Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2006

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is posting requests in a little advance wrong?

Yesterday I invited the editors of it.wikibooks to post their request on this page although it took a couple more days for the votes to end and, similarly, I published the request coming from the Slovak wiki to my e-mail, though the deadline of their votes is on Jan. 15th.

I assumed (1) that posting the request a couple of days in advance doesn't not disturb the request page and gives time to the other stewards to see and comment, if needed, and (2) increases the chance to have the task done in time, without delays.

Have I been wrong? Is this so disturbing? If so, forgive the error of a newbie. --Paginazero 09:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

at the top it says clearly : "Please add the request here after the community approval."
nevertheless, personally i don't mind if a request is posted a bit too soon. but maybe we should be stricter regarding premature requests with no support at all at the moment of posting? grtz, oscar 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. And even in bold letters. Ok. Thanks. --Paginazero 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think is not honest to do otherwise because if the process is not finished and we state here the users to be granted we could interfere in the election process (as I stated before somewhere in RfP). This RfP should - in my opinion - be almost empty for correctivity and for not having delays in resolving requests. -Romihaitza 10:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Sorry for my excessive zeal. --Paginazero 10:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

links to project namespaces

note: Same aplies to links to the user namespace: Polish Wikinews is using "Wikireporter" and not "Wikipedysta" ("Wikipedian"). Such changes can be expected in any language. Gangleri | Th | T 16:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


this is intended to make sure people do not oversee the need to add the proper links to their requests, i added it as a test for the moment to see if it works out. oscar 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of doing it so it doesn't obscure diffs? Perhaps it should be shown only on the edit page, not on page histories etc. Angela 08:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Shorter paths / less formalism / bureaucratism for newly created projects

  • Halló! The procedure of opening a new project can be associated with (self-)nomination of a bureaucrat / sysop. When the project is finaly opened, the votes are archived and the candidate has created an account the required priviledges should be granted without great formalism. This would shorten paths and decrease formalism / bureaucratism.
  • Example: from the prearchived Wikisource:Language_domain_requests| (Malayalam) one can see that s:ml:user:Peringz should be a bureaucrat at that project without no oposition. This should have imediate implications on s:ml:special:Listusers. Best regards Gangleri · Th · T 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

request sysop for Pashto Wikipedia

Pashto Wikipedia

I request sysop access on project name:


Thank you. 13:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

no sysop for pdc wikipedia

Our main page was vandalized today but since we have no sysop or bureaucrat we can't do anything to help avoid it in the future. Dischdeldritsch 14:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


I noticed the page was beginning to get a bit long and slow to load, so I asked Jhs if it would be okay to archive. He said it should be fine, but if anyone has issues, please feel free to revert me. Essjay TalkContact 11:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Teofilo 11:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco (en)

moved from content page

The en arbitration committee has decided to remove w:en:user:Guanaco's sysop access [2]. Raul654 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no community consensus for this action, and the arbitration committee has not been given this authority by the community (see w:en:Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote, which was intended to be an ongoing process but was later closed) Therefore, the prerequisite for requesting de-adminship on this page, "please gain consensus on this on your own wiki first", has not been satisfied. Guanaco 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The precedent for the English Wikipedia's arbcom instructing that a user be desysopped is well established and thoroughly supported by the community; I have accordingly carried out Raul's request. — Dan | Talk 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of thorough support; the arbcom and its decisions are merely accepted due to apathy and a false sense of tradition. There may be precedent, but Wikipedia is not a system of common law. Guanaco 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Please note that Stewards (other than Jimbo) can not currently do anything on the English Wikipedia due to the enwiki database split. Watch bugzilla:3943 for updates. Angela 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can it be (temporarily) solved the way they did it with the Korean cluster? Jon Harald Søby 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It could, though Tim says it would be better to wait for it to be fixed properly instead of doing that. Angela 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that if any emergency desysopping is needed on en, people with the old "developer" flag can probably still do that. See en:Special:Listusers/developer. Angela 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is working again now. Stewards can do stuff on en in the normal way. Angela 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


