Steward requests/Permissions: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 85: Line 85:
</div>
</div>
<!-- requests below. -->
<!-- requests below. -->

==== Jayvdb@enwiki ====
By agreement of the Arbitration Committee, can Jayvdb be given oversight on English Wikipedia. He's already identified (having CheckUser on en.wikisource).

Confirmation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=247957548&oldid=247948481 here]. Thanks.

[[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


=== Removal of access ===
=== Removal of access ===

Revision as of 10:48, 27 October 2008

Shortcut:
SRP
This page enables stewards to handle permissions requests, including the giving and taking of administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights, for all Wikimedia wikis which do not have a local permissions procedure. 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 (see the index of request pages). Requests for bot status, URL blacklisting and whitelisting, and CheckUser queries belong elsewhere.

Interface-translations are done at Betawiki.

For urgent requests, such as to combat large-scale vandalism on a small wiki, contact a steward in the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel (see a web-based IRC client). In emergencies only, type !steward in the channel to inform stewards that you need help.

Please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community.

Quick navigation: Administrator | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Temporary permissions | Miscellaneous | Global permissions

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page

  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= 
}}
Thank you! ~~~~
  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"). Leave it blank and list them yourself if you're requesting access for multiple bots.
    • '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

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 receipt has been formally confirmed by the office.

Instructions for how you can confirm your identity can be found at: Steward handbook/email templates.

For stewards: Identification noticeboard.

Requests

Administrator access

See administrator for information about the position. Requests for temporary permissions and removal of access belong in other sections.

Bureaucrat access

See bureaucrat for information about the position. In principle, requests for temporary bureaucrat access are not granted.

Shijualex@Malayalam Wikisource

Status:    In progress

--Jacob 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser access

To request CheckUser information, see Meta:Requests for CheckUser information. 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 regarding bestowal of status before giving the status. The current mail template to use to request identification from the new CU can be found here. Do not grant CheckUser access unless the user is identified to the foundation, which will be announced on the Identification noticeboard. 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-ownerlists.wikimedia.org so that the listadmins know the person is allowed on the mailing list (the list may contain confidential information), and make sure they contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser.

Oversight access

Do not initiate an oversight request here. The Arbitration Committee will make the request once there is consensus on the local wiki (this process is currently for en-Wikipedia only).

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 Hiding revisions.

Jayvdb@enwiki

By agreement of the Arbitration Committee, can Jayvdb be given oversight on English Wikipedia. He's already identified (having CheckUser on en.wikisource).

Confirmation here. Thanks.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of access

If you're requesting the removal of your own status, make sure you're logged in to a global account or place an English note on your local user talk page to prove you own both accounts (and add the diff link of your local confirmation edit to the request).

To request the removal of another user's status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. All discussion must be kept 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 very 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). 

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

__Summary of discussion here__. Thank you! ~~~~

Poppy@fr.wikipedia

Status:    Done

The local ArbCom has just decided 6 weeks suspension from sysop status. Thank you! O. Morand 22:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike.lifeguard@metawiki

Status:    Done

As it turns out, Meta doesn't need local oversighters - the Stewards can handle this function effectively. Thus, there is no need for me to have the tool. This means Drini's local oversight bit must be removed as well, though he will still be able to oversight on Meta. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remove mine as well. As I said during the election, that was unnecessary. es:Drini 18:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The net result is that now meta will have more oversighters (all stewards vs 2 local oversighters) es:Drini 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you--Nick1915 - all you want 18:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary permissions for emergency or technical purposes

If you are requesting administrator status to translate the wiki interface, this should done at the BetaWiki project 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 Multilingual speedy deletions.

Stewards: Currently active temporary permissions are listed at /Approved temporary. When granting a request, please copy the request to the appropriate section there, and clearly state the date of removal. 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.

