Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions/2014-12

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests | Permissions
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Pavlo1 in topic CheckUser access

Administrator access

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

User [email protected]

Status:    Not done
Please clarify what is requested. Temporary adminship for 20 days? For what reason? Preferably a community discussion should happen first, certainly for stuff that is "extended". --MF-W 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Temporary adminship for 20 days, I have indicated it here, Decision for extension will be available at the end of 20 days, thank you --Parthava 11:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Parthava: Still do you need the rights to be granted for Aleksandr19? If yes please state your reason clearly and provide link to local community decision. Community discussion should happen in a central place like Community portal or village pump, not on user talk pages.--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Marking this as Not done as there is no response, feel free to add a new request if needed--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

مجیب الرحمٰن@sdwikipedia

Status:    Not done

(I want to be admin to delete empty articles and improve the Sindhi wikipedia.) مجیب الرحمٰن (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done Your account has been blocked in en wiki for abusing multiple accounts. Although the en wiki block is not related to this request, seems users voted here are your socks. So marking this as not done --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mjbmr@fawikinews

Status:    Not done

Temp access for three months, thank you.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 07:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The user has history of misusing the tool and being blocked in multiple projects, and in This RFA most of the votes are loan votes from fawiki and most of voters have no edit in faWikinews, I would like to mark this request as not done, but I would like to another steward take a look to this request Mardetanha talk 05:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Vote page has been open since 12th Dec to 19th Dec and is locked by local admin, no objection in this time has been made. btw no misusing has been done by me.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 06:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an existing problem between this user and a steward at the home wiki of the steward. This has resulted in statements, maybe accusations being made, and that are not relevant to a wikiworld; and noting that this user was blocked here for an extended period for continuing on that matter. I wish to know that in granting rights that these contentious matters are not going to occur in conversations on faWN.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm good at avoiding issues like this happen but sometime the person don't like kisses and hugs, if you don't think this grant should not be done, you better have a good excuse for local community.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 13:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That is called avoiding answering the question. The request was for a reassurance of how you would undertake the role and to not undertake contentious conversations/matters, not an inflammatory comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'll refrain from occurring issues of conflict. But I didn't mean to avoid answering your question, I meant this request is for a community not only myself, 'cause I'm looking to help the project.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 08:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I won't let the contentious matters happen in fawikinews, if is that what you asking, you have my word.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The poll was unlock by billinghurst on 27th and is accepting new votes, please close this request, I'll open a new request if I felt it's ok to request otherwise I'll withdrew. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 20:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I marked this as not done. --MF-W 04:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Ladsgroup@fawikivoyage

Status:    Done

Per community consensuses please give User:Ladsgroup (me) sysop and crat rights Amir (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-06-07. (admin only) Unfortunately, as this is a new community, we can't give out permanent adminship rights or crat rights at this time. -- Rschen7754 18:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Amir (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Xavier Dengra@cawikibooks

Status:    Not done

Thank you. --Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 20:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done the very small community size and very small pool of administrators (only two administrators) do not qualify for granting the requested right, sorry. Snowolf How can I help? 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Snowolf: I'd be very grateful if you could provide us the requirements (if they do exist) that has to accomplish a community in order to have a bureucrat. Thank you very much, --Gerardduenas (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Latest comment: 9 years ago44 comments13 people in discussion

DGG@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Euryalus@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Guerillero@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

