Steward requests/Permissions/2012-03

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in March 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

BarkingFish@tpi.wikipedia

Hi again Stewards. As you probably know, I used to be an admin on the Tok Pisin wikipedia, and was so until my resignation for medical and personal reasons last September. I'm now fit and well, getting better by the day, and ready to resume my duties there if you'd be willing to regrant my permissions. Tok Pisin Wikipedia is still a very small wiki, but growing slowly in Human Editors, and I have no doubt that soon, we will be able to wake up the local RFA process. Regards, BarkingFish (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please wait for a week to get inputs from community if any. --Jyothis (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done temporary adminship for 12 months, expiring 7 March 2013 billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reder@roa-tara.wikipedia

Hi, roa-tara is my home wiki, I count more than 10.000 edits and I'm an admin here by more than two years. I have already passed various elections and reconfirmations but the community isn't large enough to have a good number of votes, so I always had to have a temporary administrator access. I would ask if you can to grant me a permanent access. If you can't, I kindly ask you to renew my access for another year. Thank you in advance. --Reder (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please leave a note on the community page for this year. As long as there are no opposes, extension should not be an issue. --Jyothis (talk)

 On hold until 7 March, see the new vote for this year. Trijnstel (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

extended by one year. Matanya (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bhawani Gautam@ne.wiktionary

Hi. As you know, I used to be an admin on the Nepali Wiktionary,now my term has expired please extend my admship for next one year if possible as there are enough no enough users to discuss to choose sysop.Bhawani (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please post a local announcement. You'll get another temporary term if there are no objections. Bencmq (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see hereBhawani (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

February 2011 ? That's quite old... I guess he's asking you for a new request, not the old one that expired. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 16:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 On hold until 8 March. (@Quentin, see this edit, he just posted it.) Trijnstel (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. To expire 8 March 2013. --Daniel Mayer (mav) (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wizardist@be-x-oldwiki

I was approved as administrator in Belarusian (Taraškievica) Wikipedia (my de facto home wiki). I have an almost five years of experience in Wikipedia and our community considers me a good participant to take administrator duties. The discussion of my application can be translated with Google Translate, if needed. Wizardist (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done --Luckas ^msg 20:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bishnu Saikia@as.wikipedia

Dear Stewards, we have consensus about as:User:Bishnu Saikia's adminship, voting is over. So please grant him adminship in as.wikipedia. Thank you Psneog (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wizardist@be.wikisource

The wiki was created yesterday and it needs some love. Wizardist (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Хомелка@be.wikisource

The wiki was created yesterday and it needs some love. Wizardist (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User Jacob.jose@ml.wiktionary

As ml.wiktionary does not have a bureaucrat, we nominated Jacobe.jose for as one. Please see the community consensus. Thank you Junaidpv (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can count just 4 or 5 supports by regular ml.wikt's users, I tend to believe ml.wiktionary's community is still too small to have local 'crats. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg to strongly differ with your presumptions, Vituzzu, We are proportionally strong enough in number to both the target user community as well as to the similar (Indic) Wp communities. If you have arrived at such a grossly underestimated inference by looking at the edit logs, certainly you would get a very wrong picture. At Malayalam Wiki ventures, we, the active users, connect very co-ordinated and in tandem, ensuring that each front of Wikimedia (viz. Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary...) gets attention, care and development pro-rata as the real user base (from the general internet level point of view) would like to have it. [We are circa 40 million potential users but on a very gradual changeover across the digital divide].

So, in our community, we work on Wiktionary more as a structured database back-end that has still a long way to go, than a front-end based collection like Wikipedia. (Please visit http://ml.wikipedia.org to see how hectic and effervescent are the activities going on there.) At ml.wiktionary.org, we do most of our editing jobs off-line (but certainly with discussions, co-ordination and consensus) and then use bots to update the data in batches.

Therefore, I earnestly request you to retrospect and revert. We do need one user with the requested privileges for executing such tasks and we are certain, Jacob.jose@ml.wiktionary is the right person for position. Thank you!

(First sysop @ ml.wiktionary.org) ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse Viswaprabha's view. Wiktionary is to be a crucial wikimedia project. I would opine that it should occupysecond place in the order of importance after wikipedia.True, the user base is low. However current no of edits should not be the criteria for the need or otherwise of sysops. It is the enormity of the task that lies ahead and its importance that should decide the matter. I too fully support the suggestion that jacob is the man for the job. Mind you it is going to be a thankless , unseen and silent mission that the sysop will be embarking on !!--Fuadaj (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ViswaPrabha, there's *any* need to get upset, please behave.

