Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions/2015-05

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Administrator access

Latest comment: 9 years ago48 comments23 people in discussion

Dekel [email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please grant permissions for one year. Thanks, Dekel E (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I see one vote for and one against. Please, explain to us why you think that there a consensus to promote you. Ruslik (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. There is no consensus here. The biggest problem in our wiki is that we have just one more sysop, and he isn't active. We are small community of two active users. The user that opposed to my permissions isn't active too. I need this permissions to continue operate our wiki. I was a sysop in this wiki before a year, so I know the rules. Thanks, Dekel E (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if there is no consensus to grant these flags, we cannot do it. Please help out as much as you can without the admin flag and ask global sysops or stewards in case no local admin is available. Savhñ 11:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

(Eu gostaria do meu apelido como uma forma de ser reconheçido no projeto e mais facil em pesquisa e também será o último pedido de renomeação estou decidido)Dinan 17 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done. This page is for requesting different type of rights and not for renames of accounts. Use Steward requests/Username changes if you would like to rename your account. -- Tegel (Talk) 07:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please sysop access in view of the community consensus. Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • {{tl:onhold}} From Google Translate of the discussion, I am not certain that a consensus was found to apply the toolset. I'd like other stewards to opine as well. -- Avi (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Avi, about Google Translate, don't pay attention, the user is a school boy (12-13 years old) [Ծննդյան թիվ՝ 2002|The birthdate 2002], and anything he does, I don't value it serious. He was eager to become an admin in Armenian Wikipedia 3 times (in 2012, 2013, 2014), in Russian Wikipedia one time (2012), but unfortunately, did not become. That is the first reason why he renamed his nick - Against the Group Power (in Armenian - Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը). And also, he "left" Armenian Wikipedia in 2012, 2013, again in 2013, in 2014 - January, February, June, September, in 2015 - January and finally February. Nevertheless, while being left from Wikipedia, he continued to edit there. The last time he left [2], he mentioned, that the reason is the Group Power and propaganda of LGBT in Armenian Wikipedia. And finally, the second reason of changing the nick-name was the discussion and voting for invalidating his adminship of 6AND5. It was just the time he left Armenian Wikipedia once again, like coincidence. What about 6AND5 and the problem of LGBT, I have mentioned above. 6AND5 used to say, that his main work is in Russian Wikipedia (he was blocked there 10 times during 2 years [3]). During his adminship in Armenian Wikipedia - less than half year, he used to behave himself badly. He was a rude admin, not wishing to listen to the advises of the others. After a number of reasons, the last ask was about moving of anti-LGBT flag from his talk page in Armenian Wikipedia, which he refused to do. In the end, I have opened a voting page of invalidating his adminship. When There were 8 editors, in summary more than 60 %, he decided to block himself in 18th of February. In Russian Wikipedia he is a patrol, as the other active wikipedians (1769 of 10926 active). Now he is blocked there, too. The only person, that is eager to make him admin in Armenian Wikiquote, is Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը user, who has contacts with him during these 2 months - from 18th of February till now - in Russian Wikipedia and Meta, discussing the personalities of Armenian Wiki-editors and criticizing Armenian Wikipedia and Wikimedia Armenia organization. So, in conclusion of all this, I think, that he can't be a good admin in Armenian Wikiquote. I haven't voted as I did not know that the dead-line was 12th, but 19th. Cheers--Hayk.arabaget (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Especially see the commentary to (on) edit.--6AND5 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

taradiddle - [9]--6AND5 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I have my opinion for any decision. Whats means "This organized vote" ?. How decided this ՞ Really I am not active in hy.wikiquote, because I am very active on hy.wikipedia, hy.Wikisource & wikicommon projects. And, in my opinion, I can vote in this project, because this is one of the project, which is important for me. And how can people become admin, which say such thinks about participants, who voted against.--Arman musikyan (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also in Russian Wikipedia, he is blocked [10]. Besides that, the user, who voted for him, started to edit in Armenian Wikiquote on the same days (except 4 edits in 2014 [11]), when 6AND5 did. The latter is also not active. He had 3 edits before voting [12].--Hayk.arabaget (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way 7 days its meens 7*24*60 minutes. Issue is crated on 16:59, 5 May 2015 by 6AND5 & closed on 15:51, 12 May 2015. Users have been could vote with 1 hour and 8 minutes (16:59 - 15:51). This is just arithmetic. --Arman musikyan (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please, pay attention, this user following edit. He just 12 May added 7 days, last day of voting 11 may. He deceived all of us. --Arman musikyan (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also I have another argument, why above mentioned voting is not valid in hy.wikiquote. This voting is closed earlier than 7 days and 6AND5 closed it with open question. I set this voting invalid, but this reverted by 3 times whit 6AND5 (I revert և II revert ) and one time with Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը user (III revert). As a advanced wikieditor I have no right to revert the 4-th time and say this is not valid voting. --Arman musikyan (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Also please attention on the revert in by the user 6AND5 hy.wikiquote Village pump by the Personal insults comment. I reverted it, because discussion nobody have right to remove (see my edit).
I opened discussion on 6AND5 user page in English language. I will translate his all sentences in English language, if he will answer Armenian or Russian languages. --Arman musikyan (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
"User:6AND5 is blocked at Armenian Wikipedia because of unethical behavior, statements and actions." this is classical defamation. He in Armenian Wikipedia blocked himself & left. --Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
This is example of organized vote: Շնորհակալություն ուշադրության համար: Իրոք պետք է լուրջ քվեարկել: (Thanks for attention. Indeed, should important vote.). Also please pay attention onto Hayk.arabaget's other statement: Ժամկետները սահմանափակ են՝ մինչև մայիսի 19 (The dates are limited until May 19.). [14]. --Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Another lie: Վադգթի կողմից Վիքիբառարանում ադմին գտնվելու ժամանակ 500 հոդված անվերադարձ ջնջելու (by Vadgt in admin Wiktionary during irretrievably delete 500 article)[15]. I Delete 500 article, but I restored 363-364 article[16]. One question the other part of why Beko not recovered. --Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not done Based on my readings of the automatic translations of the discussions, there is no consensus to give 6AND5 access to the administrator tool-set. Most critically, in my opinion, there is a distinct paucity of responses: there are only two official opinions, one for and one against. In general, when there is no significant opposition, we allow access to the tools. However, that cannot be said here. There is clear opposition to the requester, and the opposition is based on concerns that directly relate to the trustworthiness of the requester and his/her ability to fulfil the maintenance duties properly. The fact that the "official" opposition happened a few minutes after the close is irrelevant. In every project in which I have experience, the closing volunteer is the one who actually "closes" the discussion. The time limits are minimums, but not necessarily maximums. Wikimedia is not a bureaucracy in which we always slavishly follow the letter of the law without the spirit—there are times for both. Moreover, this edit is particularly troublesome, as the requester is removing opposition votes. Without a clear consensus to afford 6AND5 access to the toolset on HyWikiQ, this request is closed as not done. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
While I was writing the answer above, you have already made your decision.--Hayk.arabaget (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Pashto Wikipedia needs an admin to make some setups in the Common.css, Main Page and some other admin related configurations. Currently the main Page is protected and only admins can make edits in it. I have been admin of Pashto Wikipedia since 2005 until recently all the admin-rights were taken back due to some disputes that I was not involved in. I now ask for the Permission of Admin and I will use my admin rights to bring back stability to psWiki. I have already proposed to the community to acquire a local policy where User blocks, page deletion and other sensitive issues are concerned.--ANBI (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, make a local request first. --MF-W 12:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC) PS: I changed the protection of the Main Page to semi-protection, so that local users can edit it at all. --MF-W 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done ps.wiki is still at risk of widespread sockpuppeting. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Olena [email protected]

