Steward requests/Permissions/2012-10

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

E_THP@gag.wikipedia

Need continuation(Management revival)E THP (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please make a local announcement on a local village pump or requests for adminship page. Trijnstel_talk 19:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion at gag:Vikipediya:Önderciner_başvurma#salam.Manager_and_Bureaucrat_is_need_for — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the previous discussion of March 2012. I can't find a new one anywhere. Trijnstel_talk 13:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Requests a local Not possible ، We do not have Active user.I have requests in the past (For managing) .--E THP (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We still need new requests to give other people the chance to give their opinion. Trijnstel_talk 15:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not requests .I Know that This action is ineffective, for give vote not user .--E THP (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The stewards require the proposal to be put to the community so that their approval or disapproval of the proposal can be expressed. From there we can make a decision. If there is no proposal we cannot undertake the request. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll close this as Not done since no notification or discussion has been made at the local site. E_THP has also not edited since 21 September. Please come back after opening a local discussion (after 7 days). Thanks you. Bencmq (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Danny B.@skwikibooks

— Danny B. 19:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Trijnstel_talk 19:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ensjo@tpn (Old Tupi) INCUBATOR Wikipedia

There's an OPEN test Wikipedia at incubator, but no one is handling it, hence I apply. Ensjo (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Administrators page at incubator. You can apply it instead of here :) --Sotiale (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done so. Thank you! Ensjo (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done - Will be handled locally --MF-W 01:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nknudsen@cawikiquote

Please give me the flag as a bureaucrat and sysop. -- Nknudsen · ✉ 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's enough support for adminship but per our standard procedure not enough for bureaucrat. Adittionaly, q:ca:User:Arnaugir the admin over there is a temporary admin. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things: Arnaugir is not a temporary admin inthe page you've linked up says that he's now indefinitely admin. And second, wich is this standard procedure? -- Nknudsen · ✉ 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. It reads "granted to 15 Feb 2013" and it's listed on the "approved temporary" page so Arnaugir has temporary admin access. To answer your second question we've been granting bureaucrat access only on those projects with a stable admin team and we normaly require up to 15 votes in favor from active users on the wiki to grant access. Kind regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK I've seen. So give us only the flag as sysop. Thank you, -- Nknudsen · ✉ 13:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello MarcoAurelio, how can I ask for sysop rights removal in cawikiquote? Once they are both approved I'd like to resign (there is no need for me to stay). Thank you.--Arnaugir (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arnaugir. You can request that on this page, under the topic #Removal of access. Trijnstel_talk 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Arnaugir. As Trinjstel said, you can request the removal of your own rights in the section below. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Promoted. Please upload images to commons: and perform interface translations over translatewiki.net. Thank you. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Docosong@cawikiquote

Please give him also the flags as a bureaucrat and sysop. -- Nknudsen · ✉ 12:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's enough support for adminship but per our standard procedure not enough for bureaucrat. Adittionaly, q:ca:User:Arnaugir the admin over there is a temporary admin. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things: Arnaugir is not a temporary admin inthe page you've linked up says that he's now indefinitely admin. And second, wich is this standard procedure? -- Nknudsen · ✉ 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See above. Kind regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Promoted. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayantanth@bnwikibooks

presently there are no active comunity and no admin. Please renew my adminship. Thanks. Last time you grant me admin access one year.

• privious Perission1
• privious Perission2
• privious Perission3
• Perission4 for One year

--Jayantanth (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, post a local note. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done No local note. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

គីមស៊្រុន@km.wikibooks and km.wikitionary

I have been a bureaucrat in km.wikipedia for many years, and I want to request for the same right in its sister projects--km.wikibooks and km.wiktionary too, because currently there is no administrator to maintain them.--គីមស៊្រុន (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, start a discussion on each project. After a week or so, if there is a consensus, you will be promoted. However, requirements for consensus to promote bureaucrats are quite high. Ruslik (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I confirm if you were asking for bureaucrat or administrator access? -Bencmq (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If the requirement for bureaucrat access is too high, I would ask for administrator access. Our community is still small with little , and I don't think there are much response to the discussion. By the way, I don't know how to make a discussion page on these wikis.--គីមស៊្រុន (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for no edits on either wikis. Any stewards may maintain wikis without administrators. Please make some positive edits, so temporary status as an administrator can be considered. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

