Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions/2017-01

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests | Permissions
Latest comment: 7 years ago by MarcoAurelio in topic Removal of access

Administrator access

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion

[email protected]

Status:    Done

(Happy New Year , i,m Florence from fawikt and expand 1 , 2, 3, 4, my access in fawikit and now make one vote page in fawikt in this page for permanent adminship ) Thanks AFlorence (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears you already have permanent adminship on fa.wikt. Can you show me where it says you do not? MBisanz talk 23:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
No, they are going to expire, or should have expired already. You assigned them for 7 months, but wrote that for 6 months :-). See Special:Permalink/15678418 (and log). Note the user was renamed, and user right logs are not moved at the same time. --Stryn (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Stryn i,m here Global Renam my username AFlorence (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. --Stryn (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dear --AFlorence (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Polar@mswiki

Status:    Not done

Seek your assistance to grant sysop right to @Polar:. Voting had been done and can be assessed via this link [[1]]. I had requested local bureaucrats however no action until today. TQ Zamwan (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Comment - mswiki as local bureaucrats, cannot be handled locally? --Ks-M9 [disc.] 13:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
Aurora is currently on vacation until further notice while Yosri has been not active since early Nov 2016. Zamwan (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zamwan: Have you tried to email Aurora or Yosri? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 13:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a reason why it hasn't been done. Could you provide that? Savhñ 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Frankly speaking all communications were done via various discussion pages at ms.wiki. I will send another email to Yosri for his action. Zamwan (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no reply from Yosri so far. Can we move forward i.e. grant the adminship rights to @Polar:. TQ Zamwan (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully that sysop in meta can help @Polar: to become a Malay Wikipedia sysop cause the polled have been held to ensure he become a sysop. Unfortunately, @Aurora: and @Yosri: had long been inactive in Malay Wikipedia. --Apli kasi 17:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There are neither edits nor logged actions for Aurora since January 2016. There are both edits and logged actions for Yosri as late as November 2016. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If my understanding of the local criteria is correct, the requirements stated on the vote page with regard to minimum participation are not met. Per previous requests that have been handled by local bureaucrats differently than requested here, I request you to please sort this out locally. Savhñ 09:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Thanks AFlorence (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a local request? --MF-W 13:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
hi, sorry , This is Local Vote Page , thanks AFlorence (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Despite the large response on the request, the community doesn't seem to be that active, so it looks wiser, with regard to the development of the project, to grant temporary adminship. Savhñ 20:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
for why temporary , this Request for Permanent Adminship , i have 5 temporary adminship in this 3 years , i,m need work in this project , if not need for this access , add request for remove this access from my account , thanks --AFlorence (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Also , we in universitys exams season , and this project is not general and travel project and have very active user in end year season , help me for active this project , and NOW this project without Admin, i,m The only admin in this project , thanks AFlorence (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Participants' edit counts (which are of course an imperfect measure) are 211, 112, 62, 35, 258, 6525, 50, 16, 32, 29, 11, 782, 126, 25, 5. With 6 users over 100 edits, I think this could be an edge case where one can also give permanent adminship. --MF-W 14:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is an edge case, but keeping in mind the fact that there are no other admins raises personal doubts that granting it permanently will limit the potential of growth of the project. I am however also concerned by AFlorence's statement in which he seems to indicate that he rather has no adminship than adminship with a review after a year. Savhñ 10:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
if Stewards help this project >this project is not deactive , we need your Support my home wiki is fa.wikivoyage and i tired from ( Log,1,2,3,4,5) vote and expire my access Every three or six months , i need work Permanent in this project, thanks Savh & MF-W --AFlorence (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Permanent adminship granted. Savhñ 09:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dear Savh AFlorence (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

عثمان منصور انصاري@ps.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Hello, for more development in Pashto wikipedia we need to a local bureaucrat and I think Usman Mansur Ansari is the best choice for this access in our project because he is one of the experienced user in Pashto wikipedia project. Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the size of the community, I believe having a bureaucrat will in no way encourage the development of the project, but possibly even hinder it - that being the reason user rights on small projects are managed by us. Noting the user is a temporary admin. Savhñ 00:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Hello for more changes and develompent in lrc wikipedia we need a local bureaucrat and we think mogoeiloris good choice for this action please help us.lrc lori (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the size of the community and the fact that you don't even have a local admin I see no need for a local bureaucrat at this stage. -- Tegel (Talk) 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"We think" is "you think [that you are] a good choice"? --Stryn (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

so thanks what can I do? for now please help me.lrc lori (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Today your administrator rights got removed because they expired. If you want to continue being an admin there please start a new local request. I hope you realize a difference between a bureaucrat and an admin. --Stryn (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

ok so thanks I got it!!!lrc lori (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yunshui@enwiki

