Steward requests/Permissions/2016-07

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in July 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Info-farmer@tawikisource

See that my adminship expires on 2016-06-16. I need permanent adminship for ta.wikisource. I already submitted our community consensus--Info-farmer (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the community concensus. Also, we can't grant you a permanent adminship as the wiki is not big enough. --Stryn (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Our community consensus is in the earlier request page. //big enough// To get permanent adminship, what should i do?--Info-farmer (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually you need to make new announcement that you're running for adminship. According to active users list only 6 users have made more than 10 edits in last 30 days except you and the two bots which is not big enough to grant permanent access. Best, ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Kindly excuse me. What are the requirements of a Tamil community contributor to get the permanent adminship?--Info-farmer (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this not about a specific community contributor. we will not grant permanent adminship when there is not an active local community. This practice is in force since quite a long time. Edit counts of those active users (I've mentioned) are: 801, 664, 190, 31, 23, 19 and 11. We'll happily grant the permanent adminship if community grows. so, again please start a new request and we'll grant the temp right if majority support your statement. You can renew them afterwards as long as necessary.Best, ~ Nahid ^Talk 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Marking as Not done. Please come back here when you have started the request for adminship on wiki first. --Stryn (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

~MMGJ~@urwikibooks

Im an active user at urwikibooks. There are 0 admins, and we need little amount of admin(s) to fight vandalism. I want this access temporarily (only a month). --~MMGJ~ (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please make a local announcement nevertheless. --MF-W 16:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's prior accounts were blocked at en.wiki for sockpuppetry, so we may want to proceed cautiously. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done, due to cross-wiki issues (and lack of a local announcement?) Ajraddatz (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Vogone@ltwikibooks

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

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

Already copied to SRAT, left here for some time for transparency. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Serchia@ckbwikipedia

I am an active user of CKB wikipedia for more than four years, now I wanted to be administrator for working harder for this wiki and more developing. (12 votes for support and 0 vote for against) Serchia (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Araz Yaquboglu@azwikisource

Done Per the disucssion above I am granting Araz Yaquboglu, one year temporary adminship on azwikisouce, will expire 26 July 2017 Mardetanha ^talk 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

अनिरुद्ध!@hiwiki

7 vote for support plus his own vote=8 vote for support and 3 vote for against. 80% support so please grant admin right. His last adminship period is permanent.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Steward, in Local RFA one of Admin named Mala chaubey close this RFA as undone. She is opposite voter and no right to decide result.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

admin mala chaubey moved this nomination to archive page and block me on hiwiki. Bcoz i have rollback her edit. Need action by steward.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that there was a consensus to promote. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday we started new RfA. So please hold on. This RFA for permanent adminship.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I request the stewards to kindly note that earlier poll ran between 4-16 July which was unsuccessful because User:अनिरुद्ध! could not secure the much needed 80% votes. Therefore a hasty re-poll effort is rather illogical. However, I also oppose any effort to block User:YmKavishwar as I view him to be a dedicated editor. Therefore, please close the poll issue as "not done" and at the same time protect User:YmKavishwar from any unwarranted block. --Muzammil (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

YmKavishwar said " in Local RFA one of Admin named Mala chaubey close this RFA as undone. She is opposite voter and no right to decide result." Is it this true? If this is actually true, I tend to consider this as bad closure and I urge steward to allow the new RfA to run for the next seven days for a clearer consensus. According YmKavishwar, in the first RfA, there were 8 support votes and 3 oppose votes. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Yes, we may not have a clearer consensus to promote but this is certainly controversial for a local admin to close as not done. User:Mala chaubey, should not close a RfA as not done when they practically cannot grant the bid. Only local bureaucrats are allowed to close a RfA or stewards where there is no local bureaucrats. Admin or any editor aside bureaucrat and steward should not close any requests that they have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. I urge steward to allow the new RfA to run for the next seven days for a clearer consensus. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In the second round of voting, User:Naziah_rizvi's negative vote is declared invalid by the sitting admins because of the relatively less number of edits of this user. I urge the stewards to look into this aspect and also check if User:अनिरुद्ध! actually secures 80% votes needed for adminship. --Muzammil (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

