Steward requests/Permissions/2009-07

Administrator access


I would like to request temporary adminship for a short period of time to enable a message to be added to the sitenotice of the proposed closure of this project to inform users, as per the comments in the closure proposal. Thanks. Adambro 11:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal for closure doesn't have to be added to the sitenotice, just add it to the mainpage, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


As above. Thanks. Adambro 11:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As above, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I request temporary sysop access (for few minutes) to put an announcement on the sitenotice of the site as requested in the discussion. Thanks —Dferg (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm done, please remove my sysop access and thanks for your help. —Dferg (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Done and done :) --FiliP ██ 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


The same rationale as prior request. Thank you, —Dferg (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm done, please remove my sysop access and thanks for your help. —Dferg (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Done and done :) --FiliP ██ 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Those are all the users active on the project. We need an active sysop there for administrative tasks. Thank you! Firilăcroco discuție / talk 07:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done Alex Pereira falaê 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rastrelli F@Georgian wikiquote

Pre-history: here is an older request on temporary access, which expired on 9 July, 2009 and has been active for 6 months, since 9 January, 2009. The only admin on ka:quote Trulala has not been active since 30 December, 2008, consequently ka:wikiquote is with out an admin now. Since starting my temporary admin access, the wikicommunity has grown only for 19 users (not including global acounts). There is 474 registered users in ka:wikiquote at this moment, among them only 13 has been active for last 30 days (here is statistics).

Request: I ask permission on temporary access for 1 year (for minimum 6 moths) to have possibility of carrying out administrative work: translating mediawikis, creating and updating them according new standards, and so on, until the community grows. BTW, I am current admin on ka:wiki.

Kind regards --Rastrelli F 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Rastrelli F, everything looks fine, but the statement "translating mediawikis" please note that translation of the interface should only be done on betawiki:, because only then it will be available everywhere. If You can agree to that, I do not see any further problems here, kind regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for that statement, I just forgot about it :). Of course translating should be done on betawiki. --Rastrelli F 09:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  Done, given the voting (original voting was here [5]) and the fact that You had been temp admin 2 times already and that no objections from locals were made until that time, and You seem to do a good work there, the adminship is now permanent. Please remember to translate the interface at betawiki: only ;) and to upload images preferably to commons:, thanks and best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 09:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, BR. :)--Rastrelli F 10:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I please to restore my sysop status in the russian Wikinews.