Status:    Done

Please return the checkuser permission to Yunshui on behalf of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Thank you, Mkdw (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oversight access

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yunshui@enwiki

Status:    Done

Please return the oversight permission to Yunshui on behalf of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Thank you, Mkdw (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of access

Latest comment: 7 years ago145 comments54 people in discussion

User TnoXX@ukwiki

Status:    Done

I'm not anymore active, that's why I would like to have my current sysop status revoked. Thanks!--TnoXX (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than 24h since the request was posted, so removed. einsbor talk 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata inactive admins

Status:    Done
Status:    Done

Did not make necessary 5 edits in the last six months, see d:User:Cyberpower678/ActiveStats. Unfortunately flags have to be removed. Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 18:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

रोहित रावत@hiwikt

Status:    Not done

He is bureaucrat but not active since one year plus. Also i have left a Message on his talk page. Thanks.--आर्यावर्त (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

i want to withdraw this request.--आर्यावर्त (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pmlineditor@simplewiki

Status:    Done

Pmlineditor has had less than 100 edits/logs in the last year so has lost his admin access per simple:Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and as per local policy you must be an admin to be a 'crat so could we get his crat bit removed. Thanks. -Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If I read the policy correctly, I see that it mentions "within the past calendar year". Maybe I'm not understanding it well, but I see that last admin action by Pmlineditor was on 25 may 2016, so if year should be observed, shouldn't we wait till May to desysop, or it means that on each January there will be the review? Sorry if I'm wrong. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
He needs to make 100 edits within the calendar year "An inactive administrator is one who had made less than 100 changes or administrative actions combined within the past calendar year" Which means he needed to make 100 edits/actions in 2016. We do the cleanup on January 1st of all admins who didn't hit 100. This year it was only him. You might be mixing the two times we do it. We also do it for admins who have zero edits in a straight 12 month period. "Editors who have zero edits in a 12 month period will also be considered inactive." -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. It makes sense. Sorry for the trouble. —MarcoAurelio 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Palnatoke@dawiki

Status:    Done

I am leaving the Danish-language Wikipedia, so please remove my administrator, checkuser, and OTRS permissions. Thanks in advance. Palnatoke (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Stryn (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
For the closure of your OTRS account, please contact one of the OTRS administrators. Savhñ 18:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, removed admin and CU status. I've emailed the OTRS admins. @DerHexer: please remove him from private IRC channels if he's there. --Stryn (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
All Done (cu-l, cu wiki and irc). Trijnsteltalk 00:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Ou0430 (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User bunyk@ukwiki

Status:    Done

Having that status creates to high expectations for your contributions, and making overall editing not as pleasant as it could been without it. So, I decided to resign. Thanks. Bunyk (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please, remove my admin and patrol flag. Thanks.MaGa (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

On hold for 1 day. Btw we can't remove your patrol flag. It needs to be removed by the local admins. --Stryn (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Stryn: OK, already done. Is there any possibility of not receiving e-mails from other users globally (some kind of tool), or I should go on every wikipedia and turn it off in my preferences?--MaGa (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Removed. Thanks for your work. And no, it's not possible to change settings globally. --Stryn (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@MaGa: Removing the e-mail address linked to your account is however possible, and that removes the possibility for users to e-mail you globally. There are however other consequences such as losing the ability to do a password reset. Savhñ 09:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Максим_Підліснюк@uk.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please, remove admin and bureaucrat flag per community decision (has over 65% when 51% is needed) Yakudza (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But there was a vote only about the sysop flag. --Base (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
But Ukrainian page uk:ВП:Б states that a bureaucrat must be a sysop. When a user is desysopped, logically they cannot be a crat anymore — NickK (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
But Ukrainian page uk:ВП:Б is not a ukwiki policy. At least I do not see the {{Policy}} template there or other indication of it being one. Its categories indicate that it is a help page, but help pages are not what is relevant here. --Base (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is in exactly the same format as uk:ВП:А which is a ukwiki policy, but still does not have such template. You do not need to go to Meta to suggest improvements to ukwiki pages — NickK (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, but regardless of uk:ВП:А page status, the decision about sysop flag here is supplemented by a community vote, while the decision about the bureaucrat flag is not, so the situation is not equal. I do not need to go here to suggest improvements to ukwiki pages, and am not going to ever do it, but I do need to go here to point at possible discordance of the request to the relevant policies, even though I hate making sections here lengthy. --Base (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, in nomination there was not stated that user will lose also crat flag, and voters may not know about it. All users votes for losing sysop flag.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, and you knew it yourself. You asked another ukwiki sysop on the voting page: чи готовий ти номінуватися на бюрократа, в разі позбавлення прав Підліснюка? (are you ready to nominate yourself for a crat flag if [Максим] Підліснюк loses rights?. It is clear that you knew that this nomination is about bureaucrat rights as well. The nominator also mentioned crat flag in his denomination statement — NickK (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I say about support voters. Nominator also mentioned WMUA membership, OTRS membership in the same sentence, but not mentioned that any of statuses will be lost after voting.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you want stewards to do? Do you want them to organise a survey among ukwiki users who voted in support of removal on whether they knew if bureaucrat rights were to be removed? It is perfectly clear that Ukrainian Wikipedia is not supposed to have crats who are not sysops. When you were desysopped in 2007, your bureaucrat rights were removed as well. Please do not try to game the system — NickK (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
But there where many changes since that. In 2007 crat flag was additional checkbox when granting sysop status, but now it is separate status which can be given and removed indepentdently.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've removed their sysop flag. Please come back regarding their bureaucrat access after discussing it locally; it isn't our job to rule on local policy. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a local consensus remove flag bureaucrat. NickK is explained in detail. [personal attack removed] --Yakudza (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Removed bureaucrat flag as well. Savhñ 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the place where that consensus was established? NickK was basing his explanations on his view on his arguable view on what to consider policies despite lack of explicit signs of that, and did not provide any consensus based arguments, while Ahonc has confirmed that the discussion you have linked had no information about an intention to remove the bureaucrat flag too. Also, please try to be civil even though we are not friends, thanks. --Base (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop flag on cs.wikipedia. It's time for a change, I don't have enough free time and enthusiasm for patrolling etc anymore. Thank you. --Jiekeren (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User 范@zhwiki