Anyway, setting up a local bureaucrat means there won't be any backup if he left the project or even if he takes a wikibreak, that's the main concern with assigning bureucrat rights without a backup and on a small community.

Another (partially unrelated) question: someone can explain this?

--Vituzzu (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Vituzzu,

1. What has this got to do with my 'behaviour'? :)
2. Aren't we always starting with 1 as the first number? :)
3. What is the implication of that unrelated question? I did not quite understand what is wrong with that listing. Could you please explain? Thank you! ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to be unnecessarily upset, I'm glad if I was wrong.

Dealing with the possibility to assign bureaucrat access to Jacob.jose well, let's see if other stewards share my concerns or not, mine is not an "hard" oppose.

Dealing with the IP block exempt I had my fingers burnt by a recent issue with some mistake in managing userrights, basically IP block exempt is not needed for administrators, so I'm wondering why you gave yourself this right. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Vituzzu, for the kind understanding :) Sometimes we are glad to realize we were wrong :) (In reality,all of us here in ml.wiki are very sweet-hearted) ;-)

In the meanwhile, we are waiting politely and eagerly with our fingers crossed, for a positive and consensual decision from higher ups. :)

As for the multiple users with such privileges, there are a few reasons:

Basically, we are a well self-taught community. We believe in "being bold to try" consistently and successfully since our early days in WP. We had assigned these rights rather long back when 'we were still learning'. While some users are exceptionally good techies, others are more of subject matter / linguistics experts. At times, when certain tasks were urgent and important, some of the privileges have been granted within this mini group to test, compare and manifest. Most of these privileges have since then been kept in effect as a mutual backup, exactly as for the reason you mentioned above, i.e. possible wikibreaks. Although normally, we do not need to invoke these rights, at times, there are bouts of sporadic vandalism where any or few of us can act even when others are not available online. You may be glad to know that the members of this set are quite known to each other over the net (in the capacity of responsible Wikipedia users). We also get more familiar and confident about each other during our frequent wiki outreach programs. To this date, there has never been a conflict of interest or breach of trust among us with respect to any admin/sysop privileges.

As the community grow further, we also plan to redefine our responsibility matrix and relinquish ourselves of any unnecessary rights attributes in due time.

Thank you once again for this nice discussion here, Vituzzu. I remain. ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmh maybe we can find you a solution which should be a good deal: what about setting up an inactivity policy for bureaucrats on ml.wiktionary? I.e. 50 edits a year. This will avoid my fear of having a wiki without active bureaucrats but where stewards cannot assign rights. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the discussion is related to me (User:Jacob.jose@ml.wikt). Let me put my two cents

1. It has not been ml.wiki policy to necessitate involuntarily relinquishing or confirming any kind of adminship or bot rights based on the level of activity, especially through a judgement solely based on the number of edits. You may find more discussion here. Steward Jyothis speaks the language and could help you understand more, if necessary. On the concern you raised above, none of the ml wikt project policies prevent/discourage stewards from granting rights in the absence/inactivity of a local BC and believe it shouldn't be a concern here. On the other hand, I would rather be more concerned that if an inactive BC has 50 edits in the first few months of the year (eg: I have 408 edits so far this year :)) and the stewards refuse to execute any BC action pending for more than 7 days during sometime later that year, citing activity.
2. On the earlier question on active users, per this page, there are 26 active users in ml.wikt (personally I don't like such statistics). Several wikt's with lesser number of active users - eg: hi, id, .. - (again, please refer to this page) has bureaucrat. I don't prefer a decision that is based merely on such a comparison, but would like one that respects the decision of ml.wikt community that has added 70K+ definitions and is the 30th largest wikt in terms of the number of definitions.

--Jacob (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I'm not a ml.wikt insider so I cannot say I know someone. Basically I have just two concerns on the request, one related to the management of the wiki (and there seems to be no problem) and the other one about having a backup to the only bureaucrat, my proposal about inactivity was just meant to avoid a period without any local bureaucrat to manage the wiki. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Vituzzu, We are from ml.in, the one community that flies feathers among most Indian Wikipedia projects with pioneering statistics in almost all fronts. They at the helms of the great Wikimedia concept, consider us as role models for lesser communities! Even Jimmie big boy knows who we are! ;) So please treat us rather quite matured. :)

With a pageful of s and a bouquet of love, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Well, finally I'm convinced about your request. Sorry if I was doubtful but I had my fingers burned with some trouble with hi.wiki's bureaucrats and I promised to myself to investigate deeply each request for bureucrat access. Thank you (and Jyothis) for your explanations and for the prompt acceptance of my suggestion. So, good luck ml.wikt! --Vituzzu (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Vituzzu, we@ml.wiki*.org are very grateful to you!

