Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions/2021-08

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Administrator access

[email protected]

Status:    Done

-- Miyahayung76 (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-01. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Anerka@trwikivoyage

Status:    Done

Hi,
My temporary administrator access will expire today. I applied to continue two weeks ago & get enough support without any opposition. In addition to that, I want interface administrator access also. The discussion link for interface administrator access is here.--Anerka (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sysop flag Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-01. @Anerka: You must enable 2FA for IA flag to be granted. Since I just gave you the sysop flag, you can enable 2FA now. Please enable 2FA and ping me. --Sotiale (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale:, it's done. --Anerka (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. --Sotiale (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale:, thanks! --Anerka (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

AguzulH@shiwikipedia

Status:    Done

(Hello, I'm one of the most active contributors on Shilha Wikipedia, It would like to request administrator acess to be able to contribute better in improvement of this new and small Wiki.) AguzulH (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until 2021-08-07. --Sotiale (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-07. 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. stanglavine msg 15:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Good day! Could you please help recheck the adminship of HuwacBasaw1234. It was approved a few days ago. But now it seems that it is not set up yet. Thank you. iyumu 06:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

HuwacBasaw1234 (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-07. 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. stanglavine msg 15:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया@hi.wikiquote

Status:    Withdrawn

Hello

Sir,

I request the administrator after Focusing on the present time,I would like to connect the new veins to make the Wikiquote much better as well as activate smoothly. Recently, I came to know that there is currently no active any sysop on this project.I have been nominating this to improve the basic structure for a variety of general maintenance work on hi wikiquote. -- कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until July 9th. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
There is still a comment from an IP that has not been responded to. MVR requires any opposition to be fully discussed out. I think at least a response is in order. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I probably can't please everyone sir maybe that's why this ip is dissatisfied with me. I think this discussion should be decided now. Whatever the decision of the jury amongst themselves, I will accept it unanimously.-- कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
{Non steward comment) Off topic, but please don't call AmandaNP as "sir". I think you know the reason why. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 07:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
ji, apologize of this. -- कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry. Your not the only one who I've seen call a female editor as sir by accident. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 04:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@ with apologiz all of you, I withdraw the nomination. -- कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
marked as withdrawn --Zabe (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi Stewards. I have been an admin for Chichewa Wikipedia twice. Am requesting that I get given permanent adminship for that wiki site we have one admin and he/she isn't that active. Isaac Kanguya✌ (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-08. The community is too small for permananent admins. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

N.Longo has long been doing more than simply editing as he is always watching out to stop vandalism and give other users useful tips to improve our pages. Over time he has proven to be absolutely reliable to all admins of this small regional Wiki, that's why we kindly request for him a permanent adminship like the one we have. It is hard to find young people who are able to speak and write the language of Christopher Columbus, and this is what L.Longo is able to do. The election has been publicized on the Wikipedian, the community portal and the site notice. L.Longo got 12 favorable votes out of 12 active users taking part in the election. All the best, Luensu1959 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi, slightly belatedly looking to extend my Admin privileges. I am the sole admin for Cornish Wikipedia currently. No controversies during my first run as Admin which just expired. Followed the policy and posted in An Tavern and no problems there, everyone pretty quiet as usual! Thanks! Gwikor Frank (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-10. 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. -- stanglavine msg 00:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi, slightly belatedly looking for Admin privileges. I am the most active user on Buryat Wikipedia currently. Thanks! Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2021-11-10. 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. --Sotiale (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Masssly@Dagbani Wikipedia

Status:    Done
@Masssly:(non-steward comment) The discussion page isn't linked from anywhere (see dag:Diŋ'gahim:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Administrators). Was this request properly disclosed to your community? --Zabe (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Zabe, I've just linked the discussion now from our community village pump:Wikipedia:Mabiligu dundɔŋ#Dagbanli Wikipedia Administrator piibu. Let me know if there's somewhere else I should disclose it. Thanks! -—M@sssly✉ 15:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion this should be fine. But that decision belongs to the stewards. --Zabe (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 On hold until 2021-08-11 (7 days from the date it was linked). — regards, Revi 15:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-11. 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. -- stanglavine msg 17:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Gnangbade@kbpwiki

Status:    Done
Per user's "Gnangbade" request to renew his sysop status. Hugo.arg (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 On hold until August 12. stanglavine msg 16:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-12. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. -- stanglavine msg 21:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

龍眼村長@szy.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

111.243.195.134 05:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I don't want to have to say this, but the vote looks suspicious to me. Have a look at the similarities in the username for Sabak Tutuy and Sabak5388. Another user, Dongi0919 voted on their first global contribution, and original requestor for admin only has 96 edits on that wiki. User:DannyS712 also brought a similar issue with szywiki when Update.shark requested for admin rights, but I don't know the language but just an FYI to the stewards. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 03:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not done The candidate socking themselves to get votes is enough to decline this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please grant Pastooshek administrator rights for three months, as requested. Openbk (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Eta Carinae@ptwikinews

Status:    Done

Per user's "Eta Carinae" request to his sysop status. He has been sysop for six months before. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Where was he a sysop? Is this a request for a permanent adminship? Ruslik (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: He was an administrator at Portuguese Wikinews, and yes, it is a permanent admin request. Biel talk 21:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Radioamatoro@eowikiquote

Status:    Done

Radioamatoro has requested adminship 2 months ago and have received 4 positive votes, 0 negative, 0 neutral, what is even more than appropriate for the size of the community. No local bureaucrats, I am the only one acting admin. KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-14. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ@gomwikipedia

Status:    Done

Hello, my 6 months of temporary adminship in Goan Konkani Wikipedia expired in August 13. I would like to request for the tools again so that I can continue to perform any administrative actions necessary. The above linked post in the local village pump was made 7 days ago. Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-15. Ruslik (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Juan90264@ptwikinews

