Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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.

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 you're requesting access for multiple bots, leave this field blank and give a list of these bots 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     =
  |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.

Turkmen@azwiktionary

leksey@ruwikibooks

[edit]
Status:    On hold

We need a final decision, here. According to local policy, applications for permanent administrator permission shall be supported by 8 voters За and be open for 1 weeks. The required polling period has completed with no opposition opinion received. Leksey (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can absolutely grant but I'm not too sure the community is large enough for permanent admins at this time (out of the 26 non-bot users who have edited in the past 30 days, only six have more than 10 actions). Anyways, I'll bring it up with the others to see what they say. EPIC (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently one permanent admin on the project and no other admin. Similar to the other user [1] we should start with temporary permissions first in my opinion (e.g. 1 year) and grant permanent adminship in a consecutive request. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Leksey (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The local rules of the Russian section of Wikibooks state that permanent rights are granted if more than 6 users vote for a candidate.
I will not oppose if temporary rights are granted. Leksey (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TiberiuFr25@rowikisource

[edit]
Status:    Done

Hello! My previous rights as administrator have expired and I would like to renew them. Thank you. TiberiuFr25 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2025-03-06. 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) 19:04, 6 September 2024 (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.

Barkeep49@enWiki

[edit]
Status:    Done

Thank you. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done and welcome back! Notifying list admins to handle the rest. EPIC (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (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

Lhoussine AIT TAYFST@zghwiki

[edit]
Status:    Not done

Request for Importer Permissions --Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What will you use import for, and for how long will you need it? Importupload is quite cautious and we generally do not grant it permanently on wikis as small as zghwiki. If it is a one time task, we could perform it instead. EPIC (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want to import from a few specific wikis you can also request on Phabricator to add them to the list of sister projects for transwiki import so you can import from them with transwiki import. --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EPIC @Ameisenigel, thank you for your prompt reponse! I require importer permissions to import a large number of articles as HTML files, which have been written in both the Tifinagh and Latin scripts. I will transliterate them into Tifinagh before importing. I need this permission specifically for this task. --Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lhoussine AIT TAYFST: Thanks for your response, however, I still don't fully understand what you need it for? The way I understand it, you want to convert articles to HTML files; however, this is not what import is meant for, the purpose of import is to import pages from one wiki to another. EPIC (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now think I understand what you mean; however, as Ameisenigel already mentioned, this is not how import works. Importupload cannot be done with HTML files, it is performed by going to Special:Export on a MediaWiki wiki, exporting a page as an XML file and importing the XML file at Special:Import on the target wiki. See mw:Help:Import. EPIC (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot import HTML files, importupload only works with XML files. --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all @Ameisenigel @EPIC Thank you for your prompt response. I apologize for the confusion; I mistakenly referred to the files as HTML when I meant XML. I would like to import XML files into the Amazigh