I would like to clarified og procedure to desysop on other Wiki (In this case, Bahasa Melayu - I am the bureaucrat there.) Since others might not understand what was being discussed in Bahasa Melayu, when requesting desysop, can it be done this way:-

  • Request to desysop done on Meta:Requests for permissions page supported by 3 local sysop. (But then how do you know the same sysop create the ID at meta, not just anybody.
  • To create desysop discussion page in local wiki with voting by other sysop. When submitting the request, I put the referance link back to local page. If this is acceptable, what is the supporting number do I need to get before putting the request.
  • The reason is that we wish to desysop some inactive sysop, who unlikely to request themself to be desysop. This is to keep the number of sysop within 10 people.

If it is acceptable, I will create the said page, otherwise, please clarified what other choice I have. Yosri 11:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot flagging now bureaucrat task

Just a quick note (cross posted to Talk:Stewards and Talk:Requests for bot status for full disclosure) that an extension has now been enabled making bot flagging a task for local bureaucrats (accomplished through the Special:Makebot interface). This allows for both flagging and deflagging. Knowing that bot flagging has been described as a less-than-happy-task by stewards, I assume bot requests will now be handled like Requests for permissions; that is, if there is a local bureaucrat, stewards won't set them any longer. Am I correct in this? (I'll be watching here for requests from; I've already cleaned up what I could find.) Given that I've cross posted, I suggest centralized discussion at Talk:Requests_for_bot_status#Bot_flagging_now_bureaucrat_task. Essjay (TalkConnect) 09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Money offers for an Admin-account...

I moved here the discussion - it's not for making it loose visibility - it's just for keeping order in the page, should the discussion grow - please rollback if you think my action inappropriate. --Paginazero 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

This is the first time someone offered me money if I would give him Admin rights. 5000 Euro he offered. And he was serious, no joking.

I did not know what to say at frist, I never thought that someone would REALLY think of it. I tried to explain to him how the Wikipedia-Admin system really works. That I would loose my steward account if I would do something like that. He is just some months with Wikipedia so he had not really understood it yet and he did not want to wait for an election. He was really sad when I explained him why I can not do it.

At least he made it then clear that he would have given the 5000 Euro to Wikimedia in order to get an Admin-account, so it was not a bad faith attempt to bribe me but a real desire to get in discussions at the same level with Admins. Interresting to see how far people would go and what "value" an Admin-account on Wikipedia is getting to. Probably sooner or later there will be Admin-accounts for sale on Ebay...

Are there any other/better places to discuss/archive experiences like this? Would be interresting to know if any other Steward/Bureaucrat got into similar situations. Fantasy 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it's been quite an experience, hopefully unique (afaik). I think the root of the wannabe-sysop's misunderstanding is his ...real desire to get in discussions at the same level with Admins. As though in the discussions happening on a wiki a sysop's word would be more valuable. He mistook the cause for the effect - an active editor whose opinions achieve value in the community thanks to his/her commitment becomes sysop, and not vice-versa. --Paginazero 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
We have currently over 1000 Administrators. I guess we reach 10.000 in no time. How long will it take that someone offers his Admin-account on Ebay? You can not find out who he is. He just sends his password to the most-paying person. I am just thinking if there is any way to avoid/prevent this.
It does not even have to be Ebay. People can also approach Admins that are fed up with Wikipedia and offer them Money for their password.
How often is an Admin-right really taken away? You can not even proove that the new "owner" of the account is not the original one... Fantasy 10:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the only prove we have is the behaviour (as seen by the other users), and it would turn suspect if it changes noticeably. Of course Wikipedians sometimes meet in person, but this is valid for "small-to-medium" communities only, for which keeping trace of nicknames and faces is still feasible.
I assume that a person who wants to buy the sysop rights instead of getting them "the normal way" shoud be someone looking for a shortcut to impose his/her POV - such behaviour would be noticed and, being it against the basic fondations of all wikipedia projects - would lead to a removal of the sysop rights, if not a ban, according to every community's rules. --Paginazero 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom required re-confirmation rejection circumvented by self nomination

Not sure if it's meaningful but the overwhelming rejection of this reconfirmation was circumvented by this self nomination. Might be meaningless and unimportant but I don't know how the history of these events effect things if at all. 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


The requests page says "Note to Stewards: when someone asks for Oversight status, please check before giving this status."