Status:    Done

The discussion closes tomorrow and all were unanimous in favor of the user. Biel 11:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until 2021-08-05. — regards, Revi 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@-revi: Hello, the request has already been closed. Biel 13:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Biel8729: This is the second time that you created duplicates on this page to gain attention for your requests. This is not the way we do things here. Please, like everyone, be patient and your request will be processed soon. I will not process because I avoid granting permissions in pt-related projects, but some other steward will do it soon. We are all volunteers here. Thank you for understand. stanglavine msg 00:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Could you take a look? Juan90264 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Stanglavine: I fully understand that this is not how the Meta-Wiki works, I just want to understand why this request has been lingering here for more than a week when the local discussion has already been closed Biel talk 18:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention that we currently have only 2 administrators in the project, which means: We need new administrators Biel talk 18:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Juan90264: Juan, excuse me for asking this here, but are you a sockpuppet (2)? Biel talk 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Biel8729: I'm not, and I carry this regret to this day of having made these sockpuppets. Juan90264 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Juan90264: I believe it would be good if you disclosed this in your candidature. Biel talk 01:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Now I really understand why this request has not been fulfilled yet... Biel talk 01:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0, -revi, and Defender: Could you place my order? Juan90264 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: Would you help me? Juan90264 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Juan90264: I ask you to stop pressuring the stewards. Biel talk 21:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Biel8729: Okay... sorry to the mentioned Stewards for pushing them. This request is already discouraging me. But what's left for me is to wait, right? Juan90264 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Juan90264: See the request above this one, it is on hold so far for a similar cause. Biel talk 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Biel8729: I understand you concern about that Commons incident. However, I gotta make clear that it was an isolated event, that happened when I've firstly started contributing, and it doesn't reflect my further participation among WMF projects. During my approval request in Wikinews in Portuguese, I had 9 votes, a substancial number, considering the project size, including: DARIO SEVERI, global sysop, DarwIn, sysop at Wikipedia in Portuguese and commons, and Eta Carinae, sysop at Wikipedia in Portuguese and former OC member. Juan90264 (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Juan90264: But you never mentioned this in your candidature, I found out just by logging into your user page on Commons. Biel talk 02:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
You have been banned in two projects, I believe that for the stewards this is enough to keep your candidature on hold. Biel talk 02:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Or probably ask If the administrators that blocked the requester @Fitindia, Elcobbola, and Bbb23: oppose this request or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand the concerns because he's been banned in two projects, but on Wikinews he's been collaborating a lot mainly on the more technical part of the project without causing any problems. He would be very useful as sysop mainly because we have few sysops there. Sincerely. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Could he be allowed sysops for a short period of a few months, to settle doubts? DARIO SEVERI (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

DARIO SEVERI

— I understand the concerns because he's been banned in two projects, but on Wikinews he's been collaborating a lot mainly on the more technical part of the project without causing any problems. He would be very useful as sysop mainly because we have few sysops there. Sincerely.

Support Support Biel talk 12:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Biel8729: this isn't the place for support votes, but rather a place for stewards to process requests. Thanks. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 08:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-16. It is actually very uncomfortable to +sysop a user who is blocked in a certain project due to abuse of multiple accounts. Of course, they can do good editing and behavior, but the fact that they don't get unblock review on blocked wikis doesn't look very good from a steward's point of view. No steward would be happy to take responsibility for the problems that arise from doing +sysop on them. However, it is my view that they have been sufficiently supported in the formed community, and that there is room for the community to control them. Whether or not the formed community can control the sysop is a very important factor. Because if an abuse of the sysop occurs, the community can respond immediately. Considering these factors, I have decided to grant this user a temporary flag of 6 months. I'm not sure if the community was aware of this user's block due to multiple accounts, but if the user's flag should be revoked for that reason, it's up to their community to decide for themselves. It's the same whether the community agree to an extension after 6 months. --Sotiale (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

SHB2000@nawiki

Status:    Done

Just need to renew my adminship which is expiring in 10 days time SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 07:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until 16 August 2021 Ruslik (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-16. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you :) SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 22:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Anass [email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello, I would like to extend my administrator status on the Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia (expired on August 5,2021). There are 3 supportive votes for this application, including from two other administrators. Thank you in advance for the support. Regards. -- Anass Sedrati (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-21. 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. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Kicior99@plwikivoyage

Status:    Done

Please, grant administrator rights to Kicior99 who is willing to help with housekeeping in this project. The user is a former plwiki admin and has some experience in administrator's work. Ankry (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-21. 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) 20:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Galessandroni@itwiki

Status:    Done

Before ending of my adminship I was in time of busy and I have forgotten to renew my flag in meta. At this point I have started a new election (in it.wikiversity there are only other two administrators). We are a little community and during the August's holidays I have obtained two votes. Giacomo Alessandroni let's talk! 20:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Galessandroni, Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-22. 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. --Base (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Rtnf@idwikibooks

Status:    Done

This wiki already dorman for years. Fortunately, one member from Indonesian wikipedia want to maintain this site. Joseagush (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2021-11-22. 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. --Sotiale (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

7elteven@nawiki

Status:    Not done

After ending of my adminship, the only active admin (and in general a participant) was SHB2000. I didn't have any time because of exams. As soon as the time came, I decided to become an admin again and help SHB2000 to revive the Nauruan Wikipedia. --7elteven (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@7elteven: Welcome back SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 22:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose The requestor has spam-only edits on both Incubator and Lithuanian Wikipedia, and hence blocked on both sites. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
No, this user was blocked on the Incubator because they were suspected to contributing in languages they don't know, because it seemed like they were adding Russian words, but the language has a little bit of russian words in it. Also, votes don't go here, they're meant to go on the discussion page. Not sure about ltwiki though. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 03:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: Then how do you explain Steward_requests/Checkuser/2020-12#[email protected], especially
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Mikhaliov ~ ltwiki, 7elteven

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense for ltwiki, but not the incubator. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 03:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Hello. That was my past mistakes that I made more that a year ago on ltwikipedia. I don't make it anymore. Btw, this account was not my sock on Wikipedia, just the new account so I don't really know why admins blocked this account. I didn't do any contributions there so I can't be the sock puppet. - 7elteven (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Also Liuxinyu, have some grace. 7 eleven is still in school, and mistakes are expected. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 04:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
They never used and thus also never abused the other account on nawiki. Also it seems like they never abused his sysop permissions in nawiki in the past. So could you ellaborate why this is such a big problem? --Zabe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Additionally, 7elteven was a sysop for three months (and as you said, never abused them), and is one of our only few editors that know some Nauruan here. Also, 7elteven is still in school, so I expect mistakes. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 11:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: If both the nominator and processor of that SRCU request @Nomad and Sotiale: agree, I don't oppose any more. Otherwise you should be one that need to "have some grace", not me.

