Steward requests/Permissions/2016-12

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

Seth R@bn.wikibooks

I have 600+ edits. I have experience in Bengali Wikipedia.I Requesting for temporary administrator right for 6 months in Bangla Wikibooks. ★ Seth^talk 02:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

On hold till 5 December. --Stryn (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Stryn already 7 days passed,, in discussion 4 supportss and 2 opposes but I am really hope for this right. If you check then I am most active user in this project. Last 30 days I have made more than 2 months. I have made more than 820 edits and 5000 global edits. I want make this community more strong. This right will inspires me to more work. So please do it.★ Seth^talk 10:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Unfortunately, per the local policy, to get an adminship, you need at least 75% of support. Seems like there's nothing wrong, just that you should be more active before asking the rights. So try to stay a bit more active on the project and then if you want, ask the rights again. Best regards, --Stryn (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Satdeep Gill@kswikipedia

My 3 month temporary adminship has expired. Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill: hi, per common practice, you should still write a short announcement on the local wiki where you say that you're asking for an admin status. --Stryn (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not done As Stryn said, please write a short message on your local wiki's watering hole, villiage pump, or equivalent, in which you ask for adminship and for people to opine one way or the other. Then, re-apply with the link. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Satdeep Gill@kswiktionary

My 3 month temporary adminship has expired. Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Per common practice, you should still write a short announcement on the local wiki where you say that you're asking for an admin status. --Stryn (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not done As Stryn said, please write a short message on your local wiki's watering hole, villiage pump, or equivalent, in which you ask for adminship and for people to opine one way or the other. Then, re-apply with the link. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr_Lotus_Black@my.wikipedia.org

I have done many new articles and sysop actions in Burmese Wikipedia. I'm also a native speaker of Burmese language and my one year adminship period will be expired on 26 Dec 2016. There is no against votes (6 support votes) for my permanent adminship request. So, it will be my pleasure if you give me permanent admin of Burmese Wikipedia. Dr Lotus Black (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

sanjeev bot@hi.wikipedia

Bot user user:संजीव कुमार is also admin on hi.wikipedia and for some adminbot related work, I am asking for admin rights also for "sanjeev bot" on hiwiki.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Zeetendra@mai.wikipedia

Full majority to grant sysop right.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 12:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Discounting the own candidate vote and a locked user vote, it leaves 5 votes. That's usually good for permanent adminship. —MarcoAurelio 13:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Sure, Please--Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, best regards. —MarcoAurelio 14:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ! Happy New Year --Zeetendra ^») 15:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Booklety@el.wikibooks

Greek Wikibooks need and more Administrators and robots. There are such eager users, there are useful users who deserved the adminship. Besides Wikibooks never had bureaucrats.--Booklety (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't grant bureaucrat rights unless there is an active community; sysop and bot rights can thereby be monitored and granted by us. Savh^ñ 12:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Is active community. She has 63 active users [1].--Booklety (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not done With only four users with an average of one or more edits per day over the past month, that is not an active community. Note that no one has even taken the time to post an opinion on the RfB in three days. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

FloNight@enwikipeda

Link to ID noticeboard. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 10:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Biplab Anand@ne.wikipedia

Election passed (29/0/0 → 100%) Thanks, — TBhagat (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

On hold, pending singing of the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

signed Thanks-Biplab Anand (Talk) 04:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation: [2] user as already identified to the WMF. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 12:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

Done. -- Mentifisto 12:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mentifisto: Please revert immediately. This promotion is wrong as the second CU cannot be promoted yet. —MarcoAurelio 13:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted this myself. —MarcoAurelio 13:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. -- Mentifisto 10:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done se below. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ks0stm@en.wikipedia

Requesting CU permissions for the incoming 2017 arbcom on enwiki. CA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mkdw@en.wikipedia

Requesting CU permissions for the incoming 2017 arbcom on enwiki. CA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad@en.wikipedia

Requesting CU permissions for the incoming 2017 arbcom on enwiki. CA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tulsi Bhagat@ne.wikipedia

