Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by MarcoAurelio (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 8 February 2011 (→‎Fenix@sv.wikipedia: done).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

Steward requests/Permissions/Sysop-header

Addihockey10@bewikipedia

Status:    In progress

Please remove the status of the Temp Sysop. --Maksim L. 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur@hiwiktionary

Status:    In progress

Hi, I am mayur a bureaucrat and sysop of hindi wikipedia,I have contributed hindi wikipedia a lot, Now i want to contribute to other hindi wikimedia projects.For smooth activity and ease of access i need sysop flag on these projects so that i may install some gadgets and hindi transliteration tool on these projects.In Absense of transliteration tool no one can contribute to these projects.I hope like hi wikipedia i will make these projects useful for readers.Thank you and Reagards--Mayur 07:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please give us a link to an approval from local community? --Mercy 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
find the little same problem with this project--Mayur 10:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i have updated the exact link for admin request in hindi wiktionary--Mayur 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one bureaucrat being so inactive. I am asking at w:User_talk:Spundun#m:Steward_requests.2FPermissions.23Mayur.40hiwiktionary.Jusjih 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check this Mjbmr Talk 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rohit rawat@hiwiktionary

Status:    In progress

Hi, I am a sysop on hiwikipedia and now I have started contributing on hiwiktionary. I applied for the post of admin on local wiki community page but probably because nobody is active on hiwiktionary my request has been pending for more than 5 months. But I have got support from four members for hiwiktionary and that can be seen here under the heading क्र ३. I am asking for sysop/admin rights because lots of changes need to be done on hiwiktionary and hiwikiquote like there is no Devanagari input facility, and texts on many buttons and labels is incorrect and so on and these changes are not possible without becoming sysop/admin. Looking at my contributions on hiwiktionary, hiwikipedia, and hiwikiquote I think I'm eligible for this post. Thanks. रोहित रावत 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please wait at least a week for a clear community response. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 10:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawani Gautam Rhk@newikibooks

Status:    In progress

Sir, I want to contribute on ne.wikibooks but there was no template (just i am doing), no Devanagari writing tools, There is no transliteration system, no one can type phonetic Devanagari to edit or add new articles, If it is not corrected no one will edit or add new articles in future also. There is no sysop to manage this project. I am a sysop on ne.wikipedia and have experience in doing that. I need a sysop flag on this project.I have applied at request page for admin, you can see the local policy there. Thanks - Bhawani 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please wait at least a week for a clear community response. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 10:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i have gained consensus as there are only 10 active users-Bhawani 15:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you need to wait a week irrespective of the size of the wiki. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reder@sg.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

In the past I've been administrator of this wiki, and then I am reapplying to get Admin status. On this wiki there is a very small community, and they need someone to control vandalism and make a bit of order. I would like to request an admin access on this basis for 1 year if it is possible. Thanks, --Reder 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please wait at least a week for a clear community response. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 10:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeb@rue.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Hello, I would like to be temporary administrator at Rusyn wiki for 6 months. There are some things to do (protect pages, corrections in namespaces ...). I created most of the Rusyn pages in the Incubator where I am test administrator. --Gazeb 19:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

Steward requests/Permissions/Crat-header

Marco 27@vecwiki

Status:    Done

Please grant me bureaucrat access as per local vote. Thanks in advance, best regards. Marco 27 (msg) on it.wiki: user page — talk page 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done locally :)--Nick1915 - all you want 20:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nick! I thought bureaucrat rights couldn't be granted locally. But I got wrong! :) --Marco 27 (msg) on it.wiki: user page — talk page 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur@hiwikiquote

Status:    In progress

Hi i have gained consensus regarding bureacrat and sysop access, kindly update my status if i am eligible--Mayur 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice not to grant bureaucrat access to those who do not gain at least 15 votes in favour. Other stewards are welcome to comment. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also agree with Dfreg that a crat bit should be granted only for those community having good no of active users and admins too, there should be atleast 5 admins vote to elect a buraucrat, otherwise Stewards can better do this jod of promoting users into sysops.But it should not depend on steward choice becoz it will create a scene of partiality, As in Hindi wikitionary a bureaucrat spundan was promoted to cratbit on behalf of 5 to 7 votes and he is not active in this project since 2005.So stewards should form atleast a minimum set policy to avoid such situations otherwise it may get into trouble to say that stewards just do everything on community consensus, :-) Thank you--Mayur (talk•Email) 18:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur@hiwiktionary

Status:    In progress

Hi i have gained consensus regarding bureacrat and sysop access, kindly update my status if i am eligible--Mayur 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice not to grant bureaucrat access to those who do not gain at least 15 votes in favour. Other stewards are welcome to comment. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur@hiwikibooks