Status:    Done

--Anatoliy (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Done -- MarcoAurelio 21:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Shibuki [email protected]

Status:    Not done

--Shibuki 803 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

See also Special:PermaLink/12240620#Temporary Admin On Zhwiki: "I'd like to be a temporary admin for 5 weeks. Thank you!" Trijnsteltalk 12:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please make a local request on zhwiki, there are bureaucrats who can do it. --MF-W 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please give or not give the user the sysop rights upon your consideration. 5 pro, 1 against (voter's argument is written in English so you can read it yourself). --Base (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say to grant it of course, but I've just made one permanent admin (Olena) above, and Base's temp-adminship has been prolonged for 1+1/2 years (quite long). What about making all of them permanent? I'd preferr not to create two classes of admins on the same wiki if at all possible. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 21:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
well, if people knew that this adminship is not temporary, they could vote differently, for example oppose the adminship of a person with only 12 edits. --Ilya (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Ilya:. I'd be good if @Ahonc: could clarify us if those requests are intented to be permanent adminship or just temporary adminship requests. I've changed Olena's adminship to a three-months term, until clarification is provided, and will hold this a bit since new votes are being cast on Jbuket's RfA. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 00:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there was not stated that adminship will be temporary, we voted for permanent there.--Anatoliy (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
yeah, we have been trying to have a permanent admin there for three years now... --アンタナナ 08:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Marco misunderstood Ilya: all nominations there are initially for permanent adminship but not all stews agree to give permanent one. Last three years stews says that now we give temporary and next will be permanent, but as you see Base got temporary fifth time. Now Olena has 8-0 in favour. May be it will be enough for permanent? --Anatoliy (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ahonc: Thanks for your clarification. I'd say that Olena can be made permanent, as I did at first time. As for Base, I'd preferr if the steward who handled the request decided upon it. I have however raised this to our mailing list so my fellows are informed. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 09:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I understood Ajr's decision: here he said that user should have 8 support for permanent. But maybe term is wrong. I think that if previous term ends on May 28 then next should began from May 28, not from May 19--Anatoliy (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
A term starts when the administrative action occurs and that is due to the issues of keeping track on components, so is procedural, not judgmental. If you want the term to start later, we simply leave it on hold longer prior to undertaking the action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that I have no issues with Base being granted permanent access. The only reason I didn't was because, at that time, they would have been the sole admin and they would have had permanent access. With other admins, I have no such reservations. 8 supports is a guideline; we are more concerned with there being an active and involved community, which that typically represents. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done As of 29 May there is no consensus to grant sysop access (5 supports vs 3 opposes). The main concern of opposers is inactivity of the applicant (only 12 edits during the last two years). Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done. You first need to make a local request (with discussion/voting) on lo.wikipedia. However, since there is only one sysop at the moment, there is no need for a bureaucrat. --MF-W 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Adminstator in laos wikipedia not have activation for almost 2 year, and laos wikipedia has not correct several point, i want to editing again, thank--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

To easily assign admins to user group members for maintaining this wiki. AddisWang (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia user group set up via Phabricator:T98676, and rights assigned to the originator of request; allocation of rights are assigned by the managing committee  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

IRTC1015@kowikipedia

Status:    Done

IRTC1015 was voted and approved for CheckUser access on Korean Wikipedia. Please give this user the CheckUser tool at kowiki. Thanks in advance. --Sotiale (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold pending identification to WMF -- MarcoAurelio 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Trijnsteltalk 11:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Stryn was elected as new fiwiki checkuser with 27 support votes and support ratio of 96.4 percent. He has already confirmed his identity. –Ejs-80 08:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done congrats Mardetanha talk 08:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. –Ejs-80 08:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Oversight access

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sargoth@dewiki

Status:    Done

Sargoth has been re-elected after his resignation in 04/2012. To maintain the maximum of 5 oversighters at dewiki please remove oversight access from User:Ra'ike@dewiki (see my separate request down below). Thanks in advance, XenonX3 (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of access

Latest comment: 9 years ago117 comments57 people in discussion

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove Htonl's administrator flag. Htonl resigned his/her flag during annual confirmation. Hesperian 00:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

SVWP has a policy of annual re-election and this user choose to not run for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

removed. Thanks for your service. Linedwell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

SVWP has a policy of annual re-election and this user choose to not run for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

removed. Thanks for your service. Linedwell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

SVWP has a policy of annual re-election and this user choose to not run for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

removed. Thanks for your service. Linedwell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User Lokal [email protected]

Status:    Done

SVWP has a policy of annual re-election and this user choose to not run for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

removed. Thanks for your service. Linedwell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

SVWP has a policy of annual re-election and this user choose to not run for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

removed. Thanks for your service. Linedwell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User Rex Sueciæ@sv.wikipedia

Status:    Done

SVWP has a policy of annual re-election and this user choose to only run for election as a admin. Therefore the tools for crat needs to be removed but the tools for admin should stay, confirmed by user here. /Hangsna (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

removed. Thanks for your service. Linedwell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

The above user inactive in last 1 year. Please remove his Bureaucrat and Administrator access as per community decision. this link is rule for inactive Administrator and Bureaucrat users.

  • Policy: 1 കഴിഞ്ഞ ആറു മാസത്തിനുള്ളിൽ ഒരു തിരുത്തു പോലും നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല., = Minimum 1 edit must in last 6 months
  • 2 കഴിഞ്ഞ ഒരു വർഷത്തിനുള്ളിൽ അമ്പതു തിരുത്തുകൾ നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. = AND minimum 50 edits must in last year.

