Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions/2016-05

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Administrator access

Илья Драконов@ady.wikipedia

Status:    Done

My adminship expires on 20 May. Can I have it for at least 6 months now? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

Good evening! I walked by and saw your request. Why do you need an administrator flag? Once have received the administrator flag you disappeared although promised, that will represent our community in the Fabricator and improve the technical capabilities of our project. You will not forget that one of our administrators? I do not want our community to be nervous, so I ask a question here. Dear stewards, I ask forgiveness. Thank you!--AryanSogd (t) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I was a sysop there already and it's needed there. If you like, we can discuss it on my talk page there. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
  • Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-11-16. 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) 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

Илья Драконов@adywikipedia

Status:    Done

Hi. A few days ago I've asked to extend my sysop access at ady.wikipedia for 6 months and a steward extended it for me. But today I was told that it has expired. Can you fix it please? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

Done now. For some reason Avi didn't mark the extension to the logs. --Stryn (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

Nbfreeh@wuuwikipedia

Status:    Not done

I am a rollbacker at wuu.wikipedia,for some reason ,wuu.wikipedia has been plagued by many spam and vandalism,and the sysop in wuu.wikipedia is not active enough.I am a sysop on zh.wikipedia so I think I have enough experience to deal with the spam and vandalism on wuu.wikipedia.I need three months of privileges，thx！ Nbfreeh (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on the local request, and do not list your supports here. Placing on hold until the 22nd. Savhñ 13:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Question Question: @Savh:Sorry but I have a question: why the TA right is requested at here rather than locally? As there's two crats at wuuwiki. Maybe Locally handled is a better idea. --Stang 07:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I missed that, sorry. Closing as not done, should be handled locally. Savhñ 09:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

