Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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 ====
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    = <!-- such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name =
(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.


COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below:

 and also mistakes. Thank you. 

Administrator access[edit]

See administrator for information about this user group.

  • MediaWiki interface translations are done at 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.


hello. Please renew my adminship on luri lrc.lrc lori (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First you need to start a discussion on Wikipedia and then add a link here. Stryn (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mogoeilor: sorry to be a hassle, but would you mind putting the request at the bottom of the page you put it on, and updating the link here? Thanks :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

so thanks please se [[2]].lrc lori (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


Please grant me the temporary sysop flag. --J.Wong 05:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please hold on. I cannot trust this guy using the page for off-topic criticism without sincerely considering my questioning. Too many very new users are inflating the votes.--Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked this guy why he would nominate something for deletion on Chinese Wikibooks but then delete in just six days without asking other administrators, but he responded too aggressively and made the discussion too unfriendly, i.e. criticizing others without willingness to consider others' criticism. That is no place to do that, so restarting the vote may be desirable, if not entirely rejecting this request. Once again, please be wary of very new users inflating the votes.--Jusjih (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It is because you frequently exaggerate the minor problems of others and you have the tendency to harass other users. Your comments here is the reason why I need to post out what you have done on different small wikis. Your comments here no doubt that can be used to verify what I have said and show that your comments are of low value to take as a reference. You have raised out that it is a misconduct during handling the deletions of two pages on zh.wikibooks. I have described the contents of that two pages and what the situations were during that time. As an admin, did you handle the case "on time"? Nope. "數字算式寶塔的推廣" which is the page I proposed to delete on 3 Feb 2017. You didn't handle it "on time". Let it be there for a month. Eventually, I needed to delete it by myself. [3] There is no guideline about how long should a RFD last for on zh.wikibooks. You have edited during that period. You're an experienced admin. I do believe that you should have checked the RFD page regularly as an admin. There is no objection on RFD regarding that page. No one can prove that it is not an original research. I don't see any problems regarding that deletion. For the wikibooks page regarding mahjong, I have described the problems of that page also. The problems are still there. Those users are not "new users". They all are actively contributing on All wikimedia projects share a similar principle. The regulation may be different though. Therefore, they have the ability and eligibility to comment on RFA on other projects, especially the small projects in same language. Just like they have the ability and eligibility to comment on whether a user suitable to be a steward. Isn't it?--J.Wong 12:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We generally discourage users being brought in from other wikis to vote on requests. The local community should be able to decide who is an admin, even if the local community is very small. That said, I see consensus among the active local community to grant temporary access, though I would like a second opinion from another steward first. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wong128hk: I strongly disagree your theory of my harassing others. I was just asking why nominate a page to delete then delete it in just six days (too fast), not whether that would be original research. Why reacted so harshly and impatiently to my simple question? And why close my being nominated for adminship on Chinese Wikibooks back on 24 August 2010 too fast [4] when the only bureaucrat was Shizhao but not you, without asking Shizhao first? (That act exceeded your adminship.) Please note that your patience, and politeness have yet to improve in order to be a truly trusted administrator, by considering phrases like "please, thanks, excuse me, sorry" (請﹑謝謝﹑對不起﹑遺憾). Thanks for your acknowledging my experienced adminship and this is why I tend to have higher standard for adminship. Excuse me, if anyone's higher standard for adminship is your big concern, sorry, then please use your existing adminship more cautiously, rather than applying for it on more wikis. @Ajraddatz: Other than Wikipedia, Chinese wikis tend to be too small to have sizable community to quickly monitor the activities. Thanks for discouraging cross-wiki voting. Before granting adminship, please also carefully consider that impatient administrator may lack trust. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a norm to not using admin tools with COI. It seems that your high standard do not apply everywhere. For instance, the revisions containing the criticisms to you. [5]
Actually, it is a same problem between the issue of AFD and the RFA of yours. There is no rules about how long should a AFD last for. And I received no objection about deleting that page not until now. No one can show us it is not a original research. It can be SNOW. On the other hand, there was a threshold of receiving at least six votes to be valid. Anyone can be the person to judge whether a RFA received six votes. I was the one supporting you to be sysop of zh.wikibooks during two RFA. I regret that I have not raised out the problems of having too high threshold at the VP on time. But it does not mean that I agree not to follow the rule. You may say, "hey Wikipedia is not bureaucracy. We should ignore the rule that hinder the development of the wiki." I will say these rules should be used with extra caution and not with subjective view. In your case, either a steward or a bureaucrat should raise out a objective based evidence to ignore the threshold of receiving at least six votes to be valid. For example, raise out the actual differences of the numbers of active users between two periods of time and show that the difference is significant enough. Ummm... To improve the situation, I think I should freeze your RFA and raise out the discussion at Village Pump to change the threshold. If you think that your first RFA can be SNOW to pass, it is strange that you are not agree with the closure of a RFD with SNOW, with "Wikipedia is not bureaucracy" and with "Ignore all rules".
I am sorry that I lose my temper and patient to one who always WP:POINT, forces other to follow his suggestions, double standards and do not think that he got any mistakes even there is a user with plenty amount of contribution was forced to leave BY HIM.
That's all. --J.Wong 03:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It is my fault if you think that it is a norm that RFD should at least last for a week and I deleted a page that should be deleted a day before. I apologize for it.--J.Wong 04:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wong128hk: In addition to your latest apology, please also understand that:
  1. Requesting adminship implies consent to be examined by the community. Candidates are to adapt to the community, including reasonable criticism, not the community adapting to candidates. Even unreasonable criticism has to be politely answered to get the sympathy from disinterested third party.
  2. Criticizing existing and prospective administrators, bureaucrats, etc, is routinely inevitable. For example, I got this at least once in 2015 [6] when asked about how active I was as a bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons. I accepted the criticism and resigned, but remaining an administrator there has been much easier.
  3. Therefore, please also consider apologizing for excessively long counter-criticism here and on Chinese Wikiquote. With nothing personal, power-hungry impatience is bad for adminship. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I won't beg for the sympathy. "真理越辯越明" (The more the truth is debated, the clearer the truth becomes.) Throughout the debates here and on zh.wikiquote, it is proven that your criticisms are unreasonable. To consider a serial of events I mentioned before, it is clearly proven that your objection is of low value. I just point out the fact. You request I need to treat you politely. So have you politely treated Wcjd? Have you apologized for what you have done on him? Speaking "please, sorry, excuse me, etc" does not make you polite, if you do not do it with respect to others. Doing these thing without respect; it can be called as hypocritical. --J.Wong 11:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Good grief, this is m:SRP, not w:en:WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