NickK@ukwiki

Status:    Done

For the Arbitration Committee, Yakudza (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have sent the identification email to secure-info — NickK (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have received a confirmation from Philippe that ID process is completed — NickK (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
just for the record (so that the decision is made knowing all (not) important facts and this matter cannot be brought to light as an unpleasant surprize): the Arbitration Committee has not followed the established procedure. the details are here (in Ukrainian) --アンタナナ 01:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this discussion is at leat partially an attempt to mislead the others. The procedure is here: uk:Вікіпедія:Арбітражний комітет. The two threads on the discussion page are about the following:
  1. Per policy, arbitrators should accept or reject the arbitration request. In this request, arbitrators have just placed link to the previous discussion where they accepted their submission instead of copying their votes once again.
  2. All arbitrators have signed the decision with just --~~~~, while User:Base wants them to sign with Support--~~~~. There is no reason why arbitrators should sign the decision in a particular form, and it has never been a part of the established procedure.
(The comment above is in my capacity of ex-arbitrator of ukwiki, not as of a checkuser candidate) — NickK (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
But why the arbitrators removed Base's and my comments? It looks like they want hide abuse. It is not difficult to put Support near the signature. But they did not do it, and remove comments instead.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the main reason is that this page was not an appropriate place for comments, as comments were ultimately moved to the talk page. While I agree it is not that difficult to put Support near the signature (except that all arbitrators have to go back to this page and make this edit, while they probably have other things to do), is there a fundamental reason for doing this? Should arbitrators make one more edit and write, for example, <span style='color: green'>Support</span>--~~~~ instead of just Support--~~~~ if someone asks them? — NickK (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So, if you agree, let wait when they put 'Support' or 'Oppose' and then put this request.--Anatoliy (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do they need to do it? This comment from an arbitrator makes it clear that all four available arbitrators supported this request. If you like gaming the system and assuming bad faith — yes, you can go ahead and ask arbitrators to confirm, but I don't see any point in it — NickK (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am initiator of this Arbcom request, and I want that my request will be processed according correct procedure. And I see no reasons to remove comments from request page. It was allowed in previous cases like here or here. That's why I consider that arbitrators here want hide their abuse and removed comments. Arbitrators abused procedure two times but did not correct themselves and removed comments instead. You say that it is not difficult to put votes, so let arbitrators do it. And please restore removed comments on the request page (it is allowed as I confirmed by links above).--Anatoliy (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anatoliy 1) It is not true. Formally, I am initiator of this request. 2) According to CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser CheckUsers can be appointed by the Arbitrators only. After agreement, a member of the Committee should simply list the candidate on Steward requests/Permissions. Arbitrators agreed among themselves? Yes! What do you want more? --Pavlo1 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here is the first request for CUs for ukwiki: [1] (and the only request) --Rschen7754 06:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Please take your discussion elements back to your community and resolve there. I will put this on hold while you hold your discussion.  on hold while community resolves the discussion around their valid process until 2 January  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you please confirm what exactly is needed from the community? It seems to be clear that all arbitrators supported the decision (and two of them, Pavlo1 and Yakudza have commented above), the discussion is primarily around the very important issue whether they arbitrators are to sign it with --~~~~ as they have done or with Support--~~~~ as User:Base (and now also User:Ahonc) want. As this discussion could last for ages, could you please confirm what exactly is needed as a decision of local community? Should all arbitrators sign here, for example, should they sign a new decision or what else should happen? — NickK (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
And why they cannot sign on ArbCom request page? I did not get answer yet.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any guarantee that this would be enough for User:Base and he will not request, for example, changing text colour to green or translating their comments to English or Japanese? There is no rule requiring arbitrators to sign in a particular form, so this can last for ages — NickK (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
What I asked them is not decoration of their votes but clarifying whether they are voting with "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral". The section the vote is being held in is named "Votes of arbiters concerning approving the decisions' project". Concerning. Not pro the decision, not against but just concerning. Perhaps you have some paranormal abilities, but I can't read arbiters' minds and know what option do their votes stand for unless they write it down using any understandable way. I prefer textual way in Ukrainian, but if you like colours more I don't mind as long as it's common set of colours used in voting templates/icons. Japanese and English are also fine with me. But I can't see why you think I'd require several ways of saying the same thing when I'm just asking for one. --Base (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
