Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Steward requests/Permissions

< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Spacebirdy (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 24 February 2008 (→គីមស៊្រុន@km wikipedia). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Shortcut:
RfP RFP
This page enables stewards to handle permissions requests, including the giving and taking of administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights, for all Wikimedia wikis which do not have a local permissions procedure. If your wiki has a local bureaucrat, submit your request to that user or to the relevant local request page (see the index of request pages). Requests for bot status, URL blacklisting and whitelisting, and CheckUser queries belong elsewhere.

Interface-translations are done at Betawiki.

For urgent requests, such as to combat large-scale vandalism on a small wiki, contact a steward in the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel (see a web-based IRC client). In emergencies only, type !steward in the channel to inform stewards that you need help.

Please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community.

Quick navigation: Administrator | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Temporary permissions | Miscellaneous | Identification

Projects

Using this page

When requesting permissions, copy and paste the following text into the correct section. Please fill in all the required fields -- language code, link to the local request (or other means of confirming that the request has approval), and link to your local user page. Without this information, a steward cannot process your request.

Please summarize your request in the "summary". 

==== Username@language-code project-name ====
I request sysop access.
*'''Language Code:''' xx
*'''Local Request Link:''' [[:xx:Project:wiki]]
*'''Automatic List of local bureaucrats:''' [[:<xx:project>:Special:Listusers/bureaucrat]]
*'''Local User Page:''' [[xx:User:Example]]

Thank you. ~~~~

Confirmation of identity

Certain permissions (notably CheckUser and Oversight) additionally require users to confirm their identity. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also submit the relevant identification to the Foundation. The request is placed on hold temporarily, until receipt has been formally confirmed by the office.

Instructions for how you can confirm your identity can be found at: Steward handbook/email templates.

For stewards: Identification noticeboard.

Requests

Administrator access

See administrator for information about the position. Requests for temporary permissions and removal of access belong in other sections.

Bureaucrat access

See bureaucrat for information about the position.

CheckUser access

To request CheckUser information, see Request for CheckUser information. This is the place to request CheckUser access. Note that temporary CheckUser access is not permitted.

Stewards: When someone asks for CheckUser status, please check the current policy regarding bestowal of status before giving the status. Do not grant CheckUser access unless the user is identified to the foundation, which will be announced here. 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@wikipedia.org so that the listadmins know the person is allowed on the mailing list (the list may contain confidential information), and make sure they contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser.

Bastique@commonswiki

as per Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Bastique (rfcu). Regards, abf /talk to me/ 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --FiLiP ¤ 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight access

Do not initiate an oversight request here. The Arbitration Committee will make the request once there is consensus on the local wiki (this process is currently for en-Wikipedia only).

Stewards: Do not grant Oversight access unless the user is identified to the foundation, which will be announced here. When you give someone oversight access, list them on Hiding revisions.

fi:User:Agony, fi:User:Harriv, fi:User:Jniemenmaa and fi:User:MikkoM at Finnish Wikipedia

A consensus was reached for granting the oversight-status to users currently already having the check user-status on Finnish Wikipedia. They have already identified themselves to the foundation when becoming check users so presenting identification again is not necessary.

Thank you. Joonasl 10:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the request and started a poll about the rights at Finnish Wikipedia. Let's wait for the results and then come back to this again.--Joonasl 07:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  On hold I don't see a community voting there. Or was it an arbcom decision? --Thogo (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been any voting or ArbCom decision, only discussion (less than a week, it seems). –Ejs-80 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... So there is not really a community consensus yet, right? --Thogo (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people who have participated in the discussion have supported this proposal (though I personally would've preferred longer time for this discussion) –Ejs-80 11:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, ok. But for such things it's always better to have a voting (or an arbcom decision) rather than just discussion. We can't decide if there is consensus or not, if there is no countable result... I guess we let it "on hold", at least for now. --Thogo (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of the people participating in the conversation at the time i made the request (which has been prominently shown at the "Current Events"-page). Since the support was unanimous I though no voting would be necessary. After I made this request one opposing opinion has been added. What happened to Polls are evil? :) If one counts the comments in support vrs. opposed, the ratio at this time is 18:1 [1], which sounds like a concensus to me. There is no reason why the discussion can not continue a bit longer on this while we are here "on hold", though --Joonasl 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note of the conversation was added to "Current Events"-page only about 50 hours before Joonasl made this request [2]. Before that conversation had continued six four days in the "Mixed issues" (fi:Sekalaista) section of "Kahvihuone". Obviously it would have been a good idea to put the note to "Current Events" at an earlier stage and begin the conversation in the "Policies" (fi:Käytännöt) section of "Kahvihuone" [3] (or move it there). --AB-fi 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed that Meta:Rewriting/Oversight policy#Access to oversight says: “After gaining consensus (80%) in his local community, with at least 25 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Requests for permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision. – – If a sufficient number of voters do not vote for two oversighters on a wiki, there will be no oversighter on that wiki.” Is this the current policy? (I don't want to ask about the Arbitration Committee option, since ArbCom's role in granting checkuser or oversight rights has not yet been clarified in Finnish Wikipedia) –Ejs-80 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the rewrite of the current policy. At the moment, there is no requirement for multiple oversights, but (in my opinion, mind) it appears that it will certainly pass. The rest of the statement, other than the number of oversights however, is current policy. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this means that we have to have a vote if we want users with oversight rights. The update of the page Hiding revisions is really needed, since it doesn't tell anything about this at the moment. –Ejs-80 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current policy is here and says nothing about mandatory voting.--Joonasl 06:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple notes: Oversight is a redirect to Hiding revisions, which Ejs-80 already pointed out. That's the policy on the permission itself, not about granting it, which would be at Steward policies#Don't decide. They need a clear-cut decision shown on the matter and the steward policy page states "election" in that section. This is part of the reason for the rewrite: clarification of the processes used to place trusted users in the positions we need them in. Thanks for your concern and understanding. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of access

