Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Ruslik0 (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 27 July 2022 (→‎Felecita@tr.wikiquote: done). 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.

Abubakr1111@ha.wiktionary

Status:    On hold

I'm requesting to continue carrying administrative task in Hausa Wikitionary. As a result of good and poor words creation in Hausa Wiktionary i'm requesting this right to delete inaccurate pages and patrol the good pages.Abubakr1111 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until 2022-07-24 --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OskarRand1@etwikibooks

Status:    On hold

I'd like to improve Estonian wikibooks, delete some pages and edit sidebar. There are no active users currently (except me). OskarRand1 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @OskarRand1, thank you for volunteering! To get admin permissions, you need to start a discussion at et.wikibooks, which will last for at least a week. This discussion can happen at a central discussion page (such as Village pump), admins' noticeboard or a dedicated page to request permissions. This is necessary even if there is seemingly no one else active – the primary purpose of the discussion is to ensure people have the ability to object. Please post a link to the discussion here once you do so.  On hold until a discussion is started. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here [2]. OskarRand1 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anerka@trwikivoyage

Status:    On hold

Hi,
My temporary administrator access will expire on August 1st. I applied to continue two weeks ago & get enough support without any opposition.--Anerka (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM but gonna hold it for a brief moment(a week or so). We don't account for the remaining adminship time when we renew the permission so your remaining term will be lost. (If you are OK with that we can renew it right away) — regards, Revi 08:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@You can do it however you see fit, either way is OK for me. Anerka (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caro de Segeda@lfnwikipedia

