Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Steward requests/Permissions

< Steward requests
(Redirected from Requests for permissions)
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 requirements 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.

Umarxon III@uzwikiquote

edit
Status:    In progress

Admin Renewal Uncle Bash007@ha.wikipedia

edit
Status:    In progress

(your remarks) Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am sysop of Uzbek Wikiquote. I am re-submitting my candidacy due to the upcoming deadline. Thanks. Umarxon III (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Laura Fiorucci@es.wikiquote

edit
Status:    On hold

Abrí una votación, siguiendo las políticas de votación del proyecto, para solicitar los permisos de administradora en Wikiquote en español. Este proyecto cuenta con un burócrata que no edita desde hace más de un año y tampoco tiene habilitado el correo electrónico para informarle de la votación. Wikiquote en español cuenta solamente con una administradora activa. Solicito que se me den los permisos de administrador. Saludos, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Laura Fiorucci: Have you asked the local bureaucrat, who is able to grant the rights locally?
[Traducción automática/Machine translation] ¿Le has preguntado al burócrata local quién puede conceder los derechos a nivel local? EPIC (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC: El burócrata local User:LlamaAl no edita desde el 17:03 30 ene 2024 y tampoco tiene activado el correo electrónico. No hay manera de preguntarle ¿O te refieres a otra persona?. No hay más burócratas en Wikiquote en español. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Non-stew comment Please note that almost all votes come from users who have not been active for years (or never active or very rarely) on that project (this applies to both support and opposition). This is not what should be done for transparency, we have always said that for projects with few active users even no vote is enough, but it's not at all pleasant to see a procedure like this (let's say it's frustrating and doesn't help the work of those who have to decide on the flag). I don't see any point in a local policy that requires global edits as a sufficient requirement to vote for local admins, it's very dangerous, sorry for the OT! --Superpes15 (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  On hold Per above and after some information provided to me privately, I plan to discuss this internally first. EPIC (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon from the south. I would like to know and understand the reason for the delay.
I opened an election process using the Wikiquote community guidelines. I won the election. I'm not a newcomer; I've been involved with Wikimedia projects for 19 years, 15 of those years as a bureaucrat for the Spanish Wikipedia.
I was the founder of Wikimedia Venezuela. I'm a member of Wikimedia Argentina, Wikimedia Spain, and the groups Users of Latin American Women in Wikimedia and Wikimedians of Bolivia. I'm familiar with the Spanish-language editor community and the guidelines for several projects (see my global contributions). And I'm not a hat collector.
Most of the upvoters, including the Spanish-language Wikiquote administrator, are long-time users of Wikimedia projects, some of them are long-time bureaucrats at Spanish Wikipedia. Can you tell me why this is taking so long? Have you asked Wikiquote administrator @Jaluj: what she thinks of the process?
Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:EPIC, It's been 14 days since my request and I haven't heard back. Any updates or do I need to contact someone else? Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:EPIC,I am writing to express a serious concern regarding recent decisions affecting the autonomy of the Spanish Wikiquote (esWikiquote) project in the election and appointment of its administrators.
Until recently, esWikiquote had four administrators: User:LlamaAl, User:Ayagaures 0, User:Cookie, and myself. However, on 2025-03-24 at 00:13 (UTC), user EPIC removed both administrator and bureaucrat rights from User:Cookie. As a result, I am now the only administrator remaining on the project.
It is important to underline that esWikiquote is a project with its own policies and community, and we have made efforts to establish a functioning and autonomous local governance. In 2020, the community of esWikiquote voted on and adopted clear eligibility criteria for voters and for administrative elections, as seen here: https://es.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?oldid=401624#Requisitos_para_derecho_a_voto_en_Wikiquote
Although I personally voted against those criteria at the time, I have always respected and abided by the community’s consensus.
The need for an additional administrator is evident, as shown by the number of interventions carried out by global sysops. For example, see the contributions of User:Galahad: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/Galahad