H.b.sh@fa.wikinews

In about two and a half months before I request to be permanent administrator in the fa.wikinews. Then i agreed with other active users there and the consensus has been reached. But because we have only one Bureaucrat there (and that user has not any edition for two month), that request hasn't concluded and administration access hasn't granted to me. Now we are faced with some problems and vandalism there that need admin access, but our only active admin hasn't any edition in recent time. So I want admin access in fa.wikinews granted to me according to conclusion of my admin request there, if it is possible.
Unfortunately, as you'll see we have few active and reliable user there that they are not more than one hand finger. We need your help. Sincerely. H.b.sh (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Trijnstel_talk 20:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help to me and fa.wikinews. Sincerely. H.b.sh (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

TariButtar@pa.wikipedia

Hello, my temporary adminship is going to expire in few days so I wanna renew it and for the longer time (1 year?) possible. Thanks. tari buttar [talk] 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 On hold until 29 October. Trijnstel_talk 13:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that renewing this administrator's mandate is not a wise or good idea. Recent interaction of this admin with both stewards and local community members both here and on pawiki leave me with a distinct impression that his philosophy (that is, his condescending "Be a good editor dear"; his preventive and blanked protections in the face of the wiki spirit; etc) is not suited for a holder of the sysop flag. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr Snowolf, TariButtar is by far the most experienced user on pawiki, he may make mistakes but we all are human and are bound to do so, as far as I've read "administrators do not need to be perfect". --Zarienah (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We never ask people to be perfect, but admins shouldn't create their own rules without communicating with the pa-wiki community either. Trijnstel_talk 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@Snowolf and @Trijnstel, I wanna say here that my English is not very very good and if I use Punjabi here you could not understand. So if a user is not a good editor then how to describe it in English, I'm confused. I didn't use those words having any hating philosophy or what ever being assumed, No, because if it would, I may never guided him in the detail that is rare and I think first of its kind on wiki as I toured it. I everytime tried to help users and consider having discussions with the community if there is any issues, not making own rules and as of the page protections, I did it in good faith and when the users asked I removed, not a big deal, I think.

Moreover, if one 'll interact with the users/community, there may some who having different attitude (as all users are also human, they can also make mistakes and be rude) can accuse the helping one and as "to err is human" there may be a "not-should-be" (according to wiki) statement but how would the other face it who never talked to users. The other reason behind it may be this because they know little themself so, how could they approach users helping them being good editors if they themselves are not. Sorry again, if I said something "not-should-be" (I only found "not-should-be" to express what I thought in Punjabi. Although, I'm not satisfied that it's expressing perfectly but okay if making you understand the near meaning). Thanks a lot, anyway. --tari buttar [talk] 05:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And important than the moreover, will all my contributions, done being an experienced one, to standardize the wiki (improving mediawiki interface, importing gadgets for the ease of users, styling articles, all help to users and much more) be forgotten/ignored? --tari buttar [talk] 05:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TariButtar. There is no reason that your constructive actions will be ignored. And we're never told about banning you from this wiki, just about not renewing the temporary admin status, simply because your attitude does not reflect the image an administrator should give. The most important thing to me is that a wiki should be accessible to everybody, anyone should be able to be a member of the community and to give his point of view on what's happening. That's why, as a local sysop, you should have a welcoming attitude with newcomers, and not of course harassing them. However, I see that you've undone the mass protections you've made, which is to me a good point, even if you should have asked the community opinion before making the mass protections instead of asking if you can undo. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 08:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not extended. Candidate has 4 supports and 2 opposes, therefore has a support ratio of 66.66% which is simply not enough to get elected as an administrator. But above everything, a RfA is not a vote, it is a place to get consensus and the candidate has some serious objections raised against him which could possibly be an effect of impending adminitis. The reason to elect administrator is to support a project and make sure the environment is welcoming and usable both to its users and editors with the resources a project has. Thus, we advise the candidate to keep up the good work in the community while helping the community growth to earn a better trust that he can provide and serve. Finally, this request for extension is not granted and the existing sysopship will be removed in the next day, October 30, 2012. — T. 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cont.