Status:    Done

Hello, I am a bureaucrat from Chinese Wikipedia. According to the local consensus, the sysop privilege should be revoked from user 范 (74% versus 26%). Please help doing it. Thanks! --PhiLiP (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed their sysop flag. @PhiLiP: this user also has oversight access; you have not specifically requested that it be removed, but should it as well? – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: Thanks for reminding me. I double checked the discussion page and I can confirm that we should also remove his oversight access as well. --PhiLiP (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User Ely1@hewiki

Status:    Done

hi, had enough, and anyway, my 3 years term as admin is ending. Ely1 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your service. MBisanz talk 02:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Tulsi Bhagat@multiplewiki

Status:    Not done
Status:    Not done

please remove his sysop access. user is globally blocked. reason:cross wiki abuse ☆★Raaza Upreti (✉✉) 12:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz:, should this person lose sysop powers? MechQuester (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If I'm not misunderstanding, Tulsi abused of multiple accounts to revert "auto-vandalism" in several wikis and write numeroses "self-denounces" on SRG of these vandalisms. In this case is needed a local community approval to remove his user-rights or have an exceptional removal if the user is globally locked? --Ks-M9 [disc.] 18:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC).
Yes, he was making bad-hand accounts and then reverting them. This particular lock is intended as a temporary stop-gap measure to prevent further abuse, and may be lifted in the future upon appeal. As such, it would not be appropriate to remove local permissions outside of community discussion yet, and especially inappropriate for JuniorX2 to be grave-dancing here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz:, there is also User:Tulsibot. MechQuester (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected] for Zazaki

Status:    Not done

Please remove his translation access for Zazaki. This user is as globally blocked under the real name Erdemaslancan, because of cross wiki abuse. He always uses sock puppets (like 1917 Ekim Devrimi, Kumkumuk, Marmase, Velg, Gorizon and several others) to gain access. Mirzali (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mirzali. Although reminded several time, admin Nemo hasn't gave a reaction about his insultings on us at Zazaki Wikipedia. We translated some of his ugly swearings and threatening to English. Instead of blocking 1917 Ekim Devrimi and Gambollar, Nemo blocked us both without evidence. This guy is ruining our Zazaki Wikipedia project since years. He does know how to change always his IP number but he doesn't know to get master of his base emotions. --asmên 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done Not a Wikimedia Project. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So, where we can make our complains? --asmên 19:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You could use betawiki:Support. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

DHN@metawiki

Status:    Done

User has performed no renames within a year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User [email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove admin status. Henrykus has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thank you. --НУРшЯGIO(beware of the moose) 02:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Done with many thanks for their work. RadiX∞ 02:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

INeverCry@commonswiki

The following request is closed: We will implement consensus, whenever it is reached and duly reported, since removal of the rights does not seem to be an emergency. This is really a discussion that should take place on commons. Savhñ 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on consensus within the bureaucrat group, the addition of the rights has been undone, returning to the status quo ante. Savhñ 00:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC). Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Status:    Done