Wikipedia. --Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lhoussine AIT TAYFST: Thanks for your clarification. OK, how much time would be enough for performing your tasks? EPIC (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these XML files coming from? What is the nature of the licensing of their revisions? — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ameisenigel @Xaosflux @EPIC I'm supporting @Lhoussine AIT TAYFST with this task which we have started during the Wikimania Hackathon in Katowice. The articles will be exported from shiwiki in XML format, the raw texts and titles will be converted from Berber-Latin to Tifinagh script, then the converted XML will be imported to zghwiki. The community will take care of adjusting those articles further manually. Ideophagous (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good enough for granting import but I will also need to know how long to grant it for. I could go ahead and grant the rights once that is clarified. EPIC (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. @EPIC This sounds problematic. Exporting from a WMF wiki, manipulating the content, and reimporting -- this seems like it will cause attribution problems. @Lhoussine AIT TAYFST: exactly how is this being avoided? — xaosflux Talk 22:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you could not just use transwiki import to import the articles and use a bot to convert the script afterwards? Changing that directly in the XML file does not sound good to me. --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even if you are using tooling to do your translations (and your project is fine with machine translations) - you could still (a)export, (b) run your machine tooling, (c) use the API to publish the translation (provide attribution for the "translated from" source in the initial edit summary). There are also many other strategies. — xaosflux Talk 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are correct. Waiting for a response then. EPIC (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ameisenigel @EPIC @Xaosflux shiwiki is written in the western dialect of Berber/Tamazight, in Latin-Berber, whereas zghwiki is written in Standard Tamazight of Morocco using Neo-Tifinagh script. @Lhoussine AIT TAYFST can probably answer this better, but as far as I understand, the dialects of Tamazight often display more influence from Arabic and French, whereas the Standard form is more pure. Nonetheless, they are close enough that simply by changing the script, all that's left will be to adjust some word choices to a more standard form, which can be done manually. I'm not sure it's a good idea to import a large number of articles in a different script, and then do the script conversion afterwards. Also, only articles missing from zghwiki will be included. By the way, the script conversion was already implemented in shiwiki, using the language converter, and if there's a way to import the articles and convert the script at the same time, that would certainly be a better solution to using a bot. Ideophagous (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lhoussine AIT TAYFST: I've added temporary importer for you on testwiki, please import a couple of these to demonstrate the process. — xaosflux Talk 09:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xaosflux Thank you very much for your assistance. I will proceed with testing the procedure as you outlined. --Lhoussine AIT TAYFST (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lhoussine AIT TAYFST: As you have still not done so, I have extended your import rights for another week. If all looks good then I am inclined towards granting the rights as you have your community's consensus, but please do finish the demonstration this week if you have the time, otherwise this is likely to result in being declined. EPIC (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lhoussine AIT TAYFST: You haven't proceeded with the imports after two weeks, are you still in need of the rights? I'll leave this open for a few more days to give time for a response, otherwise this will likely be closed. EPIC (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 As there has ultimately not been any response here after two weeks, I will unfortunately have to close this as Not done. EPIC (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2024 (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.