Check what? Angela 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I put that there, I wasn't sure what the general policy would be; as it now turns out that this isn't (currently) going to be available to any wiki other than wp:en, I've changed it to "check with the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee". Is that OK?
James F. (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No one asks for it, ists assigned by arbcom, and its only temporary until rev_deleted is implemented, so another re-word may be in order.Voice of All 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed of the wording.Voice-of-All

Bureaucrat rules

First of all I'm appology for my bad English. Sometime I read respond from steward such as ..we can not give bureaucrat for small wiki... My question: is this really an official policy? I cant find this policy on meta. Could someone give me the link to this "official policy"? Borgx 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Malay Star Wars Wiki

Hi, I m Emrrans from Malay Wikipedia, I wish to have a Malay Star Wars Wiki. Can anybody tell me where to go and what to do to have a Malay Star Wars Wiki?? — Emrrans 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can not create a star Wars Wiki within wikimedia. In general to have a wiki you will need a server that runs wiki software. You could see if wikia will host it (, it would be for free but with advertisements. 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Authorizing import function

As a bureaucrat at Chinese Wikisource (same username), I cannot authorize anyone to import page history. Shall I request the permission here?--Jusjih 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be done here by a steward. I'm not sure what the requirement for getting it set is; I think before it's always been assigned by the developers. Essjay (TalkConnect) 08:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is granted by the stewards to entrusted users for a limited period of time. -Romihaitza 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. As English Wikisource and Chinese Wikisource have no stewards or developers, shall I go to Request for permissions to apply for importing privileges?--Jusjih 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stewards and developers are not granted locally. The stewards work here at meta. I propose you to contact me by irc. -Romihaitza 06:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How may I contact you by IRC? I've never used IRC before.--Jusjih 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tell me here what do you want and where. -Romihaitza 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

After Multilingual Wikisource split with new language subdomains, most pages have been moved properly, but a few pages have been moved to wrong language sites or not moved while their history have been deleted from Multilingual Wikisource. I have asked at [3] if any developer could transwiki, but no action or response has been made, so I, as an admin at Multilingual Wikisource, would like to transwiki. Adminship at Multilingual Wikisource is not automatically carried to language subdomains.
I would like to have importing privileges at English Wikisource, Chinese Wikisource, English Wiktionary, and Wikimedia Commons where I am an admin using the same username "Jusjih". No user there has importing privilege.
I would also like to have temporary importing privileges at French Wikisource and Japanese Wikisource where I am using the same username "Jusjih" but not an admin. No user there has importing privilege.--Jusjih 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If possible, grant import access for me too. I'm sysop and bureaucrat in Portuguese Wikisource and periodically is necessary to move some texts from pt:Wikipedia to pt:Wikisource and pt:Wikisource don't have any user with import tools. 555 03:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am now able to import pages to English Wiktionary, but how about other Wiki sites that I have requested but not yet enabled?--Jusjih 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Pashto Wikitionary

I request sysop access on ps.wikipedia:

Thank you. 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pashto Wikibooks

I request sysop access on ps.wikibooks:

Thank you. 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pashto Wikitionary

I request sysop access on ps.wikipedia:

Thank you.

Pashto Wikibooks

I request sysop access on ps.wikibooks:

Thank you.