About @Zabe:'s comments like "he never used another account/he never edited Lithuanian Wikipedia", and other comments like "they are in school", those questions are also to be answered by Sotiale or other Stewards, since they can try to confirm the "deleted contributions": Just copied from the {{CU request}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Another interesting thing: the requestor edited Lithuanian Wiktionary, Wikiquote and Wikisource, of which the Mikhaliov ~ ltwiki also edited the Wikiquote one, wondering if those edits are problemic or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
that does seem interesting to me. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 12:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of the checkuser policy:

Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (examples of violations include double-voting, increasing the apparent support for any given position, or to evade blocks or bans).

Also the only other user active on that wiki (User:SHB2000) is supporting the request. --Zabe (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The main reason is that 7elteven is probably more active than me, but had been away for exams. I on the other hand, mainly revert the well known Jurisdrew, and block accounts when necessary. I do content work there as well, but not as much as 7elteven. (most are about geographic places in Australia). Now since 7elteven hasn't edited ltwikipedia since he's blocked, I don't think that's a violation of the alt account policy. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 14:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zabe Yes, the reason why I oppose is just they violated the alternative accounts policy, the 7elteven has to explain what's the actual relations between Mikhaliov ~ ltwiki and him (or otherwise why they can be  Confirmed?), they didn't, hence a violation that support me to against this request. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't see them having violated the alternatative account policy on nawiki. --Zabe (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not assuming, I'm getting knowledges. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so could you share with us, where they violated the alternative account policy? --Zabe (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The Lithuanian Wikipedia. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
But isn't that a problem for ltwiki, not nawiki? SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 05:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@7elteven: are Special:CentralAuth/Sociaken and Special:CentralAuth/Nojucka also accounts from you or not? They were marked as Possible Possible in the cu request. --Zabe (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
No, they aren't — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7elteven (talk)
All in one, I suggest stewards to just reject this for now till the problems regarding 7elteven completely resolved. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226 At worst, maybe waiting three months? I'd wish there was a new group created, just if the rollback tool is needed. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 05:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Comment Having a history of blocking due to multiple accounts is also an important factor, but in my opinion, the reason why this user was blocked from incubatorwiki is even more important. This makes it difficult to be sure that this user is doing well on the wiki without formed community, in a language project that only a few can use. If you think your block on incubatorwiki is a mistake, it is better to go through an unblock review on incubatorwiki first. Of course, other stewards may disagree with me, and may decide to +sysop for you, but I think the reason this request isn't being processed quickly is because they're not sure they can trust you. --Sotiale (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're wondering about whether 7elteven known Dorerin Naoero, I can say that his is much better than mine, and most of his work has been cross checked with Delaporte's (a very reputable dictionary for Dorerin Naoero) my me.
Is it possible for stewards to create a new group called "patrollers" or is that not possible? SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 22:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Well.. As Wikimedia recently experienced the Scots Wikipedia incident, we cannot trust him/her solely in your endorsement. Please understand that this is separate from trust in you. And creating a new user group on a wiki requires forming a consensus within the wiki. After the developers review it, they will change the wiki settings if appropriate. However, in my experience they may not accept creating new user groups if the community is not formed or so small. This is not ours, please contact the phabricator. --Sotiale (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It makes sense to me now. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 00:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Currently, this request is not in progress; I don't want this request to be posted close to a month. I would like to decide not to process this request until the issue I raised is resolved. Other stewards are free to reverse my decision. --Sotiale (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Trezoo@kmwiki

Status:    Not done

Because the Khmer Wikipedia has no active administrators, I decided to step up and apply for the position. I started the discussion seven days ago but have yet to obtain a response, since there are few active editors on the wiki. Regards, Trezoo (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account is fairly new. What do you know about the rights and responsibilities of administrators? Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I am mainly requesting for adminship because I want to be able to delete useless/test pages that are frequently being created on the Wikipedia (and other technical page deletions). I am aware that the role of administrators comes with other rights/powers that can cause problems if abused or used incorrectly. However, if my account is deemed to be not old enough for this role, please feel free to withdraw my request for the time being. Thanks, --Trezoo (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's any restriction, but it's just something unintentional that has happened. But I do think you'd be fine by October, and hope you become successful then :) SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 09:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done I decided to not grant the requested user rights, considering there were concerns raised in the local discussion, which were not sufficiently discussed. This means there is currently no consensus for promotion. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

شيماء@ar.wikiquote

Status:    Done

Please grant me permanent administrative authority on ar.wikiqouteشيماء (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Frank [email protected]

Status:    Done

Please grant this user another six months of admin rights, per community vote. Ciell (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until 25 August 2021 Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-25. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 16:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please grant this user another six months of admin rights, per community vote. Ciell (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until 25 August 2021 Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-25. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 16:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please also grant me another six months of admin rights, per community vote. Ciell (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until 25 August 2021 Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ruslik0, just so I know: why are these requests put on hold for another 5 days? The discussions on the wiki have been open since August 8th, longer than the week mentioned in Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements? Ciell (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Ther previous term expires on 25 August. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-25. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 16:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sabon Harshe@Dagbani Wikipedia

Status:    Done

Per community consensus on the Dagbani Wikipedia; same as Steward requests/Permissions/2021-08#Masssly@Dagbani Wikipedia. The discussion is linked from the Dagbani Wikipedia's community village pump at Wikipedia:Mabiligu dundɔŋ#Dagbanli Wikipedia Administrator piibu. Thank you! Sabon Harshe (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-26. 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) 20:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Shahadusadik@Dagbani Wikipedia