Decision rendered by Wikimedia Foundation
Election passed (29/0/0 → 100%) Thanks, — TBhagat (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) On hold, pending singing of the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Is this user 18 years of age? Their Meta userpage is unclear. --Rschen7754 04:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC) signed. FYI, I'm 18. :-D Thanks, — TBhagat (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Not done there are some concerns about age, but also two more serious problems: out of 29 voters 9 have less than 50 edits (7 less than 15) and 2 are now locked for abusing multiple accounts. But above all ne.wiki has an average edits/day of less than 150 edits. While ne.wiki is a growing project where vandalisms are promptly catched it doesn't seem to have the critical mass to counterbalance such a sensitive permission as checkuser is. Furthermore since ne.wiki stewards ran checks just 4 times. None of them involved local issues (most of dealt with an "international" long-term abuser), last one was done in 2012. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I can follow the "not active enough voters" argument, but how do you justify the latter one? If newiki thinks they need CUs and have enough community members I see no reason for stewards to deny access (at least if Checkuser policy is being followed …). --Vogone (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with the decision by Vituzzu above. Savhñ 17:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I also support the decision taken by Vituzzu. Besides the aforementioned problem (the concerns about age represent the main reason why the request should be promptly denied), the project does not have enough edits a day to presently justify the need for local checkusers. RadiX∞ 18:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I strong object to this closing. It's bad enough that we do this sort of thing for bureaucrat requests, but I can live with that since there is no policy on it and there have been issues in the past. Here, we are explicitly violating the CU policy, which lays out clear conditions for granting CU access, as well as our own policy. It's in the first line. I generally agree that such a small wiki shouldn't need checkusers, but we cannot just make up new standards with which to judge candidates if we don't like them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) The checkuser access policy explicitly mentions a window of "at least 25-30 editors" participating in the vote. Considering this window is not met when not really active users are included, I believe it is justified not to grant. Savhñ 19:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC) The policy includes no requirement for those editors to be really active, nor does it define what really active means. If the policy is bad, then we should start an RfC on fixing the policy, not imposing our own made-up standards on people who have (per policy) valid, successful requests. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I think the age concerns are enough to deny this request, on their own. --Rschen7754 19:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC) It does not, but it does allow us to decide in those cases. Savhñ 19:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Doesn't the WMF usually handle concerns about age? -- Mentifisto 10:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC) @Rschen - The age reason is, yes. We've pushed that one upstairs, as there are legitimate concerns there - and legitimate grounds to decline the request on that basis. But that reason was not referenced in the closing statement. @Savh - No, it doesn't allow us to decide. If it did, it would say somewhere "when stewards don't think the request should be approved, then they are free to ignore this community-approved policy so that they can change the outcome to their own personal preference". – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) It certainly does, or else it wouldn't mention a range of numbers of editors participating that are at least required. Savhñ 19:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Noting, additionally, that there are 4 voters (Pinkey_Sah, Joyti_karn, Asha_Mandal and Jaynish_Chaudhary) who, seemingly created their account in 2015 as a part of a certain editathon, who have mostly not edited since and have all miraculously appeared to vote in this request; to me that seems like a case of meatpuppetry if not sockpuppetry. Savhñ 19:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Please read the policy before making such abstruse speculations, especially the part saying "The CheckUser candidate status must request it within the local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, special request page, etc.)" (emphasis added by myself). --Vogone (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Feel free to emphasise "within the local community". Savhñ 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC) That refers to the "request" and I wonder what makes you think someone irregularly participating in editathons is not part of the community. Judging who belongs to the community and who doesn't isn't up to the stewards to decide, especially if the project has own bureaucrats to determine such things, which newiki does have. --Vogone (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I agree that we stewards can strike dubious/spurious votes just as we do for bureaucrat and sysop requests. On that basis, I agree with rejecting this request, but without having looked at the votes so far myself. What we can't do is to reject requests for CU/OS access because we think the project is too small or has too little use for the tools. I would welcome it if an RFC about these aspects of the policy would be opened though. But as long as there is no rule about it, the only thing which counts is whether requests get enough legitimate participation (&support), however "legitimate" will be determined. By the way, it's interesting that the policy so vaguely talks about 25-30. IIRC, so far it was always interpreted to mean "Minimum 25". Maybe the policy could be clarified there. --MF-W 20:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC) After reading the whole discussion. I am unhappy with some*rejection comments specially with voters logic. According to the policy CU policy there is no policy for the voters. This is third CU submission/nomination on newiki (2 submission fails to get the 25/30 voters). FYKI all on all sysops and crats of newiki takes part on the voting process, it clears that community wants the right. OA, The policy clearly says, if any Wikipedia community wants the CU right, steward can grant it. We are progressive Wikipedias community and currently the number of active editors over 100 (active means 1 edits in a month according the policy). If age is the issue i am pinging once again @Tulsi Bhagat: to confirm? --Biplab Anand (Talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Biplab, As you know me well in real life. I confirm that I'm 18 years of age and have citizenship of Nepal (already updated user page). Kind Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Age cannot be an issue here, all what counts is having signed the agreement and being listed on IN. If someone has signed the agreement although ineligible, that is a problem between Tulsi and the WMF (which can have consequences, as outlined in the agreement itself), for the WMF legal team to deal with (again, this all can be concluded from reading the Checkuser policy, but some people here seem to prefer speculating over reading and following policy). --Vogone (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the record: The WMF has reviewed this users request for CU and at this point determined he is not eligible to hold the position. Because of that he will not be added to the official Noticeboard. Tulsi Bhagat if you have further questions you will be receiving an email from me and can feel free to respond to that. Jalexander--WMF 21:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Jalexander, no more any further question. Very thanks to wmf, you and all the users participating here in this request. :-) — TBhagat (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to add something that hasn't been considered in this whole discussion, but which is essential here. The CU rights couldn't have been assigned in this case anyway. If this election would have been a normal one and if the user would have been elected by hundreds of users of the Nepali Wikipedia and if this user would have been added to the noticeboard and signed the agreement, then it would still have been a violation of the CU policy to assign just the CU rights to this user (or to any other user of the wiki) in this wiki. The CU policy is very clear, see CheckUser policy#Appointing local Checkusers:

