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.

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 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.

ᱫᱚᱞᱚᱱ ᱯᱨᱳᱵᱟᱥ@Satwikipedia

Status:    In progress

Hello. Please provide me access Permanently administrator rights on the Santali Wikipedia. I'm ready to be one who works against the vandalism/spam/nonsense pages and protected the page this wiki. More info is in the local discussion (see above). Thank you in advance. ᱫᱚᱞᱚᱱ ᱯᱨᱳᱵᱟᱥ (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no link to a discussion. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided is to the main page. You need to have a local discussion in the wiki where the community can show support or opposition to your application. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be done on your user talkpage, it needs to be done on a place like the community portal and it has to last for 7 days. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caro de Segeda@nov.wikipedia

Status:    On hold

Hello, the Novial Wikipedia is a very small one with just me and another casual user writing there. I would like to be an administrator for a month or so to just to a clean up there. Thanks. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Caro de Segeda, thanks for the interest! Can you please start a thread about your request at nov.wikipedia, at some highly-visible page (village pump, administrator's noticeboard, dedicated page for request for permissions or similar), to serve as your request for adminship (RfA)? Once you start the thread, please link it here.
To explain: A (local) RfA needs to be started on the project for someone to become an admin, even if the project is very small. This is to allow any wikimedians to speak up about the RfA and support/oppose, in case they wish to do so. If there won't be any comments under the RfA, that's fine – as long as there are no opposes, it will (likely) result in (temporary) adminship granted. More information about the way how stewards evaluate RfAs can be found at MVR.
If you have any questions about the process, feel free to ask here – we'll be happy to help. Best wishes, Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the explanation. Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! This is now  On hold until 2022-06-06 (7 days from now). Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

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.

Bureaucrat access

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.

CheckUser access

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.

Elph@arwikipedia

Status:    Not done

I'll put this request "onhold" based on @RadiX: and @Trijnstel: comments on 2017-12. I'll open a discussion on steward-l. Best --Alaa :)..! 14:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The consensus is that a new election is required for this user to regain their checkuser permissions. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight access

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

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

  • 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.