(plz don't remove the section)

Thanks @Quentinv57 for being here. I think, being the more experienced one there, it'll not be a good decision to give the wiki in hands of the unexperienced ones making them the only admins (plz check entire part for why I used these words). As of attitude, I just asked the user not to create duplicates and even others were supporting me asking him the same but the user accused me, that's all. Users are everything not admins? Moreover we've a community (although a little one) and one must not be against it normally. Why the user going against the community is right, and the admin (I) supporting (the community) is wrong?

I was so glad to know on my en.wiki talk page that I'm admin on pa.wiki and even reduced my activity on en.wiki; almost to zero; and gave my all time to the pa.wiki but it's all resulting highly disappointing. :-( sorry! Why users never told to repaire their behaviour? Why only admins? Are admins not users (contributing)? If users have given chances why not admins? Thanks a lot. --tari buttar [talk] 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

@T, Please give me a chance. I'm the most active there. So not ignoring my helping work and constructive contributions give me a chance please. Please check how much time I took to got more than 3000 edits on en.wiki but on pa.wiki it takes just very few days. I got much experienced working as an admin (on other namespaces that needs an admin to edit them and it was first time I was an admin). I'm the most active and learned much. So please! --tari buttar [talk] 14:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You are not active in improving the wiki, you are policing and telling people what to do and how to, you keep stopping the growth process of the wiki because you want a big discussion and consensus on every little thing that editors are doing. You have not helped anybody in growing our wiki but instead pushed many Persian words over the Punjabi ones that is very wrong and his hurting the language deeply. I do not think any chances should be given to Mister TariButtar. —VibhasKS (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I always guided about the wiki articles style which many accepted saying wow! But you created personal views against me. You just wanna make Punjabi read (and write) like Hindi and inserting never used Hindi-Sanskrit words in Punjabi, that's all. That's why you're denieing the daily used Persian-Arab words. Please take a little time to examine for which words the Punjabi alphabet later included, ਸ਼, ਖ਼, ਗ਼, ਜ਼ and ਫ਼ letters? just to pronunce the Persian-Arab words rightly because all words from Persian-Arabic are accepted in tatsam form. Please read before you say. But you're denieing the dots at the bottom of letter and altering Punjabi just to make it read like Hindi; just based on you little dialect. Wanna tell you that Punjabi has so many large and little dialects. So, to avoid such conflicts there is standard Punjabi having persian-arab words like its own that you're denieing. By the way, Punjabi itself is a persian word. My contributions (constructive and done standardizing the wiki) are recorded in the history and never gone away. Someone neutral and worrying-about-Punjabi-and-the-wiki 'll definitly appreciate. 98% of your edits are on talk pages and accusing me for not wanna the wiki grow, how un-wiki!

Stewards please compare me with him (on pa.wiki) and examine using which type of language he talked to me and in which type of language I replied? You'll realize who want to kick out users. The person many time vandalised too. --tari buttar [talk] 01:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This case is closed. This is an off-topic discussion that you have to take at pa.wikipedia. -- Tegel _(Talk) 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(I'm sorry this may my last msg here)

Yeah, you're right but I've left the wiki (you may check WP:COM history there) just because of these persons' harassing and rudeness. They even think that wiki is their personal property and altering Punjabi just following their personal preferences and when I suggested a consensus the reply was, consensus go to hell. --tari buttar [talk] 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is other pages here on Meta where the discussion can continue, for instance your talk page. It's just that this page is not for discussions. -- Tegel _(Talk) 06:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi TariButtar, you did and do good works, there is no doubt about that. But adminship is not a big deal and it will not block the opportunity to do good work on Punjabi Wikipedia. I would like to see you as an administrator in Punjabi Wikipedia when you have enough trust from your community. But about reconsideration, this is not how it works, so you have to go through the community all over again to request the adminship here. Hope this helps, thanks. — T. 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tchoř@sk.wikipedia

Local bureaucrat almost inactive. Please promote. Thanks.
— Danny B. 23:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Crochet.david@betawikiversity