Together, at (set of sysops/'crats @ .ml), WE promise you that we will keep your action always self-endorsing by being loyal to the responsibility you have vested upon us.

Personally, I would like to be in good touch with you as a person from a place I always cherish. (I love my days in Milan, a place I call, a kingdom of pi entities) ;) Special regards from my daughter for her 'missing pizza & pasta' dreams :)

We are also aware of the recent misuse of wikirights that happened in one of our co-wiki portals. Although not involved ourselves, we offer sorry for what happened there! :(

A fresh and warm WikiLove from Kerala. We also cordially invite you to celebrate your next vacation in this great place on the earth

ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nysalor@fi.wikisource

Nysalor was elected as fi.wikisource's second bureaucrat with unanimous support. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: Was a second bureaucrat really necessary? With only 7 renames and 6 rights changes in 2006... (see also this local rights log) Trijnstel_talk 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The original and first bureaucrat has been missing since 2006. So it was necessary to have one active bureaucrat. There are two local global bots operating on fi-wikisource and there must be someone to watch over them locally. By the way, I think that Mzlla's rights should be changed from bureaucrat and administrator to none, because he has not used these rights in over five years and seems to have gone for good. He has also disappeared from this Metawiki. --Pxos (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC) The bots are global. Pxos (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't just remove the rights of people - there should be community consensus or a local policy about it before we're allowed to act. Trijnstel_talk 14:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for accepting the vote was that they already had one crat, so this wouldn't have moved them outside of the steward's help, and with only one crat, they could always use more local help. And it was a unanimous request by what appears to be a majority of active editors. MBisanz ^talk 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

While very inactive communities obviously don't need a crat, there's already been a bureaucrat on fiwikisource for a long time. Unfortunately that user is inactive now, which is why we had to make this request here instead of simply having the existing crat flip the bit locally. I hope you'll agree that one active crat in a project is better than one very inactive one. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Those kind of local conflicts that has initiated some threads on Talk:Bureaucrat are rare on a Wikisource-project. Therefor I do not see it necessary for this project to be supervised by meta. Nysalor is a good choise, you can add my support if you like. Just by adding iw-links, the user has become one of the most active users on sv.wikisource. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We should trust the community, especially with the quality of the people who bring the matter to us. billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy@mk.wikisource

The voting for my request ended. The active users voted, there are not more than four totally. We do not have bureaucrat at all, and we need one (the first one) for the bots, user rights etc. I need a steward to give me the user rights.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 On hold I think that given the present number of admins (1) versus the length of time the project has been open requires that some discussion happen here at meta first. I for one don't see a need for a local crat. There is also much debate still ongoing about requirements for crats on small wikis. fr33kman 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The "debate" is not really going on at the moment, but reading the discussions around it, I think it can be safely said that for a project with 1 sysop, where 2 users vote in the crat election, a bureaucrat request should not be granted. --MF-W 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, we should redirect the users that need bureaucrats' assistance to meta? We have 16 active users, of which at least 5 often contribute. Even though the number of users is small, this wiki project has made a good progress, having in mind the number of articles now and 1.5 or 2 years ago. It would be very practical if we have at least one bureaucrat in order not to refer to the stewards all the time (to be honest, I rarely check this project, I am more focused on Wikipedia and Wikisource in MK). Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, local requests can be filed at SRP. Bureaucrat requests don't really need you to "check" meta often. You can just file a request and it will get done. fr33kman 23:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not understand what are you referring at? Locally there was a voting, if you mean about the process. Or about some user's request of bureaucrats' assistance? What are the criteria for bureaucrats? I see that the Finnish have chosen a bureaucrat with only 6 votes and not more that 10.000 articles (the same thing is for few other smaller projects, like Bosnian, Icelandic, Indonesian etc). Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