Zhxy 519@zhwikisource

Status:    Not done

I request the suspension of administrator access of User:Zhxy 519 until the desysop process for User:Zhxy 519 on zhwikisource ends. Reason: He blocks another administrator User:Jusjih on zhwikisource for submitting a formal desysop request of User:Zhxy 519 himself following the desysop process. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour for an administrator on a small wiki. Midleading (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing extended discussion: Stewards are aware of this and discussing this on stewards-l. — regards, Revi 19:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih，and Midleading is suspicious for ignoring discussions and covering Jusjih. Jusjih is blocked in zhws due to the rule: deliberately abusing de-adminship votes. And according to the same rule, Midleading cannot come to ask for urgent suspension without community or sysop consensus.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder who could judge what is "deliberately abusing de-adminship votes"?--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar question: Even if there is a previous sysop consensus (or to call a judge) on "communication failure" but still Midleading is not coming out to stop Jusjih. So why judge does not do their job? Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence that the community may consider actions of Zhxy 519 inappropriate, for example, other users from zhwikisource community are coming here to question Zhxy 519 and undo his blanking of desysop request. So there is a clear need to proceed the desysop process, but Zhxy 519 is threatening the free speech of the community. Remark that he did not start his de-adminship request of Jusjih through the process in zhwikisource. --Midleading (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I give all reasons here in s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#可不可能向二位固執用戶溝通 for what I have done and contacted all involved including you. I never blocked you all for just discussing and you can still refute me, even now ongoing. You are exaggerating and just failed to give reasonable responses. Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The block log of Jusjih. SCP-2000 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, Chinese Wikisource certainly has the worst relationship between administrators that I've ever seen. Almost every active administrators on zhwikisource are into the local dispute. I recommend stewards think very carefully before acting. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 21:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zhxy 519 has been resisting the reform of RFDA process for almost a year since last RFDA. Zhxy 519 casted doubt on the plan proposed by Jusjih and demanded further discussion (See contributions of Zhxy 519, he have been doing almost nothing else during this time). I have been trying to maintain a neutral position. As the administrators are accusing each other, I try to seek input from other users of zhws through discussions and voting (Zhxy 519 have stopped every votes proposed by Jusjih immediately). From my experience, Zhxy 519 seems to have lost trust by zhws community, but I need to confirm that through voting on zhws. However his most recent action of blocking Jusjih and blanking the RFDA page is plainly unacceptable. It makes uninvolved administrator who undos his actions looks like involved (steward, you will look like having been involved as well, but we need your power), paralysing the zhws community. The actions of Zhxy 519 violated the policy on zhws as the minimum requirement of speedy termination of RFDA is not satisfied. I can't think of a reason this should be allowed. Zhxy 519 now probably wants to continue this discussion on meta, where many users of zhws cannot participate and potential participants don't know what have been happening on zhws, due to language barriers. Zhxy 519 accuses many active editors on zhws to be members of "an underground group" in Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih. This is totally unfounded. If they leave zhws (some participants of last RFDA request had already left), the community of zhws will be much weaker than now. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Midleading (talk)
Oh, it was your responsibility to stop Jusjih's manipulation since you were one of the sysops agreed on last consensus, where were you? I can show you my contributions on zhws in the discussion, how could you lie here? While most time discussion has proved Jusjih's abuses, you are still pushing voting, why don't you come out to say something? The consensus requested by stewards has proved you are wrong. I never said they are underground group, stop lying. And lastly, when Jusjih trying to de-admin 2 sysops at the same time, I didn't see you come out to say "the community of zhws will be much weaker", but when the problematic users are just mentioned, you want keep them to "save the community", interesting.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That consensus was last year. Since then much have changed. A new policy of RFDA is adopted, and most recently Zhxy 519 blocked Jusjih. Could you please let other people speak by keeping the RFDA page open and unblock Jusjih, please?--Midleading (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can speak, and Jusjih can speak as well. If they can prove their innocence, of course they have no reason to be blocked. We can refute each other, if only we are reasonable. Zhxy 519 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And last year? Jusjih didn't change their way of abuse in this year, and consensus faced no challenge on zhws and not a harmful one, why shouldn't it be followed?--Zhxy 519 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need to talk in an equal, open and formal process defined by the policy recently adopted by zhws community, not in an atomsphere where the formal request is blanked by you and proposer is blocked by you. And we need to invite not only administrators but also community members of zhws to discuss the matter on that formal RFDA request, and decide on a resolution which is accepted by both administrators and community members. I'm not requesting to remove your administrator access permenantly without community consensus here, I'm just taking necessary steps to ensure a dialogue among administrators and community members can happen. This is not overriding it with a consensus among administrators last year, nor forcing people to speak on their user talk page while they are blocked without the ability to reach a consensus with each other through the RFDA process. If you can understand this is important, undo your recent actions and let the RFDA process resume until it concludes or meets the minimum requirement of speedy termination, there is no need to suspend your administrator access now. Otherwise I need to request the steward to suspend your administrator access so that you won't be able to abuse the right to block other people. --Midleading (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, you are threatening under the eyes of stewards. You are equal to me, but you never talked so much like you are doing here. Jusjih never made formal RFDA, as they deliberately abused it due to both the rule and consensus, calling it formal makes you tend to cover Jusjih. Every time when Gzdavidwong and me explaining to you, what was your reaction? Denying then ignoring. You played so unfair and throwing your responsibility to "community". To make it more clever, why wouldn't you keep silent from first? Everyone can talk in Zhws, but not to ignore others saying and pressing like Jusjih. If someone is blocked, it is normal to speak only on their talkpages during the blockage, what are you doubting? Zhxy 519 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment If it's true that Chinese Wikisource certainly has the worst relationship between administrators that I've ever seen. then all administrators, include Jusjih, Gzdavidwong and Midleading as always seen on zh.wikisource's VP, should also be listed below on this same SRP page. Yet I agree that only listing Zhxy 519 is not fair for us. Should I do so? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Stewards are internally discussing this @ stewards mailing list. — regards, Revi 06:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respect it. Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I never used the function like using bans on certain pages. I have changed to only ban Jusjih from editing the de-adminship page. My apologies. Zhxy 519 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think how to deal with this issue in the end should be more based on the local consensus of zhws.-- Yinyue200 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When four out of all six administrators on the project are related with the issue, it may not be the best to rely on so-called "local consensus". After all, Chinese Wikisource, just like other sister projects, is a wiki with relatively small community. I personally really want a peace and compromising solution for everyone, but the situation is gradually and regretfully out of control. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 15:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Midleading on April 28 that Zhxy 519 is threatening the free speech of the community with an abusive RfC. In addition to Midleading seeking suspension of Zhxy 519's adminship on Chinese Wikisource, I would like to also ask Zhxy 519 to stop senseless cross-wiki revenge by staying out of other wikis.--Jusjih (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahuldeshmukh101@mrwikisource

