Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 224: Line 224:
::::::Since none of the involved sides agreed with stopping the war is time to consider removing both of them. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Since none of the involved sides agreed with stopping the war is time to consider removing both of them. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Relationship vote is quite evident. Milda should not be an administrator. --[[User:Sapiens123456|Sapiens123456]] ([[User talk:Sapiens123456|talk]]) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Relationship vote is quite evident. Milda should not be an administrator. --[[User:Sapiens123456|Sapiens123456]] ([[User talk:Sapiens123456|talk]]) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Please don't use automatic translators just to underline how strong is your support for Juandev's faction right or wrong it might be. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 09:03, 17 May 2015

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. Minimum voting requirement are listed here.

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 this is for multiple users, leave this field blank and give a list of these users 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.

نظاماڻي@sd.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

he is very very active user.. Please maki him an administrator of Sindhi Wikipedia--محمد مجیب (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were 7 people who voted in your requested in February 2015 and only 1 person who voted in his request. Can you explain why participation declined? MBisanz talk 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
only He and Me know sindhi language other people are don't know sindhi..--محمد مجیب (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last Day of Voting is 17 may--محمد مجیب (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'AroemenenZullenNiVergaan@[roa-]rup.wiktionary

Status:    In progress

I parsed a couple of PD Aromanian dictionaries, so I will be importing massively content over here. I'm going to need Administrator access for that, to be able to delete files if anything goes wrong, set up main page and protect it, etc. D'AroemenenZullenNiVergaan (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

Status:    In progress

I have been making pages on hif.wikipedia for some time now, and i need to upload pictures and import templates on it. But since present admin is inactive and no local support, so i am requesting for adminship. I am an active user on hindi, punjabi, bhojpuri and maithali wikipedia too. Please consider my request. Tnx - Sushilmishra (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

Status:    In progress

Laos wikipedia not have neatness because have troll has editing many article in laos wikipedia and not have admin for manager problem, please appoint me to admin, thank you--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to where you have posted to your community your wish to undertake admin duties. We would expect there to be at least a week between a nomination and a close to give a community time to respond.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sir click here--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

Sargoth@dewiki

Status:    Done

Sargoth has been re-elected after his resignation in 04/2012. To maintain the maximum of 5 oversighters at dewiki please remove oversight access from User:Ra'ike@dewiki (see my separate request down below). Thanks in advance, XenonX3 (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mentifisto 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[email protected]

Status:    Not done
Not done - Hi Roshan014, you are not an admin on the Italian Wikipedia, so the rights cannot be removed. You are however active on the English Wikipedia. You can read more about adminship at Wikipedia:Administrators. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

After asking this bureaucrat on 2015-03-25 with no answer and posting the discussion on 2015-04-24 with no other comment, please remove this bureaucrat with no edits after 2013-04-19 and no logged bureaucrat action after 2011-09-01. I am leaving the administrator flag until it is referred to admin activity review.Jusjih (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is so generous of you. --MF-W 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment From my experience if you don't leave a note on AN-WP they won't probably notice. But there they are active and is a small but working community. -- MarcoAurelio 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is late comment link, so I would say no consensus Not done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inkowik@multiple

Status:    Done
Status:    Done
Status:    Done

I resign from these rights per self-request. Thank you! --IW 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 21:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- MarcoAurelio 17:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove admin permission, i have not enough time to work as admin Starshollow (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- MarcoAurelio 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to local policy sysops loose their status after two years of inactivity. Inactive administrator Slodave has been notified about this policy one month ago and was asked to respond; there were no objections. Regards,--MZaplotnik (contribs) 09:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done please thank the user for their contributions  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick. I've left a message with a short thank-you notice on this user's talk page. MZaplotnik (contribs) 11:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ra'ike@dewiki

Status:    Done

Ra'ike has resigned from her oversight access. Please remove her oversight flag but not her admin flag. She will be replaced as 5th oversighter by User:Sargoth (see my request above). Thanks in advance, XenonX3 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mentifisto 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[email protected]

