Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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. Minimum voting requirement are listed here.

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

[edit]

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 this is for multiple users, leave this field blank and give a list of these users 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

[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     =<!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
  |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.

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.

Meruleh@es.wikiversity

[edit]
Status:    In progress

Seven days ago, I announced my intention to apply for 3-month temp sysop in the Spanish Wikiversity. The project has two admins: one inactive for years and another who contributes sporadically. I aim to support the project by fixing templates, organizing sections, and removing long-standing problematic content, a task I've started with the Global Sysops. My proposal remains open for community comments, but I've received no feedback. —Meruleh {talk} 00:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asenoner@lldwikipedia

[edit]
Status:    Done

Hello, Asenoner wishes to renew his admin rights after a year of adminship since that his admin rights expired 3 days ago (17 March). He has gained 3 votes in favour in the reconfirmation vote that lasted one week. Thanks in advance. --S4b1nuz ᴇ.656(SMS) 11:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 2 years to expire on 2027-03-20. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks.. AramilFeraxa (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

group-atj.wikipedia

[edit]

Hello, it's time for the administrator renewal at atj.wikipedia.org - here is the list of people who have expressed interest in being administrators for the next two years.

Best regards and thank you in advance. Brochon99 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brochon99@atj.wikipedia
[edit]
Status:    In progress
Luc Patin@atj.wikipedia
[edit]
Status:    In progress
James-isaac ottawa@atj.wikipedia
[edit]
Status:    In progress
Thomas-élie quitich@atj.wikipedia
[edit]
Status:    In progress
Antwan quitich@atj.wikipedia
[edit]
Status:    In progress
Amanda moar@atj.wikipedia
[edit]
Status:    In progress

Umargana1@knc.wikipedia.org

[edit]
Status:    In progress

(Am requesting for admin ship in the above named wiki to help in making the wiki free from vandalism) Umargana1 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Къарачайлы@krcwikipedia

[edit]
Status:    In progress

I want to extend adminship & get interface adminship because there are no active administrators in our language project except me. And I am the only active editor since the section was created. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Къарачайлы (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xnet1234@he.wikivoyage

[edit]
Status:    Done

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xnet1234 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2025-06-22. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks.. AramilFeraxa (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

[edit]

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.

咽頭べさ@mnw.wiktionary

[edit]
Status:    In progress

I would like to ask a question about the Interface administrator, I applied for the Interface administrator position but it's been almost a month now, why isn't it finished yet? See ဝိက်ရှေန်နရဳ:ညးကောပ်ကာဲ--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 04:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

[edit]
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.

Turgut46@trwiktionary

[edit]
Status:    Not done

Turgut46 ✉ 02:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MVR#Bureaucrat there must be at least 15 votes (the linked discussion has 8 votes, despite announcements via trwiktionary sitenotice [1] and trwiki village pump [2]) and the community must be large enough to even need bureaucrats. With just four admins it doesn't seem like there is a need for crats at trwiktionary (which might change in the future if more admins are getting elected). --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not really convinced there is a need or a community large enough for local bureaucrats. For reference:
  • In the last 3 years (after the previous local bureaucrat resigned) there have been two rights changes [3], one bot request and one adminship request.
  • MVR has a general requirement of around 15 votes - as mentioned above there have only been eight in this case.
  • There are four permanent admins on the project (three of them appointed while there was still a local bureaucrat so they are reasonably permanent), while MVR generally requires around six permanent administrators.
  • Out of the 67 users who have contributed in the last 30 days only 13 have more than five edits - most of the others are either global renamers/global patrollers or non-community members.
With that being said I'm not really inclined to grant this, though I won't reject either. I'll leave to another steward to give a 2O. EPIC (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and detailed response. I understand the concerns regarding the size of the community and the number of votes. However, I would like to highlight a few points in favor of appointing a local bureaucrat for trwiktionary:
One of the core principles of Wikimedia projects is fostering self-sufficient local governance whenever feasible. The absence of a local bureaucrat in trwiktionary means that even minor rights changes—such as granting bot status or handling admin promotions—require the intervention of Meta stewards. While stewards play a crucial role in the broader Wikimedia ecosystem, their primary focus is on global matters, not on the day-to-day operations of individual projects.
By appointing a local bureaucrat, trwiktionary would gain the ability to handle such tasks independently, reducing the need for external intervention. This would not only streamline administrative processes but also empower the local community to take responsibility for its own affairs. In the long run, minimizing reliance on Meta for routine matters contributes to a more sustainable and efficient governance model.
Moreover, the absence of a bureaucrat can create unnecessary delays, as requests must compete for the attention of stewards managing multiple projects.
Considering these factors, granting bureaucrat status would be a step toward strengthening local autonomy and ensuring that trwiktionary can operate smoothly without external stewards.
Best regards. Turgut46 ✉ 11:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note on the point regarding absence of a local bureaucrat - one of the reasons why we are generally restrictive with granting bureaucrat rights is namely because it delays our response times for permission requests for wikis with an inactive bureaucrat. The stewards then have to contact the local bureaucrat to give them a chance to review locally and wait some time for any potential response, before proceeding with doing it ourselves. This has been the case in the past as well, e.g. [4] and [5]. EPIC (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per EPIC and Johannes89 - the local community is too small to have a bureaucrat, moreover, the formal criteria indicated on MVR have not been met. There are not so many rights changes to put a great burden on the stewards. AramilFeraxa (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • 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.

