Steward requests/Permissions/2016-08

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

ethno & 4D@fj.wikipedia

Thanks, User talk:Ethno & 4D Ethno & 4D (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, provide a link to your adminship request. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done No link has been provided. Ruslik (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

損齋@zh-classical.wiki

I was granted the adminship recently but the status was lost for reasons unknown. If there is anything can be done about this situation? Thank you. PS:I am still listed in the unexpired user list. I begin to experience this curious loss of adminship since yesterday. 損齋 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Your rights were removed on 29 July 2016 because your temporary persmissions expired (cf. this request). We are willing to amend any mistake that we might have done of course. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 15:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is indeed expired. How ever, I also prolonged my adminship another 6months just week ago. So it should not be removed according to the new request. ----198.84.216.86 16:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It seems MBisanz forgot to assign you the privs after the renewal. I've just did that. Sorry for the trouble! Granted for 6 months to expire on 2017-02-02. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 10:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Илья Драконов@ab.wikipedia

Can I have the rights for 1 year now? Or only 6 months? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC).

 On hold till 5 August 2016. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is 4 to 3, which Андрей Козлов 123 noted did not exceed the 66% requirement. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

But the users that did not support me are all from Georgian Wikipedia. They won't ever support AbWiki. + some of them have 0 edits in abwiki, so somebody asked them to oppose. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC).

Stewards will take a closer look if your claim is actually true. Wikicology (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really clear - I see two supports and one oppose by users with additional edits to ab.wiki. It does appear as though there has been canvassing, though, but there is little we can do: Local community approval is indispensable for us granting rights. Savh^ñ 23:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I will work hard for some time and them apply again. Cheers, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

Silenzio76@ro.wikipedia

Unanimous agreement on a month-long discussion on regranting sysop rights to w:ro:User:Silenzio76. Andrei Stroe (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

শাহাদাত সায়েম@bn.wikibooks

Hello, I have an adminship in bn.wikibooks.org but in 18 august 2016 it will be expired. Now I want to feel, its need to Extended . Please help me. You can see that I have finished a lot of books in this wiki and I am only person who is active-শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, start a local discussion and post a link to it here. Ruslik (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done No response. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Pavanaja@tcy.wikipedia

Tulu Wikipedia has been created recently. Many tasks need to be done by admins like enabling gadgets, importing templates, taking care of vandalism, etc. I have been nominated by the community to become admin as per the discussions here. Hence I request to make me admin of Tulu Wikipedia.-Pavanaja (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 17 August 2016. Ruslik (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Is the vote # 3 your own vote for your very own nomination? Are the 1 & 2 at the bottom of the page opposes? --Muzammil (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this temporary? --MF-W 18:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And why not? --MF-W 17:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: This Wiki came out of incubator recently. So many policy decisions on the Wiki need to be evolved. This will be done over a period of time. --Muzammil (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about stuff I was involved in. It is precisely because the wiki was only created in this month that I am wondering. Usually sysops on a new wiki are temporary for the first time (cf. gomwiki requests which are on this page at the moment as well); especially if several participants in the request do not even have a local userpage. --MF-W 23:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As a former steward, I do find this surprising as well. They even made all sysops temporary when Wikidata was starting out. --Rschen7754 15:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Jogi don@sd.wikipedia

Kindly give me permanent Sysop rights or extend my SysOp rights , Since and before and after my adminship I Have been working on sd.wikipedia and have created so many useful templates, categories, modules, help pages and inter wiki linked them Jogi don (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: Thanks for granting User:Indusian1236 SysOp rights on Sdwiki, dear I was also admin for 6 months and requested ex-Steward for my admin rights extension. so you are requested to grant me permanent admin rights or extend my User:Taketa for my admin rights extension but he is no longer steward Jogi don (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please start a new request on sdwiki and link to it here. --Stryn (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done. No answer, so closing this as not done. --Stryn (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Amir a57@azbwiki

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amir a57 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done —MarcoAurelio 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Octahedron80@th.wiktionary

Dear sir; Octahedron80 have experience in this project for a long time. And he have skills in technique section. He also confirms that he is happy to be admin in this project. Sincerely. --B20180 (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Codicorumus@itwikinews

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferdi2005 (talk)

Please ask via talk page message or email the local bureaucrats to fullfil this. —MarcoAurelio 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ferdi2005 has done as suggested and the flag has been set by a local bureaucrat. -- Codicorumus  « msg 19:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Osk@itwikinews

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferdi2005 (talk)

Please ask via talk page message or email the local bureaucrats to fullfil this. —MarcoAurelio 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ferdi2005 has done as suggested and the flag has been set by a local bureaucrat. -- Codicorumus  « msg 19:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sahehco@fawikipedia

As local crat, please Per discussion above grant saheco, CU rights, as far as I know he has not been identified yet. Mardetanha ^talk 07:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold pending signature of the Confidentiality Agreement. —MarcoAurelio 12:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have emailed the user with the instructions and a copy of such email has been archived in the OTRS system. —MarcoAurelio 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mardetanha: There's no farsi translation for the Confidentiality Agreement. Somebody fluent in English and Farsi should translate it. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)It is at Meta, but since it's not fully translated it's not imported onto Phabricator yet. —MarcoAurelio 12:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MarcoAurelio can you please point me to the translation? I will update and fix it. Huji (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Huji, the farsi translation of the agreement can be found at Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information/fa. The Access to nonpublic information policy would be awesome to have it translated as well, since both texts are linked each other. Once the translation is finished, please ping me so I can ask that the Phabricator texts by sync'd. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 13:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Signed the agreement, so Done. --Stryn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Huji@fawikipedia

As local crat, please Per discussion above grant Huji, CU rights, Huji is already identified to the foundation. Mardetanha ^talk 07:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold pending signature of Sahehco of the Confidentiality Agreement. —MarcoAurelio 12:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Mardetanha@fawikipedia

I'm a local 'crat. Mohsen is already a steward so he signed the NDA and identification is done. Thanks Amir (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Savh^ñ 09:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia

On the Swedish Wikipedia all admins/bureaucrats/CU/OS are elected for one year at a time, see the policy document. There exists a possibility to be reelected, but some users choose not to apply for another period. To get reelected at least 75 percent support is required.

