Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions/2011-12

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Administrator access

Shimmin Beg@gvwikipedia

Status:    Not done

Applying for admin status as recommended by Alison and MacTire02. I have been a temporary admin before, and am a long-serving and regular contributor to the wiki and interface translator. At present we have one sysop and no admin one administrator. This would be useful for handling page and category deletions (a frequent issue as terminology is not settled), and for editing locked CSS files; I work on templates quite a lot, and often imported templates expect CSS from en.wiki which we don't yet have. It would also provide some backup for MacTire. -- Shimmin Beg 18:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

sysop=admin. Ruslik 19:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I just borrowed the word from the talk page and for some reason assumed it meant bureaucrat. I've amended the request accordingly.-- Shimmin Beg 20:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: Local request was made on 27 November, so let's wait until 4 December before doing anything here. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done w:gv:User:Alison is a bureaucrat and active. He will be able to promote you. Regards. Bencmq 07:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Dread84@ukwikiversity

Status:    Not done
 On hold until 11th December. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
same : The uk.wikiversity is in the betawikiversity. So community has a page for this type of query. I suggested to the person, on his talk page, to go to this page to make its request sysop.Crochet.david 11:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I discussed with Crochet.david and finally I close this request as Not done because the betawikiviersity has at least one active local bureaucrat : Hillgentleman -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Ajedrez@chwikipedia

Status:    Not done

There isn't any sysop at Chamorro Wikipedia, so I think I can help. I'd ask for sysop flag for a year, more or less. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Did you open a local discussion to get a community consensus ? I don't really see why you need sysop access on this wiki, you have created your account there yesterday ! Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I opened it here, but last discussions were answered after half a year. I don't need personally a sysop account, but I think this wiki needs one (there isn't any), and I'm disposed to help. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This is only my mind, but I don't really understand why you need to be a local sysop on a wiki you created an account on only yesterday. I don't see here the absolute necessity for this project to have an admin. Apart from bots and global users, I see no activity there. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Then I'll not really need sysop flag. Thanks and regards. Mr.Ajedrez 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not done, then. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Karol Karolus@plwikibooks

Status:    Done

Hi! Voting ended on 11 December (6-0-0 result). Can you set him sysop rights? Przemub 16:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 16:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Zylbath @ got.wikipedia

Status:    Done

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

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

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello, I'd like to prolong my temporary sysop status on Komi Wikipedia. Comp1089 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 On hold for a week. -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended for 6 months until 27 December 2011. Ruslik 06:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended by Trijnstel for six months. Matanya 05:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Removed. Expired.--Jusjih 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
To expire on 2012-06-27.--Jusjih 11:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ora_Unu@pflwiki

Status:    Done

--Ora Unu 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Question Question: Did you gave Ora Unu permanent sysop rights? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against that, but I would like to have it clear now. Trijnstel 22:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, to me the community is now large enough, and nobody opposed Ora Unu after his first period with sysop access. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt@ptwikinews

Status:    Done

Per his private request by e-mail, I have returned Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt's sysop and bureaucrat permissions, which were removed in non-controversial circumstances in November. Noting here for the archive. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Reza1615@fawiki

Status:    Done

per successful RFCU, as local crat I would like to request this access for the above mentioned user, he is aware of identification process and we have another CU who is Adler.fa which his access was suspended due to Huji's resignation Mardetanha talk 10:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User is identified to the foundation Mardetanha talk 10:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

As decided by the arbitration Committee of nl.wikipedia, see here. Per Arbitration Committee, JetzzDG 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 On hold, pending ID. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 13:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, id received. -Barras 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Groucho [email protected]

Status:    Done

As decided by the arbitration Committee of nl.wikipedia, see here. Per Arbitration Committee, JetzzDG 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 On hold, pending ID. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 13:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, id received. -Barras 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

For temporary checkuser access while a scrutineer in the local Arbitration Committee elections. See last year's request for context and precedent. For the election administrators, Skomorokh 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

For temporary checkuser access while a scrutineer in the local Arbitration Committee elections. See last year's request for context and precedent. For the election administrators, Skomorokh 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

For temporary checkuser access while a scrutineer in the local Arbitration Committee elections. See last year's request for context and precedent. For the election administrators, Skomorokh 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Ruslik 18:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Harald Haugland@nowiki

Status:    Done

We also held elections for checkuser and oversight on the same page. The result is that these users were elected. Only I and Laaknor have submitted identification already, so the last two will have to wait a little.