For permanent... Thanks! --►Cekli829 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

At least 15 voters out of 19 aren't actually active at az.wikibooks. So, there's no room for permanent adminship. I'm also doubtful about a temporary one because of your recent sysop abuse at --Vituzzu (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
İdarəçilik səlahiyyətimdən sui-istifadə məsələlərindən söhbət belə gedə bilməz. Kimlərsə narazıdırlarsa, onlar AzVikinin lokal xüsusiyyətlərinə bələd olmayan istifadəçilərdir. Sui-istifadə ilə bağlı məsələləri ötən dəfə də əsaslandırmışdım. Bloklanmış istifadəçinin blokunu isə sırf Sizə görə açdım. "az.wikibooks"da istifadəçilərin aktiv olmaması isə çox normal bir haldır. Çünki heç kəsi bu layihəyə məcbur cəlb edə bilmərik. Amma qeyd edim ki, səs verən istifadəçilər digər vikilayihələrdə kifayət qədər aktivdir. --►Cekli829 05:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Blocking someone only because they find a copyright violation by you is a clear abuse, worth even desysopping IMHO. --Vituzzu (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Axı müəlliflik hüquqlarının pozulmasından söhbət belə gedə bilməz. Müvafiq qurum öz razılığını hətta məktub şəklində də mənə göndərmişdir. --►Cekli829 11:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Apart from the matter (in which you're anyway wrong) the block you made was an abuse. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Mən bloklama səbəbini Sizə izah etmişdim. Səbəb qeyd olunan məsələlərdən qaynaqlansa da, onu bloklamağıma səbəb bilavasitə onun məni vandalizmdə ittiham etməsi olmuşdur. Bəlkə Sizə bloklama müddəti uzun görünə bilər, mən də elə ona görə kifayət qədər vaxt keçdikdən sonra, həm də Sizin tələbinizə uyğun olaraq onun bloku açdım. Amma nəzərinizə çatdırım ki, AzVikidə hazırda qüvvədə olan Bloklama qaydalarına görə "Bloklama müddəti idarəçi tərəfindən sərbəst olaraq təyin edilir." --►Cekli829 13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Vituzzu, in azwikibooks very few active users. And Cekli is one of them. In the voting of Araz Yaguboglu many of the voters also were not active users in azwikibooks. You give him sysop status. These users are mostly active in azwikipedia. To support our projects outside azwikipedia, we thus choose administrators there. Cekli was elected. You can give him sysop status in azwikibooks. With best regards: --Sortilegus (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, Araz Yaguboglu has no records of sysop abuse, while votes were definitely insufficient for permanent adminship they were for a temporary one. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Please provide me adminship rights on the Bislama Wikipedia. There are no administrators and I'm ready to be one who works against the vandalism/spam/nonsense pages. We can start from the temporary access. More info in the local discussion (see above). Thank you in advance. --Wolverène (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold till 27 October 2017. Ruslik (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Please give me an administrator and translate admin flags on the wiki for mostly i18n/l10n related work as well as general admin routine. The wiki was notified a week ago in linked from sidebar Community portal but no response followed (apparently the team is yet to get there). It would be the forth Wikimania wiki I am an admin and translate admin of: I was an admin and tA of wm2016, wm2015, and wm2014 before the wikis were closed. I am also an admin here, and in several other wikis. Base (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2017 (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.

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.

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.


Please remove sysop status of user Proger according to voting results. For removal we need at least 2/3 of all valid votes. In this case 20 users voted, 19 for removal. --Sortilegus (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason is inactivity? Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes Ruslik--Sortilegus (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Ruslik (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


Please remove sysop status of user Orartu according to voting results. For removal we need at least 2/3 of all valid votes. In this case 20 users voted, 19 for removal. --Sortilegus (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason is inactivity? Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes Ruslik--Sortilegus (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Ruslik (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


The user hasn't made a single logged action in the six months prior to the removal request (local inactivity policy). – Srdjan m (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2017 (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]