Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests(Redirected from RFP)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 projects which do not have a local permissions procedure.

Old sections are archived by a bot. Click here for a list of archives.

  • 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 | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Miscellaneous | Global permissions | Unexpired temporary access

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page[edit]

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    = <!-- such as en.wikibook -->
 |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]]").

3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

Confirmation of signing confidentiality agreement[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Approved temporary access requests are listed at SRAT. Requests are moved to that page by a bot.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

For permanent adminship, please provide a link to the local community approval. For temporary adminship please state for how long and for which tasks you need it, and link to a local announcement.

Algazel@min.wikipedia[edit]

Permanent adminship. XoXo (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-29. Most of the votes were obviously brought in from other projects. Granting temporary adminship due to a lack of a local community. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we're expecting a permanent adminship here. Three requests before were granted as such. May I know why not this time? Muhraz (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
We only grant permanent adminship when there is an active local community. On this request, of the 10 votes:
  • 6 had not previously contributed content to min.wikipedia and have not since (What a joke, Rintojiang, Pras, D'SpecialOne, Cahyo Ramadhani, Mrpresidentfaris)
  • 2 have been limitedly active recently (Beeyan has 3 edits, the other two in May 2014; Rahmatdenas' previous edit to voting was in December 2014 and the edit before that was in November 2013)
This leaves only 2 actively involved users voting, you and Naval Scene. On projects with these levels of limited activity, we rather give temporary adminship to limit the impact of inactive admins on the development of a project. Savhñ 12:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have to admit that our community is still struggling to find a stable base of editors, but Algazel has been a very active member that deserves to be given appropriate adminship status. Then again, what are the reasoning behind this, this, and this? Muhraz (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
He is an administrator now, and his current access will last for three months. After that, if there are no concerns, then he can be granted temporary access for periods of 6 months or 1 year. Those previous requests involved significantly more users who were active members of the community. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
OK then, I think it's reasonable for now. Thank you Ajraddatz. XoXo (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Spiritia@bg.wikisource[edit]

Done Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-9-02. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access[edit]

See bureaucrat for information about this user group.
  • In principle, requests for temporary bureaucrat access are not granted.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

Spiritia@bg.wikisource[edit]

