Steward requests/Permissions

← Requests and proposals

Steward requests (Permissions)

latest archive→

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 Betawiki. 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-stewards^connect 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.

Please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community. Please note that the "temporary access" section was removed due to redundancy. Please add your request for temporary sysopship to the administrator section.

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

Cross-wiki requests
CheckUser information Global blocks/locks Permissions (global) Permissions (bot) Permissions (other) Username changes/ usurpation requests Miscellaneous requests URL blacklisting Title/username blacklisting Email blacklisting
Meta-Wiki requests
CheckUser information Deletion Permissions Requests for help

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= 
   }}
   (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"). 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 the 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 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 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 Steward requests/Speedy deletions.

Stewards

Currently-active temporary permissions are listed at /Approved temporary; copy granted requests to the appropriate section there, stating the date of removal in the section header and at the bottom of the request. 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.

Ygrek@ruwikinews

Status:    In progress

• Wiki: ru.wikinews.org (list 'crats • no standard bot policy • summary • 'crats rights)
• User: Ygrek (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
• Discussion: Vote on "Wikinews:Forum"

I please to restore my sysop status in the russian Wikinews.

User Leinad has incorrectly removed my sysop status in russian Wikinews. The status has been removed according to the voting. But I consider that the voting (Vote on "Wikinews:Forum") has been manipulated. Only three users have taken part in voting. Among them: User Ahonc has total only seven editings. Last two editings he has made on June, 26th 2008 and on April, 1st 2009. User Deevrod has made last editing on November, 14th 2008. After voting, these users also have not made any editing in russian Wikinews. Look hear: Contributions of Deevrod and Contributions of Ahonc. It means that these users have come to the project only to vote. But, actually they do not participate in the Wikinews. I have addressed to user Leinad on his discussion page, but he does not react. (Ygrek in Russian Wikinews) --Ygrek 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Are there any rules about the requirements for voters in ru.wikinews? You made only 6(!) edits during last year (since July 2008 to July 2009), you are inactive there.--Ahonc 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no rules of voting in the russian Wikinews. There are also no rules about activity or not activity of the sysops in the russian Wikinews.--Ygrek 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ygrek has been asked to resolve issue on local discussion/voting, but since my request he didn't take any steps. Leinad 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