Bothnia@svwiki

Bothnia is pleased with what (s)he has accomplished and do not run for a new period. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Entheta@svwiki

Entheta failed to get a 75 % support for a new period. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Kruosio@svwiki

Kruosio did not run for a new period. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, please thank them for their work. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 14:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Zero@ukwiki

Please, remove my sysop flag. I have no time for Wikipedia. — Green Zero обг 18:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Stryn (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --Stryn (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Михајло Анђелковић@sr.wiki

Please remove his sysop rights per the local inactivity policy, more than a year without syops action. --Ранко Николић (talk) 17:41, 4. August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

سمرقندی@urwiki

Please revoke his sysop and bureaucrat privileges per local inactivity policy, more than 6 months without any activity. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 09:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

خاور@urwiki

Please revoke his sysop and bureaucrat privileges per local inactivity policy, more than 6 months without any activity. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 09:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Drahreg01@dewiki

Please remove my sysop-Flag for a month. I've asked user:DerHexer four or five days ago, but he didn't want to use his rights as a steward in this issue. I will ask bureaucrats on de-wiki for sysop-flag in a month or so for myself. Thank you. Drahreg01 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

We can remove, but we won't grant it back in case dewiki bureaucrats refuses to regrant. That said,  On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions —MarcoAurelio 13:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I fully understood that I need the decision of local bureaucrats to become sysop on de-wiki again. Considering that I've already asked DerHexer a few days ago to remove the flag, I think another 24 hours are not needed. But that's your decision. Kindest regards, --Drahreg01 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done then. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 19:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Seidl@dewiki

Please remove the sysop-Flag from User:Seidl. He asked 24 hours ago for desysop. Thanks Itti (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for his service. Linedwell (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

MagnusA@svwiki

Please remove my administrator and bureaucrat flags. MagnusA (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

On hold until 00:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC). --Stryn (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your service. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 10:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Cecil@dewiki

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 6th July 2016 -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Checked with some dewiki users, they tell me that this can be safely removed tomorrow, so  On hold for 24 hours. —MarcoAurelio 17:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Done —MarcoAurelio 10:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Sander@de.wikipedia

Please remove the sysop-Flag from User:Michael Sander He asked for desysop. Itti (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Done --Stryn (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Mido@ar.wikipedia

As bureaucrat in ar.wikipedia I want to ask for removing the sysop-Flag from User:Mido. Because of our local policy each Sysop has to have at least one Sysop's action (Log) in last 6 months but unfortunately based on this statistics User:Mido has nothing. this removal request has bis discussed here too. thanks in advanced.--Abbas 15:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Abanima@ar.wikipedia

As bureaucrat in ar.wikipedia I want to ask for removing the sysop-Flag from User:Abanima. Because of our local policy each Sysop has to have at least one Sysop's action (Log) in last 6 months but unfortunately based on this statistics User:Abanima has nothing. this removal request has bis discussed here too. thanks in advanced.--Abbas 15:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Whaledad@nl.wikiquote

In my opinion, Whaledad's administration rights on nl-wikiquote should be removed as he has abused them several times and in multiple ways. The main thing is that he has thrown away some good pages without others who are or used to be active on nl-wikiquote being seriously involved in this issue (see my last remark on this about the deleted pages: nl:q:Wikiquote:De kantine#Verzoek om herplaatsing. More discussion about this can be found in particular on nl:q:Wikiquote:Te verwijderen pagina's and the corresponding talk page, and nl:q:Wikiquote:Te verwijderen pagina's/Aangehouden).

On nl-wikiquote, Whaledad is also creating his own rules regarding specific users including me. On that basis he gave me about 15, in my own opinion completely undeserved, blocks ([6]).

Moreover, and this is perhaps even more serious, he recently allowed user:Graaf Statler, who has been globally locked, to keep on editing on nl-wikiquote with a sockpuppet by unblocking Statler's IP. Concerning the aforementioned point, my main objection is that the sockpuppet kept on nominating pages for deletion in a more or less random way, not to mention the fact that the sokpuppet's editing is of course unpermitted as such as long as Graaf Statler himself has not made a succesful request here on MetaWiki to undo the global lock of his main account. It is Whaledad who apparently made this block evasion by Graaf Statler possible, given this [7] (translation: Whaledad and I have made some very strict agreements).

So in my view he (Whaledad) is also damaging Wikiquote in some way, abusing at the same time his administration rights to lock/unlock users at random, and, which is probably the most important aspect, appealing against the decision made some months ago here on MetaWiki to lock Graaf Statler undefinitely on all WMF projects (see here). Please take that into consideration in particular, as well as the fact that Whaledad was elected about 4 years ago as an administrator on nl-wikiquote while there were actually hardly any active users. De Wikischim (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My observations as an outsider who has followed the unfolding drama at nl-wikiquote for quite some time. While I think this isn't a case that warrants an emergency desysop (the behaviour is structural and not something that occured overnight) this has turned into a dilemma which can no longer be resolved with the local resources this community has. Whaledad has misused his admin rights on a routine basis by blocking while he clearly is involved. While it is impossible to avoid some involvement at a small wiki, applying this many blocks against the same user often based on a sanction he applied without gathering community consensus is bad practise. Especially when none of the other two local admins where openly consulted and none of them were asked to step in as neutral, at least less involved parties evaluating the situation. Plus local policy doesn't allow admins to apply such sanctions.

Facilitating the socking of a user blocked indef on two different occasions is also bad practise. This way Whaledad is facilitating the violation of local policy. A policy he created without gathering community consensus nonetheless. His attitude has resulted in the harassment of several editors including De Wikischim. (Latest example is this tasteless grave dancing.)