2 votes are not enough in my option for the 'crat right to be granted. Even simply permanent sysop would likely not be granted with this kind of voting. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Those users that visit Wikisource and saw the announcement voted. There are not many active users there.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the point of Fr33kman and Snowolf. 2 votes shows that the community is not big enough, same way that permanent adminship are not granted to smaller communities. Bencmq (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, we will contact you when more users join the project.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've marked the request as Not done per discussion above. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the request page has been deleted all-together o_O Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

E THP@gag.wikipedia

Hi request authority Bureaucrat ِ For activity in the wikimedia /Wiki gag is needed Bureaucrat(Having for access to the text structure and infrastructure).I am only user active in the wiki gag .Thanks--E THP (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The link to the discussion doesn't work, but it in any case it's highly unlikely that, given you had only one vote for your temporary adminship, you'd get the votes required for permanent 'crat. gagwiki clearly does not need a 'crat at this stage as there are not even permanent administrators there. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The application would improve the wiki gag.Is not a member the wiki gag to Cases these issues.My request is out of service--E THP (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done The community (with you as the only admin!) is too small to have a permanent 'crat. Trijnstel_talk 11:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Tomtomn00@rn.wikipedia

Wiki with no Administrators or Bureaucrats, I wish to patrol this wiki and do admin/bureaucrat actions. Also the wiki is rarely used (last changes before mine on 23 March 2012). Also, I have Rollback on en:. Also lots of content there is in English, or basic Kirundi, which is very understandable. Thanks for reading, ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You would have to file a request locally open for comments from the local community, but I'm declining your request for crat as a wiki with no admins doesn't need a 'crat and is highly unlikely to get the required number of activity and support. Feel free to become active and ask for temporary local sysop instead. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the idea! Thanks for Reading, ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano@enwiki

Thank you, –xeno 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done --Jyothis (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ponyo@enwiki

The Helpful One 19:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Confirmed, for the Arbitration Committee. Courcelles (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Matanya (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

विकिजी@hi.wikipedia

To prevent from getting blocked by your edits when we edit we some time get blocked. Sock Puppets may be created if don't get confirmed so therefore this user want to be checkeduser.. (विकिजी | talk | Contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean that you want to be come a checkuser? --Jyothis (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes!! Sorry!! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by विकिजी (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved this request here from the CU request page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Switched the targed user from the inexisted ali user to विकि, per user reply to Jyothis above. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done Fixed the user, you appear to have only 88 edits across all wikimedia projects. The CheckUser tool is an advanced userrights generally only granted to experienced administrators. In any case, you would need to start a local discussion about it, there would need to be two users at least elected as CheckUsers, and you would need to identify to the Wikimedia foundation. You should start a local discussion about this, and file the request here only after its has been completed successfully. I have marked this request as not done as it to say the least highly unlikely that a user with 35 edits on a project would ever be granted such an advanced permission. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Means i must have edited at lease 35 edits after that i will be able to be checked user?? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by विकिजी (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that means that you need to understand what this is all about before you gain a community's trust to get a bit of any kind. You have a long way to go. --Jyothis (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK that's OK — The preceding unsigned comment was added by विकिजी (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of this discussion and alteration of the status, please refrain from performing such actions. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Billinghurst@meta

Very clear result, more than enough votes. As steward and checkuser elsewhere, he is already identified. Thanks, -Barras talk 10:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done and congrats. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Palnatoke@dawiki

I asked for another year of access or 'until further notice'. Of 29 voters, 3 opted for a year, while 27 opted for 'until further notice'. Palnatoke (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To note that already identified (diff) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

QuiteUnusual@en.wikibooks

I believe all the requirements of the policy have been met now for number of votes, level of support, etc. I have sent the ID confirmation email to the secure mail box.QU ^TalkQu 21:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put it on hold as it needs identification, but I would like to note that you're on the lower end of the limit, and there was I believe, 7-9 supports with less than 100 edits on the project, notably one with only 4 edits. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, noted. There was some discussion regarding that point but there appear to be no rules or policies on number of edits to qualify to vote (so, for the same reason the anonymous editor's oppose has equally been left to stand) We - it wasn't just me - did hunt around for a rule or guidance but couldn't find any. If there is some rule or guidance then I'm more than happy to apply it. Cheers QU ^TalkQu 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Identification done QU ^TalkQu 05:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Donefr33kman 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you QU ^TalkQu 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dungodung@srwiki