About what request you speak? Please specify the reference.--Ygrek 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IMHO the request for removal is indeed not really standing on a solid ground, for a request for adminship this voting would not have gone through for permanent adminship and Ygreks voting for adminship looked totally different n:ru:Викиновости:Заявки на статус администратора/Ygrek, but I am marking this to be reviewed by other stewards too, so other opinions are welcomed. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But the half of users in this voting also had few (less than 10) edits (and one of them, User:CodeMonk, has zero edits in project) at the moment of voting.--Ahonc 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ru.Wikinews is a small project, so a decision being made based on a small voter turnout is not really problematic. The problem I would see is really that 2 of the 3 voters (and the other one was the user proposing the removal in the first place) were users with reduced activity levels on the project. One of them has actually posted here asking for information on voting rules for the project. The problem is precisely that: possible lack of understanding of site rules on voting, but also and mainly on adminship and its requirements, notably that inactivity in itself is not sufficent grounds for removal under local rules. Furthermore, we also discourage users from different projects who are not active on the particular project, or people who are not active editors in general, from engaging almost-exclusively in voting on local Requests for Adminship, or the removal of Admin access.
That being said, however, it must be noted that the problem manifests itself solely on the local basis. It is not the Steward's job to second-guess a local voting, conducted by a local Admin no less. The problems should have been considered by the Admin who made the request locally and posted on Meta requesting removal of access — Meaning: the local result should have been second-guessed by the local admin, possibly resulting in not asking for access removal on Meta. But we must also note that, while inactivity is not itself grounds for removal, the community is allowed to vote or discuss removal of the local admins, and within that context inactivity is a valid point.
I would recommend that a second vote or discussion be held locally, seeking a broader community input — especially in light of the fact that Ygrek seems to be the highest-voted-on Admin elected on that project, which means a much, much smaller consensus was used to overturn a significant support showed for him to become an Admin, more so given the size of the project —, and that this vote be organized immediately. As a measure of fairness, I would also recommend that Ygrek would be reinstated preventively, until the vote is organized and runs its course.
Ideally, this should have been done before any action was taken in the original request for removal of access, but since it hasn't, we must now work with what we have. Redux 06:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have truly written that there is very small community in the RU.Wikinews. I would tell more; actually there is no constant community in the project. Sometimes come some users who some time actively work, and then leave the project. There is no constant structure of users. Therefore all problems in the project are solved by one or two users who are active at present. There is no opportunity to lead all-round discussion around any problems, including the organization of the voting and development of rules. The voting on removal of my sysop status has been organized by three users, two from which have practically zero contribution to the project. These two did not appear in the project some months; they come only for the voting and go away again. They do not participate in the project, hence, for them should be absolute equally who has the sysop status in this project. It is difficult to steward to understand mutual relations in the foreign project, but, the steward who makes a resume, could check up the voting and who participated in it (as there was only three voices). The steward has approached to a problem formally. I consider that it was the mistake. Therefore, IMHO, the mistake should be corrected, namely, the sysop status should be restored.--Ygrek 10:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We can concede that there was a problem, but the fault does not lie with the Steward who fulfilled the request. We do not patrol local community issues where a vote or discussion has taken place to decide to grant or remove Admin access. That would be transferring at least a part of the local decision to Meta, and to the Stewards, and that we do not do. We expect that the local community, and especially the user(s) who had been organizing the procedures, will have resolved any issues before bringing a request to Meta. If we find that there are unresolved issues, we are not the ones to resolve them. We freeze the request and ask that the problems be worked out locally.
In this particular case, it was possible, but not mandatory, for us to have done just that: asked that a broader input be secured before we acted on the request. Obviously, that was not done, but we need to consider that in practical terms there are different levels of tolerance that each community sets for participation in votes and discussions, and especially so in small communities. We can't completely override the local decision unless there is compelling evidence of bad faith, which would mean some kind of abuse. Although there may not have been bad faith involved, it is obvious enough, as birdy mentioned, that there were no solid grounds for removal under Ru.wikinews' own policies, and plus some complicating circumstances that the local Admin should have considered before declaring the request for removal successful and posting on Meta. Because of that, we can ask that the procedure be repeated, and to restore a measure of fairness, I recommended that your adminship be reinstated now, but pending the result of a second community vote or discussion. And that's also unavoidable, since it is not within our power to tell the local community that they cannot decide to remove a local admin, you or any of the others. Redux 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Redux, OMG why are You writing whole books here. I politely disagree with You, IMHO the sysop rights should be restored and if they want to repeat or continue the local removal voting should be up to them. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 07:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believed that this is a easy thing to correct a simple mistake. I did not think that there are any problems. But now, I see that all is not so simple. Therefore, I cancel this request. Thanks to all. Please forgive me for any trouble.--Ygrek 10:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry birdy, I just wanted to clarify things to those concerned. But notice that from a practical point of view, it might make no difference: if we reinstate Ygrek and they don't organize a new vote, nothing changes anyway.
Ygrek, no need to cancel, it actually is simple enough. My core point is just that we would restore your access immediately, but I needed to clarify things to the two sides: 1) to you that this would not prevent the local community from voting to remove you again, and that in fact they can and probably would do that. 2) to the local community I wanted to make a direct recommendation that they do repeat their vote, so as to prevent a situation where they might feel that we pulled the rug from under their feet, or that we overruled their local proceedings, which we can only do if there is clear evidence of bad faith, which I didn't think there was in this case. But please don't cancel your request. Our job here is to help you and your community, and from our perspective there really are no complications. Just a matter of making everything as clear as possible. Redux 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a decision and it remains so - the refusal of the request remains in force. I continue this discussion to better clarify the situation only. When I wrote this request, I believe that the stewards of the Wikiprojects are something of a Supreme Court, which oversees compliance with the rules and general principles of all projects. From current discussion, however, I realized that it is not so. Stewards here are something like the British Queen who has only conditional authority. Trying to achieve justice here, I, on my ignorance, tried to force the steward transcend their principle — which is that the decision should be accepted in the community, and the Stewards only approve them. My request contradicts this principle, because I asked the stewards of the decision, which would have overturned the decision of the community. In this sense, I recognize my mistake and ask me to apologize for the misunderstanding. You say that there are no problems to restore the sysop status. However, there are doubts that the next day community will take voting against it once again. It is possible. Especially, in this case, when the community is not so big and the decision is adopted only by three users. The user loses the sysop status for not activity. However, above you write, what not activity is not the sufficient reason for removal of the status. In addition, users vote against not activity of another user, and they are not more active, than the one against whom they vote. Submitting this request, I am just hoping to fix this mistake. Mistakes can make both the user and community (especially community, consisting only from three users). So, I would not like to force somebody to any actions which are contrary to the principles or rules. Let's leave the decision for the community.--Ygrek 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