Johannnes89@meta

[edit]
Status:    Done

With unanimous support and minimum number of votes surpassing the requirements in WM:CU, Johannes89 has been elected as a Meta CheckUser. M/ (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done and as a steward, there should be no further accesses to handle here. EPIC (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC As a Meta admin, are you actually allowed to do this under the homewiki policy? Leaderboard (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard, first of all, a clear definition of home wiki could help, especially leaving out "non-content wiki" or service wikies such as meta.wiki itself. Please note that this request should also not considered controversial in any way, since votings has been regularly held and has had an unanimous result. Thanks for your consideration, --M/ (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meta is generally seen as an exception to the homewiki policy. For requests like this, it's really not possible to completely avoid COI both as 21/34 stewards have Meta adminship and steward work is performed on Meta for the most part, and there really won't be much less of that regardless of who performs the action, and most stewards wouldn't see Meta as a home wiki, mainly because it's not a content wiki. But as M7 mentioned above there shouldn't be much controversy here either way - there was unanimous support, all requirements were met and I did not vote in the request myself. EPIC (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that "Meta is generally seen as an exception to the homewiki policy" actually - that's new to me especially given things like Meta:MSR. Now personally I don't care who promoted the user, but this tends to be a thorny issue for quite a few people here, hence the query. Leaderboard (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think it's an unreasonable query from Leaderboard at all. //shb (t • c) 10:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how strictly MSR is interpreted, many stewards just run for meta admin to make sure there are no issues with any of their metawiki actions. I don't think this automatically makes meta a home wiki for the 20 stewards (out of 34) with admin permissions on this project.
But the policy never intended to include metawiki, otherwise one could easily argue that all stewards are "active community members" (= home wiki) given how often all stewards visit meta (simply for doing steward work). When I removed Steward requests/Permissions#Svartava@metawiki it would have never occurred to me that the home wiki rule might be involved (although as a self-requested removal it would have been allowed anyway). Johannnes89 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just randomly noticing this. I might just be pointlessly retelling ancient history, but IIRC years ago when I was still a steward we did not think that "the policy never intended to include metawiki", just because stewards answer steward requests on Meta, and every wiki where one was an admin counted as a home wiki. If there are 14 non-meta-admin stewards, this request could have been handled by one of them perfectly well without any staffing bottleneck. Sure, none of this is a big deal, but I did want to point it out. -- MF-W 00:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Conspiracy@commonswiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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, 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.

Helmoony@arwikibooks

[edit]
Status:    Not done

The user has stated that he is retired and access permission can be removed --Mohanad (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is part of the AAR process I think this could rather be removed by then at the same time as the other removals are performed, also considering that the user also hasn't specified that they want their rights immediately removed (and for example if they do happen to change their mind until then). I don't object to removing them by now either, though, I'll leave this up to someone else. EPIC (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user stated that "You're right, I'm currently retired and have resigned from all my administrative permission except this one. The idea at the time was to facilitate obtaining a local bureaucratic permission for the project. This would put the project under the management of the Arabic community. It seems nothing has moved in a while. You can remove the permission if self-management of the project is no longer a goal. I'd love to talk with you." --Alaa :)..! 19:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. Since this is part of the AAR and since there are 2 days left for the AAR to be processed, the request will be implemented then. AramilFeraxa (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JanZerebecki@testwikidata

[edit]
Status:    Done

User is globally inactive since more than seven years and has been informed on their talk page twice. Ameisenigel (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any local inactivity policy or consensus for removal? EPIC (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy, so I have started a request at the RFP page. Since this is a test wiki you cannot expect much participation in such a request. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a complicated case - on one hand there seems to be no local inactivity policy and no participation in the linked request, on the other hand it is indeed a test wiki with no real community and I suppose removing the flag isn't that big of a deal either since it can basically be restored without prejudice. EPIC (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done after second opinions from others. @Ameisenigel: Noting that I have only removed the bureaucrat flag, since the sysop flag can be locally removed. EPIC (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes@mediawiki

[edit]
Status:    On hold

Not using it. Wugapodes (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this is also part of AAR. AramilFeraxa (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=28439566"