If you want to request that your own status be removed, please don't forget to place a note on your local user talk page (preferably with an English translation). This is required to prove your identity. And then add the request here. You should add the difflink of your local confirmation edit to the request.

To request the removal of another user's status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. All discussion must be kept 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 very brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion.

Copy and paste the following text into the correct section. Fill in all the required fields -- language code, link to the local request, and link to your local user page. Without this information, a steward cannot process your request. 

==== Username@language-code project-name ====
I request removal of access.
*'''Language Code:''' xx
*'''Local Confirmation/Request Link:''' <!--Difflink of the local confirmation edit (for own requests), or link to the community decision-->
*'''Local User Page:''' [[xx:User:Example]]

Thank you. ~~~~

Please summarize your request in the "summary".


Temporary permissions for emergency or technical purposes

If you are requesting administrator status to make a translation of the wiki interface, see also the BetaWiki project, which seeks to make a neutral MediaWiki translation that will then be default for all wikis. That is more useful than only making a local translation. You can ask questions in the IRC channel or in the mailing list. See also MediaWiki localisation.

Stewards: Currently active temporary permissions are listed at /Approved temporary. When granting a request, please copy the request to the appropriate section there, and clearly state the date of removal. 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.

Copy and paste the following text into the correct section. Fill in all the required fields -- language code, link to the list of sysops and bureaucrats, local request link, link to your local user page, and the preferred duration with a reason. Without this information, a steward cannot process your request. 

==== Username@language-code project-name ====
I request temporary sysop access.
*'''Language Code:''' xx
*'''List of local sysops:''' [[xx:Special:Listadmins]]
*'''List of local bureaucrats:''' [[xx:Special:Listusers/bureaucrat]]
*'''Local Request Link:''' [[xx:Example]]
*'''Local User Page:''' [[xx:User:Example]]
*'''Preferred duration and reason:''' 
Thank you. ~~~~

Please summarize your request in the "summary".

គីមស៊្រុន@km wikipedia

គីមស៊្រុន requests sysop access.

Thank you. Kiensvay 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiensvay, I would suggest temp-sysop for this user also, in the voting the vandalaccount Nums voted, then one user from en.wiki and You, the community on km.wiki is too small to have a voting for permanent members. Temp-sysopship will be prolonged without problems if there are no problems. Since You know there have been many problems recently, it is also a good protection for km.wiki not to give permanent sysopship. I suggest a temporary flag for 3 months, (just like it was arranged for You). Please tell me if this is acceptable for You. As said, the temporary flag is technically absolutely the same, You just come back here shortly before the flag expires and we prolong it. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It is OK. Do I have to request on temporary sysop access section again? Best Regards. --Kiensvay 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok, I moved the section, please feel free to visit #wikimedia-stewardsconnect if You ever need urgent help, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done, 3 months granted, expires 24.05.2008, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Fazlî @ tt Wiktionary

I request sysop access to be able import in tt:wikt:Special:Import

Thank you. Albert Fazlî 11:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold Are you sure you understand what import does? By being a sysop, you'd be able to do transwiki imports to tt, which is maybe not something you want. Also, please specify the desired duration of the sysop bit. Thanks --FiLiP ¤ 10:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Requests that don't fit in other sections belong here. Note that the following types of requests belong on separate pages: bot status, URL blacklisting and whitelisting, and requests for CheckUser queries. If you want to have your Meta username changed, please go to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. If you want to have changed a username on a Wikimedia wiki without bureaucrats, please go to Requests for username changes.(Existing requests have been moved to the appropriate page.)


See also

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=894457"