Please remove the sysop flag of INeverCry. It was reinstated out of process. During the latest resignation of his sysop bit, INeverCry assured that this resignation would be final and irrevocable. Thus, to regain sysop bit, the usual application procedure is necessary at the very least. The current discussion on Commons shows that there is absolutely no consensus to reinstate INC's sysop bit, and that a regular re-application at this timepoint is likely to fail as well. I don't want to blame the bureaucrat AFBorchert at the moment, anyone of us may make mistakes from time to time, but this doesn't change anything on the fact that the recent reinstatement of INC's sysop bit was out of process and has to be undone. Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please keep on hold until the deciding crat, AFBorchert, can make statement. Thank you. --Krd 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that A.Savin is not a bureaucrat and that he is in no position to do this request. Krd is a bureaucrat. Jcb (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Then can the stewards please treat this request as if was written by me—a community-elected Commons bureaucrat. Thank you, odder (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I didn't know that such requests are limited to bureaucrats. In a regular case, this may be logical, but here we have a case of an out-of-process action which should be undone asap, so actually just someone has to inform the stewards about it, as only stewards can remove sysop flag, but sadly not the bureaucrat who granted it. Thanks odder. --A.Savin (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a community dispute, please don't use us as a part in it. Please return here once there is consensus locally as to how this should be handled. I've placed this request on hold. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
An out-of-process action against community consensus cannot be undone? --A.Savin (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
An action made by a bureaucrat, contested by another bureaucrat, considering there's not harm there's not need to remove now. Please do not insist, Commons is large enough to reach a consensus without us acting like sort of an arbcom. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As Vituzzu says, the Commons community is perfectly capable of handling this. All I intend to do as a sysop is simple deletions anyways, so there's no emergency of any kind. I don't have any intention of participating in any situation that concerns blocking or unblocking of a long-term user. lNeverCry 19:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I commented on this at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'm marking this request as not done - according to the Stewards policy, it is our responsibility to implement consensus, and that does not exist here. It is not our responsibility to make rulings on local policy issues, so please start a new request when local consensus has gone either way and the discussion is appropriately closed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The current consensus is, that the latest resignation was irrevocable, and so it was out of process and against the rules to grant sysop flag without prior discussion. You still fail to understand it? Sorry for the rather extreme example, but imagine a crat on Wikipedia runs amok and grants sysop flags to a couple of recently registered vandal-only accounts. Would you then also say it's not your responsibility to take action and fix this violation of rules? --A.Savin (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually understand the situation quite well, and I would ask that you keep your comments civil here. This is not a case of a rogue bureaucrat granting sysop rights to vandalism-only accounts; here, a bureaucrat has implemented a result that they believe matches policy, and is supported in that action by a substantial portion of the users involved in the discussion. Another substantial portion of the users involved, including yourself, argue that the re-sysop was out of process because a) the desysop was made under controversial circumstances, b) the 24 hour waiting period was not followed, and c) because he promised to not re-request the rights. Because there is discussion ongoing as to which of these perspectives is correct, it would be entirely inappropriate for stewards to intervene by picking one side or the other. So, please accept that I will implement a desysop if one is requested through a consensus of the Commons community, but until that time it would be highly inappropriate for stewards to be wheel-warring with elected Commons bureaucrats. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
What kind of community consensus do you require? A formal de-adminship request or would a statement from the unlucky crat who gets to close the BN-discussion be sufficient? Or perhaps a statement from AFBorchert in which he admits that he is wrong? I would like to avoid the first option. Natuur12 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Any of those options would be sufficient. The easiest would probably be to have a neutral 'crat close the current BN discussion after it has ended, and if there is consensus that the reinstatement was out-of-process then we could remove the bit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(editconflicted) Honestly what I see at commons' BN is so close to a vote of confidence, simply lacking of the, now necessary, formalism. I'd also point out of 10 bureaucrat 2 are in favor, one is "generally supportive", one is for removal, another one is for removal for legitimacy reasons. Anyway, with big projects is not our business to state whatever a resignation was in good standing or not. Open a formal vote of confidence, make a pool among bureaucrats, find any other solution, but, since there's no harm at all, don't ask us to take any side in this kind of dispute. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Things on Commons clearly go out of hand for quite some time already, and I do expect that the project will be put under external governance at some point, but until this happened, let us indeed formally follow the procedures. If the BN discussion is properly reclosed, and the close is not contested by other crats, I am sure stewards will remove the flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment @Ajraddatz: Your suggestion above that all that's required here is a close of the BN discussion in favor of taking back my bit is completely inappropriate. I was elected as an admin by the Commons community. I self-requested the removal of my flag. Desysop policy on Commons requires routine or serious abuse of tools. In this case I removed a 3-month old block, and I've acknowledged the error and promised not to repeat it. My tools should only be removed through a successful desysop request. Stewards and crats shouldn't overrule the community and give them no say. I didn't do anything egregious here that would require steward interference. My enemies on Commons like Savin shouldn't be able to pull strings here at Meta. Besides, who said crat or any other voted approval or disapproval is required for giving the bit back to someone who self requested bit removal? lNeverCry 22:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not planning on interfering at all; if a community discussion results in a consensus for some action, the steward will implement it. If you feel that I do not have a fair rationale for doing so, then I'd be happy to step back and let one of the other stewards close this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    @INeverCry: Please, for the sake of the Commons and wider Wikimedia community, do the honourable thing, resign your administrator permission on Commons and uphold the promise you made to the community in December 2016. It really hurts to watch you treat the community with this level of disdain. Nick (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I hereby strongly protest against your claim "My enemies on Commons like [A.]Savin". Anyone who's interested in the issue may want to read my today's statement. It seems that everyone who dares to criticize INC is automatically his enemy. Needless to say it's a totally unbearable behaviour. --A.Savin (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This request is closed lacking consensus. Please use a more appropiate venue on commons itself. Savhñ 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bureaucrat request
Status:    Done