Status:    On hold

Hi,
There are no administrators at the Elefen Wikipedia and I would like to contribute there. It will be goodto have someone that understands the language helping out there. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at the top of this section "This page is not the place for any discussions or votes" — that would be this page. If anyone thinks any global policies have been violated, they are recommended to either file for a global ban or contact Trust and Safety if more appropriate. — TNT (talk • she/her) 14:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before this request is even taken into account, I think a few things need to be answered. First, why is Caro de Segeda using two accounts with multiple permissions, including crat on some Wikis to promote themselves? Caro de Segeda and user:Chabi are the same person. Caro de Segeda, has done nothing but promote "Vicente Castelago" on multiple projects over 100+ times! here Caro claims to have helped with multiple projects, however it was Chabi who did so. Here, they have the same userpage, and here it is clear that Vicente Castelago is Chabi and declares as much by stating that they created the language which lfn and other projects are based on. This is a big breech of trust not to mention a huge red flag. I can detail more privately to any stewards who would like further evidence. Praxidicae (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Praxidicae for this additional context. I am busy for most of today, but when I have time I will look into this as thoroughly as possible. This is quite concerning. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, especially when combined with some private evidence which I will share with qualified individuals upon request. Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now I got lost. So the reason why Praxidicae is deleting the articles is not because the article might or might not be important, it is because it is believed that it is self-promotion? Am I right? Caro de Segeda (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a number of things, including a wild amount of crosswiki promotion about an unencyclopedic subject unsupported by actual reliable sources. Now can you please explain why you are using two accounts to do this, while requesting rights and using advanced rights on both this account and Chabi? Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The author is mentioned in Cosmoglotta 329, the main magazine published in Interlingue (since 1922, so it wasn't created by him). He is also mentioned in the official website from the Union Mundial pro Interlingua (the official global organization that promotes Interlingua, created in 1955). Aren't those reliable sources? He is the main literary author in Interlingue, since the creation of the language in 1922, so I believe he might deserve an article on Wikipedia just because of that.
However, I do understand that an article about him might not be important in smaller Wikipedias, but this is not the first time this happens: you can find articles about Polish towns in every single Wikipedia and I don't see anybody deleting them.
Also, the only two original novellas published in Lingua Franca Nova have been written by him so, if he deserves an articles in any Wikipedia, that should be in thet LFN Wikipedia, where you, Praxidicae, deleted the article without any dialogue (which means you didn't respect the rules, right?). And in that same Wikipedia, other users have written to you asking to take the article back.
I do understand that each Wikipedia is somehow different from each other (the Hungarian one will have more articles dedicated to Hungary than the one in Basque), and that this particular article might not be important in smaller Wikipedias which are focused on their on cultures, like the one in Maori, but I believe that it should be kept in all Wikipedias written in conlangs and in other Wikipedias in languages with more speakers, as they have articles from different topics, even if they are not directly related to their language.
This person is the main author of original literature in two languages (Interlingue and Lingua Franca Nova) so if the article about Baghy (one of the most important authors in Esperanto) appears in different Wikipedias, I don't see why this one doesn't have the right to be there, specially, when it is not trying to sell anything and it keeps a neutral point of view. Caro de Segeda (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Caro de Segeda why are you using this account and the Chabi account? Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Question: @Caro de Segeda: I only have one question: If you are elected sysop are you going to restore this page? I ask you this because I notice that your proposal comes after a page deletion by a GS you complained about, also supported by inactive users, who only came back to complain about the deletion and to vote in your election! Best Superpes15 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please see this conversation where the speakers of Lingua Franca Nova are asking Praxidicae to take the page back as that person is one of the main authors in that language. He deleted the page without any conversation, no voting, nothing when if one Wikipedia has a reason to have an article about that person is the Wikipedia in Lingua Franca Nova because is the main author of published books. Caro de Segeda (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a final time, I am not a he. I am female, my pronouns are she/her. Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I forgot when writing that answer. Caro de Segeda (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So are you asking for the flag just to counter the action of a GS? I see that one user had been inactive for a year and a half, while the other user had been inactive for two and a half months, it seems a bit weird to me that they both - the first one in particular - only come back to complain about Praxidicae and to vote for your election (which has no written statement). The community consensus decision-making doesn't work exactly like this! Furthermore, the story of the sock reported above is also concerning (in particular with regard to self-promotion), at least imho. Superpes15 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community of Lingua Franca Nova is a small one, are you going to use the same rules as for the English Wikipedia, with all the speakers it has? I don't think that is fair. Again, the article is about an important author IN THAT LANGUAGE, so of course, if it needs an article, it should be there. I said it before and I repeat myself again, I do understand if Praxidicae wants to delete the articles in small Wikipedias, as I believe they are more self-centered, but deleting the article about the main writer in Elefen in the Wikipedia in Elefen, excuse me but it seems a terrible mistake.
If the community of the Wikipedia in LFN is just three or five people, what can we do? Those are the ones voting. If the Wiki hasn't have movement recently, does it mean that the votes of those users is less valuable? Because they are the users it has, that's it. But now it seems that we need something extra to prove when it is a Wikipedia you cannot compare to the big ones. Caro de Segeda (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this! I'm saying there wouldn't have been any problems to give you the flag even if there were no votes imho. Instead seeing votes from a user who has not been active on lfnwiki for more than 1 year and a half is not very nice (this is my humble opinion). The same reasoning applies to the page deletion. Among other things, you are not answering the real Praxidicae's question, about the two users and the self-promotion. Best -- Superpes15 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it can be self-promotion. The page doesn't try to sell a product, just informs about an author. I could understand if the votes for my adminiship would be for newly-created accounts, but they come from people that have been editing that Wikipedia before so it shouldn't be any issue, imho. Caro de Segeda (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Caro de Segeda, there is no issue with creating an article about a notable subject on a lot of pages. The concern here is that there seems to be decent on-wiki indication that this is an autobiography, which is an issue. It is rather clear that you are User:Chabi and that Chabi is Vincente Costalago. The Wikidata item for Vincente has 38 articles listed, I believe all made by you. The ladwiki article and others make the connection clearer. Do you speak 38 languages? Are you using administrative rights to enforce autobiographical content? Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Caro de Segeda, I noticed you are still editing on other projects without having replied to my question here. These concerns are not limited to this specific request for permissions, and will not go away if you fail to respond. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: If you have enough evidence, as you have said, in order to believe that the publications we are talking about are "self-promotion" and "not important enough", fine, then proceed to delete the articles. However, I have found that Arno Langrage article, was edited by eo:Uzanto:ArnoLagrange, and you don't seem to have any issues with that. The article io:Gonçalo Neves was edited by Gonçalo Neves and you don't seem to have a problem with that. It is with this very article in question. Again, I understand that the articles abovementioned are important for the Wikipedias where they were published: Arno Langrage is important in the Esperanto community in the same way as Gonçalo Neves is important for the Ido community. I have already stated that if the article is not important for most Wikipedias where it appears I do understand the logic behind deleting it, and, therefore, I agree to delete them. Now, why delete the article about an main author publishing in Elefen from the Wikipedia in Elefen? Are you deleting the abovementioned articles then because they are "self-promotion"? Or maybe because they are small Wikipedias and the articles are just referred to somebody important to that community you let them do so? Because if you do, then, under the premise that "I am editing an article about myself", you should keep it in the Elefen Wikipedia or, if not, go and delete the other two.