Perhaps the steward who is going to close this one can De Wikischim some pointers on how to resolve this situation if he/she concludes that this case doesn’t warrant an emergency desysop? I hope you are hanging in there De Wikischim. I can't imagine how it feels like to be in the situation you are in now. Natuur12 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional remark: on nl-wikiquote, Whaledad just overruled the decision made this morning to block Opruimer 1. See the recent changes on Wikiquote. I believe this is an even more evident example of abuse of his sysop rights. De Wikischim (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a process for desysop requests on nlwikiquote? What is the opinion of the other sysops about this? E.g. User:Romaine --MF-W 15:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

user:Riki is also a sysop on nl-Wikiquote, so perhaps he can give his view on this. I for my part will make no further objections if he wants Whaledad to remain as an administrator, though the decision made here could, of course, be after all to desysop Whaledad. De Wikischim (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: Their local desysop-procedure is described here. Any user with more than 100 edits and an account registered more than three months ago can start a desysop vote/pol. (Only users with more than 100 edits and an account registered more than three months ago may vote). Someone requires 75% support in order to maintain the admin-status. There are some other conditions as well but those are merely procedural details. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that there are so extremely few users active on nl-wikiquote, I thought this way would likely be more efficient. Moreover, this is something which concerns also a matter with regards to this specific project, MetaWiki (Statler's block/global lock). De Wikischim (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm marking this as "not done", strictly because this is not a case for emergency desysopping. However, these are serious concerns and they should be addressed. I would recommend a local vote of confidence according to local procedures if needed, but also a formal proposal to globally ban Graaf to avoid these issues in the future. I can help coordinate the latter. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Update. Can someone please reconsider this request, as there are some apparently serious new cases of abuse. Whaledad just put back this vandalism done by Graaf Statler which had already been removed by both me (while I was not logged in) and a little earlier by user:Vituzzu. Besides, Whaledad just gave me an indefinite block. Perhaps a steward here could consider if this block of my account on nl-Wikiquote should rather be made undone (I suppose you are able to do so here)? (Anyway, whatever will happen next, I for my part will no longer contribute to nl-wikiquote as long as Whaledad remains a sysop on it). De Wikischim (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Whaledad

• De Wikischim:

• thanks for filing (and refiling) this case without notifying me
• yes you have a long block log on WQ; these blocks are primarily giving for you rolling back contributions of others (including me as mod) even after numerous warnings
• this roll back behavior and blocks associated with that is nothing new and not limited to WQ; it also happened to you numerous times on NL-WP: [8]
• you also have had several AC cases filed against you (two of them currently being considered) - one of these has a currently active ruling prohibiting you from rolling back contributions by others: [9]
• the block that led you to file this de-sysop was given for you again rolling back my mod actions on the removal-proposals page: [10]
• today you decided very consciously to continue to undo contributions of others from your IP in spite of your account block: [11] for which I have given you indefinite blocks on both your account and your IP address

• What you did here was removing (I 'd rather say: mutilating) my comments from the deletion page (for those who do not understand Dutch: the main thing I wrote there was that it is doubtful whether nominations for deletion which are done by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user can be considered valid). This actually means that you are the one who started undoing somebody else's edits, which means you have blocked me for an editwar which you had actually started yourself. I definitely do not accept this. From a more general point of view, you're just discriminating specific users on Wikiquote, especially me, and imposing your own policy. The only reason you can go ahead with these practices is that nobody else wants to get involved in this matter (which has been going on now for at least half a year). De Wikischim (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• about this; [...] today you decided very consciously to continue to undo contributions of others from your IP; Whaledad, you're simply LYING here. What I did here was putting this earlier version of Vituzzu back, after which it was YOU who undid Vituzzu's decision to remove Statler's harassing remark from user:Robotjes talk page (while Vituzzu is a steward here) by putting the same remark, which by then had already been removed twice, back one more time. You should be very ashamed to go against so many conventions at the same time, being a sysop on Wikiquote. De Wikischim (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Natuur12

• Presenting yourself here as an "outsider" is very disingenuous, hypocritical and basically false
• You are heavily involved in this case by the fact that YOU were the one that gave Graaf Statler the indefinite block on NL-WP that helped get him the indefinite global ban
• That block however was given in a way that violated several rules and was deemed invalid (no mod rights to give that block under those circumstances) by the NL-AC: Graaf Statler was already blocked for a month on NL-WP when you block him indefinitely; you gave him the indefinitely block for contributions on other WM projects, for which he was already blocked on those projects ([12])
• You were also heavily involved in the (failed) effort to remove the NL-AC and in your communication around that heavily focused on me and on the Graaf Statler case: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stemlokaal/Afzetting_Arbcom_2016

Whaledad (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? The fact that I am involved with the Graaf Statler case is well known. (I placed one of the blocks, I requested a lock.) However, the wikiquote-mess I have little to do with. Don't try to blame me for your sins. Graaf Statler is locked, not banned and he is locally blocked at nl.wikiquote. Regarding the removal of the entire Dutch Arbcom. All I did was casting a vote followed by a clear motivation in a de-arb procedure started by another user. Don't try to pin that on me. And I am not going to discuss a block I placed at nl-wiki with one of the Arbs who might have worked on that specific case. That could damage the position of the Dutch Arbcom as a whole and I don't want that. Though I have to admit that I am a bit shocked that you still get the block reason wrong. (1, 2.) Your personal feelings are clouding your judgement. This is not the Whaledad I know and worked with. Please, show that you are better than this and fix the situation. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12, learn to read: I protested the fact that you falsely presented yourself here as an "outsider", while you are heavily involved in everything that has to do with Graaf Statler. You are absolutely allowed to post your opinions here and anywhere else, but don't do it under the false pretense that you're an outsider. Whaledad (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Outsider as in not part of the nl.wikiquote community obviously. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Whaledad: Natuur12 wrote this somewhere above: [...] Whaledad has misused his admin rights on a routine basis by blocking while he clearly is involved. Have at least the guts to address that point, instead of continually devising diversionary tactics like you're doing now. Statler's block on NL-WP given to him by Natuur12 has no connection with the issue discussed on this page. Still apart from the direct misuse of your admin rights which Natuur12 has mentioned, it is about Statler's behaviour and his continual block evasion by means of sockpuppets on nl-wikiquote and especially the way you, being a sysop on that wiki, have tolerated all that stuff, even to the extent that you've overruled a steward's decision. De Wikischim (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - This seem like a long-term issue that needs to be addressed once and for all. I am not sure if a RFC is necessary. Any suggestion? Wikicology (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