There at least three reasons why your requests do not make sense:
  • If a person signs a decision without any comments, it means he or she supports it. A common sense says that if a person does not support the decision, he or she will sign it clearly indicating his/her opposition
  • A comment from an arbitrator Zlir'a in response to your request states that this decision was supported by all four arbitrators who participated in discussion
  • A comment from an arbitrator Pavlo1 (who initiated the request and did not participate in discussion) states that this decision was consensual.
I don't see any reason for gaming the system and assuming bad faith here and requesting anything else — NickK (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: @Billinghurst:: as my question to stewards got lost in comments by Ahonc and Base, I'm repeating it again: what exactly do you need from a community? What proof do you need that the discussion was resolved? — NickK (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm personally of the mind that we should go ahead and grant this request. --Rschen7754 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. --MF-W 04:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with the decision, it was that the community was disputing its own decision so I was giving them time to discuss and understand their issue. The application of CU rights was not urgent, so could wait out a discussion at the local wiki. Either way, THIS page is not the place for your discussion. Your local community is where YOUR discussion over YOUR processes should take.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The main issue is that there is no ongoing local discussion as User:Base (who opened the thread asking arbitrators to sign the decision in a different way) was blocked for trolling and edit wars. That's why I wanted to know what stewards will consider as the resolution of the issue — NickK (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
NickK lies, the issue is not block of Base (it will not resolve block), the issue is dealing not according procedure. It is not hard to put votes in decision, but NickK decided to go by other way - convict stewards to agree with him. If going according procedure, NickK may got CU rights 2 days ago. And he can already ask arbitrators to add his votes. But he selected another way…--Anatoliy (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not make groundless accusations. I can repeat my statement once again: The main issue is that there is no ongoing local discussion as User:Base (who opened the thread asking arbitrators to sign the decision in a different way) was blocked for trolling and edit wars. User:Base opened the thread, there was some sort of discussion, he is now blocked, and there is no discussion since yesterday morning. I have never stated that Base's block has any impact, simply there is no active discussion and topicstarter is now blocked (and thus can't revive it). Once again, there is no procedure requiring arbitrators to sign decisions in a particular way, and I am not going to impose any invented procedure to arbitrators - it's up to them to decide how they sign their decisions. And in no case I want to convict anyone. However, it's you who want to make me convince someone: either convince arbitrators that they have to sign decisions in a different way (completely groundless claim, and there is no reason why they should follow), either convince you and Base that you are wrong (almost impossible as your goal is clearly to give the ukwiki ArbCom the runaround) or convince stewards that your accusations are false (much more realistic as your actions lack reasons). I really do not like the choice between these three options, nor I do want to become a plaything, but you force me to get involved in this — NickK (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@NickK: I consider you as clever user, so you should understand that solving of this discussion is putting votes in decision. After it there will be no more arguments about abusing procedure.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any point in it. I do not know what else you and Base will want to do to give ukwiki ArbCom the runaround, thus I don't want to act as an intermediary between you and ArbCom — NickK (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The community can dispute the decision all it wants, but it's the ArbCom's decision that matters. There was a recent case on enwiki where enwiki ArbCom violated their own internal procedures: [2] but we still granted the rights, because it was by motion of the Arbitration Committee (I'm not saying that has necessarily happened in this case). If they are not following their own procedures, then that's a local issue and the arbitrators can be removed in the next election, or the community can indicate that they prefer elections instead. We should be consistent, and not treat ukwiki any differently just because we can't read Ukrainian. --Rschen7754 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
In the past arbitrators did not always put "support" or "oppose" before their signatures. See, for instance, w:uk:Вікіпедія:Запити_на_арбітраж/Блокування_Ffederal. So, I think this request should be granted. Ruslik (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This even seems to be a common practice since 4th ArbCom convocation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That's why I don't understand why the format used by ArbCom is considered by Ahonc and Base as invalid — NickK (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Done - Firstly, that page is not a good place to discuss local stuff. Secondly, the ArbCom may appoint CUs as they wish as long as they arbitrators have been elected with the standards needed for CU/OS elections (25-30 support votes), see CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser. Some stewards already stated above that this request should be granted and I also see no reason to keep that on hold any further and discuss the issue here any further. I've now set checkuser rights for NickK on ukwiki as per this request. -Barras talk 00:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Happy New Year! --Pavlo1 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oversight access