Status:    In progress

They have importer rights on this project. The user is inactive on this project for last 10 years 2 months. So they are definitely inactive for long. As there was no action and such advance rights should be removed as per Admin activity review? I am bit confused as importer rights is not mentioned in the policy but such long inactivity seems a pretty good reason for removal? QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 17:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the user if they still need it (the user is active on other projects). Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if active means to edit same site notice every year...as that's what they are doing every year. No other edits are seen even on mrwiki. QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have pinged them on their talk page let's se if they reply. QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on their local talkpage they have replied saying they need it, but no fair rationale for use of it is mentioned, nor they are active after that. Do the needful. thanks QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 06:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jphwra@uk.wikipedia

Status:    Done

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jphwra (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give some context in case it is confusing what the linked discussion is, this is basically a resignation request but it follows the request to bureaucrats where it was discussed whether the user should lose the admin rights as arguably he might have violated the terms of limited adminship that he was granted. Base (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have these rights until June 12. So stewards decide whether it makes sense to deprive in advance or not. In my opinion, the seizure through which I filed this application violates the rights granted to me by bureaucrats. I deleted the category I created incorrectly in my own article. I thought it was a perfectly normal edit not to distract administrators. Formally, my removal of the category was a violation of the terms of granting me administrator rights. Therefore, it is the stewards who must indicate whether it is a violation to remove an incorrectly created category or not. Thank you. --Jphwra (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer some clarification as a UkWiki bureaucrat who granted admin rights Jphwra.

Amidst Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian community has been experiencing reduced community capabilities to fight vandalism and fulfill other maintenance duties, so we’ve adopted the practice of granting temporary adminship for a brief period of time.

Jphwra was granted temporary adminship with strict limitation to use admin rights only for removing obvious vandalism (while Jphwra is an experienced user and former admin, he’d been involved in some rule violations like edit wars in the past, hence the limitation; Jphwra suggested this arrangement himself).

Formally, Jphwra broke the scope of his limited adminship and performed a deletion of the page that hadn’t been vandalized. While the admin action in question isn’t incorrect itself, it does formally violate the scope of Jphwra’s adminship and thus admin rights should be removed per the initial terms. --Aced (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was a petty act, the removal of an erroneously created category. I do not think this is a sufficient reason for deprivation of rights. --Yakudza (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Aced --YarikUkraine (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jphwra: Are you submitting this as a resignation or not? -- Amanda (she/her) 20:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO more. Mine expires on June 12, so revoke those rights on June 12. I need this to prove that I keep my word as a user with an experience for which the main article is not the status. Thank you. Jphwra (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"While the admin action in question isn’t incorrect itself, it does formally violate the scope of Jphwra’s adminship and thus admin rights should be removed per the initial terms" (Aced). --YarikUkraine (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP:, Permissions should be revoked not of his own desire, but without discussion, Jphwra has violated the terms of which he undertook to comply with in the case of granting him permissions. These conditions were violated by him twice on May 29. Therefore, sysop permissons should be removed without discussion, this was written by bureaucrat Aced and confirmed by bureaucrat YarikUkraine. Can you remove them, or do such conditions not affect it? I will also note that the rights were granted with the support of the community, which was less than 40%. --Mykola talk 22:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an easy case. Normally we do require a full community consensus to remove the rights of a user. These are exceptional circumstances though where a user had conditions placed on their adminship with the consensus of bureaucrats seemingly, and it was directly logged also. Therefore I will go ahead and complete the removal and mark this as Done. I do suggest though that the community have a further discussion about the rules, circumstances and formal processes for removal. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Jphwra (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ouda@arwiki

Status:    On hold

Thanks.--جار الله (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all , please hold this request because I am willing to resume my activity back Mohamed Ouda (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If another steward can put this request {{onhold}} per community discussion; as Ouda sysop flag should be removed per our local policy, but there's a community proposal to give him a chance (and ignore all rules). I'll write further comment when discussion end. Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it's on hold. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=23361805"