See this new discussion (in Dutch) on Wikiquote: nl:q:Overleg gebruiker:Whaledad#De-blokkades. De Wikischim (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the archivation of this. It would be better if still another steward had a closer look at this request and consider whether it should be honoured after all. Besides, the discussions were still going on, especially between Whaledad and Natuur12. De Wikischim (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The current status of this is not done. Am I allowed to change this back to on hold myself, or would it be necessary to submit a completely new request? De Wikischim (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Micione@it.wikiquote

Please, I would like to resign as administrator. Thanks, --Micione (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

On hold for 1 day per standard practice. --Stryn (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --Stryn (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

James970028@zh.wikipedia

Please remove my sysop right on zhwp, thanks. James970028 (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

On hold for 1 day per standard practice. --Stryn (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --Stryn (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User NH@sv.wikipedia

Please remove my sysop rights for sv.wikipedia. / NH 11:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

On hold for 1 day per standard practice. --Stryn (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your work. --Stryn (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Blurpeace, Esby, Killiondude, Krzysiu, Logan, LtPowers @ Wikimedia Commons

Due to our inactivity policy (criterion #3), I hereby request the removal of administrator rights from the aforementioned users. They have all been listed in the previous inactivity run and failed to perform the required number of admin actions in the past six months (see confirmation via an automated tool). Thank you! odder (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, for all 6 users. Thanks for your work. —MarcoAurelio 22:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MarcoAurelio, you're a sweetheart. odder (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User MGA73@commons

--Krd 18:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pischdi@de.wikipedia

Please remove admin rights. thx Pischdi (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Done —MarcoAurelio 15:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User IKhitron@he.wikipedia

Hi. Today hewiki decided that only user that was at least 9 months in wikipedia can be a sysop. Because I am the only one that was granted less than this, after only 5 months in wikipedia, I do not want to remain a sysop just because the discussion was before this decision. Please remove my rights so I could ask the community again to be a sysop, for the rest year and 9 months. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions —MarcoAurelio 22:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello IKhitron. While I appreciate your decision, I don't think it is really necessary step unless the (new) rules require that (= are they retroactive?). Why don't you simply start a confirmation if you feel necessity to verify your status, which would save the - most likely - mingling with rights there and back? Just a suggestion...
— Danny B. 23:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Danny B. Thank you for your words. No, they don't. It's just a matter of conscience. If I am a sysop and expect from the others be "good guys", I can't expect less from myself. And about waiting - no, I do not want the discussion will run when I am sysop, it's not fair. Sorry for your extra work. IKhitron (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No need to excuse. And definitely not to me, since I won't have any work with that. I just threw in my feeling of its being a bit exaggerated to do it this way, but if you insist on it, just have it...
— Danny B. 23:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Danny B. IKhitron open a new discussion about his permission in w:he:ויקיפדיה:מפעיל נולד#משתמש:IKhitron. please wait about his request until the discussion there is over. - yona B. (D) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This request for rights removal is valid. We can't force people to have rights if they don't want to. I understand this is an unusual request though, and we've given some extra thinking time. @IKhitron: do you still want us to action this request or do you wish to withdraw it? It seems that you're getting quite a large support for you to remain? Thank you, —MarcoAurelio 20:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I do not know what to answer. I thought the rights will be removed automatically 24 hours after the request, and I behave as I have not them from the moment that "on hold" is "on hold". IKhitron (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In theory we do remove the rights after 24 hours more or less, but since this generated some discussion, and the discussion yona B. linked seems to be in favor of you + If you're not sure now, I'll take the safest approach and not perform this request. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sealle@ru.wikipedia

Dear Stewards, In the Russian Wikipedia has a bad administrator Sealle. It is wrong to give me a warning message on my talk page and I was blocked for 2 hours. Please punish this administrator. Account44332 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

??? Really? -jkb- 21:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes! That's wrong block --Account44332 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. --MF-W 23:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User Danny B.@cs.wiktionary

Please remove my adminship rights. Thank you.
— Danny B. 02:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your service. Matanya (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Orem@pl.wikipedia

At user's own request. Openbk (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, pl.wp is a non-GS wiki, so it's under local bureaucrat's right to remove and appoint admins. Please contact one of these local bureacurat: pl:Specjalna:Użytkownicy/bureaucrat. Thanks. ✒ Bennylin 03:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bennylin: This is not correct. Please read Bureaucrat and GS. --Rschen7754 05:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I have never hold a bureaucrat flag before.

Done Thank you, Orem, for your service. ✒ Bennylin 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

George Orwell III@en.wikisource

User request for admin rights removal. Hesperian 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, en.ws is a non-GS wiki, so it's under local bureaucrat's right to remove and appoint admins. You could remove the right locally, @Hesperian: :) ✒ Bennylin 04:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't what non-GS means. Be that as it may, Bureaucrats on en.wikisource have the technical ability to add administrators but not to remove them. See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights. Hesperian 04:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

Done. Thank you George, for your service. ✒ Bennylin 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

El Duende@dewiki

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 24th July 2016, dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:IKhitron - after archiving

Hello again. Unfortunately, I did not get a mail notification about the change in this page, so I saw the result of my request only now, two days after the archiving. So let me please say two things. One: it was not "not sure now", I was absolutely sure, it was "I don't know what to say". And two: thank you very much for your answer and for your help this week. IKhitron (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@IKhitron: I did kept your rights for precaution based on you not knowing what to say after some comments in this page. If that was not what you wanted, please accept my apologies. —MarcoAurelio 12:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely wasn't not what I wanted, and no need for appologies. It was I wanted this when I wrote the request, and did not expected that it wil be on hold, so I did not know what to answer, that's all. Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Amir a57@AZBwiki

Not done The user is not a sysop on azbwiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This section written by mistake Regarding Administrator access --Amir a57 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Magnummandel@dewiki

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 26th July 2016, dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Glanhawr@cywiki

This Admin hasn't edited for nearly 3 years. No objections at our community blog (Caffi). Secondly, I can not see why I need to request permission, as this should be withing the rights of cy-Beaurocrats. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Folkvanger@eswiki