Thank you--Roshankerala (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The indicated user does not currently have any user rights on ml.wikipedia. Savhñ 11:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Raymond@wikidata

Status:    Done

Only 3 admin actions in the last six months (as of 1 May 2015) and thus the user is defined as inactive admin and the rights should be removed. Stryn (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, einsbor talk 14:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I've decided to resign, please remove my sysop rights at cs.wikipedia. Thank you. Harold (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day per standard practice. --Stryn (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Stryn (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop status 9xl (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We will process after 24 hours. -- MarcoAurelio 08:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your service. -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Valerio79 has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Done - Taketa (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Kindly remove my bureaucrat and admin flags on ar.wp, thanks! Shipmaster (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. -- MarcoAurelio 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Done - thanks for your work. -- MarcoAurelio 09:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Askar [email protected]

Status:    Not done
@Askar Nazyrov: You do not have any flags at kywiki, so I can't remove anything. If you wish to have access, please place your request under the appropriate section above. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio 09:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove inactive bureaucrat flag but keep the administrator flag. Jusjih (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 On hold. Per ml discussion, it may be wise to wait a bit more. Please also notify the user about the vote and the community. I don't see any of those. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Left one more reminder to the user talk page. Where else to tell the community?--Jusjih (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
s:zh-min-nan:Wikisource:Chheh-pâng? Looks like the village pump. Best, -- MarcoAurelio 08:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
After 20 days that the vote has been opened and user re-notified I think it's safe to remove, which I plan to do in the next hours if nobody objects. -- MarcoAurelio 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Done -- MarcoAurelio 17:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi. According to the local policies, Obelix83 has not enough administrative actions to be a sysop or a 'crat on eswiki. Requerimment is 50 admin actions on past two years, and he has only 37 actions. Please remove his both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra talk) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

I've noticed that he's never been informed or warned on his talk page (he's still editing)... does eswiki normally not do that? -- Mentifisto 00:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I usually send a warning mail some days before a limit date to allow inactive users can keep their flags. In this case, I was sent a mail to Obelix on March 21. However, on eswiki, there is no rule, nor consensus about warning users about their inactivity. You can read a discussion that mentioned this topic recently here. Regards, Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra talk) 03:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Done then. -- Mentifisto 12:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Henry [email protected]

Status:    Done

Please, remove admin acces for this user. User is inactive and according to the local policies, Henry McClean has not enough administrative actions to be a sysop. --Mikheil Talk 11:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't get a fine translation of your policy and I see that the user has edits and admin actions this year. Can you please elaborate why does he fall under inactivity? Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio 16:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
According to the local policies, requerimment is 50 admin actions and 500 edits on past three months. --Mikheil Talk 12:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MarcoAurelio! I'm an administrator on the Georgian Wikipedia. This policy is comparatively new local policy wich we created – Georgian Wikipedians in August 2014, accordingly, user:Henry McClean: Shouldn't be admin. Everything is lawful. Thank you for your attention, regards, - OTOGI Messages 14:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks for your help. -- MarcoAurelio 17:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

The bot has done its duties and now, according to the statement of its owner in the discussion, the admin right needs to be removed from the bot. Thanks B. Jankuloski (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop rights at cs.wiktionary. Thanks. --Zdenekk2 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day as standard practice with self requests. Stryn (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please hold a bit longer. There is currently a massive attack of trolls on admins taking a place there, so obviously disgust comes along. Wikibreak for some time would be better solution... Thanks.
— Danny B. 20:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Danny B. just made a clear personal attack calling some contributors (he's in dispute with) trolls. Please do some measures to prevent this kind of personal attacks.

What actually happened: wikt:cs:Diskuse:blbá nálada Zdenekk2 asked a generally known term be verified - not because the entry needed a verification but because he wanted to make angry or provoke the author of the entry (myself). In the discussion I sarcastically said I understood he didn't know some generally known terms - it was not the first time he asked generally known terms be verified. But I agree I may have overreacted a little. In any case he responded with a personal attack on me - and it's not the first personal attack he made against me - he made at least 3 before and once blocked me and the block is by many regarded as too strong. Anyway, after this I asked him on his discussion page that he has his adminship confirmed. Several editors supported my request. It seems rather improbable that if he asked for the confirmation of his adminship he would pass - so resigning was a legitimite option. He deleted his userpage, discussion page with the proofs he was asked by several editors his adminship was confirmed and all the subpages of his userpage. However I hope the discussion page will be restored as deleting user's discussion pages is against site policy. --Auvajs (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would leave this decission on Zdenekk2. Request of Danny B. is irrelevant and his statement is a lie.--Juandev (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Auvajs and Juandev. --Martin Kotačka (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Auvajs. Note that Zdenekk2 provoked asking generally known term be verified not only user Auvajs. Calling editors, who are in dispute with as trolls has no sense. --Kusurija (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • although living partly abroad - partly in Czechia, I participate quite often in Czech projects. Please take this seriously: the best the stewards can do is a CU check on the Czech Victionary. The actions there, including the pressure on Zdenek22 and others, that could be compared with virtual or cyber mobbing, produced an athmosphere of fear, so that I cannot write this here with my Czech account. Regards. Travelling editor (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Travelling editor, pressure on admin from some community members is a normal situation, if these community members do not agree with his/her actions. I cannot see any harassment on Czech Wiktionary right now. If you need any help, you can contact local admins e.g. by e-mail.--Juandev (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This request has been on hold for quite some time. There is no reason to hold it off any longer, therefore I have removed Zdenekk2's sysop rights as requested. Elfix 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

JAn Dudík@wikidata

Status:    Done

Please, remove my Wikidata sysop rights. I have now not enough time to work on this project. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC) (your remarks) JAn Dudík (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. -- MarcoAurelio 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

After asking this bureaucrat on 2015-03-25 with no answer and posting the discussion on 2015-04-24 with no other comment, please remove this bureaucrat with no edits after 2013-04-19 and no logged bureaucrat action after 2011-09-01. I am leaving the administrator flag until it is referred to admin activity review.Jusjih (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That is so generous of you. --MF-W 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Comment From my experience if you don't leave a note on AN-WP they won't probably notice. But there they are active and is a small but working community. -- MarcoAurelio 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is late comment link, so I would say no consensus Not done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Inkowik@multiple