• "On any wiki, there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all. This is so that they can mutually control and confirm their actions. In the case where only one CheckUser is left on a wiki (when the only other one retires, or is removed), the community must appoint a new CheckUser immediately (so that the number of CheckUsers is at least two)."

How can it be that there is such a long discussion here about assigning these CU rights or not, but noone in the discussion sees the fact that in this case there is no possibility at all to assign these rights now? I'm wondering. See this list of local checkusers. There doesn't exist one at all in this wiki now. There also doesn't exist any local oversight there. So, the community has to elect at least 2 checkusers (or 2 oversights), if they want some. If they have tried to elect a checkuser some times before and there hasn't been enough users and support, then I suppose that there also will not be enough users and support to elect 2 checkusers in the future. The same is the case for local oversights. If in the future another elected user in that wiki will sign the agreement and will be added to the noticeboard, then the community will have to elect another checkuser/oversight, before they both can get CU/OS rights. Otherwise, there would be no possibility for anyone to control the one elected CU/OS, and that would violate the policy. Please take that into account in future cases, if in this wiki or in another wiki without local CU/OS. Thanks. And as you can see in this list, there doesn't exist a wiki with only one checkuser. I hope that the list is correct. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Steward_requests/Permissions/2016-12#Biplab_Anand.40ne.wikipedia. There was a second user elected Bjarlin. We're not that negligent. —MarcoAurelio 23:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I have been wondering very much here indeed. But as the discussion says, the other elected user got the CU rights temporarily (as the only CU there), so I'm not so sure about your last sentence. :-) Anyway, it's good that it has been reverted, so let's forget it. I had lost a bit of trust in the procedure here in the last minutes, as I read the discussion above, and here has been no link to the other request at all which is in the archive now. So thanks. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Another question: Is there a possibility to add a section "Elected users without CheckUser access" (or something like that) at CheckUser policy with the name of Biplab Anand and with a link to the request in the archive? In case that community will be able to elect another CU in the future, it could be easier. What is the procedure for such a case or for the case that only one is left and looses the rights because of that? --Bjarlin (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Those cases are generally the responsibility of the community to track. In this case, though, the other request was also declined for specific reasons. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then they shall do it. I can't find any "specific reason" in the archived discussion. It has been declined because of being the only CU in case of promoting. He signed the agreement and is identified. "Not done se below" means that as the other request has not been done, he couldn't be promoted. So, if there would be another elected CU in the wiki in the future, he could be promoted as CU later. I read the discussion this way. Otherwise, nobody would have given him CU rights temporarily. And the revert has only been done, because he was the only CU then. Can you clarify, what you mean? --Bjarlin (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Imagine, for a second, that the two requests were archived. Where would "see below" point to then? It clearly means "closed for the same reason as the request below", so look for the initial closing reason of this request. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