As per local inactivity policy on the Spanish Wikipedia: w:es:WP:B#Próximos a bajar de las 50 acciones administrativas como bibliotecario. Folkvanger has not conducted 50 administrative actions in the last 2 years. Please remove his sysop and bureaucrat flags. User has informed and thanked of his work. --Ks-M9 ^｢Talk｣ _(es-wiki) 02:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Done Ruslik (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User Head@dewiki

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 28th July 2016, dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights.
Some background information: Beginning of July I have reactivated a four year old evaluation of the activity level of admins in dewiki. Its outcome has revealed around 25 admins being basically inactive throughout the last year. In the wake of publishing those figures the number of requests for a re-election has increased significantly. According to the rule set of dewiki an admin has to start a re-election process, if 25 members of the community in one month (or 50 in six months) are requesting for it. If an admin is not meeting this request within 30 days, the loss of sysop rights is provided in the rule set.
All those requests are carried by a sufficient number of community members, in full accordance with the rule set of dewiki community and documented at de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik. For three admins the period of 30 days (= "Laufende Frist") has ended yesterday or the day before yesterday. For a further 16 this will happen within the next four weeks. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User Church of emacs@dewiki

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 28th July 2016, dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights.
Some background information: Beginning of July I have reactivated a four year old evaluation of the activity level of admins in dewiki. Its outcome has revealed around 25 admins being basically inactive throughout the last year. In the wake of publishing those figures the number of requests for a re-election has increased significantly. According to the rule set of dewiki an admin has to start a re-election process, if 25 members of the community in one month (or 50 in six months) are requesting for it. If an admin is not meeting this request within 30 days, the loss of sysop rights is provided in the rule set.
All those requests are carried by a sufficient number of community members, in full accordance with the rule set of dewiki community and documented at de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik. For three admins the period of 30 days (= "Laufende Frist") has ended yesterday or the day before yesterday. For a further 16 this will happen within the next four weeks. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, so admin rights get revoked automatically after 30 days if the admin decided not to seek re-election, however he is also forbidden to seek re-election if he is not eligible to vote? In any case, I think I will rather seek re-election if and when I become active again, so please remove my admin status. Thanks, Church of emacs / --Tobias talk · contrib 05:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you become more active again, then please start a new election. I would appreciate that. :-) Thanks for your work as sysop and as oversighter. --Bjarlin (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Done —MarcoAurelio 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nemissimo@dewiki

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 27th July 2016, dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

due to the last rest of somehow normal atmosphere on dewiki that could turn into mass user resignation and leaving the project: could somebody block and stop this user soon? -jkb- 22:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be a weighty contribution to a normal working atmosphere on dewiki if in future users renounced like -jkb- constant heating up of conflicts. Can somebody stop him please asap? --Jocian (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

For your information, this is not Dschungelfan's private business. Due to community policy on dewiki, every user is entitled to ask for the removal of sysop rights if the required conditions are met. This is not a reason to block user:Dschungelfan on Meta. I think it is unfair to raise this claim as you insinuate he is behaving in an irregular way which is not true. It is up to the stewards to check whether a request is justified or not.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

if the required conditions are met: Well, from what I can see, there are not conditions when to ask for removal of sysop rights. People can arbitrarily, i.e. without any reasoning, ask for removal. whenever they feels so might be a better subordinate clause. Nevertheless, the lack of criteria should not invalidate votes. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The conditions I referred to in this case are the local rules for inactivity and requests for sysop re-elections. I expect the Stewards not to act on request only, but to check for the community consensus first. AFAICS, Dschungelfan's requests for removal of sysop flags are in compliance with our local policies. If you doubt that, please tell us why so we can discuss how to proceed from here.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I got what you meant: as for the removal of sysop rights here on this very page, I thought you meant on the Adminwiederwahl pages. Technically, everything is correct, yes. I did not indicate any doubt about that. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@DerHexer: On the AWW pages, nobody asks for removal of sysop rights, but only for reelection of sysops, that's the difference and that's also the misunderstanding. Removal of rights can only be asked for on this page and only under specific conditions and never without any reasoning. --Bjarlin (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bjarlin: With the current policy that admins definitely lose their rights when they either do not notice this request for re-election, do not have the required amount of edits to start it, are not willing to follow this process, or anything else that would prevents users from requesting removal of sysops rights here, voters also implicitely approve a de-sysop. These edits are not just nice requests for re-elections but also imply negative consequences if the admin does not take any action. And from what I know, Wikipedia is a volunteer project where nobody should be forced to take any action that might have negative consequences like going into a re-election they did not want to or didn't consider to be necessary. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 09:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a difference, if someone votes specifically for a deadministration (as in the reelection itself) or if someone thinks that a reelection is or could be needed for whatever reason and votes for this reelection - with the possibility of deadministration, if the sysop doesn't want a reelection at this time or at any time anymore because of inactivity or another reason. That's always possible, and if that would not be wanted, AWW would never have been implemented by the community, because that always means forcing either reelection or desysop. That's what I'm saying. And every desysopped user always can candidate later again. The rest of the discussion would be better at dewiki on any other page but not here, where only the conditions for deadmin are relevant, but not the discussion about the whole procedure. Your first comment here has been really misunderstandable especially on this page, where this other discussion is not relevant for the conditions for removal. Best wishes --Bjarlin (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anyone who misunderstood my comment, in fact, nobody reacted on it at all. Instead, Aschmidt clarified what he meant when I was wondering what he meant and I was completely fine with that; until my interpretation was questioned here (and I stick to my word: the process turned out to be partly a disguised de-sysop process due to some misconception of the re-election process in the beginning which hardly were intended). But indeed, that's not the right place to discuss this. And it was never my intention to do so here (nor to support the block request in any case). Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@DerHexer: Just one last short answer: Not anyone is not true, because I definitely misunderstood your first comment. I thought you meant that you questioned the procedure on this page (when to request deadmin on this page and by whom) and I have the impression that Aschmidt also misunderstood it. That really has not been clear (for me until your comment at 22:03, 28 August 2016 which changed that misunderstanding). Just to let you know. The rest of it not here anymore. --Bjarlin (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you later revealed that you were also confused. I never got in touch with your confusion before his and my clarifications. —DerHexer (Talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That has been one of two reasons (jkb and you questioning this request here and discussing it: "lack of criteria" when and who may make a request here) for my comment at 15:09, 28 August 2016 with quoting the text of the MB / AWW page, even though I've put it below. --Bjarlin (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some background information: Beginning of July I have reactivated a four year old evaluation of the activity level of admins in dewiki. Its outcome has revealed around 25 admins being basically inactive throughout the last year. In the wake of publishing those figures the number of requests for a re-election has increased significantly. According to the rule set of dewiki an admin has to start a re-election process, if 25 members of the community in one month (or 50 in six months) are requesting for it. If an admin is not meeting this request within 30 days, the loss of sysop rights is provided in the rule set.

