Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
(Redirected from SRP)
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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below: 


==== User name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
  |status     = <!--don't change this line-->
  |domain     =<!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
  |user name  =
  |discussion = 
}}

Administrator access

[edit]

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.

Exec8@ceb.wikipedia

[edit]
Status:    Done

I am applying for sysop and interface admin rights. This is to provide technical support on initiatives to grow the local community, update page and monitor bad actors such as vandalism. I have sysop experience on Wikimania wiki and Pangasinan Wikipedia. --Exec8 (talk)

I'm leaning towards closing this as not done. Per MVR discussions should be open for at least one week, and around 3-4 weeks at most. This one has been open for more than two months at this point, and I would therefore think that the discussion has reached a point where the consensus is almost too old. EPIC (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, interesting case indeed. @Exec8, could you elaborate why you haven't posted a request here in December? Also I don't see any mention of interface administrator in the application, so one thing I can say for sure, you will need another discussion for the interface administrator rights. --Base (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping @Base. Due to personal matters, other Wikimedia affairs such as Wikimania 2025 and ESEAP, and also the holidays, I was not able to bring the proposal here last December. I was not aware of the standards set for discussion duration. So I will just encourage users on that project to renew the discussion until it gets noticed here. As for the interface administrator, I will be applying for that separately in the future, focusing more on the admin role. I intend to be an admin for a limited time to mentor aspiring editors based in the Philippines and speak Cebuano language to move up to their ranks to be an admin someday. -- Exec8 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for renewing the discussion @Exec8, we can process it in 5 more days. I've noticed that most users voted while editing for the first time at cebwiki. Are RfA at cebwiki announced somewhere else, e.g. at local user groups? Johannnes89 (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cebwiki despite its enormous size has a less active editing community. Initiatives like reviving an onsite local community is in the works and there are small step progress. So the only way to engage these new users to support my bid is by word of mouth. Hopefully they will be engaged in village pumps once they reached a level of project contribution, usage and maturity. --Exec8 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that multiple users expressed their support to your renewed request [1] I'm granting temporary admin permissions. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2025-05-21. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightt11@gagwiki

[edit]
Status:    Not done

I am a user who was candidated as a administrator by gagwiki administator Çınarcan on February 8, 2025 at 15:46 (my local time 18:46). However, two users have not contributed since 2022, and one of these two users claims that I am a copyright violation and hat collector. I request that these oppose votes be reviewed. bright mensaje 16:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, greetings. Yes, I suggested Bright as a sysop user. When I looked at their contributions, they are progressing positively for the Gagauz Wikipedia, and I support this knowledgeable user. As for the other users who voted negatively, they came from the Turkish Wikipedia and have no positive contributions to Gagauz Wikipedia, let alone any contributions at all. It is clear that they came here just to vote negatively. When I asked them if they would continue contributing here, instead of answering my question, they raised irrelevant issues and did not respond to my question. They brought up events related to me from the Turkish Wikipedia. Every wiki issue is unique to its own platform, and to me, it doesn't seem right to transfer an issue from another wiki to Gagauz Wikipedia, And I have no doubt that you will make the best decision, Regards.

Also, in Turkish Wikipedia, in the village pump, an unidentified ip address link to the gagauz application and invited Turkish users to vote, which wasn't asked from anyone on our end. anerka and kadı voted after this, then the post in the village pump was deleted. This may be relevant context in your analysis of the situation.