Status:    Done

Per community consensus on the Dagbani Wikipedia; same as Steward requests/Permissions/2021-08#Masssly@Dagbani Wikipedia. The discussion is linked from the Dagbani Wikipedia's community village pump at Wikipedia:Mabiligu dundɔŋ#Dagbanli Wikipedia Administrator piibu. Shahadusadik has also been notified at Ŋun su yɛltɔɣa:Shahadusadik#Wikipedia:Administrators. Thank you! Sabon Harshe (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-26. 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) 20:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello, I'm requesting admin and interface admin in the new project. Thank you. ✒ Bennylin 06:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2021-11-27. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for both! ✒ Bennylin 12:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hi,

I would like to renew my admin rights as they are expiring on 3rd September 2021. I have already conducted a voting on 19th August in which I received full support from the only user active besides me. I have during my admin term created lots of word entries and make the Wiktionary more active and protected from spams. I wish you a beautiful day. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Imranqazi90 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-03-03. 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. -- stanglavine msg 02:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Slaia@niawiktionary

Status:    Done

Since my administrator access ended 26 August 2021, I would like to apply for adminship and interface adminship on niawiktionary. I'm still setting up the basics for all niawikis (Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Wikibooks). Slaia (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-31. 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. -- stanglavine msg 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Interface administrator access

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello, I hereby want to serve as the local Interface Adminstrator of Ks Wikipedia. I am already trusted with Admin rights. I hereby want to declare that I will use this right for the betterment of the project. If in any case I was found to be making non constructive edits you can remove the right. Note: The minimum wait time has already passed. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  1. Support Support Iflaq is doing well to improve the poor state of Kashmiri Wikipedia. Already he(?) has made many constructive design and template improvements. Full support. Rishabhbhat (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 On hold until 5 August 2021 Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Ruslik0 Sir, The waiting time has elapsed. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 2 months to expire on 2021-10-01. Ruslik (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

(your remarks) Philippines ShiminUfesoj 🌏 (🦜)Philippines 12:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@ShiminUfesoj Hello, you need to present an on-wiki discussion about your bcl.wikipedia promotion. That should happen either on a dedicated request page, or on an all-community discussion page (like a village pump). Could you paste a link to such a discussion here? Thanks, Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done No response, no permissions granted. Feel free to create another request once there is an on-wiki consensus to grant you the rights requested. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I didn't answer right away because the other day I was busy going to school, I hope you understand. I have also put our discussion in my homewiki --Philippines ShiminUfesoj 🌏 (🦜)Philippines 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 On hold until August 2. stanglavine msg 18:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@ShiminUfesoj Hello, please enable two-factor authentication before you can be granted interface adminship. This is a WMF-imposed requirement.
As you're currently a bcl.wikipedia administrator, you should be able to enable 2FA in your bclwiki preferences.
Please let us know once you enable 2FA.  On hold until that happens. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Good Day, are there any applications to download to enable 2FA? -Philippines ShiminUfesoj 🌏 (🦜)Philippines 04:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ShiminUfesoj Any standard 2FA application should work. If you don't use any, Google Authenticator or Authy are probably a good choice. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec Okay sir, I have installed the Google Authenticator application. -Philippines ShiminUfesoj 🌏 (🦜)Philippines 09:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@ShiminUfesoj Thanks for installing it. Can you also enable two-factor authentication in your Wikimedia account, and connect it with Google Authenticator? See help at H:2FA for the instructions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec Okay sir, I already connected the 2FA in my homewiki --Philippines ShiminUfesoj 🌏 (🦜)Philippines 03:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2022-08-07. 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. stanglavine msg 16:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

É[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello, please grant me IA access on ckb wiki based on community consensus.--▸ épine talk♬ 19:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold until August 14th. stanglavine msg 00:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 On hold @Épine: Hello, please enable 2FA authentication (I added you to the tester group, so you can enable 2FA at any wiki). This is necessary because of a WMF policy about interface adminship access. This request is on hold until 2FA is enabled. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
2FA enabled--▸ épine talk♬ 20:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Granted @Épine: Excellent, thanks for letting us know. I've applied the permissions to your account. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Alp Er [email protected]

Status:    Done

--Alp Er Tunqa (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, enable 2FA. Ruslik (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

2FA is enable right now --Alp Er Tunqa (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Hello, I'm requesting admin and interface admin in the new project. Thank you. ✒ Bennylin 06:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2021-11-27. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Regarding the 2FA requirement, I do not currently have permission to access the Special:OATH on pl.wikinews. Msz2001 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Msz2001 Hello, I just added you to the 2FA group. You should now be able to enroll to 2FA.  On hold until that happens. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I've just enabled 2FA. Msz2001 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-31. 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. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Đức [email protected]