All those requests are carried by a sufficient number of community members, in full accordance with the rule set of dewiki community and documented at de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik. For three admins the period of 30 days (= "Laufende Frist") has ended yesterday or the day before yesterday. For a further 16 this will happen within the next four weeks. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, rubbish, harassing. -jkb- 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I object, jkb. Please keep to the truth. In fact, what you are doing here is harrassing against Dschungelfan. So, would you please stop doing so and let the Stewards do their job? It is really embarrassing to see you acting like this.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl, the two sentences have been approved by 62,3 % of the users in a Meinungsbild, see the wording here:

• "Nach Erreichen des Quorums bleiben dem Admin oder einem von ihm bestimmten Unterstützer 30 Tage Zeit, die Wiederwahl mit selbst verfasster Vorstellung zu beginnen. Wird innerhalb dieser Frist keine Wiederwahl gestartet, erfolgt ein automatischer Entzug der Adminrechte."

This is not rubbish. It's really astonishing to me that a Meinungsbild is believed to be rubbish or nonsense now. --Bjarlin (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about or waht I mean with my remarks above. -jkb- 18:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Then, jkb, please give it a try and tell us what you mean to say instead of just bluffing your way around with terms such as harassing and rubbish. AFAICS, Dschungelfan is acting on behalf of the German community. There has been a community process, and we have rather strict rules for removing sysop rights.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the page "Steward Requests", right? So, starting from -jkb-'s edit at 8/26, 22:50 and the following edits we are, in my opinion, confronted with an abuse of this page. Please discuss this at a more appropriate page. Nemissimo's desysop is done anyway.--87.178.28.59 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Done as per the dewiki policy. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User Slomox@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Rainer Zenz@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in particular Rainer is resigning. -- 84.62.89.183 22:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you Rainer for your services. ✒ Bennylin 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bhuck@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you Bhuck for your services. ✒ Bennylin 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Michail@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you Michail for your services. ✒ Bennylin 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Scherben@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you Scherben for your services. ✒ Bennylin 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

JCS@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you JCS for your services. ✒ Bennylin 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Rdb@dewiki

As per local policy, has not started a re-election process within 30 days as requested by a quorum of 25 members of the community, the period of 30 days has ended yesterday (de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Kurzstatistik), dewiki-bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you RDB for your services. ✒ Bennylin 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Cekli829@gag.wikipedia

I would like to extend the period in sysop. --►Cekli829 11:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Then please start a local request. --MF-W 11:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Now there are no active user does not exist. I'm there now most active User.--►Cekli829 12:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if there is no local community, we need a local request before granting a right. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes please, Cekli829; start a thread on the village pump or local more appropriate place and announce your intentions. After a week, please come back to us with the link and we will review the situation. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it enough?--►Cekli829 13:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That was the announcement for your previous 3 month period that ends now. You need to make a new announcement to the community. -- Tegel _(Talk) 14:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK --►Cekli829 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 On hold until 29 Jan. Taketa (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-07-29. --Stryn (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Algazel@min.wikipedia

Permanent adminship. XoXo (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-07-29. Most of the votes were obviously brought in from other projects. Granting temporary adminship due to a lack of a local community. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we're expecting a permanent adminship here. Three requests before were granted as such. May I know why not this time? Muhraz (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

We only grant permanent adminship when there is an active local community. On this request, of the 10 votes:

• 6 had not previously contributed content to min.wikipedia and have not since (What a joke, Rintojiang, Pras, D'SpecialOne, Cahyo Ramadhani, Mrpresidentfaris)
• 2 have been limitedly active recently (Beeyan has 3 edits, the other two in May 2014; Rahmatdenas' previous edit to voting was in December 2014 and the edit before that was in November 2013)

This leaves only 2 actively involved users voting, you and Naval Scene. On projects with these levels of limited activity, we rather give temporary adminship to limit the impact of inactive admins on the development of a project. Savh^ñ 12:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit that our community is still struggling to find a stable base of editors, but Algazel has been a very active member that deserves to be given appropriate adminship status. Then again, what are the reasoning behind this, this, and this? Muhraz (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

He is an administrator now, and his current access will last for three months. After that, if there are no concerns, then he can be granted temporary access for periods of 6 months or 1 year. Those previous requests involved significantly more users who were active members of the community. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OK then, I think it's reasonable for now. Thank you Ajraddatz. XoXo (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Аль-Гимравий@avwiki

I ask to give me admin rights. --Аль-Гимравий (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On hold until 6 August (1 week minimum for discussion). --MF-W 18:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-08-06. Discussion open for sufficient length of time without significant opposition. 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) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Amir a57@azbwiki

Sysop. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 09:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

First rev. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 09:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-08-06. --MF-W 22:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Doostdar@fawikibooks

I need administrator access for developing the project. Doostdar (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-08-06. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst@bn.wikisource

This request is for providing temporary adminship to User:Billinghurst @bn.wikisource as per above discussion and community consensus. The community will request for termination for adminship after the requested work is completed by him. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On hold until 11 February 2016. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Ajraddatz: Not that it particularly matters for this event whilst they await Commons decision-making processes, however, temporary adminships haven't required a week's consensus previously, in line with the text above For permanent adminship, please provide a link to the local community approval. For temporary adminship please state for how long and for which tasks you need it, and link to a local announcement. This is a situation where they need a Commons admin to have rights to transfer files, and it is not a case of standard adminship.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Two years doing this and I've never heard of automatically granting temp access after just the announcement. The week lets the local community give comment, and if there is support then temporary access can be granted :) Ajraddatz (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that sentence is certainly outdated. --MF-W 13:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is full consensus within the community. We had previously discussed the issue in our Bengali Wikisource Coordination Group in Facebook, then Bodhisattwa initiated the matter. We need it to shift Commons files that stand on PD-India alone, without cover of PD-old-100-1923, PD-old-80-1923, PD-old-70-1923, PD-India-URAA (PD-old-60-1996) or simultaneous PD-1923 + PD-India. Regards, Hrishikes (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-08-11. --MF-W 11:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple@hiwiki