By "negative vote" do you mean "oppose vote"?, if yes, I see no reason why Naziah rizvi's vote should be struck. The user has been around for over 2 years with over 300 edits. The user was granted autopatrol right which simply suggest to me that they are trustworthy. Is there any evidence of canvassing or sockpupetry? Is there a consensus on hi:Wiki that says editors must have made a certain number of edits to be eligible to vote at RfA? It is ridiculous to invalidate their vote on the basis of the fact that they didn't have 1000+ edits and I suggest their votes should be reinstated. Wikicology (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think false information is given by User:YmKavishwar. In the first round of voting (ran between 4-16 July), User:अनिरुद्ध! has not been secures 80% votes needed for adminship (7 vote for support and 3 vote for against). I urge the stewards to look into this aspect and also check it. If this is correct, would not be allowed to the next round. With warm regards.Mala chaubey (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Because Sir, after the next RFA that it will be the start of a new tradition on hindi wikipedia.Mala chaubey (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mala chaubey, may I respectfully ask you why you close a debate in which you !voted? And subsequently blocked User:YmKavishwar when your action was questioned? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:YmKavishwar,all sysop of hindi wikipedia was involved in discussion, so according to rule after seven days I close it, because User:अनिरुद्ध! could not secure the much needed 80% votes. If I was wrong, you should keep this question there. but you have rollback my edit. why? As per rule, after three warnings that I was temporarily blocked (only for three days) you. I am sorry for the inconvenience.Mala chaubey (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology Sir, My answer is contained in the above statement. with warm regards.Mala chaubey (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It is always a good idea to allow an uninvolved party to close such debate , preferably a bureaucrat or stewards in the case of hi:Wiki where there is no bureaucrat. I do hope you will take this into consideration in the future. Keep up the good work. Wikicology (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 23 has started in India about an hour back. So in after 24 hours from now, a decision on the admin poll can be declared by a steward here. --Muzammil (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikicology, Till about One year ago अनिरुद्ध was an active admin on Hindi Wikipedia. Growing demand of personal development work I could not able to involve in Hindi Wikipedia admin work. My admin membership had removed. It was not wrong decision. When this concept was accepted on hindi Wikipedia it was general view that when previous admin who has more than 5000 edit, will active and asked for admin right it will be given if he don’t obtain distinct apposition. Yogesh had made proposal for अनिरुद्ध!’s admin right removal. After seeing active he made proposal to make me admin again. I have accepted and give assurance for next two year for being active. It should not treat as new admin proposal but it should be seen in continuity of my previous admin work. This fact also should keep in mind that अनिरुद्ध! Is the only screen reader user and has ability to check accessibility of Hindi Wikipedia. I don’t know why out of six only one Hindi wiki admin is not able to understand the value of increasing of member or admin. If I will inactive I can be removed again. Hindi wiki will gain instead of losing anything with my admin status. I haven’t asked for admin right again but if some responsible member want this why should I or other should oppose this. In 7 year wiki experience I am seeing 1st time that being reactive is a negative thing. अनिरुद्ध! (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is one of Wikipedia's core principle. If there is a consensus to promote you, I doubt any admin or steward will override it. Just stay calm and keep up the good work. Wikicology (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology Mala chaubey is representing the facts in her own manner and out of 5 active admins, she is the only who is in oppose of this RfA, as far as Naziah rizvi's invalid vote is concerned it was not due to her 300+ edit but due to a rule applied on hi.wiki with full consensus that if a user shows a tendency to show his/her activity mostly on voting in favour or oppose, his/her vote will be declared as INVALID. Her contributions shows that she rarely becomes active and most of the time after becoming active the first thing she do is to VOTE. Point to be noted that before giving her vote she was inactive for almost one year and this isn't the first time prior to this in year 2015-14 she was also inactive for nearly one year and came only to vote.---चक्रपाणी (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology and Ruslik0: The above RFA should have been presented by a neutral Admin but unfortunately this did not happen. Now, when this is presented here, I request request the Stewards to decide the results by using their own discretion. I have tabulated the present situation here for Steward's perusal and I have also requested चक्रपाणी to restore the vote in question as it is not his call to declare such things. Thanks in advance! --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 08:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have request to steward please explain whats saven days rule for RFA, what purpose for that and if in some cases purpose not fulfill so we are carri forword discussion or not ?