There's actual no active bureaucrat, thus I request it here. Vogone (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Five votes in a crat election seem a bit too few to me. Other comments? Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DerHexer. I suggest to ask Sebmol (talk · contribs) here (or email him), which is a local bureaucrat over beta.wikiversity, to fullfill the request there if at all possible. Thank you. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There are two 'crats there able to evaluate the proposal, and either request or undertake the desired action. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Before this request, I already left the message to local crat. I guess that Vogone thought two local crats was completely inactive. I think that closing this request is proper method. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Local crat connect [1], Please close this request. Thanks! --Sotiale (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh... nothing happened. He didn't give admin rights to Shujenchang and crat rights to Crochet.david. Trijnstel_talk 09:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh...? It really does. He didn't act anything. What's his problem..? --Sotiale (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hillgentleman is currently active and has processed the other request, this request should also be processed by him under his local 'crat role. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not done - Can be handled locally. -Barras talk 10:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Rachitrali@ur.wikipedia

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rachitrali (talk)

Hi. This link does not show a community consensus in favor of granting you the CheckUser status. Your name is not even mentioned in the discussion you shown. If you wanted to request stewards to perform a checkuser, please go at SRCU. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 10:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Rachitrali@ur.wikipedia

According to the checkuser policy there should be minimum two checkusers at any project or no at all. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see enough votes for any candidate to meet CheckUser policy. -- Tegel _(Talk) 09:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done, no consensus, not even votes and the wiki is too small to have local CUs. Please post local CU requests on SRCU. Trijnstel_talk 17:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Trijnstel@commonswiki

Please asign CheckUser permissions to our dear Trijnstel as per the successful RfCU linked above. Discussion was closed by bureaucrat EugeneZelenko. As Steward, Trijnstel is already identified. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Done:) --Bencmq (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Trijnstel_talk 22:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

MichaelFrey@de.wikiversity

Here by I request do give back all my permission on dewikiversity, including admin and bureaucrat. -- MichaelFrey (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Best regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tnxman307@en.wiki

I wish to step down from all advanced permissions on en., including admin and checkuser. Thanks. Tnxman307 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Done; thanks for all your past work! -- Mentifisto 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

miessi@se.wikipedia

Miessi got admin rights by Wiki Course created by Wikimedia Norway in May-June of last year (2011). When "bought" Wikimedia Norway articles to Wikipedia some Sami language. When stopped the money, and he / she writted no more. Course organized Morten Haugen would, that User: Trondtr gives his / her rights. He / she has never used their rights. --Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

margget@se.wikipedia

Miessi got admin rights by Wiki Course created by Wikimedia Norway in May-June of last year (2011). When "bought" Wikimedia Norway articles to Wikipedia some Sami language. When stopped the money, and he / she writted no more. Course organized Morten Haugen would, that User: Trondtr gives his / her rights. He / she has never used their rights. --Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 15:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

wikikontiki@se.wikipedia

Miessi got admin rights by Wiki Course created by Wikimedia Norway in May-June of last year (2011). When "bought" Wikimedia Norway articles to Wikipedia some Sami language. When stopped the money, and he / she writted no more. Course organized Morten Haugen would, that User: Trondtr gives his / her rights. He / she has never used their rights. --Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

biret@se.wikipedia

Biret received admin rights its more than 5 years ago and have edited wikipedia last year 2007, and have never used their rights. --Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

tsujigiri@se.wikipedia

Tsujigiri received admin rights its more than 5 years ago and have edited wikipedia last year 2006. --Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Glanthor Reviol@hu.wikipedia

Yes, I thougt it over. I'm inactive for a long time, and unfortunately I won't have time for admin work in the foreseeable future. So, if You remove my bit today, my adminship end with 2240 total days. It's a good round number, so please remove my bit today! Thanks!  – Glanthor ※ 22:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for all the admin help the past six(!) years. Trijnstel_talk 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens@en.wikipedia

Your remarks, etc. --Müdigkeit (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure... You're not a member of the English arbcom right? And you're also blocked on the German Wikipedia. We can't just remove rights. Trijnstel_talk 20:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

JClemens is currently a sitting member of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That is right, but he was appointed arbcom member. Arbcom members have oversight and checkuser access. They are appointed by the community. And because of that, they need at least 70% support to get oversight and checkuser access, per meta-policy.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