Thanks,
Jon Harald Søby 19:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done the CU and OS bit for Jon and Laaknor. PeterSymonds removed the sysop bits. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 On hold for Haros and Harald Haugland. Trijnstel 20:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done see below. --Vituzzu 19:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed it back to "on hold" as this request shouldn't be archived. I already informed Jon Harald Søby yesterday about it. Trijnstel 20:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Done--Vituzzu 01:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oversight access

Harald Haugland@nowiki

Status:    Done
Last two  On hold pending identification. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done no ID, I'll drop a line to Harald. --Vituzzu 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed it back to "on hold" as this request shouldn't be archived. I already informed Jon Harald Søby yesterday about it. Trijnstel 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Done--Vituzzu 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of access

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Done Ruslik 08:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Done Ruslik 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

We are doing the process of desysoping inactive admins on the Persian Wikimedia projects. I noticed that Bureaucrat access was granted to Mardetanha on Persian Wikiquote without any consensus. Here is conversation that User:Sajad has granted the crat access to Mardetanha.
Translation of the conversation:

Sajad: Hi, considering the facts that I'm busy these days and your [good] records [in the Wikimedia projects] and the need of our community to a crat, I grant this access to you temporarily.
Mardetanha: Thank you very much.

This is definitely unacceptable. Persian Wikiquote is a small community that doesn't need a crat at all (although it has) and if it large enough to have two crats, they must be elected and not selected. Why this access has to be granted to Mardetanha without any consensus or appropriate reason? I asked Mardetnaha to make a requst himself and give it back but he refused. I hereby ask you to remove his crat access on Persian Wikiquote. Thanks in advance. Americophile 10:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done. The link you provide quite evidently does not have any community consensus to remove Mardetanha's bureaucrat access on the Persian Wikiquote. Only with valid community consensus would we remove this access. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You mean that it is not important at all that how he has obtained his accesses? I made a request to remove administrator and crat access of User:Kaveh on Persian Wikisource and luckily it was done, but some hours later Mardetanha was talking about granting the removed access to him in case of return. This is obviously a breach of policies. Do you mean that is not important to you that how the administrator and crat access are granted on small projects? You just grant the crat access to the fist user and he makes every user he likes an administrator or crat? That's absolute nonsense. Americophile 10:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it quite like that, but effectively once a project has a local bureaucrat, they handle the granting of sysop/bureaucrat permisions on that project. We would therefore not intervene without a valid local consensus. Your alternative is to start a request for comment on the issue, but I would suggest talking to the Persian Wikiquote community first. At the moment, you are the only one apparently objecting to Mardetanha having this level of access. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Starting an RfC seems to be useless and just waste of time. Thanks anyway. Americophile 10:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
One would think that faWQ are big enough to handle their own matters without provocation from outside. Seems more like shit-stirring. billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
All of the above users except Danilo.mac are actually quite active. Ruslik 19:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as of today, Rautopia (and Nevinho and Ozymandias) have never used their administrative tools (per stewardry tool). ✒ Bennylin 12:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Afaik they changed the way they assign flags, or better, they create a standard procedure. --Vituzzu 19:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We conducted a voting and set a limit of five administrators and two bureaucrats.Ozymandias 23:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
First, we decided to have a fixed number of sysops (passed 6x1); then we choose 5 as this number of sysops (passed 3x2); and later we choose the 5 sysops. During the discussion, we choose to have two crats: the most voted candidates (passed 3x0). CasteloBrancomsg 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that they may not know about this, and the removal of the tools may be a surprise for them. Ruslik 08:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just left a message on their br user talk page. Let's see if they have anything to add. Two days probably enough? ✒ Bennylin 12:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
These users participate in the Wikimedia Brazil's community and were invited to vote through the wiki, mailing list, IRC and etc. This standard was designed to facilitate the actions of the community in general and all users are aware of the result.Ozymandias 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For me, its ok, I agree. I knew of this discussion, just didnt commented there. Rjclaudio Talk 01:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Ruslik 05:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
{{Done}} Bencmq 03:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see the part below - If the flag should be returned, it can be easily reverted. Sorry on my part. Bencmq 03:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Ruslik 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Done Ruslik 19:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysops. I don't have the time to contribute at the moment. --Engelbaet 14:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Erledigt - Danke für die Arbeit. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to local policy, if an user makes less than ten edits per month, s/he should be desysoped in a maximum period of three months. The sentence in Portuguese where it is said is "Estabeleceu-se que administradores inativos, ou seja, que fazem menos de 10 edições mensais, terão 3 meses para serem desnomeados de seus cargos caso não voltem a editar ativamente."” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Policy is not clear about removing also crat rights together with sysop rights, but is very clear (here) when defining a one year term for this group. Concerning that the most recent election for bureaucrats occured in 2008, this flag should also be removed.” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to local policy, if an user makes less than ten edits per month, s/he should be desysoped in a maximum period of three months. The sentence in Portuguese where it is said is "Estabeleceu-se que administradores inativos, ou seja, que fazem menos de 10 edições mensais, terão 3 meses para serem desnomeados de seus cargos caso não voltem a editar ativamente."” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Ruslik 06:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: Policy is not clear about removing crat rights together with sysop rights, but is very clear (here) when defining a one year term for this group. Concerning that the most recent election for bureaucrats occured in 2008, this flag should also be removed.” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the crat bit. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Clarify: this won't change anything, but the election of Armagedon was done separatedly in 2009 (here), which makes that the most recent one and he was the only user approved.” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Vini [email protected]