User:Galahad is indeed an active and valuable contributor to esWikiquote. However, he has not been elected as a local administrator. We greatly appreciate his collaboration, but he is not a substitute for having elected local administrators chosen by our community through transparent and democratic processes.
This situation highlights the importance of reinforcing local administrative capacity. esWikiquote aspires to be an autonomous project, not one that must rely on global sysops to perform essential maintenance and administrative tasks.
Recently, a local vote was held to appoint a new administrator, and it met all the established voting criteria: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Candidaturas_a_administrador#Laura_Fiorucci
The candidate, User:Laura Fiorucci, received 14 votes in favor and 3 against (a support ratio of 82.35%), clearly surpassing the threshold required for approval. Yet, to our surprise and concern, the stewards have refused to assign her the appropriate flags. This raises an important question: Why are the decisions of the esWikiquote community not being respected by the stewards?
The reason Laura Fiorucci has not requested User:LlamaAl to assign the flags is that on 2024-03-14 at 18:03, User:Mykola7, a steward, removed his bureaucrat rights.
Regarding User:Superpes15, who makes this complaint, while we appreciate the work of global sysops, we must point out that he is not a member of the esWikiquote community, he has not contributed to the project in years (last action recorded on 12 April 2023: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/Superpes15), and his primary language is not Spanish. Therefore, his sudden involvement in local decisions is unexpected and difficult to understand.
In light of the above, we kindly and firmly insist on the autonomy of esWikiquote to elect its own administrators according to its internal policies and democratic procedures. We respectfully request that the stewards reconsider their decision and recognize the outcome of the community vote to appoint Laura Fiorucci as a local administrator.
We are confident that this request aligns with the values of decentralization, transparency, and respect for local communities that Wikimedia strives to uphold.
Thank you very much for your attention and understanding.--Jalu (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the rest of this, but LlamaAL does still have crat rights per es:q:Especial:PermisosUsuarios/LlamaAl contrary to your claim. Mykola7 revoked LlamaAl's rights on the Spanish Wikipedia, which has tighter inactivity policies, but not the Spanish Wikiquote. * Pppery * it has begun 03:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that the request is on hold mainly for two reasons. Firstly, there are quite strong claims of canvassing (es:Wikipedia:Proselitismo in Spanish) in this specific discussion which has also been noted to me through some off-wiki emails, and secondly, there is a local bureaucrat who is able to grant the rights, which in any case will delay a request like this for the stewards. EPIC (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EPIC:. The Wikiquote bureaucrat hasn't edited for over a year; his last contribution was on January 30, 2024, at 5:03 PM UTC. He also has disabled email. I wrote on his talk page on April 2, 2025, at 7:25 PM UTC, and he hasn't responded; in fact, he hasn't responded to anyone in over a year.
User Jaluj is NOT a bureaucrat; she's an administrator, and she can't grant me permissions.
I assume the accusation of proselytizing is from Meruleh, a user who has been working on Wikimedia projects for two years. Perhaps she doesn't know that when someone has been working on projects for 19 years and is also a bureaucrat on another wiki (like me), everyone knows about your actions, whether out of friendship or enmity. I haven't sent any emails to anyone, and I even refrained from notifying the Telegram channels I'm on because I know the rules.
As I said above: I respected Wikiquote's procedures (I can translate the rules for you if you'd like); I'm not a hat collector; you can check my overall contributions to see my commitment to the projects. Best regards, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all that said, what do my two years with this account have to do with anything? For the record, I’ve been contributing to Wikimedia Foundation projects for over twenty years, and for more than fifteen years to independent initiatives like Vikidia. Is this about trying to assert superiority? And yes, there was spam in the Spanish Wikipedia Telegram group, using phrases such as: “After 19 years of work on Wikipedia, 14 of which as an admin, I’ve decided to launch my candidacy on Wikiquote”, along with a link to the candidacy: ¿"and I even refrained from notifying the Telegram channels I'm on because I know the rules"?. That message was curiously deleted after almost a month, yet the original notice to the community remained, encouraging people to vote. While the voting policy allows users from other projects to participate, that doesn’t change the fact that the candidacy was openly promoted. The vote also included support from -jem-, the vice president of Wikimedia España, while you are the