He is a current arbcom member -> "and appoint JClemens to a one-year term beginning January 1st, 2012". Trijnstel_talk 20:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean. Well, we can't just remove rights. Contact the arbcom instead; but I don't think they agree with you. Trijnstel_talk 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the enwp ArbCom mailing list. --Rschen7754 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the Committee hasn't seen Rschen's email yet (I just got the moderation notice for it), but this is obviously not sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee and should be declined. Müdigkeit, if you take issue with anyone's ability to hold advanced permissions, you should contact the Arbitration Committee directly; however, your understanding of the English Wikipedia's policies with respect to access to these permissions is inaccurate. Access to rights is granted by the Arbitration Committee, not by community consensus (although there have been elections in the past, the final decision has always rested with the Committee), and it's generally expected that currently sitting arbitrators will have access to both tools during their term so that they may fully execute their duties. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See also: w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight. Also, for the benefit of stewards, I am w:User:Hersfold, I use this account while at work. See w:User:Hersfold non-admin for more details. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks clear to me. Closed as Not done. Trijnstel_talk 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens has been granted OS and CU rights by the English arbcom (on his own request), so he has been appointed by the arbcom, see this arbcom message by Risker as of 31 Decembre 2010, and so these requests were within the OS and CU policy. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 14:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So you should better raise the bar for ArbCom elections. Arbs, esp. such powerful ones as the English ones, should be trusted by a huge majority, imo. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

After having read a few comments about this in this actual discussion about the minimum support percentage for the upcoming arbcom elections in Decembre and having taken a look at the last arbcom and CU/OS election results, I’m not so sure about that. And compare the results of last year’s arbcom election (Dec. 2011) (especially of candidate Worm That Turned with 59.03 % – a bit less than Jclemens there) with SecurePoll with his result in the CU/OS elections 2012 with open balloting (I see no opposes at all). It really seems that secret balloting lowers the support percentage results. But this should be discussed in the RfC on en-WP, see the first link in this message. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 15:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC) PS: Another example: You can also compare the results of DeltaQuad (34.04 % in the arbcom elections versus no opposes in his OS election, and he has been appointed as CU after no opposes and one comment in his CU election).

CU and OS "elections" are still appointments by ArbCom on enwp, since comments sent in private to the ArbCom are considered, and they have the final say in who is chosen. Also noting that Müdigkeit has been indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for this request. --Rschen7754 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then it would be possible that the opposes at the CU/OSo elections were sent to the arbcom in private. And then, the results aren’t comparible at all. That’s all really difficult.

By the way, just because you mention this here: I don’t think that a request like this should lead to an indefinite block in one project. And the reason for the block also doesn’t apply (because German arbcom has nothing to do with this and is a completely different thing, can’t think of things in 2 projects being more different from each other than these 2 arbcoms), so I don’t see any relevance of noting this here. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks! Is it possible to please continue this discussion elsewhere? This page is just intended for making requests and answering them and in some cases brief discussion, but this is becoming quite large actually (and deviating off-topic). Talk:Steward requests/Permissions is open for all of you. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ribbeck@it.wikipedia

--Vituzzu (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Александр_Сигачёв@ru.wikisource

Because of inactivity. Thanks. --Александр Сигачёв (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: is this the removal of both the sysop and bureaucrat flags? -- Mentifisto 10:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both. --Александр Сигачёв (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Done - thanks for your past work! -- Mentifisto 10:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

lusum@it.wikipedia

Inactivity and personal motivation. Thanks --Lusum (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Done (also [3]). Thanks for your work.

-- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

JacobH@nl.wikipedia

Annual confirmation for admins on nlwiki is finished and JacobH did not receive the mandatory support of 75% and loses his sysop status per local policy. Jarii94 (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Érico Júnior Wouters@pt.wikipedia

Please remove my sysop rights. Thanks.Érico Wouters ^msg 21:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, keeps crat rights. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of having bureaucrat rights without sysop rights? Whereas there's no policy that forbids it, it's kinda nonsense IMHO. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (PD: to be continued on the srp-talk if this gets long). -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipédia:Votações/Burocratas and "O estatuto não está vinculado a outras permissões [...]" (The status is not tied to other permissions).Érico Wouters ^msg 02:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Obrigado pelos enlaçes. Agora ja entendí. Att. :-) -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked him the same quesion on IRC. We discussed it a while and he finally convinced me. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pfortuny@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Stan Shebs@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tbook@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Roland2@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Rolandus@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nickshanks@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Harrissimo@la.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights per local policy on inactivity la:Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators as discussed here: la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#De magistratibus quiescentibus. --UV (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