Status:    Done
Status:    Done
Status:    Done

I resign from these rights per self-request. Thank you! --IW 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 21:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. -- MarcoAurelio 17:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove admin permission, i have not enough time to work as admin Starshollow (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Done -- MarcoAurelio 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to local policy sysops loose their status after two years of inactivity. Inactive administrator Slodave has been notified about this policy one month ago and was asked to respond; there were no objections. Regards,--MZaplotnik (contribs) 09:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done please thank the user for their contributions  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick. I've left a message with a short thank-you notice on this user's talk page. MZaplotnik (contribs) 11:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ra'ike@dewiki

Status:    Done

Ra'ike has resigned from her oversight access. Please remove her oversight flag but not her admin flag. She will be replaced as 5th oversighter by User:Sargoth (see my request above). Thanks in advance, XenonX3 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Magog the [email protected]

Status:    Not done

I do not believe that I can hold the community's trust as an impartial checkuser anymore, so I request the removal of rights. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: [22][23] should probably be reviewed under the circumstances. --Rschen7754 03:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This leads me to believe that you (Magog) have run a check on my account and on Fry1989's account. Oh well, doesn't matter, considering I have nothing to hide anyways. You might also consider resigning your admin bit there as well since you abused it to block me out of process. Cheers, FASTILY 06:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion with the requestor should be held at Commons (or their talk page). As for all self-requests, this will be held for 24 hours and will be executed then if it has not been withdrawn. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
But we don't necessarily have to do that. I for example held a request a few days on hold, and for a good reason as that person thankfully withdrew his request. Trijnsteltalk 15:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
And Not done, Magog withdrew his request. Trijnsteltalk 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Рахман3@kаа.wikipedia

Status:    Done

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Рахман3 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC), diff (UTC)

We've been discussing this issue here. Too bad the user has become a bit disheartened and wants to have his rights revoked. Nataev talk 04:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 20:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Done -- MarcoAurelio 10:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my administrator rights on Czech Wikipedia, I am not active anymore. Thanks. Loupeznik (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your past work. Elfix 21:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my admin rights on de.wiki, thanks. -jkb- 17:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my administrator rights on Commons. Thanks, FASTILY 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 04:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is related to this voluntary reconfirmation which was withdrawn. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Done — MarcoAurelio 22:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

BRUTE@Global rollbacker, Global sysop

Status:    Done

Please remove my global rollback and sysop rights. Thanks... –BruTe talk 11:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 24h per standard practice. einsbor talk 11:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Stryn (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Einar [email protected]

Status:    Done

Einar Myre chose not to run for re-election.[25] Please remove the admin bit. – Cocu (d) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 08:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Tim asked for revoking his admin right at our Lounge. -- DerFussi 07:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
He's right! --Timmaexx (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 24h per standard practice.
Done. --Stryn (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my admin rights. Thanks. Josq (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 24h per standard practice. Linedwell (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Stryn (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Lupinoid@jawiki

Status:    Done

He/she has been inactive for last 3 months on jawiki. According to our desysop policy, I request to remove his sysop access. Thanks in advance. --Penn Station (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, please thank them. -- Mentifisto 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of administrator access because because of no administrative actions since 24 May 2014, 10:30 CET. The user has been notified ([27]). PG (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — MarcoAurelio 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

please, remove my sysop flag, thank you --Ibrahim.ID »» 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 24h per standard practice. Linedwell (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Jusjih (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done
Not done - Hi Roshan014, you are not an admin on the Italian Wikipedia, so the rights cannot be removed. You are however active on the English Wikipedia. You can read more about adminship at Wikipedia:Administrators. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

Latest comment: 9 years ago84 comments27 people in discussion

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I hereby request to be made an administrator for the Iñupiaq Wikipedia, which is seriously out of date and the Main Page was clearly not created by someone who knows any Iñupiaq. I am not a native speaker but I grew up around the language and I'm am learning more every day. Please help me revitalize this page by granting me administrator rights to this page. Quyanaqpak (Thank you very much) Naulagmi (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Naulagmi: you will need to put your request to the ikWP community, and it will need to be available to that community for comment for at least a week, prior to the stewards consider granting rights. Once you have presented that proposal to the community, then please add the link to the discussion field in the template.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The ikWP community is pretty much nonexistent. There has been almost zero activity on the wiki besides my own contributions and some wikibots. There is a sole administrator who has not been active since several years ago. I could in theory present a proposal to the community for comment, but I guarantee you that there will be no comment besides my own. Furthermore, I did leave a comment on the main page asking for assistance in becoming an administrator several months ago (see last comment on page: https://ik.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Makpi%C4%A1aaq_Kanna), but of course there were no responses. - naulagmi Naulagmi 12:38, 13 October 2014 (AST)
Please start a local request anyway, and link to it here. After a week (even if nobody comments) then we will grant you temporary sysop access for a few months. Sorry to force you through the hoops, but we follow this procedure for anyone volunteering to be an admin on a small project. Thanks :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Naulagmi: are you progressing with this application ass instructed by Ajraddatz? If not, I will close the request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: :@Billinghurst: Yes, I am. Here is a link to the ikWP community discussion page: http://ik.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Qargi#Request_for_administrator_rights naulagmi Naulagmi 13:31, 18 October 2014 (AST)
@Naulagmi: Odd request, but please login and sign that request so that people know who they are voting on :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: Did it! (I believe) Naulagmi (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2014 (AST)

{{on hold}} Until November 1 to allow 1 week for local discussion. -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-02. No opposition voiced. 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. -- Avi (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
removed--Jusjih (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I'm requesting administrator access on the Vietnamese Wikiquote. It is a small community, only few IP addresses make a couple of edits per day. The only administrator there hasn't been active for a while. A discussion has been opened for a week but no one responds. I've been granted delete/protect rights on the Vietnamese Wikipedia and am familiar with the duties of/requirements for an administrator. Quenhitran (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-07. Discussion open for 7 days with no significant opposition. 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. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
removed and extended. -- MarcoAurelio 08:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

فلورانس@fawikivoyage

Status:    Done

(fa.wikivoyage is new wikivoyage and now without sysop, I want sysop access for 6 month.) Florence (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-11. Granted for 6 month, would expire on 11 April 2015 Mardetanha talk 10:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks --Florence (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I request for adminship. I have been twice temporary administrator. My current adminship will expire in 2014 November 12. Discussion has finished with agreement from active users. Thanks. --Beko (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

{{on hold}} Discussion has lasted 5 days, we usually wait 7. November 5 comes before the 12, so unless a slew of opposition occurs in the next 1.5 days, hy.wiktionary will not be left without an admin . -- Avi (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-05. Hopefully, the bot will adjust properly, and not remove on the 12th. 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. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully the bot will not remove. --Beko (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended until 5 May 2016. -- Taketa (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