Status:    Done

According to local policy, if an user makes less than ten edits per month, s/he should be desysoped in a maximum period of three months. The sentence in Portuguese where it is said is "Estabeleceu-se que administradores inativos, ou seja, que fazem menos de 10 edições mensais, terão 3 meses para serem desnomeados de seus cargos caso não voltem a editar ativamente."” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Ruslik 06:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Some crazy person in Hungary calling himself Varga Lajos has been posting various messages on als.wikipedia since August, apparently because he is upset that the inactive admin Strommops didn't respond to some question he had (see here). Long story short: he eventually started stalking Strommops in real life, who apparently happens to have moved to Hungary of all places to learn the language, then managed to hack into Strommops's Gmail and Wikipedia-account, giving us an ultimatum to block Strommops or otherwise he would block all of us. Even though he hasn’t carried out his threat so far, a hacked Sysop-account is obviously still a threat regardless, and the account should be desysoped (but not blocked yet) until it we can be sure that Strommops is back in control. On a side note: Strommops's adminship would be due to expire soon anyways due to inactivity. --Terfili 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me some recent ip of that "Varga Lajos"? --Vituzzu 15:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Found them by myself, I've already removed Strommops' bits but, anyway, I'll be around at 10 pm in order to take a look at als.wiki. --Vituzzu 15:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks! This was his user account: VLajos, he then used 109.61.82.118, 79.122.120.229, 80.99.229.117, and 79.122.111.162. According to the post from the last IP, he was writing from McDonald's, and at one point he said that his neighbor was mad at him for using his WLAN...I'm hoping this doesn't develop into a long-term problem. --Terfili 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Justass@commonswiki

Status:    Done

Your remarks, etc. -- Justass 08:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done thanks for your work. Matanya 08:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Moumousse13@frwiki

Status:    Done

Local policy states that administrators that have been inactive for more than 6 months should be removed their sysop access. Thanks, --P@d@w@ne 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Frwiki has her own crats. Therefore you should ask this to them. ✒ Bennylin 14:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Done afaik, Benny, only en and ru.wiki decided to let their bureucrats manage sysop/bureucrat status removals. --Vituzzu 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some more, for example Meta-Wiki. See the full list on Bureaucrat#Removing access. Trijnstel 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alec@itwiki

Status:    Done

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alec (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for your work. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Väsk@svwikinews