All Done thank them all for their past service.--Vituzzu (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! --UV (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

peko@sk.wikipedia

It's my own decision. --Peko (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Christian S@da.wikibooks

Please remove the bureaucrat and administrator flag from this long-inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Trijnstel_talk 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Bisgaard@da.wikibooks

Please remove the bureaucrat and administrator flag from this long-inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Trijnstel_talk 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ciro@jawiki

This user is inactive for 3 months. As per local de-sysop policy for inactivity, please remove sysop access from this user. Thanks. --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 18:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

per CheckUser policy#Checkuser access, all current checkusers on fr.Wikipedia.org (wiki without an Arbitration Committee)

The reasons for this request are as follows:

• (A) The French Wikipedia is a wiki without an Arbitration committee
  • An attempt to elect an arbitration committee failed on 10 March 2012
    • Only three arbcom members were elected (vote page), but the French wikipedia Arbcom statutes stipulate that the Arbcom must be composed of five members to validly take any decision ( Arbcom Statutes, article 5, §1.
    • The term of these three powerless Arbcom committee members elected in March 2012 ended in September 2012
      • This is because an Arbcom member's term is 6 months, according to Statutes, Article 9, §1
  • Another vote should have taken place in September 2012 (as in September 2006, September 2007, September 2008, September 2009, September 2010, September 2011) but the French Wikipedia community failed from organizing such a vote
    • There was a dominant opinion (a consensus ?) in favour of waiting until the Statutes are modified via a community vote.
      • The Arbcom's main page explains this, showing the September 2012 (17th Arbcom) vote page as a red link, and writing Les élections pour le 17e CAr sont exceptionnellement reportées en attendant les résultats de la Prise de décision sur la Réforme ou suppression du comité d'arbitrage (The 17th Arbcom vote is exceptionnally postponed, while we wait for the results of the "Decision making" [vote] on Arbcom reform or suppression. (Arbcom's main page)
      • At present, it is impossible to predict when or if any such "decision making" vote will ever take place. The French wikipédia's arbcom may remain in a limbo for years to come.
• (B) CheckUser policy#Checkuser access says that on wikis without an arbitration committee, Checkusers must be nominated by community approval (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections)
• (C) None of the French Checkusers listed on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Liste_des_utilisateurs/checkuser passed a community approval vote
• (D) Therefore they must have their Checkuser access removed.

Teofilo (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point of time the checkusers have been operating for a significant time, were appointed under a valid process at that time, and seemingly operating within bounds. The scope for removal of rights is addressed at CheckUser_policy#Removal_of_access and that situation does not seem to have been met. Please take this back to the community and discuss with existing community, communitys bureaucrats and ArbCom. As Stewards don't override communities, and we don't have oversight of Checkusers, if there is insufficient response within the community, and you have concerns about the abuse of rights, then concerns may be better alerted to Ombudsman commission via their contact details. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