TianyinLee@zhwikivoyage

Status:    Done

RFA closed as 7 supports, no neutral or oppose. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-15. per voy:zh:Special:PermanentLink/50089  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
removed--Jusjih (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to this[29] & this[30]also, Sincerely Yours, --KhabarNegar 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-17. for 6 month, would expire on 17 May 2014 Mardetanha talk 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
removed -- MarcoAurelio 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

TianyinLee@zhwikivoyage

Status:    Done

RFA closed as 7 supports, no neutral or oppose. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-15. per voy:zh:Special:PermanentLink/50089  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
removed--Jusjih (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

SNN95@mswikt

Status:    Done

I'm just an ordinary member of mswikt. I'm also an admin in mswiki for about 1 year and 2 months. My admins in mswikt are currently active in mswiki and I really want to take over the control of that wikt because its versions/features are outdated. In the "Permohonan#SNN95_.28Perbincangan_-_Sumbangan.29", I really want to be an admin, but when in this situation that my mswikt's admins on halt, I should consider to become bureaucrat to get easy access to updated the mswikt. I hope you steward can consider my request for becoming an admin for mswikt. SNN95 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Without any support from this very small community I can only give a temporal (3 months) access. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Good enough for me. But I hope you will change your mind if I get votes from this small community, would you? SNN95 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Each time the temporary rights are about to expire, start a new discussion and then request renewal here. With each renewal (assuming no objections from the community) we will generally grant the rights for longer. Permanent adminship will require a larger and more active community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-05-20. 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. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I will and thank "you"!!! SNN95 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
removed--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Рахман3@kaawiki

Status:    Done

I ask to give me admin rights. -- (Рахман3 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

 On hold till 31 January 2015. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Granted for 4 months to expire on 2015-05-31. --MF-W 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
removed user resigned. -- MarcoAurelio 10:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SNN95@mswikt

Status:    Done

I'm just an ordinary member of mswikt. I'm also an admin in mswiki for about 1 year and 2 months. My admins in mswikt are currently active in mswiki and I really want to take over the control of that wikt because its versions/features are outdated. In the "Permohonan#SNN95_.28Perbincangan_-_Sumbangan.29", I really want to be an admin, but when in this situation that my mswikt's admins on halt, I should consider to become bureaucrat to get easy access to updated the mswikt. I hope you steward can consider my request for becoming an admin for mswikt. SNN95 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Without any support from this very small community I can only give a temporal (3 months) access. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Good enough for me. But I hope you will change your mind if I get votes from this small community, would you? SNN95 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Each time the temporary rights are about to expire, start a new discussion and then request renewal here. With each renewal (assuming no objections from the community) we will generally grant the rights for longer. Permanent adminship will require a larger and more active community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-05-20. 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. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I will and thank "you"!!! SNN95 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
removed--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

बिप्लब आनन्द@mai.wp

Status:    Done
Please grant me permanent adminship for Maithili Wikipedia.The link of discussion page here Thanks Biplab Anand (Talk to me) 05:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, provide a link to a local discussion. Ruslik (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 On hold till 25th November--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-25. Project is still relatively small with less than a score regular editors in the past 30days. Also, this would be the project's only admin currently. Start with six months, and we can revisit the length at the next opportunity. 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. -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Avraham: for the approval. I will do my best to make community moving and translate the message in translatewiki.Biplab Anand (Talk to me) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

extended --Stryn (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I just want the sundanese wikiquote be better, hope considered. Hatur nuhun. Uchup19 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold till 25 Feb.--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-05-25. Discussion opened sufficient length of time with no significant opposition 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. -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

వైజాసత్య@te.wikiquote

Status:    Done

I am admin in Telugu wikipedia, wiktionary and wikisource. I am requesting temporary admin access in te wikiquote to install extensions and templates and customize few features as community has shown recent interest in developing the project. Thanks --వైజాసత్య (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please create a local request/announcement nevertheless, in case anyone comes by and has comments. Also, please note that you can't install MediaWiki extensions by yourself. --MF-W 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Gadgets. I have posted a local request / announcement now --వైజాసత్య (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It is on hold until 25 February then (minimum 1 week for discussion). --MF-W 02:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-05-25. Discussion opened sufficient length of time with no significant opposition 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. -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you MF-W and Avi --వైజాసత్య (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ariel196@hewikivoyage

Status:    Done

Please grant permissions for one year. Dekel E (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

on hold until May 26. Matanya (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-5-26. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Base@ukwikinews

Status:    Done

Hi. Please prolong my temporary adminship in the project. It would be more than a year that I'm a sysop in there (3+6+6 months). No one actually bothered to vote in the confirmation request this time though users where invited to vote in Square (Village pump) but I think it's rather important that no one voted against. :) Thank you in advance. --Base (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-5-28. You have had the confidence of the community in the last three votes, so I'm comfortable with giving you access for one year. Permanent adminship for me would require at least eight supporting votes in the next election. Thanks for volunteering, Ajraddatz (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
extended --Stryn (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mugerganets@lezwikipedia

Status:    Done

Hello, I'm requesting for Administrator permissions for user Mugerganets. The voting took place according the rules of Lezgi Wikipedia.--Soul Train (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with assigning permanent adminship with such a small community, though all of the other sysops are permanent admins. Would a period of a year be an acceptable length? Ajraddatz (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's OK. One of our admins, Aslan4ik, main author of all good and featured articles, is in the army now so it's good that we have active "new" user Mugerganets.--Soul Train (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-05-30. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Рахман3@kaawiki

Status:    Done

I ask to give me admin rights. -- (Рахман3 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

 On hold till 31 January 2015. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Granted for 4 months to expire on 2015-05-31. --MF-W 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
removed user resigned. -- MarcoAurelio 10:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to this[35] & this[36]also, Sincerely Yours, --KhabarNegar 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-05-17. for 6 month, would expire on 17 May 2014 Mardetanha talk 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
removed -- MarcoAurelio 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests

Latest comment: 9 years ago59 comments14 people in discussion

User Ankry@plwikisource

Status:    Done

I am sysop & bureaucrat @plwikisource. I am requesting for temporary importupload permission as we are planning to import few templates from other wikis (enwikisource, possibly frwikisource) and we prefer to do it with full history (to satisfy the attribution requirement of cc-by-sa license). Present configuration does not allow to do it via Special:Import page. I used this tool in oldwikisource, so I am familiar with it. Two weeks should be enough for the planned work. Ankry (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 month to expire on 2015-06-03. MBisanz talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ئاسۆ@ckb.wikipedia