 On hold until May 12, 2016. MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done User withdrew request on local page. MBisanz ^talk 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

{{onhold}} until May 12, 2016. MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-08-12. Discussion open suitable length of time without significant opposition. 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) 15:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham:Thank you:)---चक्रपाणी (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

{{onhold}} until May 12, 2016. MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please grant admin right as per discussion. Thanks. Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

On hold for one week. MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@MBisanz: Sir, local Discussion started on 4 day ago. Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to let the discussion run at least 7 days before approving it. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

May 12, will be completed 7 days. Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted my comments for that date. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sir :) Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not done Opposition appears significant enough to prevent a consensus from being demonstrated. Thank you for volunteering. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed --Stryn (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Katxis@jamwiki

Hello, I would like to request administrator rights at the Jamaican Wikipedia. I've already been it here and I would like to continue with my work in the new Wikipedia. --Katxis (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is still work going on to get this wiki fully up and running. But Katxis was a test administrator on Incubator and was one of the key people in getting this wiki populated and approved. There has been some vandalism on this wiki already. Perhaps stewards would be willing to approve a 3-month initial term for Katxis while everything finishes getting set up, and we'll organize a discussion to try to secure a longer term going forward. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please start a local discussion in the appropriate venue and link it back here. Even if there are no community members, it's by default that a local announcement is needed. If no one oppose after seven days, we will grant the rights. ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Katxis has been instrumental, diligent and persistent in setting up and getting this wiki going. It would not have come about without him. I fully support his request.--Yocahuna (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

On hold until 18 May Ajraddatz (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-08-18. 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. -- Stryn (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended by MBisanz. —MarcoAurelio 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

MZaplotnik & Hladnikm@slwikiversity

I request for the prolongation of admin rights (after first, second and third approval) for 1 year. After one month of discussion being open no user has objected. Both admins make admin and clean-up actions (see logs [16] and [17]). Former third admin (user Xyxyx) is no longer an active member of Slovene wiki community. MZaplotnik ^(contribs) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-08-27. 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. —MarcoAurelio 22:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

removed and then extended :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Murbaut@mapbmswiki

Why you wish a admins Because I want to help the admins "User:StefanusRA" he inactively, I want to temporary admins right (because not person give a vote). The wiki is very low, I want to try to develop. I already learn from id and enwiki. Murbaut (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 12 May. --Stryn (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It is time :) Murbaut (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-08-13. No opposition but no consensus either. Therefore temporary. 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. --masti <talk> 09:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much all and User:MastiMurbaut (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

For the record, there was no vote at all in the discussion page. ✒ Bennylin 10:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 18:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tn4196@vec.wiktionary

My admin access was granted in 2013 and renewed in 2014. Twenty days ago I asked to vec.wikt community if the consensus to get it again misses, but I think there are no problems. Tn4196 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-08-14. —MarcoAurelio 13:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikitanvir@bnwikibooks

Request passed 7 days with 3 supports and no objection.
P.S. - Completion of this request today will be regarded as a valentine gift. — T. 10:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-08-14. 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. Linedwell (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Jack Phoenix

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-08-15. —MarcoAurelio 15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

AmaryllisGardener@sco.wikipedia

RfA closed as successful - please give the the mop to User:AmaryllisGardener at ScoWp. Avic (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-08-15. —MarcoAurelio 14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Thanks. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

শাহাদাত সায়েম@bnwikibooks

Another admin request passed a week. So far 4 supports and no opposes. — T. 09:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-08-16. 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.. Linedwell (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Linedwell I have finished a local election for be an admin. Look here. In this election I also passed, so, I want to be permanent admin. Thanks --শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@শাহাদাত সায়েম: I know, but we cannot give permanent adminship after an election with such a few votes. That's why you have a 6 month adminship, renewable as long as necessary. Regards, Linedwell (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Vadgt@hywikibooks

No oppose vote in voting. --Vadgt (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-08-17. —MarcoAurelio 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gitartha.bordoloi@as.wikisource

(Hello. I'll be grateful if you grant me temporary adminship for the above wiki. Thanks) Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

On hold until 17 May Ajraddatz (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-08-17. -- Stryn (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sahaquiel9102@eowikinews

I requested permissions two times before (here and Steward requests/Permissions/2014-05). No one opposed my election (see discussion). If adminship not permanently, could it be for more than three months? Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-08-18. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed —MarcoAurelio 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Helder

Per User talk:He7d3r#Global interface editor rights expired, thanks, --Helder 20:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Done - Unanimous support after 5 days. Granted for the maximum time of 1 year. - Taketa (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

4 August 2016 - Taketa (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

removed —MarcoAurelio 11:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

SJ81 bis@lad.wikipedia

Would you please flag this account as "confirmed"? It is an alternate account for me, and I'm really only planning to use it to test what permissions confirmed/autoconfirmed users have and don't have on ladwiki, where I am a sysop/'crat. I don't even know how many edits I would need to make the account autoconfirmed, and frankly, I don't want to edit with it. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed is given after 4 days. 0 edits are needed. --MF-W 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I can wait 4 days. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