The vote has been both for bureaucrat and admin access, so feel free to also set the admin flag in one go. Many thanks in advance.
— Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There is insufficient local community members to warrant a local bureaucrat. Almost all of the people who voted do not edit on that project. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for the long reply that's going to follow. While I totally understand the stance that small local communities might be better served centrally, there are a couple of important points, which IMHO set the case here in a somewhat different light.
First of all, in Bulgaria we've never had separate communities per project: one would be hard pressed to find a single person who contributes actively in Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc., while not contributing to Wikipedia as well, and on a level at least a magnitude higher. Either because of this, or perhaps the other way around, as a community we've never really considered the other projects as something strictly distinct from Wikipedia: they surely do provide a different type of knowledge, but for us the work we do in these projects have always been organically intertwined with the work on the encyclopedia.
The second point is that an important reason why few people get to spend more time in those other projects is the sheer pile of tasks that is constantly accumulating. I can speak from my own experience: only a few months ago I volunteered to become an administrator on the Bulgarian Wiktionary, because one of our editors expressed their interest to revive it. That's correct: one editor, one administrator. It might be surprising then that I had to actually ask another of our Wikipedia administrators to also volunteer for sysop in Wiktionary -- that much was that single editor active. So that was a success story. But I'm sure it wouldn't have been such if we had to ask for those rights. Of course, that's not because you wouldn't be helpful -- not at all -- but it's still just plain cumbersome.
Imagine how you would feel for example if every time you needed to pay for something with your credit or debit card, you had to phone your bank, describing what and why are you going to purchase, and asking them to process the payment. As kind and helpful the bank staff might be, you'll soon be pissed off enough to throw away that card, won't you. Pretty sure that staff won't be the happiest either. And I don't even want to go into details like what case of surreptitious vandalism we've been having for years on our projects -- exactly because it's years worth of information. If I had to write down all that the community already knows -- in order to have the vandal blocked -- and that case after case after case, because he's one pretty damn elusive bastard, I'd honestly rather leave the projects. It would simply be a profoundly inefficient use of resources. Thankfully, we somehow had managed to save our bureaucrat on Wiktionary.
That last thing does actually raise an additional point: if we were de facto allowed to have those two administrators and a bureaucrat on Wiktionary with basically just one active editor (not counting the admins themselves), and if that worked reasonably well, why should we be denied the same thing on another project? And if we do get denied on that other project, then it only makes sense to have us stripped of our rights on Wiktionary too -- because the "local" community there is actually even smaller than on Wikisource. And stripped from rights also on Wikiquote, for that matter, where Spirita is already a crat and sysop.
I'm pretty sure that at this point you'd agree with me that each language community is unique enough and what works well for one might not be the best for another -- and vice versa. Therefore, each case would be best considered on an independent basis and according to the local specifics. The obvious question then is: would it be reasonable and wise to deprive a community that seems to have been doing well with certain level of self-governance and administration from those rights? Even done with the best possible intentions, such actions are known to very badly affect the motivation of the members of the community -- and motivation is probably the single most important thing in our work in the WMF projects.
Thus, I kindly ask you to take into account these specifics of our community and essentially allow it the very same level of self-administration on Wikisource that it already enjoys and uses efficiently on the other similar projects besides Wikipedia -- all of which otherwise fall into the category "small local communities" and should therefore be stripped of such rights.
Many thanks again, — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 01:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Having a local bureaucrat has nothing to do with the ability of a project to govern itself. What it does do is prevent any sort of external review of admin actions, and leads to the 28 RfCs we current have open regarding admin abuse on small-language wikiprojects. The only local specifics that I see in this case are a bunch of users, including yourself, coming to the project to elect the user a sysop and bureaucrat. How is that fair to a local community on that project, to have a bunch of outsiders come and elect themselves? Our own standard practices have evolved over the years to prevent this. I am even quite liberal in granting permanent admin and crat access, but there needs to be some suggestion of a significant local community which those users can be responsible to. Also worth noting: I am not declining this request, only sharing my opinion. Any other steward is free to close it as they see fit, as I generally recuse myself from any issue on which I hold a firm opinion. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ajraddatz and Luchesar, please, do not argue any more. If the current policy is to take into consideration only the level of activity in the wiki project, regardless of the personal and cross-wiki profile of the candidate for user rights or their expressed commitment, so be it. For the record, which is not seen from my contributions in Wikisource, I am one of the two signees of our Wikimedians of Bulgaria user group agreement with WMF (This means that WMF has my full name and copy of the identity card, which is, I think comparable to what candidates for stewards have to meet as requirements, in order to qualify themselves.) My application came as a result of my dedication to have the smaller BG wiki projects like Wikisource, developing and curated by the user group, too, and not lagging years behind Wikipedia.
Anyway, I will do my best to deserve the stewards' trust, as I have done with my Bulgarian wiki community in this voting. There will be monthly reports in both BG Wikisource and BG Wikipedia, to help everybody judge better how to proceed with my rights after four months. :) Thank you, Spiritia 08:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