The vote has been both for bureaucrat and admin access, so feel free to also set the admin flag in one go. Many thanks in advance.
— Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There is insufficient local community members to warrant a local bureaucrat. Almost all of the people who voted do not edit on that project. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for the long reply that's going to follow. While I totally understand the stance that small local communities might be better served centrally, there are a couple of important points, which IMHO set the case here in a somewhat different light.
First of all, in Bulgaria we've never had separate communities per project: one would be hard pressed to find a single person who contributes actively in Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc., while not contributing to Wikipedia as well, and on a level at least a magnitude higher. Either because of this, or perhaps the other way around, as a community we've never really considered the other projects as something strictly distinct from Wikipedia: they surely do provide a different type of knowledge, but for us the work we do in these projects have always been organically intertwined with the work on the encyclopedia.
The second point is that an important reason why few people get to spend more time in those other projects is the sheer pile of tasks that is constantly accumulating. I can speak from my own experience: only a few months ago I volunteered to become an administrator on the Bulgarian Wiktionary, because one of our editors expressed their interest to revive it. That's correct: one editor, one administrator. It might be surprising then that I had to actually ask another of our Wikipedia administrators to also volunteer for sysop in Wiktionary -- that much was that single editor active. So that was a success story. But I'm sure it wouldn't have been such if we had to ask for those rights. Of course, that's not because you wouldn't be helpful -- not at all -- but it's still just plain cumbersome.
Imagine how you would feel for example if every time you needed to pay for something with your credit or debit card, you had to phone your bank, describing what and why are you going to purchase, and asking them to process the payment. As kind and helpful the bank staff might be, you'll soon be pissed off enough to throw away that card, won't you. Pretty sure that staff won't be the happiest either. And I don't even want to go into details like what case of surreptitious vandalism we've been having for years on our projects -- exactly because it's years worth of information. If I had to write down all that the community already knows -- in order to have the vandal blocked -- and that case after case after case, because he's one pretty damn elusive bastard, I'd honestly rather leave the projects. It would simply be a profoundly inefficient use of resources. Thankfully, we somehow had managed to save our bureaucrat on Wiktionary.
That last thing does actually raise an additional point: if we were de facto allowed to have those two administrators and a bureaucrat on Wiktionary with basically just one active editor (not counting the admins themselves), and if that worked reasonably well, why should we be denied the same thing on another project? And if we do get denied on that other project, then it only makes sense to have us stripped of our rights on Wiktionary too -- because the "local" community there is actually even smaller than on Wikisource. And stripped from rights also on Wikiquote, for that matter, where Spirita is already a crat and sysop.
I'm pretty sure that at this point you'd agree with me that each language community is unique enough and what works well for one might not be the best for another -- and vice versa. Therefore, each case would be best considered on an independent basis and according to the local specifics. The obvious question then is: would it be reasonable and wise to deprive a community that seems to have been doing well with certain level of self-governance and administration from those rights? Even done with the best possible intentions, such actions are known to very badly affect the motivation of the members of the community -- and motivation is probably the single most important thing in our work in the WMF projects.
Thus, I kindly ask you to take into account these specifics of our community and essentially allow it the very same level of self-administration on Wikisource that it already enjoys and uses efficiently on the other similar projects besides Wikipedia -- all of which otherwise fall into the category "small local communities" and should therefore be stripped of such rights.
Many thanks again, — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 01:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Having a local bureaucrat has nothing to do with the ability of a project to govern itself. What it does do is prevent any sort of external review of admin actions, and leads to the 28 RfCs we current have open regarding admin abuse on small-language wikiprojects. The only local specifics that I see in this case are a bunch of users, including yourself, coming to the project to elect the user a sysop and bureaucrat. How is that fair to a local community on that project, to have a bunch of outsiders come and elect themselves? Our own standard practices have evolved over the years to prevent this. I am even quite liberal in granting permanent admin and crat access, but there needs to be some suggestion of a significant local community which those users can be responsible to. Also worth noting: I am not declining this request, only sharing my opinion. Any other steward is free to close it as they see fit, as I generally recuse myself from any issue on which I hold a firm opinion. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ajraddatz and Luchesar, please, do not argue any more. If the current policy is to take into consideration only the level of activity in the wiki project, regardless of the personal and cross-wiki profile of the candidate for user rights or their expressed commitment, so be it. For the record, which is not seen from my contributions in Wikisource, I am one of the two signees of our Wikimedians of Bulgaria user group agreement with WMF (This means that WMF has my full name and copy of the identity card, which is, I think comparable to what candidates for stewards have to meet as requirements, in order to qualify themselves.) My application came as a result of my dedication to have the smaller BG wiki projects like Wikisource, developing and curated by the user group, too, and not lagging years behind Wikipedia.
Anyway, I will do my best to deserve the stewards' trust, as I have done with my Bulgarian wiki community in this voting. There will be monthly reports in both BG Wikisource and BG Wikipedia, to help everybody judge better how to proceed with my rights after four months. :) Thank you, →Spiritia 08:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll comply with Spiritia's wish and try not escalating this any more, yet I cannot simply ignore the 'assume bad faith' attitude that I think I can feel here. It also saddens me to see the most active and respected members of our community being derided as 'a bunch of users'. After all, without those 'bunches', there wouldn't have been any need for practices in the first place, wouldn't it.
That being said, I actually understand the logic behind such practices and even find myself following similar ones not too rarely in my own work. But I don't think the attitude is indeed helping. A reply along the lines of 'I understand what you're saying and acknowledge that your community might have its own specifics, but we've set certain rules and we ask you to abide by them, because we've found them to be really the best for any community' would've likely left much less of a bad taste in the mouth for being treated like a potential criminal... because you asked to do more volunteer work.
I do also understand why you're being harsh. It happens to me too: after countless numbers of abuse it's hard to assume good faith, even if I constantly remind myself that there was a reason for that AGF policy. But sometimes I feel I might've unnecessarily alienated people who'd been really helpful.
Anyway, please don't take this as an attempt to school you how to do your own work, and thanks again really for taking the time to review this request.
Cheers, — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 10:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Iliev: you're absolutely correct, and I'm sorry if I was being too harsh. I am not suspicious of any motives here, and indeed I do appreciate Spiritia's desire to volunteer for the role. These are just volunteer positions on internet websites after all, and I'll try to modify my future comments to be more understanding and less confrontational. Thanks for raising those concerns. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I do think that if stewards would take the time to explain why these types requests are being declined, it would be helpful and allay further objections from that community (I've seen other stewards give terse explanations for similar requests in the past, and while it's certainly within policy, it has caused some additional drama.) --Rschen7754 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It would also be useful if there was a page clearly listing the current practices for granting bureaucrat rights - we end up declining a large number of them, and it seems there is discussion on every one these days. It might also help to have an RfC defining the steward role in granting bureaucrat access, and maybe providing an easier means of recall so we don't need to be so picky with the requests. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, thank you very much for your explanation and understanding. I guess it's inevitable that such mutual misunderstandings occur sometimes, but it's always nice to see well-meaning people on the other side. After all, we're all in the same boat, aren't we. ;) I think we can safely call this request closed now. Thanks again for your help! — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, and I'll get in contact with the bg.wikisource community after the temporary adminship has expired to look at moving forward with permanent local admins or crats. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ajraddatz, for me it was real obligation and pleasure to see it reconfirmed that my wiki community has shown me, for one more time and in one more project, their trust and support, in both capacities, of administrator, and bureaucrat. :) While I understand your comment and hope that in the not-so-far future we can have a more active community in the BG Wikisource one day, in addition to the vibrant community in BG Wikipedia, whose active members are all the voters, I hope that the present vote, at least in its admin rights part, shall be still considered eligible? Thank you in advance, →Spiritia 01:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are eligible for adminship. I've granted you temporary sysop access for 4 months. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Temporary adminship granted by Ajraddatz, no bureaucratship granted per the limited activity of the project. Savhñ 17:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser access