Status:    Done

Local policy states that administrators that have been inactive for more than 1 year should be removed their sysop access. --Rasmus 28 21:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - Utfört. Tack. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WikitanvirBot [email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove the bot flag of my bot there. --— [ Tanvir | Talk ] 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done :) ✒ Bennylin 07:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Suz gave this response to our message about the new inactivity-policy. (s)he tells us that the idea of an inactivity-policy sounds fair, and asks what (s)he should do. This kind of response is hard to interpret, but still, we see no activity on sv.wikinews. -- Lavallen 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your services. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimol@cswiki

Status:    Not done

CheckUser_policy#Removal_of_access says that Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than a year will have their CheckUser access removed. Only one edit (!) in last year and few edits since the end of 2009 (or 2007) is example of inactivity. Somebody with "activity" like Wikimol is not able to control another checkuser and understand context of checkuser requests. --Dezidor 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm about to process this request, but please note that the second checkuser, Mormegil, will also see his checkuser status removed since a wiki must have at least two checkusers or none at all. On the contrary, you should elect a new checkuser. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
For more transparency, I asked for community input here. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I would probably vote for Mormegil and other good candidates in next election but current state is simply a long-term violation of our rules. --Dezidor 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment Comment - If Wikimol is removed, Mormegil does not loose permanently his/her CheckUser status; it's only suspended till another CheckUser could be appointed. Is Wikimol also inactive as CheckUser (no checks performed in a year)? Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Mormegil is active. He answers all requests (not always performing the actual check). Last check has been performed yesterday, two checks in September etc. --Pavel Jelínek, 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Mormegil is active and useful. Problem is that Wikimol is not active and we have discussions about transparency because nobody can´t control Mormegil. I trust him but doubt that confidence of me and the majority of editors may be valid reason for the violation of rules and having only one active checkuser. --Dezidor 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Pavel Jelínek. I was refering to Wikimol, as Mormegil is obviously active. Sorry if my wording above was unclear. I've corrected it. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 17:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment Comment I have not much to say, it’s on Wikimol to comment, I guess. The only comment I can provide is Wikimol’s own (though a bit outdated) statement that even though he is not actively editing Wikipedia, he monitors it, including watching the CU log (but would be happy to resign as soon as a new checkuser gets elected). And no, he is not actively using the CU tool to check anything (his last check is from the beginning of 2010), reading CU logs is not logged.
--Mormegil (cs) 16:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Would it not be possible to elect a new CheckUser in the near future? I think we can hold off until then, but it would be nice to have a new election sooner rather than later. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Well, my position is still the same - I'd myself like to resign as soon as new checkuser is elected. (I've initiated an checkuser election last year, but no candidates.) Regarding my activity I'm still generally watching Checkuser-l, sometimes I look what's new under 'Pod lípou' and sometimes check the logs. (Mormegil is using the tool very reasonably.) From the above discussion I'd like to counter the statement that "nobody can´t control Mormegil" - if anybody wants second voice, it's quite easy to use sitemail and ask me to check some results - even if I'm not editing Wikipedia, I can check the logs in matter of hours. (And btw I actually got such private communication.)
So to summarize, I'd propose new elections are held, and once a new checkuser is elected, I'll resign (or my permission could be removed per this request, whatever :-). In my opinion immediate suspension of Mormegil's rights as a result of removal of mine would do more harm than than good. As a last point, I find it a bit odd that Dezidor didn't bother to contact me before creating this request - even if I have just one edit I'm alive and replying to mails quite fast. --Wikimol 10:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not done Ruslik 13:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hozro@dewiki

Status:    Done

Müdigkeit 11:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some discussion on his talk page. I think we should wait for a while. --Mercy 12:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
If he had wished to have removed the rights here, he could have set this message here himself. He has not requested this here, so the rights shouldn't be removed here, DerHexer has been requested. There's no reason for this request here. --Geitost diskusjon 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
DerHexer is involved now ([6]). -jkb- 14:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Xic667@frwiki

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop status on fr.wikipedia

Xic667 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Ruslik 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Accurimbono@itsource

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop status on it.wikisource. --Accurimbono 10:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, many thanks for your work there! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Accurimbono 10:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Gnumarcoo@itwik

Status:    Done

Just revove his bureaucrat status, because the votation will end on 20th . Thank you. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ua.wikimedia.org