As a steward, he is already identified. mickit 05:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, please remove my bureaucrat access, as there's an unwritten rule on srwiki that prevents rights stacking -- checkusers can't be bureaucrats at the same time. Thanks --FiliP ██ 06:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - Crat access removed and checkuser rights added. Congrats! -Barras talk 08:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment It's fine this time because it's a self request, but it'd be better if that rule were written. fr33kman 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? I can imagine people in possible future cases like this self-requesting the same thing. And since it's not really a real rule, one can choose not to do that. But making it an official rule would require a process (that probably wouldn't fail), but I'm wondering whether such a thing is really necessary. --FiliP ██ 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I suppose it's not vital but I was thinking if someone else but the elected came here and did the whole request. For the steward to know that they can and should remove the relevant bit they'd need a reference. fr33kman 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Piku@frwiki

Queix@frwiki

7th renewal of fr.wikipedia.org CheckUsers. These two users have been appointed by our local ArbCom. Elfix 17:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano@enwiki

Thank you, –xeno 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done --Jyothis (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ponyo@enwiki

The Helpful One 19:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed, for the Arbitration Committee. Courcelles (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done use it wisely. best Matanya (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedroca cerebral@ptwiki

Please, remove my sysop status. --Pc^Talk 00:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 On hold for 24 hours as usual. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Pc^Talk 00:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thank you for your time and efforts and best of luck in your endeavors. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

LarryGilbert@en.wikisource

Failed annual reconfirmation. Hesperian 05:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Klemen Kocjancic@slwiki

Based on the results of voting (see section Results of voting), I request removal of administrator status for user Klemen Kocjancic. Regards, --Deviator13 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bencmq (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

str4nd@commonswiki

The inactivity run of Feb-Mar 2012 on Commons has ended, and this is one of 6 admins who haven't signed therefore will lose adminship --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have asked for confirmation by a Commons bureaucrat of these removals. billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Bureaucrat comment: Already removed? As far as I can tell. But yes, the admin babel template can be removed. Procedure followed as far as I can see. --99of9 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done by Mentifisto. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bastique@commonswiki

The inactivity run of Feb-Mar 2012 on Commons has ended, and this is one of 6 admins who haven't signed therefore will lose adminship --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bureaucrat comment: Already removed? As far as I can tell. But yes, the admin babel template can be removed. Procedure followed as far as I can see. --99of9 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done by Mentifisto some hours ago. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew c@commonswiki

The inactivity run of Feb-Mar 2012 on Commons has ended, and this is one of 6 admins who haven't signed therefore will lose adminship --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat comment: Yes, procedure has been followed, and user has not used admin tools. --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Admrboltz@commonswiki

The inactivity run of Feb-Mar 2012 on Commons has ended, and this is one of 6 admins who haven't signed therefore will lose adminship --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Something went wrong :|

--Vituzzu (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat comment: No, that's not a problem, it's his choice how often to archive his talk page. I confirm that he has been long inactive, and has not responded to the message, which was correctly placed according to the procedure. --99of9 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dodo@commonswiki

The inactivity run of Feb-Mar 2012 on Commons has ended, and this is one of 6 admins who haven't signed therefore will lose adminship --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat comment: I confirm that he only used logged admin tools once in the period, and has not responded to request continuation. --99of9 (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Szczepan1990@commonswiki

The inactivity run of Feb-Mar 2012 on Commons has ended, and this is one of 6 admins who haven't signed therefore will lose adminship --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat comment: I confirm that the procedure has been followed, and the status can be removed. The user has used admin rights once since notification, so I assume they have overlooked the message (seemingly along with quite a few others on their talk page), and perhaps they will reapply for adminship. Babel indicates en-2, so the notification in English was ok. --99of9 (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 10:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

יוסאריאן@hewiki

Based on the results of voting, I request removal of administrator status for user יוסאריאן. Regards, יוסאריאן (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hewiki has 3 local bureaucrats, which should probably close the discussion and determine the consensus. If I understand it correctly, the policy specifies that it's a discussion and not a vote, and local crats are fairly active. These are just my two cents and if other stewards feel they can determine consensus themselves, they should feel free to ignore my comments here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Not done at this venue; please wait for a local bureaucrat. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion stoped because יוסאריאן decided to remove his sysop rights, so there was no need for the bureaucrats to close the discussion and determine the consensus. Neukoln (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done as a self-request. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wames@pl.wikipedia