Second: You are asking me for me "real identity". I am sorry but I don't have to answer that question. I repeat myself, if you find in most cases the articles are "irrelevant" or "self-promoting", go ahead. I totally agree with you (even though Praxidicae just went and deleted them instead of following a procedure). If you have "great evidence" that that's the case, go for it. Delete the articles
Third: the articles I am editing have no relation to the point in question, so why are your concerned? What is that you are concerned about?
Please understand, I don't try to be difficult here, and I repeat myself again: if you find that in most cases the article is not important enough for being in most of the Wikipedias, I am fine if you delete it. I understand your point. But not on the Wikipedias were that author is important, specially when the people working there have asked you not do so because then you are not respecting their work. I don't know whether you speak Elefen, but you, not being administrators there, go and delete the article about the main writer in that language under the excuse of "self-promotion". Even in the case it were self-promotion, it is still a small Wikipedia with a small community so, how does it affect you? I have seen articles in the Wikipedias in Catalan and in Basque that are clearly manipulative, clearly not true, and I don't see people doing anything about it. So again, if you find it "irrelevant" for most Wikipedias, go ahead and delete it but I don't believe there is an excuse for the article being deleted from the Wikipedias written in conlangs. Caro de Segeda (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to answer the question is a problem. You are required by policy pretty much everywhere to be transparent, which doesn't mean you need to out yourself but it does mean that you cannot deceive the community when you hold advanced rights. Why are you using two accounts, @Caro de Segeda? Not to mention that you are using this account to circumvent your block on anwiki, where your other account, Chabi is indefinitely blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
„Even in the case it were self-promotion, it is still a small Wikipedia with a small community so, how does it affect you?“ – not a statement I would expect from someone requesting sysop rights. -- Johannnes89 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be concerned about the two abovementioned cases, right? Caro de Segeda (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I am not required to give you my personal identity. Also, I am not trying to deceive anyone: I was clear from the beginning: I want the rights to get an important article from the Elefen Wikipedia back because you just deleted it without knowing the relationship between that author and the language that Wikipedia was written in. For you to understand (it is a bit exaggerated but I just try to make the point): deleting the article about that person from the Elefen Wikipedia is just like deleting the article about Shakespeare from the English Wikipedia. Again, I understand if you want to delete it from other Wikipedias (as you are concerned about a possible self-promotion issue about an article that is not very important in other Wikipedias), but from the ones written in conlangs, it shouldn't be deleted as it is an important author in that particular context (and I proved it adding references, not just by stating it).
Again, if you have (as you have stated) proves that it is a case of "self-promotion", please go ahead and delete the articles from the non-conlang Wikipedias. If the article gets delete it from the conlang Wikipedias, then don't forget to delete the other two I mentioned above, because then you risk to be partial, which, I believe the policy is against it, right?
Regarding the right for the Elefen Wikipedia: If you just put the article back, I am fine, I don't need the rights. I haven't tried to deceive anyone here. I want to get them to put that article back. What is more: I have the votes of people that have created articles on the Elefen Wikipedia supporting me. Are you then going against a democratic process? Because this is a problem on small Wikipedias: there are fairly no people working there but the ones that have edited articles there have supported me. Caro de Segeda (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So @Caro de Segeda:, since there are other possibly problematic pages in various linguistic editions of Wikipedia, do you think there is nothing wrong with your self-promotion? So by asking several projects to translate a biography about you (but not clearly saying it's about you), you think you haven't done anything wrong. But I see that when this was pointed out to you, you replied talking about your work and that you don't accept criticism from those who have fewer years of experience than you. I also agree that transparency was more necessary in these cases (especially talking about two accounts that have administrative rights and that are also used to evade a block)! And no, no one wants to divulge your true identity, but there is clear evidence of the situation! Furthermore, a probable campaign is not a democratic consensus for me, and Wikipedia should be based on unconditional consensus. Superpes15 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "there is nothing wrong with self-promotion", I said that even if it was, there are other cases you don't seem to uncomfortable with (are you going to do something about them?) and also, that, in my own opinion, it is not the same doing so in larger Wikipedias than in a small Wikipedia where the person is important (again, the cases mentioned are two people of importance in their respective communities) because there are not so many people editing it. What I tried to point out was that, in these particular cases, where there are fairly nobody to write the articles, if the author writes an article about himself on the Ido Wikipedia because is an important author in that language, is that bad? Because if there should be an article on any Wikipedia, it should be on that one, right? Do we agree on that?
You are talking about consensus, now please tell me how to do it in a Wikipedia like the Elefen one, where fairly nobody writes on. Is your suggestion to "leave the Wikipedia with no administrator just because there is not enough people"? I don't think it is very fair. Shall we, then, apply exactly the same norms for smaller Wikipedias than for larger ones? Because then there will only be a few Wikipedias, that's it. Again, I totally get Praxicadae point on deleting the article on larger Wikipedias or Wikipedias in minority languages, we totally agree on that, it is the fact the she deleted the article precisely on one of the Wikipedia the article should be in that I am discussing here. Also, there was consensus on the Elefen Wikipedia for me to be an administrator and for Praxidicae to get the article back, are you going to respect that consensus?
Another point, you said asked me whether I don't think is bad for a person to ask another one to translate an article about himself. I don't think it is bad, as the person being asked is totally free to say no. And, what is more, should ArnoLangrage have asked another guy to create an article about him, that wouldn't be self-promotion then. So, in this particular case of the Ligurian Wikipedia, it won't be self-promotion. Right?
Just let me put it clear: I don't mind if you delete the article from the Wikipedias written in natlangs (natural languages). For me the issue comes when the article has been deleted on a Wikipedia where that person is the main author of thhat language literature. This is what I am trying to discuss here. I am totally fine with deleting the article from other places as I understand that it might not be relevant. So under the grounds of the article not be relevant, I totally understant your point and I even agree with you. For me issue is the fact that you have deleted the article from the Elefen Wikipedia. Caro de Segeda (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold until 2022-07-27. Users who oppose this request should make that clear on the local discussion page. This is not the place to make objections. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MIKHEIL@ka.wikiquote