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Jules78120@frwiki

Status:    Done

French ArbCom decision (2 December 2014). Identification pending. Hadrianus (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On hold pending identification. Savhñ 22:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
ID received and therefore Done now. Trijnsteltalk 12:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DGG@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

DeltaQuad@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with the oversight permission. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Euryalus@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui@enwiki

Status:    Done

Kindly issue this newly elected arbitrator with advanced permissions. They are identified to the WMF. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of access

Latest comment: 9 years ago90 comments35 people in discussion

Fredelige@dawiki

Status:    Not done

This admin has not made any edits since April 22 2014 and has received a notice about inactivity October 26 2014, but hasn't made any edits since. --Asger (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

See reply above. ✒ Bennylin 20:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Asger: does the rule of 210 days of inactivity apply to edits and/or logs? Because Fredelige deleted a page on 1 June 2014... Trijnsteltalk 22:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Good question. The rules about inacitivity does not state, whether logs should be taken into account or not when deciding that a admin is inactive. I do not think that this scenario was taken into account in the vote on inactivity. I will open a discussion about the matter on the Danish Wikipedia. --Asger (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There are consensus that logs should be taken into account when deciding that an admin is inactive. Please close the request without changing any user rights. I apologize for the inconvenience. Regards --Asger (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done then. --MF-W 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Joost@nlwiki

Status:    Done

Please remove Joost his sysop-rights according to our local policy, 250 edits per 12 months. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mikered@dewiki

Status:    Done
Please remove the sysop-rights, the membership in the de arbcomde is over. --Itti (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Bureaucrat de.wikipedia
Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Toter Alter Mann@dewiki

Status:    Done
Please remove the sysop-rights, the membership in the de arbcomde is over. --Itti (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Bureaucrat de.wikipedia
Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Akkakk@wikidatawiki

Status:    Done

Akkakk has made 0 admin actions over the last 6 months, less than the 10 required per our inactivity policy. Please remove sysop rights. --Rschen7754 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Vituzzu@wikidatawiki

Status:    Done

Vituzzu has made 7 admin actions over the last 6 months, less than the 10 required per our inactivity policy. Please remove sysop rights. --Rschen7754 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(Both done by Billinghurst). --Rschen7754 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

In June 2014, I was elected administrator for a term of six months (link above); this period is up tomorrow, therefore I kindly request the removal of my sysop rights. Many thanks in advance, --Igor Windsor (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed, thanks for your service. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

غلام الأسمر@ar.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Thanks in advance. --Abbas 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

NKOzi@global

Status:    Done

Would you please perform the following:

  • Remove all my flags;
  • Globally lock my account NKOzi;
  • Delete my userpages on all projects.

Thank you. --N KOziTalk 04:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 On hold for 24 hours on the first one, per standard practice.
Not done on 2 and 3: we don't lock accounts on request, and for 3 you can ask at Synchbot. --Rschen7754 04:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I think users can request locking their own account. There're already one example. Moreover, If this user want to return to Wikipedia, he can simply ask this user to be unlocked, or create a new account.--GZWDer (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Self-requested locks are not possible. --MF-W 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Sysop flags has been removed from this account on azwiki, azwikisource and incubator. Thanks for your service as admin--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cycn@wikidatawiki

Status:    Done

Goodday,

Because of the changed Wikidata:Deletion policy after the closure of Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion I wish to request the removal of my administrator rights. I am categorically opposed to this scheme and I won't be a part of its implementation, but as it has become policy it would be best to disable me from deleting items and this violating this policy.

I will remain active in other ways, as far as the policies allow me to.

With regards, - Cycn (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ofekalef@hewiki

Status:    Withdrawn

Thanks, --Ofekalef (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Trijnsteltalk 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous [email protected]

Status:    Done

Procedural removal of bureaucrat permissions per en:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive bureaucrat accounts. Thanks, --–xeno 04:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that, since he received his first notification the 14th of November, this request should be on hold until the 14th of this month. Savhñ 09:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hrm, quite correct. I hadn't noticed the bot didn't make the first notifications at the proper time of the month (i.e. the first). Please hold the request until the 14th. –xeno 11:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you, M/ (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I'd like my CheckUser flag on it.wiki to be revoked due to the extremely limited amount of time I can now (and in the foreseeable future) dedicate to the project. Thanks. --Rojelio (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yurik (WMF)@metawiki