In this case (in first RFA) i hzve nominated user:अनिरुद्ध! as a admin at 4 july 2016, 5:08pm (IST). But nominated user accept this nomination after 6 days date of nomination. (10. July 2016, 1:49pm (IST).) So discussion started after user accept this nomination. Admin user:Mala chaubey closed that discussion prematurely. I have requested her to please extend but she can not. So stewards please describe purpose of saven days rule. Maybe after she understand. Thanks.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Most nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on the RfA page. Sometimes, a RfA may remain open for more than seven days and its closure will depend on weather there is a clear consensus to promote or not. Wikicology (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

exactly. Thanks sir, But she said 'rule is rule. Any vote not valid after saven days of nomination.' As my view point purpose of saven days rule RFA became mature. Some cases we will extend discussion more days.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Since more than seven days have passed by, I request a steward to kindly decide the matter. Thanks!--Muzammil (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If the rule is that the user needs to get at least 80% of support 9 pro/3 against makes 75% so unless I'm mistaken this should be closed as no consensus. —MarcoAurelio 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio:, its true. As per rule need 80% support. Now nominated user voted so 10/3 vote. Also as per rule against voter Naziah rizvi's vote is not valid. Bcoz she is not active contributor since 2014. In 2014, 2015, 2016 she come here only for make vote. As per rule if user not active contributor and come here only for voting so his/her vote is not valid. So decide and solv this matter. Also one of rule admin's and reviewer's vote more valuable. 3 admin and 3 reviewer for support and one admin and one reviewer vote for against. So please decide.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done, consensus to promote not reached according to local policy: hi:विकिपीडिया:प्रबन्धक, which requires at least 80% support. —MarcoAurelio 08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jogi don@sdwikipedia

This was wrongly posted. I just fixed it. Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually do not see any new vote. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Stalled; marking as not done. Please feel free to add a new request when ready. ~ Nahid ^Talk 19:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hindustanilanguage@Urwiki

There has been unanimous endorsement of my candidature by all the participating members, including two of the sitting bureaucrats (one of them proposed my name and another supported by candidature). -Muzammil (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The wiki has active bureaucrats. Contact them. -- Tegel _(Talk) 18:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tegel: What should I ask them to do? User:محمد شعیب (Bureaucrat) moved the proposal for me while User:Tahir mq (another Bureaucrat) supported me in the polls. --Muzammil (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You should ask them to give you the bureaucrat rights based on your local election. To give other user the administrator and bureaucrat right after a successful election is what bureaucrats do. -- Tegel _(Talk) 19:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Érico@ptwiki

Please, assign the oversight flag for user Érico of pt:wikipédia. He was approved in this this local request to get the oversight flag. grateful. Sincerely, Leon--Leon saudanha (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 02:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Esprit Fugace@global

Done, @Trijnstel:, can you take care of mailing list and other related stuff (IRC, etc, if any)? —MarcoAurelio 18:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Trijnstel_talk 08:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

.anaconda@itwiki

.anaconda has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thanks. K'n-yan (msg) 19:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ayack@wikidatawiki

Ayack has not made the necessary 5 admin actions over the last 6 months. Last month the permissions were not removed because of the property creations in December that were counted as admin actions per policy, but now these are over 6 months old. Please remove sysop. Rschen7754 08:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Olaf Simons@de.wikipedia.org

Due to local policy. Has not started a re-election procedure within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community on 1st June 2016. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ciprian Dorin Craciun@betawikiversity

User was properly notified, and no response from the community or the user after 1 month, as documented here. Please remove sysop rights. Rschen7754 02:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. RadiX∞ 05:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Rashad-95@azwikiquote

User was properly notified, and no response from the community or the user after 1 month, as documented here. Please remove sysop rights. Rschen7754 02:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. RadiX∞ 05:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Axpde @ Commons

In line with the recently finished de-adminship request (20 votes in favour of remove; 8 votes in favour of keep; one neutral), I hereby request that administrator privileges be removed from the account of Axpde on Commons. Thank you, odder (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

David Ludwig@de.wikipedia

I have been inactive for a very long time. Wikipedia has changed, the community has changed, and I do not think that I should still be an administrator. Thanks! David Ludwig (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Since de.wp has its own bureaucrats, I'll forward the request to de.wp to be processed there. ✒ Bennylin 13:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] Thanks for your services during these years. ✒ Bennylin 13:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