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop acces due to inactivity in main namespace longer than one year. User has been notified two weeks earlier. --Abronikowski (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Noting for eventual future reference the local inactivity page listing the user, [11]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Orlica@pl.wikipedia

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop acces due to inactivity in main namespace longer than one year. User has been notified two weeks earlier. --Abronikowski (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Noting for eventual future reference the local inactivity page listing the user, [12]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

MichaelDiederich@de.wikipedia

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop access due to inactivity for more than a year. User has been notified 92 days ago. --Unbekannter Benutzer (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nanoxyde@frwiki

6 months of inactivity. --Elfix 18:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User Robzle@skwiki

I request to remove sysop flag of Robzle. Reason: inactivity for 4 months per sk:Wikipédia:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch#Nezáujem o výkon funkcie. Vasiľ (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done by Snowolf. --Luckas 20:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

NonvocalScream@simplewiki

This user has resigned his flags, deleted his talk page and user page. As such, please remove his bureaucrat flag. He has removed his admin flag but was technically prohibited from removing the rest. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please not especially this section. As he dropped his sysop rights, he is no longer eligible for crat rights there. -Barras talk 14:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Done.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 14:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Franz Liszt@it.wikipedia

Hi! Please remove my sysop status on it.wikipedia. Thanks! Franz Liszt ^Discussioni 20:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 On hold for 24 hours. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help! Trijnstel_talk 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Spacebirdy@nahwiktionary

Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 On hold on hold for 24 h (aka. "prussian night" ;-) a×p_de^Hello! 23:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

??? --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stewards decided to put all self requests on hold for 24 hours. Some users change their mind, some times the community tries to convince the user ... a×p_de^Hello! 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

aha. this is final. there is nothing to convince, as this is no option. i am not a person of rushed decisions. --geimfyglið :^╡ 00:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this is your way of looking at this, but the stewards have set a rule for themselves, so if there's no immediate problem as a compromised account just wait that day ;-) a×p_de^Hello! 00:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw. ... Geimfyglið or Spacebirdy? a×p_de^Hello! 00:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

problem? no, it is just nevermind. i think the request is very unambiguous - it does say Spacebirdy. the other does not have any rights anywhere anyway... --geimfyglið :^╡ 05:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hecho y espero que estés bien. Gracias por el cambio de nombre en el is-wikci. Un abrazo. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Junaidpv@ml.wikibooks

Please remove my bureaucrat and sysop rights from ml.wikibooks, inactive there for long time and I think it is inappropriate to keep my admin rights there. Thank you --Junaidpv (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done thank you for your work. Matanya (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Juzeris@lv.wikipedia

Please remove my admin access to lv.wikipedia. I haven't been active on Wikipedia for many years, originally requested admin rights when it was necessary for translating the Latvian interface back in 2004/2005. I do enjoy the Wikipedia project as a whole, maybe I would return to being an active Wikipedian when I retire (after another 30 years or so). I also don't believe inactive users should have unnecessarily vast user rights, and I agree to this ongoing discussion on Latvian Wikipedia that asks for inactive admins to relinquish their rights. --Juzeris (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Done MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Juzeris@lv.wiktionary

Please remove my admin access to lv.wiktionary. I haven't been active there at all, I guess I hadn't considered carefully enough all the consequences and all the responsibility. --Juzeris (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your service. MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agamitsudo@fr.wikipedia

Hi,
Please, suppress my Wikipedia fr administrator status, as soon as you can. Thanks for that.
Regards, --Agamitsudo (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 On hold till tomorrow.Bencmq (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your service. --Daniel Mayer (mav) (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Harej@commons.wikimedia

I am tendering my resignation as Wikimedia Commons administrator, effective immediately. I am not active enough, nor am I familiar enough with the workings of Wikimedia Commons, that I could be called upon as an administrator of sufficient competence. Commons also scares me in general. harej (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your service as an admin --Jyothis (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Caiser@eswiki

This user is inactive for two years and according to the policy, its sysop and bureaucrat flags must be removed. Thank you. BetoCG (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Harel@hewiki

I'm giving up my admin and bureaucrat permissions. Thanks! --Harel (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

•  On hold for 24 hours. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 09:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for you work. Matanya (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

LERK@ja.wiktionary

Please remove my sysop access on ja.wiktionary. Thank you. --LERK (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your services. Trijnstel_talk 11:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Snillet@sv.books

Sv.Wikibooks is adopting a new inactivity policy. This user has not made any edits since 2008, and deleted his/her userpage 2009. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 10:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Karpeth@sv.books