User Leinad has incorrectly removed my sysop status in russian Wikinews. The status has been removed according to the voting. But I consider that the voting (Vote on "Wikinews:Forum") has been manipulated. Only three users have taken part in voting. Among them: User Ahonc has total only seven editings. Last two editings he has made on June, 26th 2008 and on April, 1st 2009. User Deevrod has made last editing on November, 14th 2008. After voting, these users also have not made any editing in russian Wikinews. Look hear: Contributions of Deevrod and Contributions of Ahonc. It means that these users have come to the project only to vote. But, actually they do not participate in the Wikinews. I have addressed to user Leinad on his discussion page, but he does not react. (Ygrek in Russian Wikinews) --Ygrek 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Are there any rules about the requirements for voters in ru.wikinews? You made only 6(!) edits during last year (since July 2008 to July 2009), you are inactive there.--Ahonc 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There are no rules of voting in the russian Wikinews. There are also no rules about activity or not activity of the sysops in the russian Wikinews.--Ygrek 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ygrek has been asked to resolve issue on local discussion/voting, but since my request he didn't take any steps. Leinad 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
About what request you speak? Please specify the reference.--Ygrek 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, IMHO the request for removal is indeed not really standing on a solid ground, for a request for adminship this voting would not have gone through for permanent adminship and Ygreks voting for adminship looked totally different n:ru:Викиновости:Заявки на статус администратора/Ygrek, but I am marking this to be reviewed by other stewards too, so other opinions are welcomed. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But the half of users in this voting also had few (less than 10) edits (and one of them, User:CodeMonk, has zero edits in project) at the moment of voting.--Ahonc 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ru.Wikinews is a small project, so a decision being made based on a small voter turnout is not really problematic. The problem I would see is really that 2 of the 3 voters (and the other one was the user proposing the removal in the first place) were users with reduced activity levels on the project. One of them has actually posted here asking for information on voting rules for the project. The problem is precisely that: possible lack of understanding of site rules on voting, but also and mainly on adminship and its requirements, notably that inactivity in itself is not sufficent grounds for removal under local rules. Furthermore, we also discourage users from different projects who are not active on the particular project, or people who are not active editors in general, from engaging almost-exclusively in voting on local Requests for Adminship, or the removal of Admin access.
That being said, however, it must be noted that the problem manifests itself solely on the local basis. It is not the Steward's job to second-guess a local voting, conducted by a local Admin no less. The problems should have been considered by the Admin who made the request locally and posted on Meta requesting removal of access — Meaning: the local result should have been second-guessed by the local admin, possibly resulting in not asking for access removal on Meta. But we must also note that, while inactivity is not itself grounds for removal, the community is allowed to vote or discuss removal of the local admins, and within that context inactivity is a valid point.
I would recommend that a second vote or discussion be held locally, seeking a broader community input — especially in light of the fact that Ygrek seems to be the highest-voted-on Admin elected on that project, which means a much, much smaller consensus was used to overturn a significant support showed for him to become an Admin, more so given the size of the project —, and that this vote be organized immediately. As a measure of fairness, I would also recommend that Ygrek would be reinstated preventively, until the vote is organized and runs its course.
Ideally, this should have been done before any action was taken in the original request for removal of access, but since it hasn't, we must now work with what we have. Redux 06:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You have truly written that there is very small community in the RU.Wikinews. I would tell more; actually there is no constant community in the project. Sometimes come some users who some time actively work, and then leave the project. There is no constant structure of users. Therefore all problems in the project are solved by one or two users who are active at present. There is no opportunity to lead all-round discussion around any problems, including the organization of the voting and development of rules. The voting on removal of my sysop status has been organized by three users, two from which have practically zero contribution to the project. These two did not appear in the project some months; they come only for the voting and go away again. They do not participate in the project, hence, for them should be absolute equally who has the sysop status in this project. It is difficult to steward to understand mutual relations in the foreign project, but, the steward who makes a resume, could check up the voting and who participated in it (as there was only three voices). The steward has approached to a problem formally. I consider that it was the mistake. Therefore, IMHO, the mistake should be corrected, namely, the sysop status should be restored.--Ygrek 10:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We can concede that there was a problem, but the fault does not lie with the Steward who fulfilled the request. We do not patrol local community issues where a vote or discussion has taken place to decide to grant or remove Admin access. That would be transferring at least a part of the local decision to Meta, and to the Stewards, and that we do not do. We expect that the local community, and especially the user(s) who had been organizing the procedures, will have resolved any issues before bringing a request to Meta. If we find that there are unresolved issues, we are not the ones to resolve them. We freeze the request and ask that the problems be worked out locally.
In this particular case, it was possible, but not mandatory, for us to have done just that: asked that a broader input be secured before we acted on the request. Obviously, that was not done, but we need to consider that in practical terms there are different levels of tolerance that each community sets for participation in votes and discussions, and especially so in small communities. We can't completely override the local decision unless there is compelling evidence of bad faith, which would mean some kind of abuse. Although there may not have been bad faith involved, it is obvious enough, as birdy mentioned, that there were no solid grounds for removal under Ru.wikinews' own policies, and plus some complicating circumstances that the local Admin should have considered before declaring the request for removal successful and posting on Meta. Because of that, we can ask that the procedure be repeated, and to restore a measure of fairness, I recommended that your adminship be reinstated now, but pending the result of a second community vote or discussion. And that's also unavoidable, since it is not within our power to tell the local community that they cannot decide to remove a local admin, you or any of the others. Redux 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Redux, OMG why are You writing whole books here. I politely disagree with You, IMHO the sysop rights should be restored and if they want to repeat or continue the local removal voting should be up to them. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I believed that this is a easy thing to correct a simple mistake. I did not think that there are any problems. But now, I see that all is not so simple. Therefore, I cancel this request. Thanks to all. Please forgive me for any trouble.--Ygrek 10:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry birdy, I just wanted to clarify things to those concerned. But notice that from a practical point of view, it might make no difference: if we reinstate Ygrek and they don't organize a new vote, nothing changes anyway.
Ygrek, no need to cancel, it actually is simple enough. My core point is just that we would restore your access immediately, but I needed to clarify things to the two sides: 1) to you that this would not prevent the local community from voting to remove you again, and that in fact they can and probably would do that. 2) to the local community I wanted to make a direct recommendation that they do repeat their vote, so as to prevent a situation where they might feel that we pulled the rug from under their feet, or that we overruled their local proceedings, which we can only do if there is clear evidence of bad faith, which I didn't think there was in this case. But please don't cancel your request. Our job here is to help you and your community, and from our perspective there really are no complications. Just a matter of making everything as clear as possible. Redux 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a decision and it remains so - the refusal of the request remains in force. I continue this discussion to better clarify the situation only. When I wrote this request, I believe that the stewards of the Wikiprojects are something of a Supreme Court, which oversees compliance with the rules and general principles of all projects. From current discussion, however, I realized that it is not so. Stewards here are something like the British Queen who has only conditional authority. Trying to achieve justice here, I, on my ignorance, tried to force the steward transcend their principle — which is that the decision should be accepted in the community, and the Stewards only approve them. My request contradicts this principle, because I asked the stewards of the decision, which would have overturned the decision of the community. In this sense, I recognize my mistake and ask me to apologize for the misunderstanding. You say that there are no problems to restore the sysop status. However, there are doubts that the next day community will take voting against it once again. It is possible. Especially, in this case, when the community is not so big and the decision is adopted only by three users. The user loses the sysop status for not activity. However, above you write, what not activity is not the sufficient reason for removal of the status. In addition, users vote against not activity of another user, and they are not more active, than the one against whom they vote. Submitting this request, I am just hoping to fix this mistake. Mistakes can make both the user and community (especially community, consisting only from three users). So, I would not like to force somebody to any actions which are contrary to the principles or rules. Let's leave the decision for the community.--Ygrek 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  Done The request is canceled.--Ygrek 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