First, this request hasn't been closed at the time this comment has been written, so it can't mean the closing of this request. How could it? You mean, a comment as of 16:13, 18 December 2016 could point to the closing of this request which has been at 21:08, 19 December 2016, after the last comment in the discussion as of 19:55, 19 December 2016? That isn't possible at all.

It clearly meant that the rights in this discussion still were discussed and not assigned yet (therefore the pointing to the ongoing discussion about the other request, because the archived discussion has been depending on assigning the rights here) and that they were not clear because of the age of this user. And that this means that the other user can't get rights, because then they would be the only user with those rights there. There is no hint at all that it could mean anything else, sorry. There had been 3 comments here at that time about the age of this user. The other user had already been identified, so there has been no doubt about his age. So surely the reason for closing the other discussion has been because of being the only user with CU rights in that wiki, and that means "see below". If there would have been another reason, then there would be a need for a comment about that, but there is none. It doesn't mean "for the same reason", that's clear, because the same reason would have been the user's age. This request had been open at that time, in discussion and not closed. --Bjarlin (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was. See the hatted out part here? You can open it up and read that. Also, these questions have (at this point) nothing to do with this request, rather bureaucratic concerns with how these requests were held. Please discuss this on the talk page instead; no need to keep this open. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read it, it is not gone or "hatted out", just smaller. If you think that the whole discussion about the voters (which began after closing the other discussion) has also something to do with the other election, and that maybe both elections are dubious, then this should clearly be written down in the archived discussion, so that it's understandable for all readers and for the future. I would never have read the discussion in such a way, because the user clearly didn't get the rights because of being the only user with those rights there. This is the only thing that can be read there, as I already explained.

It surely may be now that there is also another reason, but this hasn't been written there and I wouldn't have thought about it at all. If you are sure that the other user will not get the rights, if another user will be elected there instead of this one, then please add that other reason there or write "for the same reason" with a link, so that everyone can understand it. Now it isn't clear at all. If it would be, I wouldn't have had the idea to add the only elected user on the CU policy page for transparence reasons. And as you said, that the user had also "specific reasons", I first thought about anything secret about that user which should not be written down openly (such as the banning reasons of the WMF or something like that which also are secret). Would you please clarify it also in the archived request? Thanks for this. Kind regards --Bjarlin (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User Revent@commons

Thx. --Krd 10:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

!Silent@ptwiki

!Silent was elected oversighter of Portuguese Wikipedia with a vote tallying of 60 to 1. Érico (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

On hold until Access to nonpublic information policy is signed. einsbor _talk 07:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

FloNight@enwikipeda

Link to ID noticeboard. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 10:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus@en.wikipedia

Requesting OS permissions for the incoming 2017 arbcom on enwiki. CA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mkdw@en.wikipedia

Requesting OS permissions for the incoming 2017 arbcom on enwiki. CA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad@en.wikipedia

Requesting OS permissions for the incoming 2017 arbcom on enwiki. CA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

THWZ@de.wikipedia

Leaving Member of de.arbcom Itti (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, einsbor _talk 18:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Codc@de.wikipedia

Leaving Member of de.arbcom Itti (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, einsbor _talk 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