I'll comply with Spiritia's wish and try not escalating this any more, yet I cannot simply ignore the 'assume bad faith' attitude that I think I can feel here. It also saddens me to see the most active and respected members of our community being derided as 'a bunch of users'. After all, without those 'bunches', there wouldn't have been any need for practices in the first place, wouldn't it.
That being said, I actually understand the logic behind such practices and even find myself following similar ones not too rarely in my own work. But I don't think the attitude is indeed helping. A reply along the lines of 'I understand what you're saying and acknowledge that your community might have its own specifics, but we've set certain rules and we ask you to abide by them, because we've found them to be really the best for any community' would've likely left much less of a bad taste in the mouth for being treated like a potential criminal... because you asked to do more volunteer work.
I do also understand why you're being harsh. It happens to me too: after countless numbers of abuse it's hard to assume good faith, even if I constantly remind myself that there was a reason for that AGF policy. But sometimes I feel I might've unnecessarily alienated people who'd been really helpful.
Anyway, please don't take this as an attempt to school you how to do your own work, and thanks again really for taking the time to review this request.
Cheers, — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 10:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Iliev: you're absolutely correct, and I'm sorry if I was being too harsh. I am not suspicious of any motives here, and indeed I do appreciate Spiritia's desire to volunteer for the role. These are just volunteer positions on internet websites after all, and I'll try to modify my future comments to be more understanding and less confrontational. Thanks for raising those concerns. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I do think that if stewards would take the time to explain why these types requests are being declined, it would be helpful and allay further objections from that community (I've seen other stewards give terse explanations for similar requests in the past, and while it's certainly within policy, it has caused some additional drama.) --Rschen7754 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It would also be useful if there was a page clearly listing the current practices for granting bureaucrat rights - we end up declining a large number of them, and it seems there is discussion on every one these days. It might also help to have an RfC defining the steward role in granting bureaucrat access, and maybe providing an easier means of recall so we don't need to be so picky with the requests. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, thank you very much for your explanation and understanding. I guess it's inevitable that such mutual misunderstandings occur sometimes, but it's always nice to see well-meaning people on the other side. After all, we're all in the same boat, aren't we. ;) I think we can safely call this request closed now. Thanks again for your help! — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, and I'll get in contact with the bg.wikisource community after the temporary adminship has expired to look at moving forward with permanent local admins or crats. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ajraddatz, for me it was real obligation and pleasure to see it reconfirmed that my wiki community has shown me, for one more time and in one more project, their trust and support, in both capacities, of administrator, and bureaucrat. :) While I understand your comment and hope that in the not-so-far future we can have a more active community in the BG Wikisource one day, in addition to the vibrant community in BG Wikipedia, whose active members are all the voters, I hope that the present vote, at least in its admin rights part, shall be still considered eligible? Thank you in advance, Spiritia 01:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are eligible for adminship. I've granted you temporary sysop access for 4 months. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser access[edit]

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.
  • Temporary CheckUser access is not permitted and temporary access is only used by stewards.

  • Stewards: Before granting this permission to a user, please check the current policy and make sure that the user has signed the confidentiality agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. An email template is available for requesting new users to identify. Breaching these rules may be the cause for removing your steward access.

RadiX@ptwiki[edit]

As per local policy (which sets CheckUser terms at one year's length), please turn off and on the bit in order to register another term (it's also been done here and here). RadiX 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikitanvir@bnwiki[edit]

One month passed, there was no opposed and 29 supports. Sethtalk 00:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I cannot process this until there are at least two eligible candidates from bnwiki. I see there are some other requests open; are they ready to be closed yet? Ajraddatz (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
ok,,, Sethtalk 00:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Done - user and local vote meet policy requirements, and user has signed the agreement. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Aftabuzzaman@bnwiki[edit]

One month passed, there was no opposed and 30 supports. Sethtalk 00:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Done - user and local vote meet policy requirements, and user has signed the agreement. @Barras, Trijnstel: please process the relevant CU-L and wiki access. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oversight access[edit]

See Oversight policy for information about this user group and the policy governing the use of this tool.
  • To request to have content oversighted, ask for a steward in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect and contact a steward privately. This section is for requesting access to the Oversight tool.
  • For contact details about oversighters across the wikis, refer to this page.
  • Note that temporary Oversight access is not permitted and temporary status is only used by stewards.

  • When a new user is assigned to this group, please add them to this list.


Removal of access[edit]

  • 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, a trusted user 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. 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.
  • See the instructions above for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.

अनिरुद्ध!@hiwiki[edit]

as per rule no 180 usefull idit in 6 month.-150.129.55.143 09:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Comment Comment The administrator appears to have edited as recently as this month. Can you explain why his activity is not a "useful edit"? MBisanz talk 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

in a period of last 7 month (November to April) his edit count is 108. As per rule minimum 180 edit count required in 6 month. If he want to back surely make new RFA.-106.79.124.155 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done removed for failing to meet the threshold. MBisanz talk 01:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Amadís@es.wikipedia[edit]

Hi. According to the local policies, Amadís has not enough administrative actions to be a sysop or a 'crat on eswiki. Requerimment is 50 admin actions on past two years. Please remove his both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Thanks. BetoCG (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done removed for failure to meet threshold. MBisanz talk 01:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Kthoelen@nlwiki[edit]

Doesn't meet our local activity policy anymore, less than 250 edits in a year. Please remove his sysop rights. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Kiitos työstäsi ylläpitäjänä, Kthoelen. :) --Stryn (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Ole hyvää! :) - Kthoelen (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests[edit]

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


See also[edit]