Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by M7 (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 5 February 2010 (→‎Mizusumashi@jawikipedia: Done).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 the position. Requests for removal of access belong in another section. Admins doing cross-wiki work may wish to see IRC/wikimedia-admin for information about joining #wikimedia-admin.

If you are requesting administrator status to translate the wiki interface, this should be done at the BetaWiki project instead (see mw:localisation). You can ask questions in the IRC channel or on the mailing list.

If you are requesting adminship to handle one-time vandalism incidents or clearing a deletion backlog, please see Vandalism reports and Steward requests/Speedy deletions.

Stewards
Currently-active temporary permissions are listed at /Approved temporary; copy granted requests to the appropriate section there, stating the date of removal in the section header and at the bottom of the request. Please invite new sysops to the admin IRC channel.
Archiving
Requests only need remain listed below for a few days, and may afterward be removed as long as they have been copied to the subpage. Users who archive requests on that page, please check if the request was correctly added to the temporary subpage before removing it from this page.

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

Ukabia@igwikipedia

Status:    In progress

I am an Igbo speaker who only wanted to translate the navigation box, only to find that special privileges are needed. I do not think there is any valid moderator left on this wiki, and by valid I mean still an active moderator, there are hardly any users, except for bots and people who last visited/edited in 2007. There really wasn't a need for a request for adminship on the wiki, because nobody is there, the last person who applied didn't get any reply. The wiki is dyeing and the main interfaces are a mix of English and Igbo which makes the whole wiki pointless. I think I could make a bit of a change. Ukabia 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the interface is done at betawiki:. You just need to apply for translator privilieges there. -- Prince Kassad 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I still want to be an admin though in order to protect and un-protect pages like the front page and also generally be on guard because this wiki is prone to being vandalized. Ukabia 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of this request? Ukabia 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, honestly, you've got all of one support on the local request, so if I may, I'd probably suggest requesting temporary access, instead and starting a local poll to remove admins who haven't touched the place in three years. If you'd like, stewards can lock the main page and any high-risk templates you find while you're waiting for local approval. Just my opinion, of course. Kylu 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Reder@sgwikipedia

Status:    In progress

There is no administrator on this wikipedia, then I would become a temporary admin to put in order this wiki for a period of six months. --Reder 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bureaucrat access

See bureaucrat for information about the position. In principle, requests for temporary bureaucrat access are not granted.


Ventusa@ka.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

SergeyJ@ru.wikiversity

Status:    In progress

SergeyJ 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there's only one administrator (yourself) so far, it doesn't appear that there's very much need for a local bureaucrat, don't you think? Normally that right isn't given out until there are a number of local administrators. Kylu 03:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some Wikiversity (it, cs) there is not that that one - and two bureaucrats. Besides, in our Wikiversity it is simply technical flag. We think that we are ready to give out flags of bot and admin. Besides we are going to fill up staff of admin in the near future. SergeyJ 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The local community is to small, and we can't give out rights that would (effectivly) appoint you to "dictator" for the local community. Stewards can handle the small amount of requests from ruwikiverisity until you (hopefully) have grown a larger community. Laaknor 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can name criteria when our community can have the local bureaucrat ? SergeyJ 04:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant question may be "How many people need be involved before a long-term and meaningful consensus is reachable on a project?" Traditionally, bureaucrats are not assigned until there are at least five administrators, and typically in the realm of 15-20 votes within a week's timeframe. Part of the problem we're experiencing at the moment stems from the contradiction of having a strict, yet at times undefined, policy for matters such as these. Compounding further is the maxim that Wikimedia policies are descriptive rather than proscriptive, in that they describe how policy works rather than defining that policy. Lastly, one must keep in mind that "Don't Decide" is only half of the steward shield: The other is "We're all volunteers." No wikimedian should ever feel that they're violating policy by simply not doing something they're not comfortable doing. Kylu 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
bureaucrats are not assigned until there are at least five administrators, and typically in the realm of 15-20 votes within a week's timeframe. These norms somewhere are fixed? Or this your private opinion? SergeyJ 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary, in a case if it is new norms that they here have been fixed and that to all further they were applied. Instead of it is selective. SergeyJ 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as not done. If you disagree, please request opinions at RFC rather than continue a discussion here. Thank you. Kylu 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening for further discussion - I'm not sure that we have a policy on not granting bureaucrat access that has been decided in an actual on-wiki vote by active participants. While the community is small, and the fact that it has a limited number of admins, it seems like the election ran its due course. I would have granted this actually, myself. bastique demandez! 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cary, you remember, we had this huge trouble with another project (don't want to name it explicitly, but you remember), one or two years ago... That's the reason why this happens. However, with 5 votes from active users, I would have granted it too, in this case, because it seems as if there aren't many more active contributors there, so it's kind of the full community who are supporting. That's a lot of support actually. --თოგო (D) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is valid in voting the most active participants much of them participated participated in a beta stage. I know, you speak about what problem. But I wish to repeat once again - according to our local rules, which keep spirit has begun Wikiversity - Custodians (we distinguish from admin) and Bureaucrats are especially technical role. We operate by default while the community on a certain question will not solve on another. Therefore cannot be such that the bureaucrat becomes the dictator.