DerMaxdorfer@de.wikipedia

Leaving Member of de.arbcom Itti (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

According to that page DerMaxdorfer is still a member of the ArbCom. einsbor _talk 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The pages still represents to state of 30 Nov., but DerMaxdorfer did not participate in the election, so definitely is no longer a member. --Krd 18:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

checked - removed, einsbor _talk 20:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ricordisamoa@wikidatawiki

This user has not made the required 5 admin actions in the last 6 months. Please remove sysop permissions. Rschen7754 02:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for their work. RadiX∞ 02:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

شرف الدين@arWikipedia

Please remove admin flag from User:شرف الدين because of inactivity. This removal request has been approved by the community here. Thanks in advance.--Abbas 00:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dqfn13 @ nlwiki

I'd like to request the removal of my own admin flag on nlwiki. I haven't felt being appreciated as a moderator for months, not that there are more than 10 people who want me to resign, my activities are slowely getting concentrated on "normal" user levels (such as writing, taking photographs, and such) as I no longer do block request, deletionrequest, etc. I've lost the fun factor a long time ago for this job. I've been thinking about this for months as can be read in this discussion on my own discussion page. Thank you in advance, Dqfn13 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please keep this request on hold for some time; Dqfn13 says he wants to reconsider his decision tonight. Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 14:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I'd just say the same. see here. MoiraMoira (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll take some more time to reconsidder, so this request can be deleted as I'll take at least one week more time and maybe even more. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Per comment above from requester --Jyothis (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry@Commons

I suffer from Bi-Polar Disorder and Panic Disorder. I don't think that being an administrator is a good thing for me. Doing less stressful work, like category sorting and license reviews is probably a much better and healthier choice for me. I think the community at Commons knows I care and that I enjoy working on the project, but I think they would want what's best for me. I think that a removal of my sysop right at Commons is best thing for my health at this time, and going forward. I don't think I'll ask to be an admin anywhere again. There's just too much stress and conflict involved, and I can't handle it well at all. Thanks for your time. lNeverCry 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a pity to see this happening. INeverCry has been one of our best admins. Unfortunately Commons is such a hostile environment from time to time. Jcb (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not much to add after Jcb's comment. Personal health outweighs any community needs, please get well and stay well! --Krd 20:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

removed, I just want to say it is very mature decision. Thank you INeverCry,einsbor _talk 18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Coyau@Commons

User deceased :-(. Please remove sysop access. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, einsbor _talk 14:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Aleator@cawikt

I'd like to be desysoped from ca.wiktionary. I'm quite inactive there and my contributions can be done without the sysop buttons. The two active admins that remains in the project can handle (and if not, I'll ask for a resysoping; I've told them already). I'd like to concentrate in the other 2 adminships that I keep. Thanks! Aleator (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, regards. —MarcoAurelio 14:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

M7

Please remove my Steward permission on meta wiki and my sysop and bureaucrat flag on it.wiki. Please also remove my access to OTRS and login on wmftools. Thank you. --M/ (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nooooooooo :"-( —MarcoAurelio 14:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your steward permission and as much as I regret you leaving us, you are inactive per policy and it should be removed. Savh^ñ 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, having performed more than 10 logged actions in the past year, you do not satisfy those inactivity criteria. Savh^ñ 15:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Done with steward and itwiki groups, with sadness.

OTRS and other accesses should be handled by the appropriate personel, with the exception to the WMF labs access, which I've just handled as well.

An honor to work with you. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 23:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aleator@mulsource

Hi! I'd also like to remove my sysop permissions of multilingual Wikisource (aka "old Wikisource"). I asked for them temporaly for a certain task, and the task is finished. Thanks again! Aleator (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Done (without waiting due to being an expired temporary adminship). Regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Aleator, thank you much for your work and help! -jkb- 16:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Lukas²³@global

Per global rollback policy: the user is inactive for two years, and according to the inactivity policy, global rollback should be removed. Regards. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 11:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Done. Savh^ñ 12:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