RadiX@ptwiki

Status:    Done

As per local policy (which sets CheckUser terms at one year's length), please turn off and on the bit in order to register another term (it's also been done here and here). RadiX∞ 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikitanvir@bnwiki

Status:    Done

One month passed, there was no opposed and 29 supports.★ Sethtalk 00:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I cannot process this until there are at least two eligible candidates from bnwiki. I see there are some other requests open; are they ready to be closed yet? Ajraddatz (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
ok,,,★ Sethtalk 00:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Done - user and local vote meet policy requirements, and user has signed the agreement. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Aftabuzzaman@bnwiki

Status:    Done

One month passed, there was no opposed and 30 supports.★ Sethtalk 00:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Done - user and local vote meet policy requirements, and user has signed the agreement. @Barras and Trijnstel: please process the relevant CU-L and wiki access. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
On it. Trijnsteltalk 21:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

--ValterVB (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, CheckUser right granted. Savhñ 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Oversight access

Removal of access

Hangsna@svwiki

Status:    Done

Svwiki has a policy for reelection every 12 months. The term for two users ends 22:00 UTC tonight. Sysop and Crat-flags can be removed for Hangsna. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks from their work. --Stryn (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Annika64@svwiki

Status:    Done

As Hangsna above. Sysop-flag can be removed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks from their work. --Stryn (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Chrumps@wikidatawiki

Status:    Done
Done. Savhñ 23:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

अनिरुद्ध!@hiwiki

Status:    Done

as per rule no 180 usefull idit in 6 month.-150.129.55.143 09:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Comment Comment The administrator appears to have edited as recently as this month. Can you explain why his activity is not a "useful edit"? MBisanz talk 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

in a period of last 7 month (November to April) his edit count is 108. As per rule minimum 180 edit count required in 6 month. If he want to back surely make new RFA.-106.79.124.155 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Done removed for failing to meet the threshold. MBisanz talk 01:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Amadí[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi. According to the local policies, Amadís has not enough administrative actions to be a sysop or a 'crat on eswiki. Requerimment is 50 admin actions on past two years. Please remove his both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Thanks. BetoCG (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Done removed for failure to meet threshold. MBisanz talk 01:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Kthoelen@nlwiki

Status:    Done

Doesn't meet our local activity policy anymore, less than 250 edits in a year. Please remove his sysop rights. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Kiitos työstäsi ylläpitäjänä, Kthoelen. :) --Stryn (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Ole hyvää! :) - Kthoelen (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Kruusamägi@eewikimedia

Status:    Done

Is not in chapter board anymore. Adeliine (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oop@eewikimedia

Status:    Done

Is not in chapter anymore. Adeliine (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Cirt@multiple sites

Status:    Locally handled
Status:    Done
Status:    Done
Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop access from the following four (4) sites: Wikimedia Commons, Wikinews, Wikisource, and Wikiquote. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

On hold for 24 hours, should you wish to reconsider your decision. Please note local bureaucrats can remove the rights on Wikinews. Savhñ 21:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I've requested sysop rights removal locally on Wikinews at DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your dedication over the years. Savhñ 21:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! They haven't acted on it yet, over at n:Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts#Please_remove_my_sysop_rights. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

K9re11@svwiki

Status:    Done

Svwiki has a policy for reelection every 12 months. The term ended 30 April at 22:00 UTC (the user did first candidate for a second period but then decided to resign). Rasmus 28 21:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, right removed. Savhñ 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rasmus 28: I think this could have waited some hours to let K9re11 reconsider the options. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It may be true, however, as he/she later declined roll back tools aswell it does not seem likely for the time being. If he/she should change his/her mind again I do not see any problems with reopening the election and then give him/her the tools back. --Rasmus 28 18:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Beeblebrox @en.wp