Status:    Done
Status:    Done
Status:    Done
Status:    Done

[email protected], [email protected], Pavlo [email protected], [email protected]

According site policy Board and Audit Committee members have sysop access. These users are not elected to new board and AC and their status should be removed.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Ruslik 07:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User Kõan@frwiki

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop flag (personal decision), thank you Kõan 09:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Ruslik 09:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your services. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 09:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove bureaucrat access, by decision of ru-wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Thanks, --Levg 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi! Please remove my sysop status on it.wikipedia. Thank you e buon lavoro! :-) Pequod76(adminiubbo) 01:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Stewards: Can you please wait a few more minutes before proceeding?--Sandrobt 02:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
He'll be missed! :(--Sandrobt 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No! And... thanks! :) I am perfectly aware of the situation, this is the best for me and, I hope, for it.wiki too. --Pequod76(adminiubbo) 02:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your service. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 05:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Piero [email protected]

Status:    Done

Following an indefatigable libelous "campaign" pushed ahead for years against me as an admin (I served for five years) and a user on itwiki, I am here to ask for my deflag. The campaing has involved, among others, "anonymous" blogs posing as "independent improvers" of Wikipedia (sic!) and counted even on an article by a newspaper, citing almost verbatim the formers. For the sake of the Project, I have always ignored, and have never reacted, to such campaign, being reconfirmed four times in a row as sysop (by about 80% of voters each year). During the last year, however, users of "thematic projects" on "war" (and the like) on it.wiki (counting also on the pivotal involvement of users previously blocked - or warned - on en.wiki as pov pushers, but left quite free to act on itwiki), have enthusiastically joined the campaign, which is currently very active. As a result, the it.wiki community is quite divided about my adminship, and during the current, yearly scheduled vote to reconfirm my status, more than 33% is calling for my deflag, at least to "remove" - removing me - a "pretext" to perform external attacks against the whole Project. At this point, I see no other option than asking myself for my immediate deflag as the best I can do for preserving my honour and my Home Project. Thank you for your continued support to Wikimedia Projects. --Piero Montesacro 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I think that if you're resigning influenced by a "troll campaign", you're giving them victory. As we're (probably) not aware of the situation, I'd appreciate if you could provide some links to the places where it occours. Striker talk 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a place for a discussion of these issues as it clearly has no bearing on the removal of the flag. Snowolf How can I help? 02:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your services. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Done and thank you for your contribution to the projects. Bencmq 05:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Do you wish to remove your bureaucrat flag as well? Bencmq 05:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please remove bureaucrat flag also. Thanks--Shijualex 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for all your services. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Peterb@mediawiki

Status:    Done

Petrb requested admin rights on mediawiki.org (link), only the bureaucrat who did the request made the wrong user admin (log). The admin rights have been given to the right user now by another bureaucrat, but the admin rights of Peterb still need to be removed. Thanks in advance. Best regards, TBloemink talk 14:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Savh@tenwiki

Status:    Done

Since the lock of ten.wikipedia, admin rights on that project are useless, mainly because I am not even allowed to edit any page. Therefore, please remove the sysop right from my account. Savhñ 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your services Savh. :) — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Addihockey10@tenwiki

Status:    Done

Same reasons as Savh, no use for them now that the project's locked. Addihockey10 22:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your services Addi. :) — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of rights on tenwiki

Status:    Done

This project is closed recently and, according to this, I removed all rights (admin, crat, bot) overthere.[7] Trijnstel 11:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, some Boxing Day tidying up! Makes sense to me, otherwise there could get quite a few of the requests as above. :) The Helpful One 12:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

しるふぃ@jawiki

Status:    Done

This user is inactive for 3months. Please remove sysop flag from this user, per local de-sysop policy of inactive sysop. --Hosiryuhosi 00:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Has the user been notified about this? Bencmq 02:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The prior notice is not needed by local policy. --Hosiryuhosi 02:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please thank him for his service to the project. Bencmq 10:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove CU and sysop flags. If you can set autoconfirmed. Many thanks. --Abisys 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done thanks for your work. Matanya 08:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