AnnaS.aus I.@de.wikipedia

AnnaS.aus I. resigned as a member of the German ArbCom, see first sentence in the link above. NNW (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Has not been elected as admin, i.e. she has got the admin rights only for the time of her membership in the arbcom as usual on de.wiki. -jkb- 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done masti <talk> 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Miraki@de.wikipedia

Miraki resigned as a member of the German ArbCom, see the link above. NNW (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Gnom@de.wikipedia

Gnom resigned as a member of the German ArbCom, see the link above. NNW (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@NahidSultan. seems as something went wrong with this. No revoking of user rights for User:Gnom detectable in the logs: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGnom%40dewiki&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= -- Dschungelfan (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I linked Miraki, not Gnom. My mistake, I'm sorry. NNW (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's done now. —MarcoAurelio 11:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ghilt@de.wikipedia

Ghilt resigned as a member of the German ArbCom, see the link above. NNW (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Helfmann@de.wikipedia

Helfmann resigned as a member of the German ArbCom, see the link above. NNW (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Tsor@de.wikipedia

Tsor has resigned as admin, see link above. As German steward DerHexer is on vacation, I have copied this request to here. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody asked you for it. Hexer follows the happenigs. -jkb- 09:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

NB: pls note that this case has nothing to do with the arbcom resignations above. -jkb- 10:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not done As this seems to be somewhat controversial, I am going to request from Tsor on his user page that if he truly wishes to resign, he should make the request here himself. This will avoid any possible misunderstandings. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks, -jkb- 16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Million thanks, Avi -- Ra'ike (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Brianmathews wintr@meta.wikimedia

Please remove the confirmed user right, the user is autoconfirmed now. This user right can't be removed by local admins/'crats. Thanks. Matiia (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Jmhudak@meta.wikimedia

Please remove the confirmed user right, the user is autoconfirmed now. This user right can't be removed by local admins/'crats. Thanks. Matiia (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Protnmike@meta.wikimedia

Please remove the confirmed user right, the user is autoconfirmed now. This user right can't be removed by local admins/'crats. Thanks. Matiia (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

TomH72@meta.wikimedia

Please remove the confirmed user right, the user is autoconfirmed now. This user right can't be removed by local admins/'crats. Thanks. Matiia (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

UTRSBot@meta.wikimedia

Please remove the confirmed user right, the account is autoconfirmed now. This user right can't be removed by local admins/'crats. Thanks. Matiia (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Mardetanha@enwiki

The temporary CU for ArbCom election scrutineers should be removed now that election results were posted. Rschen7754 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Stryn (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

OAuthTest1@meta.wikimedia

Hi. Please remove the confirmed user right, this test account is autoconfirmed now and the user right is no longer needed. Matiia (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 07:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sebastian Wallroth@dewiki

resigned as a member of the German ArbCom, see the link above; was only granted sysop rights for arbcom purposes → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 22:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, best regards. —MarcoAurelio 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Philip Folkesson@svwiki

-- Philip Folkesson (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Philip Folkesson: I understand that you're requesting the removal of your sysop permissions, right? Regards, —MarcoAurelio 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: That is right. Kind regards, Philip Folkesson (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, best regards. —MarcoAurelio 18:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Vriullop@metawiki

User has performed no renames within a year. Savh^ñ 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Skalee@pl.wikipedia

Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of administrator access due to lack of edits in the main namespace during a 1 year period. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 17:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this count as an edit https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoni_Wery%C5%84ski&diff=prev&oldid=47800773? -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't, as one year had passed before this edit was done. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 17:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

By one hour and 53 minutes. . Yes, it seems that the edit was done just to keep the privileges, but if it was done one hour and 55 minutes earlier… It's your community's project, so if you are in agreement the privileges will be removed, but personally, I'd let the 2 hours slide. Can you please confirm that your community still wants these privileges removed, please? -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