Status:    Done

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, rights removed. @Trijnstel: can you take care of the ml&IRC-access? Savhñ 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Done! Trijnsteltalk 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Amadís@eswiki

Status:    Done

Hi. Please remove his sysop and 'crat flags. In last 2 years Amadís makes less than 50 admin actions. Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra talk) 17:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Already Done by MBisanz. ~ Nahid Talk 05:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Mh7kJ@global

Status:    Done

Please remove my GR and GS rights. Thanks. -Mh7kJ (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You will be missed. Snowolf How can I help? 15:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Done --MF-W 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathonius@nlwiki

Status:    Done

I've decided to resign from being an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia due to prolonged inactivity and disuse of the tools. Please remove my administrator flag there. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done --MF-W 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

सत्यम् मिश्र@hi.wiki

Status:    Withdrawn

Kindly remove my sysop rights from hindi wikipedia as I am no longer an active user there. --Satyam Mishra --talk-- 20:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@सत्यम् मिश्र: Its Bad News for hiwiki. You are most active, most experienced sysop on there. i am really shocked after seeing this request. A request to you plese think again. we dno't want to lost this admin like you.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to request stewards, to hold this decision for next few days. We don't wanna loose such sysop. We would like to discuss on our private room first.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
On hold for a while pending reconsideration. Savhñ 15:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@सत्यम् मिश्र: Unless we hear something from you, we'll proceed to removing the rights shortly. Savhñ 08:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
After discussion with संजीव कुमार, I'am taking this request back as I have decided to review the situation latter, maybe..., after six months. @Savh: Kindly mark this as withdrawn. Thanks! --Satyam Mishra --talk-- 10:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Closing, request withdrawn. Savhñ 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Mxn@global

Status:    Done

MusikAnimal@global

Status:    Done
Removed, thanks again. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi. Please remove my sysop rights from fa.wiki. Thanks -- PHoBiA (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

{{on hold}} --Stryn (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Done ~ Nahid Talk 05:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@NahidSultan:, please wait for the full 24 hours to pass - giving the user time to reconsider is precisely the sense of placing it on hold for a day. Savhñ 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Thanks. I only saw the date part of timestamp. ~ Nahid Talk 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

According to our policy (https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elecci%C3%B3n_de_administradores#Revogaci.C3.B3n_por_inactividade), user JaviP96 should have his admin access removed due to inactivity during more than a year. He has been notified about this, with no answer. --Toliño Fala aquí comigo 08:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for their past work. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi. Please remove my sysop rights in Arabic Wikipedia. --FShbib (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

PaulVIF chose not to run for re-election. Please remove the admin bit. – Cocu (d) 22:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Blue [email protected]

Status:    Done

Blue Elf chose not to run for re-election. Please remove the admin bit. – Cocu (d) 22:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Chameleon222 did not achieve the requirement of a minimum of 25 supportive votes for a new period as administrator. Please remove the admin bit. – Cocu (d) 22:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Babaroga did not achieve the requirement of a minimum of 25 supportive votes for a new period as administrator. Please remove the admin bit. – Cocu (d) 22:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done all, with thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Locally handled