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

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 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-ownerlistswikimediaorg so the listadmins know the person is allowed on the mailing list, and make sure they contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser.

Oversight access

To request to have content oversighted, ask in #wikimedia-stewards, or email oversight-llistswikimediaorg for requests regarding English Wikipedia. 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

If you're requesting the removal of your own status, make sure you're logged in to a global account.

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).

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

Kirill Lokshin@enwiki

Status:    In progress

• Wiki: en.wikipedia.org (list 'crats • bot policy_{[no automatic approval]} • summary • 'crats rights)
• User: Kirill Lokshin (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
• Discussion: Please remove my CheckUser and Oversight flags on the en wikipedia. Kirill ^(prof) 02:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Kirill, you don't need to remove the Checkuser and Oversight bits from you even if you're really resigning from the Arbitrator.--Caspian blue 03:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've always planned to hand back the bits when I step down; I don't actually use them outside of arbitration work. Kirill ^(prof) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's not a lot of hurry to perform the removals, but please consider discussing the matter with him on his home project, not on this request page. This will in all likelihood sit for a day before anyone actions it. Kylu 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan to act on it right away and request my fellow stewards to wait a bit as well. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you wish. At some point, though, please do remove them. Kirill ^(prof) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't changed your mind within not very long, they will be. 24 hours is not unreasonable to delay, plus b) you're not going to misuse them in the meantime. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent@enwiki

Status:    In progress

• Wiki: en.wikipedia.org (list 'crats • bot policy_{[no automatic approval]} • summary • 'crats rights)
• User: Iridescent (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
• Discussion: Please remove my admin flag on en.wikipedia. Iridescent 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests

Requests that don't fit in other sections belong here. Import rights can be granted 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:

• Local or global bot status
• Other global rights, requests regarding global blocking, and requests regarding locking accounts
• URL blacklisting
• Requests for CheckUser information
• Changing your username on Meta
• Changing your username or usurping an account on a Wikimedia wiki without bureaucrats

MF-Warburg@mhrwiki

Status:    Done

• Wiki: mhr.wikipedia.org (list 'crats • bot policy_{[no automatic approval]} • summary • 'crats rights)
• User: MF-Warburg (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)

Please grant me temporary import + sysop status for importing the test project to the new subdomain. --MF-W 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Say when you're done. --FiliP ██ 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See also

• Log of steward actions
• Log of global rights-related changes
• Steward handbook
• Users identified for restricted access
• Archives
  • 2004
  • 2005
  • 2006: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2007: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2008: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2009: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07
  • unexpired temporary access

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 · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

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