Status:    Done

Đức Anh (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2022-02-31. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik: Please grant me the Interface Administrator. Đức Anh (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Alwyn is spearheading a long term project and we're already starting to see improvement in adding and formatting text, and bringing new editors aboard. He will be training new editors, therefore Bureaucrat status is preferred (I know as I'm one on cywiki). New Admins will be needed, and Alwyn will oversee that too. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done @Llywelyn2000: Hello, we are happy to see your interest on cy.wikisource, thank you for that. However, bureaucrat is a sensitive permission and is not recommended set it on projects that don't really need. Welsh Wikisource has only one sysop, and almost no admin actions and few active editors, so there is no need for a local bureaucrat. If new administrators will be elected, you can post a request on this page and stewards will be very happy to help and set the permission. Best regards, stanglavine msg 13:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for quick response. Could you elaborate on your statement that a Bureaucrat is not recommended set it on projects that don't really need (sic) please? Secondly, you're right: Welsh Wikisource has only one sysop - and that's because we have no Bureaucrat! Can't see why we need to go through this central process as we can look after our own affairs, thank you very much. There is only one admin, as you say, and that's because going through this central process is to difficult. We should decided ourselves who administers all cy related projects. Who understand the cy situation : you or me? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000 It is the stewards practice to require a certain amount of voters and rights assignment at a wiki before accepting a local bureaucrat. See details in the guidelines.
This was decided on for good reasons and it greatly enhances the safety of smaller projects. Bureacurats are only important on large projects which have a lot of adminship requests to process, or estabilished local guidelines on how to use bureaucrat disrection when processing adminship/etc requests. For smaller projects, it is better if the stewards do that job.
Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Martin, and thanks for referencing what you say on policy.
This policy of centralising each language is wrong. The policy you mention is irrelevant to cywiki / cywikisource and I can assure you that 'SAFETY' would not be compromised by making Alwyn (whom I've known for 30 years) a bureaucrat. The world will not stop turning. Where can I request that your policy be changed please? Every language needs to be self sustainable, otherwise we are in very, very deep 1984 territory. If this can't be done, then I suggest you make him an Admin.. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Alwyn is spearheading a long term project and we're already starting to see improvement in adding and formatting text, and bringing new editors aboard. He will be training new editors, therefore Bureaucrat status is preferred (I know as I'm one on cywiki). New Admins will be needed, and Alwyn will oversee that too. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done @Llywelyn2000: Hello, we are happy to see your interest on cy.wikisource, thank you for that. However, bureaucrat is a sensitive permission and is not recommended set it on projects that don't really need. Welsh Wikisource has only one sysop, and almost no admin actions and few active editors, so there is no need for a local bureaucrat. If new administrators will be elected, you can post a request on this page and stewards will be very happy to help and set the permission. Best regards, stanglavine msg 13:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for quick response. Could you elaborate on your statement that a Bureaucrat is not recommended set it on projects that don't really need (sic) please? Secondly, you're right: Welsh Wikisource has only one sysop - and that's because we have no Bureaucrat! Can't see why we need to go through this central process as we can look after our own affairs, thank you very much. There is only one admin, as you say, and that's because going through this central process is to difficult. We should decided ourselves who administers all cy related projects. Who understand the cy situation : you or me? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000 It is the stewards practice to require a certain amount of voters and rights assignment at a wiki before accepting a local bureaucrat. See details in the guidelines.
This was decided on for good reasons and it greatly enhances the safety of smaller projects. Bureacurats are only important on large projects which have a lot of adminship requests to process, or estabilished local guidelines on how to use bureaucrat disrection when processing adminship/etc requests. For smaller projects, it is better if the stewards do that job.
Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Martin, and thanks for referencing what you say on policy.
This policy of centralising each language is wrong. The policy you mention is irrelevant to cywiki / cywikisource and I can assure you that 'SAFETY' would not be compromised by making Alwyn (whom I've known for 30 years) a bureaucrat. The world will not stop turning. Where can I request that your policy be changed please? Every language needs to be self sustainable, otherwise we are in very, very deep 1984 territory. If this can't be done, then I suggest you make him an Admin.. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you now make this user an Admin please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000 That will require a separate request (both here and on your local wiki -- the local request does not mention anything about admin status). Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Mykola7@ukwiki

Status:    Done

Please grant CU rights for this user, by the decision of the Arbitration Committee of the Ukrainian Wikipedia. --Kisnaak (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold pending signature. @Mykola7: let me know if you have any doubt about this. Regards, stanglavine msg 18:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. @Trijnstel and RadiX: As always, I'm sending you a ping today. Thank you for your time! --Sotiale (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please grant this user CheckUser-rights per community vote. Groete. --  SpesBona 20:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold Thank you for making this request. Unfortunately, the requirements set by the global CheckUser policy don't look to be met. According to that policy, if a community decides to appoint checkusers directly, the appointment must be supported by at least 25-30 editors. As far as I can see, only 8 community members supported the appointment.
Note that you can request the stewards to carry out investigations at any time: open a request at SRCU, naming accounts that are allegedly connected and providing evidence suggesting that connection.
More realistically, this request is indefinitely on hold, as considering the af.wikipedia community size, I don't think it's realistic to expect 25-30 support votes. I will likely change the status to Not done within a couple of days – I only set it to  On hold to prevent automatic archival.
Sincerely, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done Per the above. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please grant this user (me) CheckUser-rights per community vote. Groete. --  SpesBona 20:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold Same issue as above applies. Please refer to my above message for details. Sincerely, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done per the above. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Oversight access

Removal of access

Theun@fywikipedia

Status:    Done

Please remove my admin and local bureaucrat rights, as I'm not regularly active anymore and I agreed with the local community to do. Theun (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Done @Theun: Thank you for your service. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Mihail Lavrov@ruwiki