president. That user does not contribute to Wikiquote. Will you claim that this is not campaigning? There were votes from users who had been active in Wikimedia projects for less than a month. Others did meet the criteria, but many were affiliated with the Muj(lh)eres latinoamericanas en Wikimedia, which you co-founded with Jaluj. I mention this because I was once part of your council, and I resigned precisely because I did not share the values being promoted—specifically, these values. If I make accusations, it’s because I know what I’m talking about—I’ve seen it and verified it. No one wins by lying; on the contrary, what we lose is trust. And if you yourself have acknowledged that Wikiquote lacks a solid community, how did an unfamiliar group—most of whom have never contributed—suddenly appear to vote for you? —Meruleh {talk} 19:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've been involved with the Wikimedia Foundation for so many years. It's a shame it's not reflected in the project logs. The Telegram message is there as it was the day I sent it, Meruleh. It hasn't been deleted, and it was sent without a link to the vote. That Telegram channel on Spanish Wikipedia advertises a lot of things. Proselytizing is saying "go vote for me." And yes, I'm involved in many things: Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikimedians of Bolivia, Wikimedia Spain, Latin American Women, and Wikimedia Argentina, among others; in addition to providing editing training in different places... that's why many people know me and love me and know of my good work and commitment to projects. It's strange to ask for buttons to participate in small Wikis without even going through a notice in the Café, and other movements that I won't post here and that the some community itself rejected. The group that voted, both up and down (like you, who had 20 edits and had become very active when user cookie's buttons were removed, or the other user who came in just to downvote me, a single contribution on Wikiquote) is a diverse group, but it doesn't go against Wikiquote's rules. No matter what happens, I will continue contributing to the projects and, more than ever, I will be on the lookout for vandals, improving the projects, and pursuing hat collectors and those who want to take advantage of volunteer work or gain power in a horizontal project. Regards, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC:: For your attention. In accordance with the administrator appointment policy, the nomination of @Laura Fiorucci: has been dismissed on Wikiquote, as it does not comply with the relevant policy, which explicitly states: "Candidates should be submitted by veteran editors who are trusted by the community [...]". In this case, the nomination was not submitted by any veteran user nor by a local administrator, and therefore cannot be considered valid. The community has been informed accordingly. Regards, —Meruleh {talk} 05:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the OT
@Jaluj: I didn't intervene in any local decisions. I was just pointing out that almost all the votes are not from active users in the project (and this is a fact and honestly, from the outside, it's not a very nice thing to look at). In these cases I, when I was a steward, always assigned the flag for 3 months behaving as if the request had no votes (which is fine for stewards to assign the flag anyway) or, if there is a local policy as in this case, I always applied it, maybe suggesting to change something, in this case I'd say that imho it's too large, because users who are not active on that project should not be able to vote for that project (but it's just a single opinion). Basically it's more problematic to do canvassing than not having votes. Nobody is altering a procedure, there is a local bureaucrat first of all. Stewards haven't decided anything yet, so I don't understand why you said "the stewards have refused to assign her the appropriate flags", while they are still waiting for someone to try to contact the local bureaucrat LlamaAl, who is currently a 'crat (regardless of the fact that the project is likely not so big as to require bureaucrats, and having an inactive one only creates problems). Lately, I don't understand this desire to create controversy at all costs, saying that stewards don't respect local consensus, while all the functionaries are here to always look for transparent and clear procedures. Last thing, I'm just happy if you have one more sysop and I'm even happier if you elect 10 more, but if you don't want the global sysops and stewards to intervene or if you perceive them as an intrusion or a reduction of community power, just open a discussion on your village pump and ask for removing them without too many problems, instead of criticize global functionaries, as happened in other projects. Please note that I didn't comment as a global sysop here, but as a normal user, and I think it's sad that one could think the opposite or that I'm trying to show any kind of "power" or hat. Thanks for your understanding. --Superpes15 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ysrael214@tlwiktionary

