Steward requests/Permissions: Difference between revisions

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- don't change this line -->
 |domain    = <!-- such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    =
 |user name =
 |discussion= 
}}

Administrator access

Steward requests/Permissions/Sysop-header

Mathieudu68@hawwiki

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

Please start a new discussion in order to have your temporary access renewed. --Rschen7754 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new conversation here, but I think I won't get any answer, because I'm the only active member on Hawaiian Wikipedia. Mathieudu68 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we still have to give 7 days for any comments before we give out the extension.  On hold for 7 days. --Rschen7754 18:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2014-12-27. -- Rschen7754 22:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simeondahl@da.wikisource

Here we go again, still no active administrators. So here is my 6'th application for renew :) --Simeondahl (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until July 1. --Rschen7754 00:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PICAWN@ar.wikinews

I had been an active contributor to Arabic Wikinews and was granted temporary admin rights several times, last of them for one year, expired about two weeks ago. I am far less active in the project in the last months but I still visit it from time to time to perform cleanup. I wish to renew my temporary admin access. Thanks. PICAWN (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-06-29. Continuing administrator, another 12 months  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

Steward requests/Permissions/Crat-header

CheckUser access

Steward requests/Permissions/CU-header

Oversight access

Steward requests/Permissions/OS-header

Removal of access

Олександр Коваль@uk.wiktionary

The user is inactive (no logged actions nor edits) for 4.5 years. Local vote was held, user was notified but didn't respond. The local policy actually requires 5+ users with 50+ edits and 1 month of experience to vote to consider vote successful but when you look at the list of active users you can ensure that it's impossible to fulfil that requirement at current state of the wiki. The most active user supported the denomination. --Base (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am crat of ukwiktionary. Our policy says that we need have at least 5 voters for successful nomination. Now we have only 2 votes there and it is not enough. So I suggest to change this to 'On hold' and wait one week more.--Anatoliy (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained about this piece of requirements. There are less active users in a month — another week of holding won't make things better. The case also falls under Admin activity review I have no idea why stews have not dealt with that yet. --Base (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are hundreds of notifications, communications and actions to take - the Admin Activity Review is taking time. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold till 1 July 2014. If nothing changes the user will be desysoped based on Admin activity review policy. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny B.@cs.wikiversity

This is a repeated request. In the previous request, steward billinghurst asked the cs.wv community not to debate within Meta and move the debate back to cs.wv. Now the discussion doesnt continue ([1], [2], [3]) so we move the request back to stewards.

The previous request stated that 100% of active community members (counting users with 1 edit/day during the last 30 days as active, except Danny B. himself) expressed their mistrust in Danny B. and therefore the request is reasonable though three users mainly involved in other communites opposed this request. --Juandev (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I understand, nothing has changed since the previous request? Ruslik (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By what means? The animated disussion, which was ongoing on Meta, whas not taken to cs.wv. Just a few people left some smaller coments and it ended.--Juandev (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ended. Well, and the same should be the result here. However, the next step could be a request on Jimbos's page. Regards, -jkb- 23:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know Jimbo has absolutely no right to take any action in this case? He doesn't even hold the technical rights required to enforce any decision in this case. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after more than 10 years here I know. Sorry to have forgotten the irony tags :-) -jkb- 14:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - There is still no consensus to remove Danny B.'s sysop flag. Please don't request this repeatedly until we do something; only come back if consensus develops locally to remove his rights. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEUROtiker@dewiki

I am resigning as admin on german wikipedia. Please remove my rights. Thanks --NEUROtiker (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. --Rschen7754 17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done at 06:54, 23 June 2014 by Shanmugamp7. QuiteUnusual (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vuvar1@pl.wikipedia

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop access due to inactivity in the main namespace longer than one year. Vuvar1 has been notified ([4]). --PG (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derslek@tt.wikipedia