Status:    Not done

Please, remove my sysop flag. Thanks. --Mihail Lavrov (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to add, just for stewards' information, that User:Mihail Lavrov was, by our Arbitration Committee ruling #1179, declared behaving in a severe conflict of interest, abusing administrative powers, losing the community trust, using open proxies and so on. And, by this ruling, he had to initiate his adminship confirmation in 2-week interval after the ruling was issued. In case he won't do so, the flag had to be removed automatically after two weeks (the end date is 05 August 2021). He refused to undergo confirmation, and now is asking to remove his admin flag "by his own will", possibly to pretend that he's nice and benevolent former administrator :) He didn't agree with ANY of the moments declared in Arbcom ruling. Total refuse of truth. Роман Беккер (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear User:Mihail Lavrov, please explain: why didn't you ask our local bureaucrats to remove your admin flag? We, as a big wiki, have several bureaucrats, which are empowered to do so. Роман Беккер (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In short, it was a little different. A lawsuit was filed against Mihail in ArbCom, in which he was accused of not existing and that he was allegedly a virtual. This unfair accusation was rejected by the Arbitration Committee, but the accusations themselves created a very toxic atmosphere, for which the colleague decided not to go through confirmation under the current conditions. Роман Беккер, as one of those who supported these accusations, is non-neutral in his assessments and presents the situation much darker than it really is. Unfortunately, Роман did not even apologize to Mihail after ArbCom ruled and rejected the unfair accusations of Роман and the group that supported the accusations. --- Eleazar (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Dear Eleazar, don't worry: there will be an appeal on #1179, and we'll see what's the evidence. For now, we can't surely know if A.Vajrapani, Morihei Tsunemori and Mihail Lavrov are three distinct persons or two. We'll see. Роман Беккер (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    My dear Роман! At the present time, such accusations have been prohibited by the solution of the Arbitration Committee you are referring to. It seems to me not very optimal that you write this here, bypassing the solution of the Arbitration Committee in the Russian segment. With regard to the appeal, it is your right, I have no comments, and will not be until it is filed and a decision is made on it. --- Eleazar (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
First and foremost, my dearest Eleazar: this is Meta, and no one Russian ArbCom ruling applies there (at least, directly and "as is"). Second, and not least important: where did you see any "accusations of sockpuppetry" or virtuality? :) I have said that we can't know for sure, if there is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry in Mihail Lavrov's case. But anyway this question is not relevant to the question discussed. Both such behaviors are anyway prohibited by the rules of project Wikipedia. So, be it sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry on the Mihail Lavrov's side - it is PRO-HI-BI-TED. So this question is not relevant to the question discussed. What is relevant is the severe and long-standing (for YEARS) abuse of community trust, YEARS of abuse of administrative powers, YEARS of acting in the severe conflict of interest, supporting A.Vajrapani and Morihei Tsunemori everytime, everywhere, in every situation. This, and ONLY THIS, did cause the severe losing of community trust to the Mihail Lavrov - HIS OWN BEHAVIOR, not the alleged "toxic athmosphere". Pe-ri-od. Роман Беккер (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Steward note General reminder to everyone: This is a page for requests to the stewards – not a discussion forum. Please do not continue with the discussion here. Thank you for your understanding. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done for procedural reasons, ru.wikipedia bureaucrats are able to remove sysop status and as such, they're supposed to process request for removing administrators. Please move this request to a local wiki. Sincerely, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

DARIO SEVERI@ptwikinews

Status:    Done

Please remove admin because of a local discussion. Biel 12:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't find the minimum length of removal process anywhere. Could you point me to respective local policies? If there is no policy, I'll let the removal running for at least a week (meaning this would be  On hold until 2021-07-29). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec Unfortunately, I haven't yet found any local policy that sets the minimum duration for a removal request, but it looks like this request will close on July 29, 2021. Biel 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
July 29 it is then. I (or another steward) will update here on that date. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec:, the mininum lenght of a poll in pt.wikinews it's 15 days, according a policy approved in 2008. --Eta Carinae (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Eta Carinae This vote says nothing about removal requests. Biel 19:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 @Biel8729:, keep in mind that this votation it about all votations of Wikinews. There's no clearly duration of removal process, unlike the approval process (7 days). So, in a case of absence of this specification, the general rule it's applied. Unless that the stewards has an different interpretation. --Eta Carinae (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Martin Urbanec: as informed by Eta Carinae (and on the talk page itself), the time is 15 days. Edu! (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The deadline for voting is 7 days, not 15. The rule is clear: O prazo limite para as votações é de sete dias. Érico (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: On Wikinotícias Lusófono, it has always been customary to close the polls after a week, but now with this request for removal, DARIO SEVERI states that the polls should last at least 15 days and threatens to block anyone who closes before this deadline! I affirm with TOTAL certainty that removal requests last a week. Biel 02:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There was never a vote or consensus to decide 7 days. The text Erico mentions was written on the 8th of February [4] and on the 20th of February the discussion that decided that the votes should last 15 days was ended with unanimity deciding for 15 days (please see [5]), so I believe what counts is the last vote. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: DARIO SEVERI himself filed this removal request after 7 days because the result was unanimous, but now, he insists that his removal request can only be closed after 15 days and even threatens to block anyone who closes before that period, please close this request immediately, it is unanimous and the result will not change in the next few days. Biel 17:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: The user's removal request has already been closed Biel 22:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Consensus is clear. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Thanks! Biel 19:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Please remove following rights from this user: "sysop", "bureaucrat", "checkuser" --Sai10ukazuki (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Sotiale (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mardetanha, RadiX, and Matanya: Please take care of Bellcricket's private wiki account and mailing list. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Dear stewards, the community of Indonesian Wikipedia has agreed to remove the adminship of Farras due to inactivity. We kindly ask you to remove his sysop (pengurus) status. Thank you for your assistance. 180.251.170.107 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rachmat04: Hi, can you confirm this request as a bureaucrat on idwiki? Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sotiale: Hi! Yes, this is a legitimate request. The user in question has been inactive for more than one year. This is the policy on the inactive sysop in idwiki. Best, ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rachmat04: Thanks for the kind explanation :) --Sotiale (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. --Sotiale (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Liquet@ptwikinews

Status:    Done

I ask for the removal of the administrator tools for this user as per the nearly unanimous consensus obtained. Biel disc 01:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Done — Defender (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Leonardo José Raimundo@ptwikinews

Status:    Done

I request the removal of the administrator tools for this user by unanimous consensus Biel disc 21:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Done — Defender (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Felipe da [email protected]

Status:    Done

I am not performing the function, so there is no reason to keep the tool.

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. stanglavine msg 23:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. stanglavine msg 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

My Adminship status was expired August 3rd. I ask an extension. Giacomo Alessandroni let's talk! 11:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Galessandroni: Yes, your status has expired automatically, so there is no need to request a flag revoke. If you want an extension, please go through the local discussion again. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale: Thank you for your answer. In Italian Wikiversity we was... three administrator, now two. Now I'll make start another discussion, I was in holiday last ten days. Giacomo Alessandroni let's talk! 11:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I hope the discussion goes well. After the discussion, please make a request here again after the discussion period set by your wiki (at least 7 days if there is no such policy). --Sotiale (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Фільтр редагувань@uk.wikipedia

Status:    Done

This is the old Abuse Filter's account, which was recently renamed to uk:user:Фільтр зловживань. The new filter's account recieved automaticly admin rights, while the old account's rights wasn't removed. Please remove it, and, if this is possibly, merge their log history. Thanks.--Andriy.v (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Done locally, as this is a purely technical change. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Eldarion@trwiki