I would like to request temporary sysop access on ugwiki in order to clean out the speedy deletion category there. The project has only one local administrator, and he has never used his tools (deletions, blocks, protects). He also hasn't edited since 25 June. I would only need access for maybe half an hour at the outside, so I'll just post here when I'm done, if this request is accepted. J.delanoygabsadds 14:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"This category currently contains no pages or media." --MZMcBride 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That might be because it was already   given and   removed Laaknor 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unai Fdz. de Betoño@euwikiquote

I request temporary sysop access.

  • Language Code: eu
  • Preferred duration and reason: I don't have a preferred duration, as there's not a stable community to make elections. When this elections happen I would happily let this other users in their work. The reason is that there's no local active sysop (his last contribution was on 20/01/2007, as you can see in Wikiquote:eu:Aparteko:Contributions/Barrie) nor bureaucrat. I have already been temporary sysop for six months. Thank you. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño 10:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please help us help you by using our template for requests, it gives us a fair number of very useful links. This seems a reasonable enough request, I propose another 3 months.   Done, expires 18 October 2009 ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank's. I'll use it next time; I didn't know it :-) --Unai Fdz. de Betoño 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries. As you can see I added it at the top of this request so you can see how it was done. Best of luck growing your community. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


I request sysop access. Thanks in advance.

