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This is an archived version of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 5 February 2009 (add request for removal of sysop for Quadell@enwikisource). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Shortcut:
SRP
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 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 (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 | Global permissions

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page

  1. Place the following code at the bottom of the appropriate section below: 
    ====user name@xxproject====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    =
 |user name =
 |discussion=
}}
Thank you! ~~~~
  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"). Leave it blank and list them yourself if you're requesting access for multiple bots.
    • 'discussion': a link to the local vote or discussion about the rights change (for example, "[[ex:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#ExampleUser]]").
  3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

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. Admins doing cross-wiki work may wish to see IRC/wikimedia-admin for information about joining #wikimedia-admin.

Yufereff@kv.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Can I request to continue my 3-month adminship in Komi Wikipedia maybe plus 3 month else or more. I've been an administrator for 6 months now (2 x 3 months). Thank you. Yufereff 12:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yufereff, please can You make a short local note that You are going to prolong the status or link the page where You requested the status the first time, I can't find it right now, many thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I'm only going to prolong my status.-- Yufereff 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but could you inform local community anyway?--Nick1915 - all you want 11:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

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

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 regarding bestowal of status before giving the status. The current mail template to use to request identification from the new CU can be found here. Do not grant CheckUser access unless the user is identified to the foundation, which will be announced on the Identification noticeboard. 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-ownerlists.wikimedia.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.

Question by Deror avi

Status:    On hold

How do I request Check User information on Hebrew Wiki? Deror avi 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Wikipedia has own checkusers. You may ask one of these people: w:he:Special:Listusers/checkuser. --Thogo (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the resigned. I was elected as a new one. so - how one is gets the authorisation?
So you are requesting Checkuser access, not Checkuser information, right? You need to identify to the foundation first. Send a copy of your passport to Cary Bass via mail or fax. But I don't quite understand that page. Why are there only Support sections? Where are the opposes and neutrals? --Thogo (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already sent the email before writing the request here. There was one person in oposition. In order to win the election one must have at least 25 voters in support, and more than any oposing vote (and more than any other candidate). This time there are three positions to fill but only I got more than the minimum support required. reelections for the two other empty positions will take place in 29 days. Deror avi 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WMF policy says: On any wiki, there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all. This is so that they can mutually control and confirm their actions. In the case where only one CheckUser is left on a wiki (when the only other one retires, or is removed), the community must appoint a new CheckUser immediately (so that the number of CheckUsers is at least two).. Thus, you are kindly requested to wait for at least another checkuser to be elected. Thank you. --M/ 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Hebrew wiki there should be always 5 - as 3 resigned, there are 2 (and with me 3). Deror avi 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, please wait until your ID is received and processed by WMF officers. --M/ 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ID processed. Deror avi 08:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The voting model you used is not something that we often see. When it comes to CheckUser voting, I think there should be separate candidates with possibility to vote for and against them. If the situation is like this one, where there are multiple candidates, then voting for more should be possible. As it stands, this voting doesn't indicate if anyone is against Deror avi, because people who would normally oppose have voted for someone else. Since userrights on Wikimedia projects shouldn't be assigned through competition, but through consensus, I strongly suggest to repeat the voting but in such a fashion where people can vote both for and against all of the candidates (or just the ones that still stand a chance -- you and מוטי). That way, we'd get a clearer picture. Don't get me wrong here, 25 support votes is great, but I don't see if there would be any oppose votes, because the voting procedure dilutes that. Thanks --FiliP × 08:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This voting proceedure was decided by the Heberw wiki comunity and was votes in its paralment. Changing the voting system would require a change of the proceedures and a majority of 60% of the voters in the parlament ( which would take at least three month and probably would not pass) - all previous check users have been nominated the same way and in the past it proved no problem here (if it is a problem - then permissions to all current check users should be cancelled as well). Deror avi 12:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
anybody? Deror avi 07:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you need to change the whole voting system.. Just have one vote with support and oppose... Abigor talk 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's changing the whole voting system - the whole poynt was not to votes in opposition of a certain person but rather chosing the person you want best (or opposing all). anyway - in all past nominations this was not deemed as a problem here (this is the 8th elections for check users done this way). Deror avi 09:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK. I'll tell you one thing: I wouldn't have granted those rights those past 8 times had it come to me. Since other stewards have granted such requests, other stewards can grant this one. Cheers --FiliP × 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me to the Foundation requirements re the voting system with regards to appointment of check users, before I revert to Hebrew wiki and request that its voting system be changed. Deror avi 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to change the voting system for the whole wiki. Just make an exception when it comes to CheckUser elections, since that's a right your community cannot technically grant (as opposed to sysops, bureaucrats). Checkuser policy#Access to CheckUser says The community must approve CheckUsers per consensus. [...] After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80%) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision. That doesn't specifically discard your type of election, but it does require consensus and I don't consider what your community has been doing a consensus (note that there quite likely might be other stewards that don't have the same opinion as me). --FiliP × 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our understanding of said requirements that for each check user - the votes in favour must be 70% more than the votes against (in my case - one against - in the opition of against all candidates) and at least 25 voters in suport. As there are three positions to fill, and as there are on 90 something eligable voters, it was not possible to fulfill all vacant position therefore realections is expeceded to commence within three weeks for the two other vacant postitions. Deror avi 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not accurate, the official hebrew wikipedia policy says this:
"בתום ההצבעה, ידורגו המועמדים שמספר התומכים בהם כפול לפחות ממספר המצביעים "נגד כל המועמדים", ושיש להם 25 תומכים או יותר, על-פי מספר התומכים. המועמדים שנבחרו הם הראשונים בדרוג זה, עד למילוי מכסת הבודקים שיש לבחור. אם כלה המניין בין שני מועמדים שמספר תומכיהם שווה, יסכימו ביניהם המועמדים שזה מספר התומכים שלהם, פה אחד, מי נבחר. בהיעדר הסכמה פה אחד (בתוך יממה מתום ההצבעה), יבחר ביניהם ביורוקרט."
It is written there that those who will be elected are those that their "number of supporters are double than the number of those who voted "against all candidates" option" so this is roughlt 66.66% and not 70%, even if we consider the "against all candidates" option as a legal one. The Relativity of The Truth
You might be interested in this. There's also a conversation regarding this matter between user:Uzi V. and user:MaxSem in MaxSem's deleted talk page here on meta. The Relativity of The Truth 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my book 25 against 1 is much more then 70% support. so the discussion above is irrelevant. The hebrew wiki is aware that for each candidate must have twice as much as the votes against him - so only in case there are 25 votes against and 50 in favour there is a problem. This is not the current case and a very unlikely hypotherical case. The Troll which replied above me is a known troll who nitpicks at unimportant matter in order to try and confuse simple matters in his favour (and in the current case he favoured another candidate). Deror avi 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that people couldn't oppose. I am no steward but if people could vote oppose there maybe was a other result. Abigor talk 08:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can oppose - but it's oposition to all candidates. Hebrew wiki chose this system in perpose to show trust and to aviod politics - If u trust someone - vote for him. If one trust another - vote for the other - and if you trust none - vote against all. It's better then saying for someone that you dont trust him. By the way - almost all voters stated in there vote that they trust all candidates but as there is only one vote per person they had to chose one person over the others. Only one person voted against all candidates. Deror avi 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if there was only one vote per person isn't voting on the other perron the same as opposing? If some people trust the other person more than you otherwise the would have supported. I find it a very unclear voting system. Abigor talk 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the voters who supported the candidates said that they also support Deror, but they want more then one user to be elected as Checkuser. Also, the last 3 Checkuser's where elected by this method. I can't understand whats the problem here. If they got the CU rights, why Deror isn't? As far as I know, there wasn't any change in WMF policies about CU rights. Deror is a very good person and I feel ashamed to see him being dragged and treated this way. He deserves much better. Broccoli • talk page 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really disappointed by reading this discussion. The Hebrew Wikipedia, like any other Wikipedia, has its community, and is an autonomous one. The stewards are here to give services that where allocated to stewards, and to be outside managers of any Wikipedia. A refusal to fulfill a decision made by any Wikipedia should be made only in gross violation of WMF principles, and about such a minor bureaucratic manner like the case we are discussing here. The Hebrew Wikipedia has voted for Deror avi, and stewards should realize this decision. Recommendations for future changes in the operation of the Hebrew Wikipedia are welcome, but they are not relevant to the current vote. David Shay 11:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight access