On behalf of the Commons bureaucrat team, I would like to request that the stewards kindly reverse today's reinstating of @INeverCry's admin rights on Commons. As the rights were granted back through the decision of a bureaucrat—rather than through a community vote, ie. an RfA—we believe that it is within our bureaucrat discretion to be able reverse this decision and spare the community needless disruption and hurt. We have therefore reached an almost unanimous decision (9 in favour and 1 oppose, out of all 10 Commons bureaucrats) to request that INeverCry's sysop privileges on Commons be removed. We believe that INeverCry ought to seek the Commons community's consensus to again serve as an administrator and would indeed ask him to re-apply through a regular RfA vote should he choose to do so. Thank you, odder (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where your fellow crats 99of9, EugeneZelenko, Ellin Beltz, or AFBorchert vote to have my bit removed. lNeverCry 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I notice that @MichaelMaggs: is active right now, and that @Ellin Beltz: was active a few minutes ago, I hope that they can respond here. @INeverCry: I remain enormously disappointed (and thus saddened) at your attitude here. Nick (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi INC. The discussion was by email on the Bureaucrat's email list. For transparency, my comment was: "I also agree with this course of action. As I said in my comment on the initial request, I am not familiar with the recent removal of rights, so I took him at his word that there was no cloud. It sounds like that is at least debatable. So the restoration, as well as being too quick, was based on votes themselves based on an unclear premise." Basically, I see this as correcting a procedural error where the outcome was not obviously going to be identical if a better procedure was followed. I will certainly consider supporting you in an RfA (after I have looked into the recent removal). --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an exceptional case, and after careful evaluation, I have proceeded to the removal of the admin right, undoing the action by the bureaucrat based on the consensus within the bureaucrat group that it should be undone, reported by odder and confirmed by 99of9. Savhñ 00:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. There was an ec, but I was just myself trying to confirm Odder's statement above that he placed this request with the (almost) unanimous approval of the entire crat team, a decision made on the bureaucrats' email list. While Commons (currently) has no written policy that applies to this exact situation, we believe that it is within our joint discretion to revoke the setting of an admin bit that was done by one of our number without what we consider to be the required community approval via an RFA. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Edoderoo@wikidata

Status:    Done
@Edoderoo: Please reconsider this decision. The accusations were made by a single user and may not reflect the opinion of the Wikidata community. --Pasleim (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

comment: Wait, please. Try and work it out with Vogone before you give up your power. MechQuester (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My bot-bit was removed with the remark: You're unreliable. The discussion the rest of the day did not sound very promising to me, but it is really unthankfull for the many many hours I spent on Wikidata last year. I don't feel like I'm ever going to get over this may-2015 discussion with stewards like this on this project. I understand that a bot will be blocked when edits are not understood, but this steward went a few steps ahead. I don't feel like we are going to talk this out like this. Edoderoo (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note stewards are unrelated to the actions you're referring to. Putting this on hold, allowing the user to reconsider his decision. Savhñ 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: Wil je alsnog dat je sysoprechten op wikidata weggehaald worden? Savhñ 12:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Gezien het andere issue is uitgemond is een venijnige partij verwijten maken, lijkt mij dat inderdaad het beste. Ik voel er niets voor om hier extra rechten te hebben, wanneer anderen "flexibel gebruik" van die rechten menen te moeten maken. Mijn humeur is hierdoor zwaar verpest geraakt. Edoderoo (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Savhñ 09:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

분당선[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please remove all my rights from kowiki. Good bye.DangSunM (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 On hold for 24h, as per standard practice. RadiX∞ 03:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Please Don't mind this request. I want still think about my retirement decision bit more longer. Regards,--DangSunM (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Tagging as not done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