Hello Atabek, you seem to be an admin there already. What are you requesting? -- sj | help translate |+ 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Atabek thought a renewal of temporary access was needed? Kylu turned on access 6 April I believe. This was one of several in sequence that have been granted, but the previous ones were all temporary, however see where it appears access was supported 4-0 back in 2008. I can't find this one listed in the temporary listing, Steward_requests/Permissions/Approved_temporary so perhaps Kylu can remember? ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
closing as not done, user is already administrator and rights seem not to have been temporary [6]. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access


I had bureaucrat right, granted by . My right was lost probably in error. Sp5uhe 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You've never had that right: [8]. But even if you had had it, we weren't allowed to give you that right: Please ask a local bureacrat to (re)instate it. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This edition was made by after my rights changing. I am sure that, I had bureaucrat right. All local bureaucrats is not active for now (list, , ). Niki K was activated after my email for changing my right only. Sp5uhe 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the logs, you have never had the right, and we can't give them to you. If you wish to have them, hold a local voting, and if no 'crats can give you the rights within a few weeks, come here again. And please do not change the status-field; they are only to be changed by stewards. This request is   Not done Laaknor 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Voting archive you can find in discussion section. Voting was finished 29 may. Last vote. It was more than four weeks ago. Sp5uhe 21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
But bureaucrat Niki K has had edits after the voting, and has to be considered active. Stewards will not give the right when there active 'crats. Wait for one of the existing 'crats to give you the right. Laaknor 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


msh210 23:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  Not done as there are local bureaucrats, who can handle the request. --FiliP ██ 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that. I didn't realize bureaucrats could promote bureaucrats.—msh210 23:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet you want to be one... That's OK :) --FiliP ██ 23:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I? This was not a request for promotion of myself: it was for promotion of another.—msh210 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Sorry, silly me :) [/me goes to bed] --FiliP ██ 00:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Thank you, --Dragonòt 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


The request for Bureaucrat has been running for nearly 2 weeks now. The other bureaucrat on our wiki has been inactive for over 2 years. Thanks.Shushruth 06:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Alex Pereira falaê 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shushruth 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Oversight access

Removal of access

A Man In Black@enwiki

The Arbitration Committee has resolved in the case linked to above that A Man In Black's administrator status be removed.

On behalf of the Committee, AGK 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! AGK 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


- Chaemera 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done and thanks for all your work. --FiliP ██ 15:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


  Done and thanks for all your work for sq.wikipedia. Laaknor 06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Thank you! Rosp 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done, og takk for alt arbeidet ditt for Wikipedia på Svensk. Laaknor 06:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Takk sjelv --Rosp 06:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


  Done - thank you for your service to the project.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


  Sysop flag removed Thanks for all your helps for the project --Mardetanha talk 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I said no need to thank... but hey-ho. (And you missed the status, I fixed it for you :)). BG7
Thanks for fixing it though --Mardetanha talk 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


  Done Drini did this... ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Done. --Erwin 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record: Outematic also requested to be renamed to ElKonquistador, which I did. --Erwin 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Great, I changed the links of this request accordingly. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Done. Leinad 16:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


  Removed --Mardetanha talk 15:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


User becomes inactive since 9/12/2008, and has been informed at 11/6/2009. Per local policy, after an admin inactives for six months and still no edit after being informed for a month, his/her adminship should be removed. Please remove his/her flag. Thank you. Best regards,--J.Wong 12:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Please thank the user for his/her services to Wikipedia. Laaknor 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


  Done DarkoNeko 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Done. LeinaD (t) 22:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin@enwiki