Status:    Done

Please remove 'zeroadmin' rights from the account as temporary permissions expired on 15 November 2014, as it was stated on WM:A. I have removed the administrator rights but local bureaucrats can't remove the other one (and since the extension is being undeployed, I won't bother requesting a config change for that). Best regards. -- M\A 15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hecho. Savhñ 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my administrator rights at Nl Wikibooks. I'm still an active contributor, and want to concentrate on writing when I find the time, Beachcomber (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrutineers to enWP elections

Status:    Done

Removed the checkuser rights for Barras, Trijnstel, and Matanya at English Wikipedia following their temporary assignation to undertake scrutineer duties there. (Email request to stewards).  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you a local sysop on enwiki? --MF-W 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I was also the reserve scrutineer, which indicated that I was sufficiently removed from the process. To also note that they were rights granted via Stewards' noticeboard, rather than here, and not present in our temporary permissions archive. All things that we can look to improve next year.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The latter is not true: Steward requests/Permissions/2014-11#Matanya@enwiki. Trijnsteltalk 11:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Trijnstel, I said the temporary permissions archive, where I would expect to see them, though it is good to know that they were separately requests here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
IMO, it falls into an exception for being a non-controversial removal, as described in our policy. Though not self-requested, it is clear that it should be done the way it was after the scrutineers' participation was ended, thus there was no decision taken by Billinghurst. It would have been better though, if this request had been started by a commissioner/coordinator.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
For transparency, I was the one who sent the email to the list; in the past the scrutineers have removed the rights themselves following the elections. I know some people have viewed CU/OS granted by ArbCom to be okay for homewiki actions, but as we recently had a case where enwiki ArbCom didn't follow their own procedures recently regarding CU/OS granting, I'm not so sure that this is a good practice for stewards from an ArbCom homewiki to be granting permissions on that wiki moving forward, as it could be controversial. --Rschen7754 05:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A1@uawikimedia

Status:    Done

Remove sysop and crat flag. See Site administration policy.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ahonc: Would you please link to a discussion on uaWM, or provide for the record the authority within uaWM with which you are requesting the removals.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahonc has linked to the policy of the wiki which states that a person can have a 'crat or sysop rights just if he is a member of the Board or of the Audit Committee, or a specific per person board decision should be made. Yesterday we had an AGM and the people listed by Ahonc weren't elected to neither the Board nor the Audcomm. --Base (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yakudza@uawikimedia

Status:    Done

Remove sysop and crat flag. See Site administration policy.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahonc has linked to the policy of the wiki which states that a person can have a 'crat or sysop rights just if he is a member of the Board or of the Audit Committee, or a specific per person board decision should be made. Yesterday we had an AGM and the people listed by Ahonc weren't elected to neither the Board nor the Audcomm. --Base (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Kvz65@uawikimedia

Status:    Done

Remove sysop and crat flag. See Site administration policy.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahonc has linked to the policy of the wiki which states that a person can have a 'crat or sysop rights just if he is a member of the Board or of the Audit Committee, or a specific per person board decision should be made. Yesterday we had an AGM and the people listed by Ahonc weren't elected to neither the Board nor the Audcomm. --Base (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Kharkivian@uawikimedia

Status:    Done

Remove sysop and crat flag. See Site administration policy.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahonc has linked to the policy of the wiki which states that a person can have a 'crat or sysop rights just if he is a member of the Board or of the Audit Committee, or a specific per person board decision should be made. Yesterday we had an AGM and the people listed by Ahonc weren't elected to neither the Board nor the Audcomm. --Base (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Bdk made no edit or log entry in the past 365 days. Please remove sysop bit per local policy. Regards, IW 18:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, Please thank them for their work! -Barras talk 18:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Erzbischof made no edit or log entry in the past 365 days. Please remove sysop bit per local policy. Regards, IW 18:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, Please thank them for their work! -Barras talk 18:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Remove my sysop rights, please. Thanks.--MelM (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 On hold for 24 hours, as per standard praxis. -Barras talk 23:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for your past work on the projects! -Barras talk 01:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki13@global