De-wiki 'crats can't remove admin rights, see de:Spezial:Gruppenrechte. --Stryn (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks four you work. RadiX∞ 04:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Worm That Turned@en.wikipedia

I am inactive as a bureaucrat, oversighter and global renamer. I do not believe in holding user-rights for the sake of it and will go through standard re-request processes if I ever feel I will become more active in the future. Please can you remove these user-rights, and if possible remove me from any associated mailing lists. If not possible, please let me know and I'll take steps to remove myself. Worm^TT 13:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you still want to hold your admin bit in en.wp? ✒ Bennylin 13:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Enwiki crats can remove admin rights, see Bureaucrat#Removing access (which is in the instructions for this section). --Rschen7754 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I did intend to keep the admin bit, I still have use for that. Worm^TT 15:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your work. @Trijnstel and Barras: could you take care of mailing lists and IRC accesses? RadiX∞ 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Done for global-renamers. I can't remove him from oversight-l, but I see Worm That Turned is a mailing list admin for that list himself. :) Trijnstel_talk 13:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Am I? Not had the password for a while! I'll sort it, thanks :) Worm^TT 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

WTT: Yw. You might wish to remove yourself from wikien-bureaucrats as well, if you haven't already (I can't do that either). Trijnstel_talk 21:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

PG@pl.wikipedia

Not needed anymore. PG (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

On hold for 24h per standard practice--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 07:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for your work. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DangTungDuong@vi.wikipedia

This user has been banned on vietnamese Wikipedia because of misconduct. Please remove his eliminator right accordingly. Thank you. Na Tra (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: @Na Tra, you should ask a local bureaucrat, since they are able to do so. Thank you for your understanding, —MarcoAurelio 10:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Tigerente@de.wikipedia

bureaucrats in de.wikipedia don't have rights to remove sysop access, delay of 24 hrs respected -- Dschungelfan (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

But User:DerHexer can do this (steward), and if the user requests from him, just let them do that. It isn't urgent, is it? Luke081515 21:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that, since it's a personal request to DerHexer which, in principle, don't infringe our policy, I'd leave this to him. However @Tigerente is free to confirm this request here if he wishes to have the rights removed without having to wait for DerHexer. —MarcoAurelio 22:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure since when we started to do third party requests by uninvolved people, but to my opinion this shall be prevented somehow in the future, and this request should be speedy-closed as invalid. --Krd 07:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Invalid request as these need to be made by users themselves. Besides, at the times this request here was made, I still could have done this. I got sick so I can only do this now (which I will do based on the dewiki request). No need to rush at all anyways. —DerHexer (Talk) 11:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nirmos@nl.wikimedia

I've updated JavaScript on nl.wikimedia. My admin rights there can be removed. Thank you. Nirmos (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Mrug@plwiki

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of administrator access due to lack of administrative actions during a 1 year period. The user has been notified ([3]). Tar Lócesilion (queta) 12:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, Linedwell (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Filip_em@pl.wikipedia

At user's own request. PG (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 08:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JAn Dudík@cs.wiktionary

— Danny B. 16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Mardetanha ^talk 17:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nirmos@nl.wikibooks

I've updated JavaScript on nl.wikibooks. My admin rights there can be removed. Thank you. Nirmos (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 18:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Millbart@de.wikipedia

Admin status was not confirmed in the reelection process. Millbart (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Factumquintus@de.wikipedia

due to local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community on 21st June 2016 -- Dschungelfan (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

done, einsbor _talk 06:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Remaling@cs.wikipedia

Remaling has resignated by e-mail (delivered to me as I'm one of cswiki 'crats). Please remove his sysop rights. Regards, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done per this edit showing his resignation on cswiki too. Thanks for your work. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 14:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem@en.wikipedia

I ask to remove autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer and extended confirmed user. Reason: Vandalism. 179.223.43.191 21:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done. If they are vandalising, local admins/'crats will take care of the rights. --Stryn (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Leon saudanha@pt.wikipedia

Please, remove Leon saudanha access to Oversight tools on pt@wikipedia. The decision was chosen by the local community vote (less than 75% of favorable votes). Thanks in advance. Paulo Eduardo (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. User:Trijnstel or someone, could you update the mailing lists and IRC? --Stryn (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Done for IRC. I've asked Teles to remove Leon saudanha from the oversight mailing list. Trijnstel_talk 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Darío José@es.wikiquote