AFBorchert@commonswiki

Status:    Done

I would like to resign my bureaucrat bit at Commons. Thanks, --AFBorchert (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Making one bad move does not make you a bad crat, and you better keep the bit and use it to learn. It is very unpleasant to be overruled by the community, but things happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 On hold for 24 hours per standard practice --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
please re-consider this due to 1 bad call. If you truly doubt it, go for a re-confirmation instead. MechQuester (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouraging comments, Ymblanter and MechQuester. But this is not a big deal. I remain active as admin at Commons and at de:wp and also as OTRS member. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, with thanks for your service. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --AFBorchert (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

99of9@metawiki

Status:    Done

User has performed no renames within a year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your past help 99of9. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Helios@itwiki

Status:    Done

Please remove my bureaucrat status. For now, retain my admin status until the community decides if I should keep it or not. Helios (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering this did not seem like a ragequit & it only concerned the bureaucrat flag, I have proceeded to removing the flag. Savhñ 10:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

메이@ko.wikipedia

Status:    Done

remove admin right on ko.wikipedia.org. Thank you. 메이 (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions —MarcoAurelio 14:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, best regards. —MarcoAurelio 08:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

I wish to reliquish my administrative privileges on fr.wikipedia. My privileges as admin on en.wikipedia and Commons, and as Oversight on Commons, can be left as such. Thank you very much and my best wishes for 2017. Rama (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rama: As per fr:Wikipédia:Bureaucrate#Désysopage, local bureaucrats at frwiki can remove your local administrator privs there. Please see fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin_des_bureaucrates. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, thank you. The wishes stand. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to be sorry & also best wishes to you too. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rama: You understood that you need to ask frwiki bureaucrats to remove you admin bit, right? Trijnsteltalk 20:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes I did, thank you. Rama (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. :-) Trijnsteltalk 20:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I wish to remove my administrative privileges on he.wikipedia. Thanks, Nurick (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Stryn (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your contributions as an admin. Savhñ 20:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Altrensa@frwikiquote

Status:    Done

ce compte à plus d'un an d'inactivité. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Droits retirés, ayant vu que la possibilité de retirer les droits par les bureaucrates n'est pas encore active. Savhñ 10:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Myrddin02@frwikiquote

Status:    Done

ce compte à plus d'un an d'inactivité. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 10:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Toutoune25@frwikiquote

Status:    Done

ce compte à plus d'un an d'inactivité. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 10:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of administrator access due to lack of administrative actions during a 1 year period. Nedops (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 09:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

דוד שי@he.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Please remove my bureaucrat and administrator (sysop) rights in the Hebrew Wikipedia (he). Thanks, דוד שי (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Stryn (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the user --Ks-M9 [disc.] 22:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC).
This should be closed now, because it has been withdrawn. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

User is inactive since years on the project, local policy says that inactive administrators have to be removed from their status and in local bar an user confirmed it. --Gce (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Has there been such a vote of confidence? Savhñ 12:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No, but I don't think it needs because the user is inactive since 2011 on it.wikinews; if you think there needs a vote I can ask it. Yes, here, so I withdraw this request (for now). --Gce (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Closing as not done, in that case. Savhñ 16:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

-jkb-@meta

Status:    Done

I was granted the right of a global renamer yesterday. I would like to give them up, immediatelly, see my statement there. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -jkb- (talk) 16:49, 27. Jan. 2017 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 12:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove only sysop access, task accomplished. Vituzzu (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fatto. —MarcoAurelio 11:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

Latest comment: 7 years ago67 comments29 people in discussion

Dr Lotus [email protected]

Status:    Done

I would like to have adminship in my.wiki as current active admin is only one and not enough to maintain, i guess. Dr Lotus Black (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On hold until 24 December (minimum 1 week for discussion). --MF-W 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
After 1 week discussion, result is 4 supported votes and no opposite vote. Please check and respond my RFA. Thanks. Dr Lotus Black (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine giving you adminship, but would you mind having a yearly renewal? MBisanz talk 14:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I prefer permanent adminship. But it's fine if i have to do yearly renewal. Thanks. Dr Lotus Black (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-26. - At the end of the year, please hold a new vote on my.wikipedia if you want to prolong. All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks sir. I will do my best. Dr Lotus Black (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Extended to permanent sysop by Ajraddatz. --Stryn (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Temporary adminship for spam and vandalism removal. Thanks. Tuanminh01 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The IPs (which same range as cross-wiki abuse reported at Vandalism reports#123.18.31.106, 113.179.75.135) are frequently vandalism on voy's RFA page. Please check history if that page display wrong content. Thanks --minhhuy (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-12-26. 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) 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

昏君@zh.wikiquote

Status:    Done

Temporary adminship. Thanks LCtalk 10:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-12-26. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