Status:    Done

Please remove my global sysop right. I am currently too busy in real life, so that helping Wikimedia projects is on such a low priority for me, that resigning would be best for now. I would like to retain the global rollbacker right. Already thanks in advance! --Wiki13 talk 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks for helping! --Rschen7754 21:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

یوشیمیتسو@fa.wikinews

Status:    Not done

Remove his sysop right, he is inactive for more than two years and he is not responding to emails, and messages on his talk page.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the link to the inactivity policy for the wiki? --Rschen7754 17:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
ویکی‌خبر:مدیران#بازپس‌گیری اختیارات در صورت عدم فعالیت. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This was a page that you created in 2011, I'm not so sure about this. --Rschen7754 18:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a policy and it's acceptable by local community. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 21:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Look how many times it's linked, you're just denying local policy as a steward. He is a great guy I'm sure he can collect votes if he really wanted to be active again and help the project. I just don't wanna inactive users have a sysop access, @Nemo_bis left him a message in the September 'cause he was in sysop list but he didn't respond and that's how we lost local uploads. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Just because you say something is policy does not make it so. Can you point to a community discussion about this "policy"? --Rschen7754 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm on it. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 10:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Without an existing local policy, I would suggest that it waits for the forthcoming global process of admin review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, local policy exist but there is not discussion made about it since 2011, so now I'm asking local community to comment and vote about it 'cause you guys don't accept that. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 11:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
We accept local policies, but for it to be a local policy it should have local community consensus. Since it's you requesting this based on a "policy" you created, and without any proof of community consensus (either now or in 2011, when that was created), we will not act. That the community hasn't said anything is an argumentum ex silentio, and does not form approval. If consensus is reached (or has been reached in 2011), please provide proof. Savhñ 14:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you guys read anything I write here. I said I'm on it that means there is ongoing discussion, you can close this for now. I'll open a new request after we reached a consensus. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Marked it as not done. Please re-file when consensus is gained. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Cant it be proceeded per AAR? --Base (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Mjbmr, we do read what you write. You write "there is not discussion made about it since 2011", implying that it was discussed in 2011, yet you now say that the discussion is ongoing and fail to provide a previous discussion (which i what I asked). Hadn't there been previous community consensus, then it wouldn't have been a local policy, while you claim it was. It is in both our and your interest to keep this process as clear as possible. Regarding AAR, it would not apply if there was (or is) local consensus, which we will not override. Otherwise, it will be handled with the process. Savhñ 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

It is kindly requested to remove a sysop access of the mentioned user due to inactivity since more than one year despite of several warnings. Best regards, --Qarakesek (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop flag. I'm too busy in real life and I cannot contribute in patrolling as much as I've done before. I still keep an eye on the project but I prefer to do so as a normal user. Thank you. --Taueres (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your past contributions to the project. --Ricordisamoa 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I'd already like to thank you for your contribution as an admin, I'll keep this on hold until 24 hours have passed in order to allow you to reconsider, per the standard procedure. With kind regards, Savhñ 11:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have proceded to the removal of the rights. Thank you for your contribution as an admin and best wishes for 2015, Savhñ 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

Latest comment: 9 years ago46 comments19 people in discussion

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

Please give me back the sysop flag.
- Sarrus (c • t) 12:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-12-15. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani@pawiki

Status:    Done

My temporary adminship expires on 19th June. I have been active both as an admin and as an editor. I will request an extension in my admin status. Vigyani (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please start a local discussion or announcement and link to it here. After a week, if there is consensus or no opposition to extend your access then I or another steward will do so. Thanks for your work, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2014-12-18. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I came here today to add a link to local discussion, because 7 days had passed, but noticed that you had already added the link. :). --Vigyani (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

Please give me back the sysop flag.
- Sarrus (c • t) 12:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-12-15. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani@pawiki

Status:    Done

My temporary adminship expires on 19th June. I have been active both as an admin and as an editor. I will request an extension in my admin status. Vigyani (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please start a local discussion or announcement and link to it here. After a week, if there is consensus or no opposition to extend your access then I or another steward will do so. Thanks for your work, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2014-12-18. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I came here today to add a link to local discussion, because 7 days had passed, but noticed that you had already added the link. :). --Vigyani (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