Factumquintus was not active since more than one year. The local policy, please remove his sysop rights. Cheers, Luke081515 17:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~ Nahid Talk 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait... according to [1] Factumquintus has 90 days since he was informed until his admin rights get revoked. His last edit been on 20th of May, 2015, so now the correct procedure according to German Language Wikipedia-Rules would be to inform Factumquintus before his rights get revoked. --Odeesi (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
pinging @Luke081515: ~ Nahid Talk 05:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Factumquintus is not yet eligible for deadmin per local policy, notified 73 days ago, 90 required. Third party removal request should come from users with necessary experience only. --Krd 07:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
+1 Krd and Odeesi are right. Factumquintus is not out of the timeline. --Itti (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems Luke has gone on an indefinite wikibreak now. I recommend returning the rights of the user in question for now. To be fair to Nahid, I did look through the dewiki policy myself and didn't find any reference to the 90 days, though I do not speak the language. Edit: Confirmed, nothing about 90 days on the policy page. If it is updated to reflect actual practice, then these mistakes could be avoided. You cannot expect stewards who are not active on dewiki to follow every local discussion, especially if the results are not reported on the policy page. Perhaps that would help avoid internal confusion as well. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You are right --Itti (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Nobody does expect a Steward to fully understand a different language local policy, so no offense at all, but this could serve a precedent that for the large wikis removal requests should be either handled locally, or at least should be requested or confirmed by local crats. --Krd 08:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Granted, the confusion is clearly our fault, Ajraddatz :-). Pretty remotely, the Meinungsbild (= binding RFC) [2] says that a steward will remove the sysop flag, if the user fails to react within 90 days after notification. This will be the case on June 10th (notification Mar 12 [3]). To be pedantic, the withdrawal should be postponed until this date. (Honestly, I think this user has left our project forever and won't return whatever we do, sad to say). --MBq (talk)
Yes it ist our fault. I gave the rights back and we will see, if he will come back or not. Sorry for the trouble here. --Itti (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Itti, I've tagged this as locally handled for now. And apologies for my wording, I wasn't meaning to suggest that it was anyone's fault, only prevent blame from being forced on Nahid when it wasn't deserved :-). Moving forward, I think it is reasonable that we mostly accept inactivity removal requests from admins/bureaucrats (which is what we usually do anyway), and would it be possible for you to update the admin page to reflect the current consensus on removals for inactivity? Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose there is still a potential issue of what happens when the last 'crat/sysop is the one who has failed to meet the activity policy. Presumably Admin activity review eventually catches him/her anyway, but I think it's ok for stewards to keep at least a little latitude about that, especially if the policy is clearly written and the requester is an experienced editor. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We usually have no problems reading the local policy, so then there's little issue who is requesting the removal. Some, like the English Wikipedia, require a bureaucrat to request the removal through their local policy. We generally look for requests from trusted users on the project, and will do some investigating to make sure that a) the policy requirements are met and b) the user requesting removal doesn't have an ulterior motive. That said, I've changed the "only" to a "mostly" above to reflect our flexibility on the issue. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, you did say "what we usually do anyway", even before the edit. (;-) I couldn't quite tell if you were edging toward a slightly stricter approach. I'm happy to see that you're not; I think this is more than adequate. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kh80 already updated the admin page [4]. NNW (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

白駒@jawiki

Status:    Done

This user is inactive over 3 months. Please remove sysop rights from this user, as per removal policy for inactivity. Thanks --rxy (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~ Nahid Talk 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Alison@enwiki

Status:    Done

Hi Stewards. Please remove my Oversight bit from the English Language Wikipedia. No controversy - no fuss. I'm just very busy IRL these day with work and family and really cannot commit the time this job demands Alison ❤ 21:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've left the CU bit on since you didn't request it to be removed. Thanks for your work, Ajraddatz (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Levg@global

Status:    Done
Done Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Malafaya@kawikt

Status:    Done

I'm currently not editing aforementioned wiki. Please remove my sysop rights as it's misleading for users trying to reach out for an active admin. Thank you, Malafaya (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, seems like this doesn't have to wait for another 24 hours. --Stryn (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please prolong my sysop rights. Beko (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

removed ~ Nahid Talk 17:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Done Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-9-02. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Jitrixis

Status:    Done
removed ~ Nahid Talk 07:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Baljeet Bilaspur@pawikipedia

Status:    Done

No oppose in 7 days. Satdeep Gill (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-17. Ruslik (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

FPP@arwikinews

Status:    Done

I would like to request temporary adminship for 3 months (that can be extended later) for n:ar:User:FPP (Muhib). Arabic Wikinews has only one local sysop whose last edit was in March 2013, so, Muhib volunteered to take care of the wiki. He is an editor and rollbacker on arwiki and he has made nearly 50 thousand edits on Wikimedia projects. There was a vote in Arabic Wikinews Village Pump that lasted more than 3 weeks but only 2 users voted. He said (in the Village Pump discussion) that he needs adminship to delete out of scope which he sees a lot of. I trust Muhib as an admin on Arabic Wikinews and hope that stewards will do too. Meno25 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-19. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Илья Драконов@adywikipedia

Status:    Done

The local discussion was held for a permanent administrator status of Adyghe Wikipedia for me. The result is 6 support and 0 oppose. best regards, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC).