Inactive sysop since 15/11/2012 Rssäl₰ 08:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done. As the local policy said, they don't have a policy on its own so they abide by the global inactivity process. For as long as they ain't listed in Admin_activity_review/2015/Data#E, this can't be done this year. —MarcoAurelio 09:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Garber@es.wikiquote

Inactive sysop since 22/07/2012 Rssäl₰ 08:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done. As the local policy said, they don't have a policy on its own so they abide by the global inactivity process. For as long as they ain't listed in Admin_activity_review/2015/Data#E, this can't be done this year. —MarcoAurelio 09:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the rights for both were already removed in the 2014 run. --Rschen7754 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Coffee please :-) —MarcoAurelio 20:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

pjacobi@de.wikipedia

Please remove my sysop flag. I've been inactive since a long time. It's time to stop pretending that this will change.

--Pjacobi (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank You. masti <talk>

El Duende@de.wikipedia

Odeesi (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Needs to be done by users themselves. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Amonet@sk.wikipedia

I ask to remove sysop flag on skwiki for Amonet. Reason: per local rule: she does not have edit in articles for last 4 months. Vasiľ (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
"Za neaktívneho správcu sa považuje taký správca, ktorý nevykonal žiadny správcovský úkon za posledné 4 kalendárne mesiace.". Does it mean that an admin who didn't perform any admin actions for last 4 months will lose their admin access?--Stryn (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Whole section is: Správcovi, ktorý je neaktívny ako správca alebo ako redaktor stewardi odoberú správcovské právomoci. (translation: Sysop which is not active as a sysop or a user will stewards removed sysop acces.) Za neaktívneho správcu sa považuje taký správca, ktorý nevykonal žiadny správcovský úkon za posledné 4 kalendárne mesiace. (translation: Not active sysop is sysop, which did no performed sysop edit in last 4 months) Za neaktívneho redaktora sa považuje taký redaktor, ktorý nevykonal žiadnu úpravu v hlavnom mennom priestore za posledné 4 kalendárne mesiace. (translation: Not active user is user, which did no performed edit in articles in last 4 months) In this case it is removal of sysop flag, because sysop is inactive as a user. Vasiľ (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Is there something missing in this request? Vasiľ (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC) I believe the user in question deleted a page on March 30. Wouldn't that extend the period until July 30? MBisanz talk 03:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, she performed deletion. But she did not performed edit in articles since March 16. In rule on sk wiki (part of it I translated here) is written, that steward will removed sysop flag if: user did not performed sysop action for 4 months or (it means en:Logical disjunction, not en:Logical conjunction) user did not performed edit in articles for 4 month. This second option is valid in case of Amonet. Vasiľ (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC) @Vasiľ: Is there a community consensus for approving that policy? Most of the inactivity policy require user being notified regarding the removal. I don't see any notification at the user's talk page. ~ Nahid Talk 08:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC) sk:Wikipédia:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch is valid rule of sk wiki, which was approved in sk:Diskusia k Wikipédii:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch#Hlasovanie. In rule is written: "O odobratie právomoci správcovi, ktorý spĺňa stanovené kritériá na jej odobratie, môže stewardov požiadať ktorýkoľvek redaktor, ako keby o odobratie práv požiadal správca sám." Which means, that anyone can ask stewards to remove sysop flag, if sysop has reach criteria for removal of sysop acces. There is no obligation to notify Amonet. Vasiľ (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Well, As we have some bad experience regarding this type of confusion, I believe it'd be better to have another user's comment from skwik and I just asked the only bureaucrat of skwiki for second opinion. ~ Nahid Talk 10:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Few years ago wasn't problem with such a request [6], [7]. But OK, I unterstand that you need to check it. I saw your question on sk. Vasiľ (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC) There is this rule on skwiki: if sysop did not performed any edit in articles for 4 month or did not performed any sysop action for 4 months, stewards will remove his sysop permissions. Vasiľ is right. --Exestosik (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) I am a bit perplex about this request. This comment "Yes, she performed deletion. But she did not performed edit in articles" is concerning. Is a deletion not an edit? The user deleted a page on March 30 as MBisanz rightfully pointed out. Do you mean in sk:Wiki, a page deletion does not count as edit? Is the now deleted page, Gottfrid Svartholm not in mainspace when it was deleted? If a page deletion at sk:Wiki is not an edit, can we see that policy? I am sorry, such policy is illogical if it exist at all. Wikicology (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Slovak rule has 3 points about inactivity of admins (sk:Wikipédia:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch#Nezáujem o výkon funkcie). Briefly: Stewards will removed admin flag to admin which is no longer active as a admin or a user. Inactive admin is admin which did not performed admin edit in last 4 months. Inactive user is user which did not performed edit in article in last 4 months. In this case last edit in article is 16.6. 2016. So it means, that Amonet is inactive a a user. No confusion, just following rule on sk. Yes, rule divided edits into 2 groups. Vasiľ (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Now that you agree that a page deletion is an edit and admin action, I am struggling to see how July 16 is the removal date considering the fact that the user deleted a page on March 30. I think common sense applies here. If I may ask, what harm does it cause the project (sk:wiki) if we wait till July 30? There is no abuse of tool here and I don't see any damage to the project , thus I see no reason for the hasty removal of tool. Wikicology (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC) While the (partially confusing) wording of the rule actually indicates, that July 16 can be the removal date, I encourage stewards to hold until July 30, which is just few more days and is the no-doubt removal date. — Danny B. 