No, Kirill, you don't need to remove the Checkuser and Oversight bits from you even if you're really resigning from the Arbitrator.--Caspian blue 03:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've always planned to hand back the bits when I step down; I don't actually use them outside of arbitration work. Kirill (prof) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There's not a lot of hurry to perform the removals, but please consider discussing the matter with him on his home project, not on this request page. This will in all likelihood sit for a day before anyone actions it. Kylu 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't plan to act on it right away and request my fellow stewards to wait a bit as well. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, as you wish. At some point, though, please do remove them. Kirill (prof) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't changed your mind within not very long, they will be. 24 hours is not unreasonable to delay, plus b) you're not going to misuse them in the meantime. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done as per the wishes of the requester themselves.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


  Sysop Flag removed Thanks for all your helps for the project --Mardetanha talk 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yk Yk Yk@mswiki

...Aurora... 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This page have a translation? Alex Pereira falaê 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I could provide relevant translations but you would still have to trust me :) Anyway, these are useful vocabs: perlucutan = deprivation, sokongan = support, bantahan = oppose, komen = comment. ...Aurora... 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
So, Yk Yk Yk was informed about this? Thanks. Alex Pereira falaê 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. ...Aurora... 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  Done Alex Pereira falaê 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Please remove my bureaucrat rights. I don't have time to work with the Northern Sami Wikipedia and that is why I don't want to be a bureaucrat there. --Skuolfi 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide a confirmation that you are Skuolfi@se.wikipedia by doing a local edit confirming you want this done? You haven't unified your account, so we have no idea if it's really you... Laaknor 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of local edit. Is this ok: --Skuolfi 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be perfect. I have now removed your 'crat-rights. Thank you for your work on Northern Sami Wikipedia, and hope you will still be around in the future. Laaknor 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Please remove my admin rights, as I am no longer active on the project. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done and thanks for your work for the en.wikisource-community. Laaknor 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Please remove my import rights, I don't need to have it anymore and with the upcoming closure it will not be used at all. Rights are there for you when you need it, if you don't use its time to lose it. Huib talk 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  Done Laaknor 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Please remove my admin rights, as I don't want to use them in manageable future, thanks --Port(u*o)s 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  Sysop flag remvoed Thanks for all your help for the project --Mardetanha talk 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I wish to resign my function as bureaucrat on the dutch Wikipedia. Let it be. --Walter 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. Let's leave some time for reconciliation. We can not loose a bureaucrat per day. Dolledre 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please hold my request for now. I see a potensial way out --Walter 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I retract my request. Have found a marginal procedural way out to resolve conflict of duty. --Walter 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
--M/ 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
great walter, thank you! all the best, oscar 21:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • I'd like my checkuser rights removed. I'm not really comfortable with the tool and we have enough that my not having it won't hurt much. Wizardman 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  CU flag removed --Mardetanha talk 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Like tears in rain@fr.wikipedia

  Sysop flag removed Thanks for all your helps and efforts --Mardetanha talk 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


  Done - removed oversight, left admin. Thank you for your long service to the projects. Please advise if that was not as you wished. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

American Eagle@simplewiki

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Per the controversial promotion of a RfB candidate here and based on opposes of the promotion by other users, citing the minimum 75% support needed (which is not present in that RfB), I hereby request removal of bureaucrat rights from the above mentioned user. Thank you. Chenzw 10:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • here are the criterias. --Barras 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    "In general, the same rules mentioned above for editors becoming Administrators, also apply to Administrators who wish to become Bureaucrats." -> "Bureaucrats make their decisions based on the consensus of voting users -- not simply on the percentage of supporting votes." —DerHexer (Talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As the closing bureaucrat on simplewiki, I do not object to this action since other's have questioned my closure rationale. fr33kman t - c 11:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Then I'll do. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diabo e Santo@ptwiktionary

This user has been a trouble maker from the get-go, but his behaviour has worsened considerably in the past month, prompting the community to have a vote to remove his sysop privileges. The result is unanimous, so I would like to request the removal of his privileges as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.