Vargenau@wikidata

[edit]
Status:    On hold

Please remove the sysop rights @wikidata for Vargenau due to inactivity according to policy at wikidata. User has made o sysop actions in the last six months as of April 1st (see [2]). --Lymantria (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Please keep my admin rights. It is true I have be active recently in wikidata as I have been mostly busy on French Wikipedia. I have just restarted using my admin rights.
Vargenau (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could close this request then? User no longer meets criteria for removal and has expressed intent to resume their activity. EPIC (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for CP errors this morning (I apparently wasn't completely awake yet). The date is September 1st in stead of April 1st. I don't oppose you stretching our policy to include September 1st, but IMHO it is border line. --Lymantria (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Urbanec@wikidata

[edit]
Status:    On hold

Please remove the sysop rights @wikidata for Vogone due to inactivity according to policy at wikidata. User has made 4 sysop actions in the last six months as of April 1st (see [3]). --Lymantria (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymantria Please recheck. You're requesting removal of access for Vogone, listed is Martin Urbanec. Perhaps a lapsus? A09|(pogovor) 09:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assumably just an error, Martin is the correct one. Only reason this has not been processed yet is that we are waiting for a response from Martin as he is active elsewhere and only one sysop action away at the moment, so it is mostly up to him at this point. EPIC (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not require any response. --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it does not. But Mykola pinged him in the stewards' IRC channel as he is only one action away, and since there is no real rush we decided to wait. EPIC (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for CP errors this morning (I apparently wasn't completely awake yet). It is aobout Martin and the date is September 1st in stead of April 1st. --Lymantria (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Isn't pinging close to canvassing? Would you ping any user whose flag is requested to be removed for inactivity and is close to being active? This does not feel entirely comfortable. --Lymantria (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK on most wikis it is standard procedure to ping a user before their rights are (about to be) revoked. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at wikidata. --Lymantria (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have reached your goal by waiting long enough until Martin returned to activity and made the needed admin actions. This is not how our activity policy should work. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Martin returned to activity  – are you implying that this is bad?.. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. In this case, Mykola pinged them as they were still active elsewhere and only one sysop action away from being "active enough" - fine by me, also considering past situations such as Steward_requests/Permissions/2024-03#Mike_Peel@wikidata. EPIC (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed bad if people game our policy by performing some actions after the deadline. Instead they should ask the community for renewal of their rights. History showed us that the Wikidata Community is very welcoming to former administrators who want to return after inactivity. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I would have expected @Martin Urbanec: to at least make a comment here if they want to keep their rights (like Vargenau did in the section above). --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameisenigel I would like to explain why there is no comment from me so far. This is because I made it a long term practice to not comment on requests regarding myself unless asked to. That allows requests like this one to be handled independently. If my input is needed, I am responsive to pings, of course.
But, since you asked: I am interested in continuing to serve as a Wikidata administrator. Whether that happens by fulfilling this request and a possible future re-application or whether that happens by closing the request as not done is not my call – that is something one of the other stewards would need to make a decision on. Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Mike Peel is a good example for how it should work: Rights have been removed for inactivity and he has been re-elected by the community. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; others cannot read Martin's mind on their intentions to continue serving as a Wikidata admin unless they explicitly state so if they meet the inactivity criteria. SHB2000 (t • c) 10:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is done, is done, and I can live with this request (and the preceding one) being not done. But I would like to ask the stewards as well to consider local policies as valid, the current way of dealing with them makes local bureaucrats look funny. And what concerns me more is that cases might not be treated equally (one user warned, the other not). In wikidata perception of activity it is the responsibility of an admin to stay active. If not, they'll have to convince the community they will be active again and as stated above, the community is generally welcoming towards renewed adminship. Please. --Lymantria (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note here that, when Mykola notified Martin about this request, Vargenau had already finished the adequate admin actions and noted here that they wished to keep their rights, and thus there was nothing for us to do on that end. I had also purposefully waited with processing these requests after the Mike Peel thing in March to avoid removal in the case the admin is active and might have an intent to continue.
However, as a Wikidata admin myself, I would like to see the inactivity policy potentially reformed in the future in the way that the user is notified some time before removal (perhaps a week or so) to give them time to express whether they would like to continue. EPIC (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the important point: We would need to change our policy. Changing a policy with consensus of the Community is perfectly fine, circumventing the existing policy is not. --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EPIC, it strikes me as very strange that you are apparently handling these requests in your capacity as a steward when you're an administrator there. I know that you didn't declare Wikidata as a home-wiki when you were elected, but having adminship there should be reason enough to leave this to another steward.
I also agree with Ferien below. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but I just wanted to note that I am not planning to process this request myself. Wikidata is not my home wiki, and even if it would have been then I will point to a quote from a similar request:

Unless you can point to a specific conflict of interest that [steward] might have (or could even possibly have) in removing the rights, then I don't think it's useful to bring it up. That part of the steward policy is obviously meant to prevent stewards from being "super-users" on their home project, and I don't think that actioning uncontroversial requests on SRP is at all part of that.