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC) You are wrong. Rule is clear in this case. Аs a man, which understand Slovak language you know it. No doubth removal date is Jule 16, as rule obviously states. Vasiľ (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC) If the user is really inactive, then couple more days won't do any harm... — Danny B. 16:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Conditions are obvious. Vasiľ (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC) @Vasiľ: Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and rules are not the purpose of the community. Wikicology (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC) That does not mean, that you should question my request as you did. This request is based on rule and custom on sk (see previous requests on meta: 1, 2, 3, 4). Vasiľ (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC) There is no much similarity between the previous requests and this and that is why your request here have not been granted. The only similarity I see is that a request was made. One or two editors have told you already that July 30 should be the removal date. If I were you, I will wait. Is there any reason why you can't wait? Are you going to retire from Wikipedia before July 30? The goal of Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. More importantly, you have not pointed to a single harm that this will cause the project if we wait till July 30. Wikicology (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC) There is similarity, because all of request are based on the same rule. One or two editor are wrong, so that is not a valid point. Reason is that my request is correct and is following valid rule which was agreed on consensus on sk. There are 2 conditions which can lead in request such a this. If user is in one in these categories (it is not necessary to be in both of them), my request is correct. So my request is right. Vasiľ (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC) I will leave this for a steward to decide. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Dear all, while the rule may indeed not require a notification per se, I believe that it is common courtesy to notify the user in question. The other thing is that the request was not discussed, actually, not even mentioned on sk.wiki. My big thanks goes to user Juandev who mentioned this on Amonet's discussion page (that is how I found out about the matter). However, this should have been done by Vasiľ as he requested the desysop here on meta. Considering these circumstances, the fact that Amonet has not done any harmful edits and the additional dispute whether a deletion counts as an edit, I would strongly urge not to desysop until the 30 July. Thank you!--Jetam2 (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC) You can read and understand Slovak. So our rule on sk is in this case clear and simple. Since June 16 anyone can ask stewards to remove sysop flag of Amonet. Thats all. Other thing you mentioned are just empty words. Request in because of inactivity, not because on her wrong (for example) edits. Vasiľ (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) I must agree with Vasiľ. There is a clear distinction between "sysop action" and "editing action" and local sysop policy at skwiki requires activity in terms of both types of actions. Page deletion (even in NS 0) clearly is a sysop action, not an editing action. There is no doubt, I believe, that formal conditions for desysop due to inactivity had been fulfilled as per July 16. --Teslaton (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Just a note that there is now va discussion about the matter on Slovak Wikipedia.--Jetam2 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC) There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possible future changes to the policy (inactivity periods; obligation of notification about desysop request on the sysop's talk page; etc.), but the current wording is quite clear. --Teslaton (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Dobrý večer. Som byrokrat na Slovenskej Wikipédii. User:NahidSultan ma vyzval, aby som reagovala na vzniknutú situáciu. Správkyňa Amonet sa počas aktívneho pôsobenia nespreneverila svojej funkcii, vždy vystupovala korektne a slušne. Myslím si, že aj od nás bude korektné, ak proces odobratia práv správcu prebehne po 30. júli 2016, kedy uplynú štyri mesiace od jej poslednej správcovskej aktivity: 18:49, 30. marec 2016 Amonet (Diskusia | príspevky | zablokovať) zmazal stránku Gottfrid Svartholm (Experimenty) (zobraziť/obnoviť). Ospravedlňujem sa za slovenčinu, prípadne môj príspevok môže preložiť do angličtiny niektorý z našich redaktorov. Ďakujem. --Bubamara (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC) (Translation of the above) "Good evening. I am a bureaucrat on Slovak Wikipedia. User User:NahidSultan asked me to comment on the situation. Admin Amonet has not abused her position during her active involvement, she has always acted correctly and politely. I think that it would be correct of us if the process of removing her sysop rights takes place after the 30th of July when four months since her last admin activity will have passed. 18:49, 30. marec 2016 Amonet (Diskusia | príspevky | zablokovať) zmazal stránku Gottfrid Svartholm (Experimenty) (zobraziť/obnoviť) My apologies for writing in Slovak, perhaps one of our editors can translate my contribution to English. Thank you."--Jetam2 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Bubamara writes which is not true. I quite can agree, that Amonet has as sysop no problems. But our rule is in case on inactivity clear. Since Jule 16 2016 stewards should remove her sysop flag. Other words, like date July 30 are misleading and against rule on sk. Vasiľ (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) And what does your dogged demand for a desysop of Amonet to do with the creation of an encyclopaedia ?? -jkb- 07:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 On hold I've done some research about the policy and found out that there is no indication whether deletion should count as edit or not. Since it is a valid point and we have some doubts regarding the date, it's best to wait few more days (Like some of you pointed above, there's no harm in it). I'm holding this request till 30th of July. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