edit
Status:    On hold

I'm a native speaker trying to get adminship for tl.wiktionary.org as the Tagalog Wiktionary is heavily unmaintained and I want to cleanup some unnecessary articles. I do most of my editing on the English Wiktionary instead but I can transfer my efforts in the Tagalog version if needed. Also, Tagalog Wiktionary lacks admins so requests there are often ignored. Ysrael214 (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold The request was just opened today. It is imperative to wait for the community to discuss it first, at least for 7 days. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 14:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ssgapu22@or.wikisource

edit
Status:    Done

2 supports / 0 oppose; 100% result. Please extend the admin rights of User:Ssgapu22. Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the discussion started on 11 April, so   On hold until 18 April, as according to the MVR it must last at least one week. AramilFeraxa (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2026-04-18. 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) 07:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you AramilFeraxa and EPIC.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Mohamad@gor.wikiquote

edit
Status:    Done

Hello, I want to extend my admin rights on Gorontalo Wikiquote. Thank you. Marwan Mohamad (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2026-04-19. 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. AramilFeraxa (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-chanakyakdas@aswikiquote

edit
Status:    On hold

I would like to request both administrator and interface administrator rights for the Assamese Wikiquote project. Thank you. -chanakyakdas (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold until 25 April. The discussion was opened yesterday. According to the MVR it must last at least one week. AramilFeraxa (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonfd1992@guc.wikipedia

edit
Status:    On hold

Hello, I kindly request the renewal of my permission as administrator of guc.wikipedia for 6 months. The voting has already taken place. Thank you! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leonfd1992 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  non-stew comment. @Leonfd1992: I moved your request from the removal section to the access section (here). Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Galahad. Best regards. Leonfd1992 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  On hold until 25 April. The discussion was opened two days ago and according to the MVR it must last at least one week. AramilFeraxa (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @AramilFeraxa, thank you very much. We'll wait. Best regards. Leonfd1992 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babitha Shetty@tcywikisource

edit
Status:    On hold

Requesting to extend my admin rights and add interface admin right to my user account.Babitha Shetty (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold I have sent you instructions regarding your interface admin request via email. I have gone ahead and renewed you regular adminship for now. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

सौरभ तिवारी 05@hiwikisource

edit
Status:    Done

Please extend this user's admin access as per local discussion. Temporary rights ends on 22nd April. Thanks. --अजीत कुमार तिवारी (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted for 2 years to expire on 2027-04-20. 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) 12:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aristorkle@cbk-zamwikipedia

edit
Status:    Done

I would like to renew my general administrator rights on the Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia. Thanks. --Aristorkle (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2025-10-21. 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. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Çınarcan@gag.wikipedia.org

edit
Status:    Not done

I have re-applied to renew my service rights. I kindly request your consideration. Çınarcan (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done There is no consensus to renew your rights. AramilFeraxa (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AramilFeraxa The users who have given me oppose votes had a conflict with me in Turkish Wikipedia. I had moved on from there to the Gagauz Wikipedia project to be able to continue contributing without a hostile environment. These users then came to this Wiki and started exhibiting unfriendly behaviour to me and to people who supported me. We wanted to set ground rules for whose vote would be eligible, so that this cross-wiki behaviour wouldn't be disruptive. These users opposed any proposal we gave in this regard, and treated with hostility anyone who opposed them, both on the site and in the Telegram group, I can provide the evidence if you'd like.
The two users didn't have any substantive contributions to the Gagauz Wikipedia. Their primary contributions have been to hound me whenever I tried to do anything on the Wiki. I believe, though perhaps they can confirm themselves, that other users who would have supported my application, didn't do so because they saw that consensus wasn't going to be met either way. I have given this Wiki a lot of my time and effort, and will continue doing so even with this behaviour from the users, but it will slow me down. I understand that you cannot grant me sysop privileges at this point, but please advise me on what I can do in the future to avoid similar situations to this one. Çınarcan (talk) 11:00, 22 April 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.

Umarxon III@uz.wikiquote

edit
Status:    In progress

Hello. I am re-submitting my candidacy to interface adminship due to the upcoming deadline. Thanks. Umarxon III (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