Status:    On hold

Because of the current atmosphere of suspicion on Czech Wiktionary we have agreed to present the vote to the stewards without evaluating it locally. There are no written rules on voting eligibility, no agreed quorum, no agreed percentage needed for desysoping. As also some concerns about backstage influencing of stewards were raised and some users may feel something really important should be said to the stewards before the evaluation (e.g. accusations of sockpuppetry), please wait a day or two before evaluating so they have their chance to correct or supplement my summary. Tchoř (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Elfix's putting on hold this request. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As a statement of fact, an admin at csWikt did post to stewards OTRS board (Ticket:2015050810001901) about the ability for stewards to close, and I provided an opinion that a community could request steward(s) to act as bureaucrats.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also cs.wikt (and other cs projects, except cs.wiki) is suffering for an ongoing fight between two "factions". At a glance I'd say Milda did the right action, being the wrong person doing it for the right reason...this is what is generally called "a complete mess". --Vituzzu (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments:
  1. the arguments against are not just about this last event
  2. if you say "Milda did the right action", what right action you mean? Outing or indef block?--Juandev (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block is perfectly legit. You were warned even on the OTRS to stop playing this childish game and you went on. We're evaluating the correctness of the vote but there's surely no reason to unblock you.--Vituzzu (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Juandev did: He added an example sentence into a dictionary entry about a family name (surname). The example sentence was a quote from a news server mentioning a person searched by the police. The person mentioned has the same name like another editor who didn't make his identity public but there was no link to this editor at all - his identity was not revealed or even hinted at - in fact people who didn't know his name had no clue that the example sentence mentioned a name some editor has - only the "initiated" would know.
Compared with other example sentences there was no problem with it - we have lots of example sentences like that. So basically there was no evident reason to delete this example sentence at all. Nevertheless, Milda deleted it with the edit summary "one example sentence is enough" - which was a very bad (or rather stupid) explanation - many entries have several example sentences. After it was reverted, Milda blocked Juandev indef with the block summary "provocation(s) and publishing personal data".
It must be said that half of the block summary is a lie. Juandev did not publish the personal data of any Wikimedian. He "published" personal data of a person searched by the Czech police - something that has already been made known by the media and the Police - so copying it was no break of any rule or law. Please note that personal data in Czech and European law has two parts: "data" and "person". Both parts must be present if a term is personal data. Only one part (a name or address or telephon number etc) if there is no person associated with it constitues no personal data. So if a dictioanry example sentence uses a name of some editor but makes no link to him/her, no personal data of any editor is revelated or hinted at. If you think that Juandev broke any law or rule on personal data, it must be vehemently rejected.
Actually quite the contrary is true. It was Milda himself who in his comment in the above mentioned page did the outing - he linked the the family name and the afflicted editor (it's now hidden in page history). Yes, it was Milda who did the actual outing! --Auvajs (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stop to understand. I agree that my edit was not good. It was the first time, I did that and I will not do that any more, as I can see it was not good. But I would never release personal identity of a person, who does not want so. What happened is described above. I didnt want to release someone identity, thats why I havent linked that example with a user of Wiktionary. It is not just a law of Czech Republic or EU, but seemingly of the US as it is described in the article en:Personal data.
So if we are talking about that according which Wikimedia policy it was oversighted? Which Wikimedia policy I broke, that I should get indef block? Why Milda, who revealed the personal data is not blocked?
But lets have a look on the arguments also. Most of the arguments are about this last case (most supporters arguments agress with you Vituzzu, that I have revealed personal data). Other arguments against Milda are also, that he commit a personal attack against me (and you should remember that, because, you checked him) and was saying he didnt do that. That was the first time, some where calling him to resing and he did not do that. And than some other behavioural issues are placed as arguments against Milda.--Juandev (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: quibbling is the best way to persuade me you're acting in bad faith.
@Auvajs: that's a nice fairy tale. Juandev's one was a pure provocation, he choose that particular sentence in order to provocate his enemies.
@Juandev: yep, Milda socked to play the same game you love playing. I believe the only solution is to remove all people loving this game for CS projects, so maybe their fellow players will stop fighting.
--Vituzzu (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but that is your POV. My statment is not, I didnt.--Juandev (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is and denying it this way sounds almost offensive. If it wasn't a provocation WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT SENTENCE? --Vituzzu (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I did not want to say, that using the name XY was good. I agree with you it was not. I failed:-( But the motivation and choise of that sentence that time was not a provocation. The reason was, that other senteces, published by enities from which we quote on cs.wikt, where not available.
You stewards have had oversighted two of my edits there, with summary "personal information". One was an example sentence, one was a name X. In the sentece there was a name XY, but no link to Wikimedia user. Thus it was not a revelation of persona information. But it is still oversighted as personal information and you still inist in insulting me for revelation. User Auvaj tells you it was not a revelation, but it is still oversighted as a revalation. Did somone worn me and explained me, that I am doing something wrong, which I should not be doing? No. But OK, I agree with you, it was bad. So I will dont do that any more.
Example of name X is from my POV a declination of someones user name, from stewards POV it is a revalation of personal information. I am saying it is not a revelation of personal data, English Wikipedia is saying its not a revelation of personal data, about ten other users on cs.wp are saying its not a revelation of personal data. So why your POV is different? Why changes of that user name commited by other users are still publicaly available? Why these examples are not oversighted also? Why The user does not have problem with those changes? Why you dont assume the bad faight that those users reveals personal information?--Juandev (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you plan to go on playing this way? --Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not outing, it's a POINT, and it can also be seen as harassment. It's sad you won't understand that. Anyways, this is not what this section is about. Please stand by while the voting is being discussed. Elfix 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vituzzu: what is it that you consider quibbling? I defended Juandev from the accusations of outing because I'm sure he didn't do it and if he's accused of it, I consider it unjust. On the other hand I agree that what he did was was a provocation - a kind of a personal attack. We had discussions if it was a POINT - some editors thought so, I don't think so because the example sentence didn't make any harm to the project itself, it was by all means acceptable, there was no apparent need to remove it. If it was added to a different entry, it would probably stay. --Auvajs (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to pretend it was legit? Seriously, we all know this was a pure provocation looking for the n-th overreaction, so why do we need to fool ourselves? --Vituzzu (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Auvajs and Juandev --Sapiens123456 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:POINT and WP:GAME. The Wikimedia projects aren't there for taking revenge against your foes. Elfix 07:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And blocks indef, block summaries and oversight on Wikimedia projects are for taking revenge against your foes? --Auvajs (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wrongs are on both sides. Juandev admitting it would be a good start. Elfix 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Elfix. Milda blocked Juandev groundless. --Sapiens123456 (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. Let's cut this discussion short since it seems it isn't going anywhere. Elfix 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the involved sides agreed with stopping the war is time to consider removing both of them. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship vote is quite evident. Milda should not be an administrator. --Sapiens123456 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use automatic translators just to underline how strong is your support for Juandev's faction right or wrong it might be. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (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=12210997"