The project needs permanent maintenance and one single administrator for a long time does not fulfill its obligation. I request administrator access.--David1010 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please start a local discussion. --MF-W 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: A local elections was held. Please process it. Thanks. –BruTe talk 10:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-12-09. b:ka:Special:PermanentLink/15122 other admin rights from 2007 (permanent), though community is a small wiki, so 12 months rights granted. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended . Special:Permanentlink/10730503--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

555@ptwikisource

Status:    Done

In October 2011 I've resigned my sysop+bureaucrat flags on pt.wikisource, in an uncontroversial fashion, due to the lack of free time. The wiki don't seems to have a community (in fact I've found lots of needed changes in MediaWiki namespace and spam deletions) but anyway I've made a local announcement. Please let me known if I need to wait for seven days or if the sysop flag can be restored without this delay. Lugusto • ※ 15:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 On hold until 13 December 2013. We do not restore userrights that have been removed regardless of the reason for the removal (except plain errors). Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We are now less than one hour to end 13 December on UTC time. Stewards needs any additional info? BTW If you see the s:pt:Special:Recentchanges for the past 7 days you will found only edits made by me, some IPs, some occasional users adding interwikis and one active user, Giro720, the only one active sysop on pt.ws, doing some edits, including the edit where he agrees and welcomes me back to the sysop flags Lugusto • ※ 23:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-12-14. s:pt:Special:PermanentLink/247606, noting that small community, though one legacy permanent admin, so granting extended temporary rights — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Lugusto • ※ 01:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended Special:Permanentlink/10733510--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

(your remarks) Juster (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess you mean admin rights, since admins can block etc, so moved it upwards. And  On hold until 17 November. Trijnsteltalk 13:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
[7] is not a good sign. --Rschen7754 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't make it any better. -- Tegel (Talk) 14:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Rs and Tegel. I sincerely didn't know I wasn't allow to send message to promote my candidature. But I know that everything I do on wikipedia is public, and I don't want hide nothing, but how people can learn that I 'm candidate if I don't tell them ? Then people are free to vote or no. But we really need a bureaucrat, admin, etc for ty.wikipedia. If it's forbidden to send message to promote it, can you tell me and I 'll not do anymore. regards, --Juster (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You have announced it on the community portal and that is enough. You can be a temporary administrator even if no one votes in the election. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok ! Now I know !Thank's --Juster (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are only needed for rights assignment, which on such small wikis is handled by stewards, we will not assign bureaucrats without a large active community. Savhñ 14:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 month to expire on 2014-12-21. 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. Savhñ 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I would like to get my admin status back. Thanks. Simeondahl (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-12-22. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mathieudu68@hawwiki

Status:    Done

Hello,
I request again for adminship on Hawaiian Wikipedia, in order to continue the maintenance task as same as I used to do before (delete useless pages, block vandals...). I requested adminship first time here, and was given a temporary access which expired on 2014-06-09. I didn't met any problem with adminship on this Wikipedia since. Sincerely, Mathieudu68 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion in order to have your temporary access renewed. --Rschen7754 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I started a new conversation here, but I think I won't get any answer, because I'm the only active member on Hawaiian Wikipedia. Mathieudu68 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we still have to give 7 days for any comments before we give out the extension.  On hold for 7 days. --Rschen7754 18:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2014-12-27. -- Rschen7754 22:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


Miscellaneous requests

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments12 people in discussion

Several@global

Status:    Done

Could you please assign the following new permissions members the OTRS-member global flag?

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Matanya (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Several more@global

Status:    Done

Hello. Can you make the following modifications to the OTRS-member group as well?

They seemed to have slipped through the cracks in the initial batch-add. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Snowolf How can I help? 21:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This, that and the other@testwiki

Status:    Done

I request importer rights on testwiki, as I am involved in debugging and improving MediaWiki's import features. I am already a bureaucrat on this wiki, and have provided a number of MediaWiki patches related to importation. Some import-related issues are WMF-specific or manifest themselves in different ways on Wikimedia wikis, so it is useful to be able to test import on a WMF cluster wiki. This, that and the other (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please let us know here if you no longer need it. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Several@global

Status:    Withdrawn

Could you please assign the following users the OTRS-member global flag?