咽頭べさ@mnw.wiktionary

edit
Status:    In progress

I would like to ask a question about the Interface administrator, I applied for the Interface administrator position but it's been almost a month now, why isn't it finished yet? See ဝိက်ရှေန်နရဳ:ညးကောပ်ကာဲ--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 04:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related requests:
This advice [3] apparently wasn't followed [4]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bicolino34@uk.wikisource

edit
Status:    Done

I would like to receive Interface administrator access as per the above community discussion (3 supports / 0 oppose). --Bicolino34 (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bicolino34: Is the discussion for both sysop and interface admin flags? The request mentions both rights, but only the IA flag was mentioned here. EPIC (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's for both A and IA flags. They already contacted me about this, I provided the 2FA tester flag and directed them here. Mykola 13:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,   Granted for 6 months to expire on 2025-10-18. 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) 13:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Aca@shwiktionary

edit
Status:    Done

Hello! I would like to request importer rights in a duration of three months based on the discussion. Serbo-Croatian and Bosnian Wiktionary are now ready to merge, so I would like to import pages in main, Template, and Category namespaces. Pages in Project and Help namespaces are already imported using transwiki import. Thank you in advance, Aca (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit hesitant about this? Merging two projects is generally something that should be done by the Language Committee, who also have the ability to perform such imports. EPIC (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC: Thank you for your comment. I didn't provide the full background on this. The Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian communities recently decided to merge their Wiktionaries (bs, sh). Following this landmark decision, we contacted the Language Committee in order to find out the best way to implement the community consensus, and MF-Warburg, a LangCom member specifically designated for project closures, suggested we should move the pages over and later formally "ratify" the move through a PCP (link). After informing the Bosnian community about the proposed solution and since there were no objections, I started the implementation, so that's why I requested these rights here. Hopefully this clarifies the case. :) – Aca (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Done granted for three months after receiving some more context, both here and off-wiki. Remember to be careful since XML import is quite sensitive. EPIC (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merci ! Acknowledged, Aca (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