As with Checkuser, do not initiate a request for oversight access here. You need to work through your local wiki. Some wikis have elections. Some wikis have their Arbitration Committee make the request once there is consensus on the local wiki. The request should show a link to the local wiki election results, or be made on behalf of an ArbCom by a member of that ArbCom, whichever is applicable.

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 Hiding revisions.

Removal of access

If you're requesting the removal of your own status, make sure you're logged in to a global account or place an English note on your local user talk page to prove you own both accounts (and add the diff link 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.

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 -->
}}

Quadell@enwikisource

Status:    In progress

Wulfson@ru.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Please, remove sysop and checkuser access of User:Wulfson. He started the wheel war on Russian Wikipedia - block User:Lvova after unblock by other checkuser, as a roleaccount without technical evidence. All other checkuser believe that User:Lvova is not roleaccount. --94.103.82.150 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's not any discussion regarding this case. We cannot do anything without community consensus. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A block log itself is not a discussion.--Jusjih 03:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ru.wikipedia has an arbcom, and I don't see where the resolutions passed request removing Wulfson. See ru:Википедия:Заявки_на_арбитраж/О_блокировке_участницы_Lvova#Решение. I'd advise closing the request until the ru.wikipedia arbcom makes a request itself. Kylu 07:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, request closed--Nick1915 - all you want 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary permissions for emergency or technical access

If you are requesting administrator status to translate the wiki interface, this should 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 Multilingual speedy deletions.

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.

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.)

Reminder

  • Import rights can be granted by stewards only, not bureaucrats, so the automatic list of local bureaucrats is irrelevant for this; please show a link to a consensus if the wiki has a community.
  • Usurpation requests should be placed at Steward requests/Usurpation.
  • Username changes should be placed at Requests for username changes.

Importing articles to arz

What kind of error did you get? Abigor talk 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ghaly, here is the page where to import from: arz:special:import, You can choose in the drop down list, where to import from, sometimes if the source page has many revisions, You have to try to import it multiple times before it works. See also Help:Import. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just imported a page as a test [1], works perfectly, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still having trouble, feel free to grab in in IRC - I do a lot of importing, so I can perhaps help.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:10, 5 February 2009 (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=1376314"