Sinan@az.wiktionary

Status:    In progress

Thank you! 213.172.69.26 10:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved to temporary access - request - section. Hello, the community seems to small to grant permanent sysopship for now (I guess that is what You are requesting?), so I am suggesting a temporary period for 3 months, which is technically the same and can be prolonged. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison@gvwiki

Status:    In progress

Hi Stewards. I need temporary access on the Manx Wikipedia for strictly 2 days. The sole sysop over there is having major problems with userboxes & has discovered that there are problems with the css files in Mediawiki space. He's asked for my assistance on my gawiki talkpage (sorry - it's in a mix of Irish and Manx :/ ). It's one of those tweak-and-try jobs, and having sysop over there would allow me to fix it without having to ask him for every little change. I've been sysop over there a few times before for similar work. Thank you so much! Alison ❤ 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alison, status set, please let us know right here as soon as You are done, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Birdy - will do! (oh, and that's infoboxes, not userboxes. D'oh!) - Alison ❤ 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Khazar II@Moksha Wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Thank you! Khazar II 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we typically do not give permanent sysop rights on small projects. However, we do give temporary adminship. Would you object to 6 months of temporary adminship? Once the 6 months are up can apply here again for another temporary term, or, if your community has grown significantly, hold another vote.--Shanel 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Shanel. Temporary access is ok for me. Can we have temporary sysop access for the project founder Numulunj pilgae (ex-temporary sysop) proposed for voting recently together with me or we have to apply for him separately? Thank you --Khazar II 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Shanel. Temporary access is ok for me. Can we have temporary sysop access for the project founder Numulunj pilgae (ex-temporary sysop) proposed for voting together with me or we have to apply for him separately? Thank you --Khazar II 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to temp reqs. --FiliP × 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numulunj pilgae@Moksha Wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Thank you! Numulunj pilgae 09:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apply for temporary adminship again as Khazar II already mentioned above.--Numulunj pilgae 09:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to temp reqs. --FiliP × 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Requests that don't fit in other sections belong here. Note that the following types of requests belong on separate pages: bot status, URL blacklisting and whitelisting, and requests for CheckUser queries. If you want to have your Meta username changed, please go to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. If you want to have changed a username on a Wikimedia wiki without bureaucrats, please go to Requests for username changes.(Existing requests have been moved to the appropriate page.)

Reminder

  • Import rights can be granted by stewards only, not bureaucrats, so the automatic list of local bureaucrats is irrelevant for this; please show a link to a consensus if the wiki has a community.
  • Usurpation requests should be placed at Steward requests/Usurpation.
  • Username changes should be placed at Requests for username changes.

It needs an "ONU observer" on the LMO wikipedia

On the LMO wikipedia it should need a kind of "ONU observer", a steward following the "Steward policies" [2] : "Stewards should always be neutral".

Unfortunately the LMO community cannot do this request, because an admin (Fabexplosive, not elected by the community, but by people came from away, as will be detailed in the following) has blocked and/or banned 30 or 40 users, and the 5 or 6 remaining are afraid to be banned too.

All started when the administrators (no one elected by the community, as will be detailed in the following) proposed a regulation [3]. A lot of users voted "NO", stopping the regulation. A user, "Nemo", cancelled the votes of the users with less than 50 edits. Nemo was wrong, because when he voted for the administrators, he had only 25 edits, and his vote was counted! A "request for comment" [4] was opened.

A lot of user protested, so an admin ("Fabexplosive") started to block 10 or 15 user for "sockpuppeting". When were demonstrated that these users were not sockpuppets [5], the admin Fabexplosive started to block other 20 or 30 user for meatpuppeting. A "request for comment" [6] was opened.