Probably it is necessary to change with Not done-> In Progress and if it is required to continue discussion. SergeyJ 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in no way a personal preference, and I am surprised if stewards are not aware of this. Already in 2008 it was consensus amongst the stewards that communities with such a small community that they can not have 15-20 votes at least in 1-2 weeks, are not able to make long term and influential decisions like this. Therefore, bureaucrats are only permitted when the community is larger than that. It is not so much about percentages, but about having reached a certain size that a) bureaucrats are needed and b) the judgement call is valid. I see no reason to change this standing consensus now suddenly, especially with only five votes. --Effeietsanders 08:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask to specify me communities corresponding voting or any rules. SergeyJ 10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the consensus that Effeietsanders mentions, but I am aware of the relative incident, and do appreciate the concerns surrounding it. Since I feel as if my opposition to the decision is singular among stewards, I will stand aside and let the consensus prevail to not grant access at this time. bastique demandez! 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: I do agree that this should better be "codified" in the guidelines, but unfortunately this never happened although at the time some remarks in that direction were made. Maybe it would be good to write it at least in the Steward Handbook though, to avoid confusion in the future. @SergeyJ: not everything is or has to be written and voted on. A lot of standing practices have been developed over time, and never been actually voted on. If we would have to vote on everything, we would have a full time job on it. This standing practice has been in use because it falls within the responsibility of the stewards to make an estimation on the decisions made. Not so much to decide themselves, but to decide whether the community is in the position to make a decision. Similarly rules have been developed for a minimum community size for checkusers (which have, because of their sensitive nature, been written down in official written policies) --Effeietsanders 18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with effeietsanders' stand, and (offtopic) we really have to update the guidelines. We should also close this request, any further objections? --Nick1915 - all you want 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

«not everything is or has to be written and voted on. A lot of standing practices have been developed over time, and never been actually voted on. If we would have to vote on everything, we would have a full time job on it. This standing practice has been in use because it falls within the responsibility of the XXX to make an estimation on the decisions made.»

Whether correctly I understand, what such argument can be used and on other questions, in other wikimedia-projects, and other group of people? SergeyJ 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This fact, that stewards have to make these estimations, goes for any situation where an action is asked from the stewards. Be it granting new rights, be it a group of people asking for removal. Effeietsanders 08:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why it is a question only of stewards, the same situations (only on other questions) are both at bureaucrats, and at admin, and at those who writes templates, and at those who writes articles. Till now interrogation of opinions, voting, instead of simple ascertaining of the facts of that was required as the certain group has solved. Or it is a question That is allowed to Jupiter it it is not allowed to a bull (Quod licet Jovi, the priest licet bovi) SergeyJ 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand me correctly, I only that I want, that these norms which here have been sounded - was are written officially down. At least because these norms it is separated off and on (Depend on a situation), from the person to the person... Also it is impossible to understand when next time it is necessary to make an application. Besides, it is not clear why then those have the status of the bureaucrat who got out earlier and did not satisfy to these norms. SergeyJ 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I result similar situations when the rights of the bureaucrat have been given out:

  • simple.wikibooks: [3] ; [4] - Only 4 voices pro. 2009-10
  • sv.wikiquote: [5] ; [6] - Only 4 voices pro. 2009-08
  • kn.wikipedia: Only 3 voices pro: [7] 2009-07
  • It is necessary to notice that it not what that old elections, and passed more recently SergeyJ 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SergeyJ previous mistakes (if any) is not reason to repeat them again , per most of other steward on this page i also mark this request as Not done please feel free to discuss about the subject on the talk page but please don't continue debate here . Thanks for your considerationMardetanha talk 23:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser access

To request CheckUser information, see Meta:Requests for CheckUser information. This is the place to request CheckUser access. Note that temporary CheckUser access is not permitted and the temporary status is only used by Stewards.

Stewards
When someone asks for CheckUser status, please check the current policy before giving the status. There is an email template to request identification from the new CU. Do not grant CU access unless the user is identified to the Foundation. Breaching these rules may be cause for removing your steward access. When you give someone CheckUser, please list them on CheckUser, ask them to subscribe to checkuser-l, email checkuser-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org so the listadmins know the person is allowed on the mailing list, and make sure they contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser.

user Abisys@itwikipedia

Status:    Done

Abisys provided identity proof, please grant the Check-user status to him on it.wiki. Thank you! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 05:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight access

To request to have content oversighted
Ask in #wikimedia-stewards, or email oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org for requests regarding English Wikipedia.
Note that this section is the place to request Oversight access. Note that temporary Oversight access is not permitted and the temporary status is only used by stewards.
Stewards
Do not grant Oversight access unless the user is identified to the foundation, which will be announced on the Identification noticeboard. When you give someone oversight access, list them on Oversight.

Removal of access

If you're requesting the removal of your own status, make sure you're logged in to a global 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; the rights will not be restored by stewards once they are removed.

To request the removal of another user's status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. All discussion must take place on your local wiki. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted person 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. In either case, copy and paste the following text into the correct section (see instructions above). 

==== username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    = 
 |user name =  
 |discussion= <!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
}}

Taxman@enwiki

Status:    Done
Done. --Erwin 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Korn@enwiki

Status:    Done
Done. --Erwin 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volkan@trwiktionary

Status:    In progress

Funda@trwiktionary

Status:    In progress

Softssa@svwikiquote

Status:    Done
Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mizusumashi@jawikipedia

Status:    Done
Done. Thank you for your work as a sysop. --M/ 23:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Requests that don't fit in other sections belong here. Import rights can be granted by stewards only, not bureaucrats, so the automatic list of local bureaucrats is irrelevant for this. Please gather community consensus before placing a link to the discussion here.

Note that the following types of requests belong on separate pages:

Razorflame@simple.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Consensus has been formed that I should be given the Import rights. The current vote is 5/0 or 5/1 (depending upon if you count Djsasso's concerns as an oppose). Thanks, Razorflame 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus in 3 days? Let's wait at least a week. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Steward requests/Permissions/Footer

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=1844113"