These Checkusers were appointed for a job in a wiki with an Arbcom. The French Wikipedia no longer exists as a wiki with an Arbcom. Therefore the job no longer exists. They had the right to use their access within a wiki with an Arbcom. They have no right to access the checkuser function in a wiki without an arbcom. Removing checkuser accesses that were never approved by community is not "overriding community". Prolonging checkuser access that was never approved by community IS "overriding community". CheckUser_policy#Removal_of_access does not override CheckUser policy#Checkuser access. These Checkusers were appointed under a process that was valid at that time, but which is no longer valid, as the French Wikipedia switched from the "wiki with arbcom" to the "wiki without arbcom" status. Teofilo (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They were appointed by a valid process for the assignment of the checkuser right, and individually they do not meet the conditions for removal. The rest is your supposition or your interpretation, it is not the overt expressed desire of the community. Stewards do not have the ability to remove checkusers from your community on either your say so, or your interpretation of what you think a rule should mean. It is not explicitly stated in the procedure that such is a grounds for removal, so please take this matter back to your community, express the matter, if you wish to give us a mandate to act. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done appointments were made in the right way, so, notwithstanding there's a sort of vacatio legis fr.wiki's community is big enough to set up a vote and make up the issue. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I, as the only member of the current fr-Arbcom, would specify that the current fr-Checkusers have been appointed at this commitee in august 2012, for six months.--Sammyday (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any actual on-wiki decision about this? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that the current fr-checkusers had been appointed for only 6 months (from August) that means that in your view, they should have their access removed in January (or 01 February 2013). If the Stewards agree with that, it is OK for me to wait until January (or February 1st) to remove their accesses. Teofilo (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If a user is invalidly given the checkuser access by a plain mistake, like a spelling mistake in the user name, or a computer bug, will the steward need a community vote to remove that checkuser access ? If the answer is "no", then it shows that there is no need for explicit statements in CheckUser_policy#Removal_of_access for stewards to take action. The overt expressed desire of the community was not required to give them access (only the overt expressed desire of the Arbcom was required, at that time). So the overt expressed desire of the community is not required either for removing their accesses. The principle set in CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser is that you need a positive approval of the community for a checkuser access to be validly conferred in a wiki without Arbcom. This principle should not be interpreted as Stewards having a freehand to grant or prolong accesses as they want, with communities having only a negative "veto" power to disapprove such choices. Teofilo (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If the user is granted checkuser access by a steward mistake, a steward can fix it. If the community voted on user X when they meant to vote on user Y, it's up to them to fix it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okey, let's see if we can answer some questions to simplify the issues because I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what's going on:

• Are the current CU arbcom-appointed or community elected?
• If they are arbcom-appointed, why would their appointment not be valid? And could we have a link to the arbcom statement?

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to ask around and figure out what's happening, from what I understand the CUs were appointed by the community thru a regular election, they were then, when an arbcom was elected, re-appointed for a six month term, said arbcom then dissolved/became inactive/a giant alien space ship showed up and kidnapped them all. If so, then it's obvious they're still appointed for 6 months and then frwiki decides what to do with them and the arbcom. Did I get anything wrong? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I just think you're right. This is the Arbcom statement for the CU and the OS, and this is the arbcom appointement for the current chek-users. And there is a straw poll for the Arbcom reform or suppression, which contains a question about the CU & OS nomination.--Sammyday (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, no fr-checkuser has ever been "appointed by the community". They were always appointed by Arbcom. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Teofilo. Sufficient stewards have given opinions, and indicated that the frWP community needs to address this issue. So please take the matter there, rather than continue an argument about existing practice. The current global policies and their reasonable actions for removal do not qualify us to remove these checkusers without the direction of the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think my interpretation of CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser of community power being a positive one rather than a negative ("veto") one is correct, and that I have been patient enough by waiting until October 2012 to take this request on meta. The checkuser accesses should have been removed as soon as March 2012 as it became clear that the French Wikipedia had no longer a workable 5-member Arbcom. Teofilo (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have doubts on the validity of an appointment done by a 3-member-only Arbcom. I think common sense is to consider that the 5-member en:quorum applies to any decision taken by the Arbcom, including Checkuser appointments. I may forget about these doubts if we reach a consensus on removing the present Checkuser accesses on 1 February 2013 at the latest. Teofilo (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Appointments are not connected to Arbcom and do not extinguish with it. I have no idea about the quorum issues on frwiki's arbcom and don't really wish to delve in it, it is a local frwiki matter. The appointment were deemed valid in March and the announcement makes no mention of terms. Now I would say that this matter is really for frwiki to resolve on its own for now. Get some community process to change the status quo at this point, 'cause it's really not within our powers or job description to handle this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Again to emphasize on the point that an ArbCom or a community vote is required for appointment of CheckUsers, not maintaining their access. Compare that to the 'at least two checkusers at any time' section. This request has been rejected by multiple stewards with reasons given above. The issue should be handled locally, or discussion about CheckUser policy should be carried out elsewhere. Unless there is new update to the request itself, as this is a request noticeboard, not a discussion platform, please kindly discuss any further issues on appropriate venues. Thanks --Bencmq (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Florian Schott@barwikipedia