Status:    In progress

Hi i have gained consensus regarding bureacrat and sysop access, kindly update my status if i am eligible--Mayur 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice not to grant bureaucrat access to those who do not gain at least 15 votes in favour. Other stewards are welcome to comment. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Rawat@hiwikiquote

Status:    In progress

Hi, I am a sysop on hiwikipedia and a very active contributor on hiwiktionary and hiwikiquote. As many Wikimedia projects in the Hindi language are lagging far behind projects in other languages because of lack of available tools because of which there are no to very less active users on these projects and hiwikiquote is one of them. Therefore, I am requesting for adminship on hiwikiquote so that proper tools may be provided and drastic changes need to be done on hiwikiquote which are not possible withour admin rights like making better interface, deleting useless categories and quotes, renaming of quotes, and providing better editing tools which may make it easier to edit in Hindi. As I said there are no active users on hiwikiquote so it is not possible to get support on local community talk page. But as I'm already an admin on hiwikipedia and I have made significant contributions on hiwikipedia and hiwiktionary I think I am eligible for this post. Thank you. रोहित रावत 05:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice not to grant bureaucrat access to those who do not gain at least 15 votes in favour. Other stewards are welcome to comment. Notwithstanding temporary sysop status for 3 months as per the local voting would be OK. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ou0430@zhwikinews

Status:    Done

4 support votes. Vote end at 1/2/2011 . I am a sysop of zhwn. Waihorace 01:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done by current bureaucrat in zhwn--Alex S.H. Lin 09:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawani Gautam Rhk@newiktionary

Status:    Not done

i have gained six votes from local community to become a sysop & bureaucrat, pl. grant.-Bhawani 09:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice not to grant bureaucrat access to those who do not gain at least 15 votes in favour. Other stewards are welcome to comment. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already declined previously. Not done. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, But you have given temporary adm-ship only, even i gained community consensus. Thanks--Bhawani 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawani Gautam Rhk@newikibooks

Status:    In progress

Hi, There are few active users due the lack of phonetic Devanagari tools, i want to build the same, and now I gained the support from local community, please grant me sysop & bureaucrat flag. - Bhawani 09:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice not to grant bureaucrat access to those who do not gain at least 15 votes in favour. Other stewards are welcome to comment. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in a small project like this every request could be easily fulfilled by stewards--Nick1915 - all you want 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser access

Steward requests/Permissions/CU-header

rsocol@ro.wiki

Status:    In progress

I will send an identification document by email. Rsocol 07:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Per CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser it is required to gain at least 25 votes in favour. I only see 14/0/1; thus policy requirements are not met at this time and access cannot be turned on, even if identified. -- Dferg ☎ talk 09:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We've reached 25 votes in favor. — AdiJapan 05:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold, awaiting ID. -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vigorous action@jawiki

Status:    Done

Please CheckUser access, discussion of local election on Japanese Wikipedia. He/She Identification sent to the Foundation (identified diff). Thank you。 --Carkuni 07:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 12:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

欅@jawiki

Status:    In progress

Please CheckUser access, discussion of local election on Japanese Wikipedia. I send identification information to User:欅 via an e-mail message. Thank you. --Carkuni 15:24, 7 February 2011 (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. This 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

<translate>

  • 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 [[<tvar name="self-discussion">Talk:Steward_requests/Permissions/2011#Self_requests</tvar>|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 [[<tvar name="crat-rem">Bureaucrat#Removing_access</tvar>|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 [[<tvar name="aar">Admin activity review</tvar>|Admin activity review]] applies.
  • See the [[<tvar name="usage">#Using this page</tvar>|instructions above]] for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.</translate>

Ninane@nl.wikipedia

Status:    Done

I would like my local sysop/administrator rights (moderator) to be removed. --Ninane 13:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 14:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix@sv.wikipedia

Status:    Done

According to the policy of sv.wikipedia, administrators are to be re-elected each year. Fenix hasn't responded to whether he would like to continue as admin or not and since his rights expired in January, his admin rights should be removed. --Poxnar 17:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user-rights expired january 31. Link to last election in Febr 2010. -- Lavallen 11:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chunshek@zhwikinews

Status:    In progress

Non-active since 2006 and discussion to remove the access for these users. --Waihorace 06:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ffootballchu@zhwikinews

Status:    In progress

Non-active since 2006 and discussion to remove the access for these users. --Waihorace 06:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SB Johnny@enwikiversity