--ValJor 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Already done by Drini. —Dferg (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt reply!
--ValJor 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Uri R@hewiki

thank you for your work!--Nick1915 - all you want 11:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, Uri R 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Please desysop Geogre@enwiki per a motion by the Arbitration Committee. Cbrown1023 talk 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Danny did not pass his administrator confirmation; please remove his access in accordance with the local restricted access policy. —Pathoschild 07:35:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 09:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Ronline (bureaucrat and sysop) has stopped contributing to the Romanian Wikipedia more than a year ago. According to the project's policy, the sysops and bureaucrat permissions are revoked if the user account is inactive for more than a year. Andrei Stroe 17:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (rejected and expired requests only)


Thank you! Mopza   Talk 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mopza and thanks for your interest but as matter of fact though there are 3 supporters but one of them has just two edit which is normally is not acceptable for participating in a RFA . And Two votes is very very borderline for permanent adminship.So i would like to suggest you to request for temporary adminship which technically same as premature adminship. and after sometimes when your community grew you can make another RFA and ask for permanent adminship--Mardetanha talk 09:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  Flag granted will expired on 2009/7/22 I have given you sysop flag for 3 month and please somedays before it expires come here and ask for renewal .Thanks :-) --Mardetanha talk 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I'm Bengoa, and I work on Basque wiktionary. Mi English Is not very well, so i'm going to speak in english and spanish.

My temporaly admin expired the 21 of august. This temporaly admin was my third in those project. Its small wiktionary, and it need a admin. Kabri, is the administrator, but she/he never connected, so, Im one of the acive user there, and I think I will have admin.

Hola, Soy Bengoa, usuario activo del wiccionario vasco. Mi admin temporal acavó el pasado 21 de agosto, y esta fue mi tercera vez siendo admin. Este wiktionary es pequeño, y en cualquier momento puede tener bandalismos, spam y etc... Ahora mismo en único usuario que tiene admin es Kabri, pero nunca se conecta, por lo que yo soy de los pocos usuarios activos ahí, y me gustaría volver a tener admin, y si se pudiera esta vez, que ya no fuese temporal. Un saludo, y gracias! Bengoa (My user talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hola Bengoa, podrías contactar algunos usuarios de la wikipedia euskera o otros proyectos que voten allí, en los últimos votos solamente había un voto si lo veo correcto [11], [12], [13]. Te doy los botones ahora pero temporal para 6 meses otra vez porque no hay votos suficientes, pero si usuarios votarán allí podríamos cambiar esto.
Saludos cordiales, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  Done, expires/expirará: 25-01-2010, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gracias :) Lo tendré en cuenta --Bengoa (My user talk) 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


As a self-reminder, this should be removed again on 28 July. (Added after skype request, identity confirmed. To test API-editing. Right granted was IP block exempt. - he got error messages that he was globally blocked, but no block was found.) Effeietsanders 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed per your request.--Jusjih 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests


I request import access for Innv@ruwikisource per this local discussion. Tnank you. – Innv | d | s: 07:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Erwin 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Please grant me temporary import + sysop status for importing the test project to the new subdomain. --MF-W 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Say when you're done. --FiliP ██ 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm done. --MF-W 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
...and   removed. Thanks!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Please remove the importer permission. Inactive user, no longer importing. NonvocalScream 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We need one of three things:
  1. Link to a clear decision made by the community to remove these rights, or,
  2. Link to a statement by the affected user relinquishing the right (retirement/indefinite wikibreak does not count), or,
  3. A description of an emergency situation necessitating such removal, typically in the form of a present danger to the project in question directly pertaining to the right in question.
I understand your community is currently discussing the situation. We have no problems waiting until the community has reached a decision regarding the rights. Kylu 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, community discussion is in progress. Best, NonvocalScream 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  Not done as the discussion is now archived in [14], and it does not seem like consensus about removing the right. Laaknor 20:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

wiktionary:en:Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-06/User:Ortonmc for desysop fr:Discussion utilisateur:Elfix kaa:Wikipedia:Administratorlar#Paydalanıwshı:Atabek wikisource:pl:Specjalna:Wkład/tsca