One hour and 53 minutes? The previous edit was done at 01:10 (AM) and this one was done at 21:02, which means 9:02 PM. So it's about 20 hours later. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 10:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Yoiks, probably a differential due to time zone. Sorry about that. -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: as for Please follow common practice and reapply. Thanks. - I didn't notice that, sorry. I'm discussing the issue with @Nedops:. He's not sure what's the right/better solution. Our policy says 1 year = 365 full days. Full day would mean that the edit you linked to does count. But it's explicitly only 365, not 365 or 366. I'm a lawyer, so when I read 1 year = 365 full days, I understand that the will of our community is to count a leap year as more than one year. Otherwise, that definition would be superfluous, and as a rule, no part of any definition is to be treated as superfluous. On the other hand, WP:UCS+WP:LOVE, but who defines common sense and love in this case? I don't want to act like a judge. Anyway, I have doubts. I might have made a mistake. Nedops and I are waiting for @Openbk:'s response. Openbk deals with the majority of cases related to the inactivity policy, but he hasn't edited for 3 weeks. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 21:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

{{onhold}} @Tar Lócesilion: I've changed the status to on-hold so this doesn't get archived. Let me know what the local community decides, and if it is to retain access, we'll gladly flip the bit back. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(stalker) For what it's worth, I would encourage the project to change the rule from 1 year = 365 full days to 1 year = the same date and time the following calendar year, or something like that. I'm not sure people would ordinarily keep in mind that they really have to act by the day before their anniversary if a leap day has passed. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that this is still on hold awaiting feedback from PlWiki. -- Avi (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done Per this diff, with the note that should PlWiki change their mind, they should let us know. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Friend@uawikimedia

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Helgi@uawikimedia

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahonc@uawikimedia

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Olena Zakharian@uawikimedia

Done ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sikjes@nlwiki

Request for the removal of Sikjes' admin rights. Sikjes has made less than 250 edits in a year and thus should lose his admin rights conform the activity criteria on nl.wp. - Kippenvlees1 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done Please thank Sikjes for his work. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Jmvkrecords@eswiki

This sysop has blocked me by two years by an edition. This is injust 181.61.83.227 20:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is not a valid reason for requesting a removal of sysop and bureaucrat rights. You have been blocked on eswiki due to insults, and te solution is not requesting a removal of access. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 20:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

My editions aren't vandalic. I added information in the article 2017 year, but this sysop has blocked me. In this project there is many users with insults, but the sysops blocker them by some days. 181.61.83.227 20:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Disculpa pero tiene que haber primero un consenso de la comunidad para pedir la remoción de los permisos, ya sea por Revalidación o por inactividad. En cambio, tus razones son inválidas para solicitar la remoción de los permisos. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 21:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

No puedo hacerlo, dado que me bloquearon la IP. Me tocaría usar algo para abrir la RECAB ante un bloqueo injusto 181.61.83.227 21:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done Invalid reason. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Mycēs@lawiki

This user is inactive for 3 years and the local policy requires that the admin has edits/admin actions in less than six months, and requires 1 notification, and if is not replied to the notification after 1 month, sysop rights can be removed according to the inactivity policy. The user has never answered to the notification. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 01:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC).

Done Thanks for their service. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Artomo@iowikt

I am here to report admin abuse going on on the small Ido Wiktionary (iowikt) and to request the removal of Artomo's admin rights. He is the only admin of the project and he acts like he is the boss of the project. There are no rules or policies at all on the project. This admin has blocked me for 2 weeks with the reason "me vartas diskuto pos 2 semani" ("I expect discussion after 2 weeks"). He also banned the user "TheLazyDog" because he thinks he is me. We both can't edit any pages anymore on this Wiktionary. The admin also created a new section without a signature on the general discussion page where he mentioned that "TheLazyDog" critized this Wiktionary on his own blog. I don't think an admin should ban multiple people based on blog posts of a single person outside of the project. Users should have a right to free speech. – Algentem (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support TheLazyDog (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-steward closure. This pettiness has to stop. This is NOT the place for a removal of permission. You need to start a discussion on wiki or address the block with the admin. MechQuester (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@MechQuester: How am I supposed to discuss this on the wikt if I'm blocked there? The only place where I'm actually able to write is on my own talk page, but he has not started a discussion there. - Algentem (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course this is the place for requesting the removal of permissions. Of course, a discussion must happen first. If it's impossible to do so on the wiki itself, an RFC here on Meta can be opened. --MF-W 17:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As I blocked out these two guys I wrote in the info-box that we will discuss about the event after two weeks. I thought they will have time to calm down but it seems that two weeks is too long period of time for impatient ones. Instead they are gathering more and more anger. I opened their access in advance so the discussion may begin. --Artomo (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Artomo: You wrote that you would discuss it with them after 2 weeks in the reason box. That is not a valid reason. You blocked them because one of them criticized you and the project on his own personal blog. Robin van der Vliet (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet: Sorry, that was not the reason. The reason was that they made changes which were not correct in Ido-language although they claimed that their opinion is widely accepted. I found the blog afterwards, and I thought to collect everywhere such criticism in one place, because it seems useful to let pressure out. --Artomo (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a discussion. Everyone part of the community has to discuss it before a request can happen.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by MechQuester (talk)