VASHGIRD@tg.wikipedia

Please remove the administrator flag with this party for the systematic violation of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. On a final note, that "in a short time administrative work you have violated the basic principles of Wikipedia" - reaction from his side, as always, followed by inadequate. Here is an example of its response to a warning, which it will continue to ignore the rules of ethical behavior and the neutral point of view when writing articles. In the above example you can see that the page is for articles about the word template, but it is In Use this page as a test. If you tell him about it, he takes it as an insult... Thanks! AryanSogd ^(t) 11:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There should be a formal request of de-adminship? Please, provide a link if it exists. Ruslik (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Open discussion on de-adminship a local project at this stage is useless. 5-6 months ago grouped 4 people who know each other in everyday life, three of whom work at the Institute and one member of the above participant. In voting as practice has shown they connect students to lobby for their interests. Three of the participants as well as their staff familiar institutions are the heroes of the articles due to lobbying and one of them is a major manipulator, who is also the administrator. In private correspondence, he repeatedly asked to amend rule Wikipedia:Notability (people), since according to this rule, they, their friends, and more than 2,000 articles that they have created to be removed. A striking example of inept protection one of these articles (their friend). I deliberately published his athletic achievements on my personal page, and this implied that the rules in many large language Wikipedia sections have the right to be a hero article, but for many years I did not write the article about yourself and do not worry. However, the request to amend the rule to scientists continued. In order not to demoralize the project, I went to a compromise and agreed to amend rule. A striking example of solidarity scientists and students. They never undelete error pages or insignificant articles to each other, never do not do each other remark. This means that they do not go against their man. The other two administrators are speakers of other languages, one of which is a long time absent, the other from time to time engaged in MediaWiki pages and submit our project Fabricator. When I assigns administrator flag, I thought that in the future it will become a bureaucrat, as a young, but soon realized that he was mistaken (an example of censorship porn industry). I do not have time to collect diffs, but if needed I will find. Thanks. AryanSogd ^(t) 12:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this undermine the local request for de-adminship and I doubt any steward will grant your request without the local de-adminship process. The local community consensus is important. Please, start a request for de-adminship in your local wiki and if there is any clear evidence of canvassing, you can bring it to stewards attention here. Wikicology (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In private correspondence, there is evidence not only of agitation, but also a violation Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Publish private correspondence, not ethical. To experience and not sleep at night that the project turns into a billboard for the affirmation of unknown candidates sciences, as well as the propaganda of Sunni Hanafi sense - I do not want. Thank God I am a Muslim, Sunni Hanafi, but I'm a Muslim adequate. If it had not become a bureaucrat, I would not know about dolls. I'm sorry that was the bureaucrat because this tool makes it impossible to protect the project. I also understand the stewards, who have no right to be dictators. Please withdraw from my account the following tools:

@AryanSogd: I will write a bilingual English/Russian comment to make it easier for you to understand.

First of all, I am not a steward and have no influence on decisions here, but I want to try to help you. What are you writing about VASHGIRD's actions sounds like serious violations. In particular, misuse of Wikipedia articles (example) and sockpuppetry (per your emails) might be serious reasons for desysopping. However, Tajik Wikipedia has a rather significant community (a dozen of active users), and in this case removal of access should be decided by local community, stewards will only do the necessary action.

• If you are aware of sockpuppetry cases by VASHGIRD, please submit a request for checkuser at SRCU.
• If you think that pages on Candidates of Sciences (PhD) are not notable, please discuss this in Tajik Wikipedia. Stewards are not supposed to decide on this, moreover, even if user VASHGIRD will be desysopped he will still be able to vote against deletion of articles about PhDs, thus in any case you need to discuss this with other Tajik Wikipedians.
• If violations of rules by VASHGIRD (in particular sockpuppetry) will be confirmed, please open a vote on removal of his administrator's rights in Tajik Wikipedia. Please try to explain all violations of rules in detail so that the situation is clear for other users.
• And please do not make emotional decisions on giving up your sysop/crat rights. Similar situations with sysop abuse already happened in many other projects, for instance, Chechen Wikipedia had a way more complex case, thus your problem is not unique, and such problems can be solved. In the meantime you can be much more helpful for the project if you keep sysop rights — NickK (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Прежде всего, я не стюард и не влияю на принятие здесь решений, но хочу попробовать вам помочь. То, что вы пишете о действиях участника VASHGIRD, похоже на довольно серьёзные нарушения. В частности, использование статей Википедии не по назначению (пример) и кукловодство (согласно вашим письмам) могут быть весомыми основаниями для лишения прав. Однако в таджикской Википедии достаточно большое сообщество (есть десяток активных участников), и в таком случае решение о снятии прав должно принимать местное сообщество, стюарды же лишь выполняют это решение. В данном случае я бы советовал вам следующее:

• Если вам известны случаи кукловодства участника VASHGIRD, пожалуйста, подайте заявку на проверку на страницу SRCU
• Если вы считаете, что статьи о кандидатах наук незначимы, пожалуйста, обсудите это на страницах таджикской Википедии. Стюарды не могут принимать решения об этом, более того, даже если участник VASHGIRD будет лишён прав администратора, он всё равно сможет голосовать против удаления статей о кандидатах наук, так что вам в любом случае надо обсудить этот вопрос с другими участниками таджикской Википедии
• Если нарушения со стороны участника VASHGIRD (в частности, кукловодство) подтвердятся, откройте голосование о лишении его прав администратора в таджикской Википедии. Постарайтесь подробно объяснить нарушения, чтобы другие участники также поняли всю сложность ситуации.
• И, пожалуйста, не надо принимать эмоциональных решений о добровольном снятии прав. Такие ситуации со злоупотреблением других администраторов уже были во многих других проектах, например, в чеченской Википедии был гораздо более сложный случай, так что ваш случай не уникальный, и такие проблемы можно решить. В то же время, вы сможете принести намного больше пользы проекту, сохранив права администратора — NickK (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

AryanSogd@tg.wikipedia

Please remove bureaucrat and administrator flag. Thanks.--AryanSogd ^(t) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Shouldn't this have been put on hold? This looks like an emotional request. Now Tajik Wikipedia not only has a conflict, but also has no bureaucrat anymore. I am not sure this will help — NickK (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

AryanBot@tg.wikipedia

Please remove the bot flag and administrator. Thanks.--AryanSogd ^(t) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

AryanSogd@ru.wikipedia

Please remove the autoeditor flag. Thanks.--AryanSogd ^(t) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done Please, ask local administrators. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

AryanBot@ru.wikipedia

Please remove the bot flag. Thanks.--AryanSogd ^(t) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done Please, ask local bureaucrats. Ruslik (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Effeietsanders@commonswiki

Granted account creator permissions for WLM related activities, to be removed when no longer needed. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)