Links: added invite section revision and deleted section revision by Kadı Çınarcan (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An email regarding this request has been sent to the stewards' mailing list. The ticket number for reference is #2025021110007798. Wooze★ 18:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending review of the mentioned ticket and internal discussion. --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EPIC and @Johannnes89, this internal discussion is over. Can you check this request? bright mensaje 08:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still under review. And the trwiki CU request is also still open. Although projects are independent of each other, sockpuppet allegations – if true – also raise concerns regarding the recently granted temp admin for Çınarcan. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johannnes89
When I was nominated, Dervişli, whom I saw intending to contribute at that time, and another account that I don't know voted. After Dervişli sents abusive messages 1 2 3 and asks me to vote, I blocked Dervişli from Gagwiki. I don't know the other account. My adminship is already temporary, I plan to use this role effectively in the coming months and then get re-elected permanently. Gagauz is a language similar to my native language, so I'm slowly learning it and doing some technical work.
As for the CU issue, the process is taking much longer than any CU request should, and I don't understand why. Since I have no connection with the mentioned user, I know that the CU operation will prove my innocence. In Bright's adminship nomination, three different accounts voted positively. The two accounts that voted oppose came and voted after the announcement on trwiki was made and deleted, and they didn't contribute to gagwiki. When asked, they did not express any intention to contribute.
For some reason, the case that has been ongoing for 25 days has not been concluded, despite my pings, which seems unreasonable to me. I expect the CU to no longer be delayed and for this process to be completed.
Note: When I started in Wikipedia, I created some accounts because I didn't have enough knowledge about Wikipedia. It wasn't done with bad intentions, and later I realized my mistake and stopped doing it. The sysops and checkusers on trwiki already know this. However, the Onyeddi account is not one of those accounts. Çınarcan (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Third party not associated with users in question chiming here, and I don’t want to assume bad faith however it’s as if TRWP is delibrately Stalling the checkuser request. The checkuser process is not known for its speed in TRWP due to the fact that it’s simply not a very big project however other requests after that got closed in a timely manner. Looking at the voting Page, The opposing vote from Anerka does raise valid concerns including things such as Bright admitting he doeesn’t know the language well. The one from Kadı doesn’t make a lot of sense and comes off as “opposing for the sake of opposing.” One thing noteworthy which might be in play regarding that vote is the bad history between Kadı and Çınarcan. I wish yall a good day. 176.227.19.226 13:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sockpuppet investigation 1 about me that has been going on for 3 weeks. This case hasn't been concluded yet, and I suspect that I'm being treated as guilty because of this case, even though it's not concluded yet. I don't know the contents of the ticket that Wooze submitted, but if it involves this case, I think that this is a procedural mistake. Çınarcan (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. After careful review the decision is not to grant admin permissions. This is not due to the trwiki CU case about the nominator [2] which has been inconclusive (see CU wiki as well [3]). Instead I'm closing this request because the linked discussion doesn't show sufficient consensus to promote. I've noticed that the opposing users are trwiki members, but it's not uncommon for small wikis to allow members from larger sister projects to voice their opinion and there's no gagwiki policy which disallows it. Therefore the outcome of the discussion is no consensus. --Johannnes89 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gagwiki is currently a very underdeveloped Wikipedia. Therefore it lacks many policies. There was a consensus among editors who actually seem to have the intention to contribute to Gagwiki, but it was a small number of people (3), so I am okay with the adminship not being granted. After we manage to grow the Gagwiki community (hopefully with native speakers too), I would suggest Bright run again, as I think that Bright has the necessary skillset.
With these said, I want to ask for your suggestions on how we can avoid situations like this in the future. I have no problem with people from other Wikipedias coming in and voicing their opinions. I also have no problem with them voting if they intend to contribute to gagwiki. Turkish Wikipedians are far greater in numbers, and in any nomination in the future, it is likely that many people who are not going to be involved in gagwiki will congregate and leave oppose votes. This is also going to be the case for any policy recommendation that we make. I want gagwiki to be independent of trwiki, and I think the other members also want that. However, with this issue at hand, it seems impossible to go forward. @Johannnes89 Egezort (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking: Stewards act on community consensus per policy. I'm assuming some of the concerns could resolve themselves if good contributions in the future show, that there is no reason to fear abuse. So yes, re-running in the future might be an idea.
All users who participated in the discussion had more edits at trwiki than at gagwiki. One of the supporting users started editing at gagwiki the same day of voting [4] and you also didn't have many gagwiki edits before supporting [5]. The opposing trwiki users didn't have any other gagwiki edits. The candidate's very first gagwiki edit was also voting at a RfA [6] which was allowed as well. Quite hard to draw a line what's considered "intend to contribute to gagwiki" for users participating in such a discussion if that's what you think should be done while determining consensus.
Your community might want to consider discussing some minimum criteria (account age / local edit count) for participating in such discussions. Given the examples from this discussion and that it's a small wiki, those criteria should be very low, but they might help determining which comments are valid for forming consensus. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, none of us have a substantial amount of edits at this point. I know that it's not exactly a proper method, but after asked if they had intentions to contribute, if they had said yes, I would have supported counting their votes, even if they had no other edits. That's where I had drawn the line (even while knowing that it's not exactly proper).
Thank you for your input, I think that after some weeks we'll see who stays active and who doesn't, and hopefully we'll be able to bring in some native speakers too. Egezort (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. Omarius@avwiki