I would like my CheckUser status removed due to a lack of time to dedicate to the project. Email sent to en.wiki ArbCom. --Brandon 14:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, many thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

The discussion on that I'm going to become an administrator has lasted 25 days and I have one supporter. No one is against giving me the adminship. Obelix 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to reach the two bureaucrats there? Please note that we may only grant temporary adminship as per the one comment only. -Barras 18:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The bureaucrat Bisgaard has not been active since April 3 and and is not possible to contact by email. The other bureaucrat, Christian S, has not been active since December 13 2005. Temporary adminship would be quite acceptable. (Sorry för my bad english) Obelix 18:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Granted expires december 1st 2011 Laaknor 18:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
removed. Matanya 06:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mohau@nsowikipedia

Status:    Done

Sysop rights removed when wiki deleted and recreated. Request for 1 month. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, to expire 10 December 2011. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended by Tanvir on 7 December 2011, to expire on 7 March 2012. Trijnstel 11:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Removed and a separate archive entry has been created. Bencmq 03:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionslayer@mywiktionary

Status:    Done

Could you please extend my adminship? It seems expired today. Thanks. @=={Lionsla ☎ 13:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if there is no community, please post a note at the local village pump saying that you're requesting temporary adminship there. We will wait a week more or less and if there's no opposition, we can grant you again temporary adminship. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 14:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Since I was granted adminship on 15th of Mar, I thought it will expire on 15th of May. It seems the date start counting from the date of request. @=={Lionslayer> ☎ 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That's right, it should have expired on 15 June. [9][10] However, you still need to post a local note for extension (which I see you've done now). Jafeluv 15:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Done 3 months granted - fr33kman 15:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
added 3 month per request. To expire 14.12.2011 Matanya 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Extended by Tanvir on 8 December 2011, to expire on 8 June 2012. Trijnstel 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Removed and a separate request archive has been created. Bencmq 03:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ora_Unu@pflwiki

Status:    Done

--Holder 15:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, granted temp. To expire 15/12/2011 Matanya 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Amdf@mhrwiki, Denis Sacharnych@mhrwiki, JBradley@mhrwiki and Drbug@mhrwiki

Four temporary admins at Meadow Mari Wikipedia, according to the will of the community. Temporary admins should make a report about community development during the December. --Millosh 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Ruslik 10:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

MalTsilna @ tt.wikibooks.org

Status:    Done

Good day! Not if you could extend the term of my administration in the Tatar Wikibooks another 3 months. --MalTsilna 13:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello MalTsilna. Can you please post an advisory notice on the local village pump first? - Even if there's no community it's the standard procedure. I see that you've been granted 6 months temp. adminship this time, therefore we can grant you temp. adminship for another 6 months. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
OK! I'll try to do it, but so far I have exams and I need some time to get it all organized. --178.204.149.67 19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 On hold for a week since the vote started yesterday.
-- Dferg ☎ talk 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended for 6 month until 25 December 2011. Ruslik 13:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
removed. Matanya 09:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Heb @ Danish Wikiquote

Status:    Done

I hereby requests temporary admin access for the Danish Wikiquote i.o.t. fix the problem from bugzilla:17009. Currently there are no bureaucrats and only one admin, who doesn't seem to have been active since 2009-10-16. I'm currently admin on DaWiki. Estimated duration of permission: 7 days. In kind regards --Heb 08:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Done for seven days until 29 December 2011. Ruslik 10:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
removed. Matanya 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please make Paucabot importer--Loquetudigas 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done I gave "importer" rights to Paucabot. Please let us know when he (you?) is done. Thanks for helping! Trijnstel 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please, also for Catalan Wiktionary. -Aleator (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done As Trijnstel said, please let us know when you are / he is done. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please, also for Catalan Wikisource. -Aleator (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done As Trijnstel said, please let us know when you are / he is done. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
One question. Is the permission temporary? We'd like it to be permanent also for future uses. Is it possible? Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Afaik importer rights are always not permanent, but I'll ask others about it. Trijnstel 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really comfortable with granting a permanent import flag. For the transwiki import right, it's safer, but I would prefer to see a larger consensus before. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions/2011-12&oldid=26366912"