LlamaAl@eswikiquote

edit
Status:    In progress

Please remove his sysop and 'crat rights. LlamaAl does not have a mail account enabled, being a mandatory requirement according to local policies. Thanks. Leoncastro (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  non-stew comment: Just a clarification: the rules mentioned are not official policies. They were never approved or rejected by the community, nor were they ever put to a vote—something that still hasn't happened to this day. Therefore, it's invalid to treat such a requirement as mandatory, since it originates from a proposal that is over 20 years old. —Meruleh {talk} 22:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy was created in 2005 including its requirements from its origin. In those days everything was different, as it was always a small community with few users. In these origins one administrator was enough to create a local policy. No one has rejected it since then, since twenty years. The user LlamaAl was designated administrator in 2013 according to that policy and its conditions, with three favor votes. Yes, this is a small community. I think it is ok to invalidate the conditions of a local policies in conflict with global ones, but this is not the case. If the conditions of a local policy are invalidated simply because it was not voted on twenty years ago, would have to be invalidated almost all rules, even the most basic. Most importantly, if a local policy is not going to be accepted, then it should be clearly reflected locally and with the global policy that override it. -- Leoncastro (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  non-stew comment: If we go by that standard, you're essentially admitting — or rather, we're admitting — that it was arbitrarily enforced: no approval, no consensus. — just added by an administrator and left like that. Almost 20 years have passed, and it was never properly discussed. Stewards cannot act against a user based on something that was never officially approved, especially when it was unilaterally labeled as "policy" just because someone wanted it to be. By reading the pages, the discussions, and the edit history, it’s clear that everyone involved was fully aware this was being imposed without a proper process. It was edited and modified over time based on consensus between administrators — not the community. What’s more, it’s telling that in one of those supposed "policies," the administrator who created it left an edit summary saying: “Enough time has passed, this proposal now becomes policy!!” What does “enough time” even mean, if there was never a vote or any formal deadline defined? This clearly shows these “policies” are not legitimate — they are just proposals. And you cannot request the removal of a user based on a proposal that was never officially approved. Saying "the community is too small" is not a valid excuse. It’s also suspicious that this request for removal comes even though the user has had the feature disabled for over 10 years. Could this be related to the fact that they are the only bureaucrat (afk) and refused to promote a user whose admin candidacy had suspicious votes? In any case, there is no excuse: if there was no vote, then this was never — and still isn’t — a valid policy. It won’t be one until there is a proper vote. The size of the community or the time that has passed is irrelevant. That’s all from my side — this isn’t meant to be a full discussion, just a clarification for the steward handling the case: this is not a policy, and it cannot be used as a basis for removal. —Meruleh {talk} 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious votes like yours (with just two weeks old and less than twenty editions in the project at the time of the vote). I have not voted with five years old and half a hundred editions, so I do not know what you are trying to accuse. Yes, there were also people with even fewer edits than you (some made their first and only contribution by voting), but the voting policy —which I do not agree— was approved by consensus in 2020. I have no relation with Laura Fiorucci, and I do not know if I can agree with her or not. But I respect the policies (de facto or de jure) even if I do not agree with them. Is this request related with the other one? Yes. Because I see that our bureaucrat was almost inactive for the last five years, that does not use the rights for the last two years, neglecting their job and even worse unreachable. Which should be sufficient reason for removal. -- Leoncastro (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Meruleh. It's very unfortunate that you're mixing one request with another. It's also very rude of you to accuse me without naming me, preventing me from defending myself; an accusation that, moreover, is out of place in this thread. The bureaucrat, I assume you're referring to LlamaAl, didn't "refuse to promote me"; he simply hasn't been active on any of the projects for years and deactivated his email. Ergo, he's unreachable. The voting policy was respected; you may like it or not, but the active procedure was respected. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  non-stew comment: Laura Fiorucci: How could I not connect one thing to the other? This is clearly related to your recent candidacy. He’s the only bureaucrat, and you’re depending on him to permissions. If it weren’t for that, I highly doubt Leoncastro would have come here to request the removal of a user based on a non-official policy arbitrarily enforced by a former admin. I don’t need to mention or name you here — I already did so explicitly on your candidacy page, and here’s the link. I assume you haven’t seen it yet, but yes, I did raise the issue there, because your candidacy is clearly suspicious. And apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so — someone from the U4C already pointed it out, and I assume it's also being reviewed by the stewards. It also clearly states there that he’s refusing to act because he’s "AFK" (Away From Keyboard). This is not about personal preferences — it’s about a case of canvassing. In any case, I don’t need to elaborate further. As an administrator, you should know very well that this is not the place for a debate — this is not the Café. That’s what the discussion pages are for. And you had more than enough time to address this when I first pointed out the suspicious votes you received in a project that, even you admit, lacks a solid community — and yet somehow, people mysteriously showed up just to vote. That’s unusual, Laura — unusual for the project. Again, from my side, this ends here. This is not a Café. I don’t need any explanations — you can give those to the steward handling the matter. —Meruleh {talk} 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit hesitant about actioning this request. The page indeed mentions that the admin needs to have email enabled, but also nothing about what happens if an admin doesn't. There's no mention of any removal criteria in such cases (e.g. removal a certain amount of days after being notified), and no mention of any requirement that such an admin should be removed if they do not meet it. I'd rather either see a confirmation voting for the administrator in question, so that the community can evaluate whether they should retain their rights (if the issue is rather one of inactivity), or a clear community decision on what to do with admins who do not meet the requirements. EPIC (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC, the local policy states that email enabled is a requirement to be sysop. Obviously if the requirements are not meet it is a clear reason for removal. For eample, 2FA is a requirement to be steward, but stewards policy has no mention of such removal criteria. Also 2FA is a requirement to be interface administrators and the MediaWiki system software automatically removes this rights if does not meet this technical requirement. In this case, disabling the mail does not automatic trigger the removal, but is still a non-compliant requirement to be solved here. In addition, the practical inactivity of the sysop does not help in this case. No administrative actions in the last three years and only one edition in the last five years. A single edit just to bypass the inactivity policy. Seems that the user does not want to help with their rights, but simply wants to keep them. -- Leoncastro (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antón Francho@eswiki

edit
Status:    Done

Hello, the administrator has passed away. In accordance with the established protocol for such cases, the removal of their administrator and bureaucrat permissions is requested. The community has already been informed of the passing. —Meruleh {talk} 19:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done rest in peace, and thanks for their service. EPIC (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dcirovic@sr.wikipedia

edit
Status:    Done

Please remove his sysop rights per the local inactivity policy, more than a six months without sysops action. --Ранко Николић (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done with thanks for their service. EPIC (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne@it.wikipedia

edit
Status:    Done

Please remove sysop rights. Etienne has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thanks in advance, --Mtarch11 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done with thanks for their service. EPIC (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Mura@it.wikipedia

edit
Status:    On hold

--Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. AramilFeraxa (talk) 13:00, 22 April 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=28585117"