Status:    On hold

For several years now, there are no administrators, nor an active community to elect an administrator. I have had this rights several times in the past and therefore have the required experience. --Mikheil Talk 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every time anyone make request on this page, {{sr-request}}'s |discussion= value cannot be empty unless you are self-resigning (#Removal of access).  On hold pending discussion. No discussion, no permission. Thanks. — regards, Revi 18:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munkhzaya.E@mn.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

I previously created a discussion where a single user named Enkhsaihan2005 with different usernames voted against. Since we don't have an active administrator at the moment, a few people will change the articles as they want. So I would like to renew my admin rights again or if you don't renew my admin rights I would ask that the foreign admins show more activity in Mongolian Wikipedia. With best wishes Munkhzaya.E (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Your answer was already given at Steward_requests/Permissions/2022-07#Munkhzaya.E@mnwikipedia. Please start a new discussion to renew your administrative rights. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naulagmi@ikwikpedia

Status:    On hold

Hi, I previously had admin access to the Iñupiaq wikipedia, but it has expired. The main page needs a lot of work and I speak the language semi-fluently. I would really like to help get this Wikipedia baack up to speed. I doubt there will be any opposition to my admin request as there are few editors on the site. --Naulagmi (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until 3 August 2022 Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felecita@tr.wikiquote

Status:    Done

LisafBia6531 msg 09:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

See Interface admin for information about this user group.

  • If you are requesting adminship and the interface admin at the same time, you can file one request in administrator section and state you want interface adminship as well.
  • MediaWiki interface translations are done at translatewiki.net. Please do not request interface administrator access solely for that purpose; your request will be declined.
  • Since the end of 2018, all interface administrators are required to have two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled. Please, enable it before posting your request here.
  • 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 interface adminship.

  • Discussions should be open for seven days. Please request interface 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 interface adminship for specific tasks, please state for how long and for which tasks you need it. Otherwise stewards will decide whether to assign permanent interface adminship and the duration of interface adminship. See Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements.

Anerka@trwikivoyage

Status:    In progress

Hi,
My temporary interface administrator access will expire on August 1st. I applied to continue two weeks ago & get enough support without any opposition.--Anerka (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2022 (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.

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.

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

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.

See also

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=23594448"