Backlog in requests

Can someone, anyone please deal with the backlog in requests? I posted my requests for a sysop and bureaucrat on August 1. It is now August 12, I am STILL at the front of the line, and now there are about twelve people waiting behind me. (This always happens to me whenever I get to the front of the line in a Seven 11 too!) No one has said even one word to my request. What does it take to get attention around here? Codex Sinaiticus 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that some of this is due to Wikimania. If it doesn't catch up in the next couple of weeks, it may be time to consider appointing more stewards. Kelly Martin 02:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The backlog is not a recent thing, and therefore is probably not Wikimania relatd - it's been this way for quite a while. Raul654 02:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I made a request for the removal of sysop status on the page here yesterday, but it got archived without being seen to. My Wikipedia username is Banes and here is the confirmation 1. I'd appreciate it if someone would see to this for me. Many thanks -- Banes 12:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake in archiving another request [4]. I'm processing your request in a moment. --Paginazero - Ø 10:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol, just in time I was about to make a rogueish block. No problem at all, thanks for dealing with it. -- Banes 11:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please desysop me

This page is terribly confusing (shocking). Can someone just remove my admin permissions on the English Wikipedia? Confirmation here: Thanks. --W.marsh 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Import Function for English Wikibooks

Due to the large number of transwikis from en.wikipedia, it seems to me that the import function should really be enabled. I've used the Import function at en.wikiversity, and find it a much more graceful and appropriate method of transferring materials (and especially page histories) than the current copy-and-paste method. It would also eliminate the (frequently occurring) problem of pages being copy-paste transwikied without any copies being made of the pagehistory, which is particularly problematic when the original article is deleted on the wp side.

Most transwikis from en.wp to en.wb are how-to articles, and/or articles containing how-to sections. However, it would also be useful for forking content to wikibooks in cases where a text is being written, and an article could serve as the basis for a chapter or book.

Aside from making things easier for admins, enabling full import might also help make these transwikis less "traumatic" for editors who have added how-to information to wikipedia articles.

I am proposing this as a permanent change, as the how-to issue on wikipedia is not going to go away on WP anytime soon. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The current state of the transwiki process from to en.wikibooks is a traumatic one. Material that is deemed inappropriate on wikipedia is simply dumped onto our server simpy by copy and paste methods. The import function should be enabled so that we can get the whole page history, and so we can contact the original wikipedia authors for help. --Whiteknight 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

split in subpages?

Would it be worth to split the request page into subpages per project type and/or per access type? --Paginazero - Ø 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed trolling

I removed trolling from the content page [5]. The issue is related to Serbian Wikipedia, not to requests for permissions. If anyone wants to talk about this issue, let (s)he uses some more general place. --Millosh 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is involved in removing admin powers, and it's quite simple. Please wait for Kale's admin powers to be removed, and then remove the text. Thank you, --The SrWiki User 05:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:The SrWiki User is blocked for trolling for one day. --Millosh 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yea, because you blocked me for reverting your deletion of the request. You're probably going to block me again for just saying this. --The SrWiki User 19:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oversight in other Wikis?

I'm MichaelFrey, Administrator from de.wikibooks.

We (2 active Administrators from de.wikibooks (MichaelFrey and Klaus Eifert)) want this function for de.wikibooks.

I read the sentence "At present, this is only available on the English Wikipedia." .

If the is good reason, I'm interested to know the reason.

But when not, can you explain us what we must do, to get this feature/rigth?

Thanks a lot for any answer.

-- MichaelFrey 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We can set it up on others by request, but use of it should be careful and measured. Since it disappears things from the visible audit trail, it should only be used for extreme cases where privacy or other legal issues are at risk. --brion 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We have some users, which want to protect their privacy.
At the moment where must delete the site and undelete all versions which are good.
So, the problem is, and thats reason why we want this feature, if we must do it again on the same page we must be very carefully that we dont undelete a version which contain such information.
(It isn't easy to explain, but I hope you understand what I mean)
So, what must we do?
A local request page?
Are there some special rules for this vote or can we use the normall (local) rules?
-- MichaelFrey 08:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be the addition of being able to delete single revisions normally (a long-expected feature, IMO). Jon Harald Søby 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That's another solution, but this feature don't exist at the moment and it don't slove all problems.
When undelete an version which consist realnames or adresses by an mistake ...
With oversight we can seperate "cleaning the history" (vandalism and things like this) from delete critical datas (realnames, phonenumbers).
-- MichaelFrey 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand. So as Brion said, this can be set by request. You could start by discussing and voting in local Community Portal, and when the project does the decision request it again. This could be done by asking developers first to enable the hiding revisions feature in bugzilla:, and then requesting oversight permissions for people who get choosed. -- mzlla 14:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Desysop procedure