Status:    Done

After 1 month of discussion, community consensus was reached on removing Eldarion's CheckUser rights. Thanks. --ToprakM ✉ 12:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I would like to explain my opinion for this subject. Nanahuatl requested on trwiki because Nanahuatl said that Eldarion is inactive as a checkuser for about 5 years and misused rights. About 10-11 users supported to this request on the grounds that Eldarion isn't active and few users stated misused uses. Elmacenderesi and I, 2 present checkusers, have noted that Eldarion use actively rights and I said that strong evidences of misuses needs to be present. Also Eldarion was chosen with the votes of 30 users. We don't have a local policy on revoming checkuser rights on Turkish Wikipedia. Our local policy is to remove the rights of only admins. Those rules include resignation, use of sockpuppet, current AAR's 2 year inactive rule and death of admin. For your information. Regards. --Uncitoyentalk 15:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder. This place is not a place to discuss, but to apply a community consensus. Regards.--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Uncitoyen your comments should have been stated in the community point, this is the place of consensus. Regards --Satirdan kahraman (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Stewards will make their decisions. Thanks. --Uncitoyentalk 11:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Opinions should be made on local venues, not here. Stewards Requests are strictly requests only area. Thanks. — regards, Revi 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@-revi: Thanks. I'm explaining my opinions on homewiki, but I've wrote here for the stewards for be informed. I won't write any more messages here. FYI. --Uncitoyentalk 15:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
We don't even use in those templates nor we have to. The discussion was open for a month, comments were made by many and enough number of users to have a consensus, a decision (consensus) was made, the disccussion is closed by an uninvolved admin. Anyone can nominate any user or himself/herself for CU rights, after the removal of the rights. The user hadn't even made one single comment during the process... There's a community decision, the responsibility of here is to realize it, that's all :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion was not closed; you should see the difference between summarization and closure. Closure is to discourage users from joining the discussion; however, I can see that more that 20 new messages were posted to the discussion in the same section after the summarization.--Visnelma (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Almost all of those comments (why he commented here and why he wrote things here that he didn't write on trwiki. ) are on Uncitoyen's comment. No one has expressed or changed their mind. --Satirdan kahraman (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In talking it over with another steward, the job of stewards is to evaluate, not critique consensus. There is enough to show that the community has lost faith in Eldarion for the time being. We thank them for their service, but for now, this is Done @Trijnstel: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

VasilievVV@global

Status:    Done

VasilievVV hasn't edited any wikimedia wiki in over 2 years, thus, by policies, their global rollback and their abuse filter helper permissions should be removed. Regards --Zabe (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done @VasilievVV: Thank you for your service. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done
Doesn't trwiki have some local 'crats? SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 09:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
SHB2000, indeed, but it is only in select few wikis that bureaucrats can not only grant but also remove sysop flag, and trwiki isn't one: tr:Special:ListGroupRights#bureaucrat. --Base (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 On hold for one day. Sakhalinio , please feel free to withdraw the request at any point until it is completed. SHB2000--Base (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done @Sakhalinio: Thank you for your service. Rights removed. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done
  1. Using wrong reasons to blame me in s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#2021年5月29日Zhxy_519禁封用戶妥善否. Jusjih never listened to my explain. And when another sysop s:zh:User:Gzdavidwong stated Jusjih's mistake in this discussion, Jusjih used an impeachment as a weapon against Gzdavidwong. Of course, Jusjih is using the same threat against me now.
  2. As above, Jusjih seems to consider him or herself as the sysop of sysop in zh.wikisource. Jusjih don't listen to others and always acting big like saying "I'm sysop for 13 big wiki projects, I don't care."[6].
  3. Now Gzdavidwong has opposed Jusjih's impeachment against me, and Jusjih is threating again: "Stop in 24hrs or I will send you both to urgent removel in meta." [7] While I was just asking other sysops opinions as in their talk pages, Jusjih said "Meta won't deal with urgent request" [8]. What a double standard.

As these, Jusjih is seriously and continuing w:WP:POINTing and became a threat to all other sysops in zh.wikisource. Zhxy 519 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Jusjih is the nominator of RFDA of Zhxy 519 s:zh:Wikisource:申请成为管理员#User:Zhxy_519_2. Also admin User:Midleading disagreed with emergency removal of administrator right for Jusjih s:zh:Topic:Wecpdtyy4bkll5a0. SCP-2000 01:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Please know that the requestor has a conflict with the requested person. They are all sysop in zh.wikisource. Now they are threatening each other, because of the ban of @user:Longway22 by the requestor and some other things about the discussion.落花有意12138 10:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A steward needs several conditions to trigger an emergency action, which is not fully explained in this request. First of all, it must be a situation that cannot go through the normal process of your community, and it must be urgent; For example, wheel warring using admin bit (when user blocking and unblocking are repeated), blocking the community users opposite the admin during the normal process and interrupting normal process by using admin bit (deletion of RFP). Although not all of the circumstances have been accounted for yet, it is generally assumed that the policy violations presented by you are situations in which it is possible to revoke the admin's flag through the normal process. --Sotiale (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sotiale, thank you for your confirmation. What we are having in Zh.wikisource are mainly 2 issues for a "normal process". 1st is we need 25 votes, which is high and also a rule imported by Jusjih; 2nd is by doing above, I can say now Jusjih gained support from potential trolls and avengers, not coming to decide right or wrong but only for impeachment. If you can, please share your opinions.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
If the policy violation you are claiming actually exists and is accepted by the community(I haven't verified that your claim is true yet, so I cannot say whether it violates local policy.), I think they can handle the desysop guideline as well. And since the admin is not currently abusing the admin bit's button, it's not urgent at this point. --Sotiale (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
As you may know that in many small projects like us, the policies or rules won't be as complete as the Wikipedia. Do you think the local policy can be directly cited from like zh.wikipedia?--Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
That seems to be something I cannot answer(that's the part you can answer as a user familiar with the local wiki, not me; Some sister projects community accept Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as de facto one, but others do not), and this emergency action request cannot be realized unless the urgency is accounted for. If your local wiki's normal process doesn't work, you can consider global RFC as a last resort, not an emergency action. I mark this request as not done. --Sotiale (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for rejecting this hateful request. Last time in late 2020, I would like to give Zhxy_519 a chance, only to see repeated violations of conflict of interest.--Jusjih (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zhxy 519 Please also note that zhwikisource, unlike zhwikipedia, don't require 25 votes for de-sysop, the request can finally be transferred here if enough supporters are more than oppose users, IMHO 50% is just enough. PS: a proposal to run zhwiki policies and guidelines on zhwikisource has no supporters, and 3 opppose users. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Zhxy [email protected]