As above. This user has been missing on the project since 2008, and has only made one edit globally since 2009. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 10:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mess@it.wikipedia

Due to lack of time, I resign as it.wikipedia admin, so please remove my sysop flag. Thank you in advance. --Mess (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 On hold for 24 hours. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thank you for your time and efforts. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Кале@sr.wikipedia

This user has not used his sysop rights since the end of September 2010. By our policy rights will be removed if he or she doesn't have at least one admin action during 18 months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done --Luckas ^msg 00:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

CE@nl.wikibooks

Your remarks, etc. --Chris (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --FiliP ██ 06:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

CE@nl.wikisource

Your remarks, etc. Chris (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --FiliP ██ 06:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

CE@nl.wiktionary

Your remarks, etc. Chris (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --FiliP ██ 06:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

James@ang.wiktionary

This user as only bureaucrat and administrator is inactive after 2009-03-08, without responding to my reminder. The wiki is so inactive so no one else commented. Please remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Done --FiliP ██ 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Erik1980@nl.wiki

Could you please remove my sysop tools on nl.wiki? Thanks! Erik1980 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@other stewards, please put this on hold. @Erik1980, weet je het zeker? Waarom wil je je modknopjes kwijt? Trijnstel_talk 19:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay! PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my local statement about this. I've actually thought about it for quite a while, so there's no need to put anything on hold I'm afraid... Erik1980 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw it here... It's sad you have to leave us. :( Trijnstel_talk 19:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MikeLynch@sawiktionary

Requesting temporary admin rights (preferably something like 3 months). Thanks, Lynch7 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2012-03-02. 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. -- Barras 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Lynch7 07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

removed. Matanya (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bhawani Gautam Rhk@ne.wiktionary

removed. BTW user renamed. Matanya (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bhawani Gautam Rhk@newiktionary

Sir, I want to install transliteration tools and repair this ne.wiktionary as you see the condition, there was no template (just i am doing), no transliteration system, no one can type phonetic Devanagari to edit or add new articles. If it is not corrected no one will edit or add new articles in future also. I am a sysop on ne.wikipedia and have experience in doing that. I need a sysop flag on this project. I am requesting here as there is no active user to support me on that project. Thanks - Bhawani 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you need to file a request locally before a steward can give you sysop. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have applied at request page for admin, you can see the local policy there-Bhawani 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done to expire on 2011-05-06 as your community looks too small. Your desire to become a bureaucrat is Not done because you added that only after several users voted for your request for adminship only [14] and your wiki is too small to have any bureaucrat now.Jusjih 16:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User requested perm status, not an active enough community so given 6 month extension. 1 yr total. fr33kman 17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed on 4 March 2012 by Matanya.--Jusjih (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohau@nsowikipedia

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2012-03-07. 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. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 12:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please note that in the log? (removing the bit and then adding it again with a log entry noting this extension) Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 12:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Made a log. Yay. :D — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

removed. Matanya (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Gazeb@rue.wikipedia

Hello, I would like to be temporary administrator at Rusyn wiki for 6 months. There is at the moment no administrator and we need to do some work that needs admin rights ...). Gazeb 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 On hold until 28 September. Jafeluv 15:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2012-03-28. Matanya 05:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

notice of pending expiry. billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed by user Trijnstel 20:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC) from the topic above "Zylbath @ got.wikipedia".

Removed. Trijnstel_talk 14:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zylbath @ got.wikipedia

I want to become an admin there because there is no active admin any more and many changes have to be made. I know it doesn't seem that there is any life, but this is going to change since I can adjust some changes there. I would really thank you, þagka. Zylbath 17:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Done for three months till 26 March 2012. Ruslik 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of pending expiry on got.wikipedia. Trijnstel_talk 20:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended for three months by Jusjih. Trijnstel_talk 14:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis@meta.wikimedia

Request for 'confirmed' status (see: Meta:Confirmed users) becuase I'm an autoconfirmed user on the English Wikipedia. Whenaxis (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done Stewards cannot grant you this right on metawiki, you'd need a local admin, you could try asking at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat but you would have to show why you actually needed this right :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Query Will I automatically become autoconfirmed within 4 days and 10 edits like on the English Wikipedia? Whenaxis (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is the case, if not, it's most likely only a slightly different amount. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you :) Whenaxis (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This wiki, like most others, probably only requires 4 days after registration before autoconfirmed is granted. The English Wikipedia is an anomaly. See the last bit on Registered user. Killiondude (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I was an appropriate place to ask for this permission because meta administrators can not grant it. Ruslik (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Rahuldeshmukh101@mrwikisource

