I help? 21:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WarX@pl.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop access due to inactivity in the main namespace longer than one year. WarX has been notified two weeks earlier ([3]). --Openbk (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardofeld@pt.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Please revoke my sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter rights. Thanks in advance. Eduardofeld (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And please delete me from the three mailing lists: unblock; checkuser; oversight. Eduardofeld (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this would leave only one oversighter at ptwiki. --Rschen7754 02:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this. Eduardofeld (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do it as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. Eduardofeld (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... which means, one oversighter = none at all, the right will be removed from Teles too then (OS policy). Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of all the consequences of my decision. Eduardofeld (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Steward requests/Permissions/Misc-header

Northamerica1000@en.wikipedia

Status:    Locally handled

I am requesting permission for MassMessage sender rights. I intend to utilize the tool on English Wikipedia. I have been involved in the formulation of WikiProject newsletters, messages and invitations for WikiProject Food and drink, WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, WikiProject Breakfast, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Cleanup, WikiProject Invention, WikiProject Hotels and other projects.

As an example, when I sent the September 2013 and October 2013 WikiProject Food and drink newsletters to project members, I had to do so manually, which is tedious and time-consuming. This also inhibits one's desire to create new newsletters, due to the time involved in sending them manually. With this tool, I can focus much more upon formulation of the newsletters with other project members, and much less time sending them.

Therefore, I respectfully submit my request for MassMessage sender permission, and thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done as a local en.wikipedia admin, but usually this is requested locally. --Rschen7754 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rschen7754: thanks so much for the prompt response. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Locally handled.--Vituzzu (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Lewis@wikidatawiki

Status:    Done

Hello, I was wondering if I could get Importer rights at wikidatawiki temporarily for an importupload from metawiki. It's mainly moving over the archives of past Wikidata status updates from a mailing list discussion. Lydia and I decided moving the archives over would be a nice idea too and thus I am requesting importer rights since the transwiki rights I have at the moment would make this quite tedious. As far as I know there is no local policy on Wikidata governing this right. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Will be revoked tomorrow. Matanya (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tomorrow is more than enough time :) John F. Lewis (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Matanya (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Steward requests/Permissions/Footer

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=7261408"