Thank you.--Calak (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS-member flag is assigned only for those users who has access to the permissions queue. --Stryn (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
These users have access to the info-fa queue (See here).--Calak (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Permissions queues not info queues? Oh no, thank you.--Calak (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

[email protected]

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Status:    Not done

This request is about Editor right is Persian wikinews. Per local grant policy any sysop can grant any user editor right by their request, my request is in archive back in October 2010 but I requested to remove them (from me and Mjbmrbot) 'cause I was about to fall apart and I activated again some weeks ago, as I've an open request in this same page but it has unknown status for some days. My request for regaining access is denied by only local active sysop, he said he is not willing to respond to permission requests.  Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done It is not the stewards' role to override a local admin's decision. --Rschen7754 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Local admin didn't deny the request, he denied to respond to the request. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 18:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Still, this is an administrator responsibility, not ours. --Rschen7754 18:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure stewards can assign local permissions. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 21:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not for anything lower than administrator. --Rschen7754 23:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Actually giving the rights to Mjbmr is too risky, because of the all the issues he have had before, with some admins in fa.wikinews & also fa.wikipedia, BUT as this user is not blocked definitely, so, now if he do proper edits & contributions then he may be granted any user editor rights, I just have told him that I can not gave him back the rights which is taken from him by other admins previously BUT he may go throw the normal process of gaining access just like any other normal editors.
The user has history of problems with Wikipedia and being blocked in multiple projects,
As an example:
When one of the Stewards told that, in his "RFA most of the votes are loan votes from fawiki and most of voters have no edit in faWikinews", he emphasize on that's because RFA have been open from "12th Dec to 19th Dec and is locked by local admin"!...
Here is the poll which he made for his adminship[9], Good, No problem. BUT what is interesting is one of his supporters puts a start and an end time for the poll [10]. Here the same user just ended the poll[11]. And here Mjbmr himself also finished this poll as a <<<"successful request for adminship">>>. [12]. So Of-course this is considered as an end... Then also after that, in the same day, he made this request [13]. SO, his RFA votes problems, is not because a local admin locked the page!
Best Regards, --KhabarNegar 08:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@KhabarNegar What do you mean, look at your own block log in fawiki, I though you're familiar with the wiki. also I asked Florance not to close that page I just fixed the template, putting a start and a end date is per policy but I asked him also not to so I can collect more votes for permanent adminship. btw you're not doing anything with your sysop right your just deleting pages. you don't wanna help the project. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 09:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
KhabarNegar being blocked in fa.wp is not related to this case. Why are you holding this against him/her? The way you talk is not civil. About the case: Mjbmr is right that فلورانس (Florence) closed the RfA as successful but I can't understand why. Is he a 'crat? Not even admin (Florence is a cross-wiki hat collector, see his edits in small Wikis) and closing a RfA with 5 supports (and mainly loan from fa.wp) is weird for me but it's up to stewardsAmir (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I know what you all trying to do, do your thing, I'm out. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 09:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
hi, for all- Mr KhabarNegar- Sorry for writing, your comment has no capability of documenting, if I requested for him because there is no active admin in that project . and this user Mjbmr I didn't know him that this much and I didn't know him before and you're an admin and I don't expect you for not recognizing this. and if I put date for it and closed it because if a poll cross it date it's not acceptable in meta and I didn't do anything wrong. and if I closed it was because there is no active admin in that project and edit on it its not approving or denying qualification of that user.
Mr Aminr , my activities shows for what I'm editing, from you as a bureaucrat I didn't expect commenting like this . i,m like save project and help to this big encyclopedia colection and admin or other right tools for me. I don't need hat or admin right so I will be unable without them. where ever needed and I can cooperate with wikimedia I'm ready. but I laughed hard for you calling me a hat collector. I hope you don't loose your hat!!. --Florence (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions/2014-12&oldid=24907950"