--Holder (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hubert22@de.wikiquote

Thank you. --Paulis (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Trijnstel_talk 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

MichaelDiederich@de.wikiquote

Please remove sysop and bureaucrat access. Thank you. --Paulis (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Trijnstel_talk 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeroen_De_Dauw@wikidata and aude@wikidata

Done. -- Mentifisto 12:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Romanov@arwikibooks

Kylu granted the rights in 2010 for 3 months and they should've expired on 20 August 2010. It never happened and the user is inactive ever since. Trijnstel_talk 02:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Done MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

יוסי@hewiki

plz check my local user page [5]. tnx. --יוסי (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Already done by Matanya. Trijnstel_talk 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Vogone@betawikiversity

I want to request temporary importer access for betawikiversity for mass importation. Greetings, Vogone (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Granted for one month. I've requested devs to add the needed import sources to your project (see bugzilla:39878). -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 07:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

removed. Trijnstel_talk 10:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes@liwikisource

Again temporary. There's no active community, but several pages need updated after the creation of the Limburgish Wikibooks. --OosWesThoesBes 05:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done for 1 year, until 3 October 2012. Ruslik 11:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Expiration notice posted on li.wikisource (here). Trijnstel_talk 13:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

removed. Trijnstel_talk 10:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Jagwar@mg.wikipedia

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jagwar (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012

 On hold You have not long just posted the request, This can be put on hold until 09/04/2012 to see others wish to give input. fr33kman 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months. Thanks for helping! fr33kman 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Expiration notice posted on mg.wikipedia (here). Trijnstel_talk 10:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

removed as expired.--Jusjih (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Si Gam@ace.wikipedia

There is no administrator any more in Acehnese Wikipedia. So I want to be an administrator there. Thank you. -- Si Gam (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2012-10-20. 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. -- Trijnstel_talk 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Expiration notice posted on ace.wikipedia (here). Trijnstel_talk 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

removed. Trijnstel_talk 19:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rock@es.wiktionary

It is my puppet and I would like to exempt from this period of confirmation that this move pages and edit semi-protected pages. I wish my puppet had confirmed the flag. Thank you.-- Cyrax (Comando) 03:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I see no issues. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And I removed it; the four-day-period is over now. Trijnstel_talk 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Tahir_mq@en.wikipedia Tahir_mq@ur.wikipedia

Hi, I am an Administrator on Urdu Wikipedia. I want to get the CheckUser access because I believe some users are using Sock puppetry accounts on Urdu Wikipedia, especially if they are Blocked on English Wikipedia for the same.

Please also guide that if I will be able to check the IP address of a user who is only on Urdu Wikipedia.

Preferably to use ur:خاص:CheckUser

Tahir Mahmoood --Tahir mq (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done. We can't give you such permission. CheckUser access is only given to those elected to have such status per CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser. If your wiki don't have local CheckUsers and you have suspicions of abuse of multiple accounts please post and supply evidence at Steward requests/Checkuser. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Innocent robot@svwiki

I am applying for botstatus on svwiki. It looks like I cannot do any edits before I am autoconfirmed or confirmed. Can you please, set the confirmed-flag until I am autoconfirmed or the botflag is set? One of these will happen within the next few days. -- Lavallen 10:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've just asked the bureaucrats opinion before doing it, but I don't see any problem if they agree. Regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 10:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have responded and endorsed the request. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Please tell us when to remove the status if you want it to be removed (btw that's not a major issue if the bot keeps it, anyway he will be autoconfirmed in a few days). Regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And I am able to edit, Tack! -- Lavallen 11:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And the botbit has now localy been set. The confirmed-flag can now be removed again, thank you! -- Lavallen 11:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

removed. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki importer rights on gu.wiki

THis request is for granting import rights to user:Harsh4101991 on gu.wiki. AS there is no active local Stewards there, community consensus is taken for this and he has received overwhelming response. Currently only 2 admins (as there are only 2 active) have these rights and this user is actively engaged in creating templates. With import rights, he will be better able to do this by importing templates that we use mostly from the en.wiki.--Dhaval^Talk 08:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have converted this request to transwiki import right, to align with the admin right, rather than import right. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Done [7] — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)