فلورانس@fawikt

Status:    Done

Thanks, --Florence (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2017-01-5. MBisanz talk 02:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
extended, see link. --Stryn (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uchup19@suwikiquote

Status:    Done

I've written this post several weeks ago, I hope to be a sysop again. Thanks.--Uchup19 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2017-01-6. MBisanz talk 12:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Vogone@ltwikibooks

Status:    Done

This wiki doesn't have any admins and/or bureaucrats left. I'd like to work on bringing the Lithuanian test Wikiversity and the already existing Wikibooks project a bit closer together in the near future, which may likely require some content-related admin actions. I would feel more comfortable doing these with a local flag rather than my GS flag. The local announcement has been unopposed for a few months. Thanks, --Vogone (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, temporarily granted for 6 months (until 2017-01-13). —DerHexer (Talk) 23:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
removed. einsbor talk 08:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BeGasy@mgwikipedia

Status:    Done

In absence of bureaucrats, and on behalf of mg:user:BeGasy, I hereby request the administrator status for BeGasy on the Malagasy Wikipedia. He originally made the request a week ago. Thanks in advance,--BeGasy (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear BeGasy, you were blocked indefinitely on Wikimedia Commons due to repeated uploading of non-free files and two times block evasion. Could you please give your side of the story. What happened? Do you have any intention of uploading files on mg.wikipedia? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Taketa! Yes, i was blocked indefinitely on Wikimedia Commons, because of , i was uploading many non-free files, i want to make asking the contributor wikipedia malagasy, this my requiet on malagasy version RfA on local wiki, Could you help me, please, Thanks a lot of.--BeGasy (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: The reply does not really answer the question. I think we have a language problem. With help of a local admin I have asked the same question in Malagasy [4]. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2017-01-17. [5] - Taketa (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
removed, einsbor talk 11:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Requesting admin rights to continue working on growing this wiki. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohau (talk)

Hi, please make a new local request/announcement. --MF-W 23:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2017-01-18. Savhñ 10:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
removed, einsbor talk 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

MKar@orwikisource

Status:    Done

Odia Wikisource community supports my request for permanent adminship. I am already a permanent admin @or.wikipedia since 17 May, 2011. Thanks. Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On hold until 19 Jan. --MF-W 23:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the community is not big enough to grant permanent sysop permission, so Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2017-01-19. --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
removed, einsbor talk 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Parveer Grewal@pawikipedia

Status:    Done

Give him long term sysop rights. He has been a sysop in the past as well. Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2017-01-20. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello! I am the user Panepistimio and I'm user of Greek Wikiversity. The Greek Wikiversity need administrators and there are no admins. Well the Greek Wikiversity is "dead". Occasionally receives vandalism and created pages that are useless or vandalism and not allow global deleters to come every now delete the pages. Neither global admins to block the vandals. So even need a amdinistrator.--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 20 October 2016. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Change time to 20th, since request started on the 13th. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2017-01-20. 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. --MF-W 06:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

فلورانس@fawikivoyage

Status:    Done

Thanks Dear Steward Florence (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2017-01-23. Ruslik (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
removed – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

-revi@kowikiversity

Status:    Done

4th RfA. — regards, Revi 09:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2017-01-26. Taketa (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
extended – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

দিব্য দত্ত@as.wikisource

Status:    Done

Permanent adminship requested. Nominated by বিষ্ণু শইকীয়া. দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Did the user (দিব্য দত্ত) confirm that they wants the admin rights? MBisanz talk 11:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2017-01-24. Community is not big enough to grant the permanent adminship. There are only 7 users active in last 30 days. Including the users voted in the request, all of them are shown in the active user list only because of this vote. 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. ~ Nahid Talk 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

removed --MF-W 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Rajwinder [email protected]

Status:    Done

temporary adminship requested --Stalinjeet (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Did the user (Dr. Rajwinder Singh) confirm that they wants the admin rights? --Stryn (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
yes user (Dr. Rajwinder Singh) confirm that they wants the admin rights.--Stalinjeet (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you point out where he confirmed? I do not see any recent comments from him on pa.wiktionary. MBisanz talk 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I interested in adminship for Punjabi wiktionary.plz check my sign in pa.wiktionary.hereDr. Rajwinder Singh (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2017-01-25. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid Talk 17:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
removed, einsbor talk 09:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

luri lrc wikipedi

Status:    Done

I'm mike mogoei my user name is mogoeilor and I'm luri lrc test admin for six month past and it was expired I renewed this request in this link [7] and I know six months for lrc wikipedia is very short please help me to be administrator of luri lrc for more time as like as 2 year and in my rights in past years I couldn't have to protect luri lrc wiki page please help me to fix this problem and could you help me to be admin of luri lrc again?.
best wisheslrc lori (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We give temporal adminship for maximum of one year. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2017-01-28. 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) 04:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