Status:    Done

I request "Interface Editor" right on Central Kurdish Wikipedia. There are a lot of wrong and outdated stuffs with our Wikipedia. The other interface editor and Sysops are inactive in interface editing. Thanks ئاسۆ (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done through local interface as it is not possible to grant this right via Meta and absent local users able to do this and per discussion/community support. There's an old phabricator ticket about this to allow non-existent rights at meta to be changeable from here too, meanwhile we have to do it this way. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks --ئاسۆ (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

activating page imports on hif wikipedia

Status:    Cannot be undertaken

Hello, admins on hif wikipedia have import rights but in that section in drop down list it is only showing incubator, but we need access to import from others wikipedia too like english wikipedia and many more, I have started a discussion on village hand pump on hif wikipedia, for import access from certain other wikipedias,

The whole list is as:
  • Wikipedia Commons (commons)
  • Metawiki (meta)
  • Wikispecies (species)
  • Bhojpuri Wikipedia (bh)
  • German wikipedia (de)
  • English Wikipedia (en)
  • English wikibooks (en:b)
  • English wikiquote (en:q)
  • English wikinews (en:n)
  • English wikisource (en:s)
  • English wikiversity (en:v)
  • Greek Wikipedia (el)
  • Spanish Wikipedia (es)
  • Persian Wikipedia (fa)
  • French Wikipedia (fr)
  • Hindi Wikipedia (hi)
  • Malayalam Wikipedia (ml)
  • Nepali Wikipedia (ne)
  • Dutch Wikipedia (nl)
  • Romanian Wikipedia (ro)
  • Russian Wikipedia (ru)
  • Punjabi Wikipedia (pa)
  • Polish Wikipedia (pl)
  • Portuguese Wikipedia (pt)
  • Simple English Wikipedia (simple)
  • Telugu Wikipedia (te)
  • Tamil Wikipedia (ta)
  • Urdu Wikipedia (ur)