In Slovak rule about admin exists clear distinction between logged actions (like deletions and block) and user edits (for this rule we counted only edits in articles). So there is no confusion.

But I understand, that you do not know Slovak language, so your opinion is based on Bubamara's. It is shame that she is not telling truth about our rule. Vasiľ (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't bludgeon the process. Wikicology (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Vasiľ, I think what Wikicology is trying to tell you is this: The very fact that you are so worried about whether this closes July 23 or July 30 makes an uninvolved observer (like me) suspicious that you have a personal agenda here. You will be far more likely to get the outcome you want by being patient and waiting until July 30. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It is fact, that this request is based on our rule, nothing more. The date is Jule 16, as I wrote. This is in our rule, that all. Vasiľ (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Schreiber@de.wikipedia

Odeesi (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Needs to be done by users themselves. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please remove my admin permissions. Thanks for your help!--Schreiber (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --Stryn (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sfic@hiwikibooks

Sfic (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-01. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

SimmeD@da.wikiquote

Here we come again for my 5'th application about getting the sysop extended :-) I've started a discussion. Thanks! (and Marry Christmas ;)) Simeondahl (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 On hold until 2 Jan — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year and 6 months to expire on 2016-07-02. --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 09:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Helmoony@arwikiquote

Following a discussion on Arabic Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard, it has been decided that any willing admin may request adminship on sister Arabic Wikimedia projects. Rationale is that those wikis has no active local admins and they are flooded by test/spam pages. It is true that stewards/global sysops monitor those wikis. However, sometimes an admin with knowledge of the local language is needed to judge whether a certain page should be deleted (such as when a certain page is not vandalism but is out of project scope). I would like to request temporary adminship for 3 months for Helmoony who has 7 years experience on Wikimedia wikis and is an admin on Arabic Wikipedia. Arabic Wikiquote has two inactive local admins: the first's last edit was in February 2014 and the second's last edit was in May 2015. There was an announcement on Arabic Wikiquote Village Pump (see the provided link) but only one user commented. Thank you. Meno25 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-05. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

مصعب@arwikiquote

Same as Helmoony's request above. Requesting temporary adminship for 3 months for مصعب (Mossab) who is an admin on Arabic Wikipedia with an impressive 90K edits. There was an announcement on Arabic Wikiquote Village Pump (see the provided link) but only one user commented. Thank you. Meno25 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-05. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hunnjazal@hiwikipedia