Miscellaneous requests

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

IP block exempt 逆襲的天邪鬼@metawiki

Status:    Done

I live in China and the en:Great Firewall often blocks SSL connections. So I need to edit with proxies. I have already got global IP block exempt but my proxies are also blocked locally. --逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done for Meta-Wiki, given that you also have it globally and your edits look ok here so far. —MarcoAurelio 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Importer [email protected]

Status:    Done

I am admin on it.wikiversity but I can't importer pages from file Xlm and we need it Samuele2002 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Is not it better to define necessary sources? Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right we need to import the pages of MOOC interface from en.wikiversity and They are about forty --Samuele2002 (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
You can request the addition of en.wikiversity as an import source on phabricator: then. --MF-W 17:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks but how should we do? Samuele2002 (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Mainly I need the flag for to simplify and faster the process of importation because importation from file is faster (we would now have need of more than 60 pages to care that are a lot of) and we have more time to modify the pages imported --Samuele2002 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this a recurring task? I ask because first it were 40 pages, now already 60. --MF-W 04:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: The number of pages has increased because I realized I had not counted the manuals of templates. The need for import are not always related to the same task but always different needs example. We had the need to need to import from en.wikiversity meta and from en.wikipedia (and we had to do with copy-paste with the addition of template source is not the best mode is the best we can do without importing from file). --Samuele2002 (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much --Samuele2002 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AlvaroMolina@testwiki

Status:    Not done

Hi, I would like to know if it is possible that I can be granted, at least temporarily, the importer right in Wikipedia Test; This is to be able to import templates and modules by uploading files from en.wikinews and test their operation there, since the transwiki method only includes Wikipedias and other multilingual wikis that do not serve me at this time. I would be grateful if you can tell me whether I should start a local discussion first, or talk to the local bureaucrats. Ping MusikAnimal if you would like to comment. Thanks in advance. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Sorry if my English is not good.

You should be able to use testwiki:Special:Import with only sysop rights. The importer right will allow you to import by uploading XML data, but I don't think that's what you want — MusikAnimal talk 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: What I need is to import using XML, since normal import using administrator right only allows it in certain wikis (some Wikipedias and multilingual projects) and I need to import from en.wikinews. I prefer this method as it would be quite laborious to copy and paste, since there are several large templates. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 20:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You can request enwikinews to be added to the import table through a Phabricator ticket. We generally restrict the import right quite a bit, given that it isn't even included in the sysop group, though I'm not too concerned with access on a test wiki. Let me know which option you'd prefer, phabricator ticket (which could benefit others importing from there) or being granted the permission. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Opening a ticket in Phabricator can be a beneficial option, but in the same way in the future the option of importing via XML may be necessary, since for development purposes this option may be useful. In my case, I only need to import from en.wikinews for now, so I agree on the opening of the ticket. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 21:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I have opened a ticket in Phabricator (T154879). Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Tagging this as not done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

account creator assignemnt rigt updates at mr-wikipedia

Status:    Done

Seasons greetings

As mentioned at marathi wikipedia page and central policy discussion page at mr-wikipedia [8] made related request at phabricator Rajy Marathi Vikas Sanstha (i.e. State Institue for Marathi language Development) Along with Marathi WIkipedian Community is aranging 'Edit Wikipedia with expert interactive workshops' in various universities and colleges across State of Maharashtra (India) January 2017 and this academic outreach activity is likely to increase in near future. In some cases academic institutions are using dynamic Ips and irratic elecric supply and infrastructure limitations at some of the institutions ; we finding making requests on phabricator every time for temporary lift of account creation cap on IPs practically difficult and inadequate.

1) As reffered at Marathi language wikipedia local central policy page [central policy discussion page at mr-wikipedia [9] we prefer to seek account creator activity assignement and withdrawal right be given to Marathi Wikipedia beurocrats.So we can assign and remove the rights once workshop activity is completed.

2) Mean while for present going on workshops as we have already mentioned at local cetral discussion page we seek and recommond account creator right to mr wikipedia user:सुशान्त देवळेकर (While he is using a relatively new account he is one of the oldest Marathi language wikipedian)

3) If the beurocrats it self do not get right to assign and withdraw at local level we will prefer to give longer list of users for account creator right.

During the workshop main activity goes for as expected for Wikis: Marathi Wikipedia; Marathi Wiktionary; Marathi Wikisource; Marathi Wikibooks; Marathi Wikiquote; wikimedia commons; as minimum new user opened accounts should be able to work i.e. edit;

if possible we additionally prefer for demo purposes English Wiktionary, Sanskrit language wikipedia, and English language wikipedia but not necessary.

Thanks for support and regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Done (account creator for user:सुशान्त देवळेकर). Ruslik (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions/2017-01&oldid=24907963"