Please enable page import from those wikipedias onto hif wikipedia...tnx...Sushilmishra (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done - We can not do this. You have to request such a thing at Phabricator (old Bugzilla) so they can activate transwiki import sources. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 04:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
tnx a lot for info... :-) --Sushilmishra (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Because of the current atmosphere of suspicion on Czech Wiktionary we have agreed to present the vote to the stewards without evaluating it locally. There are no written rules on voting eligibility, no agreed quorum, no agreed percentage needed for desysoping. As also some concerns about backstage influencing of stewards were raised and some users may feel something really important should be said to the stewards before the evaluation (e.g. accusations of sockpuppetry), please wait a day or two before evaluating so they have their chance to correct or supplement my summary. Tchoř (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I endorse Elfix's putting on hold this request. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. As a statement of fact, an admin at csWikt did post to stewards OTRS board (Ticket:2015050810001901) about the ability for stewards to close, and I provided an opinion that a community could request steward(s) to act as bureaucrats.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Also cs.wikt (and other cs projects, except cs.wiki) is suffering for an ongoing fight between two "factions". At a glance I'd say Milda did the right action, being the wrong person doing it for the right reason...this is what is generally called "a complete mess". --Vituzzu (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Two comments:
  1. the arguments against are not just about this last event
  2. if you say "Milda did the right action", what right action you mean? Outing or indef block?--Juandev (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Indef block is perfectly legit. You were warned even on the OTRS to stop playing this childish game and you went on. We're evaluating the correctness of the vote but there's surely no reason to unblock you.--Vituzzu (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What Juandev did: He added an example sentence into a dictionary entry about a family name (surname). The example sentence was a quote from a news server mentioning a person searched by the police. The person mentioned has the same name like another editor who didn't make his identity public but there was no link to this editor at all - his identity was not revealed or even hinted at - in fact people who didn't know his name had no clue that the example sentence mentioned a name some editor has - only the "initiated" would know.
Compared with other example sentences there was no problem with it - we have lots of example sentences like that. So basically there was no evident reason to delete this example sentence at all. Nevertheless, Milda deleted it with the edit summary "one example sentence is enough" - which was a very bad (or rather stupid) explanation - many entries have several example sentences. After it was reverted, Milda blocked Juandev indef with the block summary "provocation(s) and publishing personal data".
It must be said that half of the block summary is a lie. Juandev did not publish the personal data of any Wikimedian. He "published" personal data of a person searched by the Czech police - something that has already been made known by the media and the Police - so copying it was no break of any rule or law. Please note that personal data in Czech and European law has two parts: "data" and "person". Both parts must be present if a term is personal data. Only one part (a name or address or telephon number etc) if there is no person associated with it constitues no personal data. So if a dictioanry example sentence uses a name of some editor but makes no link to him/her, no personal data of any editor is revelated or hinted at. If you think that Juandev broke any law or rule on personal data, it must be vehemently rejected.
Actually quite the contrary is true. It was Milda himself who in his comment in the above mentioned page did the outing - he linked the the family name and the afflicted editor (it's now hidden in page history). Yes, it was Milda who did the actual outing! --Auvajs (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I stop to understand. I agree that my edit was not good. It was the first time, I did that and I will not do that any more, as I can see it was not good. But I would never release personal identity of a person, who does not want so. What happened is described above. I didnt want to release someone identity, thats why I havent linked that example with a user of Wiktionary. It is not just a law of Czech Republic or EU, but seemingly of the US as it is described in the article en:Personal data.
So if we are talking about that according which Wikimedia policy it was oversighted? Which Wikimedia policy I broke, that I should get indef block? Why Milda, who revealed the personal data is not blocked?
But lets have a look on the arguments also. Most of the arguments are about this last case (most supporters arguments agress with you Vituzzu, that I have revealed personal data). Other arguments against Milda are also, that he commit a personal attack against me (and you should remember that, because, you checked him) and was saying he didnt do that. That was the first time, some where calling him to resing and he did not do that. And than some other behavioural issues are placed as arguments against Milda.--Juandev (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Disclaimer: quibbling is the best way to persuade me you're acting in bad faith.
@Auvajs: that's a nice fairy tale. Juandev's one was a pure provocation, he choose that particular sentence in order to provocate his enemies.
@Juandev: yep, Milda socked to play the same game you love playing. I believe the only solution is to remove all people loving this game for CS projects, so maybe their fellow players will stop fighting.
--Vituzzu (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that is your POV. My statment is not, I didnt.--Juandev (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It definitely is and denying it this way sounds almost offensive. If it wasn't a provocation WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT SENTENCE? --Vituzzu (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I did not want to say, that using the name XY was good. I agree with you it was not. I failed:-( But the motivation and choise of that sentence that time was not a provocation. The reason was, that other senteces, published by enities from which we quote on cs.wikt, where not available.
You stewards have had oversighted two of my edits there, with summary "personal information". One was an example sentence, one was a name X. In the sentece there was a name XY, but no link to Wikimedia user. Thus it was not a revelation of persona information. But it is still oversighted as personal information and you still inist in insulting me for revelation. User Auvaj tells you it was not a revelation, but it is still oversighted as a revalation. Did somone worn me and explained me, that I am doing something wrong, which I should not be doing? No. But OK, I agree with you, it was bad. So I will dont do that any more.
Example of name X is from my POV a declination of someones user name, from stewards POV it is a revalation of personal information. I am saying it is not a revelation of personal data, English Wikipedia is saying its not a revelation of personal data, about ten other users on cs.wp are saying its not a revelation of personal data. So why your POV is different? Why changes of that user name commited by other users are still publicaly available? Why these examples are not oversighted also? Why The user does not have problem with those changes? Why you dont assume the bad faight that those users reveals personal information?--Juandev (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
How long do you plan to go on playing this way? --Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not outing, it's a POINT, and it can also be seen as harassment. It's sad you won't understand that. Anyways, this is not what this section is about. Please stand by while the voting is being discussed. Elfix 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: what is it that you consider quibbling? I defended Juandev from the accusations of outing because I'm sure he didn't do it and if he's accused of it, I consider it unjust. On the other hand I agree that what he did was was a provocation - a kind of a personal attack. We had discussions if it was a POINT - some editors thought so, I don't think so because the example sentence didn't make any harm to the project itself, it was by all means acceptable, there was no apparent need to remove it. If it was added to a different entry, it would probably stay. --Auvajs (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need to pretend it was legit? Seriously, we all know this was a pure provocation looking for the n-th overreaction, so why do we need to fool ourselves? --Vituzzu (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The intent was surely bad. But the edit itself was legit. If you were known to anxiously hide your location, I knew it and after we were in dispute I started adding useful content to the Wikipedia article about the city of your location, it would also be legit. Wouldn't? You may have considered it a provocation but that would be all you could do. Here we had a similar situation. --Auvajs (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Auvajs and Juandev --Sapiens123456 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's called WP:POINT and WP:GAME. The Wikimedia projects aren't there for taking revenge against your foes. Elfix 07:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And blocks indef, block summaries and oversight on Wikimedia projects are for taking revenge against your foes? --Auvajs (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The wrongs are on both sides. Juandev admitting it would be a good start. Elfix 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with Elfix. Milda blocked Juandev groundless. --Sapiens123456 (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That's enough. Let's cut this discussion short since it seems it isn't going anywhere. Elfix 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Since none of the involved sides agreed with stopping the war is time to consider removing both of them. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relationship vote is quite evident. Milda should not be an administrator. --Sapiens123456 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't use automatic translators just to underline how strong is your support for Juandev's faction right or wrong it might be. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
By vote results it is evident, that Milda should not be an administrator. (And I claim that I did not use automatic translator). --Kusurija (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kusurija: "relationship vote" seems to come from an automatic translator, anyway blind support of *any* faction is the worst problem affecting those wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with stewards, there is no need to discuss this topic here again. The arguments where placed into the vote on cs.wikt. I think if stewards needs to unerstand the text of the vote, they will ask someone neutral to translate it.--Juandev (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Elfix 09:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Elfix: Personally I have nothing against Milda or the other admin. As you can see Juandev admitted he made a mistake. I admit I made some mistakes too. I'm sorry for them. But as you said, the wrongs are on both sides. The other side must also admit it made wrongs. I see no reflection from Milda's side. The other admin was asked by several users to have his adminship confirmed and he simply ignores it - like he ignores most messages on his talk page. We could continue on and on. --Auvajs (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Milda's mistake was socking against Juandev, to me he was worth losing adminship at that time. But now this block has been triggered by something which cannot be deemed as "mistake" since Juandev had been already warned about this kind of behaviour. Now I don't see an easy or costless solution: if Milda loses his adminship I expect remaining sysops will be forced to unblock Juandev who will be able to go on provocating his enemies, if Milda won't be removed I expect it to be read as a sort of "amnesty" about anything made against Juandev. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You dont assume good faith Vituzzu. BTW, where and by whom I was worn? I dont know about it.--Juandev (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: excuse me, but by my humble opinion You stay definitely on wrong side. 1. The question is about who? Is it about Milda or about Juandev? Please, be so kind and answer this. 2. If Milda together with some others in clique should do some pressing/intentions on en.wictionary (as e.g. disabling pictures anywhere throughot all wictionary (and more other actions in similar spirit)), provoking certain editors in trolling manner (maybe not clearly trolling), how should react sysops(and/or community) on en.wikt (leave thinking about cs.wikt now). In my opinion, he and they would be stopped in some/any way. Don't You think so? Some illustrative example: if two dogs rabidly fights one with another, one stronger, other weaker, what should the owner do? Surely punish the weaker, so this stopped fight. Is it right the same psychology apply for intelligent people? Surely not. Why? 'cos there is such thing called the right. So if You disagree there, could I hold on my mind whether are You the very steward useful for this case? Maybe someone thinks I'm a sockpuppet of Juandev or Auvajs or somethig simmilar? If so, please, check me... (P.S. I'm not saying in this post, whether I agree with Juandev's and/or Auvajs' behavior on that case You mentioned in this case, so let keep theme) --Kusurija (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Juandev: not at all, assuming good faith with someone warned so much time in this particular situation would mean being utterly stupid.
@Kusurija: Sorry but I cannot understand you so I can just write some general considerations: Juandev has been warned to stop provoking, he did the same. I found Milda socking but local community did nothing when I made you aware of my findings. People blindly supporting these factions make the worst possible mistake.
--Vituzzu (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Vituzzu: Sorry but I cannot understand You. Did You read this part of my comment by my vote: "Na jednu stranu se to dá pochopit, protože již nejen on, ale i my mnozí další máme zkušenosti s tím, že domoci se něčeho u zdejších správců je sysyfovská a marná práce..." And yes, I had made mistake there, that did not point to main problem with Milda: administrating against wishes of enough big part of community... more concretely and understandably (for non-Czechs). --Kusurija (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The "smoking gun" we're dealing with is last Juandev's block, isn't it? --Vituzzu (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Vituzzu:: Yes You're right, it isn't. For me the "smoking gun" is desysoping of Milda on cs.wictionary. I guess I'm not only one such. So if You see the only one "smoking gun" (as You named it) the problem with Juandev, please realize, that this is about Milda, not lonely about Juandev. Thank You for understanding. --Kusurija (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"Smoking gun" means (simplifying) "the evidence for something". I meant the reason for this vote is Juandev's block. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
So I can see, my understanding of term "Smoking gun" was accurate, but Yours understanding of my argues was not. So I apologize for my ununderstable explaining and rather worse (my) English than Yours Czech... The reason for this vote was generally bad sysoping of Milda. Juandev's block was only initiating event. If not this event, someone then would start such vote after any another Milda's mis-edit, enough serious to start such vote. So I repeat, that Juandevs case is not the main theme of this request. The main theme is Milda's behavior. Thank You for understanding (in advance). --Kusurija (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Assuming Juandev behavior was wrong, two corrective actions come to mind: 1) desysopping Juandev; 2) blocking Juandev indefinitely. As for 1), Juandev is not a sysop, so this is covered. As for 2), Juandev is now indef blocked. Looking at the other party in the dispute, Milda, no corrective action was taken. The proper corrective action IMHO is to remove admin rights as per the results of the vote. While the vote was triggered by the indef block, multiple editors pointed out the socking by Milda that served to abuse Juandev. If it is claimed that both Juandev and Milda like to play some sort of objectionable games, they should be both brought to the status of an ordinary editor with no admin rights, as the least measure. Note that we are not talking blocking Milda, which would IMHO still be an appropriate measure. Even if desysopped, Milda will still have the option of expanding the dictionary with lexicographical content (which would be presumably why he came there), which Juandev will not be able to do.