Done. RadiX∞ 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Ilya Drakonov (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC).
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-20. Note: converting it into temporary adminiship because this wiki is only a week old. Come back within 3 months if you need extended access. Thanks and good work. ;) RadiX∞ 00:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, do I need to make a new discussion in 3 months time? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC).
Ilya, yes. --Ochilov (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
removed ~ Nahid Talk 05:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
extended --Stryn (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected] (previously Bhatakati aatma)

Status:    Done

This nomination for admin flag.-- Bhatakati aatma (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 26 February 2016. Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-26. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The right is transferred from Bhatakati aatma to YmKavishwar per Special:Permalink/15514031, can be removed in the given date. ~ Nahid Talk 04:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
removed ~ Nahid Talk 09:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

This nomination for admin flag.-- Bhatakati aatma (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 On hold till 26 February 2016. Ruslik (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-26. Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
removed ~ Nahid Talk 09:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pxos@fiwikiversity

Status:    Done

Temporary adminship at Finnish Wikiversity for three more months until 28 May 2016. Local announcment has been in place since 9 February 2016. At present the rights will expire soon --Pxos (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-28. @Pxos: I could grant 6 months if you want, that's common practice for second appointments like this. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have already advertised (twice) to the local community (which in practice is a set of zero members) that the new extended term of office would expire in May. So the original request can remain as it is. I'll keep the 6 months in mind, however, if I make another (a third, nay, a fourth) request. --Pxos (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
removed ~ Nahid Talk 21:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

小躍@hak.wikipedia

Status:    Done

-- Eager Lin (Message) 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when was the request started? --MF-W 17:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I survey history for your asking, I find twice which has applied for Admin. First time is linking here.Second time is linking here. Now is third time.--Eager Lin (Message) 23:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The first two requests are at Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-05#小躍@hak.wikipedia (expired after 6 month), Steward_requests/Permissions/2011-08#小躍@hak.wikipedia (removed due to sock puppetry). The current request starts on December 18 2015. The sock puppetry happens ~4 years ago and there're no evidence for his abusing multiple accounts currently.--GZWDer (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Some advertising pages need to delete because they put a long time.--Eager Lin (Message) 04:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-05-29. --MF-W 09:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Discussion was held earlier this month, and there seems to be no opposition to my becoming an administrator of the Gothic Wikipedia to fill in for Bokareis, who cannot spend as much time on it as he used to be able to. Espreon (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-05-29. ~ Nahid Talk 13:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Expiring: 20 March 2016

Krinkle@global

Status:    Done

Editinterface right per SRGP. SPQRobin (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

removed Ajraddatz (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Extended till 20 Macrh 2016. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed and message left. —MarcoAurelio 16:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Expiring: 5 May 2016

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please prolong my sysop rights. Beko (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

removed ~ Nahid Talk 17:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Expiring: 16 May 2016

Miscellaneous requests

Matiia@kmwiki

Status:    Done

Hi. Please give me temp bot flag on kmwiki, I'm going to delete 4500-5000 pages created by a LTA. Matiia (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done —DerHexer (Talk) 18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we hold off on this while there is a discussion on SRM please? @Matiia and DerHexer: Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I informed Matiia of your ping. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please grant import flag for a month with 3 supporting votes without opposition. Wieralee (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you going to import? Would not the transwiki flag suffice? Ruslik (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We have 52 text on Polish Wikisource published against our publishing policy. These are programming codes (self-work, never published, so they are not sourced texts). It's a pity to delete sb's work, so we had discussed it with Wikibooks community -- there's a book-in-work about programming on Polish Wikibooks, and these programming codes would be one of chapters of this book. A current half-active admin of Wikibooks supports this action, but he's working occasionaly and he is not interested in doing it himself.
Of course, I can delete these pages on Polish Wikisource and create them as new pages on Polish Wikibooks -- but new pages will not have a history. I don't want to usurp the achievements of other users. That is why I prefere to import them.
But no problem, if I do not get import rights, I will have a proof that I tried. Wieralee (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wieralee: I believe, you misunderstood Ruslik's comment above. He didn't say you don't get the rights. There are two kinds of import rights exists, 'importer' and 'transwiki importer'. Please see details; Perhaps 'transwiki importer' rights suffice your needs? ~ Nahid Talk 12:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik0:@NahidSultan: I beg your pardon, it is my lack od experience... I have red that "on many Wikimedia wikis transwiki import is disabled", so I have asked for wider rights. But maybe transwiki will be enough. I need to import 52 pages from pl.wikisource to pl.wikibooks only. Wieralee (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The necessary import sources seem to be defined. So, I assigned transwiki right. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions/2016-05&oldid=15669585"