Status:    In progress

This is just a filing of Bureaucrat removal and not the addition Administrator removal. Wikiversity allows for non-Bureaucrat closure. Policy for recalling administrators gives seven days (25 Jan 2011 00:12 - 2 Feb 2011 at 00:12 UTC) and says that there must be consensus to support, not oppose. 70% of responders opposed a Bureaucrat, who would need a super majority to support or 21 more people to support than supported. --Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikiversity:Bureaucratship is a proposed policy and not yet adopted by the community, so it is a bit disingenuous to make claims about "super majority" or process. Wikiversity:Community_Review_Policy makes no mention of a specific duration for discussions, but instead states that "Community reviews should be closed when it is clear that there is a consensus, or when it becomes clear that a consensus will not be reached." While we are on the topic it might be instructive to review the discussions at Wikiversity talk:Community Review. --mikeu talk 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I note that the "proposed" policy has been just that for 10 months now without having been made actual policy. As such it would appear that it is being "used" in this case by someone who "uses" anything they can find. I'm sure stewards will be cautious at getting caught up in yet another of these less than clear issues. --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Herby, I already pointed out it was -proposed-. There is no policy requiring a Bureaucrat to file a Bureaucrat removal. That is all that is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Mu301 is a Bureaucrat who gave SB Johnny both adminship and bureaucrat rights without community discussion after being inactive and coming back only to help out a friend (on 11 August 2010 [3]). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Custodianship policy does not mention Community Review but gives a clear seven days, a seven day period you ignored when you submitted a removal of me against consensus. This is the only removal policy and it says: "then a new seven day community discussion can be initiated to establish if there is community consensus in support". Both were followed and SB Johnny doesn't meet the requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you have stated that your request above is for "removal of Bureaucrat status only" and "not the addition Administrator removal" I find it very odd that you are trying to cite the Custodian (ie. WV Admninistrator) policy. --mikeu talk 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, under that policy SB Johnny's adminship would be removed and since Bureaucratship needs a higher level of community trust, then ipso facto, the Bureaucratship would be removed. There is clear consensus to remove either way, and seven days is standard. I find it odd how you are suddenly concerned about process when you desysopped one person without discussion, gave privileges to another without discussion, and closed another removal process after 3 days when the community unanimously said the whole thing was completely wrong, abused, and without any legitimacy. Your bias and personal interest is clear here and shows a willingness to abuse your position while ignoring what is best for Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bureaucrat and administrator rights were granted unilaterally by Mu301, without any kind of community discussion. The rights should be removed. Diego Grez return fire 18:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all continued disruption by Ottava. Diego Grez doesn't seem to understand the custom of allowing re-opping on request for voluntary resignations, and decisions about that are the province of 'crats. The cited discussion has been independently closed as no consensus for removal, and was protected as closed by a 'crat when Ottava revert warred over it. There are multiple seriously wikilawyered arguments presented by Ottava, in contradiction to the plain language of policy, and in contradiction to custom. In order to claim consensus for removal, Ottava must discount all comments after his artificial and rigid "7 day deadline," and, as usual, when he doesn't get what he wants, he makes up or dredges up whatever dirt or "inconsistency" he can find. There is also, if anyone needs it, a review of the voting at [4]. There were canvassed votes, including, by the way, Diego Grez, evidence provided on request.
  • Wikiversity is handling this locally. I supported desysopping there, but closed the Community Review as "no consensus" because that was obvious, as a minimum (it could be argued there was consensus supporting SBJ), seeking to avoid further disruption. Ottava reverted, etc. --Abd 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were de-admin because you have no ability to judge things appropriately and you were given adminship by abusive Crats that the community has universally rejected and want to be removed from Wikiversity. You are also promoting and aiding a cross-wiki sock puppet in the form of KBlott and helping him wage war on Wikipedia, so your actions aren't the best. Ottava Rima talk) 18:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q.E.D. Above, with the filing, Ottava gave a diff to the relevant Community Review, but did not reveal that this was to a week-old revision. He obviously hoped that a steward might not notice. This is the revision as closed. (The page is currently protected by a 'crat, as closed by an independent sysop, due to Ottava revert warring over the close.) --Abd 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seven days is seven days. Votes that came up to 6 days after the end are never counted. Even if you do add in 3 more supports, that is still less than he 23 necessary for him to be retained. The page is currently protected by a person who gave SB Johnny ops without consensus and has a 3 year long track record of abuse, lies, and other problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fm790@fr.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Per confirm edit on user's page. Popo le Chien 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd@de.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Per request on Adminstrator request's page. Sargoth 21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Steward requests/Permissions/Misc-header

Steward requests/Permissions/Footer

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=2362048"