Hi Quentinv57, I am admin on mr.wikisource and want the import rights to import dump from mr.books and mr.wiki which our community have collected over a period of time in the wait of source portal. Now being the portal is operational to transfer them it is needed. Please do the needful. Thanks Rahuldeshmukh101 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied here from User talk:Quentinv57 as Quentin's not around to answer the request. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done--Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vituzzu Rahuldeshmukh101 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

misc@hiwiki

I suppose it's useful to file a request here fo the records. Points 2, 3, 6 of [16] need implementation. Note that Mayur should probably be in the first bunch of temporary sysops. Nemo 07:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the userrights log to do #2. #3 already appeared done. I did #6, including Mayur. MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, all seems done now (see log links on RfC), except #11, which doesn't need flag changes if a steward or global sysop takes care of it. Nemo 06:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User 32X@commons

I'm asking for the importupload right (XML import; called import right by some tools) on Wikimedia Commons where I'm an admin since 2008. I was asked to separate some double-uploads (one file name, different files). Usually this is not a problem because every upload generates a new revision of the description page (usualy just a one-by-one copy of the last one), but some upload tools work differently. The Wiki loves Monuments upload tool does not create a new revision if an existing file is overwritten, which leaves two (or more) files but only one fitting revision of the description page. An easy work-around would be a second revision from myself but that would result into a file uploaded by one user while the earliest version of description page came from another user days or even months later. (This would raise questions regarding the validity of the given license.) My current work-around is to export the version history from commons, import it to de.wikipedia by using my XML-import right there, than transwiki-importing it back to commons and move it to the destination (namespace issues due to different language settings). This works but it is way to messy to do it more than a couple of times. --32X (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there some local discussion relating to this on Commons? MBisanz ^talk 22:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can U name an example? Maybe their is a shorter way to do so ...

Btw. why do have admins the import right but not the importupload right? Why do only the import group have the importupload right? And yet there are no users flagged with the import group ... a×p_de^Hello! 11:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Because importupload right is insecure. Ruslik (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no previous discussion because I was using the tools I had:

File:Cottbus August-Bebel-Straße 85.jpg and File:Cottbus August-Bebel-Straße 85 (front).jpg originate both from File:Bebel str.JPG (The log gives some clues about what I was doing. The file has recently been uploaded and the name wasn't very descriptive, so there's no redirect.)

ID 68354529 is an exact duplicate of ID 66962344, this duplicate was created by exporting it, XML-importing it to de.WP and transwikiimporting it to commons. --32X (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if I got that right, you're talking about the separation of two versions of a file looking too different? I already did this several times, but I never needed to ex- or import anything! I just deleted the complete file, restored one version, moved this version to some other name and restored the rest. Worked out perfectly for me ... a×p_de^Hello! 13:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Please name an example not yet done! a×p_de^Hello! 13:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's the best approach here (an informed discussion should probably happen on Commons first), but note that what described is a bug. The easiest thing to do is probably to stop such imports, which are usually unnecessary. Nemo 14:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:275. Christuskirche.jpg has two different files but only one fitting revision in the version history. --32X (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you're splitting such files although they're simple reuploads, but you should really discuss this locally. There's no cogent reason not to use the "easy workaround", and personally I consider it better; or even better, just upload the file you recover under a new title mentioning the original one, it's straightforward application of the license. By the way, suppressing redirects is a very bad idea, you should hope that Brion doesn't discover you. Nemo 15:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

People see two different photos and want to have two different file names. That's it. The log entry is related to the file name, it doesn't help anything for separating files. The revisions of the file description page are the important ressources, that are needed here. MediaWiki will only restore a file if there's at least one description page revision.

Just reuploading a file is exactly the thing I want to avoid, because it is a weak point in the processing chain. One user is the uploader but another one is the author. Guess who'll be credited by third party users. If a user decides to change his name by asking for renaming the account, there's no problem with the splitted file because it is hard connected to him. Believe me, there are enough reasons just to duplicate the missing file description than to reupload the whole file. --32X (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Not done at this time. As explained earlier, we need a local discussion and consensus to grant this right, and after a few weeks there is no evidence of this. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)