Is it the desysop procedure still as stated on the front page, which includes the following:

  • To request the another user's de-adminship, please gain consensus on your own wiki first. All discussion must be kept on your local wiki. When it is finished and there exists community consensus that the user should be de-adminned, a trusted person from that wiki should just provide a link here to the discussion and a very brief explanation of the reason for de-adminship and results of discussion.

I read that to mean that after a discussion on a wiki as to whether a user should have admin rights removed, if a consensus is there that they should, then a request can be made here with links back, and the request should be granted. Is that correct? Steve block 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have understood it correctly. -- mzlla 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is still causing problems. To clarify further, is there any reason en:wikipedia would be treated any different? Steve block 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What Steve really wants to know is whether the consensus wishes of users on EN can result in a desysoping even in the absense of an arbitration decision or any other broadly accepted process of recall. Is it enough that a large consensus of users feel that someone ought to be desysoped? Or is that arbitration is the only acceptable process of desysoping on EN? Dragons flight 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is indeed. The AC has happily desysoped quite a few bad admins this year; if a lynch mob can't actually form a coherent case as to why someone is a bad admin, then ignoring them is absolutely the right thing to do. c.f. the ludicrous lynch mob that gathered against Kelly Martin for daring to remove blatant copyright violations from userboxes. Were you thinking of any admin in particular? - David Gerard 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, no one in particular. This is motivated by en:Category:Administrators open to recall and Steve's view that this process should be considered "binding" based on his reading of these pages to mean that any sufficiently well-formed consensus can justify a desysoping, even on EN where arbitration is the normal path. I took the opposing view that the procedures described by that category are intrinsically voluntary and only ArbCom/Jimbo can result in an involuntary desysoping, which you seem to have endorsed as the correct interpretation of things on EN. Dragons flight 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please go into detail concerning your statement "this is still causing problems" - which problem admins are you thinking of, and why is it not possible to build a coherent arbitration case against them? That is, can you provide detailed evidence that the present situation is broken at all? Let alone so terminally broken as to need an end-run via Meta? - David Gerard 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The answer is no, it's set by local wiki policy. Which on en: is that desysoping is done by Jimbo, or by the Arbitration Committee using their Jimbo-descended powers. This procedure seems to work reasonably well in practice, certainly this year. Many attempts have been made to put into place a lynchmob polling procedure, but all have been told "um, no" - David Gerard 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
"consensus on your own wiki" means different things in different places. In en, the consensus is to go through the arbcom procedure. If there is a problem with that, then the place to address it is on en.-- 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is all getting a little muddy and I am being misrepresented. I withdraw my question since nobody seems interested in answering it. Steve block 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nepali Wikipaedia voting

By now, it is concluded the voting on Nepali Wikipedia and, considering the candidates' contributions there, it is time to make a decision. Desiphral 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rights log formatting

How difficult would it be to change the formatting so the entries on Special:Log/rights point to the userpage on the target wiki instead of being redlinks? (Slightly off-topic, I apologize, but I see no discussion on the MediaWiki: page.) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum, this is one of those nasty icky little crosswiki issues. The problem is that, while it behaves as a big organism, the Wikimedia "farm" as such isn't - each instance of MediaWiki might share the same files, but each configuration means that the English Wikipedia is a separate entity from the German one, for instance. Therefore, besides things like interwiki links, individual MediaWiki installations don't really know about each other. The Meta rights log doesn't know that a particular action recorded in it didn't happen on this wiki; it formats using the rules it knows about.
It might be more appropriate if we had Special:Makesysop log entries to a separate table, which also tracked the database name the operation was performed on, and allowed nicely formatted links to everywhere as needed. -- Rob Church 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)