Although I will once again note that I will not be the one processing or closing this request. EPIC (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience as an administrator is that there's a lot of power in declining requests, sometimes even more than actually carrying them out. While you have not changed the status of {{sr-request}} to "on hold", your comments here have had the same effect.
And so given the comments here, this situation is very different to the 2016 one: if you had just removed the adminship, fewer people would've been annoyed because those actions would've been clearly in accordance with Wikidata policy (if on dubious stewards policy grounds). But this request and the response to it has been obviously not uncontroversial because there is a perception that the current policy is being circumvented. A lot of your work on this page has been great, given your quick responses, but this one should've been left to someone else because even if you state that you aren't processing this one, there is a clear perception that you are. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I see your point. I didn't process the request mainly due to the past Mike Peel situation combined with the decision to wait. To respond to some of the criticism, the decision to wait with processing the request was not made by a specific steward but by some stewards as a group after the proposal came up shortly after Vargenau had finished their adequate admin actions (and because there was only one action remaining to meet the activity criteria).
I agree with some of the criticism, but I'll go ahead and leave this thread now, with note that I'd very much be willing to avoid Wikidata SRP requests should the community want me to. EPIC (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Lymantria. While returning to activity should always be welcomed, inactivity criteria should be taken literally. If a given admin meets the inactivity policy, their rights are supposed to be automatically removed. It shouldn't matter if they're one action off, that is the minimum activity expected by the community and they have failed to meet that minimum. If they don't meet the minimum, they don't get the rights, simple as that, and again I am a little concerned of the different treatment of users – while this isn't directly Martin's fault, it gives me very similar vibes to the issue that came up in his 2024 confirmation. If we are going to say they're close to the minimum so we're going to give them a chance, realistically what is the point of the policy in the first place if stewards have the ability to ignore its meaning? --Ferien (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, even though I don't deny that this discussion is in good faith. Leaderboard (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd like to note that I'm a strong proponent of removing rights due to inactivity. I noticed these two requests in the morning and saw some errors in them (the mention of Vogone and an incorrect date). In the stewards chat, I asked for other stewards opinions on Vargenau, as by the time I saw these requests, he had already made the necessary number of admin actions. When I was in the process of writing question, I noticed that Martin was online and, out of courtesy, I asked him about his future activity. Perhaps if it weren't for the errors in the request and Vargenau's return to activity, I would have processed them immediately, as I had done before, but these factors made me pause. In no way was it my intention to delay the requests for waiting long enough until Martin returned to activity. I wrote about requests in the stewards chat and went to work. And in no way does anyone consider your policy not valid or the bureaucrats to be funny. There were simply misunderstandings from the beginning with these requests. I apologize if this situation caused any annoyed. Mykola 21:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It did, but apologies accepted. And the copy-paste errors were my bad. --Lymantria (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal for both requests: Given that both users expressed their interest in continuing their adminship and now meet the activity criteria, we should let them keep their permissions this time.
But I agree with Lymantria that the way we reacted to the requests is not how it's supposed to happen, especially not with large communities. Wikidata is not a small community which accidentally created inactivity criteria with unintended consequences, they deliberately chose to implement immediate removal without prior notification. It's not up to us to comment on this process, we should rather carry out such community consensus. Other projects like enwiki, dewiki or Commons allow bureaucrats to remove admin permissions themselves. If Wikidata had a similar policy, both Vargenau and Martin would be without admin permissions right now.
That's why in addition to letting both requests go, we should note in our steward handbook that inactivity requests by bureaucrats are to be carried out without leeway for stewards, in order to prevent similar situations from happening again. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For large communities, sysop removals should be done by bureaucrats locally. This likely resolves all issues addressed here. Krd 06:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I think generally the role of stewards around this type of request is to implement the request of the local bureaucrats without adding their own notifications/interpretation of the local policy, especially for large projects with mature self-governance like Wikidata. I personally would much prefer notifications before desysopping, but I also am not super pleased with how this was handled. (and since I was quoted above re: conflicts of interest/actions related to home wiki, it is also important to note that two former stewards disagreed with my interpretation there, and I also noted that the entire problem could have been avoided with more discretion...) – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy@enwiki

[edit]
Status:    Done
 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you for your service, Spicy. List admins will handle the rest, and @Krd: for the VRT access. EPIC (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

[edit]
Status:    Withdrawn

Please remove my sysop and arbcom rights.Friniate (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. Note that we will only remove your sysop rights, as your ArbCom rights can be removed by local bureaucrats. EPIC (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An impulse request for minor reasons. Please reconsider. --Elwood (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that, while I am not aware of the reasons in question, Friniate is of course free to withdraw this request should they want to. EPIC (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take the resignation back. Sorry for the inconvenience. Friniate (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issue, marking as withdrawn. EPIC (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2024 (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=27424617"