[edit]
Status:    In progress

Salvete! There is no other active administrator in the Avar Wikipedia, so I leave a request for an extension of the status of the administrator, as well as the status of the interface administrator, to continue work. I have experience, as I have been an admin for several years. Thank you. Always with respect M. Omarius (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The voting page doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, and it seems like you re-used the voting page from last year. Where was this advertised in order to meet MVR? EPIC (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvete. Since the term of the admin status has ended, I believe it is necessary to create another page for the election and leave another request for admin status for 3 months. If it is advisable, I would like you to leave a message about it. Thank you) M. Omarius (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M. Omarius per Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements requests for adminship should be posted on the local village pump, administrators' noticeboard or a designated page for requesting permissions. You re-used an old page [7] which might be ok, but it seems like it should have been linked at the main page for requesting permissions [8]? How did the voters find your request for extending your admin permissions? Johannnes89 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvete! Due to the fact that we have few active users, as an experienced editor, I maintain personal contact with them. At the moment, we notify each other about events such as voting or correcting texts through our social media accounts. M. Omarius (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M. Omarius no issue with doing that, but please also make sure to publicly link such requests at your wiki. That's the only way for stewards to know that anyone could voice their opinion if they wanted to. If you link the page at an appropriate local venue and wait another 7 days, we can proceed with granting you admin + interface admin permissions again. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvete! I have linked the voting page to the corresponding query page to get the status of admin and bureaucrats (here). This will allow other participants and stewards to quickly find the page they need, as well as the archive for RfA. I also indicated this vote on the archive page with a note that this request is current (here). I have created the necessary templates and modules, so in the future new RfA will be automatically displayed on the specified page, just like in the English Wikipedia. M. Omarius (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chelin@nap.wikisource

[edit]
Status:    Done

I'm an administrator on the Neapolitan Wikisource since the beggining and my adminship will finish in two days so I ask you to renew it. Last time it was granted for two years so it would be very appreciated to have it for more than two years this time. Thank you --Chelin (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until 19 February 2025. EPIC (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Chelin (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Granted for 2 years to expire on 2027-02-20. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. EPIC (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cactusisme@hi.wikiversity

[edit]
Status:    Not done

See discussion on permalink above. Was open for 5 days.  Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 07:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion, it seems like there are some concerns about experience from the local administrator, but it's not clear if they are explicit objections since they have not supported nor opposed. @अजीत कुमार तिवारी: Could you elaborate; do you object to granting adminship in this case, or are you fine with the candidate being promoted? EPIC (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 22:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC Hello EPIC, I was wondering since the request has already been open for a week, and the last

 ::edit made by अजीत कुमार तिवारी is five days ago, I was wondering if you would close this request as the discussion period is over with 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 neutrals. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 03:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in favour of promoting the candidate. My comment was not neutral as I clearly mentioned that the candidate should have atleast 6 months of experience and editing. I haven’t edited enough but same is the case with the user who’s supprted this nomination. You may count my comment as “opposed” vote. अजीत कुमार तिवारी (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done no consensus to promote in the local discussion as clarified by the comment above. @Cactusisme I recommend following अजीत कुमार तिवारी's advice to continuously edit at the project for a couple of months before considering to request any permissions. If admin actions are needed (you mentioned a need to delete some non-useful pages) and the local admin doesn't respond, you can turn to GSR (or SRM for more complex actions). --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alright Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galessandroni@it.wikiversity

[edit]
Status:    Done

I'm applied for Wikiversity administrator because I use the project for myself and with my pupils, I think it is valuable and it should be supported. Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 16:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS In the Italian Wikiversity there are no administrators at the moment (I have urged the local community to apply). Therefore - if possible - I also request the interface administrator flag. Thank you. Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 16:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 2 years to expire on 2027-02-20. Experienced user, already on his fourth application, guaranteed for 2 years. For IA it is necessary to have at least two users and make a specific election (or specify it during the one for admin who competes for both roles). To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. -- Wim b 17:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, there is no requirement to have at least two IAs on a project (this is only the case for CU and OS), but indeed another local discussion will be required for that. EPIC (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC: yes, my fault, I translated the help page badly. Btw the need for a new election remains, already told privately to the user. --Wim b 18:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bennylin@jvwikisource

[edit]
Status:    On hold

Hi, I've been given temp adminship several times in this project. I'm also active admins in jv.wikipedia, and id.wikisource, among others. I'd like to be given perm adminship and interface adminship, because the community is already quite large, and we have many needs for admins in the future. ✒ Bennylin 15:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MVR the community "must be large enough to require a [permanent] administrator". I don't think anything has changed since this request [9] judging by the deletion log [10]. But it appears that you got your permissions the last two times just for one year [11], we could at least grant for two years, I'm also ok with three years given your experience in other projects.
Please check your mails regarding interface adminship. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thersetya2021@jvwikisource