Tatar Wikipedia community requests removal of sysop access of User:Derslek - he has been notified of the closure of the respective ArbCom cases.
The participant has a history of good contributions into the project (fluent in Tatar, creating/upgrading articles to Good/Selected status), but abuses Admin/Bureaucrat Status by ignoring community consensus/adopted policies, engaging in edit and wheel wars, ignoring talk page entries, intimidating others using inappropriate language, banning others when they disagree with his point of view. This contributes to ours small project loosing active users, admins and having difficulties in attracting new ones.
Appeals sponsor (a leading candidate for TatWiki ArbCom during its elections, resigned in the process) - has not provided any supporting evidence, whilst his supporter, elected chairman of TatWiki ArbCom - has resigned on June 15, without taking part in discussing available evidence.
Please also clear ban/block entries made by Derslek in the logs of other participants (including IPs) and restore pages he erased (most of them, 1/2 to ~2/3, were against consensus to keep).
P.S. In the process of the community vote, as well as our local ArbCom case, Derslek continued deletionism ignoring consensus/policies (ex. 1, 2, 3 & others) + we discovered that the User was at the same time repeatedly warned in the Russian Wikipedia for his engagement in edit warring (block log), but he's otherwise tolerated due to his adminship/bureaucratship (the latter was passed on w/out election) status in tt.wiki. Frhdkazan (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) TatWiki ArbCom member 15.04-15.10.2014[reply]

Not sure about this - according to tt:Википедия:Беренче чакырылыш югары арбитраж шурасы әгъзаларын сайлау only 4-5 people participated in the voting for the ArbCom there. --Rschen7754 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Striking, I see this was a community vote. --Rschen7754 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done but as far as your additional requests, you have active admins there; thus, that is out of stewards' remit. --Rschen7754 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I should to say that Frhdkazan had no right to speak on behalf of our community. So called community vote sited here (Community vote to remove adminship) is fake, which was created by one user 13.04.2014. If you want to see this, look at the history page. Attention: voting on this topic began March 30 and should be completed on April 12. The real voting page was not brought to its logical conclusion and did not come into force. Voting was stopped by initiator ( Ilnurefende – Tatwiki admin at that time) due to numerous rules violations, showed him by users. Our Supreme Arbitration Board consists of three users and cited decision was only temporary version, which was adopted by Frhdkazan without any participation of other members. The member of the Board Marat Vildanov have already cancelled this version ([5]), and references to ArbCom seems to be wrongful. So I ask to acknowledge the above statement baseless and to cancel decision. - Derslek (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rschen7754:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  After doing a few checks of my own, I would have to agree that the vote is fraudulent, and will reverse this, with apologies to Derslek. @Frhdkazan: please do not do this again. I will also be sending an email to stewards-l, as this is the second time something like this has happened in recent months. --Rschen7754 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  To add to the above, while this may have been a legitimate request at one point, there has been too much tampering with the page history to where I would not trust the legitimacy of the process. Please also note that as the local ArbCom was selected by 4-5 people, while it may be helpful for resolving local disputes, stewards are not likely to consider their opinion in matters of permissions. --Rschen7754 21:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I kindly disagree with the fraud claim & request closer consideration of the case by @Rschen7754:, @Billinghurst: and/or other stewards, so to clear my name and re-establish constructive working environment in TatWiki. My previous post above didn't include all the details of the case, which started in early March 2014. If below's not enough, I'll be ready to provide more details.
  • Today's action of tt:User:Marat Vildanov, quoted above by tt:User:Derslek, should not be viewed in support of his claim, but classified as an act of vandalism as an ArbComm decision cannot be reversed by its ex-member (especially if he ignored the procedure when on board, and resigned at least a week before the decision was made). tt:User:Ajdar and tt:User:Marat Vildanov, both of whom resigned from participation in the ArbComm, have themselves initiated its election during the second (March-April) vote of non-confidence for Derslek, at the same time putting pressure on the vote initiator and others to stop that procedure and pass the case thereto. Later, all three of them have stated at various stages that ArbComm should be about voting, not rigorous consideration of facts, and have undertaken steps to denigrate it.
  • The admin removal vote in question, freshly deleted by reinstituted Derslek (and thus inaccessible to regular users like me), was initiated by tt:User:Ilnur efende (our ex-burocrat/then an admin himself), who decided to change his vote in the preceding procedure (initiated by tt:User:Kitap), when personally encountering continued deletionism against consensus/wheel warring on behalf of tt:User:Derslek.
  • Derslek continued ignoring talk page discussions, community consensus, even locally adopted policies (most recent example) and otherwise intimidating TatWiki community members throughout both votes, ArbComm case proceedings, and started again once reinstitututed today (ignoring talk, warning tt:User:Qaraq with a ban/block for trying to revert it, when it was still unclear that Derslek's reinstituted as admin).
  • Below is the English summary of the key points in the local appeal case discussion (in Tatar & my Russian translation (21.4.2014)) with necessary links and explanations you might need for clarifications:

1. Community votes in admin removal case are valid until proven otherwise, even if the procedure originator unilaterally decided to stop it/move the original discussion to his own space (this page should have the necessary history to prove votes were valid, and violation, uncorrected by other admins, was in actually interrupting the procedure once others started voting). tt:User:Ilnur efende acknowledged the fact he was acting under pressure, which was further stated in his request to resign from adminship on Derslek's talk page (then our burocrat), and subsequent leaving TatWiki (itself a serious loss, as no other admin was even trying to counter edit warring/ deletionism on the part of Derslek).
2. Originally tt:User:Derslek accepted of the admin removal procedure - by inviting other active users to take part therein (ex. standard announcement text on the current admin/ArbComm member talk page, this counters the claim of non-confidence vote being initiated with violations).
3. TatWiki ArbComm policy doesn't state that inactivity of some ArbComm members allows for ignoring ArbComm procedure. - Frhdkazan (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frhdkazan: this is not the place for lengthy discussion. Please, resolve this within your community, and then return here when you have a decision. --Rschen7754 22:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for further clarity, stewards do not recognize the authority of an arbitration committee that has very few people voting to support it, nor do they recognize a desysop request that took place in userspace. --Rschen7754 22:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Rschen7754's response. @Frhdkazan: if you believe that there is an issue, then the whole community is required to have the opportunity to have that discussion in a central place. Your community has elected a bureaucrat to assist in the determination of consensus, and that role should be utilised in this scenario.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I summarized Stuart comments/implications for TatWiki community at respective policy talk,current ArbComm elections talk, as well as an announcement @ Our Community portal/Village pump discussion analogue. Violations described above were committed by our unelected currently acting bureaucrat. Thanks for clarifications to both of you - our small community now received new proofs that above-quoted individuals intentionally misled us that our small ArbComm is a better place to resolve the issue than direct re-vote. -- Frhdkazan (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frhdkazan: You have no officially recognised Arbitration Committee, and with the size of your wiki, it is unlikely that an ArbCom would be agreed to at this point in time. Your community appointed Derslek to the arbitration position by whatever process you had in place in 2013. As has been expressed, stewards expect to see any discussion held about de-adminship to be in a central place where the whole community has the ability to express their opinion. We will not be accepting the direction of a small group of users who separately make any decision. This has to be a decision open to the whole community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A little extra. If a de-admin conversation is started, and stopped and deleted by an admin in question, please report such interference and conflict of interest to Stewards' noticeboard and it will be managed from there. Stewards are able to read and retrieve any deleted edits, if that is required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random@pl.wikipedia

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of admin access because of inactivity in the main namespace longer than one year. Random has been notified ([6]). --PG (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rschen7754 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michiel1972@nl.wikipedia

Michiel1972 has made less than 250 edits in the last year so according to the local policy his administrators privileges should be revoked. Please remove his sysop-flag. I will thank him for his work. Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rschen7754 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacen@sl.wikipedia

I request removal of sysop access due to inactivity longer than two years, as per local policy. Lacen has been notified one month prior, but he hasn't entered an e-mail address, so the notification was talk page-only. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity policy, and notifications done as required, cross activity shows no edits since early 2012. Rights removed. Thanks for the notification, and monitoring your activities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilnur efende@tt.wikipedia

I request removal of sysop access of the User per his request (мине админ вазифасыннан алып атуыгызны сорыйм, discussion above) & his talk page status change. -- Frhdkazan (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Steward requests/Permissions/Misc-header

Steward requests/Permissions/Footer