Status:    Not done

Please desysop him as advised by a disinterested admin [9] while 14 days (24 h/d * 14 d) have passed with 11 votes supporting removal vs. 5 votes opposing.--Jusjih (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated discussion
Oppose Oppose,
  1. As Zhxy_519’s request, Jusjih is pushing this vote by violating policy, and as an admin, I already declared this vote invalid.
  2. Even the vote is valid, it didn’t reach 25 votes the rule Jusjih imported. Jusjih doing this will be violating the rule again.--Gzdavidwong (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Gzdavidwong is involved in very serious conflict of interest with Zhxy 519, thus ineligible to declare the vote invalid. Ask Midleading who considered 25 votes as general but not absolute minimum and advised posting this here [10]. Office actions will be requested if Gzdavidwong and Zhxy 519 keep reciprocally sheltering very serious conflict of interest.--Jusjih (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Steward note Please note that steward requests pages are only for requests to the stewards. No discussion about the matter itself should happen there -- instead, they need to happen on a local wiki. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this request, because this request did not pass the required threshold of "more than 50% of 25 valid votes" (Wikisource:管理員的離任#發起對管理員的解任投票: "至少25張有效票的50%以上"). No other sysop has supported this request except Jusjih. Jusjih initiated this request and brought it here despite the fact that it did not pass the threshold.--Roy17 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Please beware that though other sysops don't support the vote, one of the sysops, User:Hat600(达师) actually confirmed Longway22's block by Zhxy 519 was like WP:INVOLVED(避嫌).
Please also beware that INVOLVED(避嫌) is the main point of this desysop vote, which is also one of the reason of Zhxy 519's first desysop vote, in which some of the users didn't vote yes at that time. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
s:zh:Wikisource:管理員的離任#發起對管理員的解任投票 is our *guideline* (指引), not a policy, so Midleading would advise me to post here.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Since (1)this is a guideline, (2)zhwikisource is not a big community, (3)below 25 votes, stewards may ask us to extend some days. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, do not bring to stewards anything that should be discussed on your wiki. And I have one question for processing your request; Is having 25+ votes a policy or guideline for your wiki? If such content exists, do not let stewards judge its appropriateness. All you have to do is to discuss and modify the guideline on your wiki, as if you had formed a consensus. --Sotiale (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"reach 25+ votes" is a guideline in zhwikisource. However, an uninvolved admin User:Midleading (i.e. did not vote in the RFDA) modified the required threshold that only needs 50%+ support votes, since active user in zhwikisource, who may vote in RFDA, is below 25 ppl ("因为维基文库现在可能投票的活跃用户不足25人，所以本次投票只需要支持票占有效票的50%以上。") . SCP-2000 13:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Are there any policies and guidelines on zhwikisource that allow uninvolved admins to modify required threshold? --Sotiale (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Literally, this guideline allow uninvolved admins modifying the required threshold in the vote based on the level of abuse power and judging the consensus whether is formed or not. ("解任共識是否達成由非當事管理員或行政員決定，如果該共識需由投票決定，其支持解任所需票數的指標可由非當事管理員或行政員視肇事管理員濫權程度或違反事實衡量")
Furthermore, before User:Midleading modified threshold in 08/22, another admin User:Gzdavidwong had paused RFDA in 08/10 (the reason why paused), which Midleading disagreed their decision and continued the RFDA, and then declared the vote invalid in 08/18. Also, Gzdavidwong voted oppose in 08/12 and had expressed their opinion 1 2 in the RFDA related discussion about User:Longway22 had been blocked by User:Zhxy_519 before RFDA started. SCP-2000 14:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
SCP-2000's presentation is basically no problem. As SCP-2000 presents, Midleading modified the rule with the reason with no enough active users, which not only against reason: level of abuse in the guideline he or she should follow, but also against the fact that zh.wikisource got more than 100 active users. Midleading even had declared that his or her only standard is being trust or not, while the guideline asked abusing power or not. (我認為管理員被解任只需要社群不再信任其擔任管理員這一個理由。)
Please allow me to share this, to prove the Procedural injustice occuring. --Zhxy 519 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess now Sotiale is allowing people to say something, right? I think SCP-2000 should cite the part more longer, until “based on the level of abuse, and the general standards should be at least 50% of 25 votes”. Because until so, even an uninvolved admin’s modification should generally follow the 25 votes guideline. ("其支持解任所需票數的指標可由非當事管理員或行政員視肇事管理員濫權程度或違反事實衡量，此通過指標通常為至少25張有效票的50%以上。")--Gzdavidwong (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The vote that made s:zh:WS:管理員的離任 a guideline only got 6 votes. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Note Note: This does not mean that your vote has been invalidated; it just means that I have not made any judgments on this. The reason this is marked as not done is that you are still discussing here without agreeing on what should have been discussed on the local wiki, so hold it so that you can clearly agree on the guideline. On the interpretation of the guideline, admins form a consensus and request again, otherwise amend the guideline. We hope you all come back after you have a consensus on your local wiki. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Done

Matanya (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

[email protected]

Status:    Not done

Vi.wiki CU confirmed that he abused multiple accounts to vote for himself in his RfA. Please remove his eliminator flag. Unnamed UserName me 07:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done for procedural reasons. @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Vietnamese Wikipedia can take away the eliminator flag. Please ask the 'crats to remove this permission. Thank you! Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions/2021-08&oldid=25476260"