The admin Fabexplosive was not elected by te community, but by people come by away. Let we analyze the election of Fabexplosive, as we can see there: [7]. The votes of 17 people on the total of 19 (89% of the votes) were as follow:

  1. Dracoroboter - 2-dec 19:52 - voted at the 15th edit [8]
  2. Xaura - 2-dec 20:02 - voted at the 3rd edit - but 3-rd vote! [9] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted 1 minute after!
  3. Ilario - 2-dec 20:02 - 3rd edit - but 3rd vote! [10] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted 1 minutes after!
  4. Marcok - 2-dec 20:10 - 2nd edit! [11] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:06, 2 dic 2007, voted 4 minutes after!
  5. Paginazero - 2-dec 20:17 - 4th edit [12] - and then disappeared -
  6. Veneziano - 2-dec 21:16 - 5th edit [13] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted 23 minutes after!
  7. Tanarus - 2-dec 21:52 - 2nd edit! [14]
  8. Balabiot - 4-dec 10:11 - 2nd edit! [15] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dic 2007, voted 5 minutes after!
  9. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - 4dec 16:35 - 8-th edit [[16]]
  10. .snoopy. - 4-dec 16:58 - 5th edit [17]
  11. Nemo - 4-dec 17:52 - 25th edit [18] - Nemo is fantastic. In september he destroyed a votation (see [19]) deleting the votes of Users with less than 50 edits. But when Nemo voted Fabexplosive, he had only 25 edits. ------ first edit on 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted 38 minutes after!
  12. Olando - 5-dec 13:40 - 1st edit!!!!!! [20] - and then disappeared - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD!!!
  13. Civvi - 5-dec 14:37 - 5th edit, 3rd vote! [21] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted 03hh:39 minutes after!
  14. Lusum - 5-dec 20:35 - 3rd edit, 2nd vote! [22] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted 1 minutes after!
  15. Ripe - 6-dec 20:32 - 3rd edit, 3rd vote!!! [23] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted 1 minutes after!
  16. Loroli - 6-dec 20:34 - 3rd edit, 3rd vote!!! [24] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted 2 minutes after!
  17. giacumìn - 9-dec 10:41 - 19th edit, 7th vote! [25]


Now Fabexplosive is promoting the regulation [26], even if the majority of the users voted "NO", as demonstrated here : [27] .

As already written, on the LMO wikipedia it should need a kind of "ONU observer", a steward following the "Steward policies": "Stewards should always be neutral".

If is possible, it's better if the request is not completed by "Nick1915", that already trust the admin Fabexplosive in all his decisions, even if Fabexplosive has been elected in the detailed way; the same for Paginazero, that voted for Fabexplosive as the 4rt edit on the lmo.wikipedia; the same for steward coming from the same cultural area.