Altrensa & Myrddin02 @fr.wikiquote

I request the revocation of the rights of inactive sysops q:fr:User:Altrensa and q:fr:User:Myrddin02 on the small wiki Wikiquote.fr by this process. --Morphypnos (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That process is a process which "visits" all the wikis once per year or so, not a policy that can be applied at any time. --MF-W 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: adding sr-request templates for the bot to archive. —MarcoAurelio 14:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The-city-not-present@global

Global IP block exempt, due to rangeblock on spambots. Set to expire on 2016-12-31. —MarcoAurelio 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Mziermann@global

Global IP block exempt, due to rangeblock. Set to expire on 2016-12-31. —MarcoAurelio 18:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Satdeep Gill@kswikipedia

There is no active community yet. Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 29 August 2016. Ruslik (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-11-30. 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) 14:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Satdeep Gill@ks.wiktionary

There is no active community yet. Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 29 August 2016. Ruslik (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-11-30. 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) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hanberke@tk.wikipedia

I've been an admin on this wiki for more than seven years now. Please grant me 1 year temporary, if possible permanent, sysop status. I'm only sysop there since 2008. Thank you in advance. --Hanberke (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 7 Dec --MF-W 22:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-07. - Taketa (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hanberke@tk.wiktionary

I've been an admin on this wiki for more than seven years now. Please grant me 1 year temporary, if possible permanent, sysop status. I'm only sysop there since 2008. Thank you in advance. --Hanberke (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 7 Dec --MF-W 22:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-07. - Taketa (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Cbliu@zh.wikiquote

The vote should be closed 5 days later. LC_talk 09:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 On hold until September 8, 2016. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@MBisanz, MarcoAurelio, and Ruslik0:Please deal with this request. Thanks. LC_talk 08:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-12-08. - we don't usually grant temp sysop for just one month, so I've done three. After that time, please start another discussion regarding access renewal. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

removed ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Voskanyan@hy.wikiquote

The previous time the user received adminship rights for 6 months. Now the user was again trusted adminship rights by the community. Please grant her the rights for at least 1 year. Thank you --Lilitik22 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-13. Taketa (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

removed ~ Nahid ^Talk 05:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Joxemai@eu.wikibooks

 On hold until 15 Dec - Taketa (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-15. —MarcoAurelio 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

removed Stryn (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Joxemai@eu.wiktionary

 On hold until 15 Dec - Taketa (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-15. —MarcoAurelio 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

removed Stryn (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Renessaince@be.wikisource

Prolongation after temporary rights were given. --Renessaince (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Renessaince, you posted under the old topic on be.wikisource. Please open a new request instead, so it is more visible. The same as last time. All the best, Taketa (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. --Renessaince (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 16 Dec - Taketa (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-16. Taketa (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

555@ptwikisource

I would like to renew my sysop term on pt.Wikisource. Lugusto • ※ 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 16 Dec - Taketa (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your folks loves excessive bureaucracy and has removed my "temporary" sysop flag. Lugusto • ※ 01:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Matanya: ^^ 12:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-12-16. Taketa (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

GeoO@hywikisource

Thanks. --geo ^») 10:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-12-24. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Matanya (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)