4 votes and 2 users support for 3 months. Sfic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-12. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Maathavan@tawikiquote

I want to get temporary adminship on tamil wikiquote. There is no Bureaucrat or sysops. I announced locally.--Maathavan (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till April 15th. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Today is 15th--175.157.123.165 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-15. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You.--Maathavan (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Илья Драконов@abwiki

Need to do a lot in the MediaWiki namespace and look after vandalism there. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

I can only give you a temporal adminship for 3 months. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it will be enough before we find an Abkhaz-speaking user. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

 Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-07-20. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ismail4all@so.wikipedia

On hold until 22 Jan 2016. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-7-22. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

देवराज पौडेल @ne.wikibooks

(currently there are no admins he had requested before many days and is a able candidate .) BRP ^ever 03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-7-23. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Максим Підліснюк@ab.wikipedia

Максим Підліснюк was elected on sysop rights in Abkhazian Wikipedia for 4 months. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

 Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-07-25. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Discoverer

There are at least 2 open RFAs (request for adminship) on Konkani Wikipedia (gom.wikipedia.org). I am requesting steward here to close these two RFAs. There is one more RFA, but because of lack of discussion I feel we can keep that open for now. The Discoverer is one of the most active Wikipedians. His RFA started 15 days ago. In these 15 days we have not seen much activity on that site. But he has 2 support votes, no oppose, no neutral vote now. On Konkani Wikipedia Village pump he is the most active editor, and very recently he lead the discussion that enabled Flow (MediaWiki) on all talk pages. I request a steward to close this discussion. Thanks and regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-26. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --masti <talk> 19:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Discoverer

There are at least 2 open RFAs (request for adminship) on Konkani Wikipedia (gom.wikipedia.org). I am requesting steward here to close these two RFAs. There is one more RFA, but because of lack of discussion I feel we can keep that open for now. The Discoverer is one of the most active Wikipedians. His RFA started 15 days ago. In these 15 days we have not seen much activity on that site. But he has 2 support votes, no oppose, no neutral vote now. On Konkani Wikipedia Village pump he is the most active editor, and very recently he lead the discussion that enabled Flow (MediaWiki) on all talk pages. I request a steward to close this discussion. Thanks and regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-26. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --masti <talk> 19:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

John Noronha

This RFA started on 19 February. There are 5 support votes (not counting duplicate votes) and 0 oppose and 0 neutral vote. I request to close this RFA as well.

Thanks and regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-26. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

損齋@zh-classicalwikipedia

Complete at 2 March 2014...Stang 15:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If it was completed already in 2014, I would say it's way too old, and a new RfA should be started. PS. also fix your signature (it says nothing about your username). --Stryn (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

New RfA was started on 16 January here. --Stryn (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Google translate is hiccuping on me. Am I correct in understanding that there are positive votes and no negative ones? -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Up to now, yes. And because this wiki is not very active, he maybe cannot have more votes...--223.72.128.22 14:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it should pass for temporary adminship. -- Avi (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-07-28. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Stang 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

removed --masti <talk> 19:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bodhisattwa @bn.wikisource

This site has no bureaucrat. Proposal for adminship of this user had two supports, no objections. Discussion done on January 21, 2016. Hrishikes (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 On hold until 28 Jan. Taketa (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-07-28. Not enough support for a permanent adminship right now. In 6 months you can hold a new election to prolong or make it permanent. - Taketa (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

removed --masti <talk> 19:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

James970028@zhwikibooks

This user is a sysop in Chinese Wikipedia, and he is willing to dealing with the backlog of Afd. Per local discussion, there are 3 support for one week. Please grant him transwiki right. Thanks in advanced. --Stang 04:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

James970028@zh.wikibooks

I am here to request for importer right.I'm a sysop in Zhwp,and Zhwp currently have some backlog of Afd needing to be imported to wikibooks,thx. James970028 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You were just granted transwiki rights. Why do you need import rights? Ruslik (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it is my fault,i am request for transwiki ,not import rights.--James970028 (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done You already have transwiki rights. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edjoerv@es.wiki

I am requesting an account creator permission, because we're holding an editathontomorrow, and we're expecting around 30 people to join the event, and most of them probably won't have any account created beforehand. Thanks a lot. Edjoerv (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The event has ended already. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)