[edit]
Status:    Done

Hello, I've actively contributed to jv.wikisource and id.wikisource. I found few differences between two projects in some ways. The javanese community needs some features that can be added on jv.wikisource as seen on id.wikisource. This is why I'd like to be an administrator on jv.wikisource. Besides, the contributors of this project are getting increased and the contributions need to be checked regularly. Basically the needs of admins are greater, meanwhile this project is still lack of administrators. Hope I can assist as best as possible. Thanks. Thersetya2021 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2025-08-24. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. EPIC (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boesenbergia@madwiktionary

[edit]
Status:    Done

Dear Steward, I am Boesenbergia, a native Madurese speaker and active member of the Madurese Wikimedia User Group. I have previous experience as an administrator on Madurese Wikipedia and would like to request administrator rights on Madurese Wiktionary. The current administrator's term ends on May 22nd, 2024.

We've had increased activity on Madurese Wiktionary lately. I'd like to help with vandalism control and utilise advanced features to support the project. Thank you. Boesenbergia (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2025-08-24. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. EPIC (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lhoussine AIT TAYFST@zghwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

(your remarks) Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2026-02-25. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. EPIC (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Htawmonzel@mnw.wikipedia

[edit]
Status:    In progress

My admin permission was expired and I would like to continue using it again. Htawmonzel (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essaidib2@zghwiki

[edit]
Status:    On hold

My admin rights will be expired in the next few hours, I would like to renew it.--Essaidib2 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until 27 February 2025. EPIC (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

[edit]

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

[edit]
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

[edit]
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.

Lymantria@wikidata

[edit]
Status:    Done

I have closed the discussion as successful. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Lymantria: Please contact the list owner email address mentioned here [12] for access to the CU mailing list and CU wiki. --Johannnes89 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight access

[edit]
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

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • 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.

Pwyll@cywiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Requests for removal of access as User:Pwyll hasn't edited since December 2018. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notices sent as per policy; no reply received. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done per Thaf below. EPIC (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thaf@cywiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Requests for removal of access as User:Thaf hasn't edited since September 2018. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy seems to require sending two notices to inactive administrators and removal if they have not responded to either of them. This doesn't seem to have been met for these requests? EPIC (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notices sent as per policy; no reply received. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The local policy seems to require two notices, one with a month of leeway and another after one month has passed, and finally removal a week after the second notice. Has this recently been changed? EPIC (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. yes, you're correct and the community is aware of the conflict (30 days warning on wiki; 7 days here). I've informed the community of this on the above link, and that the policy needs to be changed to 7 days. In the meantime, let's go ahead. If the user does come back, then we will of course reinstate their Admin rights immediately. Thanks again. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done as there is support for removal/policy change after a week. EPIC (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArystanbekBot@kkwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Sorry for disturbing you again, I forgot to ask for removal for the bot of a previous admin User:Arystanbek, who was mentioned above. --Batyrbek.kz (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EPIC (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CaroFraTyskland@dewiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

CaroFraTyskland was elected as a bureaucrat two years ago (candidacy, permission). Per policy, a bureaucrat "must stand for re-election no later than two years after his last election or re-election". She also confirmed that she will not run for re-election. With thanks for her service, I request the removal of her crat-flag. --TenWhile6 14:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done with thanks for their service. EPIC (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathis B@frwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Hi, please remove my CU rights, I am almost no longer active. Thanks, Mathis B (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done with thanks for your service. EPIC (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove me from the private wiki and mailing-list as well. Mathis B (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the list admins to handle that. It should be taken care of soon. EPIC (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Mars@plwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Please anul my oversight permissions as a result of the resignation. Mathieu Mars (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. Noting that this will also leave plwiki with only two local oversighters (i.e the minimum number) and the community might therefore want to consider electing a new OS. EPIC (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment: @EPIC, one election is pending. Karol739 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Mars@plwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

I would like to resign from my admin permissions. Mathieu Mars (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edslov@eswikinews

[edit]
Status:    Done

I resign my admin permissions. Thank you. Edslov (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done with thanks for your service. EPIC (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThiênĐế98@vi.wiktionary

[edit]
Status:    Done
 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done with thanks for your service. EPIC (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purodha@udmwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Deceased user, kindly remove bot rights --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EPIC (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purodha@cdowiki

[edit]
Status:    Locally handled

Deceased user, kindly remove bot rights --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki has local bureaucrats, have you asked them? EPIC (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, wrongly assumed that this wiki isn't large enough to have local 'crats. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have informed a local crat so I'm leaving this to be locally handled at this time, so marking as such. EPIC (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=28312243"