    Re: "I found Milda socking but local community did nothing when I made you aware of my findings.": The "did nothing" part is not entirely accurate: multiple editors raised their misgivings at cs:wikt:Diskuse_s_uživatelem:Milda/Archiv02#Výzva k odstoupení in November 2013, (loosely translated as "request to give up admin rights"). It is to be admitted that the powers that be did nothing as a result; user Tchoř left a note in that link but did not issue a block and nor did any other admin. Indeed, Milda is part of a power clique that engages in unjust methods of government, including non-consensual removal of all images from the Czech Wiktionary.

    One more note: user Tchoř is a bureaucrat in cs wikt and has the technical means of desysopping Milda. In my view, he should have acted on the vote instead of trying to derail it by bringing it to Meta, where only people who do not speak Czech are able to take any action. I do understand the reluctance to act when one does not understand the language in which the disputes were held on the local wiki. Tchoř does understand the language, and, in my view, has the moral obligation to act, which he failed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

    As far as I know, no decision was taken, yet. Please do not assume no action will be taken against Milda. For the record, Stewards are there to implement community consensus, nothing more. PS. Tchoř does not have the technical ability to remove a sysop from cs.wikt. Elfix 08:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    I thought bureaucrats have the ability to remove sysops. W:Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Bureaucrats tells me that "Bureaucrats have extended access to Special:UserRights, enabling them to [...] both add users to and remove users from the 'administrator' and 'bot' user groups." Is cs wikt customized differently? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    According to cs:wikt:Speciální:Seznam uživatelských práv, bureaucrats can only give (not remove) administrator rights. As far as I know, it is the default configuration of most wikis. Elfix 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    My mistake, as per your link. I made a wrong assumption based on en wiki and en wikt (en:wikt:Special:ListGroupRights). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Dont know settings of en projects, but none of cs WMF projects is set to give byrs such right.--Juandev (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Dan Polansky: We're being off-topic, but being accused, I take the freedom to respond: On April 17, I had announced my intention to yield the evaluation to the stewards ([37],[38]). My opinion is that independent referee should evaluate this vote to calm the mood. You had plenty opportunities to request local evaluation (and/or to remind me of alleged obligations), you actually participated in following discussion on conditions of evaluation, but you have never mentioned any disapproval of my intention. I see no point in this late complaint.--Tchoř (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    As per above, I made a mistake assuming more rights than available to cs wikt bureaucrats, and I apologize for it. Furthermore, I admit that I did not complain in cs wikt about the declared intent to go to Meta, so now it is a bit too late. However, I rest my case that you undertook no administrative action against Milda in 2013 when he was making a gross sockpuppetting attack and then lying about it (yes, lying as acknowledged by multiple people involved back then and later). An utter and entire absence of administrative action agains Milda in presence of such a transgression served to support him in what followed, and what multiple editors complained of: an unaccountable admin who disregards community consensus as long as his own position is supported by other admins. For instance, evidence of Milda's misrepresentation of consensus about abolition of images from cs wikt is at cs:wikt:User talk:Thamizhpparithi Maari: "According to the consensus of the community, adding images, that are not necessary to understand the meaning of words, is undesirable on this project." --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    I do not agree with your interpretation (I especially doubt that the given Milda's edit from February 2012 could be a consequence of something I did not do in November 2013) and if any of the stewards expresses his interest, I can present my view … but I doubt that investigating why Milda was not blocked back in 2013 is of any relevance to the present problem.--Tchoř (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Just for the record, this is Milda's explanation after he was asked to resign for the recorded socking. I translated it into English. Source: [39]
Tally
Remove Remove Keep Keep
18 7

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

-1
-1

10 5

"Recently I added a new network card into my computer and configured iptables and squid to allow another home computer be connected. This is something I only did once before, about 10 years ago, when we had a short time connectivity problem with our provider. It was the old 2.4 kernel back than without ipchains and squid. If this settings change led to creating open proxy (my IP address could have been revealed either in edit history or in IRC) these are problems I deserved. Even though I studied programming I'm not active as a programmer anymore, I only do some minor scripts here and there. I don't consider this to be a reason I should resign as an admin. I did not create the mentioned user account nor did I create the mentioned entry."

Personally I can live with the fact that he did some socking - it was a personal attack but generally speaking personal attacks are common. But what about an admin deliberately lying? It seems that noone believed in Milda's fairy tale - and I've never seen he ever admitted he really did the socking and he never admitted he lied. Nor did he ever excused himself.--Auvajs (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We've reviewed the votes. Users who were canvassed into voting weren't counted; only the active users before the voting begun were. We have 5 Keep Keep, 10 Remove Remove. With only 33% support, it appears that Milda can no longer be entrusted with the administrator's rights, which will therefore have to be removed from them per lack of community consensus (The Stewards have only tried to determine community support and have not considered the rationales of the votes on the page). As to Juandev, they are firmly asked to avoid any disruptive behaviour towards other Wikimedians in the future. Outing, gaming the system or any other attempts to destabilize a contributor causes harm to the Wikimedia projects, and such harm will have be prevented from happening any further, if required. Elfix 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions/2015-05&oldid=25477685"