Thank you very much indeed, Yattagat 16:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you specifically envisage steward(s) doing on lmo.wikipedia? BTW, I'm doubtful ONU would send their representatives ;) --FiliP × 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they want a couple stewards to visit and oversee the local voting? (Note that there are two RFCs at meta already for this project). Kylu 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think it should be enough a steward following the "Steward policies" [28], where is written: "Stewards should always be neutral".
I think that Nick1915 is not neutral, non only because he trusts the admin Fabexplosive in all his decisions (even if Fabexplosive has been elected in the detailed way) but also because he is destroying the comments of the users, as here [29] and [30], and so on.
As written above, the LMO community cannot vote the request of help, because the admin Fabexplosive blocked 30 or 40 (or maybe 50) opposers, the user remaining are 5 or 6, and they are afraid to be blocked too. The admin Fabexplosive blocked the opposers for sockpuppeting (false, as the checkuser demonstrated) and then for meatpuppeting; but he were not elected by the community, he were elected by 17 people that suddenly accessed the LMO wikipedia, immediately or after few minutes voted for Fabexplosive, and then disappeared (as demonstrated).
Who could help the LMO users, blocked only because their voted against a regulation supported by the admin Fabexplosive? Is there anyone that can send an "observer"? Maybe the "stewards community" ? Or the WMF could act as the ONU, and send a "WMF observer" ?
I think that the task of the "observer" (the task of the steward) should be very simple:
  • he should grant to the users the rights to vote "NO" in the votations, without to be banned;
  • he should grant to the users the rights to describe (for example) the way of the Fabexplosive's election, without to be banned "ad infinitum";
  • he should grant to the users the rights that the users have on all the wikipedias, but not on the lmo.wikipedia.
Thank you very much indeed,
Yattagat 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear a statement of Fabexplosive to these accusations, why were the users blocked.
The request for comments Kylu mentioned is a desaster, maybe it would be better to place facts constructively (with links to have some background) instead of strange demands,
Lmo.wiki should think about voting requirements to avoid such votings,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify: fabex was flagged by former local 'crat, at the same time with several other users, who thought (and nobody had contested him) that the votation was right. Meatpuppets were blocked as per result of canvassing on external website (yattagat is one of them), my two actions are rollbacks of a banned user (yattagat) who recreated his account only for trolling. I'm not neutral? No, I'm not neutral with vandals and trolls. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yattagat does not come across as a vandal or troll. I suggest that you look into his concerns, which seem to be genuine. Guido den Broeder 21:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The evidences are showing that Nick1915 didn't write the truth. Nick rolled back my comments [31] on the lmo.pub (grott=pub) a lot of weeks before I was banned. Some weeks after, I contested the votation of Fabexplosive [32] and so I was banned. Fortunately there are the logs. -- Yattagat 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what the request here is. Yes, stewards should be neutral and whatnot, but that's a rather unspecific request. Being neutral isn't an active action. What do you really want us to do? To actively intervene and act like cops or be there as counsels or make ourselves local sysops so we can patrol the situation or checkuser some users so that we can gain more insight or reset all sysops' statuses or try to reason with both/all parties or... Few to none of the listed can really be applied in this situation, but I don't know what to make of this request when in fact I don't know what specifically is requested of us. Just "being on the project" and silently following the charade doesn't seem useful at all. --FiliP × 10:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all for the comments. I will try to list some request:
  1. the problems started with the vote for the regulation [33]. The votes "NO" where cancelled, saying that the voters had less than 50 edits. But we see that Fabexplosive were voted by people with 1,2 or 3 edits. Could someone act as local sysop, patrol the situation and reset the correct poll result ?
  2. Fabexplosive start to ban the users voting "NO", for sockpuppeting. A "checkuser" [34] demonstrated that these users were not sockpuppets. Could someone act as local sysop, and reset the rights to the users banned without any reason ?
  3. then Fabexplosive start to ban all the users that criticized his actions, for meatpuppeting (I was banned because analyze tha Fabexplosive's election way). Could someone act as local sysop, and reset the rights to the users banned without any reason ?
  4. after that, could someone patrol the futures votations/election ?
  5. and then, could someone act as counsels, trying to reason with all the parties?
Thank you very much indeed,
-- Yattagat 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered asking all sides of the dispute to create a page at Meta and having the vote here, that way the local checkusers and sysops (that we have plenty of) can monitor the elections? Just a thought. You could also have the other issues at RFC handled in the same way, and hopefully remove all the problems in one stroke. 206.246.160.221 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LMO: a request for the future

I think that is possible only for a "power user" to follow the suggestion of anonimous (206.246.160.221). As explained, on the lmo.wiki there's a steward that destroy the commments of the registred users (as here [35]) and an administrator that blocks all the attempt to the dialog, as suggested by Millosh (as reported here [36] and [37]).

Now Fabexplosive proposed himself as bureaucrat [38]. For now there are 2 favorable votes and no one "contra", because the users are afraid to be banned. The 2 favorable votes are of:

  • "dracoroboter", that was elected admin [39] in the same time, by the same people and in the same way of Fabexplosive;
  • "remulazz", that was elected admin [40] in the same time, by the same people and in the same way of Fabexplosive.

If Fabexplosive will be bureaucrat, on the lmo.wikipedia there will be a bureaucrat that has been elected administrator in the "strange" way (i.e. not elected by the community, but elected by people that suddenly accessed the lmo.wiki, after few minutes voted fabexplosive and then disappeared) analyzed above, a bureaucrat now elected by 2 users that were elected admins in the same "strange" way.

So I would require that, if Fabexplosive will ask the rights of bureaucrat,

  • the rights of bureaucrat would not be given to Fabexplosive, because he and his voter did too much irregularities till now.

Thank you very much indeed, Yattagat 19:29, 26 October 2008 (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=1246063"